The following players represent some of the league’s embarrassments. These are players who have either lucked their way into highly undeserved contracts or who have turned into disturbing disappointments on the court. In any case their respective teams would show VERY little interest in bringing them back. I don’t think that means they would just let them go. After all you never know when one of these players could turn the corner. Plus, there’s always something to be said for saving face. However, just because the teams make them an offer doesn’t mean it will be a good one as you will see.
Just in case you need them, the rules are here.
465. Anfernee Hardaway:
What he earned (according to 82games.com)- $180,000
What he was paid (his actual salary for 2005-2006)- $15.8 Million
What he’s worth (my own Pay Scale rating)- −$5 Million
After years of disappointment, I predict the Knicks would use this opportunity to try and finally get a little of their sunk losses back from Hardaway. Anfernee has spent season after season of living off the Knicks’ dime while contributing nothing to almost nothing on the court and has racked up quite a debt to the ownership over this time. If given the chance to name their price for Hardaway the Knicks will probably ask for some of their money back (When did we stop calling him “Penny” by the way? Was it around about the same time he started sucking so hard Chris Rock refused to associate his name with Lil’ Penny?) I know it may seem cruel but before you accuse me of trying to reinstate indentured servitude ask yourself the following questions. Have you seen any game that Hardaway played in during the last six years, that didn’t make you want to demand your money back, even if you didn’t pay to see it? And, how else to propose the Knicks raise the money to buy out the remainder of Larry Brown’s regrettable contract.
464. Stevie Francis:
What he earned- $4.26 Million
What he was paid- $13.7 Million
What he’s worth- − $4.05 Million
Here’s another player that’s become more risk than reward. Francis has become an absolute chemistry killer wherever he goes, second only to Terrell Owens in major American sports. What’s the average life expectancy of a coach’s career when Francis is involved, eight months? Six? Since Isaiah Thomas made this mess you can bet he wouldn’t put his coaching career on the line without taking a bite out of Stevie Frantic first; he may be crazy and incompetent but he isn’t suicidal. Now’s the time for New York to tell Francis to pony up if he wants to continue to have the privilege of living in New York, playing basketball in the biggest media market, getting great seats at Madison Square Garden while he slowly nurses an injury, and being able to put “NBA player” on his W-2’s.
(Random aside: What do you think NBA player’s put on their W-2’s, do they write “professional athlete” or “basketball player”? Do some of them get creative, like does Rip Hamilton write “baller” and Kobe Bryant write “The Mamba”? If Shaq wrote “Most dominant basketball player of the new millennium” on an IRS form would anyone argue? I realize that since all of these guys have accountants and that probably makes the issue moot, but still you find yourself wondering these things some times. Anyways …)
460. Stephon Marbuy:
What he earned- $5.67 Million
What he was paid- $16.5 Million
What he’s worth- $0
Does it surprise anyone that I have listed three Knicks as being among the players least deserving of their current paycheck? I think that slams the Knicks organization as much as I need to for the rest of this piece. I pretty much base Starbury’s $0 salary on one fact. Near the end of last season he claimed he loved the Knicks so much he wanted to retire as a Knick and have his ashes scattered at Madison Square Garden. Fine, I will take him at his word. If this son of New York really cares so much about this team then let him play for it for free. Prove you love this game, by playing like you would on the playground and not like a show boat trying to earn a few extra dollars in his next contract or endorsement deal.
402. Carlos Boozer:
What he earned- $2.31 Million
What he was paid- $11.6 Million
What he’s worth- $50,000
If anyone doubts that LeBron James is the child of destiny sent to lead the NBA to the promised land just look at all the bad karma that came down on Carlos Boozer as soon as he betrayed the King. Boozer was a promising young player who looked like he might become the much needed reliable second banana for LeBron, then he pulled out of his negotiations with Cleveland to land a sweeter deal at Utah. Ever since he has fought off multiple injuries and quickly become another disappointing and overpriced vet. The Jazz take this opportunity to pay him like a promising young player again, just to see if that makes him hungry again.
401. Grant Hill:
What he earned- $1.71 Million
What he was paid- $15.7 Million
What he’s worth- $60,000
Since coming into the NBA Grant Hill has seen it all, he’s lived the “Next Big Thing” story, the “Superstar on the Verge of Greatness” story, the “Tragic Setbacks that will Only Make for a Better Ghostwritten Autobiography” story, the “When’s He Coming Back?” story, the “Seriously Dawg He Better Get Back in the Game Soon” story, the “He’s Still Around?” story, the “Feel Good Almost Meaningful Comeback” story, the “Why’s He Saying Other Player’s Are Racist for Questioning J.J. Redick’s Ability?” story, and finally the “Yes, His Contract is Almost Up and We’ll Have Cap Room Again!” story. The Magic want his salary off their books, but they’ll pay him a pittance in the hopes he pulls a Tiki Barber, and they sell a few extra tickets and jerseys during his farewell tour.
375. Paul Shirley:
What he earned- $0
What he was paid- $0
What he’s worth- $80,000
For those of you who don’t read many sarcastic, online columns that provide an cynical insider’s perspective on basketball, then you probably haven’t been following the writing career of Paul Shirley, professional benchwarmer an all around great guy. Since he began writing a blog for the Phoenix Suns’ website Paul has taken fans behind the curtain in the NBA, the shady basketball minor leagues, and onto the set of his never released pilot for a TV show based on his life. Now that the Timberwolves have foolishly cut him from their roster just before the season began, I am using this column as my outcry for justice. Some team in the NBA MUST put Shirley on their roster. I know he isn’t worth much as a basketball player (that sounds like a nasty thing to say about someone whose one of the 300 best basketball players on the planet, but you have to realize that that’s just on the edge of breaking into an NBA team’s core rotation), but you have to admit he has a loyal fan base how will surely buy enough merchandise and tickets that you could afford to support his writing career, at least for one more season.
373. Antonio Davis:
What he earned- $50,000
What he was paid- $3.5 Million
What he’s worth- $90,000
Quick check: Can you even remember who Antonio Davis is? I figure he deserves $1,000 for ever person who just said “yes”. Oh heck I’ll say he deserves an even $90k, just because he’ll feel hurt if he doesn’t make more than the guy who’s just in the NBA to blog about it.
360. Jalen Rose:
What he earned- $970,000
What he was paid- $15.7 Million
What he’s worth- $100,000
Rose is another player who got cut just before the season tipped off, despite the fact that he has a little game left in him and the team will still have to pay him millions of dollars even if he never appears on court. The true injustice of all of this, is that the team that currently holds his contract (who I’m not going to mention here because they get plenty of abuse elsewhere from me) is depriving us of the opportunity to watch one of the game’s natural comedians be interviewed by the press. Rose is just too entertaining to cut out of the picture. So you have to believe that some team might pay him a fraction of his current salary just to hang around the locker room and keep everyone else loose. That’s at least what I based my Pay Scale rating on.
301. Keith Van Horn:
What he earned- $730,000
What he was paid- $15.7 Million
What he’s worth- $150,000
How Keith Van Horn ever became a max money player is still a puzzle to most basketball fans. Sure he still has some definite value on the court but he’s never going to be a major player on a quality team again. The Mavs, who are as deep as any other team in the association, really don’t have any need for him. Still, Mark Cuban has enough money to spare that if given the chance, they’ll probably toss some cash his way just to keep their depth.
226. Chris Webber:
What he earned- $5.91 Million
What he was paid- $19.1 Million
What he’s worth- $200,000
Since all Philly teams are doomed to disappoint their fans and since C-Webb is doomed to always ruin every chance he has at greatness, it only seems right that the Sixers keep him on the roster just so he doesn’t disappoint the fans. At since the Webber jinx far outweighs any Webber production they will be the only ones offering him any money, so they can get him cheap.
207. Baron Davis:
What he earned- $6.11 Million
What he was paid- $13.7 Million
What he’s worth- $250,000
I fully accept that Baron Davis is worth $6 million dollars when playing a full season at full strength. The Warriors would probably agree too. However we both know that odds are you’ll only get him for a quarter of the season at full strength and he usually is only at a sixth of his strength. So take $6 million divide by 24 and you get what I feel is an accurate Pay Scale rating of $250,000, leaving Davis just shy of the cut off level to be one of the Middlings.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
NBA Pay Scale 2006- Intro
The NBA Pay Scale: A New Method of Ranking NBA Players
For as much as I enjoy the National Basketball Association, it does pose a number of vexing problems to its fans. The league’s instance on marketing itself to white Baby Boomers when it clearly has stronger appeal with young people and African Americans stands out as a particularly questionable move. I personally would like to know how any commissioner as autocratic as David Stern allows so many billionaire owners to make such a hash of their franchises. Yet above all this stands a quandary whose simplicity belies its elusiveness. How do we measure the relative value of basketball players?
It doesn’t immediately seem that comparing the value of players would be more difficult than in other sports. Yet basketball players are many times harder to rank because the game lacks a clear hierarchy. In hockey everyone acknowledges the relative superiority of a quality goaltender over a quality defenseman. In baseball no general manager would equate a position player’s value with a pitcher’s value. Football has more hierarchies than any other sport, describing the various power schemes and structures on an average team would require enough multi-colored flow charts and computer models to fill an Office Depot. The hardship of ranking NBA players comes with the fact that they all perform the same basic tasks on the court, dribbling, passing, shooting, rebounding, etc.
How then do we distinguish one player’s performance from another’s? For years people relied on the “holy trinity” of basketball stats, scoring, assists, and rebounding. Recently new statistical measures have arisen, some of which I have pointed to on this site. Others have attempted to use more subjective measures. At the beginning of the last NBA season I wrote a column greatly aping Bill Simmons annual rankings of all players based on their trade value. At that time I thought the trade value system was a useful means to rank players, since it began with the only opinion in basketball that truly mattered, that of the association’s owners and general managers. However on further review the very idea of assessing a player’s worth based on how willing the team would be to trade him seems like a backhanded compliment. Really that column pointed out that save for one guy every player in the league is someone else’s second choice. That is a very misleading way to measure the players. No team looks at its starting lineup and says “Well, we have half a Kevin Garnett, three-fourths a Sam Cassell, 0.8234 of a Brad Miller, two percent of a Kobe, and one whole Carmelo Anthony.” In fact if you want to take the front office perspective, you should remember that front offices already have a pretty basic means of assessing a player’s value; it’s called their salary.
