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.

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 Jordan, you can follow Kyle in his own miniseries Ion. It’s written by Kyle’s guardian angel Ron Marz and will be coming out for twelve short months, before they toss Kyle back into obscurity to appease all those hyperactive, hypercritical Hal Jordan fans. (Boycotting seems like an odd strategy to me how does a producer know how many people refuse to buy an item, all they know are how many units they sold and how many units they didn’t sell, they don’t know who was going to by an item, but then decided to make some sort of point. Anyways …)
• 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.

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 America. The Fantastic Four revealed their secret identities to the public. Spider-Man has worked hard to hide his true identity of Peter Parker. He’s never had the open and friendly relationship with the press, leading many to suspect he has something to hide. It really all fits. The only difference is that most coverage you hear about Barry Bonds come from the perspective of a Bonds detractor, while most of Spider-Man’s coverage comes from the perspective of a Spider-Man defender. The two figures should have an equally polarizing effect on people. People should argue as often about whether Spider-Man should just kill the Green Goblin (as suggested in the recent and excellent The New Avengers: Illuminati special) as they much as they argue about whether Major League Baseball should celebrate Barry Bonds passing Babe Ruth.

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 713^th 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 Hollywood after beginning a controversial relationship with the much younger Katie Holmes. The power of controversy is undeniable. Though many may have a negative opinion of a figure, the possibility that the figure is actually a likeable person gives the media the cover to keep pushing her and it gives the public the moral deniability to keep buying her.

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 Aruba, or fictional ones like those posed in the novel and film The Da Vinci Code- to release our unused intellectual. We consume controversies –be they about real or imagined figures- to release our unused moral energies.

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.

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 . . .

• 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

These and other things can be yours, I humbly await your input, my cherished audience.

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) Detroit Pistons vs. (8) Milwaukee Bucks- This series is going to be ugly, not in a bad basketball way, just in a brutally lop-sided competition sort of way. I understand why the NBA chose to save some of this series for their NBA TV Channel, because no one wants to see a squad that gave up more points than it scored in the regular season get squashed by one of the most dominant teams we’ve seen in almost a decade. The Call: Pistons in 4.

(2) Miami Heat vs. (7) Chicago Bulls- As much as we may all love those underdog stories where the scrappy team wins over the talented power house, it doesn’t seem likely to happen here. Have you seen Dwyane Wade play lately? He’s unstoppable. Plus, a motivated Shaq can still destroy 90% of all NBA team single-handedly. The Call: Heat in 4.

(3) New Jersey Nets vs. (6) Indiana Pacers- I think this is a series that will go to six games, but only because it could go to seven games. What I mean by that is if this was one of the old style five-game opening round series, I could totally see the Pacers upsetting the Nets. Since it requires four wins to take the series instead of three, though I imagine the Nets will outlast the Pacers, and grind out a win. See the Pacers are good enough and passionate enough that they could split the first four games easily, but since they won’t have that added incentive of ending the series in the fifth game, they’ll lose their energy and the Nets will hold out to win. The Call: Nets in 6.

(4) Cleveland Cavaliers vs. (5) Washington Wizards- The super-heroics of LeBron James will be put to the test against the equally impressive Gilbert Arenas and the more experienced Wizards. I think the foibles of the various other Cavs ( Larry Hughes’ and Dwight Gooden’s consistent shooting woes, Zydrunas Ilgauskus’ inability to guard other big men) will cost the Cavs some games, but the team as a whole comes together often enough to win the series. The Call: Cavaliers in 6.

Western Conference

(1) San Antonio Spurs vs. (8) Sacramento Kings- This series could go one of two ways, either the Spurs come out motivated and sweep the Kings by an embarrassing margin, or the Kings play crafty and feisty and draw the series out to a full seven games. Then the Kings will inevitably lose the ultimate game due to the latest on-court craziness by Ron Artest. Some things are just destined to happen. I know which version I would prefer to watch, but I think the other is much more likely. The Call: Spurs in 4.

(2) Phoenix Suns vs. (7) Los Angeles Lakers- Kobe Bryant proved just how incredible he is the season. This has a lot of experts looking for the upset in this match-up. I don’t buy it, even if Kobe could win as many as three games in a playoff series by himself then his teammates still have to win at least one. I don’t see that happening. The Lakers only beat the Suns once during the regular season, I see about the same thing happening in the post-season. The Call: Suns in 5.

