Triple Digits!

So, I got kind of tied up in some of the recent blogs. Tied up enough, that is, that I did not even notice reaching a major milestone:

My 100^th blog!

That is an accomplishment of sorts, at least, and it seems that I should acknowledge it in some way. Since this is a blog, what better, more appropriate way, than to actually do so in a blog entry?

It has been a strange way to get there, admittedly. I approached it tentatively, let it lapse, had only a few entries months and months into it, perhaps even the first year, and then just allowed it to blossom and explode with growth after about the first year. Now, it has become a regular part of my writing each day (with a few exceptions here and there, of course), and has afforded me the opportunity to establish the discipline of a daily routine that I have stuck to, for the most part.

Writing is not always easy. When you think about it, in fact, it sounds incredibly, impossibly difficult, in fact. You are creating something out of nothing. Very few things can compare to that. People make things with their hands, things are manufactured. Perhaps some natural resources are dug up from the earth's bowels and then polished and fine tuned, processed and perfected for use. People make other things that do not come naturally. Our lives and homes and garages and workplaces are filled with them. The computer that you are reading his on, and the computer that I am writing this on. The internal wires that carry and communicate this message, quite magically, even. The electricity that it takes is not exactly made by human beings, but the power plants that utilize it certainly are, and we have developed the ability to create energy in new and startlingly efficient ways. I am writing this, and mostly, my writing has come from prior writings, from books and magazines, which are also made, physically (although increasingly, they too are available through that magical kingdom known as the internet, where all of the world's material comforts are available, almost quite literally, at your fingertips. So much that is made or produced. Cars, our homes themselves, the furniture and other household items that fill them. The clothes we wear, the beds we sleep in. The kitchen aids that help us make or refine the foods that we consume. Our wallets, and the money in them (always assuming that there is money in them, of course).

Yes, all of that stuff is made. You can see them, feel them, smell them, even taste them, if you are so inclined. All of these things have been created and, what is more, will continue to be created. They might change, like money nowadays. The American currency looks much different than it did when I was a child, much more colorful. In much of Europe, they now share a common currency, another major shift from the days of my childhood.

Writing is an art, and art can change, too. Art can change because the people making art change. A sculptor might have different pieces that bare little to no resemblance to one another, and perhaps it is hard for anyone to believe that they came from the same sculptor. Ditto for a painter. Ditto for a writer.

The thing about creating something like that is that it really is like a miracle. I mean, you actually are producing something that did not exist before, and would not exist if not for you actually creating it. When it is something in the arts, and hopefully something that you can feel proud of, there really is no higher feeling than that. I have felt it, but not nearly as much as I would like to have felt it. Hopefully, I will feel it more often in the future.

This blog has helped in that facet, though. It has allowed me an outlet where I feel comfortable writing and sharing my thoughts in a forum that can, and has, be viewed by others. I am not exactly a great salesman, and am particularly nervous when it comes to sharing my thoughts. Never assumed that most people would agree with my line of thinking, based on past experience, and I am guessing that I never will. Still, it is nice to write something that may be read by others. Nice to see the beginnings of a body of work in one place.

My own blog, and it is starting to have a bit of history. It is starting to be relatively extensive. One hundred entries, and the vast majority of theme are considerably lengthy, not merely a sentence or short paragraph about things. I have tried to approach it with care, and to really get absorbed in whatever it is that I am writing about. It has been varied, of course, because these are a reflection of my eclectic tastes. I can write about politics or religion, but am comfortable writing about lighter things, like sports or movie reviews, as well. Perhaps an exhibit, or simply some other thoughts.

All the while, I am trying to maintain some writings separate from this blog, of course (that would be the fiction, as well as some other things), it nonetheless feels nice to be able to open something with my name and my writing style attached to it, and see words written by 9who else?), yours truly.  Sure, it's not a book, like I have long dreamed of. It is not even an outside publication, like when I wrote for the school newspaper, or the local paper, the "Neighbor News", many years ago. I am not even really seeing my name attached to it in any direct sense – although I have been meaning to actually add a  biography and "About the Author" section, or whatever it is called on this blog site.

All I am saying is that it is nice to have at least something of an outlet for my particular creativity, which would be writing. To anyone reading this – always assuming someone actually is – I hope you have been enjoying it, and hope also that there will be plenty more for you to enjoy! 

America's "Image is Everything" Problem

Yesterday, I meant to start talking about America's image problem, and meant merely to introduce it with the origins of this saying by briefly mentioning Agassi's use of it in the early nineties, and then essentially giving a very short history of why it seemed that he was dismissed as being only image, and nothing deeper. Instead, I wound up talking at length about Agassi, going on for pages and pages, and decided instead to dedicate the entirety of my writing to him, since I had, surprisingly, quite a lot to say about him.

However, it was meant to focus more on this country and what has been going on just lately, because America's image has been taking a hit, left and right, and if Americans simply stopped and took a more serious, less superficial look at how they are truly perceived around the world, I think it might shock them.

I had an old classmate, a kid who was picked on really badly back then, and we are now Facebook friends. It does not extend beyond Facebook at this point, but I remember him being quite political way back then. Not much has changed. He considers himself a conservative Democrat, and was mulling over the idea of leaving the Democrats not all that long ago. That is fine by me, personally, since I am neither a Democrat or a Republican. In fact, I think that Americans tend to focus too exclusively on the two parties as the only real choices, and not enough on the limitations of narrowing their choices to two parties. Ultimately, almost every election cycle comes down to “the lesser of two evils”, or, more appropriately, “the evil of two lessers”.