Naturally player salaries aren’t a perfect metric either, however they do represent a simple, practical, and real world method of assigning value to a player. Any well informed basketball fan can easily point to several players whose pay is disproportionate to their play one way or the other. It’s true that due to collective bargaining agreements, marketing value, flukes of fate, or plain old bad decisions most players’ salaries are loosely tied to their on the court value. However the fine people at 82games.com, have created a method of estimating what a player’s salary would be if he were paid proportionate to his direct impact on the team’s success. You can see their work here. I was inspired by this concept, to abandon trade values as my default player rating and instead attempt to forge a new ranking system. This system applies the statistical evidence collected by 82games.com and expresses it through a clear, absolute figure that of hypothetical “fair salary” dollars. Then it combines the objective evidence with the subjective, relative assessments that drove my early writings about trade values and drive the thinking of most executives when they write the checks for the player’s actual salaries. Now I can express a player’s value through a single metric that shows a combination of the value he earned on the court and his perceived value in the eyes of the front office.
The rules for measuring players on this new Pay Scale are simple. Imagine the association passed a new rule tonight that said in the next 48 hours teams can make one bid on all their players to lock them up for the next season. No previous contracts matter. No issues of seniority or time with a team matter. No salary cap ramifications are involved. If a player turns down his team’s offer, he becomes an unrestricted free agent with the likely outcome being their current team will lose them. Now estimate how much money any given team would be willing to pay for any of their players for one season of work. I’d imagine every team would do their best to estimate the absolute highest salary a player could demand and not pay them one cent more. (I’m just going to assume that all teams want to keep their current rosters in tact, but that doesn’t mean everyone will get a good offer.) From their on out you just run down every player of interest and measure them by what they earned on the court, and what the front office perceives his value to be based on two factors: how much money can they make from that player and how does he improve their chances to win more games and more championships. I have the players ranked from bottom to top based on how much the teams would offer them.
By taking this experiment and spending way more time on it than I have to spare I have reached the following conclusions. So please read along as I rank all players in the NBA according to where I think they fall on the Pay Scale, starting with the Lowlights.
For as much as I enjoy the National Basketball Association, it does pose a number of vexing problems to its fans. The league’s instance on marketing itself to white Baby Boomers when it clearly has stronger appeal with young people and African Americans stands out as a particularly questionable move. I personally would like to know how any commissioner as autocratic as David Stern allows so many billionaire owners to make such a hash of their franchises. Yet above all this stands a quandary whose simplicity belies its elusiveness. How do we measure the relative value of basketball players?
It doesn’t immediately seem that comparing the value of players would be more difficult than in other sports. Yet basketball players are many times harder to rank because the game lacks a clear hierarchy. In hockey everyone acknowledges the relative superiority of a quality goaltender over a quality defenseman. In baseball no general manager would equate a position player’s value with a pitcher’s value. Football has more hierarchies than any other sport, describing the various power schemes and structures on an average team would require enough multi-colored flow charts and computer models to fill an Office Depot. The hardship of ranking NBA players comes with the fact that they all perform the same basic tasks on the court, dribbling, passing, shooting, rebounding, etc.
How then do we distinguish one player’s performance from another’s? For years people relied on the “holy trinity” of basketball stats, scoring, assists, and rebounding. Recently new statistical measures have arisen, some of which I have pointed to on this site. Others have attempted to use more subjective measures. At the beginning of the last NBA season I wrote a column greatly aping Bill Simmons annual rankings of all players based on their trade value. At that time I thought the trade value system was a useful means to rank players, since it began with the only opinion in basketball that truly mattered, that of the association’s owners and general managers. However on further review the very idea of assessing a player’s worth based on how willing the team would be to trade him seems like a backhanded compliment. Really that column pointed out that save for one guy every player in the league is someone else’s second choice. That is a very misleading way to measure the players. No team looks at its starting lineup and says “Well, we have half a Kevin Garnett, three-fourths a Sam Cassell, 0.8234 of a Brad Miller, two percent of a Kobe, and one whole Carmelo Anthony.” In fact if you want to take the front office perspective, you should remember that front offices already have a pretty basic means of assessing a player’s value; it’s called their salary.
Naturally player salaries aren’t a perfect metric either, however they do represent a simple, practical, and real world method of assigning value to a player. Any well informed basketball fan can easily point to several players whose pay is disproportionate to their play one way or the other. It’s true that due to collective bargaining agreements, marketing value, flukes of fate, or plain old bad decisions most players’ salaries are loosely tied to their on the court value. However the fine people at 82games.com, have created a method of estimating what a player’s salary would be if he were paid proportionate to his direct impact on the team’s success. You can see their work here. I was inspired by this concept, to abandon trade values as my default player rating and instead attempt to forge a new ranking system. This system applies the statistical evidence collected by 82games.com and expresses it through a clear, absolute figure that of hypothetical “fair salary” dollars. Then it combines the objective evidence with the subjective, relative assessments that drove my early writings about trade values and drive the thinking of most executives when they write the checks for the player’s actual salaries. Now I can express a player’s value through a single metric that shows a combination of the value he earned on the court and his perceived value in the eyes of the front office.
The rules for measuring players on this new Pay Scale are simple. Imagine the association passed a new rule tonight that said in the next 48 hours teams can make one bid on all their players to lock them up for the next season. No previous contracts matter. No issues of seniority or time with a team matter. No salary cap ramifications are involved. If a player turns down his team’s offer, he becomes an unrestricted free agent with the likely outcome being their current team will lose them. Now estimate how much money any given team would be willing to pay for any of their players for one season of work. I’d imagine every team would do their best to estimate the absolute highest salary a player could demand and not pay them one cent more. (I’m just going to assume that all teams want to keep their current rosters in tact, but that doesn’t mean everyone will get a good offer.) From their on out you just run down every player of interest and measure them by what they earned on the court, and what the front office perceives his value to be based on two factors: how much money can they make from that player and how does he improve their chances to win more games and more championships. I have the players ranked from bottom to top based on how much the teams would offer them.
By taking this experiment and spending way more time on it than I have to spare I have reached the following conclusions. So please read along as I rank all players in the NBA according to where I think they fall on the Pay Scale, starting with the Lowlights.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
I have a crazy idea (just like everyone else with a blog)
I have an idea, that I want to put out on the internet. I hope placing it out here in the ether will allow it to grow and expand in momentum. It's only a dream in my head right now, but with enough time and energy I think all of us can come together to make it happen.
Here it is.
I am a fan of Douglas Adams' Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I saw the movie, and while satisfied, I had hoped for so much more. I think if enough people came together we could do better job of making the movie (but maybe that's just the madly democratic optimist in me). There are already many projects on the internet that were created via the collaboration of the internet multitude -my love of Wikipedia has already been discussed on this blog. I propose that we, the HHGG fans, come together to create the animated movie. The acting, sound FX, and script are already out there, if we simply create animation to match the original radio show. We would just need to use some agreed upon animation platform to create the visuals.
As I see it the technology to create animation of some form on a computer is common enough. If we divide the work among many, many people we can create one full fledged feature film. The largest difficulty I forsee on the technical aspect would be finding a means to store all of the information. I have a few ideas mostly revolving around the fact that so many people (myself included) use only a fraction of their hard drive's memory. The scientists at SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) developed a program where volunteers allow their computers to be used to analyze radio signals for signs of alien intelligence. Other distributed computing programs are working on similar projects, but I can't say anything for certain as to whether something like this could be used in making the new HHGG movie.
Of much greater importance, I realize this may violate copyrights so I invite the proper authorities to tell me to cease and decist before I take this so far. I do want to make it perfectly clear that I would never envision this being distributed for money or actually intigrating pirated materials in the production. This would be used strictly by those involved in the creation of the the movie, with the full acknowledgemnt at any and every point possible that this is based off of the ideas of another person. I imagine a dedicated and disciplined group of people could simple cooperate to create a visual format to accompany the currently existing audio format. At worst I only want to create something akin to the fan fiction and fan art, that has so far spread wildly on the web without any interference. We must be absolutely clear that the work created is the intellectual property of a mind far greater than any of ours. So long as we don't create anything pornographic or plainly libelous about the series or the creators, then I don't know of there would be any precedent upon which we could be prosecuted.
That's my idea, the first democratically created movie. At the very least it may give people something to do with the time between their birth and death other than wear digital watches.
Here it is.
I am a fan of Douglas Adams' Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I saw the movie, and while satisfied, I had hoped for so much more. I think if enough people came together we could do better job of making the movie (but maybe that's just the madly democratic optimist in me). There are already many projects on the internet that were created via the collaboration of the internet multitude -my love of Wikipedia has already been discussed on this blog. I propose that we, the HHGG fans, come together to create the animated movie. The acting, sound FX, and script are already out there, if we simply create animation to match the original radio show. We would just need to use some agreed upon animation platform to create the visuals.
As I see it the technology to create animation of some form on a computer is common enough. If we divide the work among many, many people we can create one full fledged feature film. The largest difficulty I forsee on the technical aspect would be finding a means to store all of the information. I have a few ideas mostly revolving around the fact that so many people (myself included) use only a fraction of their hard drive's memory. The scientists at SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) developed a program where volunteers allow their computers to be used to analyze radio signals for signs of alien intelligence. Other distributed computing programs are working on similar projects, but I can't say anything for certain as to whether something like this could be used in making the new HHGG movie.
Of much greater importance, I realize this may violate copyrights so I invite the proper authorities to tell me to cease and decist before I take this so far. I do want to make it perfectly clear that I would never envision this being distributed for money or actually intigrating pirated materials in the production. This would be used strictly by those involved in the creation of the the movie, with the full acknowledgemnt at any and every point possible that this is based off of the ideas of another person. I imagine a dedicated and disciplined group of people could simple cooperate to create a visual format to accompany the currently existing audio format. At worst I only want to create something akin to the fan fiction and fan art, that has so far spread wildly on the web without any interference. We must be absolutely clear that the work created is the intellectual property of a mind far greater than any of ours. So long as we don't create anything pornographic or plainly libelous about the series or the creators, then I don't know of there would be any precedent upon which we could be prosecuted.
That's my idea, the first democratically created movie. At the very least it may give people something to do with the time between their birth and death other than wear digital watches.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Why did a rumor tell me more about teenage culture than eight months of observation?
1.
Around the turn of the twentieth century, a new kind of research was brewing on the shores of Lake Michigan. Several social scientists working at the University of Chicago developed new methods of studying human behavior on both the social and individual level on a more intimate and in depth level than had been attempted before. This form of investigation became known as the “Chicago School” of sociological and anthropological research and focused on applying scientific principles to fieldwork practices. The chief tool of a “Chicago School” researcher was participant observation, wherein the researcher would actively join in with the group she was studying over an extended period of time. Once the researcher integrates herself into the culture she is able to gain better insights into the workings of the group, and is able to gain freer access for discussions, interviews, and data collection. Over the last 70 or so years since the “Chicago School” has become a commonly accepted research practice a stunning amount of information has been gained about different sub-cultures and groups in our society. A terrific example about a grad student at U of Chicago who spends years living with a crack gang in the Chicago housing projects is discussed by Steven Levitt and Scott Dubner in their book Freakonomics. This example demonstrates how a participant observer can bring subtle details of how a group, in this case a fairly successful street gang that traffics crack cocaine, organizes itself, supports itself, and communicates both internally and externally. I personally have taken a great interest in these research practices as I have been completing my student teaching and I have theoretically been a participant observer for the last eight months.
