Friday, July 31, 2015

Why I Like the Pope

Pope Francis is a big hit. Non-Catholics love him; most Catholics love him; many hardcore traditionalist Catholics don't like him. I have heard from some really, really active Catholics (ones who don't just go to church but who study every aspect of the workings of the Church) criticize his ideas. I'm not in a position to argue with them, because they are more knowledgeable than I. 

What I do see, though, is (at least through my lens) a pope who does not create but who emphasizes the ideals that Catholicism has always represented, to me, as a Catholic: humility, compassion, charity and a welcoming of all who honestly seek to understand God. It is not that other popes have not believed this, I am sure; it is just that they seem to have been more focused on discussing what was wrong to do as opposed to what is right to do  -- at least, they seem to have seemed that way to non-Catholics and to alienated Catholics. 

I'll admit I am probably too intrinsically and actively philosophical to be an easy-sell when it comes to religion; I was the kid in catechism class who asked all of the annoying questions. Catholicism, to me, though, has proven itself, at the very least, as a philosophical and theological system (if not always in terms of the sometimes heinous actions of its individual members) so different from how the average anti-religion person views Christians: judgmental, angry, exclusionary, uneducated. 

So, on one hand, I am glad that Pope Francis is exemplifying what Catholicism has always felt like to me. I do, however, wish people on the outside would stop expecting him to start openly accepting every modern idea under the sun; or, at least, that they would understand that he is not some rogue, rock star priest, but that he represents the ancient Church he has dedicated his life to. 

I saw a news commentator once say that while he is glad the Pope spoke of not condemning homosexuals who are "earnestly seeking God" he is "disappointed" that the Pope still won't accept gay marriage. He is still the Pope of the Catholic Church, and gay marriage is not in the bylaws, as it were. No one should be surprised by this, even if they disagree. 

All I know is that I watched him step out onto the balcony on the day of his selection and I called my wife and said, "This guy is going to be very different." He has proven himself so, especially in his quest to live by example. He carries himself in a very Christlike way and his emphasis on kindness, humility and the closing of the rifts between the faiths is something the world needs now. I like the him very much. 

(I recommend -- very highly -- the article on the Pope in the latest issue of National Geographic. Very interesting.) 

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

How Much Virtuality Can We Stand?





Philadelphia; Thirtieth Street Station
columns and a modern building, beyond.










Monday, July 27, 2015

Four Days in Washington

A great boy at the feet of a great man. 
I should have said something about my impending hiatus, but I still operate under that bit of modern wisdom that it is not good to advertise on the Internet when you are going to be away from home...but I was, indeed, away. The family headed off to Washington DC. Now you have to pay the price of a churned-up writer's head...

Where to start? I may have been to DC as a kid, but, if I was, I remembered nothing. First, the city itself...

Weird. Not bad, at all (despite a few run-ins with drugged-up street people in Chinatown) -- just weird. I was pretty shocked by how un-historical the city felt, for on thing. This may seem like a ridiculous statement, but I think the Greek and Roman architecture, everywhere, makes the city feel timeless -- which might well have been the aim of the planners; the duration of the Republic and all that. This same end is achieved in the paintings in places like the National Archives and in the Capitol; the ones that show the Founding Fathers in neoclassical/Romantic settings that echo paintings of the Greek heroes and philosophers congregating and conversing in their animated groups, all in the act of debating or of feverishly passing paper documents around... It all works to elevate the city to the perceived level of Democratic Mecca, which, I suppose, is not a bad idea.

But Washington DC feels somehow slightly cold to me. I read, on a placard somewhere in the Museum of American History, that George Washington, in trying to find his niche as president, had humbly asked only to be called "Mr. President" (some had suggested he be the emperor, to give you perspective) and that he had decided, as president, not shake people's hands, but to bow formally, when he met them, in order to maintain some separation and to not seem either too aristocratic or too egalitarian. And the city that bears his name feels the same way; it doesn't really shake your hand; it bows a not-unfriendly bow; it welcomes you but it asks, politely, that you not put your feet up on the coffee table.

