Born Standing Up, Steve Martin, 2007

“Despite a lack of natural ability, I did have the one element necessary to all early creativity: naiveté that fabulous quality that keeps you from knowing just how unsuited you are for what you are about to do.” Steve Martin. P 54

In ‘76 or ‘77, I am not sure which Linda and I went to a concert in the Marriot Center. $10 a ticket. I am not sure who the headliner was, certainly it was a “safe” group, maybe the 5^th Dimension, or someone like that. (Linda remembers it being the Carpenters).  I remember very clearly not wanting to go, certainly not with the tickets priced so high. I was making $400 a month at the time, $100 a month rent including utilities. The other $300 for all the rest including food, insurance, books and tuition. Tuition was either $600 a year or $600 a semester my memory fails me at the moment. I have no recollection of the musical performance but I do remember the front act. It was a guy in a white suit, an arrow though his head and a banjo. He was a surprisingly good banjo player. Steve Martin was hilarious but not quite famous. I got my $10 worth with just his front act. He was not well received by the crowd however and at one point pleaded with us for laughs. He stopped and asked some people in the front row what they paid for a ticket. He repeated the amount and then said, “10 cents, 10 cents is what I get. Certainly I am worth 10 cents”. He did magic tricks, silly balloons, and played bluegrass on the banjo. This was prior to outrageous fame and the more famous “King Tut”.

The book was more whimsy than autobiography. Given his claim to fame is fame itself not as a historically significant figure, whimsy sounds just right. Mostly he reminisced about his jobs, loves and rise to fame and fortune. Though out the book Martin claims to own and to be the vanguard of “new and modern” comedy. As far as he is concerned his antics were the only fresh and original comedy of the 70’s and maybe even now. He claims to have taken his comedy quite seriously. He wants to be believed. He approaches self importance all the while pretending to straight arm narcissism and keeping himself pure.

Still if you are a fan, the book offers some insights. He claims to have worked extremely hard to get where he is and provides the necessary documentation by describing what seems to be every job he ever had. He mentions working for four months perfecting the ability to perfectly shuffle a deck of cards. (The faro shuffle). He also lists his sexual conquests, nothing graphic, and includes pictures of the ladies after describing the extent of the liaison. I found that kind of weird. If you are looking for modesty and thank you America, look somewhere else. He believes his hard work, creative genius and perseverance brought him his fortune. Which fortune he mentions several times...Let me quote the book:

 “there was a problem. At the age of eighteen, I had absolutely no gifts, I could not sing or dance, and the only acting I did was really just shouting. Thankfully, perseverance is a great substitute for talent” and “through the years I have learned there is no harm in charging oneself up with delusions between moments of valid inspiration".

  He drops a lot of names including Jack Benny and Elvis. Proof of this vision of his self importance, several years ago, he hired an archivist to catalog and research his life in anticipation of writing his “memoirs”. He felt his life needed documentation like a US President or other famous dictator. Read the book only if you are a fan or saw him live before he was rich and famous.  

Billy Boyle, A World War II Mystery.

Here you go: a man trap. Mystery and WWII. I love both, every man does. Together WWII and mystery must be like peanut butter and chocolate. Wait a minute, I don’t like peanut butter and chocolate. It has been determined through a careful examination of the facts; I am the only human alive who does not like the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup. As far as I can tell, the peanut butter cups only utility is trading for much better candy from unsuspecting children and adults. That opportunity is short-lived and only occurs in October. If while freight hopping, traveling across the country,  I was trapped in a railway car for longer than 24 hours and there were Reese’s Peanut Buttercups in boxes in the car with me, I would in fact open the boxes and eat some; Starvation being the only other alternative. Beets are another story. I can never imagine a scenario in which I might be placed which would force their consumption. With a car load of Reese’s, I would suffer for a while and relent. Of course if it were beets in those boxes, in any form, starvation would be the only alternative.