The most obvious question to ask me as I complete my teacher training is what I learned during my observations? Unfortunately the obvious question isn’t necessarily the best question with which to start this conversation. First, you have to consider which group I am meant to be studying. High school buildings are homes to two distinct sub-cultures, one of teenage students and one of the slightly older teachers. Given that the purpose of my time as a student teacher is to teach me what it takes to become a full blown teacher, the answer once again appears clear; I should be observing the “teacher culture” to learn what makes a successful teacher. Yet, that simple answer belies the complexity of the student teacher interaction. My training has continually emphasized that ineffective teachers focus classroom activities on what the teacher likes to do, while effective teachers base their instruction on what best engages and interests the students. So to be an effective teacher I have to learn both how a quality instructor delivers information, and how a quality student processes that information. By understanding the students I can spread good learning habits, and activate the mental processes my students already use.
Thus, as I undertook my student teaching I had to keep one eye on my mentor teacher and which of her practices seemed effective, and my other eye on the students and what educational strengths and needs they exhibited. Over the past school year I feel I have become a sufficiently skilled teacher. I was able to incorporate a number of practices I observed from the teachers with which I work and my mentor teacher and instructors have given me plenty of positive feedback. I would have to say that my observation of the teacher sub-culture had born terrific results.
Until a few weeks ago I thought I had achieved similar results with my observation of the student sub-culture. My students had responded well to the instruction I designed; they were highly engaged and seemed to retain the information well. I was able to relate to the students, since I am still young enough to catch most of their pop culture references. I felt I had a good handle on how to communicate to students and gain their cooperation. Then, last month, I heard about a rumor that passed amongst my students that taught me more about teenagers’ and their culture than I had gained in seven months of observation.
2.
The story begins about a month ago, in early May 2006, in my U.S. history class. My mentor teacher had assigned a major research paper as the last significant assignment of the school year. They were first given the assignment about five weeks before the final paper was due on May 18th. They had to create an outline for their paper and turn that in after two weeks. From there on out though, they had nothing to do but work on their final draft. They were told all of these facts in very clear terms when the paper was first assigned and given assignment sheets for each student so they could have a resource in case they ever needed to remind them of this, and of course they all knew they could talk to either my teacher or me if they had any questions. My mentor teacher and I both felt that the students had been well guided and prepared for this particular lesson. Our confidence about this should emphasize just how little we understood about the students at the time.
On May 4th, three weeks after we had originally assigned the paper, as one of the students paused at the door as she left class. She turned around and asked very sheepishly whether the research paper was due that day. My mentor teacher wasn’t in the room at the time, but I knew the students still had at least two weeks before they needed to turn in the final paper. I looked at the student with a puzzled expression and then explained the situation. She gave me a relieved smile and said that she had spent most of the previous night working on it. I asked her how she had come to believe that the paper was due today. After she gave me the details of the rumor she had been swept in, I realized I was on top of something special, and I asked her to write it down for me. What follows is her account with the students’ names replaced to protect their identities.
Student #1’s experience with the rumor:
While I was at a café after school, I got worried that the paper might be due tomorrow. So, I called Student #2. Student #2 said the paper wasn’t due until May 18th. Then later in the evening I received a call from Student #3 saying that the paper was NOT due tomorrow, and that he was making phone calls to clarify. A little later I went online on an instant messenger and Student #2’s away message said the paper was not due tomorrow. Later on when chatting, Student #4 asked me if it was due tomorrow and I told her it was not. I heard that Student #5 thought it was due and that Student #6 actually wrote her paper.
I was fascinated by this for a couple of reasons. The rumor was actually so convincing that someone wrote the paper two weeks in advance of its due date. I knew the rumor had to be responsible for this flurry of activity, because I had learned from experience that the consequences for turning in work late had never inspired such dedication on their own. Moreover I was struck that at least six different students had heard this rumor and NONE of them had attempted to contact either my mentor teacher or me to clarify the issue.
Having read Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point which discusses how social memes like rumors are spread and where they gain their power, I decided to dig into the story a little deeper. I wanted to gain a better understanding of how this rumor had started and spread. I also was curious to determine what gave it the power to make a student write an entire research paper in one night. Rumors being so ethereal and temporary by nature, I needed to quickly gather more information while it was still fresh and available. I sought several of the students who took part in the above story and had them share their account of how the rumor spread and how they reacted to it. The following examples provided special insight.
Student #4’s account:
That evening I got a call from Student #5. She said the paper was due tomorrow and that Student #1 and Student #7 were already working on the paper. So, I started working on my paper. A while later I called Student #2 to figure out if the paper really was due today or not. Student #2 said it definitely was due, so I kept working on it. When I was almost finished I called Student #3, who told me the paper was NOT due. I decided to still go ahead and finish it since I was almost done anyway.
Student #3’s account:
What happened was Student #5 misread the assignment sheet, and she told a bunch of people that she thought it was due. So Student #2 called me to see if it was due or not and I told her it wasn’t. Then a while later Student #4 called me to ask if I knew whether the paper was due. I told her no. So, I called Student #5 to let her know that it wasn’t due, so she wouldn’t tell other people it was due today. Then I went ahead and started calling lots of people in case any of them thought it was due today.
These three accounts alone provide a robust amount of information that we can use to investigate how rumors and other comparable social memes form and travel. The insights may not seem especially groundbreaking, though that does not limit my interest. This one rumor revealed a level of complexity and autonomy to teenage culture that I had never before thought existed and which I can use to great effect as a teacher.
Let’s begin with how the rumor traveled between the seven or so students who became wrapped up in it. Since each of the student accounts above had their own sequence of events, I’ll lay out a general timeline to clear up the muddle.
First, Student #5 somehow, reportedly through misreading the assignment sheet, came under the impression that the paper was due the next day. She may have contacted multiple students, but the most important person she contacted was Student #2. Notice how Student #2 appears in all the accounts at some point spreading the rumor. It seems that most people who began working on the paper were prompted to do so by Student #2. As the rumor spread, to at least seven students, though I suspect more, it eventually reached Student #3 who seems to have been the first student to encounter the rumor who had enough confidence in his own accurate knowledge to begin countering the rumor. Many students who heard the rumor apparently were only convinced of its falsity after hearing from Student #3. While Student #3 did not seem to convince Students #4 and #6 that they did not need to complete their papers, he still made the effort to contact them and many others.
3.
In The Tipping Point Gladwell describes the kinds of people social epidemics like rumors require to spread and to be made believable. He creates categories for these people like connectors, who can contact a great number of diverse people, mavens, who others rely on to provide important information, and salesmen, who can convince others of an ideas value. In the rumor I have recorded, I believe no one person falls neatly into any of these categories, though several display attributes of some.
Like mavens, Students #5 and #3 were trusted by their classmates to be sources of information. Other students trust them so much that even upon hearing the rumor the others don’t check their own assignment sheets, instead relying on the word of Student #5 or Student #3. It may even be possible that some students don’t worry about keeping track of information and things like assignment sheets, because they know someone like Student #5 who they trust to remember that stuff so they don’t have to.
Student #3 also served a role as a connector along with Student #2. Both these students seemed to be directly responsible for either spreading or dislodging the rumor. The accounts shown above clearly show the lengths to which both Students #3 and #2 will go to share a piece of information they feel is important. Part of the story of this rumor which the accounts don’t reveal, is how dissimilar the students who encountered it were, or at least how dissimilar they seemed to me as the classroom teacher. The students involved had class with me at different times, they were different races, they came from different backgrounds, and they seemed to belong to different social circles. Yet Students #3 and #2 were both capable of connecting most of the people in this loose social network that tied them all together.
Additionally, Student #2 seemed to have the skills of a salesman, she was able to state a case for the rumor so convincingly, that some students actually went forward with the paper. All students had been informed to the contrary previously by my mentor teacher and I. On some level they should have known Student #2 was misinforming them. Yet, Student #2 must have stated the rumor in such a persuasive way as to compel many of the students to take some kind of action. Furthermore Student #3 seemed to lack the skills of a salesman. Though he supplied numerous students with the correct information, he still couldn’t dissuade some of their fears. Clearly a social epidemic requires some convincing power to become contagious or to stick around long enough to make an impact.
4.
All of these skills have been identified by Gladwell and others and crucial components of any information sharing network. Yet prior to the day I heard of this rumor neither I nor any teacher with whom I’ve spoken had thought that high schools students would have developed them so completely. To some degree it seems obvious; we are talking about the children of the information age. They likely have been surrounded by advanced information/communication technology since birth. For them forming complicated and sophisticated networks probably comes as naturally as farm work came to our ancestors. With this in mind imagine, then, what schools could accomplish by including the students more in their plans.
I have witnessed many occasions during staff meetings or other school events when the teachers fretted about how best to get some important piece of news to the students or the parents. The task always seemed challenging because schools are still committed to old fashioned top-to-bottom methods of spreading information. This always requires time and planning to ensure the full population is covered by whatever announcement method is used. Think about how much simpler it could be for schools if they didn’t have to worry about contacting every student, just those that act as information banks for the general population. Consider how much quicker news could be spread when schools feed announcements to those students who can connect a wide variety of students instead of trying to use an endless stream of pamphlets, phone calls, and P.A. decelerations. Any of these tools can be powerful aids for schools, but I have never seen or heard anyone in education attempt these methods.
One important fact underlies all of this: the students formed this information network independently. I cannot emphasize how surprising this was too me enough. I really shouldn’t have been surprised though. I have heard of everyone from marketing firms to government agencies delving into the teenage subculture. Why then has no one attempted to make use of this in education? The students’ information networks already exists, it’s as much a part of their culture as anything else I observed during my student teaching. It may even be one of the more fascinating aspects of student culture. The fact that the teachers’ culture is so ignorant of the students’ networks marks the need for better participant observation by educators. The lesson for me is clear to best deliver information to students more educators have to learn how to share in their culture.