Some months ago, I fell deeply and immediately in love with Boston. With DC left feeling intellectually stimulated, culturally fulfilled and accomplished, but not in love.

One couldn't help, though, whirling away mentally into a million philosophical questions. The monuments were as powerful as advertised, especially the Korean War Memorial and the Jefferson Memorial. The Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial are so ubiquitous in photographs, one feels he has already "seen" them, though they were wonderful to see. The Vietnam Memorial was moving simply because of the visual numbers of lost and dead...but, Jefferson and the Korean War Memorial were different.

At the Korean War Memorial, I felt my usual spiritual schism: two separate but strong feelings running in parallel: a deep pride in the men who fought and did what they believed in and a deep revulsion for the heinousness of war; especially of a war that achieved absolutely nothing and in which the soldiers were poorly equipped and inadequately supported by their government. Yet, there the men were, in the memorial, in rain gear and helmets, walking in formation and carrying their battered, poorly-functioning World War II reissued rifles, moving in formation through the dense vegetation. The lump in my throat was there in pride, but the anger threatened to push it out to the embarrassment of my family...

The staggering Korean War Memorial. 
We'd walked the entire National Mall on the first day and we were bone-tired by the time we reached the Tidal Basin. (My overused bass drum ankle was aching with staggering intensity.) Across the water, we all looked out at the Jefferson Memorial and I asked my wife and the boys if they felt up to it. Everyone nodded. (I'm glad they did, because any excuse to turn back would have been hard to resist.)

Thomas Jefferson has always been one of my favorite historical and philosophical figures and his monument could not have been more perfectly imagined. Looking back out over the city, the Tidal Basin sparkling between his statue and the White House, the water undulating as if to represent the silver thoughts of  democracy that Jefferson was so instrumental in promoting; as if the city had emerged from his rippling and twinkling ideals like Atlantis reborn, it was hard not to feel patriotic, in the real sense. It was cool, up there, as well, under and on the marble, the breeze blowing through and making the monument an oasis from the ninety degree heat and giving it the feel of a place of sanity, sheltering us under the column-lifted dome from the barrage of modern noise. I could have sat there for days.

Arlington, of course, was dramatic and moving, but it called up the same philosophical and emotional schism in me: a mix of pride and disgust. As we watched the changing of the guards at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, I found my eyes brimming. I'm still not sure if it was a result of the mechanical beauty of the ritual created by the soldiers themselves in honor of all of their lost and fallen brothers or whether it was because of the keen sense of waste of life -- the sense that the man in the sarcophagus was someone's son or husband or brother who died for -- what? Did he really die for the old boilerplate "freedom," as in WWII, or is that ubiquitously applied word just a cover up for lives wasted as they were in Vietnam and Korea? In those wars, did those guys die for "freedom" or did they die for the incorrect political calculations of men in suits and brass-studded uniforms? I honor sacrifice either way. Deeply. But I hate that they died for nothing. (I have friends who -- and this baffles me -- just cannot understand that position.)

At any rate, we came home back pretty tired, as if traveling through portals: from one stone-columned city into a stone-columned train station at Union Station and exiting through another stone-columned portal at Philadelphia's dramatic Thirtieth Street Station and then into a car and back into the tree-lined suburbs of home -- a home that would not be possible without human sacrifice and without that which occurs in those lofty Greco-Roman buildings in DC. None of that means, however, that I accept the absolute need for war or that every war is a battle for freedom or that I believe, wholesale, that America is a perfect place. Thomas Jefferson would surely scowl down upon me if I did. Blind patriots are fools.

The Union Station Portal

The Thirtieth Street Station Portal...and home. 

Monday, July 20, 2015

Mr. Holmes: How Ian McKellen Gave Us Back the "Real" Sherlock Holmes

On Friday, I had the pleasure of having seen the beautiful film, Mr. Holmes. Ian McKellen was, as expected, brilliant as Sherlock Holmes. As a film, in and of itself, it was beautifully photographed, well-written and wonderfully executed in every way. Most importantly, though, it gives us back a Holmes that has been slowly blanched away over the years; the "real" Sherlock Holmes.