(3) Denver Nuggets vs. (6) Los Angeles Clippers- Two very motivated figures will decide this series, Carmelo Anthony and Sam Cassel. ‘Melo has to prove he’s on the level of LeBron and Wade. Cassel has to clear his name after the collapse of the 2003-04 Timberwolves. Sam I Am may not be the talent ‘Melo is, but he has more playoff experience, and that counts for much more. The Call: Clippers in 6.

(4) Dallas Mavericks vs. (5) Memphis Grizzlies- I understand that the Grizzlies haven’t won a single playoff game in their entire franchise history. That’s tough because the Mavs, have the “we should be the three seed” chip on their shoulder. Dirk Nowitski is going to demolish Pau Gasol, and the match-up at every other position favors Dallas, if only slightly. Oh, what the heck I’ll say they win one, probably at home probably when the Mavs try to cruise through Game 4. The Call: Mavericks in 5.

SECOND ROUND

Eastern Conference

(1) Detroit Pistons vs. (4) Cleveland Cavaliers- All the flaws that Cavs were able to cover for in the first round will be totally exposed by the methodical and deliberate play of the Pistons. I expect that LBJ will put on at least one game for the ages, and win one, maybe two, games, but this is a team game, and as fantastic an individual as James is, Detroit is the ultimate team. The Call: Pistons in 5.

(2) Miami Heat vs. (3) New Jersey Nets- This same match-up happened last year in the first round and the Heat swept. This year however, Richard Jefferson is healthy, Jason Kidd is back to his court-general play-making self, and Vince Carter will be coming off a playoff series win and swaggering like he’s the second-coming of James Worthy. The Heat’s bad team chemistry will catch-up to them, as a team with three players shows them how to play real basketball. The Call: Nets in 7.

Western Conference

(1) San Antonio Spurs vs. (4) Dallas Mavericks- If the Spurs are rolling and playing like champions, then this prediction could look very silly. However, I posit, that everything we’ve seen out of the Spurs this season, from Tim Duncan’s foot to the endless close-ups of Eva Longoria in the audience, has been a build up to their inevitable collapse against a more passionate and more focused team. I think the Mavs will be that team. The Call: Mavericks in 6.

(2) Phoenix Suns vs. (6) Los Angeles Clippers- What’s interesting about this match-up is that the Clippers are the team that looks better on paper. They have more size, better defense, and the sheer athletic strength to score at will. Phoenix has been at the same disadvantage the whole season, but they just play a different style of basketball. They use speed to counter size, spacing to counter defense, and leverage to counter strength. This series will look much the same as many of their regular season games. They use an opening blitz of scoring, a period of study and strategy, and then a closing stretch of doing just enough to stay in front and win the game, or in this case series. The Call: Suns in 5.

CONFERENCE FINALS

Eastern Conference

(1) Detroit Pistons vs. (3) New Jersey Nets- This renewal of a postseason rivalry will likely to be fierce and exciting. The Nets match-up well against the Pistons at three positions, but the Pistons still have the edge at 4 positions. The math is pretty simple. The Call: Pistons in 6.

Western Conference

(2) Phoenix Suns vs. (4) Dallas Mavericks- I have insisted for some time that the Mavericks are the last team the Suns want to face in the playoffs, because they can keep up with them in open court and beat them in half court. Dirk’s as good as Steve Nash at seeing the flow of the game, and you can bet Avery Johnson will have a brilliant strategy all planned out. Sorry Phoenix like most sun sets, its just a mater of time before this happens. The Call: Dallas in 7.

FINALS

Detroit Pistons vs. Dallas Mavericks- A lot of people lost faith in the Pistons' dominance toward the end of the season. They worried about injuries. They said they lost their psychological edge. They pointed to a few teams that could beat them in a playoff series. Fortunately for the Pistons the Mavericks aren’t quite the team to top them. The fans in Dallas will be super-hyped to see a Finals series come to Dallas, but that won’t be enough to push the Mavs, who play with machine-like efficiency, over the Pistons, who play like a force of nature. Only a massive injury to one of the Pistons starters could sidetrack this championship. The Call: Pistons in 6.