Around the turn of the twentieth century, a new kind of research was brewing on the shores of Lake Michigan. Several social scientists working at the University of Chicago developed new methods of studying human behavior on both the social and individual level on a more intimate and in depth level than had been attempted before. This form of investigation became known as the “Chicago School” of sociological and anthropological research and focused on applying scientific principles to fieldwork practices. The chief tool of a “Chicago School” researcher was participant observation, wherein the researcher would actively join in with the group she was studying over an extended period of time. Once the researcher integrates herself into the culture she is able to gain better insights into the workings of the group, and is able to gain freer access for discussions, interviews, and data collection. Over the last 70 or so years since the “Chicago School” has become a commonly accepted research practice a stunning amount of information has been gained about different sub-cultures and groups in our society. A terrific example about a grad student at U of Chicago who spends years living with a crack gang in the Chicago housing projects is discussed by Steven Levitt and Scott Dubner in their book Freakonomics. This example demonstrates how a participant observer can bring subtle details of how a group, in this case a fairly successful street gang that traffics crack cocaine, organizes itself, supports itself, and communicates both internally and externally. I personally have taken a great interest in these research practices as I have been completing my student teaching and I have theoretically been a participant observer for the last eight months.
The most obvious question to ask me as I complete my teacher training is what I learned during my observations? Unfortunately the obvious question isn’t necessarily the best question with which to start this conversation. First, you have to consider which group I am meant to be studying. High school buildings are homes to two distinct sub-cultures, one of teenage students and one of the slightly older teachers. Given that the purpose of my time as a student teacher is to teach me what it takes to become a full blown teacher, the answer once again appears clear; I should be observing the “teacher culture” to learn what makes a successful teacher. Yet, that simple answer belies the complexity of the student teacher interaction. My training has continually emphasized that ineffective teachers focus classroom activities on what the teacher likes to do, while effective teachers base their instruction on what best engages and interests the students. So to be an effective teacher I have to learn both how a quality instructor delivers information, and how a quality student processes that information. By understanding the students I can spread good learning habits, and activate the mental processes my students already use.
Thus, as I undertook my student teaching I had to keep one eye on my mentor teacher and which of her practices seemed effective, and my other eye on the students and what educational strengths and needs they exhibited. Over the past school year I feel I have become a sufficiently skilled teacher. I was able to incorporate a number of practices I observed from the teachers with which I work and my mentor teacher and instructors have given me plenty of positive feedback. I would have to say that my observation of the teacher sub-culture had born terrific results.
Until a few weeks ago I thought I had achieved similar results with my observation of the student sub-culture. My students had responded well to the instruction I designed; they were highly engaged and seemed to retain the information well. I was able to relate to the students, since I am still young enough to catch most of their pop culture references. I felt I had a good handle on how to communicate to students and gain their cooperation. Then, last month, I heard about a rumor that passed amongst my students that taught me more about teenagers’ and their culture than I had gained in seven months of observation.
2.
The story begins about a month ago, in early May 2006, in my U.S. history class. My mentor teacher had assigned a major research paper as the last significant assignment of the school year. They were first given the assignment about five weeks before the final paper was due on May 18th. They had to create an outline for their paper and turn that in after two weeks. From there on out though, they had nothing to do but work on their final draft. They were told all of these facts in very clear terms when the paper was first assigned and given assignment sheets for each student so they could have a resource in case they ever needed to remind them of this, and of course they all knew they could talk to either my teacher or me if they had any questions. My mentor teacher and I both felt that the students had been well guided and prepared for this particular lesson. Our confidence about this should emphasize just how little we understood about the students at the time.
On May 4th, three weeks after we had originally assigned the paper, as one of the students paused at the door as she left class. She turned around and asked very sheepishly whether the research paper was due that day. My mentor teacher wasn’t in the room at the time, but I knew the students still had at least two weeks before they needed to turn in the final paper. I looked at the student with a puzzled expression and then explained the situation. She gave me a relieved smile and said that she had spent most of the previous night working on it. I asked her how she had come to believe that the paper was due today. After she gave me the details of the rumor she had been swept in, I realized I was on top of something special, and I asked her to write it down for me. What follows is her account with the students’ names replaced to protect their identities.
Student #1’s experience with the rumor:
While I was at a café after school, I got worried that the paper might be due tomorrow. So, I called Student #2. Student #2 said the paper wasn’t due until May 18th. Then later in the evening I received a call from Student #3 saying that the paper was NOT due tomorrow, and that he was making phone calls to clarify. A little later I went online on an instant messenger and Student #2’s away message said the paper was not due tomorrow. Later on when chatting, Student #4 asked me if it was due tomorrow and I told her it was not. I heard that Student #5 thought it was due and that Student #6 actually wrote her paper.
I was fascinated by this for a couple of reasons. The rumor was actually so convincing that someone wrote the paper two weeks in advance of its due date. I knew the rumor had to be responsible for this flurry of activity, because I had learned from experience that the consequences for turning in work late had never inspired such dedication on their own. Moreover I was struck that at least six different students had heard this rumor and NONE of them had attempted to contact either my mentor teacher or me to clarify the issue.
Having read Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point which discusses how social memes like rumors are spread and where they gain their power, I decided to dig into the story a little deeper. I wanted to gain a better understanding of how this rumor had started and spread. I also was curious to determine what gave it the power to make a student write an entire research paper in one night. Rumors being so ethereal and temporary by nature, I needed to quickly gather more information while it was still fresh and available. I sought several of the students who took part in the above story and had them share their account of how the rumor spread and how they reacted to it. The following examples provided special insight.
Student #4’s account:
That evening I got a call from Student #5. She said the paper was due tomorrow and that Student #1 and Student #7 were already working on the paper. So, I started working on my paper. A while later I called Student #2 to figure out if the paper really was due today or not. Student #2 said it definitely was due, so I kept working on it. When I was almost finished I called Student #3, who told me the paper was NOT due. I decided to still go ahead and finish it since I was almost done anyway.
Student #3’s account:
What happened was Student #5 misread the assignment sheet, and she told a bunch of people that she thought it was due. So Student #2 called me to see if it was due or not and I told her it wasn’t. Then a while later Student #4 called me to ask if I knew whether the paper was due. I told her no. So, I called Student #5 to let her know that it wasn’t due, so she wouldn’t tell other people it was due today. Then I went ahead and started calling lots of people in case any of them thought it was due today.
These three accounts alone provide a robust amount of information that we can use to investigate how rumors and other comparable social memes form and travel. The insights may not seem especially groundbreaking, though that does not limit my interest. This one rumor revealed a level of complexity and autonomy to teenage culture that I had never before thought existed and which I can use to great effect as a teacher.
Let’s begin with how the rumor traveled between the seven or so students who became wrapped up in it. Since each of the student accounts above had their own sequence of events, I’ll lay out a general timeline to clear up the muddle.
First, Student #5 somehow, reportedly through misreading the assignment sheet, came under the impression that the paper was due the next day. She may have contacted multiple students, but the most important person she contacted was Student #2. Notice how Student #2 appears in all the accounts at some point spreading the rumor. It seems that most people who began working on the paper were prompted to do so by Student #2. As the rumor spread, to at least seven students, though I suspect more, it eventually reached Student #3 who seems to have been the first student to encounter the rumor who had enough confidence in his own accurate knowledge to begin countering the rumor. Many students who heard the rumor apparently were only convinced of its falsity after hearing from Student #3. While Student #3 did not seem to convince Students #4 and #6 that they did not need to complete their papers, he still made the effort to contact them and many others.
3.
In The Tipping Point Gladwell describes the kinds of people social epidemics like rumors require to spread and to be made believable. He creates categories for these people like connectors, who can contact a great number of diverse people, mavens, who others rely on to provide important information, and salesmen, who can convince others of an ideas value. In the rumor I have recorded, I believe no one person falls neatly into any of these categories, though several display attributes of some.
Like mavens, Students #5 and #3 were trusted by their classmates to be sources of information. Other students trust them so much that even upon hearing the rumor the others don’t check their own assignment sheets, instead relying on the word of Student #5 or Student #3. It may even be possible that some students don’t worry about keeping track of information and things like assignment sheets, because they know someone like Student #5 who they trust to remember that stuff so they don’t have to.
Student #3 also served a role as a connector along with Student #2. Both these students seemed to be directly responsible for either spreading or dislodging the rumor. The accounts shown above clearly show the lengths to which both Students #3 and #2 will go to share a piece of information they feel is important. Part of the story of this rumor which the accounts don’t reveal, is how dissimilar the students who encountered it were, or at least how dissimilar they seemed to me as the classroom teacher. The students involved had class with me at different times, they were different races, they came from different backgrounds, and they seemed to belong to different social circles. Yet Students #3 and #2 were both capable of connecting most of the people in this loose social network that tied them all together.
Additionally, Student #2 seemed to have the skills of a salesman, she was able to state a case for the rumor so convincingly, that some students actually went forward with the paper. All students had been informed to the contrary previously by my mentor teacher and I. On some level they should have known Student #2 was misinforming them. Yet, Student #2 must have stated the rumor in such a persuasive way as to compel many of the students to take some kind of action. Furthermore Student #3 seemed to lack the skills of a salesman. Though he supplied numerous students with the correct information, he still couldn’t dissuade some of their fears. Clearly a social epidemic requires some convincing power to become contagious or to stick around long enough to make an impact.
4.
All of these skills have been identified by Gladwell and others and crucial components of any information sharing network. Yet prior to the day I heard of this rumor neither I nor any teacher with whom I’ve spoken had thought that high schools students would have developed them so completely. To some degree it seems obvious; we are talking about the children of the information age. They likely have been surrounded by advanced information/communication technology since birth. For them forming complicated and sophisticated networks probably comes as naturally as farm work came to our ancestors. With this in mind imagine, then, what schools could accomplish by including the students more in their plans.
I have witnessed many occasions during staff meetings or other school events when the teachers fretted about how best to get some important piece of news to the students or the parents. The task always seemed challenging because schools are still committed to old fashioned top-to-bottom methods of spreading information. This always requires time and planning to ensure the full population is covered by whatever announcement method is used. Think about how much simpler it could be for schools if they didn’t have to worry about contacting every student, just those that act as information banks for the general population. Consider how much quicker news could be spread when schools feed announcements to those students who can connect a wide variety of students instead of trying to use an endless stream of pamphlets, phone calls, and P.A. decelerations. Any of these tools can be powerful aids for schools, but I have never seen or heard anyone in education attempt these methods.
One important fact underlies all of this: the students formed this information network independently. I cannot emphasize how surprising this was too me enough. I really shouldn’t have been surprised though. I have heard of everyone from marketing firms to government agencies delving into the teenage subculture. Why then has no one attempted to make use of this in education? The students’ information networks already exists, it’s as much a part of their culture as anything else I observed during my student teaching. It may even be one of the more fascinating aspects of student culture. The fact that the teachers’ culture is so ignorant of the students’ networks marks the need for better participant observation by educators. The lesson for me is clear to best deliver information to students more educators have to learn how to share in their culture.
