December 15, 2008

Book #11: The Corrections

Eleventh book I read since May 2008:

The Corrections by Jonathan Franzen

Basic story: mom wants the family together at home for one last Christmas. What could be easier, right? Well, a little bit tougher with a family as dysfunctional and denial-bound as this one. Some heart-breaking scenes provide reasons that dysfunction and/or denial exist, and though sometimes overwrought with imagery, it has some clever use of language and evocative turns of phrase. And the final two chapters will resonate with anyone who has ever felt like "the other" or worried about their own -- or a loved one's -- mortality. In other words, something for everyone growing up here on Earth.

At 550+ pages and sometimes jumping around in time, it ain't for the faint of heart. I liked it, but doesn't quite make my fave-five of 2008.

- Scott

December 2, 2008

Every Geek Must Have One!


It's not quite a thousand tools in one, but for the leatherman crowd, this is the ultimate swiss army knife/toolkit. It claims to have 87 tools, but at almost 3 pounds, you can fold up the entire thing and use it as a sledgehammer to beat your brains out after spending $1,400 on a pocket knife that won't fit in Goliath's pocket!

This thing don't need no marketing campaign, but I'm soliciting suggestions for one anyway. Here are a few to get you started:

"You complete me!"

::slurp, slobber:: "Must have... must have..." ::slurp, slobber::

"Best 87-in-1, inappropriately large and heavy, non-functional swiss army knife -- EVER!"

- Scott

December 1, 2008

Book #10: George's Mother

Tenth book I read since May 2008:

George's Mother by Stephen Crane

Didn't really read like it was any big deal. Sort of scattershot and unfocused, but still worth a read (it's very short).

- Scott

November 22, 2008

One? How About Six!



I got this idea from my friend's blog, where I posted my one-word replies to these questions. However, since I'm more of a six-word guy, I'm changing the rules. All answers here must have exactly *six* words instead.

Here are mine:

Where is your mobile phone? Inside jacket pocket, awaiting your call.

Where is your significant other? In the kitchen, Turkey Day prep.

Your hair colour? Full and brown, flecks of gray.

Your mother? Usually Maine, always in a fog.

Your father? In the ground for thirteen years.

Your favorite thing? Endorphins make the world more bearable.

Your dream last night? No dream to tell. So sorry.

Your dream goal? Disappear now, reappear whenever I want.

The room you're in? Small, Patriots mementos, iMac, scratching posts.

Your hobby? Pondering how culture shapes our existence.

Your fear? At this point, only one: torture.

Where do you want to be in 6 years? Six years further, six years older.

Where were you last night? Stayed at home, shared Thanksgiving ideas.

What you're not? Destroyed, despite the world's best efforts.

One of your wish-list items? Home playoff run with exciting finish!

Where you grew up? Cedarwood, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth, Milky...

The last thing you did? Solved hard killer Sudoku, congratulated self.

What are you wearing? Loose fit jeans, new shirt, smile.

Your TV? Unfairly large, distracting, worth every penny.

Your pets? Adorable, snuggly, curious, scared, quiet, comfortable.

Your computer? Absolutely necessary to exist these days.

Your mood? More upbeat than this blog indicates.

Missing someone? Always missing someone, but who isn't?

Your car? Boxy, AWD, reliable, red, in driveway.

Something you're not wearing? Boxers, briefs, panties, boy shorts, thong.

Favourite shop? Joie de Vivre, Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge.

Your summer? Absolute busiest ever, but worth it.

Love someone? Can't answer in only six words.

Your favourite colour? Today: blue. Yesterday: red. Black? Never.

When is the last time you laughed? Cat hanging upside down, earlier today.

When is the last time you cried? May of 1983, sad television show.

- Scott

November 19, 2008

30,000 Year Plan, Part III

And the 30,000 Year Plan continues unabated.

Proof #9 that in 29,992 years I could be as famous as Angelina Jolie: Smith Magazine decided to include another of my memoirs in their up-coming book of six-worders about Love & Heartbreak.

No image this time (and when you read my memoir, you will be glad of that), but the possibility of more publicity work and of course, another chance to hob-nob with the upper crust at the book launch.

For those of you unfamiliar with the 30,000 Year Plan, kindly check it out here.

And thank you for your support in my quest for soul-destroying fame!

- Scott

November 15, 2008

Book #9: Maggie: A Girl on the Streets

Ninth book I read since May 2008:

Maggie: A Girl on the Streets by Stephen Crane

I always thought that Crane was the most modern of the turn-of-the-century writers. I'd read this one before, so some of its impact was lost. But the characterization of slum life and the ways of self-medicating in the face of it are pungent and alive, and the double-standards applied to women are too true and heart-breaking.

- Scott

November 6, 2008

True Hypocricy

Ever been impressed when athletes thank our troops for their service? Thought well of them when they praised the selfless actions of fire fighters or police officers? Admired them when they went into war zones to boost morale?

Well, if you want to continue feeling good about those actions, you might want to stop reading right now. Because the hyporicy of some of these "patriots" has been exposed in
this story at Yahoo.com. Apparently, agents for some baseball players are trying to find ways to avoid paying extra taxes that might be due under the new president. From the story: "For a big-money free agent earning $10 million in 2009, Obama’s plan could increase his federal tax by more than $400,000."

And just so you don't think baseball is the only sport where this is going on, read
this. Seems that that football players might be doing the exact same thing. (Though it is more understandable with them; their careers are shorter and their contracts are not guaranteed.)

So to summarize, athletes making *200 times* the average U.S. wage want to avoid paying an extra 4% in taxes. Taxes that could provide body armor for soldiers or equipment/raises for police and fire fighters, or perhaps pay down the national debt. And, by the way, taxes they would have had to pay before the current president took office in the year 2000.

These guys might call themselves patriotic. I call them hypocrites. "Sure, I'll host a fund raiser for the local fire department, but don't ask me to pay my fair share to equip them." Pathetic.

Maybe this is just agents blowing smoke or working to game the system. But the agents act on behalf of the athletes. And any multi-millionaire athlete who schemes to avoid taxes while the country slips further and further into debt cannot be considered a true patriot.

Any player (or other filthy rich person) who truly wants to support U.S. troops or the fire/police we *all* depend on should not complain about when asked to pay an additional 4% in taxes. In past wartimes, all citizens were asked to make sacrificies for the cause. Just because George W. Bush didn't mind doubling the national debt to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't mean that that those wars were free. Someone will have to pay that bill eventually, and I think overpaid millionaires are just the people to do it.

But the way these guys treat their country, maybe they should rename it "The Land of Opportunists."

- Scott

November 1, 2008

Book #8: Democracy

Eight book I read since May 2008:

Democracy by Joan Didion

I read Play It As It Lays by Didion years ago, and liked its honesty and simple prose. Democracy was a broader reach and used a less accessible overall structure. I will say it was nice to get back to Didion, but I'll be looking for better things from her in future readings.

- Scott

October 28, 2008

30,000 Year Plan, Part II

From time to time there are creeping signs that I am gaining some teeny-tiny modicum of notoriety. It used to worry me. But rather than fight it, I've incorporated it into something I call "The 30,000 Year Plan." The idea is that if I continue doing what I'm doing and work hard at it, in 30,000 years, I will be as famous as Angelina Jolie is right now.