Basil Rathbone
In my estimation, the movie vindicates Sherlock Holmes -- rescues the character from the common perceptions that were, in my opinion, sown by Jeremy Brett and reaped by Benedict Cumberbatch.

Sherlock Holmes might be the most commonly portrayed character in literary history. Even during Doyle's years of success in the late Victorian era (in which people many people believed Holmes was real), Holmes was being portrayed on the stage.

On film, Basil Rathbone became the Holmes, for quite awhile and, sadly, alongside him, Nigel Bruce turned Watson into a sort of blithering fool in popular perception. (He has since been saved from that fate by the likes of David Burke and Edward Hardwicke (BBC, with Brett), Jude Law and, masterfully, by Martin Freeman (Sherlock, BBC).

Rathbone had most of the elements of Doyle's written Holmes, from his described (and illustrated) appearance to his rapid shifts from languid boredom to high-energy (and physically quirky) fits of enthusiasm. Courageously, the producers even allowed reference to Holmes's use of drugs to fend off boredom -- at least, in The Hound of the Baskervilles: "Watson! The needle."

Between Rathbone and Brett, there were several Holmes portrayals, but none really significant. When Jeremy Brett came along, I was disappointed. Many like him, but I found his portrayal to be a bit disturbing. I couldn't help but think Brett's Holmes was the kind of guy I wouldn't leave my kids alone with... his quirkiness seemed unwholesome in some way. And with Brett, Holmes started to be more closely associated with what amounts to something more subtle in the actual texts; he turned from the socially uninterested fellow to a rude and self-centered person. One could easily diagnose Brett's Holmes with Asperger's syndrome.

Robert Downey Jr. is not bad, but he does the ne'er-do-well Holmes; the likable, wayward genius. (The writing of the movies...not so much.)
McKellen's Holmes and his buddy Roger.

Then, Benedict Cumberbatch came along. I love his Holmes -- I really do. And I love the Sherlock series, much to my surprise. (I expected Holmes to be ruined by the modern setting.) In spirit, I think Cumberbatch is a wonderful Holmes. The writers, though, have chosen to label Holmes as -- and Holmes calls himself this -- a "high-functioning sociopath." (I wouldn't leave my kids with Cumberbatch's Holmes, either; not because I fear what he might do to them but because I would fear he might  forget he had them and they would wind up wandering onto the tracks in some nearby Underground station.)

I should not be surprised by the extreme characterization of Holmes. It is very fashionable to be messed-up in the head, these days. There is a common perception that a genius must, as part of his resume requirements, be a mentally unhealthy person. I disagree strongly with this and I also disagree strongly that Holmes, on the page, is ever even close to either Asperger's or to the level of a high-functioning sociopath.

That said, interpretation is what keep literature alive and a character like Holmes can only benefit by fresh renditions.

Therefore, I am glad that McKellan came along and wrenched Holmes back into what I think is the proper place. He is a man who, though brilliant about logic and in following in the footsteps of human action, never really gave time to understanding the human heart; who (and this is in the text) dismisses love and friendship as something that is unnecessary and that is a hindrance to his work.

But, McKellen's Holmes is is sympathetic and likable, but never saccharine. He even -- ironically, considering my statements about Brett -- mentors a the little boy of his housekeeper in a relationship that is as beautiful as that of any grandfather and grandson.

Let it suffice to say that the elderly Holmes finds many things he has long lacked, after great trials.

While I am a lover of the Sherlock Holmes stories, I have never been a detail freak. It is the character that I have always loved, not the memorization of the contents of 221B or the regurgitation of Holmes's steps to solving the mystery of "The Five Orange Pips." I like Sherlock Holmes and I recognize his flaws and I admire his tremendous strengths. Ian McKellen and Mitch Cullin (the writer of the screenplay based on his own novel) gave me back the Holmes I knew: a man who I would, in fact, leave my sons alone with because not only do I trust him but I believe they could benefit from not only his example of logic and brilliance, but, also, from his kind heart and good humor.

