Looking Ahead

Slate: Death of 'The Sopranos' - washingtonpost.com

While the link above is a discussion of The Sopranos, I've really posted it to ask an unrelated question inspired by it. Timothy Noah, whose writing I often enjoy, says something here that rings false for me, and I want to know if others feel the same. In trying to blow off a question asking him to predict the fate of certain characters, he writes:

I've tried to avoid predictions, and focus instead on responding to the series as it unfolds. When you're reading a novel you don't pause to predict out loud what you think is going to happen. You press on with fascination to see how the author is going to end it, and to assess how well he or she pulls it off.

I don't know about you--that's why I'm asking--but I do pause and "predict out loud" what I think will happen. "Oh no, she's going to die," or, "I bet the baby is his," or, "those two will end up together."

And why not? In fact, I would argue that it's a disservice to the author NOT to look ahead and try to guess what will happen. If you have no expectations, how can the author shock and surprise you by subverting them? How can a writer lead you down a path that fulfills your desires for the characters if you don't stop to think about what could, and should, happen to them? I know I'm reading a really good book when I can't help but react verbally to it, laughing out loud, predicting out loud, gasping when things go awry. I did it today while reading over lunch (with my office door shut, mind you) and knew I was engaged in my current reading material.

What do you think? Is Noah right, or is it natural--and desirable--to think ahead and predict how events in the book you're reading will unfold?

Oprah's On

Last night I did something I haven't done since college. I watched Oprah.

I had recorded the show to see Cormac McCarthy talk about The Road, but as luck would have it Michael Moore was also on the show, and I got to see several clips of Sicko. I'm paid not to like insurance companies very much, but Moore's argument that there is no place for a profit motive in health care should prove compelling to a lot of people.

Oprah's interview with McCarthy, however, wasn't very compelling. In fact, I was surprised to discover that for all her cultural primacy, Oprah isn't especially good at what she does. Her speech included several bizarre accents, as if she were reading from a teleprompter and didn't know the words she was reading. And the interview itself was quite odd. When McCarthy told Oprah that he hadn't minded being dirt poor for part of his life, and that he didn't care much how well his books sold, the billionaire striver in her seemed not to know what to do.

She also didn't really get into the book at all. I understand that she can't assume everyone watching has read it, but other than getting McCarthy to recollect a moment years ago that provided the impetus for his writing, Oprah pretty much left the book itself alone. She touched on a few themes, sure, but I would have liked to see McCarthy talk more about the levels on which it can be read. He also might have pushed her off the ledge of specificity; my reading of the book was that much of what went before and all of what comes after it are meant to be somewhat opaque. I am sure, though, that the movie version, already in the works, will insert all manner of detail and thus get the mood of the thing completely wrong.

In any case, despite her flaws as an interviewer I have to give Oprah credit. She may not be the best at discussing books, but she often makes bang-up choices. Her next pick, Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides, is one of my top ten books of the new millennium (along with The Corrections, another Oprah pick). If you haven't read it, now's the time!

Off the Hook

Some of you who have been reading the blog for a while may have deduced by now that going to Chicago Symphony Orchestra concerts is one of the few pre-planned events in the life of this happy gay couple. Mostly we operate out of habit or on the spur of the moment, which is sometimes frustrating for a planner like me but also leads to unexpected bliss from time to time.

Now I understand how my other half feels about being pestered to make plans, though. For two months or more, the CSO has been calling me, trying to get me to commit to a subscription package for 2007-2008. While there is a series we both think looks reasonably good (Saturday C, for those of you who are interested), we're not ready to pull the trigger--and may never be.

But telling the CSO rep that is nigh-on impossible. Believe me--I tried. She'd ask if she should call back in a week. "No, I don't think we'll have time to make a decision by then," I'd say. "Two weeks?" she'd brightly respond, but that question mark at the end was strictly for grammar--she'd be calling whether I wanted her to or not.

Through it all, what has annoyed me the most is that she persistently refers to my other half as "your wife." From the first time I said "We need time to discuss it," that's been her line: "Have you and your wife had a chance to decide which concerts you'd like to attend?" Tonight, finally, enough was too much. When she asked that question to open our call, I said, "First, my 'wife' is a man. Second, we still haven't had a chance to decide what to do; he works long hours." She was clearly a bit flummoxed, but give the gal credit; within two seconds she was asking--without any pause to apologize for her ongoing mis-assumption, mind you--"Should I call you back in a week?"

I said no, by the way. We can order our tickets online. On our timetable.

Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great

In this exquisitely written and often hilarious book, Hitchens provides comfort to those of us who have parted ways with the comforting lie of religion. To lose one's faith is a difficult thing, as Hitchens, who recalls in the book his former faith in an ideology he no longer espouses and the occasional pangs he feels having left it, knows. But it is, on balance, far better to face the truth.

In this case, that truth is that the religions of the West are based on rantings of desert dwellers thousands of years ago, in what Hitchens convincingly labels and explains as the childhood of our species. The major religions have twisted and turned to fit new discoveries into their antiquated prisms for viewing the world, but over the course of 280 pages Hitchens argues that we know enough today to know that we can view the world without such prisms. We can see it for what it is. Indeed, our survival may depend on being willing and able to apply reason, rather than faith, to our interactions with one another and with our planet.

Hitchens has shown himself to be capable of churning out a book a year and to write on almost any topic with wit and precision. But I, for one, hope that he takes up the topic of this book as his cause from now on. The U.S., especially, needs to have a debate about the role of religion in our political system. Hitchens provides those of us who would speak against mingling church and state with a stockpile of weapons to use in making our argument. But so much the better if he carries on making it himself!

In sum: An excellent, entertaining read. It may not convert the faithful, but those on the fence will find much to think about and those already with Hitchens will enjoy the way he makes his case.

This review also appears on Amazon.com.

Idol Predictions, Round of Two

It's all over but the crying. Oh, wait--Jordin has not only already won the crown, she's also already cried at the end of the Idol song! Does this mean we can skip her coronation tonight and pretend this whole season never happened?

Sunday Weekend Wind Down

Seinfeld Lists - The Puerto Rican Day

Amid a very pleasant weekend, I had a revelation unrelated to the trip I took to Augustana, the book I'm reading (God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything), or the shows I watched last night: There are a great many ways to classify people, but Sunday evening says a lot about a person.

In the Seinfeld episode linked above, Elaine flips out at the prospect of missing her Sunday wind-down period because she's trapped at the Puerto Rican Day parade. Though the episode was dropped from the syndication schedule (due to a line from Kramer about Puerto Rico being a land of constant mayhem), Elaine's plight always stuck with me.

I feel the same way as Elaine about my Sunday evening, but I don't think people who don't share this need to be home on Sunday after about 6 or 7 can understand it. The notion of driving home at 10 or 11 on Sunday night and having to go to work in the morning strikes me as more distasteful than almost anything I can imagine. I can stomach the occasional weekday late evening outing, and while I am a homebody by nature I don't really bat an eye at a late night on Saturday. But Sunday, sacred to others in the morning, becomes inviolate to me around the time the sun sets, maybe sooner.

My apologies to those who this confuses or irritates. Other people have religious dictates to follow; I don't gamble or go out on Sunday nights. Does anyone else share the latter penchant for end-of-weekend rest?

Suit Up!

CBS ANNOUNCES 2007-2008 PRIMETIME SCHEDULE

After weeks of wondering, this morning an answer arrives: CBS has renewed How I Met Your Mother for a third season. The press release announcing the eye's fall schedule refers to the show's "young and loyal audience," an indication that despite middling ratings, the network is glad to have a chance to pitch the rest of its lineup to folks who might otherwise steer clear of the senior circuit. Whatever works for you, CBS! As long as it means another year of Ted and Robin, Marshall and Lily, and the endlessly hilarious Barney, you can give any reason you want. This news makes my day!

Idol Predictions, Round of Three

Tonight I have to tip my hand. I expect one finale next week and desire another. I think Randy will probably be proven right, and next week we'll see Melinda and Jordin face off. But that will be a boring show! Blake, who I'm predicting will go home tomorrow night, would be much more fun to watch next week--and if he reprised his Bon Jovi week performance of "You Give Love a Bad Name" he might even win the whole thing. That would be an injustice--Melinda earned the crown weeks ago--but at least he'd have done something Melinda couldn't do to steal her prize. A Melinda-Jordin battle is a competition of similar styles and strengths, and Melinda simply owns Jordin. Sadly, that's the finale I think America will choose.

Look Ma — No Hands!

Trying to Keep the Viewers When the Ads Come On - New York Times

Oh no! The ad-supported world of TV is crashing down around itself! DVRs are to blame!

You all know about this by now. Armed with an HD DVR, you are the master of your own cinema. It's a beautiful thing. But not for the networks, who depend on you watching the very commercials that the DVR makes it so easy to skip. The only way to defeat this is to make the ads part of the program, a strategy American Idol has mastered and other programs are beginning to use.