I'm eight years into the plan, and Proof #8 that I'm on track is a letter of mine quoted and published by an ESPN columnist (under "Reader Comments" here).


He did take some liberties with the content of my letter, so here it is in its entirety:

Gregg,

Your stance that rich universities should spend more of their endowments could easily apply to the world's major religions.

How many hungry could be fed if the Pope sold off all the riches of Vatican City and put them to Christian uses? How many homeless could be sheltered if Sun Myung Moon spent money on that instead of enriching his family? How many dying could be cured if the Salvationists bought life-saving drugs instead of sending money back to London headquarters?

Religions are not required to report the size of their "endowments," so direct comparisons are difficult. But given some of the excesses seen in many of the larger religions -- as well as their much longer time in existence -- we can safely assume the big guys have lots of money. In fact, I'd suggest that their "endowments" dwarf Harvard the same way that Harvard's dwarfs smaller universities.

So given your stance on colleges/universities, can we assume that you will soon call on the leaders of major religions to begin using their accumulated capital for the betterment of human beings?

- Scott

PS. I'd like to believe the best of you, Gregg. Please don't take a pass on this question just because you are religious.

Just further proof that I existed here in the early 21st century (documented for ever and ever by Google.com, I'm sure). 29,992 years to go, Angelina -- I'm hot on your trail!

- Scott

PS. Here is the past proof that The 30,000 Year Plan is for real.

Proof #7. A picture of me dressed as the Riddler appeared at Boston.com to celebrate the release of the latest Batman movie, The Dark Knight. (Note: they keep changing the list order, so you'll just have to scroll through them to find me.) My costume was one of the few home made ones, and I still own most of it, so I'm all set for Halloween every year! Until I get the mid-life beer gut.

Here are some past indications of my burgeoning fame:

Proof #6a. In February 2008,
I was featured in Smith Magazine's online publicity blitz for a book of six-word memoirs. In fact, they pretty much just published an email I sent, so in a way, I was the *author* of that article -- no offense, Rachel :)

Proof #6b. And of course, the reason for the feature on me was that I had my six-word memoir and accompanying drawing published on its own page in an actual book,
Not Quite What I Was Planning. I've had multiple requests for autographs and had one person tell me that if I could do 20 more drawings like the one in the book, she could get me a gallery showing. I was flattered, of course, but it took me a month to do the one they published, and as I stated in the other article, it was very tough to do.

(Side note: my father had some poetry published in a book, but he had to buy a bunch of copies to ensure his inclusion. And it became clear after the fact that the "publishers" simply collected money from a lot of people who wanted their poetry published and then distributed the book back to them. So I guess I'm one step ahead of my dad -- but just a very, very small step.)

Proof #6c. Also associated with the release of the book, there were multiple sitings of my memoir and image on the web. NPR featured it (along with others in a picture gallery) on their
Talk of the Nation blog, Boing Boing had it on their page of cool new things, it was all over the blogosphere (Ward Six, Moving from Me to We, something called Wishbone Clover, even the Washington Post baseball notebook), and lastly, it was featured in a journal where I worked.

Proof #5. I had an article published on the well-respected web site, Coldhardfootballfacts.com. It detailed how bad the NFC was versus the AFC, and was the first piece that they received from one of their readers that the decided merited being published by them.

Proof #4. I've had several letters published on the Boston Globe, most notably about malpractice insurance, the current war in Iraq, and the Patriots rules about ticket resale.

Proof #3. I have been elected a delegate to the state convention of a major political party four years running. No big deal to do it once; but to be re-elected three more times and to wield some actual local clout is the big deal here.

Proof #2. At Super Bowl XXXIX, my brother and I were interviewed for an
article in the local Jacksonville paper. And despite my brother's worries, I did indeed make it back alive in plenty of time to see the Patriots beat the Eagles!

Proof #1. In November of 2003, I had an article
published in the Boston Globe detailing why Bill Belichick was a better head coach than Bill Parcells. Believe it or not, there was still a debate at the time. Now, of course, everyone knows that I was right -- but I'll let my words do the talking and leave the bragging to others.

I will keep you updated on how things are going with the plan. If you continue to read this blog, perhaps in fifteen-hundred years or so you will begin to see the wisdom of my slow-and-steady approach.

- Scott

October 15, 2008

Book #7: The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao

Seventh book I read since May of 2008:

The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Díaz

Geeks rejoice! This book has dozens of references and speaks to your angst growing up. In fact, it was so geeky that I missed half of the references myself. It's the story of a cursed family from the Dominican Republic, told through the eyes of many involved parties. It's fun to follow the action, and contains more than its share of (perhaps made up) history about the DR.

- Scott

October 3, 2008

What is the Globe Afraid Of?

Today's Boston Globe has an idiotic piece by right-winger Jeff Jacoby (link), in which he extolls the wonders of Sarah Palin's performance at last night's debate. In their talkback section, there are numerous people bashing Jacoby. And many of them seem surprised that the Globe writer would defend Palin, given how poorly she actually did.

I wrote a short note to that talkback section, expressing wonder that anyone would be shocked by Jacoby's article. Anyone who reads his stuff on a regular basis knows he is neither a conservative nor a Libertarian. He is a right-wing Republican suck-up, who totes the party line about 99% of the time, deviating just often enough to allow him to claim indepenence.

All of that notwithstanding, the Globe did not allow my post to go through. I tried twice, but it did not show up either time. Which got me to wondering, what is the Globe afraid of? I know it wasn't blocked for offense or language reasons -- after all, someone got through with "Dude, put down the crack pipe!"

Perhaps as a media outlet with a liberal reputation they want to make sure people continue to believe that one of their columnists is a conservative. Maybe they are afraid if people actually looked at what Jacoby writes, they'd realize that the Globe has an all-but-official employee of the Republican Party writing on their Op-Ed page. Or it might be that they don't want the motives of their columnists questions.

But for whatever reason, they seem afraid to post what I wrote. And just so it is out there for all to see anyway, here is the gist of what I wrote (I can't do it word-for-word, because I don't have the post, the Globe does):

"It surprises me that anyone on this board is shocked that Jeff Jacoby exposed himself as a Republican stooge.

He and everyone else knows that Wall Street greed is to blame for the current economic crisis, yet Jacoby recently tried to blame 15 year-old laws passed by -- surprise -- Democrats.

He claims to be a conservative, but toes the party line on the Patriot Act and spying on American citizens.

And though he sometimes pretends to be a Libertarian, he stood on the sideline cheering while George W. Bush doubled the national debt and oversaw the biggest expansion of governmental power since the 1940s.

Any regular reader of Jacoby can only come to the conclusion that he is a Republican suck-up masquerading as a journalist/columnist. He is Rush Limbaugh with better writing skills; nothing more."

Doesn't seem like it was all that terrible, does it? So maybe you can tell me what the Globe was worried about. I'm at a loss to explain it.