NBA Team “Solar” Ratings 4/17/2006

The last time I wrote anything about the NBA it was to point out that the fine people at ESPN.com seemed to have struck on the idea of analyzing pro-basketball through analogies to astronomy very much comparable to what I use in this column. Realizing that only a deluded paranoid person would accuse a multi-national media conglomerate of stealing ideas from a virtually unread blog, I decided to leave the whole issue alone and focus on other things. Then I heard Dan Patrick of the famed and brilliantly titled “The Dan Patrick Show” discuss using a “My mascot can beat up your mascot” strategy to predict his NCAA men’s tournament bracket, shortly after I released my “Mascot Death Match Brackets of Doom”. I thought the coincidence was just too much and I actually did talk to a lawyer about the matter. Neither of us treated it seriously and we both acknowledged that one would have to be crazy to truly believe the most powerful sports media corporation in the world would stoop to lifting ideas from my blog. His advice was, “Don’t mess with the Mouse”. He was right of course, first of all it is both silly and insane to suggest that anyone at ESPN would ever notice this blog, let alone imitate it. Second if it came to a court case, I think the population of Disney’s legal department is probably greater than the population of Belgium, and I just can’t fight that. Finally, there are pretty good odds that somewhere in the long history of cartoons that the Disney company either created, purchased, or traded Al Michaels soul for, there is some character called “The Captain of History” and they would take me to the cleaners over MY infringement on their copyrights and trademarks on said character and his derivative characters (I’m pretty sure I saw Gob Bluth fall victim to a similar plight, when he created Mr. Banana Grabber and the whole Banana Grabber family of characters then gave away the cartoon rights to Michael. Anyways . . .). Now that the postseason is almost upon us, and we know all the teams who are going to be making the post-season (all that’s left to decide is seeding), it seems appropriate for me to revisit the power ranking fray. WARNING! In order to avoid anymore “coincidental” similarities between my work and the work of the dedicated staff at ESPN, I have decided to make my last power rankings of the year be a completely different take on the solar ratings, as I have previously expressed them. Imagine these as the NBA Solar Ratings from Bizarro World (or Earth-0 for all you Pre-Crisis sticks in the mud who insist no good ideas have been made since 1969, so we need to kill off great characters like Wally West, Conner Kent, and Kyle Rayner, just because you can’t stand to see anything in the pages of DC comics except what you bought off the newsstand rack when you were eight years old. Sheesh! Anyways . . .)

I know, I am abandoning my usual analogies for this edition of the Solar Ratings and that’s a little confusing, but you’ll just have to bear with me here. When I thought about how to do my astronomy based ratings in a way that would be unique, silly, immune from imitation and somewhat sensible, I realized there was a way to see every good team as being in a bad situation and every bad team as being in a good situation. In effect I could reverse the entire order of my basketball solar system as I had previously presented it. Then I remembered that the major reason I had arranged my ratings the way I had was not strictly to sort the teams by quality, but also by their importance to the association and the comparable situations they share. This led me to think about not spinning the team’s situation but just recasting the categories. Accordingly, I have redefined the top categories so that they now fit the worst teams. Each category now has a brief explanation of its new definition, and I will use my comments to explain why all the teams that you know stink are actually the most fascinating, most important, most exciting, teams in professional basketball.

I. Sun- for the team whose recent history most resembles a giant ball of flame, consuming everything it touches, and which has no hope of being put out in the foreseeable future.

