Guess who's Back

As you can see I haven’t quit. Just took a hiatus. A longer one than I meant to. And while I don’t intend to play catch, don’t be surprised to see commentary from some of the intervening issues here. Like the Star Trek review for example. Can’t be quiet where Trek is concerned.

So what happened? As with so many other things in life, this break wasn’t due to any one thing. It simply snowballed from getting behind my self-imposed schedule to skipping entire issues. Work contributed, as did some level of burn out – alleviated in part due to a turn towards my childhood fave…comic books. Oh, pardon me, today they come bound in multiple issue sets and are called Graphic Novels.

I threatened, publicly I think, to jump into a much longer form – Kavelier and Klay – but didn’t have the attention for it.

And so, I’ve come a step closer to the condition of many long time New Yorker subscribers. That condition consisting of having the ever growing pile of unread issues. This was one of my wife’s fears, brought on by the truck loads of New Yorkers stacked in closets and on shelves of her mother’s New York apartment. And this has force me to face the possible unreality of my original premise. Which was to read at least 3 stories each week and make time to reflect on them, before the next issue arrived. Other New Yorker subscribers have told me they harbor not such illusions. They remain content to enjoy the random article(s) they do read and pay no mind to the others. And I’m partway there.

But like that sore tooth you can’t leave alone, there are a couple articles that, having been read, I can’t help commenting on. Just don’t expect this level of service all the time.

In no particular order…

Ok I lied…in order of WFT?

May 18

Anthony Lane succeeds and fails all in the same breath as he reviews the new Start Trek movie, which he wants so badly to dislike. He succeeded on at least one point (and only at one point), only in so far as one of my criteria for a really good scathing review is the degree to which it entertains. I am sure I can’t be the only person to note that the very best reviews, the most well written and entertaining, are offspring of a reviewer’s deep dislike of the piece he/she is reviewing. In this case, Lane manages to get one laugh out of me, and that with a joke set up by circumstances of questionable origin. He uses a line about Kirk’s changing hair color ( I have to admit I never saw the change) to land this crude but serviceable punchline “But don’t worry, he’s still a dickhead underneath.” And while, I’ll admit to laughing at this the second time I read it, I have to question it’s value to his review. Kirk actually wasn’t a dickhead.

But the rest of Lane’s review is a man in search of enough words to fulfill his contract. And while this Star Trek was designed to appeal to non-fans, as a reviewer, a glancing attempt at a little subject research would have kept his lack in interest from screaming at us off the page. To couple Kirk’s near miss with Tiberius as his first name with this movie’s villain ignores a basic fact of the original. To make the comments about Chekhov’s speech issues likewise belies an ignorance of the source material. For all the need J.J. Abrams and team felt to make put their own imprimatur of the story line, their were some elements that deserved to remain unaltered. And Chekhov’s accent is one of those things.

But of all the silly things for Lane to complain about in a SCIENCE FICTION movie, the alternate reality issue really takes the cake. As a long time fan (I watched my first episode during the series original first run, as a 10 year old in a “we’re going to the moon” world), I had no issues with the liberties taken by the new creative team. I can name some things I would have done differently, but nothing interfered with my enjoyment of the movie. I do understand that some of the “hardcore-don’t-have-a-life-trekkies” took umbrage to some changes and the use of the alternate reality ploy, but Lane – as a movie reviewer - has no leg to stand on here. Namely, in my book, because the movie didn’t fawn all over the concept. It wasn’t dragged out over and over again or even leaned on in any heavy way. They brought it up, put it out here and moved on. As opposed to that dreadful “here’s-the-enterprise” seen from the god-awful 1st Trek movie however many years ago that was.

As for my complaints? Well the nits I pick can be picky indeed. I am not sure we needed the 8 yr old steals a car scene. I have been told that I am wrong, but I believe several of the crew would have been in a Federation class enough years behind Kirk so as not to have been on this first outing. Chekhov especially. I have always envisioned the Kobyashi Maru to have been a more tension building moment. I think the filmmakers missed something by not having Kirk play it up for seat of the pants suspense. I also fell he would have researched the issue and set up his win on the first round. If he has already faced the Kobyashi, then nothing is established or gained by being given a second shot at it. Once the lesson is learned, there is not reason to repeat the process. And Spock giving in to his human lust with Uhura? I think the value of this stunt is short-lived whereas they now (IMHO) have to come up with a creative way to extricate these 2 from this relationship before it drags down future plotting.

Small change. I am now eager for the next installment, which won’t be hindered by any of the “getting-to-know-you” stuff this movie required.


Don’t!
The secret of self-control.
by Jonah Lehrer

or as they named on NY Public Radio’s Radio Lab
Mischel's Marshmallows

A marshmallow by any other name would taste as sweet. And your reaction to it as a youngster would tell researchers oodles about your potential for success or difficulty. I strongly suspect I’d have been in the “difficult” category. What’s the defining trait? Self-control. The researchers tested 4th graders on their ability to resist marshmallows on a plate in front of them in exchange for a later reward. The group that successfully waited for the reward turned out to be able to accomplish more than their counter parts. How much was surprising and if it weren’t for an accidental revisited to the group by the main researcher, we wouldn’t have found out how much or over how long a person of their lives. If you want to know more, visit the New Yorker and look up the story.

My interaction with this story is, to me, both a little more pedestrian and a little simpler. I have become used to NPR following the New York Times lead on a wide variety of stories. Usually by a day, sometimes 2. But I guess I hadn’t expected The New Yorker and NY Public Radio’s Radio Lab to be playing tag. I haven’t looked it up, but these 2 treatments of the same story had to surface within a week of each other. And each of them require research and production time way beyond that scale. What does it mean? As Mr. Natural might say, I may not mean Shit, but I found it curious so there.

The other stuff….

I’ve just looked down at my bag-o-magazines and determined that I don’t have anything to say about the other stories from my quiet period. Next up…a stab at health care.