See this movie, especially if you love Sherlock Holmes.

Friday, July 17, 2015

Why Dogs Are Better Than Humans

Me and my dog-in-law,
Harley, in Cape Cod, philosophizing.
May he rest in peace. 



I'd argue, unequivocally "no."




Wednesday, July 15, 2015

It's Bad to Be Fat

It's bad to be fat. It's bad for your body.

Agreement, so far? We all know this. The medical community is pretty much solidly behind the idea.

Big guy. 
But in a world in which the the popular concept of "freedom" is that nothing is wrong and that nothing that can be considered "offensive" can be said, one has to -- unless he is wearing a lab coat -- be careful about saying that it is bad to be fat. (Not only that, but a word other than "fat" needs to be used...)

One might, heaven forbid, become a "body-shamer."

So, obesity, slowly but surely, has become "curvy" and women have started to "own" their obesity -- to strut their obesity. No one is allowed to say anything, because it is okay to be "big and beautiful."

Sure it is okay. As long as you don't want to live a long and active life. As long as you don't mind little diabetic inconveniences, later in life, like blindness and amputations. As long as you are cool with a fatal myocardial infarction at forty-five. Sure -- go ahead. Be big and beautiful. And you can be beautiful at any weight; it's just not good for you. If you can be fat and beautiful but still be beautiful if you are thin, the logical choice is to be thin and beautiful, for you. It ain't easy, but it does make sense.

We a culture of extremes; of the proverbial pendulum. A normal woman of average weight is "plus-sized" in the modeling world and a woman who is morbidly obese is "curvy" in popular discourse. Sophia Loren is curvy. Melissa McCarthy is obese. Sophia, as far as I know, remains healthy in her eighties. Melissa might not be so lucky -- though I hope she lives to be a hundred, God-willing.

And guys? The "dad-bod" is now, according to the media, officially "in." I hear men saying, I'm a "big guy." But I would argue that while Liam Neeson, at 6'4and about 225, is a "big guy," John Candy was fat -- and how I miss him; maybe my favorite comic actor of all time.

Of course, I am not suggesting that we go around telling people how fat they are, but that we should stop teaching our children, by tip-toeing examples born out of a collective social desire to make everyone feel perfect, that all of the pressure is off when it comes to body size.
Obese guy. 

Anorexia and bulimia are still horrifyingly prevalent problems, especially for young women, but for men, too. For God's sake, lets get the message out that your average American woman is in the 160s, not in the 120s. Let's get the impossible role models in check; let's get the word out that 140 is plenty sexy. But let's not send the message that obesity is a good choice.

As with everything, balance is the key: let's not encourage obesity and let's not set impossible expectations of skinniness. Can we do this? Fat is fat. and it just is not good for your body.

I and mine have worked hard to fight being fat for as long as I can remember. For me it is a quest meant to help me, when I am older, to "go down standin' up." I want to be strong as long as I can. Sure, I think I look much better at 205 than I do at 240, but there's stuff that is more important than that. And I can't stand by and watch my sons eat themselves into bad health. It has to be about facts; not image. It has to be about logic and not emotion.

If we can't be honest, the Utopia of Non-Offense that we are trying to create is worthless.

Friday, July 10, 2015

Ten Characteristics of Flawed Parents

Parental perfection. Bull pucky.

1) They read lists to try to figure out how to be a good parent.
Okay. That was mean. Sorry. 

2) They go on "dates" with their kids. That's just creepy.
Seriously -- just spend time with your kids. Do we have to get all Oedipal about it? That's got to do some damage somewhere along the line... 

3) They read articles instead of "reading" their kids.
Articles can be good, but nobody but you can really see what you kids needs from you. But you gotta think. Nobody can hand you insight. 

4) They think that because they survived doing asinine or ignorant things that kids today should do the same. 
Just because you went out without sunscreen and sat on the roof of a moving pickup truck and survived, by chance, it doesn't mean we should throw away years of accrued scientific study so that our wimpy kids tougher. So quit it. Toughen them up without pushing stupidity, if you must. 