Friday, June 09, 2006
An Evening with Chuck Palahniuk
I have been to several author events in my time, but nothing quite like what I saw the other night when Chuck Palaniuk visited my local university campus. Since I have been ponitifacting for some time about the non-fiction I enjoy, I thought this would make a good way to give my readers some insight into the kind of fiction that I enjoy. When I saw that Chuck Palahniuk would be visiting a campus near me, I was hesitant. Partly it was because I had only begun reading Palahniuk's books because I had enjoyed the film Fight Club so much, and I thought my johnny-come-lately status as a fan would not be welcome. Mostly thought it was because after reading Chuck's work -most of it intense, stomach churning fiction about the darker side of the human experience- I was a little scared about what kind of person Palahniuk might be, let alone the kinds of hard core fans he would attract. Still I decided to buy the latest book, pick up a ticket, and make an evening out of it. It was overall very enjoyable. I will try to relate the evening in short simple sentences. The sentences Chuck uses to such great effect. Let's begin.
To see Chuck I have to go underground. No really. The event was held in a lecture hall hidden in the bunker like corridors of an old college building. Slipping in from the humid evening I follow the signs to Angel Hall Auditorium A. Auditorium A sits across from Auditorium B. Auditorium C is just to the side. The oversized computer lab called the fishbowl is in shouting distance. If I feel like shouting that is.
Friendly bookstore staffers in black t-shirts check my ticket, like it's a rock concert or something. Through the door the number of people already seated is unbelievable. No really. I don't think all the people could have physically squeezed into the space available across from Auditorium B and just to the side of Auditorium C. Unless you use a tessaract. Or a blender. They are buzzing with the happy hum of a cult. Chuck even calls them The Cult. He talks about it on his webpage. Later I will hear one woman brag that this is the third time she's seen Chuck. She must not look at the "about the author" page very often.
While I find my seat Chuck sits in the back. I can't see him. He's surrounded by The Cult. He's signing books I hear. That's nice I think. I don't think about how rabid The Cult looks. I don't think that if this many people have books to sign now then the line after the event is going to suck. I sit back. I read a comic book. I wait.
A bookshop staffer stand at the podium. She would like to tell us something about Chuck. But The Cult already knows everything about Chuck. She will just let Chuck talk. Crap. I really wanted someone to tell me something about Chuck. None of the signs said "for The Cult only".
When Chuck stands up three things surprise me. He is taller than I expected. Authors always seem shorter in the books though. He dresses conservatively and has short hair. Long hair and tight t-shirts aren't minimalist enough anymore. Button-down is the new rebellion. The Cult cheers and applauds like a normal audience. Come on people I thought you were The Cult. Who was in charge of coming up with the mantra this week?
Chuck starts by telling stories. Chuck stories. The kind of stories only Chuck seems to tell. Unless you're stupid, then you think Bret Easton Ellis tells the same kind of stories. But really, you are stupid. Instantly you see how Chuck works. Chuck loves these stories. Stories about the postal worker who inspects a suspicious package only to find picture of her friends naked, screwing, with objects. Chuck listens for these stories. Stories about pregant women in the 1960's who carried a jar a pickles everywhere once they hit the third trimester, so when their water broke they could drop the pickle jar, and no one would notice the smell. Chuck absorbs these stories and preserves them for the right time. Stories about the science teacher who kept the pickled remains of her miscarriage in a jar in her classroom. Chuck nurtures the stories modifies them and shapes them into something of his liking. Stories about the last circus to have a touring company of freaks all in their seventies, leftovers of an era where self-respect and dignity left deformed people starving in the streets. Then he feeds them to The Cult.
Vindicating The Cult's devotion, Chuck hands out presents. One for each of us. Imitation velvet shaped to imitate a rose treated with an imitation scent. No really. He gives out fake flowers that smell like your grandma's bathroom and cheap Chinese forced labor. He wanted to share the smell of roses with us. He also wanted to share the smell of sh*t. But that's hard to do. This is his Roses & Sh*t Tour 2006. I will learn why soon. First he has to feed The Cult some clues about his next book. He hands out big, black, plactic rats. He passes out gelatinous human hearts and gelatinous human eyeballs. Gelatinous human eyeballs warp and wither when you ship them by air. So some eyballs leak. Some burst like water balloons when Chuck tosses them into the crowd. The Cult loves this stuff. I laugh.
Next Chuck reads a short story. Unpublished. They're his words so I will say little. You learn why an epileptic male stripper can become the star of a viral video then later the touring manager for a company of deformed exotic dancers. Chuck always has something new to share.
Chuck answers questions from The Cult next. He goes boy-girl-boy-girl. Chuck shares some secrets. Like how you can claim to be a writer on your W-2's for 7 years before you have to show a profit. Like how people are trying to turn each of his books into movies, but none of them are having success. Like how he thinks Oprah Winfrey would make a good president. Like how he uses pills from his friend with cancer to ply secrets out of strangers. Like how he considers Fight Club a non-reaction to violance, because if you react to somethiong you empower it. Like how he turned a collection of short stories into the novel called Haunted because his publisher told him short story collections don't sell well. Like how he writes because he has fun doing it and he doesn't care what you make of the books.
Finally Chuck signs books. The Cult lines up. I wait an hour and a half to get to Chuck. I don't say much. I just saw dozens of members of The Cult try and show him how fascinating they are. He compliments me for being all dressed up. I say I had a long day and pretty much came from work. I ask him to sign it "For Jonathan's boys" for all my brothers. He signs and stamps it I thank him. I leave to go feel bored elsewhere.
To see Chuck I have to go underground. No really. The event was held in a lecture hall hidden in the bunker like corridors of an old college building. Slipping in from the humid evening I follow the signs to Angel Hall Auditorium A. Auditorium A sits across from Auditorium B. Auditorium C is just to the side. The oversized computer lab called the fishbowl is in shouting distance. If I feel like shouting that is.
Friendly bookstore staffers in black t-shirts check my ticket, like it's a rock concert or something. Through the door the number of people already seated is unbelievable. No really. I don't think all the people could have physically squeezed into the space available across from Auditorium B and just to the side of Auditorium C. Unless you use a tessaract. Or a blender. They are buzzing with the happy hum of a cult. Chuck even calls them The Cult. He talks about it on his webpage. Later I will hear one woman brag that this is the third time she's seen Chuck. She must not look at the "about the author" page very often.
While I find my seat Chuck sits in the back. I can't see him. He's surrounded by The Cult. He's signing books I hear. That's nice I think. I don't think about how rabid The Cult looks. I don't think that if this many people have books to sign now then the line after the event is going to suck. I sit back. I read a comic book. I wait.
A bookshop staffer stand at the podium. She would like to tell us something about Chuck. But The Cult already knows everything about Chuck. She will just let Chuck talk. Crap. I really wanted someone to tell me something about Chuck. None of the signs said "for The Cult only".
When Chuck stands up three things surprise me. He is taller than I expected. Authors always seem shorter in the books though. He dresses conservatively and has short hair. Long hair and tight t-shirts aren't minimalist enough anymore. Button-down is the new rebellion. The Cult cheers and applauds like a normal audience. Come on people I thought you were The Cult. Who was in charge of coming up with the mantra this week?
Chuck starts by telling stories. Chuck stories. The kind of stories only Chuck seems to tell. Unless you're stupid, then you think Bret Easton Ellis tells the same kind of stories. But really, you are stupid. Instantly you see how Chuck works. Chuck loves these stories. Stories about the postal worker who inspects a suspicious package only to find picture of her friends naked, screwing, with objects. Chuck listens for these stories. Stories about pregant women in the 1960's who carried a jar a pickles everywhere once they hit the third trimester, so when their water broke they could drop the pickle jar, and no one would notice the smell. Chuck absorbs these stories and preserves them for the right time. Stories about the science teacher who kept the pickled remains of her miscarriage in a jar in her classroom. Chuck nurtures the stories modifies them and shapes them into something of his liking. Stories about the last circus to have a touring company of freaks all in their seventies, leftovers of an era where self-respect and dignity left deformed people starving in the streets. Then he feeds them to The Cult.
Vindicating The Cult's devotion, Chuck hands out presents. One for each of us. Imitation velvet shaped to imitate a rose treated with an imitation scent. No really. He gives out fake flowers that smell like your grandma's bathroom and cheap Chinese forced labor. He wanted to share the smell of roses with us. He also wanted to share the smell of sh*t. But that's hard to do. This is his Roses & Sh*t Tour 2006. I will learn why soon. First he has to feed The Cult some clues about his next book. He hands out big, black, plactic rats. He passes out gelatinous human hearts and gelatinous human eyeballs. Gelatinous human eyeballs warp and wither when you ship them by air. So some eyballs leak. Some burst like water balloons when Chuck tosses them into the crowd. The Cult loves this stuff. I laugh.
Next Chuck reads a short story. Unpublished. They're his words so I will say little. You learn why an epileptic male stripper can become the star of a viral video then later the touring manager for a company of deformed exotic dancers. Chuck always has something new to share.
Chuck answers questions from The Cult next. He goes boy-girl-boy-girl. Chuck shares some secrets. Like how you can claim to be a writer on your W-2's for 7 years before you have to show a profit. Like how people are trying to turn each of his books into movies, but none of them are having success. Like how he thinks Oprah Winfrey would make a good president. Like how he uses pills from his friend with cancer to ply secrets out of strangers. Like how he considers Fight Club a non-reaction to violance, because if you react to somethiong you empower it. Like how he turned a collection of short stories into the novel called Haunted because his publisher told him short story collections don't sell well. Like how he writes because he has fun doing it and he doesn't care what you make of the books.
Finally Chuck signs books. The Cult lines up. I wait an hour and a half to get to Chuck. I don't say much. I just saw dozens of members of The Cult try and show him how fascinating they are. He compliments me for being all dressed up. I say I had a long day and pretty much came from work. I ask him to sign it "For Jonathan's boys" for all my brothers. He signs and stamps it I thank him. I leave to go feel bored elsewhere.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Comic Shop Musings 4/16/2006
*WARNING!* This entry largely plays off of an earlier post, if you haven’t read my essay on Barry Bonds, Spider-Man, and public perception yet. Check it out here. I hope you enjoy it.
Anyone who’s a fan of good blogging should love this post, because with this entry my newly repurposed blog gets a little more interesting. In my last column I had gone on and on about the comparisons between Barry Bonds and Spider-Man, trying to be as detailed as possible without letting my word count reach critical mass. Due to the constraints of editing I had to leave out some ideas. I realize some people might be interested in taking a little deeper look at some of the issues I raise in my columns. For them I will offer these follow up posts, while the general audience can read my columns in their entirety separately without having to suffer over exposure to the geek volcano that is my mind.