There is a “competition  of the first line”, http://creativecompetitor.com/competitions/first-line-competition which  occurs every year. In this competition writers compete to see who can write the best first line of the novel.  There is a commonly held notion amongst writers which argues the first line is the hardest thing to write and sets the tone for the entire book.

A better competition is held at San Jose State every year. Here is the Wikipedia reference:

“The Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest (BLFC) is a tongue-in-cheek contest that takes place annually and is sponsored by the English Department of San Jose State University in San Jose, California. Entrants are invited "to compose the opening sentence to the worst of all possible novels" – that is, deliberately bad. According to the official rules, the prize for winning the contest is "a pittance",^[1] or $250.^[2]

The contest was started in 1982 by Professor Scott E. Rice of the English Department at San Jose State University and is named for English novelist and playwright Edward George Bulwer-Lytton, author of the much-quoted first line "It was a dark and stormy night". This opening, from the 1830 novel Paul Clifford, continues floridly:

"It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents, except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness."

The first year of the competition attracted just three entries, but it went public the next year, received media attention, and attracted 10,000 entries.^[3] There are now several subcategories, such as detective fiction, romance novels, Western novels, and purple prose. Sentences that are notable but not quite bad enough to merit the Grand Prize or a category prize are awarded Dishonorable Mentions.”

I think James R. Benn should have entered. I quote; ” I wanted to die. No actually I didn't want to die. Or live”. Technically that was three lines. I'm sure you get the point. I forged ahead anyway. The books basic premise revolved around a Boston detective, recruited in the Army, in World War II. He was sent to London because Dwight D Eisenhower was his uncle. Apparently they anticipated trouble. Sure enough within five pages, the Swedish ambassador was murdered. Detective Lt. Billy, makes a few friends and was sent into the countryside to investigate. Spoiler alert, although he didn't realize it at the time, he later found out he was chosen for the job because no one believed he would be able to solve any crimes. They hoped he would wander around aimlessly and give the appearance of trying while subterfuge persisted. In fact, that's how it turned out. As he solved the crime, he almost ruined the high commands plot to sabotage the Nazis. It was lucky he was so bad at detecting. He was surprised to learn the truth of the story.  In an unusual twist, the main heroine (spoiler alert) was brutally murdered and this gave him another murder to investigate. Of course it was the same perpetrator. The clues were all too easy. I had it figured out almost 20 pages before he did. As the entire book took place in England, there was not much of a war story. The mystery was not that mysterious: I figured out the most of it ahead of the story. There was a real twist at the end which was interesting but….I think you may want to pass on this one.

Presenting to Win: The Art of Telling Your Story, Jerry Weissman

MEGO. Is this a commonly known acronym? The first time I saw it was in this book. How do you get things into the daily lexicon? “Don’t tase me bro” came and went. Shock and Awe didn’t last long. Moore’s Law of transistors is said to run its course by 2010. Does MEGO have a few hours in the sun?

I have not stopped reading, even though you could not tell looking at the paucity of recent blog entries. Megan reminded me of my dilatory attention to the exploration and discovery of truth. Thanks for being interested.   As the author explains, “ the inevitable reaction of an audience to a Data Dump is not persuasion but rather the dreadful effect known as MEGO.” One of the few nuggets found in this stream. MEGO means Mine Eyes Glaze Over. Don't stop reading, this will be a short one.
I stopped writing because, after reading 5 books, none of which were particularly inspiring, I did not have the burning desire to wax poetic. Dreary may be the best descriptor of the recent attempt at expanding the mind. Much as with Lorentz’s “The Einstein Theory of Relativity”, ( see http://mrwcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2010/11/einstein-theory-of-relativity-ha.html)  where I hoped to finally understand travel at velocities near the speed of light,  I plowed into Presenting to Win: The Art of Telling Your Story, by  Jerry Weissman, hoping to give a better PowerPoint presentation. I had recently given a presentation which I perceived to not be well received. I was looking for a new direction. 288 pages later, I gleaned a few tips which I will share.