- Scott

September 16, 2008

What I Love about The Dark Knight

Hey all,

Just a quick post about what I really enjoyed about The Dark Knight movie, currently in release. If you read my recent post about my 10 favorite movies, it was the only 2008 contender (it's currently #18). Frankly, it surprised even me that it was that high up. I'm not really one of those front-runner, fashion-over-substance guys. But there it was, higher than a thousand other award winning movies I've seen.

Here are some of the reasons why.

***SPOILER ALERT -- If you are one of the seven people who hasn't seen this movie, there are spoilers throughout this post. So please drop what you are doing and get to your local theater before you come back!

1. For the most part, the writing is excellent. Most super-hero movies skip the nuances of language that make a lively script, all in the name of simplified lines that don't distract from the action.

The Dark Knight avoids those traps with an out-standing Joker and dialogue that moves both the story and the characters forward. One of the best examples is Batman's admonition to Harvey Dent: "You'd leave a man's life to chance?... He's a paranoid schizophrenic, former patient at Arkham, the kind of mind the Joker attracts. What do you expect to learn from him."

Not only does the scene reveal Dent's love for Rachel (in his desperation to save her) and foreshadow his eventual turn to evil, but it explains the Joker's unending supply of fresh henchmen and also makes clear that Batman will not to stoop to the Joker's methods to fight him. Pretty good for a few quick lines.

I also loved the hospital scene with the Joker and Dent, was impressed with the added "s" that morphed the message on the side of the truck into "Slaughter is the Best Medicine," and I promise to follow the Joker's advice -- "If you're good at something, never do it for free."

But the most writerly turn of phrase was when Rachel's voice-over said "If you lose your faith" just as the camera showed Harvey Dent with half his face blown off. "Faith" sounds so much like "face" (in fact, it's how a person with a lisp would pronounce "face"), there's just no way it was an accident. Good stuff from the Nolan brothers.

(Note: some of the speeches at the end are a little tedious, which is why I liked the writing "for the most part.")

2. Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker is as good as everyone says it is; maybe even better. He could end up with a posthumous Oscar, but that don't mean a thing. More important is his creation -- a complex, riveting, masochistic, sadistic, and sometimes sympathetic psychopath, who speaks the truth often enough that everything he says makes you pause and wonder.

His assurance that, "I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve" speaks to the impotence of traditional police work in the face of destructive, winner-take-all criminality. Batman himself proves that the Joker is right by breaking the law in order to bring the Joker to justice. And no matter which story you believe about his scars (if you believe either of them), you know something or someone seriously screwed him up, and he never hesitates to do the same to whomever stands in his way.

Ledger's lip-smacking is creepy in a Jabba the Hutt sort of way, and when he says, "Well hello beautiful," he sweeps his hair to the side like silent stars used to twirl their mustaches. The slightly bent frame, sadistic laughter at the pain of his henchmen, the sheepish looks whenever someone calls him crazy or a freak -- they all bespeak of a disturbed individual who's out to prove everyone else is just like him.

Oh, and that dialogue. I could watch and re-watch the scene where he goads the cop in the holding cell. Excellent writing with unparalleled delivery. A character much scarier than any science fiction monster.

3. The story was a superb interweaving of three character arcs -- Batman, the Joker, and Harvey Dent. Batman thinks he's destroying the mob, but is stymied by the Joker because he can't understand him (and in fact, never does). The Joker knows he's more ruthless than the mob, and reinforces his image of people by getting Batman and Harvey to question their principles. And in the end, Harvey becomes Two-Face, the perfect random criminal to carry on while the Joker is up in the air.

A movie with just Batman and the Joker would never have come off, because neither of them would give in. So bringing the Harvey/Two-Face plot line into the picture was the perfect way for the Joker to think he won and Batman to hold on (barely hold on) to his sense of being good. And even though he didn't do anything wrong, in the end, Batman is a Gotham City outcast -- just as the Joker predicted. But it was Batman's choice, which gives him a way to believe that the Joker was still wrong and he's right.

Pretty interesting stuff.

4. The guys making the current Batman movies put together a very good documentary about the psychology of the Batman villains. What they didn't look at is how The Dark Knight takes a serious nod from fairy tale mythology.

In traditional fairy tales (real ones, like the Brothers Grimm -- not the sanitized/Disney-fied versions), nature is to be feared and ultimately either conquered or avoided. The woods, mountains, rivers, oceans, unknown roads -- they usually represent evil, uncertainty, destruction, randomness, and chaos.

OTOH, good is often represented by a benevolent person, a walled city, a farm, or just being at home. In other words, the good is where people assert control over the unpredictability of a random and uncaring nature.

In The Dark Knight, the Joker declares himself an agent of chaos -- which is what people in fairy tales fear. And his random destruction has people living in fear of the every day. No one is safe and no one feels safe, not even mobsters who used to control all of Gotham. And Batman clearly represents man's attempt to re-assert control over a force of nature that refuses to give in.

These themes give the mythology of Batman its cultural touchstones, subconsciously bringing to mind ideas as ingrained as the survival instinct itself. And by combining that mythology with the intricate criminal psychology of the villains that have been developed over decades of graphic novels, The Dark Knight is the first of the Batman movies to present such a fully formed and textured thematic tapestry to the silver screen.

5. The Dark Knight has no opening credits, the first movie I've seen since Apocalypse Now to eschew them. And more than just a device, it is a signal that the movie thrusts you into another reality and won't let you go until the closing credits. The action starts about 30 seconds into the movie, and doesn't let up until it's over.

6. I love that annoying whine the comes up as the movie begins. It sets the audience on edge and is repeated multiple times when the Joker is about to enter. Sort of like when they put the sound of bees in the background of The Exorcist -- just to make people subtly uncomfortable.

7. The idea of Batman imposters just cracks me up, but also seems reasonable and predictable. After all, the hero-worship of a fictional Batman is nearly a religion all to itself. Imagine if Batman was actually real -- there would be imposters everywhere!

That is all for now. I hope you enjoyed the movie as much as I did; but if you didn't, c'est la vie.

- Scott

September 15, 2008

Book #6: The Sun Also Rises

Sixth book I read since May 2008:

The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway

The principals are wealthy world travelers, which makes it less accessible than other Hemingway books. And the "big secret" of the book is well known and the topic of multiple drug company ads now -- so it isn't quite as titillating as it probably was in 1926. Worth the read, but if you haven't read the next book in this list, I'd start with A Farewell to Arms instead.


- Scott

September 1, 2008

Book #5: A Farewell to Arms

Fifth book I read since May 2008:

A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway

I found this more compellng than The Sun Also Rises. The story itself was probably a lot more shocking in its time, given that the hero is a war deserter, but the reality of war and its effects on us are important to consider even now. His prose is spare and accessible even today and is particularly effective in descriptions of battle and survival after the desertion.

- Scott

August 27, 2008

My Ten Favorite Movies

Why "favorite" and not "best" -- check here.

Here is my list; and I stand by it completely -- at least until I change my mind. If you disagree, feel free to comment... or start your own frickin' blog (www.blogger.com).