First, I’ll tackle the simpler suggestion I present which was how to get Spider-Man’s public image within his comic book world mirror Barry Bonds public image within the comic book world. The comic creators could accomplish this very simply with one issue of the comic book. Some reporters for The Daily Bugle publish a book filled with what appears to be some very damning evidence that Spider-Man gained his powers through an illegal procedure and was only fighting a crime for self-serving purposes, and then boom watch as Spider-Man becomes the most hated public figure in the Marvel Universe. This should sound familiar, and the fact that it has been empirically shown to work in the real world, lends all the more credence to my belief that it would work wonderfully in the comic book world.
Next, we have the much bigger issue which was how to keep the character of Spider-Man vital while not making him look like some stuffy, old married man. This seems to be the sticking point for Marvel Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada, that Spider-Man being married has robbed past, present, and future comic creators working on Spidey of certain potential stories while adding no new are to develop. I personally disagree vehemently with this. Speaking as someone who is no longer a teenager (much like Peter Parker, Spider-Man’s secret identity), and on the brink of marriage, I believe that marriage adds a myriad of interesting angles to the character. Since I will always fear that Quesada will go crazy one day and have Mary Jane retroactively written out of existence until he has satisfactory evidence that Peter being married is a good thing, I will take it upon myself to demonstrate that married Spidey has lost no stories of value and gained a great deal of potential material.
As far as I can tell, though there’s really only one story that a single Spidey has that a married Spidey doesn’t, and it’s a fairly pedestrian story too. Step 1) Peter works his away into a fairly stable and healthy relationship with one of his love interests. Step 2) Peter encounters another love interest who tempts Petey to stray Step 3) Peter tries to stay true to his current relationship but complications from the other love interests lead to the relationship falling apart Step 4) Peter then loses the other love interest for some contrived reason Step 5) Peter realizes he truly wants to be with one of his assorted love interests and sets off to build something good with her Step 6) Repeat Steps 1 through 5. I acknowledge that there is no way you could tell that story now that Spider-Man is married because no one wants to read a superhero comic that stars an adulterer. The problem is that is back in the day this story line was used ad infinitum, to the point that I believe many writers became over reliant on it. Now without that crutch, some feel that something substantial is missing from Spider-Man’s world. After all, Spider-Man was conceived as a single character and he’s been cut off from a story that was used to define him.
For comparison’s sake, I would like to point out that Captain America was originally created with exactly one story in mind Step 1) Cap fights Nazis Step 2) Repeat Step 1. So far as I can tell no one is complaining that Captain America has been robbed of some important stories. I would further ponder whether recently Quesada believes he is limiting the stories of characters like Black Panther, Storm, Luke Cage and Jessica Jones, all of which have been married off under Quesada’s watch as editor-in-chief.
I would argue that, much like Al Pacino and Barry Bonds (see previous column for explanation of this theory), the only change here is one of perception. Just as many stories are possible with a married Spider-Man, the creators merely have to look past their perceptions to see them. My advice would be to identify those traits which you consider essential parts of Spider-Man’s character and build a marital conflict around that, just as you would any other storyline.
Some people (Quesada) are going to want to see some examples of how this works. Fine. I’ve got plenty of them. Say you consider Spider-Man’s relative youth and inexperience one of his key characteristics an essential part of his character. Use that by putting Spider-Man into a situation where it becomes apparent that he rushed into the marriage that he didn’t give himself enough time to settle his relationship with Mary Jane before marrying her, showing signs such as a poor understanding of Mary Jane’s deeper nature. You could focus on Spider-Man’s equation of power to responsibility and flip it on its head. Since Spider-Man has a great deal of responsibility to protect Mary Jane, he might try to claim a great deal of power over her life, especially if he believes it’s necessary for her safety. Use Peter’s staunch morality. He always does the right thing as Spider-Man and refuses to compromise his ethics. Peter may then have problems in a marriage where compromise is so critical. Spidey has to be secretive in his superhero life that could be bad in a marriage. If Spidey always feels guilty about every little mistake he makes, Mary Jane may become a constant source of crises for him. Lastly, Spider-Man has usually needed multiple tries to defeat his villains, when he makes a mistake in his marriage he will probably thin he’ll get a second chance to fix it. Of course as any married person can tell you, second chances aren’t always possible and the stakes can be higher than any battle with a costumed villain.
These are but a few of the many ways you could use Spider-Man’s marriage to make him a fuller and richer character without losing momentum to the dreaded possibility that he might be perceived as “old” (by which you apparently mean no longer a teenager). If enough of them seem worthy to you. I may even have the effrontery to recommend these ideas to those in a position to do something with them. For right now though I must keep reminding my self that I am just an angry guy with a blog.
On that note I will now show you that I can be a happy guy with blog, but throwing out some quick recommendations.
- I mentioned Marvel’s “Civil War” event which just recently began in the comics. It has impressed me so far, so much so that I am already growing ill at the thought of all the money I will spend to follow the event. I recommend any one who’s interested in the possible political ramifications of superheroes to give it a try. You are probably best served by reading the central title Civil War alone. I am also intrigued by a few of the tie-in titles Marvel will be publishing along side it, but since I am yet to read them I cannot officially recommend them yet.
- If we have any fans of old pulp-style sci-fi/fantasy action/adventure, then I highly recommend Aquaman: Sword of Atlantis. It plays like a combination of the old John Carter of Mars stories and classic Conan. In fact since writer Kurt Busiek went from scripting Conan to this, Aquaman has replaced Conan on my shopping list.
- Calling all Kyle Rayner fans. For anyone who thought he got the short end of the central power battery during his reign as Green Lantern, here’s your chance to put dollars behind your opinion. Now instead of simply boycotting the current Green Lantern monthly which has fallen back to using the outdated and obsolete Hal
- Lastly for those of you interested in big superhero stories being unapologetically larger than life, I heartily recommend All-Star Superman written by Grant Morrison with art by Frank Quitely. Some have compared the story to the old Silver Age stories of the 1950’s, ‘60’s, and ‘70’s because it features a more powerful Superman, more archetypal characters, and grander storylines than DC comics can afford to try in a regular continuity monthly comic book. In reality it belongs in a whole other era, one where Grant Morrison sees the surreal with more clarity than some of us see the real. The rest of comics aren’t in whatever crazy Hyper Age Grant Morrison has been writing for yet, but until they get there you can preview the possibilities in All-Star Superman.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Hero or Villain? What Barry Bonds and Spider-Man teach us about public perception
0.
Before I get started I would like to thank all of you who responded to my earlier call for blogging advice. I got a lot of interesting ideas about what sort of things I could put on the blog and what sort of things people would be interested to see. I have come to the conclusion that what I lacked on this blog was much of a theme or focus. I can talk about sports a little, education some, and comics and movies a lot (not so much about music, though maybe I will one day use this blog to purge myself of all of my demons concerning music and its place in pop culture). However none of that means anything of value to you the readers and to any potential audience I hope to attract. I think a suggestion from one helpful reader summarized things nicely.
I read your ideas, and... I sought a pattern that could tie all of your notions together -- something narrower than "pop culture" and broader than "imperfect punctuation." So here's what I think: (most) all good internet sites take advantage of the intimate nature of the internet to deal directly with viewers . . . it's all about narrowcasting.
I took this as part of my inspiration. My various rants and reviews may find a home in some people’s lives, but they lack direction and purpose. What will be my lasting impact on my audience if I don’t give you information and insight that you can use to construct or add to your world perspective? (What’s this silliness, everyone knows blogs don’t have a lasting impact) Since blogs tend to be non-fiction writing by nature, I figured I should model myself around some of my favorite non-fiction writers and filmmakers (just recently I have been studying works by Malcolm Gladwell, Steven Levitt, Bill Simmons, Morgan Spurlock, and Errol Morris just as an example). What these authors have that I lack is a definitive style or area of interest. I believe that I can provide a (somewhat) serious service, by taking the fun and enthusiasm creators like Simmons, Spurlock, and Morris bring to their topics with the academic and intellectual inquisitiveness Gladwell and Levitt bring to their topics and apply all of this to the wonky and geeky interest I pursue. In a society increasingly focused on leisure and comfort we find more and more of our lives dictated and described by popular culture, just as our ancestors lives were dominated by pursuits like religion or not starving. The utility of a regular internet column that helps us see the weird and wonderful ways various pop culture elements of our lives collide and cohabitate in our lives.
1.
With all of that out of the way, let’s get into the first of what I aim to make many columns about cultural convergences and the insights they can provide us. I will try to frame as many of these as possible in terms of a central question. The topic for this post is right up top in the title, but to save you the strain of having to scroll back up there I will reiterate and clarify it here. What can the similar discussion currently surrounding Barry Bonds (the major league baseball player in pursuit of the all time homerun record) and Spider-Man (the comic book superhero who’s always the center of raucous fanboy discussion) tell us about public perception of celebrities?
Let’s start with Barry Bonds, since he’s the focus of the more prominent controversy right now. (I was going to say that Bonds is better known, but I’m not so sure about that Spider-Man does have two blockbuster movies under his belt as well as a number of TV series in addition to the comics, while Bonds has always been more infamous then celebrated, played in two “not quite major” markets of Pittsburgh and San Francisco, and played most of his career while baseball was in a serious popularity trough.)
For any who don’t know the story already it’s pretty simple: Bonds has been a major league baseball player for the last 20+ years, up to this point he has accumulated 713 homeruns in his career, the only players to ever accumulate more home runs are the immortal Babe Ruth and the record holder Hank Aaron, unlike those other two player Bonds has come under suspicion of having used various performance enhancing substances which are against the spirit though apparently not the letter of baseball’s rules for fair play. This has been the cause of much umbrage amongst fans of sports in general and baseball in particular. More to the point the question of Bonds guilt and the consequences of such hypothetical guilt have been amazingly divisive amongst the general public. Many claim that Bonds should be stripped of all his records and awards because he violated the ethics of the game. Others argue that Bonds committed no crime -their reasoning for this varies from a belief that Bonds never used any of the alleged substances to the fact that the alleged acts were not explicitly banned at the time and therefore cannot be punished ex post facto.
At this point I would like to mention that in most discussions on this topic one typically has to take a position on Bond’s guilt or innocence, with most operating under an assumption of guilt. I will not be taking any such position. Partly because it has been the stated position of this blog that I am not interested in drawing anyone’s ire with my personal opinions. Mostly though, I don’t see it as relevant to my interest in the topic. I am fascinated by the story because of the dualities involved.
The first and most obvious duality is the reactions Bonds inspires. To some he has become a villain of near mythical levels. His contempt for the game and the fans is only matched by his sheer arrogance. They see every word and act he performs in public as a cleverly constructed veil. He only ever feigns humility, kindness, sportsmanship, camaraderie, and humanity; he has never actually felt any of these emotions. On the other side his supporters contend that what he is one of the game’s greatest players who is being robbed of his place in history by those who are jealous of his accomplishments or are persecuting him because of his race. It’s an amazingly polarizing discussion, if for no other reason than that Bonds himself often tilts to extremes.