I cannot now sit through a PowerPoint without being very critical of others; seeing them commit the “Five Cardinal Sins” listed here:  1- NO Clear Point. 2- NO Audience Benefit (you don’t want the audience to ask” so what”)3- NO Clear flow.4- TOO Detailed (the most common and I think greatest mistake made.) 5- TOO Long. (Usually a direct result of #4) There must be a million people writing mediocre books like this one. One hears tell, it is impossible to get a publisher to look at your manuscript. (or screen play if we use a Hollywood analogy).  Weissman not only got it read, also published. The writing was uninspiring, predictable and rather obvious. The editing was poor; Way to many word contractions and if you think I am wordy or like the run on sentence, Weissman could be my mentor. Here are the rest of the nuggets.  

“The art of persuasion must be balanced by Audience Advocacy: convincing your audience that what you want will serve their interests, too.” ...“It’s never enough to present the Features of what you’re selling; every Feature must always be translated into a Benefit” ...“Every communication has as its goal to take the audience from where they are at the start of your presentation, which is Point A, and move them to you objective, which is point B”“This crucial concept of starting with the goal in mind hasn’t penetrated our thing about presentations. …What’s the point” . “In business, when the point is not crystal clear, and when the benefit to the audience is not vividly evident, the investment is declined, the sale is not made, the approval is not granted; the presentation fails.”  “The overwhelming majority of business presentations merely serve to convey data, not to persuade.”

288 pages.  Other key concepts, less is more, you are the presentation not the slides. (unless you are pitching your graphical slide making capability)

All good points. Not enough to inspire serious navel gazing or contemplations of the universe and my place in it.I did think I could do a better job of un-cluttering data on slides and focusing more on me (as the story teller) of the presentation rather than the slides.

Gumpy Old Men

Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them.
Henry David Thoreau
Quiet desperation?  Recently, I have been confronted with a number of stress inducing events,(I do not include the family visiting for the Christmas holidays in the stressful category) and yet I remain optimistic. It is really irrational. Linda is not as sanguine.
Let me review: My "career" was interrupted at it's peak.(resulting in a "significant", if not staggering, income reduction) I have been unable to find useful work for over two years of trying. I "had" four jobs only to have the offers withdrawn; in one case one week before the scheduled training. I am still in an expensive legal quagmire with my former partners unable to extricate myself.  Our house is for sale and not one showing in three months. My 90 year old mother in law is in the hospital stressing my lovely wife to the point of distraction. I recently spent two months wearing a plastic boot, cutting off my ability to wade the stream. I was in the Emergency Room with my son last night until 2:30 am. (Mostly waiting in line for the CT scanner. Nothing serious it turns out). My aging brain has suppressed the memories of everything else. Which suppression  may be a partial explanation of why I am not so grumpy or angry.

I could go on all day and yet some how I am looking forward to tomorrow. I also think I am so unique, so special and different but maybe I am like a lot of other aging men.

As I was expanding my mind with reading, I came across an interesting article on why grumpy old men are not so grumpy.
  I include an excerpt from one Christopher Orlet, a "writer" who explained my state of relative bliss.

STILL, THE NOTION that old people are grouches is hard to shake. The study explains this misconception too. Supposedly, it takes more to ruffle gray feathers because oldsters have finally made peace with how pathetic and disappointing --  err, I mean ordinary --  their lives have turned out. They have accepted the fact that they aren't going to write the great American novel, or even a memorable Tweet, that they will never have that summer cottage on Cape Cod, and that their daughters all married knuckleheads. And that's okay.
Also, old people are happier because they no longer care about the nonsense younger people care about: i.e., ambition, popularity, looks, material goods, pleasing supposedly important people. In fact, they don't care about much of anything. I already don't care about those things, so I'm off to a good start.

None of this means old folks are not thoroughly disgusted with today's youth. Other research shows that old fogies get a boost of self-esteem reading negative articles about young people, because, basically, everything in popular culture and TV is aimed at them, except Matlock, and they had to go and cancel that.