Warning boys and girls! I am not shy about my opinions or the information I use to back them up, so there are SPOILERS ON PARADE throughout this post. So if you see a movie title you don't want spoiled, stop reading and see the movie before you return.

All-time Favorite (with over 25 viewings) -- The Thin Blue Line (1988)

I could teach a full-semester course on The Thin Blue Line, its place in our culture, its effect on our legal system, its effect on movies, and the sights, sounds, and inside jokes that make it my favorite movie of all time.

But to explain it in brief, there are several kinds of movies at the tip-top of my favorites list. First, there are movies that dazzle, excite and entertain, that are plot-driven and have a message, a struggle, or a moral that speaks to me. Close Encounters of the Third Kind is a good example of that. Above those are the stunning visual acheivements that change the way you watch movies or make you reconsider what you think about culture and entertainment. Watching Apocalypse Now on a huge screen in downtown Boston is a decent example of that. And at the very tip top, above all of those, are the movies that change the way you interact with and exist in the world, that change your outlook on life itself and your place in it. The Thin Blue Line is the only movie that exists in all three categories for me.

Errol Morris' masterpiece changed what I thought of American culture and legal protections, changed what I thought about authority, changed how I conducted my life, and changed the way I listened to and understood people's frustrations, anxieties, and motives. It isn't for everyone (I know people who fell asleep halfway through), but for me, it was a world-shaking experience that shredded how I thought the world worked, leaving me to decide how to refill that void.

Morris' keen eye for detail and poignant visual imagery frame the story in the everyday -- in ways that should scare people more than they dare to consider. And to tell his story of justice turned upside-down, Morris turns the story's principles inside-out, leaving the viewer fully aware that someday it could all come crashing down on them for no good reason.

Morris' use of a soundtrack (by Philip Glass) and re-enactments seem quaintly dated to some. But given how often imitated the movie has been in news magazines and other documentaries, it's possible that The Thin Blue Line is the most influential movie in history. And rightly so -- it was a breakthrough in so many ways there just isn't time to list them all.

And just in case you think I'm alone in my opinion, The Thin Blue Line has been universally hailed. In fact, it received 100% positive reviews from critics when it was released (noted at rottentomatoes.com). And to see how difficult it is to get complete consensus about a movie, here are some movies that did *not* receive 100% positive reviews from the critics: Gone With the Wind, West Side Story, The Godfather Part II, and Schindler's List. There is almost always a party-pooper, but not with The Thin Blue Line.

And as one final proof of how deeply this movie affected to me, consider this: every time I go to the movies -- every single time -- when the lights go down... *just* before the main feature starts, I hear the haunting bars of Phillip Glass' soundtrack. For all that, and for many other things, I owe Errol Morris, Phillip Glass, and the main protagonist, Randall Dale Adams an eternal debt of gratitude. Thank you, guys.

Second Favorite (3 viewings) -- The Abyss: Special Edition (1993)

If you saw the original version of The Abyss and thought it was interesting but just okay, you are not alone. I went on opening night (even have the button they gave me to celebrate the movie's release), and that's how I felt. Turns out that the studio ordered director James Cameron to cut a half-hour before they would release it. The resultant neutered version of the director's vision lacked subtlety and felt rushed.

In 1993, Cameron released the full version, first in theaters and then on home video. I saw it at the movies, and the amount of tension and character development added by those 28 minutes will astound you.

In the original, the main players were under pressure from the physical depths at which they worked, their own past entanglements, and one person's growing instability. In the Special Edition, pile on pressure from geopolitics, a stunning reality at the bottom of the abyss itself, and an ending almost too nerve-wracking to consider, and you understand what those 28 minutes meant.

There are at least two bad scenes, which would normally have kicked the movie off the list. But the rest of it is amazingly intense, beautifully written/edited/directed/shot, and extremely well acted, and subtly poignant.

Easily my favorite of Director James Cameron's three movies set in and around the water (the other two are Piranha Part Two: The Spawning and some overblown schlockfest called Titanic).

Third Favorite (4 viewings) -- Taxi Driver (1976)

Rarely will you see a performance with such range and power where the actor makes every moment a single step closer to the unbearable core of human frustration. Robert DeNiro is so good in this, I defy anyone to find a single frame where he is anything less than mesmerizing and authentic.

The movie also featured the knock-out combination of director Martin Scorsese and writer Paul Schrader -- both of whom have created some of the grittiest and most iconic movies in history. Truly an exception that proves the rule that movies with voice-overs are never any good.

Fourth Favorite (4 viewings) -- Blade Runner: The Director's Cut (1992)

If you saw the original and were confused, couldn't get past all the rain and blue lighting, or were bothered by the voice-over, I implore you to rent The Director's Cut. Sans voice-over, and with several scenes restored, the story is deeper and more coherent. And it is layered enough to warrant a second viewing, with stand-out performances in support of Harrison Ford's title character.

And while Ford is very good, Rutger Hauer steals every scene as the often brutal but sometimes compassionate Roy Batty. His character arc proves that being born doesn't make you human, your humanity does. Unquestionably Ridley Scott's best movie, and the Director's Cut is more than just one cut above the original.

Fifth Favorite (25+ viewings) -- West Side Story (1961)

I know it was a rip-off of some guy named Shakespeare, but remember, the story was probably over 1,000 years old when Billy-boy from England put pen to paper. Classic stories go back further than we will ever know.

It is difficult to pass this movie on television and not stop to watch it the rest of the way. But even though I'd seen it a dozen or more times on the tube, I was absolutely blown away when I saw it at the Wang Center in downtown Boston (the screen there is probably as big as a drive-in screen). If it ever plays at a revival theater in your area, make your best effort to catch it. It beats the hell out of plunking down $10 to see the latest release.

It has some of the best movie music of all time, "Tonight" is my favorite song in musical history (just edging out Garland's "The Man Who Got Away" in A Star is Born), and the final scene is about a close as a movie can come to making me cry. And the list of wonderful scenes go on and on -- the opening credits and fights, the fight scene under the highway, Tony and Maria's pseudo-marriage, that final scene -- all wonderful all the time.

IMO, if West Side Story had never been released and instead were discovered and released this year, it would be an Oscar contender for at *least* nine awards. Not bad for a 47 year-old movie.

Sixth Favorite (20+ viewings) -- The Matrix (1999)

Tough to believe that a movie about a bunch of geeks who turn to terrorism to save an imprisoned humanity could be so bloody good. But there's the plot in a nutshell.

What I love about the movie is the mystery of the first few weird twists, followed by the ginormity of the revealed mission, with the artistry of the fight scenes, augmented by the fact that they *always* seem to be fighting on at least two levels at the same time. Sure, the Christ symbolism is a little thick, but the action is fierce, the acting is spot on (Keanu Reeves, excepted), and the Wachowski brothers were never as good and will never be better -- guaranteed.

Besides, I could watch over and over the scenes from the moment Neo walks into the military building until the helicopter explodes. Probably my favorite sequence in any movie ever.