Indeed, that is the truth. But this guy, he has made many claims, and some of them raise my eyebrows from time to time. One thing that he mentioned was just prior to the Oscars. He mentioned that this was the reason the entire world hated us. I am guessing that he meant the Hollywood glitz and glam, the superficiality, the money, the plastic surgeries and the actresses that starve themselves to look beautiful, and the false facades all around. Indeed, that would be one aspect of American culture that can be rightly criticized.

Yet, it occurred to me that this is such a small part of the overall American culture, and fixation on this, demonization on this, seems to tend to detract from criticism of other, more substantive, issues. When you focus almost exclusively on this, you are missing the larger picture of what is going wrong with America today, and why the image of the United States, once stellar and impeccable just decades ago, is now tarnished, probably permanently.

It is about far more than Hollywood, Hollywood glitz and glamor culture is more of a symptom of it, than the source. No, American culture has spread like wildfire around the world, and yes, this includes Hollywood. But it would be far too oversimplistic to just single out Hollywood as the reason, or the source, of the world's hatred to us. In fact, what he seemed to illustrate better was the fixation of many Americans towards certain aspects of American culture that they do not like, and then claiming that anyone with a shred of common sense would automatically agree with them. That, typically, dumbs down the argument.

If there is one thing about American culture that I really dislike, it is this very tendency to dumb down arguments, to take complicated issues and simply them enough that knee jerk, often xenophobic, close-minded, even redneck attitudes tend to define them. That we are, at least for now, the most powerful and influential nation in the world, and that we hold such viewpoints and indeed carry them in our hearts as if they are indisputable facts, is also an indication of a larger malaise, one that is not so easily defined by simply pointing to Hollywood.

I think America's biggest problem is that it is simply too big, too powerful, and that people here have been closed off for entirely too long from any other viewpoints, really, but their own. Most Americans cannot see beyond their borders, almost literally. It is like anything that happens outside of America is irrelevant to them.

That is a recipe for disaster, and it is not only closing one's mind off to things, but also blindfolding oneself to other examples, both the successful ones, and the failures. It is refusing to learn from anybody else, and there is a good way of describing that: being pigheaded.

America has it's fair share of problems, and it will take a while to diagnose them. But I think it is overdue, and it needs to be done in a serious manner, not in some lighthearted, or frivolous manner, as many Americans tend to do.

I am running out of time, so I will have to make this part one, and to be continued over the course of future blog entries.  

"Image is Everything"

Back in the 1980's and early 1990's, rising tennis superstar Andre Agassi, then with a full head of hair and a colorful and sexy image, was a magnet for attention of all sorts, and he obviously received many willing and even eager sponsors. Among these were Canon, who wanted to promote their superior level of cameras, and who made Agassi do all sorts of things, showing him in action and then freezing the picture, with the accompaniment of a kind of clicking sound that a camera might make, showing him frozen in a picture forever. After several of these, the "rebel, rebel" Andre Agassi would smile at the camera and proclaim that, indeed, "Image is everything!"

It came to be ironic, because for a long time, Agassi was known as a tennis player more focused on his image off the court, then what he did on the court. He was a very talented tennis player, with perhaps more natural tennis ability than anyone else, but he always seemed to fall short of glory. This was never more obvious than when he engaged in one of the epic clashes against Pete Sampras, who, if anything, was the complete opposite: a guy who seemed to be bland and boring in terms of image, dressing without any flash or pizzazz at all, but getting the job done, time after time, on the court. The British initially did not like him and called him "gloomy", but he ended up winning Wimbledon in Britain seven times, a modern record that even the great Roger Federer has not yet equaled, let alone surpassed. He won those seven titles, and added seven others (five US Open and two Australian Open championships, respectively) to establish a record fourteen Grand Slam men's titles. He also finished with the number one ranking for six consecutive years, from 1993 until 1998, also a record that has yet to be surpassed by anyone (again including the great Federer). I personally believe that Federer was better overall, and although Sampras was not my personal favorite tennis player, you certainly have to give the man his due. Although many of his records fell to Federer, and although Federer's list of accomplishments may be greater or perceived as better overall, he was not able to overtake Sampras in every category. That's saying something.

Agassi was supposed to be like that, but he never quite reached that level. Now, mind you, this is not to say that he was not a great tennis player, or that his list of accomplishments on the court is somehow something to be scoffed at. Far from it, in fact. He ended up winning eight Grand Slam championships himself (not too shabby), and reached fifteen overall. He became only the fifth man ever to win the career Grand Slam (winning each of the different Grand Slams on each of the different surfaces), a record that Roger Federer and Rafel Nadal have both matched. He also become the first man to win the career "Golden Slam", winning all four major Grand Slams and the Olympic Gold Medal. He finished 1999 with the top ranking for men, finally ending Sampras's streak with a brilliant year, and if you combine all of the different times during his illustrious career that he reached the number one ranking, it amounts to just shy of two years overall, which places him quite high on the list of all time greats. He was the youngest man to ever reach the number two ranking at 18, and the oldest man to reach the number one ranking at 33. He won more majors than anyone in history at the time, a record that I believe still stands. In short, he enjoyed a storied career, and finished with some of the most incredible accomplishments of any tennis player, ever.

Yet, that early problem with his image was the one obstacle that he never really was to fully overcome. People expected him to just win, to sail to the top of the men's field and stay there for a good, long reign of the king of tennis. Yet, he kept losing his first Grand Slam appearances in the early nineties. He watched other men that seemed to come out of nowhere and win the top rankings, including Stefan Edburg, Jim Courier, and then Pete Sampras, who turned out to have considerable staying power of his own, as it turned out.