New York Knicks- I truly believe that with the regular season as good as done and the long-term view of basketball no in effect that the New York Knickerbockers are the biggest story in basketball. The mechanics and explanation of their current situation are old news, a team of has-beens and not-yets who are all overpaid, a coach that sours on players very quickly and hops teams almost as quickly, a very fickle fan base still convinced Clyde Frazier, Willis Reed, and Bill Bradley were the best thing to hit hardwood since canvas shoes, and a general manager whose poor choices defy all earthly description. However in the very near future they are going to become the story in the NBA. It will start simply enough when the rumors of Larry Brown taking an early retirement will start to swirl. The airwaves will be filled with chatter on this topic because the major national media will prefer having this “controversial” topic to discuss than spending a week and a half discussing the dull opening round playoff series. Also, thanks to the fact that New York has more cameras and microphones for the purpose of “news” per capita than any other place in the known universe, we’ll get a steady barrage of video clips and sound bites of the endless parade of ad hoc press conferences held by Brown, the Knicks’ front office, the individual players, and whoever else decides to get involved. Then just when we should be getting excited about the second round of the playoffs when the good teams play each other and the real action heats up, Isaiah Thomas, with his incredible sense of inopportune timing, will finally shoot off to the New York Post or Larry King about how he’s really feeling, and he’ll either a) make a emotionally charged and ill advised comment that embarrasses himself and the Knicks organization as a whole, or b) issue any overly stern and completely ridiculous ultimatum that, once it’s out there, will tie the Knicks to a disastrous strategy that will only continue the downward spiral. Of course knowing what we do about Isaiah, he may even do both at once. Heck, he may throw in a smear against the city of New York, just to score the PR disaster hat trick. This will send the pundits into a tizzy, they will completely forget to cover the second round of the playoffs as speculation soars about the fates of both Larry Brown and Isaiah Thomas in New York. Then all four sides (Brown, Thomas, the Knicks ownership, and the players) will take the fight to the press. Accusations, threats, ultimatums, and insults will blanket the sports world. Now that all of the “sexy” big market franchises are out of the playoffs, no one will much mind that the coverage of the conference finals is pushed back to page 3. (If you don’t think the talking heads and sports columnists who get the page 1 column with their color photograph above the fold will be all over this, compare the amount of time the national media spent discussing the Knicks and the amount of time they spent discussing the Portland Trailblazers during the regular season. Then consider the fact that these teams are pretty similar, good coach moving from a good situation for more money, poorly constructed roster, chronically inept front offices, and severe discipline issues. The only difference is that one is in New York, the center of all existence as far as the national news media is concerned, and the other is in small market city, whose second biggest draw is the University of Oregon Ducks.) Commissioner Stern may be able to hush the talk long enough for everyone to comment on how little buzz the Finals have, but as soon as the trophies are handed out, all the talk will return to New York. Now, you may disagree with the particulars of the timeline I’ve laid out, but seriously which of the events that I just described would you bet money on not happening. The really scary thing is I don’t know how this will end. Will the Knicks fire both Brown and Thomas, deciding to spend a decade starting over like the Bulls post-Jordan? Will David Stern be forced to intervene, perhaps forcing Brown into retirement or needing to give the Knicks amnesty after the horrors of the Isaiah Thomas ere, much like the NBA had to do for the Cleveland Cavaliers following Ted Stepien’s reign of terror? Will the other owners decide to exile the Knicks forcing them to become some kind of barnstorming pro-basketball club like the Harlem Globetrotters, because loosing the fan support of New York is better for the NBA than having a marquee franchise continue to be a source of embarrassment? There is really no limit to how bad this could get, and I don’t mean in five years, I mean before the summer league tips off. That’s why for the foreseeable future the most important team in the NBA is your New York Knicks.

II. Jupiter- for those teams whose mass of and constant storm of bad budget decisions are only surpassed by their apparent lifelessness

Atlanta Hawks- Going back on comments I made earlier this season about the apparent value of Joe Johnson, I will admit he is an above average player and will be a valuable asset to the team in the long run. Right now however, you still have a team that can beat any team on any night -and did in fact beat both the Spurs and the Pistons this season- yet they still have an awful record. The trade to land Johnson forced one of the Hawks owners to sale his share, because apparently he couldn’t stand to be part of an organization that would competently acquire talented players. Since then it has become clear to me that the real problem is all the other Hawks owners. Someone needs to buy up this team and start setting this ship right. Atlanta is on the brink of becoming an internationally renowned city. Think about it we’ve got New York in the east, Los Angeles in the west, and Chicago in the north. The south needs their megalopolis of tomorrow. Can you imagine the buzz at games when Ludacris and Outkast show up courtside? Imagine their cache with the youth demographic after they get hyped on [adult swim]. With some new management Atlanta could become a booming basketball mecca. The only trouble is someone has to get rid of all the old ownership first.