Let’s consider the dual nature of Barry Bonds for a moment. He is allegedly a great manipulator of public opinion. His main goal in achieving greatness in baseball –at whatever cost you personally believe he’s paying to do this- is his own self-aggrandizement, securing his place among baseball’s immortals so everyone will be forced to honor and respect him. Yet every interaction I have ever seen between the media and Bonds has seemed uncomfortable or antagonistic. There is no great public love of Bonds outside of his own home ballpark (where attendance numbers are reportedly dwindling). This is no new phenomenon by the way. When I first became aware of Bonds as a neophyte sports fan, he was in the midst of breaking the single season homerun record. Even then, before steroid rumors had begun to flourish, you could tell the divisive effect he had on audiences. Every ballpark he visited seemed split between those who were angered that such an unlikable character was about to gain one of sports’ most heralded records, and those who were outraged that opposing pitchers were refusing to pitch to him for petty reasons.
This is the essence of Barry Bonds in the public mind. For some he offends their every baseball sensibility for others he represents every great man who has ever been persecuted or unappreciated in his own time. Consider that some find the very thought of Bonds surpassing Babe Ruth on the all-time home runs list as an insult to the history of the game. Yet Bonds himself is tied more than any other modern player to that very history. He is the son of a former All-Star and the godson of Willie Mays one of the greatest every. He has cemented himself in baseball’s history books one way or another but he has never had the endorsement deals and star treatment of some of his contemporaries. For some this would be a laudable act, eschewing celebrity to focus on his game. For others it is just more proof of his disdain for his fans and the public. Through and through Barry Bonds is defined by dualisms.
2.
Well, those last few paragraphs were certainly pompous enough, but how on Earth does any of that relate to Our Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man? I first saw a connection between Bonds and Spider-Man when I was thinking about a major event going on in Marvel comics. The story is called Civil War –you can find a NPR news item on it here- and its basic purpose is to restore the adversarial relationship Marvel Comics’ superheroes like the X-Men, Daredevil, Hulk, and Spider-Man with the general population of their fictitious world. The model for this love/hate dynamic between citizens and heroes is Spider-Man. In the comic book world, Spider-Man is frequently suspected of being behind various crimes, is seen as creepy and weird by many, and has his own fictional newspaper The Daily Bugle which constantly harasses him with headlines like “Spider-Man: Threat or Menace?”. I have long thought this recurring theme was a way for one of Spider-Man’s co-creators, the writer Stan Lee, to capitalize on what his editor told him when Lee first proposed the character, “Everyone hates spiders.”
In recent years though, this concept seems to have cooled. While Spider-Man is rarely portrayed as a beloved public figure (notable exceptions include the film Spider-Man 2, but we can ignore that as it seem apparent that the filmmakers were determined to make another terrible Batman movie, and they weren’t about to let the fact that their hero was wearing a Spider-Man costume get in the way), often writers rarely touch on the public’s fear and distrust of Spider-Man, except for the occasional one panel cameo of a guy calling his a jerk for doing something blatantly heroic. I thought “Marvel doesn’t need a giant event to make the public resent superheroes again” –and they definitely don’t that’s just a gimmick to boost sales, but I’m buying them so it must be working- “they just need to write Spider-Man like Barry Bonds.”
It works perfectly when you think abut it. For the comic book world public, Spider-Man is mysterious and there are many unanswered questions about how he got his powers and why he uses them to fight crime. Spider-Man has made plenty of enemies in the press. He’s seen as tarnishing the image of great superheroes like Captain
3.
Another similarity between Barry Bonds and Spider-Man jumped out to me when I considered their similar public perceptions. Except in this case it isn’t about how the public in the comic books views Spider-Man. It’s about how Spider-Man is perceived by all of his loyal readers out here in reality. Once again it revolves around a duality but this time it is an internal component of the life stories of the two figures.
This comparison springs from the writings of ESPN.com Page 2’s Sports Guy a.k.a. Bill Simmons. Simmons, almost as much a pundit on popular culture as he is on sports, once proposed the Two Pacinos Theory to describe when a person’s life is divided into two halves so sharply that they almost seem like two different human beings, for example how the Al Pacino who starred in The Godfather seems like some other person than the Al Pacino from Scent of a Woman. Barry Bonds also serves as a great example since the skinny, speedy, rangy mustachioed Bonds of the Pittsburgh Pirates seems like a totally different player than massive, muscled, super slugger bonds of the San Francisco Giants.
It’s important to note that as far as I can tell Simmons’s theory hinges not on a person actually undergoing a dramatic change (like young, cute, black boy Michael Jackson and old, freakish, white woman Michael Jackson) but on the perception of a dramatic change. After all as Bill James and many other knowledgeable baseball historians will tell you, it is common for baseball players to display the kinds of skills Bonds displayed at a young age early in their careers, and the skill set Bonds now uses later in their careers. Yes, Bonds does seem to have gotten a lot bigger overtime, but so did Rodger Clemens. The key difference between Bonds and Clemens as far as I can tell is that Bonds has a perception of wrong doing hovering over his head. Bonds didn’t suddenly become a great hitter over the last six or seven years, he always was. Our collective awareness of his hitting shot through the roof though and that brought greater attention and in turn greater scrutiny. I rarely hear any one suggest that “speed” Bonds used performance enhancers, even though we know Olympic level track athletes have used them in speed based competitions, and without turning into over-inflated muscle bound balloon heads. Yet so many seem to work under an assumption that “power” Bonds owes his recent accomplishments to performance enhancing drugs. I can find no true intrinsic difference between these two versions of Bonds other than the public perception. Skinny equals naturally fit in the public’s mind, and bulky equals steroids.
Spider-Man crossed a similar point in his history almost twenty years ago, in 1987, when he married long time love interest Mary Jane Watson. This became a very controversial moment in Spidey’s life. Some say that having an older more mature Peter Parker marry better suits the character. It makes him seem more grounded and realistic. Others seem to believe that Peter is at heart an eternal teenager, someone who should appear perpetually young. They don’t seem to mind if that harms whatever thin shreds of verisimilitude a comic book superhero has managed to cling on to.
Peter Parker’s girl troubles and his vacillating relationships to his various love interests used to provide a great deal of material for the comic books. Now that he’s married what was once a major theme now seems inaccessible. The fact that Marvel Comics current editor in chief Joe Quesada has made it public knowledge that he utterly abhors the concept of Spider-Man being married, has only served to further the controversy –to see a nice summary of Quesada’s position check out the article here. Once again we have Spider-Man caught in a duality and tension is created because the public cannot agree whether Peter is a single person or a married person. However I would contend that once again this is not based on any actual change but rather the perception of change.
Consider this simple test, imagine surveying a dozen people on any random street. If you were to ask them to list five words or phrases that they would use to describe Spider-Man, do you really believe the words single or married come up ever? Spider-Man’s core character is independent of marital status. The essential characteristics I would use to describe Spider-Man/Peter Parker are young, guilt-ridden, inexperienced, funny, and responsible. Do any of those change because Spidey’s married? No, he can be tragic and endearing even with a permanent love interest. Quesada is found of pointing out that keeping Peter Parker single allows for a number of stories while having Peter married only prevents certain kinds of stories. Given that Spider-Man has successfully carried multiple monthly comic books in the many years since the marriage and has been generally well received, I would argue that there all substantial evidence shows than an abundance of stories exist and continues to grow, despite perceptions to the contrary.
4.
These comparisons are all well and good as a sort of intellectual exercise. However I set out in this column to use them to describe something powerful and meaningful about public perception. I think we have established a few things so far. First that Barry Bonds demonstrates that a figure’s public perception operates nearly independent of their actual nature. I recommend that those creators working on Spider-Man make more use of this fact. Second, the Two Pacinos Theory demonstrates that perception can create the appearance of evidence for a given theory even if none really exists. I demonstrated how this has shaped ongoing debates surrounding both Bonds and Spidey. Now I wish to investigate why anyone is even discussing these figures at all. For there to be a public perception formed, there must be some motivation for the public to perceive it.
Maintaining the structure I’ve already established I’ll discuss Bonds first. What has Barry Bonds done lately to merit so much attention? In truth, not that much. Yes, he stands on the break of making history, but since he hit his 713th career homerun, he’s had precious little to offer. In something like twenty-three straight plate appearances since he became one off of Babe Ruth’s career mark, Bonds has had only one hit. Still ESPN and other major sports networks insist on keeping their audience frequently updated to each and every Barry Bonds at bat. Now I realize he only needs one to tie the most famous baseball player of all time, but the coverage he’s received has been completely out of proportion from his activities. When explaining why so many news stories seem to be about sad or upsetting subjects, Walter Cronkite reportedly said “we are not in the business of reporting all the cats that didn’t get stuck in trees.” Yet somehow the sports media has actually fallen into the business of reporting all of the homeruns Barry Bonds didn’t hit. The reason for the blanket of coverage is simple: controversy. The heads in charge of programming at all the major sports TV and radio stations know very well that Bonds is a controversial figure without peer. They also know that few things boost the ratings of news based programming quite like controversy. So, they exploit the public perception of Bonds to further their interests.
Marvel Comics may very well be doing the same thing with Spider-Man. Joe Quesada readily admits that there is nothing to be done about Peter’s marriage to Mary Jane. He feels that divorce, death, or any other means of separation will only serve to further damage the character’s everyman status. For many (myself included) the very fact that he mentions the topic carries a certain degree of implied threat. Yet, it seems quite likely that the sole reason he chose to address the topic publicly was to stir up controversy, and perhaps to sell a few more copies of the Spider-Man comic books.
This pattern can be seen again and again in popular culture. A controversial public perception does not damage the visibility or marketability of a figure, rather it increases it. It should be noted that controversy is different than a consensus negative reaction. O.J. Simpson got the most press coverage of his life while he stood trial for a grisly double murder, because the nation was divided about this and the controversy fueled the coverage. When he was acquitted of criminal charges the controversy continued and the coverage kept on going. Then when he was held legally responsible for the death in a separate civil suit of wrongful death and his search for the real killers appeared to be non-existent the cameras went away. A more recent example is Kobe Bryant, who after facing rape allegations was judged by the public to be guilty of adultery and wrongdoing if not of an actual crime. It has taken Bryant, by all accounts one of the most talent basketball stars out there, nearly two years regain any degree of respectability. Conversely, actor Tom Cruise, who had received little media attention since his falling out with ex-wife Nicole Kidman became one of the most covered faces in
If a figure is defined by dualism controversy will easily follow, a fact which we have seen many exploit. Here we tend to approach a deep down question that I hoped to answer with this column. If the intensity of debate and the degree of public focus on Bonds and Spider-Man and so many others are defined by controversy, how does controversy attract such a large audience?