5) They believe it when one psychologist says every established bit of wisdom about being a parent is now -- all of a sudden -- wrong. 
Just because this guy comes along and say punishing your kids for bad behavior is the worst thing you can do, you are going to buy it lock, stock and barrel? Stir it into the stew of consideration, but don't just gobble it up.

6) They think that everything lower than a B is "unacceptable."
I get it. Motivation. But how wrong is it to teach your kid he or she can be perfect, in anything? I have taught kids who have gotten nothing but As during their entire school careers. Can that be a true assessment? Is that a fair standard to carry into life? Many of the most successful people in life have been C students...or worse. Maybe it is because they felt they had some country yet to discover... Back off, Patton. 
7) They treat their kids like they are the center of their world.
Your kids should be the center of your world. But they shouldn't constantly be aware of it. That's too much pressure for anyone to take and you are going to lay it on a ten-year-old? 
8) They exemplify what they will later complain about.
Put the cell phone down. Read books. Stop complaining. Don't yell and roll your eyes. Eat well. Spend time with your family. Don't talk about your friends behind their backs. Or, just shut up later. 
9)  They're afraid to apologize.
Just say it, once in awhile: "I overreacted" or "Sorry I yelled" or "That was unfair -- I drew the wrong conclusion." You're flawed, okay? What were you?  -- a straight-A-student?
10)  They're flawed.
We all are. Even windbags like me who might appear to think they know it all. I don't know .00004% of what I should, but that might be .00001% more than parents who spend their lives on auto-pilot. This gig's work. The one thing I do know is that you don't punch out at night for at least, like, twenty years.
Now, go forth and screw up as little as you can and forgive yourself for the rest.

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

A Hard Sentence

In education (and, I would guess, in the business world) we give and are given both "formative" and "summative" evaluations. The former is an evaluation that is given in order to help in development; the latter is a kind of judgement -- a conclusive look at work done and goals achieved. A summative evaluation says: this is you, as a professional (or as a student).

It seems to me that, in the social world, there is little but summative evaluation going on. I have been thinking about this a lot: At what point (if at any) does an action or a viewpoint define a person?

Just yesterday, as a result of my post on Monday, a friend on Facebook disagreed with what he saw my position to be. I still think he misread; as far as I know he still thinks I was off the mark. As it was related to the issue of racism and he is an African American, this could have been dicey. But, here's the thing: He knows me and I know him. We have known each other for years and we are both articulate and intellectually inquisitive. In discussion with this gentleman (and I underscore "gentleman") I never fear that a difference of opinion will be a deal-breaker for our friendship. We say what we think and we say it with civility. Sometimes, we actually change each other's minds. (His comments lead to one revision in my post from Monday.)

The best part about this scenario is that we are not in contact, very much, beyond Facebook. We used to work together in the mall when we were in school. I call this "the best part" not because I wouldn't like to see him more, but because it means we don't have the kind of deep history childhood friends might have; a history that would prevent us from ruining a lifetime of shared experience at the expense of our principles. Such a relation ship might override even the worst disagreements. With us, it is simple: we know well-enough what makes each of us tick. We understand each other's good intentions. While we might evaluate each other formatively ("I think you are very wrong here") we don't judge each other summatively ("Your viewpoint makes you a horrible person and I want nothing to do with you").

Lorenzo Lotto
Conversely, I have been completely ignored by someone (on Facebook) who disagreed with my position on an issue -- on one topic. This person now no longer communicates with me, despite having once been a very active reader of this blog and a constant communicator on Facebook.

I watched two high school friends tear each other apart in a political debate and their relationship ended, forthwith. Because they disagreed and also because they allowed their disagreement to get nasty, all bets were off. I know both of them and I think they are both very good-hearted guys. Should a disagreement have ended their chance to be friends?