As interesting as this problem is, though, how can malarkey like this make the Times? "...more viewers are watching shows delayed rather than live, using TiVo and other DVRs," the article linked above says. "Research indicates those viewers are more likely to fast-forward through spots than those who watch live TV."

Really? And here I thought people who were watching live TV couldn't fast-forward through commercials at all. What's that? They can't? Then how on earth could anything but what the NYT wrote be true? Tautologies are hardly news. "Viewers who can fast-forward through commercials are more likely to do so than viewers who can't." That's what the article basically says. People who have hands are more likely to give handjobs than people who don't, too, you know. I look forward to reading about that illuminating fact in the Times tomorrow...

Burn Off

NBC :: Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

Well, that didn't take long! After mere months of waiting, NBC has announced that the next episode of Studio 60 will air on Thursday, May 24 at 10/9c. Can you guess what May 24 is?

OK, time's up. It's the first day after sweeps month ends! NBC, which considers 7 million viewers a victory at this point, is burning off a show it spent megabucks on a night when most folks will be in recovery from a season finale binge. (May 23, for instance, is the two-hour American Idol finale--also known as the TV event that will put Fox over the top for the month.)

Maybe NBC has come up with a brilliant strategy, though: With nothing else on, maybe people will give the show a look. Or maybe they'll start their Memorial Day weekend festivities early and completely ignore it again. If this episode is anything like the ones that preceded this long gap, they won't be missing much.

[UPDATE, 5/14: Studio 60 has been canceled. Apparently six more episodes remain and will be aired. Farewell, Harriet Hayes!]

Last Lileks

Daily Quirk: See you in the funny papers ...

Even if you've never lived in Minnesota, as I did for two years earlier this decade, it seems like a lot of people have heard of or read James Lileks. I've been reading his column pretty faithfully for more than six years now, since before I decided to move to the Twin Cities, and I can remember quite distinctly the feeling of skipping to the Star-Tribune's metro section to see if it was one of his days. I also loved to read Kim Ode and Al Sicherman while eating my breakfast. And now all three of them are gone, one voluntarily moving to new things, another retiring from the game altogether, and the third, Lileks, unceremoniously bounced from column duty to straight news in what Dave Barry called the equivalent of the Miami Heat pulling Dwyane off the basketball court so he can keep stats on the sideline.

Those in the know may realize the irony in me being sad for Lileks, whose happy-talk column in the Strib was the friendly face of a man whose online work and Newhouse columns often stood for things to which I am opposed. And I suppose if this demotion of his makes the happy warrior's outlook a bit bleaker, and thus he becomes less funny, and thus his message is less appealing, well, that's one for "our side." But I'm sorry to see him go out like this.

Idol Predictions, Round of Four

Tonight's show simply confirmed the order anyone who has watched the show for the last few months has, by now, probably accepted. Melinda is on top and on track to win the whole thing; any other result would be an upset. Jordin isn't pitch-perfect, but she's on a collision course with the chance to prove that she's more Clay Aiken than Justin Guarini. Blake mixes it up, but for every time he succeeds he has a weak moment. And LaKisha is the least adventurous of the remaining four, doesn't take good advice from experts, and misses notes.

And at this point, how it is and how the votes come out will probably be the same. Blake will smell danger--but LaKisha will taste it. Good luck, Miss Jones.

Here They Come

May 22 sounds like the day for cicadas :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Metro & Tri-State

I live less than a mile from two very large forest preserves. The trees in both of them, one would assume, are precisely the sort of old-growth woods that harbor cicadas. And so, I am not exactly relishing this "exciting" rare event, which one researcher claims to have timed down to the day.

In an odd coincidence, the city will be repaving our street sometime this month. This will mean that we can't park on our street or access our driveway for some unknown, but allegedly short, period of time. How much do you want to bet that they get the blacktop up, have the street all ready to pave--and then the cicadas swarm and they're forced to either delay or pave a road filled with beady red eyes?

This is an exciting month for a lot of reasons: school's out tomorrow, we have concert tickets next weekend, and we're taking a weekend trip a few weeks from now. But I have a sinking suspicion the month will end with my car a few blocks from my house, my street torn up, and cicadas swarming everywhere. This thought does not make me happy!

Quite an Honor

White House may veto hate crimes law - Politics - MSNBC.com

Just this week George Bush got around to vetoing only the second bill of his entire presidency. The tally so far: Refused to allow funding for stem-cell research and wouldn't accept a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. I disagree with both of these stances, but at least they are based on something resembling a principle. (I know, the principle behind opposition to stem-cell research is a lie and the one behind Iraq is a dream, but let's be charitable.)