Controversy appeals to us like so many other aspects of the entertainment industry. We consume dramatic works –such as Harlequin romance novel, TV series like 24 and Desperate Housewives-to find a release for our unused emotional energies. We follow mysteries -be the real ones like ongoing investigations into missing teens in
Take a moment and try to remember the last time you faced an actual ethical crisis in your life. Try to recall the last time when you truly had to search your soul for the right thing to do given the situation you faced. When was it? I would expect for most of you it has been a long while. We may face emotional crisis once every so often, and intellectual crisis, but when was the last time we really had our morality challenged. Most of our lives are lived in some degree of routine. Once we establish from our basic guiding principles our moral parameters for that routine (i.e. not speeding to work, sneaking the extra sugar packets from the break room, ignoring the paper jam until someone else fixes it), we tend to have few big questions left to answer. I imagine most Americans could count the number of true ethical challenges they will face in their life on one hand. Yet we spend so much of our childhood learning right from wrong. We invest such a great deal of personal worth into our moral decisions along, that I feel we also tend to develop a great store of moral energy seeking release when we don’t use our moral muscles. This is why public controversies intrigue us. We need an opportunity to indirectly confront moments of great ethical conflict. If we were in a situation where we could advance our careers by acting in a manner that was dishonest though not explicitly illegal would we do it? If we were in a marriage that seemed to be stifling our lives could we end it? These are hard questions, some of the hardest in our culture. If given the choice most of us would prefer to go through our lives without ever being forced to make a decision like the one’s mentioned above. However if they are not are choices, but those of Barry Bonds or Spider-Man, and we didn’t have to make them, merely judge them, then perhaps we could engage with them as a sort of moral exercise. I believe this is we spend time reading the Page 6’s of the world. It’s for reasons very comparable to why we do our morning crossword or sodoku. This is what Barry Bonds and Spider-Man can teach us about public perception. Public perception tends to focus on figures not based on the nature of the figure, but based on the needs of the public. I believe this is why The X-Files achieved such great ratings, despite being a science-fiction serial of only moderate quality, because it allowed us to deal with our fears of the coming millennium. I believe this is why the New York Yankees our so often vilified yet so often discussed, because they allow us to express our resentment of our society’s wealthy elite. Popular culture is of course art on some deep down level, holding up a mirror to reflect the nature of our lives. No one looks at a mirror to see a plate of special reflective glass. We look in a mirror to see ourselves.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Like a Captain without his Compass
This blog was originally founded with a few clear goals 1). to serve as a sounding board for all of the various zany ideas I get in my head, 2). to allow those who know me personally another channel through which they could stay current on my activities (since I can often frustrate friends and loved ones with my lack of communication), and 3). to stand out from other blogs by avoiding all of the standard blog cliches. This blog was not going to become an online diary -I could never feel comfortable letting details of my personal life out into the open air of the Internet, no matter how obscure my little corner of it may be. This blog would not become mired in my personal opinions about politics and current events -aside from the knowledge that that's a sure way to alienate readers, I also knew I could do more practical things if I wanted to influence politics. Most importantly this blog was not going to be filled with short, insipid posts that meant nothing to anyone but the person writing the post. Seriously do these bloggers expect anyone to read a post that goes something like
"So i went and saw Thank you for Smoking Today . . . it was the most funny thing i ever saw . . . Katie holms is teh hottest woman EVAR . . . um, yea, that's all for now"
What the heck is that? This post raises more questions than it could ever answer. Why was Thank You for Smoking funny? Is it really funnier than every other experience this person has ever had, or is that just hyperbole? Does the writer not know there is such a word as "funniest"? Why would anyone EVER type "um"? This stuff makes me sick to my stomach.
I write all of this to introduce the topic of what I consider quality blogging vs. what the overwhelming majority of blogs actually consist of. I became concerned about this, because while I view this blog as my own online column, I recently realized how hard it is to maintain a consistent level of quality and post regularly. I had been going through some choppy waters in my life (ugh, a nautical reference I thought I eschewed those in my first post). I started to type up a whiney little post about how tough it is to blog, and apologize for not doing it more, and spew out my misery onto you. Then I remembered that's what every other blogger in the world would do. I respect my readers (both of you Hi Chris! Hi Stukey!) and I want you to gain something valuable from this. I should not be venting into the Internet abyss, that's what I have friends and loved one's for. Also I realize it's a long shot, but someday I would like to have a larger audience.
With all that in mind I am using this post for two things. First I wanted to make an explicit declaration of purpose for this blog (muddled though it may be) and let my readers have some standard against which to judge me. So much like Charles Foster Kane I submit my preceding rant about blogs as my statement on what I want this blog to be and to do. Second, I wanted to give those who do read this blog an opportunity to comment on what I should do next. It occurred to me that with all of the demands in my life I had somehow managed to force three straight basketball related pieces down your throat with no break. I want to show a little more range and so I thought I would give you the chance to opine. Feel free to suggest whatever topic you would like to see me write about, you can either post a message in the comment section, or for those of you with my contact info you can drop me a line directly. I'll go ahead and come up with a short list of some things I could do in case you aren't creative enough to come up with suggestions on your own and would rather just vote on whatever options I give you.
I could . . .
"So i went and saw Thank you for Smoking Today . . . it was the most funny thing i ever saw . . . Katie holms is teh hottest woman EVAR . . . um, yea, that's all for now"
What the heck is that? This post raises more questions than it could ever answer. Why was Thank You for Smoking funny? Is it really funnier than every other experience this person has ever had, or is that just hyperbole? Does the writer not know there is such a word as "funniest"? Why would anyone EVER type "um"? This stuff makes me sick to my stomach.
I write all of this to introduce the topic of what I consider quality blogging vs. what the overwhelming majority of blogs actually consist of. I became concerned about this, because while I view this blog as my own online column, I recently realized how hard it is to maintain a consistent level of quality and post regularly. I had been going through some choppy waters in my life (ugh, a nautical reference I thought I eschewed those in my first post). I started to type up a whiney little post about how tough it is to blog, and apologize for not doing it more, and spew out my misery onto you. Then I remembered that's what every other blogger in the world would do. I respect my readers (both of you Hi Chris! Hi Stukey!) and I want you to gain something valuable from this. I should not be venting into the Internet abyss, that's what I have friends and loved one's for. Also I realize it's a long shot, but someday I would like to have a larger audience.
With all that in mind I am using this post for two things. First I wanted to make an explicit declaration of purpose for this blog (muddled though it may be) and let my readers have some standard against which to judge me. So much like Charles Foster Kane I submit my preceding rant about blogs as my statement on what I want this blog to be and to do. Second, I wanted to give those who do read this blog an opportunity to comment on what I should do next. It occurred to me that with all of the demands in my life I had somehow managed to force three straight basketball related pieces down your throat with no break. I want to show a little more range and so I thought I would give you the chance to opine. Feel free to suggest whatever topic you would like to see me write about, you can either post a message in the comment section, or for those of you with my contact info you can drop me a line directly. I'll go ahead and come up with a short list of some things I could do in case you aren't creative enough to come up with suggestions on your own and would rather just vote on whatever options I give you.
I could . . .
- write more about comic books, taking less of a fanboy perspective and trying to offer a more analytical, cultural perspective
- review movies, noting that while I love the artform dearly I have not been able to get to the cinema as much as I would like, partly do the aforementioned choppy waters, but mostly do to a general lack of foldin' money
- create some astoundingly haughty and cynical rants about pop-culture, trust me I have more than a few of these inside me
- take real questions from whatever audience I have and hold a real mail bag
- offer up my thoughts and insights into education and teaching now that I have more classroom experience
- provide samples of my own creative writing, you would have to accept that most of my ideas rarely leave the conceptual "rough sketch" phase and may only get to see a few completed or semi-completed works
Saturday, April 22, 2006
2006 NBA Playoff Prediction Silliness
I have come to view spring as a something of a bittersweet time in my years on earth. I don’t get as excited about the weather as others do, because I prefer blustery winters to sweltering summers. I look forward to the upcoming drum corps season, and the freedom and adventure of summer vacations. However since my time as a student and now as a school teacher, I tend to view the end of the school year in spring as more of a transition time than the arbitrary date in winter we’ve selected to represent when the calendar turns-over. I prefer crisp autumn evenings to sunny spring mornings, and I have never looked at a blooming flower and been filled by any sort of life affirming feelings. I do however become aware of just how far away we are from the next college football season, and how sick I will be of baseball by late June. (This tends to result in me giving up on sports talk radio sometime shortly after Independence Day, and reverting back to a steady stream of audio books to keep my ears happy for the rest of the summer. That last sentence alone could be the launch of so many other thoughts and possible future columns, from how finicky I can be about what makes a really good audio book, to how I despise Boston Red Sox fans more than any other group of fans in the world, to why I still don’t listen to music recreationally. I just felt I should get those all down so I might remember to actually write about them sometime. Anyways . . .) One of the highlights of this time of the year is certainly the NBA playoffs, an athletic contest of incredible skill and grace that always delivers in terms of glorious performances, moments, and storylines. Now if only ABC could get better music for their promos than Tom Petty, we may be able to turn the NBA Playoffs into a real nationwide event on par with the Super Bowl and March Madness. It should be even bigger, because unlike those fluke-prone single elimination post-seasons, you are guaranteed a constantly improved quality of play in each successive round, a full and accurate test of the two opponents’ ability, and a champion that has truly proven themselves worthy.
I know I have done some silly things in the past when I attempted to predict sporting events in the past. I even considered running a simulation of the playoffs on Sega Genesis’s NBA Jam ’95. I realized that I’m trying to be a grown up, and I don’t have that kind of time. Plus, I’ve always been well behind my generation when it comes to video game skill, so I wouldn’t be able to accurately reflect the level of play that really occurs in the NBA Playoffs. Instead I’ve decided to play this one straight-up. It seems only just. I’ve treated the NBA seriously so far on this blog; it seems unfair to suddenly give them silly treatment. I know my audience is limited and those readers of mine that care one iota about pro-basketball are even fewer. So while I insist on keeping the stiff upper-lip I will also keep these predictions brief. I will zip through the whole post-season here, and maybe I’ll be able to put together a bracket you can download and view separately.
FIRST ROUND
Eastern Conference
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Western Conference
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
SECOND ROUND
Eastern Conference
(1)
(2)
Western Conference
(1)
(2)
CONFERENCE FINALS
Eastern Conference
(1)
Western Conference
(2)
FINALS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)