Toronto Raptors- I know I have had more than my fair share of unkind things to say about Toronto in the past, but I am here to let you know change is right around the corner. How could the notoriously befuddled Raptors become relevant to the NBA, especially when, at last check, they were still stranded in the cultural hinterlands of Canada? I have two words for all you doubters: Bryan Colangelo. He worked wonders in Phoenix. The Suns went from recovering from their ill-advised dalliance with Stephon Marbury to becoming the “it” team in the NBA in less than a year. If Colangelo can reclaim a team from Starbury, there may be no limits to his powers. When he gathers the power of every basketball fan in Canada around him, he could soon work wonders. You know the NBA will be secretly pulling for the Raptor, since Commissioner Stern’s grand plan of a global basketball league requires a team not from the United States to win the championship sometime in the near future. The Raptors are coming back hard, very soon. I might even say they are the heirs apparent to replacing the Knicks as the most important team in the association.

Golden State Warriors- I think they are going to sky rocket into a major news item as soon of one of two things happens. Either Barry Bonds finally passes Hank Aaron’s all-time home run record then retires, making his story infinitely less pressing and relevant, or Barry Bonds will be indicted for some crime or another he’ll leave baseball in shame and the baseball commissioner and hall of fame can promptly ban him, making his story far less pressing and relevant. I say this because, I believe Golden State had as good a chance as any team out west of making the playoffs. They had a decent roster, a fair bit of buzz, and enough plausible scenarios to land in the post-season that the fans, ownership and players, should have been making a serious push to make this happen. Instead, hardly anyone said a word about it, because every reporter within fifty miles of San Francisco was dedicated 24/7 to determining whether or not Barry Bonds took steroids. If Golden State can retain its core players and maybe getting a remotely qualified coach, then we could see a whole new power in the west. But this can only happen once the world lets go of the Barry Bonds story and the bay area has a chance to catch its collective breath.

III. Earth- for those teams that have managed to pollute what was once a wonderful and habitable world with their short-sighted nonsense

Boston Celtics- I have know idea what happened in Boston between the Larry Bird era and today to make the Celtics lose so much ground. I wasn’t paying attention at the time. Whatever it was it was enough for one of the longest running success stories in sports into a minor tragedy, and allowed the Lakers to pass them for the rights to be the “greatest franchise over the history of the NBA”. All of that is about to change. Whenever I watched the Celtics play this season I was amazed by the work ethic and the quality of play Paul Pierce was putting out. I know many others have said it, but it was like he was playing one game and all of his teammates where playing another. In fact, sometimes I became so focused on Pierce, I lost track of the rest of the game, and started to believe the he was leading the Celtics to victory. So anytime I checked the score and realized the C’s were down by twelve it came as a bit of a shock. Given the slide the Sixers, Wizards, and to a lesser degree the Pacers took at the end of the season I think Boston could have made the playoffs in the east, if the management had pulled off that massive bamboozling trade with Minnesota where essentially the two teams switched rosters except for their stars. It was like the GM’s of the two teams had some kind of weird fantasy argument to settle. In any case this trade all but killed the team’s chemistry and momentum for the season. After that the C’s were pretty much locked into the lottery. If Boston gets a lucky draw, or makes a smart move in the draft they could get a great post-up player to clear the boards and feed Paul for the fast break. Then all they need is one legit shooting threat and they have all the help Pierce needs to make the playoffs for years to come. Right now the Celtics are green with potential, and if they can get the Boston faithful back into the winning spirit, it could be a whole new era for the NBA.

Portland Trailblazers- If you have to love the fact that the Blazers finished a full half season behind the Spurs in the Western Conference, they finished so poorly they could have played 41 extra games, won them all, and still would have finished two games behind the Pistons. I bump them up to be lively team, partly because there is no other way to describe them. More so, I use the term because of the highly combustible chemistry of that whole organization. They could go through everything I described the Knicks going through, just in a different time zone, or they could magically congeal and become an overnight success, rolling through next season with a revitalized spring in their step and an oddly suspicious bloodshot twinkle in their eye.