Two things are at work, here, I suppose: 1) People's inability to argue without losing control of their emotions and 2) a prevalent assumption that a point of view gives us a summative picture of a person and that that summation is a reason to remain or not remain friends with that person.

I could see looking at someone summatively if they were an outspoken supporter of, say, wife beating. That is not the kind of person I want to remain friends with; the position itself shows a violent nature and a disregard for humanity. But to end a relationship based on opposite political views? Nah. Even a sensitive issue (as has been proven several times with my friend above) can be discussed civilly with no damage to a friendship, so long as mutual respect exists and is exhibited.

What is pervasive is hard to defeat. I have seen a lot of use over the past few years of the phrase "horrible person" as applied to a person who said something disagreeable. That's a pretty hard sentence (in both senses of the word).

"Quick to judge -- Quick to anger -- Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand."
Neil Peart, "Witch Hunt."

Monday, July 6, 2015

A Chaos Theory of Human Action

When I teach causal analysis to my students, I start with a simple lesson: If a pot is boiling, one can see that the cause is the flame below the pot. Remove the flame (the cause) and the pot stops boiling (the condition [or, "problem"]).

Problems are seldom that simple. Still, if, say, a section of the factory is not up to speed with production, and one knows that there is a one-armed man on the line performing a job better handled by a two-armed man, one might shift things so that the one-armed man is moved to a position on the line at which he needs only push a button at the right time. 

When we move out into the complex world of society, things become even more complicated. Every time something bad happens, well-intentioned folks try to "start a conversation" about it. Then, subsequent groups try to "raise awareness" about it. This can be a good thing, but, more often than not, this is an exercise in self-medication; we often just do these things because they make us feel like we are accomplishing something, when, in terms of actual problem solving, we may not be accomplishing anything at all. 

Don't get me wrong: we may well accomplish something by "raising awareness" and "starting a conversation," as long as the subject at hand is grounded in the real world; in a world of some semblance of logical function; in a chaos-free set of circumstances. 

If, for, instance, historic buildings in a neighborhood in Philadelphia start to show House-of-Usher-like cracks and begin sinking into the sewers, a cause needs to be found and a solution needs to be employed. This can't be done without "raising awareness" (making the community aware of the problem) or without "starting a conversation" among local government, architectural experts, etc...

But when, for example, some animal shoots up a church, we need to be careful. When an act is so nonsensical and so purely evil as that "starting a conversation" about it can also, in the minds of similarly-inclined animals, lend the act a form of credibility, we need to watch our collective step. We may turn the nonsensical into something with a false foundation; with (in the eyes of the misguided or animalistic) a seemingly valid reason. 

Having a sensitive discussion about what causes this kind of thing may need to happen among a team of psychologists, but to do so in the public sphere, in the media, may have a counterproductive effect. 

In an interview for a teaching job, I was once asked if it is ever time to "give up on a student" so that the rest of the class can progress. The answer is no. Never. One finds a way to keep the rest of the class going while still attending to that individual student's needs. 

But with a murderous anomaly who walks in to a church and guns down innocent people, I am inclined to punish him severely and move on. Even your average loud-mouthed racist -- while he may be a nothing more than a pimple on the rump of humanity -- is a far cry away from the kind of evil that would do such a thing. 

If I believed a public causal analysis would give an indisputable answer as to why a guy shoots up a public place, I would encourage it. As it stands, it feels more to me like a sensible discussion of the completely irrational may do more harm than good and may even sustain the problem. As I said, the discussion needs to happen, but maybe not on a radio talk show. In that forum, we tend to conclude things like: "Video games cause kids to blow up their schools." (Right...)

Perhaps Dylann Roof doesn't deserve to be figured out, even if he can be -- which he can't. Perhaps he needs to be locked up in solitary confinement until he rots. Unlike some paradoxical people, I think killing is wrong, no matter what, so I would never call for his death, but it might be nice if the relatives of those he killed could stop by once in awhile and look through a little window and watch him shivering on a cold stone floor. 

I don't want to have a conversation about what caused Roof to take innocent lives as if any "reason" could make it all make sense. It really can't. And, in the end, should it? Human behavior might well have its own chaos theory. One can't figure out chaos. 