Agassi was able to break through, finally, by winning Wimbledon in 1992, but then he returned to his old form, and did not reach another major, let alone win another one, for over two years. Then he caught fire, winning two consecutive Grand Slams and reaching the umber one ranking for the first time in his career in 1995, staying there through much of the year. He faced a familiar opponent, Sampras, in the US Open Final, for what was in fact a battle for the number one ranking. Agassi lost, and pretty badly, and you could read the despair on his face. It was a loss, and a bad one, and he did not recover for over four years, with only one truly bright point between then and 1999, when he won the Olympic Gold Medal in the 1996 Games in Atlanta. Other than that, it was largely a disappointment. That was the early part of his career, and although he undeniably had enjoyed some great accomplishments, most people viewed him as an underachiever.

He managed to redefine himself to a great extent, breaking through with a miraculous run in the 1999 French Open, which he was finally able to win, after losing the first two appearances and after spotting his opponent in the 1999 Final, Andrei Medvedev, a two sets to nothing lead. Agassi came back from all odds to win, and he sank to his knees in tears after this match, glad just to reach such an opportunity again, long after many had written him off. From that point onwards, his career took an entirely different turn. He went to the Wimbledon Final a few weeks later, and although he again lost to Sampras, who by then seemed unbeatable on grass, he still seemed in relatively good spirits afterwards. He had a tremendous year the rest of the way, winning the US Open and culminating in the number one ranking. He hung onto it for over a year straight, and started off 2000 by winning the Australian Open for the second time. He did not repeat the feat of winning the year end top ranking, but he did win the Australian Open again in 2001, and a final time in 2003, by which point he was 33. He also made it to many Grand Slam Finals during that time, winning some and losing some, but he made it as far as the US Open Final in 2005 after a truly amazing run and some incredibly epic matches, eventually taking on red hot Roger Federer and seemingly having a chance to beat him midway through, until Federer was able to regain control and, eventually, turned the match into a rout. The next year, riddled with injuries, he decided to finally call it a career, and began what seemed to be an amazing run in the US Open, beating then young up and comer Marcos Baghdatis in a thriller. But it ended with him in tears, losing to, as he called it, "B. Becker of Germany" (no, not that B. Becker, this one was named Benjamin, and his list of accomplishments was considerably shorter than that other B. Becker). By then, he was viewed almost as an elder statesman of the game, and as a truly enlightened figure off the court, having opened up a school for disadvantaged kids in his native Las Vegas.

Ultimately, he proved to be more than merely about his "image", although some never really seemed to forgive him his lack of a work ethic or drive to win in those early years. This includes, most notably, Jimmy Connors, who went against the tide after Agassi won the French Open in 1999 by claiming that Agassi did not deserve to be mentioned "in the same breath" as other great tennis champions such as Sampras and himself (yes, he mentioned himself). Thus began a trend that would last literally until that final day of Agassi's career, when he made that last walk through the tunnel and into the locker room filled with other tennis stars who gave him a standing ovation – with one notable exception – Jimmy Connors. So, not everybody was won over, apparently.
Really, though, what does it matter that Jimmy Connors did not ever give Agassi his due. Maybe he was just bitter at having had his butt handed to him against the young and surging Agassi, he of the hair era, back in the late 1980's   The things that Agassi had accomplished, both on and off the court this time, were more than admirable, and he won the respect and admiration of many millions the world over. He had held himself in dignity, and showed a generosity of heart that he shared with his wife, another celebrity, but a considerably less flashy one this time – Steffi Graf. He wrote a beautiful book, an autobiography, that was inspiring and insightful to tennis fans (such as the one writing this piece). So, he had managed to finally change his trademark "image is everything" moniker that had haunted him earlier in his tennis career, even if a few people, apparently including Jimmy Connors, are not happy about it and still refuse to acknowledge this. 

"In the Name of God"

According to those religious values, indeed, almost everything would fit into the all-encompassing label of "pornography", since in their view, almost all of it detracts from what the Church is teaching, what the Bible has to say.

When they say that there is a "war on religion", they are not wrong- from their perspective. Since they view everything not religious as a threat to religion, they wage war on it, and o we are engaged in a war on religion, but not of our choosing. Religions simply have to accept that not everybody will be a believer, and not everything will back up the church.

Look at some of the most unstable parts of the world today, and it seems that religion is, ultimately, almost always front and center as the focal point on the instability. Look at Israel and it's neighbors in the Middle East. There is constant discord in this region, because of conflicting, and evidently incompatible, religious beliefs. Look at many of the Islamic Republics that tend to go to such extremes, based on their alleged religious convictions. Look at India and Pakistan, and the rivalry largely based on traditional religious differences. Look at the United States presently, for that matter. Look how much religion seems to play a part in the increased divisiveness. The so-called "red states" include the so-called "Bible Belt", while the so-called "Blue States" are allegedly where God is absent, not present in the everyday of the community.

Yes, many of those may seem like generalizations, but is there not some grain of truth to it.