Orlando Magic- I said earlier this season, that once they put Stevie Crisis behind them they would be reborn as the hot young team to watch out for. I expect them to start living up to that expectation any day now. You have to realize that even with their underdeveloped youth movement their poor trade moves and their appallingly high level of drama they underwent this season they where still between 3 and 5 wins of being in the end of season race to the playoffs. They have Dwight Howard turning into a real beast, the always underappreciated Hedo Turkoglu, and at least one Duke player (ostensibly) in Grant Hill. I call all of those keys to putting together a successful team. Most importantly though they have the ultimate secret weapon, the full power of which we may not yet fully appreciate, a fully armed and operational Darko. I don’t think anyone can dismiss the argument that Darko will dedicate himself to winning more rings than Bill Russell and rubbing the faces of every snide Detroit Pistons fan that doubted him in his coming career of greatness. We have no idea what Darko may end up being capable of, so I think the rest of the association had best beware.

Seattle Supersonics- They may have overpaid for the Ray Allen, and they may need a new coach. In fact the Sonics look to be in bad shape on paper, but they did last season too, and they wound up having a huge season last year. I still believe in the Sonics because more than any other NBA team they believe in statistical analysis. They even employ basketball’s top stat peddler Dean Oliver. I look at their situation as comparable to the Red Sox after 2003, they looked like they had hit the abyss, but with the advice of the god-father of stats Bill James, they came back to break the curse and spread joy through out New England. Never doubt the power of a properly motivated nerd to save a sports team’s season. I call it the Absent Minded Professor Effect.

Philadelphia 76ers- I just realized how much my word count had exploded above a normal NBA Solar Rating Column so I will try and keep my comments brief when it comes to some of these teams. I don’t know if any of you have considered Philly as anything but Allen Iverson’s sinking ship. Look at it this way, the 76ers could probably force Webber to retire or at least move him to someone else’s payroll. They are bound to trade AI sooner or later. With those two moves they have a fresh start and a whole lot of attention. I don’t quite know what they’ll do with that, but it should be interesting.

IV. Saturn- for those teams who are most notable for the lifeless wastes that constantly orbit them

Minnesota Timberwolves- For anyone living in the Twin Cities area this summer, I would avoid contact with KG at all costs. Kevin Garnett is likely to find out one of two things this summer either that he is no longer considered to be the same level of player as Tim Duncan (as the Spurs win another championship in another year he failed to make he playoffs), or that he has been traded to some team with no hope of winning a title. In either case he is about to become the player to watch for the next several months. And if some piddling little civilian tries to get in his face, he may not care about the consequences by that point. No matter what the story coming out of ‘Sota winds up being, expect the Wolves to capitalize on it.

Utah Jazz- I really doubt that they can turn the basketball club into a true contender by next year, but they won’t have to. In case you haven’t heard of the famous offer Andrei Kirilenko’s wife made him, you should take a moment and look it up. As soon as AK actually takes her up on that –Vegas odds makers put the over/under at the third night of the Cannes film festival- then the Jazz are going to be buried in tabloid press stories. Toss in some halo effect from Big Love and we are pretty close to an all out media circus. That will be quite a day for the sleepy town of Salt Lake.

Milwaukee Bucks- I think the worst team in the playoffs definitely have the most to gain. If they win one series, they are media darlings. If they win two series, they are Cinderella’s of the NBA. If they win three series then they are everyone’s heartwarming story and the sexy pick to win it all next year. If they manage by some miracle to win four series, then they are one of the greatest NBA stories ever to unfold, and they will forever have a place in basketball fans hearts.

V. Venus- for the teams with cloudy futures but hot prospects

Chicago Bulls- Did the Bulls really make the playoffs two years in a row? I must be dreaming. The city of Chicago has a lot to be happy for, and I think having one of the rising basketball powers in the eastern conference should definitely be up there. Be careful though, these Baby Bulls could fall apart at any moment. Last time I checked Kirk Hinrich is still their best player, Ben Gordon was still adjusting to being a starter, and they relied on Eddie Curry for more than just his heart. Plenty to be happy about, but I wouldn’t try to support too much hope on them.

Washington Wizards- If the Washington Wizards give someone (like the inexperienced Cavaliers) a tough series in the opening round they will be redeemed for their apparent slide at the end of this season. Pretty soon no one will talk about how they underperformed. Instead, the talk will be about how they have become an established eastern power. Let’s see if the Wiz can hold up to those expectations.