Entire article here: http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/06/happy-whiny-people/

Should I add disclaimers? I never liked Matlock.

On the Decay of the Art of Lying, Mark Twain

"Children and fools always speak the truth. The deduction is plain—adults and wise persons never speak it."

This was a short story; each paragraph dripping with cynicism, irony, and humor. I chuckled throughout, approaching LOL a few times. As our grandchildren attain verbosity, this truth telling shines like a new chrome bumper. Young children not only tell the truth but their perspective on the facts is enlightening. How do they know what the truth is? They see it and they say it. How then, are we sometimes embarrassed by the light and understanding now exposed? I should like to hear more truth. Twain in his story believes it does not exist. I quote:

"None of us could live with an habitual truth-teller; but thank goodness none of us has to. An habitual truth-teller is simply an impossible creature; he does not exist; he never has existed. Of course there are people who think they never lie, but it is not so."

"Observe, I do not mean to suggest that the custom of lying has suffered any decay or interruption—no, for the Lie , as a Virtue, A Principle, is eternal; the Lie, as a recreation, a solace, a refuge in time of need, the fourth Grace, the tenth Muse, man’s best and surest friend, is immortal, and cannot perish from the earth while this club remains. My complaint is simply concerns the decay of the art of lying."

Twains seems to castigate those who tolerate the dishonest through insightful humorous sarcasm:

"The man who tells a lie to help a poor devil out of trouble, is one of whom the angels doubtless say, “Lo, here is an heroic soul who casts his own welfare in jeopardy to succor his neighbor’s, let us exalt this magnanimous liar.”

If Mark Twain was an author of “adolescent literature”, writings such as these make him a philosopher and commentator on society. I should like to include the entire text with the hope everyone would read it but at least, let me finish with Twains summation on the decay of Lying.

"Lying is universal- we all do it. Therefore, the wise thing is for us diligently to train ourselves to lie thoughtfully, judiciously; to lie with a good object and not an evil one; to lie for others advantage, and not our own; to lie healingly, charitably, humanely, not cruelly, hurtfully, maliciously; to lie gracefully and graciously, not awkwardly and clumsily; to lie firmly, frankly, squarely, with head erect, not haltingly, tortuously, with pusillanimous mien, as being ashamed of our high calling."

The Man Who Would Be King. Rudyard Kipling. 1888

"It's good to be the King”,says Mel Brooks. Does anyone recognize that not very obscure movie reference? Does everyone wish to be rich, famous, or the King? I'll discuss that in the next paragraph. I don't believe this book was intended or written as a children’s book, although by today's standards, it is remarkably absent violence, sexual content, inappropriate language, and overtly frightening elements. It could be read, ala Princess Bride to any adolescent.(It is rather short) I read it because I liked the movie, of the same name, made several years ago with Sean Connery and Michael Caine. The book follows the movie rather closely although compromises must be made when compressing a book into two hours of celluloid. It read well although knowing the ending in advance did remove a little bit of the suspense. I had read very little of Kipling and thought this might be a chance. I did enjoy how the life of the English in occupied India was depicted; a small open window gives look inside. Also, as an aside, for those following the blog, Free Masonry played a part in securing the Kingship.

I can't decide if this was a just an interesting story or if there is a "moral". It does seem that greed, currently a political metaphor, always leads to misery. In this story, the money was irrelevant as it could not be spent. To spend the fortune meant leaving the Kingdom. If they left, Peachy and Dan could no longer be Kings of Kafiristan. Of course, if we are going to quote, it is the “love of money “which is the “root of all evil”. Eventually and predictably, the riches were not enough and although the partners had made a pinky swear, a woman was their demise. Stop me if you have heard that before. It may be the love of a woman who is not your wife is the root of all misery.

The Einstein Theory Of Relativity, HA Lorentz, 1920

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” A Einstein.

This book is several stories, physics, Einstein, life in the early 1900s, the author, Relativity, principle vs. mechanical theory, gravity, light, electro-magnetism, solar eclipse and more. I should like to jump around to some highlights and I make no attempt to explain Relativity, Special, General or otherwise.