We can look throughout history, as well. We can start with the Bible, where Jesus was alleged to have been crucified as punishment for holding different religious viewpoints than his community. Christians that followed him continued to be persecuted in the early going, being fed to the lions in Rome. Eventually, however, the Empire of Rome itself became Christian, and they went to war against the pagans that surrounded the ever expanding empire, although eventually, these pagans themselves took over Rome. Then, these pagans eventually converted to Christianity as well, much like the empire had (yes, it sounds a bit complicated, doesn't it?). In the meantime, a new religion, based on the Judeo-Christian tradition, was developed in the Middle East and quickly expanded, taking over huge tracts of land and building an empire itself. People had to convert to this new religion, known as Islam. In many areas, such as in India, people were put to the sword if they refused to convert to the invading religion. The Christians wanted to get their Holy Land back from the Muslims, and set about on Crusades, a series of wars in hopes of regaining control over their Holy Land, and the Muslims fought back against these "infidels", so they were all fighting ferociously for what they believe, and all in the name of God. There were Islamic invasions of Europe, of course, as well. Eventually, there was a rift among Christians in Europe, as the Protestant Reformation came about, and naturally, this brought about further war in the name of God. In the meantime, a New World had been discovered, and pilgrims brought their new religions to these lands, made their new homes their, and called the native population "savages" for not believing and living as they did. Conquistadors brought down an empire and tore down some of the old and historical buildings of these empires in an attempt to spread their Christian beliefs and, oh, by the way, to enrich themselves. This colonialism spread not only to the "New World" of the Americas, but also to much of Africa and Asia and Australia. Missionaries followed everywhere, undeniably doing some good, but also doing some bad, inadvertently or not. There were backlashes against this, of course, but overall, missionaries began to take an increasingly pronounced role in history, in places as far as Africa and China, and the Americas. Is it surprising that they often grew powerful and rich in the process? Religions spread, particularly Christianity. Wars and instability raged on as well. Their was the Dreyfus Affair in France, showing anti-Semitic views were simmering not far beneath the surface in France. Not too much later, anti-Semitism flared up and exploded in Germany. Jews were forced to wear yellow identifying Stars of David as identifying markers on their clothing, were forced into ghettoes and remained strictly separated from the dominant, majority culture, and eventually, as anti-Semitism spread throughout Europe, Jews were killed by the millions. Those Jews who survived, went to the Holy Land to try and create their own state, and they succeeded in establishing the modern state of Israel. Of course, this did not sit well with the neighboring Muslim countries, as well as the native Muslim majority at the time, living in Palestine. Wars followed. Religious fanaticism grew increasingly rampant in the Middle East, and eventually, there emerged a revolution in Iran that rejected Western values, in favor of a new Islamic Republic of Iran. It was the first of many such movements, which eventually included the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, who blew up historical Buddha statues because they were deemed to be icons against Islamic faith. Yellow identifying markers were required of the relatively few non-Muslims inside of the country, which now hosted training camps from religiously fanatical terrorist groups. In the meantime, there was a new wave of religious revival here in the United States, as well. Previously well-defined separations that nobody prominently questioned were suddenly threatened, as religion began to permeate the popular culture. Not surprisingly, things grew more divisive, both here and abroad. When the United States responded to the attacks of September 11, it was seen by many to have religious undertones, which were not quelled when then President George W. Bush, who was a devout Christian and claimed that God wanted him to be President, and that God was on his side (rather than hoping that he was on God's side), slipped and used the word "crusade". The United States got involved in various conflicts in the predominately Islamic Middle East, and it remains there still. Take a look at what happened in just this young year (it's only mid-March!) in Afghanistan: a video of American soldiers pissing on the dead corpses of alleged terrorist suspects became prominent news and sparked outrage, but not as much outrage as the burning of Korans on an American military base, and many Afghanis protested on the streets over that. Then, just when relations were deteriorating to the point that it seemed it could not get worse, a major and senseless, indiscriminate shooting took place just this past weekend, as American soldiers apparently killed 16 Afghanis sleeping peacefully in their own homes. Most of the victims were either women or children. Yet, despite this, there is serious debate in the United States presently about possibly going to further conflict in Iran, and possibly even Syria, as leading Republican candidate bring their religious convictions to the political front, and criticize Obama, claiming he has engaged in a "war on religion".

Got all of that?

I did not even mention the controversy of the religious war on science and the expansion of human knowledge, which seems to be the one thing that devout Jews, Christians, and Muslims can all agree on.  I did not mention the burning crosses of the Ku Klux Klan. I did not mention the sex scandals of priests regarding many cases of little boys being abused by priests, or of the Vatican's steadfast refusal to really acknowledge, let alone apologize, for these instances. I did not mention the poverty and hunger and ignorance that run rampant in this world, while too many religions prominently display their wealth and power. Just look at the Vatican, filled with priceless artifacts and with it's own treasury and riches beyond counting! Was that the fulfillment of the vision that Jesus had hoped for?

One of the lowest people that I ever met was a devout Muslim. He wore his religion on his sleeve, and told about how important it was to him. He claimed that if you did not "believe" as he believed, you were doomed to spend the entirety of eternity in the afterlife burning in Hell.  He talked about the beauty of his culture, and particularly of their clean living. Yet, I never met anyone who went to such lengths to try and belittle people at every opportunity. Quite literally, every opportunity, and that is not an exaggeration. He was one of the worst people that I have ever met, and I wonder if it ever occurred to him that he was hardly practicing what he preached in his own personal example with the life he was leading, since he was needlessly making a point of trying to make the lives of others more difficult. He is only the most extreme example of numerous such people I have met.

I am not anti-religious. I am not, really. However, religious beliefs, to me, should remain intensely personal, and not advertised on one's sleeves, not used specifically to divide people, to take a "holier than thou" approach, particularly since it claims to elevate people. All too often, it seems to have the exact opposite effect. 

Book Review: Michael Koryta's "So Cold the River"

It is a decent book, and once you get caught in it, it can be addictive. It is a book that mostly takes place in the real town of West Baden, Indiana, as well as French Lick, the more famous neighbor town that is best known for being the home of basketball superstar Larry Bird. These towns each have famous and rather grandiose hotels that seem largely out of place in rural Indiana, and delve a bit into the local history, including the origins of the hotels that remain in the towns, less than a mile from one another. It also delves into the springs and the mineral water that, for a time, was sold almost as the miracle product of it's age, until it was deemed to be mostly just a laxative, and a not so powerful one, at that. It was a good book, and an enjoyable read, mostly.