Houston Rockets- If you weren’t prepared to see me rank a team with a lousy record to some of this year’s playoff teams then you didn’t understand the point of this column. We saw great performances from both Yao Ming and Tracy McGrady this year (I’ll wait for a second while you go fetch you Basketball Prospectus ’04-’05 and look them up, so you’ll remember why you care). I say the short memories of all the pundits lead them to proclaim next year to be the Rockets time to shine, as they completely forget all of the injury tendencies both T-Mac and Yao revealed.

Charlotte Bobcats- The following may make no sense, but you have to realize that I am writing it from the great state of North Carolina. The long and great traditions of basketball in the Carolinas have gone largely unobserved by the pro-organizations. Yet as I look around the state it becomes pretty clear to me that this region is on the cusp of exploding with basketball passion, if the front office could just get the mood right. They already have a healthy core that works well together and represents a nice blend of youth and veterans. They are in prime position to land any big name free agent. Their popularity is bound to explode once they land the last few pieces of talent onto their roster. The amazing thing is some other dumb team might be willing to give them a KG or an AI, just to be rid of them. Moving to North Carolina will revitalize any players who had become dispirited. The passion from the crowd will lead Charlotte to supplant Detroit as the home of the association's most rabid fan. The power of Charlotte is that it is nothing by pure untapped potential. For the Bobcats they have a clean slate, and they fully intend to take full advantage of it. Their roster isn’t bad. Their finances look good. And very shortly they will have the freedom to become any kind of team they choose to be. All of this is a good sign of just how big the ‘Cats will be once they get going. Of course they have to get going first, a problem that Charlotte is yet to overcome.

VI. Mars- for those teams who fill our thoughts with fascination and wonder

New Orleans Hornets-So long as the Hornets have Chris Paul on their roster they are going to get some attention and have a little sway in the NBA. I just hope they can do all those little things, like build a complete team, find a permanent home court, and get financially healthy so that they can become a legitimate contender.

Sacramento Kings- I have to admit my surprise that the Kings found their way back to the playoffs. I still have my doubts, but I will be sure to watch their opening round series with interest. If you don’t think Ron Artest is going to do something memorable, for good or ill, this post-season, then you are as crazy as him.

Indiana Pacers- The Pacers are a fascinating team for all the wrong reasons. I want to see how they finish up the season just see what else can go wrong for them. Is another key member of their team going to be injured? Will another star player demand a trade? Could the coach, Rick Carlisle, do something to inspire a player revolt? Will the forces of fate cause all fourteen members of the Indiana playoff roster to be banned from basketball for life before Game 7 of their playoff series against the Pistons? How bad can it get? Tune in, and we’ll all get to see together.

VII. Mercury- for the hottest teams around

Cleveland Cavaliers- Now that LeBron James has made the playoffs, he’ll get his first taste of what the lousy side of a seven game series is like. I want to warn all you Cleveland fans; it’s going to hurt. You just have to accept that that’s the stage of the growing cycle your team is currently at. Like the other team in this category they make for entertaining drama and disappointing results.

Los Angeles Lakers- The Lakers have to accept a few of things. First, they are only the second best team in their own city. Second, they are probably going to get embarrassed in the playoffs, when Kobe decides to shoot 80 straight three-pointers and their opponent makes them look bad. Third, no one on this team has any job security, not Kobe, not Smush Parker, not Phil, nobody. If any one of the massive egos attached to this team gets hurt feelings this off-season the whole team might go into a meltdown, and then everything is up for grabs. They may do some damage in the playoffs but really the Lakers are a shadow of their former selves. The Lakers are like that star quarterback from the high school football team that you see hanging around all the same teen hangouts five years after graduation. Yeah, they have a little of that old swagger and charm, but you wish they’d just move on.

VIII. Neptune- aw shoot, I don’t know, for those teams who most remind us of mighty Neptune god of the sea

Los Angeles Clippers- The teams in this category could all be sleepers for the title. Of all of them, the Clippers have a great chance to advance far into the playoffs. They could land the opening round against the weaker Denver Nuggets, and have home court advantage. Then they’d draw the winner of the 2-7 matchup, either of whom would not likely have the complete game the Clips bring. All this is by way of saying that they are set up to be a big disappointment, because we all know the Clips aren't really winning the title, and all their fans are getting set up for a big let down.