Seventh Favorite (7+ viewings) --Memento (2000)

So imagine this pitch in a Hollywood office: "A guy whose brain injury cost him the ability to make new memories tries to track down the man who killed his wife in the attack that caused his injury, all the while trying to decide who to trust and what to believe about the evidence he has and the world around him. Oh... right, right, right -- and we're going to tell the story *backwards.* Isn't that genius!" I imagine they got kicked out of a lot of offices with that one :(

But hey, can't argue with success. Director Christopher Nolan and his brother (screen writer Jonathan) made a unique, puzzling, and ultimately intriguing movie that absolutely can only be understood upon re-watching -- maybe five or six times (just kidding... well, maybe not kidding after all).

And for all the confusion and decoding that goes on, it's the little scenes I love. The one where Natalie (Carrie-Ann Moss) takes all her pens and leaves for five minutes so she can return to a Leonard with no memory of what just happened. The chase scene where neither you nor the character knows who is chasing whom. The one where he hires a prostitute to re-enact his last night before the attack, just so he can feel normal for the few seconds until he realizes she isn't his wife. A well-crafted, carefully considered, excellently acted, and immensely satisfying movie. I own it, and will enjoy it for years to come.

I do have one unanswered question -- who is Leonard talking to on the phone? If you've figured out the answer, please let me know.

Eighth Favorite (20+ viewings) -- The Terminator (1984)

No BS, no voice-over, no coddling, no prisoners, just plot-plot-and-more-plot. This movie might have the least fat of any movie I've ever seen. If he'd never released the Special Edition of the Abyss, this would be my absolute favorite James Cameron -- with no close second place. Perfect casting, and tension that just doesn't quit. The action was mind-blowing at the time and holds up well, and (this is rare) there isn't a single moment when you believe the heroes of the movie are safe.

Before The Terminator was released, I thought movies were all going in the direction of Steven Spielberg. But Cameron's plotting and style of direction ended up being more influential than Spielberg's. Oh, and both Linda Hamilton and Arnold Schwarzenegger are *much* better in this movie than the sequel. And of course, this one has a bunch more classic lines than the sequel.

Ninth Favorite (4 viewings) -- North By Northwest (1959)

Hitchcock sometimes overindulged (The Birds) or went far beyond believability (Vertigo) or was just too clever for himself (Rope). But N-by-NW is in a league all its own -- the most well conceived mistaken identity flick I have seen to date.

Cary Grant's clever escape plans and two of the most iconic scenes in movie history (the crop-duster chase scene and the climactic cliff-hanger on Mount Rushmore) make this one a joy to watch. Like The Terminator, it's all plot, but Grant pulls it off with panache and wit that only he possessed.

Tenth Favorite (10+ viewings) -- Glengarry Glenn Ross (1992)

It's not difficult to imagine why so many people haven't seen this movie. A film about real estate salesmen, based on a play, with a grand total of zero action and love scenes combined. A small budget movie with few sets and characters that don't fit the stereotypes we're used to.

Well, if you haven't seen it, here's a few reasons to rent the DVD. Jack Lemmon. Al Pacino. Kevin Spacey. Ed Harris. Alan Arkin. Jonathan Pryce. And it features probably the most entertaining 7-minute acting job around -- Alec Baldwin's "motivational" speech to the gathered crew. Also, the playwright is some guy named David Mamet, one of the most influential writers in Broadway history.

The movie itself is a great study in desperation, rebellion, guile, and power. And it's amazing how quickly each of those things can shift from person to person. Think you know whodunit? think you know who has the upper hand? Think again and wait about three minutes -- the whole thing will turn on its head.

The performances are deadly serious and exactly what you'd expect from a cast that good. And having seen it over ten times, I *think* I know exactly what happens. But I can't wait for the next time; just to be sure.

So that's the top ten. Here are the ten that just missed the cut:

Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai features Forest Whitaker as a silent assassin taking on an aging mob. Much more interesting than that makes it sound, and I defy you to find an assassin better at his job in any other movie.

Twelve Angry Men might have the most impressive ensemble cast of all time. Twelve stars on the same screen, all working within the confines of a single room. My favorite adaptation of a play this side of Glengary Glenn Ross (or Stalag 17).

A Close Shave is my absolute favorite animated movie -- a classic from Aardman. How can you dislike a movie with a naked sheep called "Shorn"?

Top Secret! won't win any awards, but I think this Abrahams/Zucker/Zucker production is much tauter and funnier than their classic Airplane movies. The East German Swim Team, the scene shot backwards, the best use of the Jaws theme (outside of Jaws), making fun of Pac-Man, all in perhaps the best spoof of an Elvis movie ever -- what's not to love?

Pulp Fiction was a tour-de-force when it came out, and I'm still fascinated when it comes on the tube. Think Tarantino will ever tell us what was in the briefcase?

Jaws. Been there, seen that, about a hundred times! *Still* can't go into the water :(

The Elephant Man is my favorite David Lynch movie, and probably the only one I'd recommend to the un-Lynch-initiated. This was back when he still had people reigning him in -- maybe he'd be better off if that was still the case.

The Dark Knight is another effort by the Nolan brothers, and could well be in the top ten sometime soon. The more I see it, the better I like it.

Singin' in the Rain -- an interesting and funny story with great songs and a wonderful job by Donald O'Connor.

A Fish Called Wanda is what I want to watch when I need a more intelligent laugh than Top Secret! can give.

So that's the list. If you think you are getting this whole "favorite" thing, give me your favorites. And expect to see more favorite lists in the future -- this was a gas to put together.

- Scott

August 26, 2008

Hit Me with Your "Favorite" Shot

We've all seen "best of" lists, where different groups of people inevitably choose the same films/plays/games/albums/artists/athletes of the year/decade/century/millenium/forever. You've seen and heard them before -- "And the best film of all time is, well what do you know... Citizen Kane! That's right, Orson Welles' classic is #1 again! And ummm, what can we say that hasn't already been said... about this masterpiece, uh this icon of... Hey! Call my agent and get me the hell out of this job, will ya?!?"

The lists are largely useless. Once they've been done, there's no need to do them over and over. You could make the case for redoing them once a decade for categories that are still vibrant and growing. Anything beyond that is a waste of time and energy.

But there's a deeper problem with these types of lists, and it lies with the word "best." A person who declares something the "best" is naturally in a position to defend that choice. So it's safer to choose Citizen Kane than Weekend At Bernies. That's why so many different groups come up with the same list. After all, any group or person who chooses something other than Citizen Kane as the best movie of all time you might never live it down, and will have a lot of explaining to do.

To make this stuff more interesting, I humbly suggest substituting the word "favorite" for the word "best." I think "favorite" opens up a whole new way of discussing things, and that discussion provides a much deeper and clearer window into the person or people involved.

I am always much more interested in people's favorites than in what they think are the best. People usually have some basic understanding of why something is their favorite, but the fact that it's "a favorite" (and not "the best") means they don't have to defend the choice. A favorite is about emotion and feeling, not about logical constructs and groupthink opinion.

And with 6.7 billion people and thousands of topics to cover, that's a lot of interesting opinions and ideas. Sounds like a lot more fun than 6.7 billion lists with Citizen Kane at the top, doesn't it?

I'll submit a separate post to show you what I mean, and you can join in when you get the hang of it.