That said, I felt that Michael Koryta was a bit vanilla with his characters, who remained largely stereotypical good and bad. In the comments to promote the book and author, he was compared to Stephen King. However, it seems to me that such comparisons, while not entirely invalid, are perhaps a bit misplaced.

I am not the biggest fan of horror, necessarily. Not that I mind it, and I pretty much enjoy anything that is of a decent quality. It's just that horror is not necessarily my thing, if you will. So it may seem strange that Stephen King would rank among my very favorite authors.

That said, open up a Stephen King book. Read some of it, and you will likely see what I find so appealing about his writing. I enjoy his ideas, sure. Enjoy his horror, or his focus on the supernatural, or death. He makes no bones (bada-boom!0 about it himself – that is clearly a field of interest.

Yet, his writing style offers much more than that.

Do similarities exist between Stephen King and Michael Koryta, specifically with this particular book, "So Cold the River"? Yes, absolutely. The comparisons are not entirely misplaced. At least, not to a certain degree, anyway. The book is about tapping into ghosts and such spirits, if you will. It is about a very grandiose hotel in particular. Not quite as isolated as Stephen King's Overlook Hotel from "The Shining", but there certainly are parallels. Plus, Koryta's style of writing, even , can be quite reminiscent of Stephen King. At times, I could see the resemblances in style, in wording, and such, no doubt about it.

There are similarities. Yet, what struck me, the reader, throughout reading this book were the differences. That was what really stood out for me. You see, Stephen King's specialty would be his character building. That is his real forte, and I'm not sure anybody does it better. King does not shy away from things that make his characters more real. There are times where perhaps he has made cliché characters are well, but they are few and far between. In fact, as I write this (admittedly, not with a Stephen King book in front of me for anything resembling research, or anything), but I cannot think of an example of any clichéd characters of Stephen King. Some strange characters, sure. But every single one of his characters, including men, women, and children (even some animals, such as dogs, every once in a while) seem remarkably believable. He pays attention to detail, in a way that many authors do not. He might talk about a character of his wearing underwear of the pee-stained variety, for example. He may talk about a character completely immersed in his political beliefs, either more liberal or more conservative, and he does so convincingly. Maybe one of his characters is of a certain religious persuasion, or maybe their faith is failing (as in Salem's Lot), or perhaps even entirely absent. His characters are perhaps pigheaded, or too strong, too weak. They are not always entirely successful in life. In fact, most of them are struggling, and not just financially. Many of his characters are stuck in crappy jobs, or crappy relationships.

Koryta opens with a character that, if I describe it right away, would indeed soun like he has many of the same believable elements as a Stephen King character. Yet, let me just say this upfront and directly: something is missing. It is not that his characters are entirely unbelievable, or too perfect, or anything. They are flawed, but they are flawed in a strange kind of way. Almost, too idealistic, or perhaps stereotypical way.  It is not bad writing by any stretch of the imagination (he is a published author of a major work, after all). Yet, somehow, his character building did not quite grab me the way that Stephen King's characters tend to grab me. I did not lose myself in them, or feel, as I often tend to feel with King or other authors, that it almost felt like a vacation from myself. It was hard to completely lose myself in the book like I do with some other authors, and I think I know the reason why.

I think it is because he does not entirely let his characters go free. Yes, they are flawed, but they are flawed, if you will, in very stereotypical ways.

Just before I read this book, I read another that really swept me off my feet. It was not from one author, but from two. A combination, sort of a tag team effort, if you will. It was called "Cell 8", and I even wrote a review on this blog about it. These two men collaborated on a brilliant book that really was a page turner, and had very believable, and flawed, characters, that gave me a more "real" feel, if you will. The characters were imperfect, had their own demons to deal with. But they had their own thoughts, they disagreed with one another, and inevitably, one or two of them disagreed with the reader, no matter what the reader's political or religious persuasion, because some of the characters were on polar opposite ends of the spectrum, in terms of their political thinking in general, and of one issue, the death penalty, in particular.

Now, the death penalty is a divisive issue, at least, in particular, in the United States. People hold strong opinions about the issue, and it often seems that there is little to no arguing with them on it. The authors, Roslund and Hellstrom, were able to capture this stubbornness, as well. They did not shy away from a serious issue that would generate a lot of controversy and possibly arguments, and they did not pull any punches in portraying the United States and many perceptions from the outside that it is an arrogant power, carrying on like they own the world, and can do whatever they wish with relative impunity, even well beyond their national borders. On the flip side, they are very critical of their own Swedish nation and government, and criticize it for seemingly always backing down to greater political pressure. Not absent in their writing was the politics behind everything, for the fictional events that took place in the book were mostly set in motion by politics –specifically, by political ambitions and posturing, and doing whatever it took to say in power, whether in "capitalist" United States or "socialist" Sweden. There is enough in there to generate controversy on both countries, as well as perhaps others outside of the two, as well. That's taking a chance with writing, and although it is fiction, they are also tackling larger truths. It is the essence of art, I think, this level of honesty. Some people would claim that fiction "is not real". But read a book like that one, and then read the newspapers, the headlines, or listen to political speeches, and then come back and tell me what sounds more "real".

Stephen King takes such chances with his writing, as well as in real life. He came out against the Bush Administration time and again, and he even writes about it quite a bit in his books, directly or indirectly. In fact, "Under the Dome", which was one of his longest, and I think one of his best, books, was all about the United States in particular, and the world in general, the way it is going. He attacked what he felt was a closed mindset, and that takes guts. It also takes honesty. It is admirable, and moreover, it is believable. Also, he makes in enjoyable to read. So did Roslund & Hellstrom. So did Larson, in his historically minded works that read like fiction (such as "The Devil in the White City" and "In the Garden of Beasts"), but which he also seems to be able to weave to illuminate their relevance with present day issues and realities. That was the real beauty of the writing, in fact.