Denver Nuggets- Keep in mind that this is the first time the Nuggets have won their division in like thirty years, so they have plenty to be proud of. Still they look ripe for an upset in the first round. The thing about a sleeper is they need to wake up at the right moment, and the Nuggets have had dreamy eyes for the last five months now.

Memphis Grizzlies- If you go to the trouble of looking it up, you’ll see the Grizz have a pretty impressive record. Still almost no one really cares about them, and they are just too bland to be much of a factor in the playoffs.

New Jersey Nets- They have had a very impressive run down the stretch, but streaky teams are risky bets in the playoffs when one bad streak can kill you. That and their fortunes pretty much hang on the health of three players, one of which has dubious crutch time credentials as is. The Nets best days are in their past, and they are a long way away from being able to reclaim them.

IX. Uranus- for the teams that have a unique style we all love, and maybe a name that makes us giggle

Phoenix Suns- The team is exciting and fun in the regular season, but absolutely wrong for the post season. I wouldn’t be surprised if they bought it in the first round. They can’t defend against a strong half-court team, and they lack the size and durability to stand up to more physical teams. Like all of the teams in this category, you can consider the Suns an outside contender for a spot in the Finals. All that means is high expectations without much chance of living up to them. Look for an early exit for a team of over-hyped show boaters.

Miami Heat- All of the big personalities are just dying to get another chance at the championship. The collective pressure all of these over-sized egos are bringing to the team will be too much for poor old Pat Riley to handle. You can see them building up to it with their sloppy finish and poor composure down the stretch. It won’t be long before the team implodes humiliating itself on the national stage.

Dallas Mavericks- I wanted to give the Mavs a chance to win it all, but then I just heard Mavs owner, Mark Cuban, talk about how little support Dirk Nowitski gets from his teammates. In all fairness he was trying to talk up his star to make Dirk’s case for MVP, however it got me thinking. I don’t know what that says to you, but to me that suggests a one-trick pony that overachieved this season and is going to collapse in the playoffs. Their efforts to become a half-court team that’s defensive oriented have been effective, yet we can clearly see that it hasn’t been effective against those teams they have to beat in the playoffs. So it looks like Cuban's speech backfired I would have considered the Mavericks another team with a fair to even chance of playing in the finals, now I’ve downgraded them to contender status.

X. Pluto- to those teams who have become untouchable because they’re just too cool

San Antonio Spurs- One thing has been bothering me about the Spurs since early on this season. They came in with the clear shot at the championship. They were completely loaded in terms of talent. The core was experienced, the roles were defined. They were coming off of their second championship in three years. Yet there was something in the air that made them seem like less than presumptive favorites. We were told that despite their apparent superiority they likely would not rack up historic win totals. We were advised that their workman like attitude was making them weary. We heard whispers that many team members would rather have some time off than another ring. All of this led to a performance, which while dominant, still seemed a little disappointing. Everyone who has seen the Spurs win a game can tell you that they look like they should never lose, yet they still managed to lose nearly a fourth of their games, many of them in ways and to teams that make you scratch your head. All in all this entire regular season seems to have been a long prelude into their eventual excuse for not winning the championship in June. That’s no attitude for an early favorite to have, especially not one from a middle tier media market, which plays dull basketball, and has a hard time attracting media attention as it is. If the Spurs win the title no one should be surprised, but the fact that they don’t seem to mind if someone else wins forces them way down on this list.

Detroit Pistons- The team with the NBA’s best record, the Detroit Pistons, is at the bottom of this list for one simple reason. They can’t come out of these playoffs looking good. Two years ago their rise to the top was straight out of a storybook, complete with happy ending. Then someone forgot to write happily ever after, and they spent last year overcoming all kinds of problems to get within a few points of back-to-back championship seasons. It was still an admirable season and no one thought less of them for not quite being able to overcome all their obstacles and win the golden ball. This season though is a different story. They’ve looked dominant throughout the regular season. They clinched home court advantage for the entire post-season. They have hands down the best starting five in the NBA. If they do anything other than win the championship, it will be a huge disappointment and it may cause rioting in the streets of Detroit. If anyone in Michigan doubts this, drive south to Indiana and ask the Colt fans how it feels to have the league’s best record and not have a ring to show for it.

Check back in shortly once all the teams are seeded when I will seriously look at the playoffs and turn my amazing mental powers to predicting our next NBA champion.