- Scott

August 15, 2008

Book #4: Children of Men

Fourth book I read since May of 2008:

Children of Men by P.D. James

More nuanced and less dark than the movie. This book suffers from some semi-believable plot twists and an ending that strains credulity. Better than the movie; although I'd give the cinematic version a whirl just to see what is absolutely the darkest vision of the future I've ever seen. Makes Blade Runner look like Fantasyland.

- Scott

August 1, 2008

Book #3: The Palace Thief

Third book I read since May of 2008:

The Palace Thief by Ethan Canin

A quick read with some interesting character studies. I particularly liked the way the moral dilemma in The Accountant is illustrated and liked everything about the title story: The Palace Thief.

- Scott

July 29, 2008

Why Bother?

I heard two stories in the last week that ended the same way. The stories themselves were very different, but both held the same sense of outrage, and so they both ended like this: "What kind of lesson are we teaching these people?"

One was a third-hand account of a student caught selling drugs out of his dorm. The school administration was rightly upset, and expelled him. But as sometimes happens, the student's father was very rich, and he gave a boatload of money to the school in exchange for having his son reinstated and the crime expunged from his record.

The person who told me that story said that it was wrong on a lot of fronts. And especially in that the student in question is likely to think he can buy his way out of trouble with money. Of course, he just *had* gotten out of trouble with money, but my friend still thought it was wrong.

Fast-forward to this past Sunday, when someone on ESPN's The Sports Reporters expressed outrage that Marion Jones requested a pardon from President Bush. The commentator protested against the idea of such a request, asking rhetorically, "Did Marion Jones forget that she promised to accept the consequences of her actions?" Another panelist chimed in: "What kind of lesson would we be sending if President Bush talked tough about steroids in baseball and then let Marion Jones off the hook?"

At first I agreed that neither the student nor Marion Jones should be "taught the wrong lesson" by being let off the hook. After all, if we live in a meritocracy, why should some people get different treatment? But when I thought things through more thoroughly, I realized I had it all backwards. If we want to teach the rich and powerful how the real world works, maybe we should let them get away with their crimes.

In the real world, pampered athletes and children of the rich *rarely* have to suffer any real consequences for bad actions. We hear stories all the time of championship athletes skipping classes in college, robbing people for fun, beating/raping/murdering people, and they usually don't have to pay the piper for their actions. For every Michael Vick, there are probably 50 guys like Leonard Little.

And why bother trying to teach a spoiled little rich kid that the law applies equally to everyone? We all know that isn't true, and no matter what, this kid will always have a built-in advantage over the destitute. Maybe the lesson he *should* be learning is that within reason he can do whatever he wants and daddy's money will get him out of it.

Why bother "teaching a lesson" to people who will never learn it? And why try to teach them about the world we wished we lived in rather than the one we actually live in? Sounds like a useless exercise to me.

In the end, perhaps the university in question made the right choice. And maybe President Bush should go ahead and pardon Marion Jones. No need to make either one of them learn a lesson. As a society, we've shielded both of them from consequences their entire lives. Why change course now?

- Scott

July 15, 2008

Book #2: The Best of Roald Dahl

Second book I read since May of 2008:

The Best of Roald Dahl by Roald Dahl

Fun, fun, and more fun. Every juicy story has a bizarre and interesting twist, and there were several in which I saw connections to Stephen King and Alfred Hitchcock. Psycho might have been as scary as hell, but Dahl presaged it years earlier, though with less horror and more creepiness.

Absolutely can't wait to read more Dahl. Wish I'd done so as a kid ;)

- Scott

July 1, 2008

Book #1: The Crucible

In May of 2008, I started a new job that allowed me commute by train instead of driving. With two hours on the train every day, not only was I helping the environment (as well as saving hundreds on gas), but I started reading for pleasure again, after a long time away from it.

You see, in the 12 years since I graduated with a BA in English (of all things), I hadn't read a single novel or book for pleasure. Lots of work reading, some academic stuff, and tons and tons of reading on the web. But not a single novel, play, or book of short stories.

Now that has all changed. I've decided to keep track of all the books I've read since May of 2008. Here is the first:

The Crucible by Arthur Miller

Not as timely as I thought it would be, but an excellent case study in the hypocrisy of a mob-run and out of control early-American theocracy. Starkly illuminates the need for a clear separation of church and state, and also provides valuable insight into the human condition and the flaws we all bring to every decision we make.


Glad I read it; can't wait to see the movie or play.

- Scott

June 24, 2008

It's Time for "Score Hundreds"

I heard it again this morning, some commentator thought he'd be clever and call the current decade the "zeros." I've also heard "twenty hundreds," "oughts," "two-thousands," and "no-names" (very strange variation). I'd like to end the confusion and propose what I think is definitively *the* best name for this decade: the "score hundreds."

The whole thing might sound a little silly, but we need a solution before we move on to the "two-thousand teens." The problem really is that "nineteen hundreds" rolls of the tongue, but "twenty hundreds" stops you cold. Just doesn't work as a natural extension of our language or of the standards from previous centuries.

IMO, all the other contenders for the job have big problems that "score hundreds" solves.

"Twenty hundreds" is just plain wrong. It's sort of a childish attempt at consistency with the previous centuries, but it has no other place in our language so it sounds foreign to the ear. This one isn't even a contender; I rarely hear it used.

"Zeros" could refer to the first 10 years of any century, including the year 1 through 9 AD. Its lack of specificity is maddening and makes it sound just as stupid as "twenty hundreds." Besides, it won't stand the test of time. There is no way that 200 years from now you will be able to refer to this decade as the "zeros." No one will understand what the hell you're talking about.

"Oughts" is just as idiotic as "zeros," and has the additional silliness of sounding like something incomplete. When someone says, "oughts" I find myself waiting for another word or two... words that never come. And it is non-specific to boot -- so no dice, sonny.

I won't insult your intelligence by dealing with "no names" -- which is just someone's attempt to get attention.

That leaves "two thousands," which is the best one I've heard up until now. Unlike the rest of the terms, this one has the advantage of working with the rest of the century -- e.g. "two-thousand teens," or "two-thousand forties." However, that is exactly where "score hundreds" shows its greatest advantage.

I submit that "score forties" is a quicker, more natural sounding phrase than "two-thousand forties." Both are accurate, but my suggestion is faster and has a verbal kick to it. Besides, think of the pun possibilities of the word "score." "Good evening ladies and germs, and welcome to the 'score teens' -- or as Warren Jeffs calls it: '*my* kind of decade!'" ::rim shot please::

So that is my suggestion to deal with an oddity of a decade. Go with "score hundreds" and follow that up with "score teens," "score twenties," etc. Anything, as lonog as it isn't "oughts" or "zeros." Blech!

- Scott

June 19, 2008

No Apologies... *This* Time

So now I understand why bloggers are always apologizing for not posting more often. My life got busy, and it was suddenly more than a month since my last post.

No apologies this time, though. If I continue not posting when things get back to normal (if they ever do), maybe I'll have a few words of contrition. But not yet. For now, it's full steam ahead with the explanation of what's been up lately. And trust me, it's one crazy/busy list.