Truth be told, I did not get this same sense out of "So Cold the River". Yes, there are questions about ghosts and the supernatural, and these remain controversial. Yes, the characters struggled with their own demons, as well, and their was somewhat of a "real" feel to it.

Yet, the defining trait for me in reading this book was that it was merely meant as a "fun" book, one not to be taken too seriously. There were some elements of history to it, about French Lick and West Baden, Indiana, and about the hotels that sprang up in these two remote, farm country towns. It was not poor writing by any means, and was in fact enjoyable more often than not.

All I am saying is that it did not quite go to the next level. It remained in the "safe" zone, so to speak, and after reading a book like "Cell 8", which was about the superficiality of much of American popular thinking, thinking that rarely scratches the surface on major issues, it just perhaps seemed a little too "safe" for me. That goes for the book itself, and the authors that populate them. Not a bad book, and it did make me want to visit these little towns in Indiana, and their grand hotels, and even the springs. But it did not get me to think about larger issues or allow me to lose myself in great fictional characters made very believable, like I did in "Cell 8", or like I tend to do when reading a Stephen King novel. 

Authors in Focus: Simon Lelic

Okay, so I slipped up there for a few days, and ended the strong writing streak that I had going. But I managed to write something halfway decent yesterday regarding a recent trip to see a Nets game with my son, and it felt good at least to get back on track. This has hardly been what I would consider a "normal" week for me, yet I do want to maintain some semblance of discipline with things like this. That Nets entry was meant to be for two days prior, but since I never got around to it on that day….well, let's just say I'd like to start a new streak now. So, here goes….

I figured that I would do another "Author in Focus" installment, although these cannot come too quickly. There are, obviously, a lot of authors out there, but since I am only one man, and do not even read particularly fast or anything, I do not want to use up all that I have got in this area with quick synopses of various authors, just to produce some filler space. These should be authors who's works influenced and/or impressed me, at least, and preferably, who wrote more than one book that I had actually read. Not that it would be particularly bad if I wrote a review of an author that either produced only one book, or whom I only read one book from. Just that, all in all, it is a further mark of how much of an impact they had on me, if I have read more than one of their books. Reading a book takes time, usually, and thus, choosing to spend that much time with an author means that I was impressed with their writing style, their message, both, or some other aspect, perhaps, of their writing. Maybe a fascinating subject, or maybe some other thing that drew me to them.

Whichever way, it is something that I would like to continue, and so here I am, once again. Today, I will focus on an author who has an amazing writing style, writes about some stimulating subject matter, and seems to have a message that I can appreciate. That is a rare author, and his name is Simon Lelic.

I read what was perhaps his most famous work, the one that he is usually associated with, which was called "A Thousand Cuts" here in it's American release, but is evidently known as "Rupture", to my understanding, in his native Britain. My mom, who usually makes strong reading recommendations for me, opened my eyes to this one, saying that she felt I would really like it.

She was right.

In fact, this was an amazing book! It was so very well written, with incredible insight and intelligent commentary throughout. He is effective in taking a "real" perspective from many different angles, if you will, capably taking on different narratives from very different characters, including a reclusive and tortured young teacher who does not fit in, his frustrated girlfriend and fellow teacher, a rival gym teacher who is your big, typical dumb jock type, a female police officer investigating a school shooting while dealing with sexual harassment in her own life, a rather stiff and unbending school Principal, and some immature and out of control teenagers. Lelic does an amazing hob of leading you in one direction initially, then eventually swaying you in the other direction, showing an entirely different side based upon who is speaking and has a very different perspective. All of the people talking are, essentially, discussing or interviewing with the female police officer, who is able eventually to piece together what has happened and find the real party responsible for how the situation grew so out of hand. In the meantime, she manages to discover something of her own situation with the harassment at her job, and is able to confront her tormentor towards the end of the book.

It is truly an amazing read.

The second work that he wrote was called "The Facility". It is not yet available in the United States (at least not to my knowledge, anyway). I had gotten it as a Mother's Day gift, I believe, for my mom, but when she finished reading it, she allowed me to read it.

You could definitely see the strengths of the author in it, and his style was similar enough to the first book to know it was him. That said, the subject matter almost could not have been more different than the first book.

It focuses on modern politics, essentially. Britain has built for itself a concentration camp on it's own soil, and it is at the ready in the event that it is ever needed. Of course, the occasion arises, as an outbreak of a strange and highly communicable disease makes the British government take quick action in detaining a number of their citizens.

One of the men taken, much to his surprise, does not know what is going on. He has been worried about being perceived as homosexual, although he is not. He feels he might be forgotten in here, that nobody knows, or worse, perhaps nobody cares, that he is here, with no way of getting in touch with the outside world.

When his ex-wife notices that something is definitely off, she approaches Tom, an investigative journalist, who then proceeds to uncover more and more about this mysterious British concentration camp.

Not surprisingly, this becomes a dangerous game, the closer he gets to finding out what he needs to find out. All the while, he finds himself strongly drawn to this ex-wife, and wants to get closer. The feelings are reciprocated, and just as they begin to get closer, the game grows considerably more dangerous.

            It is a novel of government secrecy, of insecurities, self-preservation, of power and ideology, and of people that, although not real themselves, are real enough.  It is a story about silence, and what often goes unreported or, perhaps even, unnoticed. Different from his first novel, to be sure, but still very strong.