The author HA Lorentz was a noted physicist himself. In 1902, he won the Nobel Prize for physics. In 1920, he wrote this book, which includes some general explanations of relativity. I have struggled with some of the concepts of general relativity and decided reading something written contemporaneously to Einstein’s life might help clarify those issues. It was interesting to read the books opening paragraph after which gave me hope. I opened my mind, willingly looking for clarity and finally understanding.

“NOTE: that not more than 12 persons in all the world are able to understand Einstein’s Theory, It is nevertheless a fact that there is a constant demand for information about this much-debated topic of relativity. The books published on the subject are so technical that only a person trained in pure physics and higher mathematics is able to fully understand them. In order to make a popular explanation of the far reaching theory available, the present book is published.”

This was it, finally I would be enlightened! Did the author succeed in his quest? You have got to be kidding. The reason only 12 people in the world understand Relativity is because it is impossible to understand. Twins that do not age, light bending in space ships, trains going in opposite directions with different clocks, I would like to go back to the Ether. ( I will explain the Ether afterwards)

So I read the book, maybe next time. Maybe next time.

Let me include a few quotes from the book,

- “Einstein’s theory has the very highest degree of a aesthetic merit: every lover of the beautiful must wish it to be true. It gives a vast unified survey of the operations of nature, with a technical simplicity in the critical assumptions which makes the wealth of deductions astonishing”

- There certainly should have been a powerful “ether wind” blowing through the earth and all our instruments….all the phenomena examined were evidently independent of the motion of the earth. That this is the way they function was brought to the front by Einstein in his first or “special” theory of relativity. For him the Ether does not function and in the sketch that he draws of natural phenomena there is no mention of the intermediate matter.

- Nevertheless, I cannot refrain, while I am mentioning it, from expressing my surprise that, according to the report in the Times there should be so much complaint about the difficulty of understanding the new theory.

ETHER: Before Einstein, certain observations could not be explained. Mostly it involved the wave versus particle theories of energy, tne nature of atomic particles, light propagation, electrical currents and electromagnetic influences on currents. In order to explain why observation with did not jive with the theories of the day, the Ether was invented. It was a great idea and I wish we still had it. The real name of the Ether was Luminiferous Aether (Greek) look here to see more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether (it has been proven to NOT exist) (Gravity cannot be explained still. Although Einstein postulates it is not instantaneous and may have velocity.)

Does the Ethernet mean any to any of you? From what was the name derived? My new favorite concept is the Ether. It works great. If you cannot explain something, it is the Ether. If some crazy idea comes out, the Ether. When people say the government can create jobs or solve the problems of poverty, you can ascribe the origin of the crazy ideas to the Ether: A substance that is mysterious and does not exist. NO RATIONAL OR ACTUAL EXPLANATION NECESSARY AND YOU DON’T NEED FACTS!!!! Too cool. In physics the Ether does not apply anymore,only politics.

As promised, I will not explain any theories but in this book, Lorentz explains an experiment used to test the Relativity theory. This was great. In 1919, The English mounted expeditions. Physicists traveled to Prince’s island, of the coast of Guinea, and Sobral Brazil and measured the deflection of light emanating from distant stars around the solar rim. IN 1919. No laser, no computers no anything. They were measuring the gravitational effects of the sun on passing light. The measured bending of light matched, within the error of the day, the deflection predicted by Einstein. In this way, Einstein introduced an entirely new way of science. Rather than making observations followed by testing and formulation of theory. Einstein formulated theory and looked to see if the observations would confirm or disprove the idea. This was a transformational concept of the day. He called it “a-priori principle.”

Fun book, not for the mathematically challenged. I hope I made you think today.

Cool Einstein quotes:

- “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

- “Only a life lived for others is a life worth while.”

- “If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough”

- “The world is not dangerous because of those who do harm but because of those who look at it without doing anything”