1. In early May, I gave notice at my job of 7.5 years. I expected to coast to the finish, taking time to visit with friends and colleagues before hitting the dusty trail. Fat chance. The departments I worked with decided to do all the big projects they were saving for the summer. And they wanted them done before I left.

It was more like a full out sprint to the finish, and I left multiple things undone. Sorry guys :(

2. In addition to the work at my old job, there were many requests for lunch or dinner or even just coffee toward the end. It was an odd thing for me, because I've never been the popular kid. But within days of giving my notice, I'd filled all my remaining lunches, and people were asking about dinner.

Not that I regret the social opportunities or acceptance. But it is still a burden, albeit a lot more enjoyable than being unpopular.

3. On May 19, I sold my house. I suspect that might merit more fanfare than I'm giving it, what with the state of the real estate market. But being realistic about the price, the house was under agreement in about 35 days.

The purpose was to get a shorter commute; and I had no idea how important it would be. Read on for more details...

4. On May 20, I started my new job, running "all things IT" for a charity in downtown Boston. My old job was just desktop and network computer support, and someone else had all those pesky management responsibilities. But the new job has staff supervision, dealing with vendors, budgets, strategic visioning, and all the stuff that goes with running the whole show.

I can't complain; it's exactly what I thought it would be. Much busier to be sure, but it pushes my knowledge and abilities in important new directions. Oh, and did I mention that it is much busier than the old job? Yeah, I thought I did.

4a. And oh, that relentless, hideous, brain-chewing, soul-destroying commute. Try two hours each way every day, half in bad traffic, half on crowded trains. That makes my out-of-the-house time about 12 to 13 hours a day, with precious little time to recover before I head off to sleepyland and get up just in time to start it all over again.

The new house will be much closer, so the commute will become a mere 50 minutes each way... all on the train -- semi-woo-hoo! But until then, there was no time to post here. And no, that's *not* an apology!

Also note: the job change would not have been possible without selling old house and buying one closer in. So it seems pretty serendipitous to have all those things happen at nearly the same time.

5. On May 21, I had my first speaking engagement in a long time. The last time I did that in front of a group was when I was in college and I spoke at a rally to save federal student aid. This time it was a group of volunteers and staff at a suicide-prevention hot-line where I put in a few years. It was just a couple of hours one evening, and it went very well. But there was a lot of personal preparation that went into it.

And believe it or not, even with everything else going on, *this* was what made me the most nervous. I knew I'd either excel or crash-and-burn at the job and sell-or-not-sell the house -- but this was actually important to me. I guess it being a place I cared about more than any job or house, I wanted to do well.

6. Hey Scott, it's your Birthday! That's right, the anniversary of my debut on Earth happened just this week, and there were plans to make, presents to look for, and... well, you probably don't feel sorry for me about this, so I'll just move on.

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, & 15. And of course, there were various other competing priorities for my time. Helping my sister move; honoring my twin sisters' birthdays; planning a trip to Ohio; upgrading my wardrobe for the new job; keeping up with the yard work; trying (and failing) to get in some significant rides on the new bicycle; visiting friends' new kids (I got to one but haven't seen the other); serving as a delegate to a political convention; and doing several consulting jobs after work.

Man, I mean I was so busy... ahem, I WAS SO BUSY...
"How busy were you?"
I was so busy my hair was almost hippie length before I had a moment to get it cut ::rim shot::

So there you have it. Hope your last month was better paced than mine; but I also hope it was as productive.


C U sooner than last time -- I hope,

- Scott

May 10, 2008

Maybe You *Can* Choose Your Family

Five years ago this fall, my friends Allan and Lori were married in New Hampshire. They asked my wife and I to deliver a short talk about friendship at the ceremony, and we were more than happy to do so. It was a tandem presentation, so we worked in a transition between the two halves, which you will see.

I came up with the majority of the themes covered and wrote most of the talk, collaborating with my wife on polishing it for brevity and for style (given that it was to be spoken, not read). I always wanted a forum to publish it and thought this blog was the perfect vehicle. So here it is, presented as we said it on our friends' big day (10/13/2003)
.

Scott (that's me):

Allan and Lori asked us to talk a little bit about friendship, and we couldn’t be happier to represent their circle of friends. It’s a great topic for a wedding day, and we’re honored they thought enough of us to ask.

You know, there’s an old adage my mom would sometimes quote. She’d say, "You can't choose your family, but you can choose your friends." It’s one of those simple sayings with an apparent ring of truth; and in fact, I heard it so much over the years, I never thought much about it at all. That is, until Allan and Lori asked us to talk about friendship here today.

And I’ve gotta say, the more I considered friendship and weddings and wedding days, well… it became clearer and clearer to me that the joining of two souls we’re about to witness is the one and only exception to that old saying; because it’s the one time you can choose your family and your friend.

A wedding day stands alone among all the other days in our lives. It’s a day when the very best and deepest of friends, friends who care so profoundly and love so tenderly that they can’t imagine life without each other – this is the one day when those friends make a decision that many of us have made before. The decision to bring your best friend into your family and to make a family with your best friend.

In a few minutes, we’ll witness Allan and Lori, who are quite obviously in love and the very best of friends, choose each other as family. And that’s always a choice worth supporting and an occasion worth celebrating.

And now, here’s my wife Lori, with a two-minute rebuttal. (The chuckling lasted long enough to switch places at the microphone.)
Lori (my wife, not the one getting married):
I have some experience with friendship and weddings. Seven years ago, I married my best friend, Scott. And I can tell you that the “best friend” part is a crucial part of the relationship. Marriage is one of the most intense relationships I’ve ever experienced. And what I’ve found in the past seven years is that our friendship gives us what we need to work through the tough times more easily and to enjoy the good times even more.

It’s kind of like it was with your best childhood friend. You played together, you hung out together, you talked about anything and everything – and the hours just flew by. It was a blast and you never wanted it to end. You even turned down a home-cooked meal to stay out playing.

But somewhere along the line, you got into some kind of fight. You disagreed about what game to play, or whose house to go to, or even who was smarter. And you argued and fought, and you ran home, swearing to yourself that you never wanted to see that person again. Well, we all know the end of that story. Two hours later, you were back hanging out together, laughing and playing and having the time of your life as if nothing ever happened.

Well, a marriage has all the wonderful times, along with its share of disagreements. We all know that rough patches happen. But if you’ve built your marriage on a foundation as strong as that of best friends, and add to that the knowledge that you’re marrying your true love. . . Well, you’ll get through those rough patches and pretty soon you’ll be back to having the time of your life. For the rest of your life.

We are so honored to have Allan and Lori ask us to talk about friendship today. We’ve spent enough time with them to know that they understand its importance. And when they combine that understanding with the love they obviously feel. . .well, they’ve surely built the foundation for that most magical of structures. They’ve built the foundation for transforming a friendship into a family. And we congratulate them.

I hope you enjoy the sentiment as much as we enjoyed giving the speech. It's always strange to me what thoughts were there all the time; thoughts that just needed a suggestion from a friend to bubble to the surface.