            He has come out with another novel, for that matter, and I just found out about it while doing a bit of research for this piece. It is called "The Child Who", and so I will look to find out more, and perhaps even get my hands on a copy, if at all possible. Lelic is definitely an author worth exploring more!

Jersey Strong, Brooklyn Ready

I had kind of forgotten about the impending move of the Nets from New Jersey to Brooklyn. In part, I believe that this was because of the delays in actually bringing the arena and everything about, since it was mired in controversy, and had it's fair share of opposition, to say the least. It seemed it was being put on the backburner, and so mentally, I guess I did, as well.

Had not heard any developments or anything for quite a while, and more or less forgot about it, I suppose.

Then suddenly, in this, the strangest of all basketball seasons, I heard that this would be the last season for the Nets in New Jersey. They would finally be moving to Brooklyn, as promised now for the greater part of the decade. I heard about it, if memory serves correctly, just before this strike shortened season was about to begin, and it was a sports writer who was making fun of the new logo and sentiment. It is, obviously, a difficult and unique situation, with the Nets knowing for years that they were making the move, and then, finally, knowing this in particular would be the last season in Jersey before they finally go off to the big city. What the sports writer made fun of was the official logo for the Nets in this departure year:

Jersey Strong

Brooklyn Ready

Yeah, not exactly the most inspiring words, right? Where is Shakespeare when you need him?

So, with the final season impending, and apparently a lull in enthusiasm among Jersey fans, understandably, I figured this might be the opportune time to catch a few games, while the Nets were still available. For someone from New Jersey, like me, hardly anything beats the convenience of actually seeing an official, professional sports team, with seats readily available and relatively cheap. I have taken good advantage of it over the years, as well.

I saw probably dozens of games over the years, starting with the first Nets game I ever saw back in the spring of 1994, when the mediocre Washington Bullets (they were still known as the Bullets, and not the Wizards, back then), took on the crappy team from New Jersey, the Nets.

There were a few years between that and the next time around, but I was able to see them over the course of many years, against some incredible opponents, including the historical 1995-1996 Chicago Bulls with Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman and Phil Jackson, the only team in basketball history to have reached that amazing 70 win plateau in a season (they finished the season at 72-10, and 87-13 overall, including their championship playoff run). I saw the Houston Rockets during their glory days of Hakeem Olijuwon and Clyde Drexler, and even eventually Charles Barkley. The San Antonio Spurs during the days of David Robinson "The Admiral" and Tim Duncan, and eventually Ginobli and Tony Parker (a fellow Frenchman!). The Lakers of Kobi Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal (as well as Phil Jackson), and more recently, the Lakers with Kobi and Gasol. There were many other stars and teams that I saw.

The greatest single game that I saw was a playoff game against the Indiana Pacers in 2002. It was Game 5, the final, deciding game in an intense series. The Pacers, perennial contenders, two years removed from an NBA Finals, with Reggie Miller, one of my favorite players, and perhaps arguably the most explosive and the most exciting player during that era, outside of Michael Jordan. I even think he might have been more exciting to watch than Jordan during the playoffs, when he caught fire.

On that fateful day, he caught fire.

It was a back and forth game. The Pacers, with superior experience, had hung in there against a rising Nets team throughout the series, and they were doing the same in the deciding Game 5.

The Nets had enjoyed their best season in decades, and were among the first rated teams in the league. They were the top seed in the East, but had not won a playoff series in 18 years, and had long seemed a cursed franchise. Enter Jason Kidd, and their fortunes changed dramatically. Long seen as a young and potentially strong team for the future, the future was suddenly now. They were the top seed, and with the top seed, it seemed the opportunity to finally make their mark.

Most top teams usually easily dispatch easily with their first round opponent, but the Indiana Pacers were hardly a typical first round opponent.

Although the Nets seemed to be the better team throughout he season and most of the series, as well as the game, the Pacers hung in tough, forcing a deciding Game 5, and then holding on, just barely, into late into the fourth quarter. Still, they were down by three points with seconds left and time rapidly expiring in regulation. Reggie Miller was surely getting old and would not be able to save the day, right? After all, by now, everyone knew about the past, especially against the cross river Knicks, and so they knew not to give him a look from beyond the three point arc, right? Right?

Wrong. Miller sank an awkward looking three just before the time expired, forcing the game into overtime.

Okay, so the Nets would have to regroup, remain calm, and beat the Pacers in overtime.

But the Pacers still hung tough. Despite everything the Nets threw at them, the Pacers were, once again, down with one shot remaining with seconds left to try and preserve their season. Surely, this would be it, and history (even very recent history) would not repeated itself, right? Right!?

Wrong again. The ball found Miller once again, and he put up another shot that looked awkward, and surely would not go in. Of course, if you're reading this, you know better, right? The ball went through the basket, no problem, and the game went into a second overtime! An elimination game living up to it's billing! Reggie Miller at his best, and for such incredibly high stakes!

Finally, in the second overtime, the Nets did calm down, and played up to their potential, which finally, finally was more than enough to rather overwhelm the Pacers, who by then were exhausted with the uphill fight and had little left in the tank. This time, the Nets made sure that they did not leave enough room for Miller to pull off last second heroics yet again. The got the victory, in the game and thus, in the series, and won their first playoff series in almost two full decades!

My favorite Nets memory, and one of my favorite sports memories of all, period!

In any case, I had largely forgotten that this was going to be the Nets last season in Jersey until just recently. Once I remembered (for whatever the reason, I can't think of what triggered this memory at the moment), I checked, and found tickets generally readily available. So then, it was mostly a matter of just checking the availability of tickets, and finding the best seats for the best price, or the best deal possible. It seemed relatively easy, actually.