Friday, July 3, 2015

A Farewell to the Big Bookstore

I have always loved bookstores, especially the little ones that hold hidden discoveries and the bigger independent ones that contain carefully selected stock of the essentials. In the not-so-old days, I even liked the mega stores, for a different reason: You could usually find the book you needed.

I love to find the out-of-the way stores, still, but it has also been a practice of my family to sometimes go to dinner and then to the big bookstore to pick up a new treat, especially as summer kicks in. But it's just not fun, for me, anymore. That makes me pretty sad.

I hear the remaining big bookstores are still doing well and I am glad. I'm also glad the book is faring well against the e-book. I realize, however, that they are doing well because they are stocking what sells: "Teen Paranormal" and various other popular series. As for the rest? Forget it.

If you are a real reader with a literary background, don't consider looking for an out of the way Theodore Dreiser; you'll find only Sister Carrie. Jack London? Forget The Sea Wolf; you'll find only White Fang. I suppose they need to save room for Fifty Shades of Grey and the latest installment of Young, Handsome Vampires on Prom Night. (Okay -- I made that one up.)

My kinda bookstore. 
I'm not trying to be curmudgeonly. I have no problem with light reading or with popular fiction. I just hate to see it push out the wonderland of undiscovered stuff I could once wander through at a Borders or Barnes and Noble. Last trip, I had a heck of a time finding something I wanted to read. I did wind up finding Vonnegut's Mother Night, which was an exceptional book, but this was only after I had slogged my way up to various other dead-ends in pursuit of authors whose work I wanted to explore more deeply. I had "settled" because Vonnegut was in stock in numbers few other top-notch authors are.

I understand that, from a business perspective, bookstores are doing what they need to do to survive and I would rather see them survive than bend to my stuffy will and fold -- I just wish it didn't have to be so.

So, now, it's either trips into the city (and good luck there, too, finding the little shops) or it's onto the web to get what I need. There used to be two little bookstores five minutes from my house. I just miss them and the trips on my bike, on foot or through the heavy summer evening air that made them feel like a cool conclusion to an occasional little quest.

I miss a lot of stuff, but I guess that's getting older.

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

A Sound Revelation

This is, I suppose, nothing more than a public service message plus a little bit of self-service.

I generally get annoyed by "audiophiles" because they tend to spend their time looking for things to dislike in recordings, but, I have to agree with many of them who claim that an mp3 does not sound as good as a CD. I think it is completely true.

My four-year-old prestidigitation. 
I'll occasionally listen to my 2011 album, Hats and Rabbits, on my phone, in the car. The other day, for some reason, I put in the CD and, as attuned as I am to every aspect of the sound (having recorded, engineered and produced it all myself) I was completely taken by surprise by the added depth of the sound on CD.

I'm not sure if everyone would notice this difference, consciously, but I do believe that music works on so many levels that it could have an overall effect on the listener. It's similar to the effect of drinking a Coke, with high fructose corn syrup, and then drinking a Mexican Coke with real sugar: something is just more right about it, even if you can't consciously put your finger on it.

That said, I am not afraid to self-promote, having listened, recently, to my work, and thinking I done pretty good, and to give you a link to buy the actual CD.

Also, in a few months, my collection of piano pieces, American Sketches, will be ready, and available on both CD and download -- I suggest the CD.

Self-promotion aside, it really does make a difference. A step back to CDs could feed your soul on unconscious levels. There's a richness there that mp3s just lose. I guess this position is similar to that of the "vinyl" people (the smart ones, not the dumb ones who say they miss the scratchy sounds, but the ones who prefer the warmth of analog sound).

Too much virtuality. Not enough to sink our teeth into. The world of the senses is slipping away every day, stolen by the scramble for efficiency and ubiquitousness. Everythnig is low fat, across the senses' board.

(By the way, I think just burning a CD from mp3s woud fit the bill to improve the sound by turning it into a WAV file -- try it!)