I also hope that if you are married it speaks to your relationship with your spouse. Or spouses, you know, if you live in one of those compounds.
:O

- Scott

April 29, 2008

6 versus 153,000

Who the hell wants to be famous? Rich is one thing... I'd take the money, travel the globe, and run charitable foundations behind the scenes. But famous? Give up my private life and have every flaw analyzed by masses of ill-qualified sycophants and haters? Ummmm... no thanks. I'll let Britney Spears have her breakdown in public. She seems to enjoy it.

But the real problem with fame is it doesn't care what you want. Sometimes it comes calling whether you like it or not. I don't think this guy *liked* being stuck in an elevator for 41 hours, but I saw him on GMA the other day. And no doubt Jake Brown would rather not have fallen 40 feet off his skateboard. But he's an X-games legend because of it. Neither wanted to make history, but their follies brought them fame anyway, sort of like Elaine's dancing on Seinfeld.

So my exhaustive 137 posts (with over 153,000 words) about the New England Patriots didn't get me noticed at all. I love football, it's like full-speed, full-contact chess. And I love keeping tabs on the Patriots and the discussions the posts have sparked with my friends. But after all those game summaries, season previews, and playoff predictions, I reached my *zenith* of semi-fame for 6 words that have nothing to do with football.

"Changing mind postponed demise by decades." That was my submission to a Smith Magazine contest for a six-word memoir. It took me about 20 minutes to come up with it, and after I submitted it in December of 2006, I didn't think about it again.

Until February '07. That's when Rachel Fershleiser (one of the Smith Magazine Editors) approached me and 400 others about a book deal they'd gotten from Harper Perennial. They wanted permission to use my memoir, and they wanted me to create a visual image to accompany it in the book. I wrestled with the image for about a month and finally sent in my best effort. The book wasn't due out for a year, and there was no guarantee I'd be in it, so I sort of lost track of it.

Until December of that year, when I emailed Rachel and found out that I was indeed in the book. I thought that was pretty cool, and then I got more news. My memoir was one of only 40 or so that would include the user-created image *and* be on its own page. I can't really draw, so I was shocked that my scribbling was good enough. Maybe they didn't get enough other submissions or the ones they got sucked. But whatever the reason, I'd been singled out -- and was a tinsy-weensy bit more famous than before.

So in a year, I'd gone from 1 of 5,000 anonymous contest entries to 1 of 40 authors with his own page in a book. That's quite a climb up the fame ladder, and mind you, I didn't care one way or the other. Just doing my thing, and someone happened to notice. And guess what, it didn't quite end there.

As part of their campaign to publicize the book, Smith Magazine decided to profile several of the contributors. They asked for background on my memoir, hoping my story would be interesting enough to be part of their web-site blitz at book launch. Not only did they like it, they inserted an introductory paragraph and published the entire bloody email (complete with asides to the person I was emailing).

Now I *really* felt like a published author. Six words and a drawing in the book were okay, but 1,000 words for an online magazine with subscribers and advertisers seemed like a much bigger deal.

The publication of the book led to a bunch of other fun things. I'll chronicle those over the next few weeks. But there is one thing I learned from all this.

I've heard the whole "do what you love" theory, and I call it complete BS. You have to earn a living, and almost no one can earn one doing what we *really* want, sitting on a beach drinking mint juleps and making love with whomever we want. However, I think it's important to do your absolute best at whatever you decide to try. Because you never know which thing you do might lead to something fun or interesting.

I don't think I'd have gotten in the book if I didn't have a memoir that resonated and intriuged. And I wouldn't have gotten my own page if I blew off drawing an image (which was the toughest part of the whole project). And no way would Smith Magazine have published my email if I threw it together in 10 minutes.

So forget about "do what you love" -- it's a fairy tale told by those who already succeeded. But always do your best at whatever you care about. Your level of effort is one of the few things you can control, so don't blow *that*.

- Semi-famous Scott

April 25, 2008

Is *This* Why Women Live Longer?

Science just can't figure out why women live longer than men. As long as detailed records have been kept, across cultures and geography, through disasters natural and man-made, women have outlived men by a significant number of years. Currently, U.S. life expectancy is 80 years for a woman and 75 years for men, and scientists continue to argue over why. They've come up with a boatload of theories, and through the years, they were all shot down.

Early on, they assumed that men who died in wars brought down the average and that was the difference. But the gap didn't vaporize as women entered the armed services. Then scientists posited that the dangers of leaving home to go to work, or the dangerous working conditions themselves, caused it. But once again, women in the workforce didn't close the gap. Then it was women being more open to medical help. Then smoking. Then stress. Then genetics. And finally, more recently, it's supposedly the risky things men do to catch the eye of a potential mate ("Hey baby, watch *this* -- Arrrrrggggghhhhhh...")

A recent study that made the case in favor of the risky behavior idea actually revealed a significant a flaw in the argument. It stated that our declining overall mortality rate would tend to put more emphasis on risky behavior as a factor in the longevity gap. However, if that were true, the gap would be *growing* as risky behavior took out more and more men before their time. But the gap is actually shrinking, not growing, so behavioral differences are not the cause.

No doubt there are lots of stupid human tricks that put guys at risk. (I might have done one or two myself. Maybe even three or four... hundred.) But I think science is on the wrong track on this question. The answer has been sitting right under their noses for decades, and frankly, I'm surprised they missed it.

The answer is in the food. Or more specifically, in how *much* food is eaten by men and women.

Doctors have known for decades that semi-starvation diets can extend one's life. Might not be as much fun to live that way, but for at least 70 years, it has been a well-chronicled and analyzed fact. Some studies have shown that mice can live 40% longer on strict, starvation-level diets. And studies of humans showed many health benefits of eating a lot less (as little as 1,000 calories a day). And in fact, they are very close to understanding of how starvation unlocks longevity (link).

So how, you may ask, does this add up to longer lives for women than men? The answer is simple: many more women diet than men, and women diet more often than men during their lifetimes. A recent British study revealed that the average U.K. woman spends 31 years of her life on one diet or another, while the average British man diets only 28 years. The lifespan gap is 80 to 75, just as in the U.S., so there very well could be a connection.

And when you delve deeper into the situation, consider that women who diet multiple times in their lives would increase their lifespan by more each time they went on a new diet. Because as their bodies got used to fewer calories on one diet, they would have to lower their caloric intake even further to lose weight the next time. And that cycle only gets better (or worse, depending on your perspective) the more dieting they do. And 31 years is a heck of a lot of dieting.

(Note: I am not advocating starving yourself or going on and then off diets just to live longer. I'm simply stating my opinion that a longer life could be one of the effects of doing so. Always consult someone much smarter than me before undertaking a diet -- your doctor.)

I think my theory of the starvation effect explains the longevity gap a lot better than anything I've read. Maybe scientists just didn't think about the whole person when considering the difference. Maybe they just missed it in their rush to explain what they didn't understand. But whatever the reason, they missed it. And now that I pointed it out, they can study it and find out if it's close to the truth or just the latest theory to be disproven.

Oh, and what to do if you're a man who wants to close the longevity gap? Try closing your mouth for one meal a day. Might not be the way you want to go through life, but it could give you a few extra years.

- Scott