Later that day, naturally, I got in a car accident. That's not all that funny, and suddenly, spending money on tickets seemed like a bad idea, in retrospect. But I had already purchased them, and you can't go back in time, right?

The first game was for this past Wednesday, a the Nets hosted the Los Angeles Clippers. The Nets had been among the worst teams in the NBA for many decades, prior to their brief flirtation with greatness in the early 2000's, when they made two consecutive NBA Finals, losing both, unfortunately, first to the Lakers, then to the San Antonio Spurs.

The Clippers, on the other hand, have traditionally been one of the rare teams that were even worse than the Nets overall.  Of memory serves correctly, they were voted the worst sports franchise in history by Sports Illustrated. Their ineptitude has been legendary, in fact. Year after year, they struggled, and their owner was this weird, evidently closet racist guy. Almost everything about the franchise seemed to spell disaster.

So perhaps it should come as no surprise that their fortunes would eventually change. After all, of all the major sports, basketball relies most heavily on having just a few really good guys on your team. Get 2 or 3 stars in hockey, put them in your first line, and you still have three other lines to worry about, plus the distinct possibility of injury, since hockey is such a violent sport. Get 2 or 3 stars in football, and injury also remains a distinct possibility, more probably than basketball, although not necessarily hockey. But with 53 players on the roster, and specifically 11 starters on offense, and then 11 on defense (and that does not include special teams!), 2 or 3 stars will not necessarily yield a winner. In baseball, 2 or 3 superstars might get you more results. But again, if the rest of the lineup is not that strong, it will not be enough to necessarily field a contender.

In basketball, however, 2 or 3 stars will probably make you an instant contender. Look at the 2008 Boston Celtics, or last season's Miami Heat. Or this year's Los Angeles Clippers. Acquiring 2 or 3 stars will likely change your fortunes, perhaps even dramatically. At the very least, it will help you draw attention and sell some jerseys and tickets.

The Los Angeles Clippers acquired Blake Griffen through the draft, and then, just before this season started, managed to snag Chris Paul. They were already an improving team, but the addition of Chris Paul suddenly had people talking about them being a potential NBA Finals team, and at least being a serious candidate for the best basketball team in Los Angeles, which is hardly an easy title to acquire. So, just like that, this team seemed red hot, with a flashy dunker and a proven winner. People expected great things.

As the early March game in Jersey approached, the Clippers had a very strong record, and looked to be fulfilling many people's high expectations of them. While the Lakers were reeling and seemingly aging in a hurry, going in the wrong direction, the other Los Angeles team was doing magnificently well.

 I was eager to see them.

The thing is, they were a very flashy team. I mean, extremely flashy. I could see why people like them – and a lot of people seemed to be pulling for them at the Rock on Wednesday, despite how traditionally horrendous the franchise has been for a very long time. Indeed, their very flashiness has changed their image, altered the perception of them from losers to up and coming winners. That said, they were a little too flashy for my tastes, at least bordering on style over substance, seemingly. They could be fun, but I do not think that style is built to last. At least not through the playoffs. Could be wrong, but it would be a bit surprising.

Anyway, the Nets, donning their throwback blue "New York" jerseys from decades ago (could it be considered a sign of disrespect towards New Jersey that they were already comfortable wearing "New York" jerseys?), played a solid game. Considerably less flashy than the Clippers, and not getting nearly as many ooooh's and aaaahh's from the sellout crowd, perhaps, but far more effective. They built up a solid lead, and at one point, even led by eighteen points.

Jordan Farmar was having an especially good game. It seemed that, at least on that day, everything he touched turn to gold, and he was a large part of the reason the Nets found themselves in control of this game for so long.

To their credit, however, the Clippers showed that they were more than a flash in the pan, and clawed their way back into the game. They kept on closing the margin, until suddenly, late in the fourth quarter, they managed to even things up. Then, very late and with little time remaining, the Clippers took a lead in the game, for the first time since early in the first quarter.

Closing time, right? After all, this is the Nets, and if they have traditionally been better than the Clippers, it was by default. New Jersey has not had a winner in some time now, and this team surely would choke and lose the game, squandering the big lead, right?

Down 100-98 with less than ten seconds remaining on the clock, Deron Williams had the ball and was trying to approach the paint, make something happen, either generating a double team and then feed the ball to someone wide open, or perhaps find some magic on his own. A Clipper managed to seemingly take the ball away, but it was kicked away accidentally, thus providing the Nets with a scare, but with still one more opportunity to either tie it or win it.

The ball went again to Williams, who got double teamed indeed, and managed not only to find a wide open Jordan Farmar, but to feed it to him brilliantly, under immense pressure. Farmar, who had been on fire all night, got a wide open look, and from behind the ark, managed to sink the winning three-pointer, with 0.2 seconds left. The Clippers technically had a chance, but with so little time, it would have taken a miracle, and there were no miracles left in this game. Nets win, 101-100.

It was especially fun to go with my son to see such a game as this! He enjoyed it, although he was impatient and thirsty and driving daddy crazy by asking for a drink every ten seconds, even though we had just eaten (and drank) on the way there prior to the game. Still, it was a good memory to share with him, even though we left too early to actually see the end in person. It was, after all, a school night, and no matter how thrilling a sports team might be, school comes first, n'est ce pas?

Nice to see the Nets win, even if they are only playing for pride, and even if they are hardly sending New Jersey off with the top quality basketball, or a run to, let alone in, the playoffs. Still, a win is a win, and this might have rivaled the Pacers playoff game back in 2002 (just about a decade ago now!) for favorite Nets game memory, under different circumstances. A great game, and very enjoyable!