Now he's threatening his third veto. What's so important as to warrant this reaction? A bill that would add gender and sexual orientation to the hate crimes law already on the books in this country. Now, I get that Bush doesn't believe there should be a hate crimes law at all--in fact, strictly as a matter of law, it's hard to argue with him--but we have one. Why should it apply to hate crimes against some groups in the line of fire but not others?

Let me put it this way. If you're straight, you may not want to vacation in Alabama--but you could if you wanted to. But for a gay couple, the wide world of domestic travel is actually quite narrow. We're confined to all the blue islands amid the sea of red that is the United States. Sadly, much of the beauty of this country is hidden in the middle of all that red. And even if we get past the hotel clerk who's suspicious of two men checking in together, even if we get a room with two beds, and even if we remain as non-demonstrative as possible in public, the entire time we're in red America we have to be on guard. What kind of vacation is that? I can bite my tongue for a week, yes--but you never know when a word will pop out that you don't intend. When we moved in together, for example, the sliding rear door of the moving truck caught his finger and he shouted in pain. Having been in the same state for all of 24 hours, I already couldn't stop myself from exclaiming, "Honey, are you OK?"

"Honey." That one word could have gotten us killed if spoken at the wrong moment--even in the suburbs, but especially in the Deep South. And it popped out of my mouth one day into living together. What do you think would happen today?

Bush could sign this legislation and send a message to his own band of supporters, as they are exactly the people who need it: Even if you don't like the idea of homosexuality, violence against gays and lesbians simply for being who they are is absolutely unacceptable.

This legislation is symbolic, and not signing it is a symbol, too. A fist in the face of gays and lesbians, to be exact. You may not recognize it on your hands--Iraq may already have dyed them red, and the folks who will die because their conditions were not cured because you would not allow the research that could have saved them may have deepened the rouge--but the blood of the gays and lesbians who will suffer because of this veto is on your hands, too, Mr. President.

WTF?

Arctic ice may melt 30 years sooner - World - theage.com.au

The link above, as you can read, is from an Australian Web site. In fairness to America, it isn't a main story there, either; the site's front page is riddled with the same kind of crap you find on every American "news" portal. Yet what the article tells us--that scientists now believe that by 2020 there will be NO ice in the Arctic Ocean during the summer--is on a par with the recent bad news about vanishing bees in terms of portending the end of the world. MSNBC.com, meanwhile, leads with a story about Britney Spears returning to the stage. Which, come to think of it, may also be a sign of the apocalypse.

Look, I know this seems hypocritical appearing just above a prediction about who will go home on American Idol. But shouldn't this kind of NEWS--and that's what it is--make big headlines? Bigger than Britney? Scientists are suggesting that the problem of global warming, which we already knew was bad, may in fact be so bad that the earth will unrecognizable within our lifetime. Haven't a lot of Americans seen An Inconvenient Truth by now? Don't we understand what this kind of news means?

Last week, or maybe the week before, one of MSNBC's top headlines was that the Medicare and Social Security funds were scheduled to last one year longer than previously predicted (2019 and 2041, respectively). That is important, obviously, to the health of our country. But this news could make all of that moot, could mean that when those of you planning to have kids are bouncing grandkids on your knees, you'll be doing so in a world where Bangladesh and the Netherlands and Florida and half of New York City are underwater. And you can hardly find it anywhere!

We're doomed, folks. I know that doesn't sell ads, but you'd think ONE journalistic enterprise in the entire United States would have had the gumption to lead with this on an otherwise slow day.

Idol Predictions, Round of Six Again

Jordin Sparks should be thanking her lucky stars right now. Last week she was good--though not as good as the judges claimed--but this week she delivered an almost Sanjaya-bad performance of "Livin' on a Prayer." Were this week's votes the only determining factor, she'd be in serious danger.

But that's not the way it works. As it stands, I expect she'll be safe. Melinda's two weeks of solid performances should protect her as well. And if Blake's insanely creative rendition of "You Give Love a Bad Name" isn't enough to land him a spot in the final four, this competition has gone completely off the rails.

That leaves LaKisha, Phil, and Chris. After this week's powerhouse, I think LaKisha may have done enough to stave off elimination for one more week. That leaves Chris and Phil heading home. Seems about right, doesn't it?

Out of the Park

Bonds to A-Rod: 'Do your damn thing' - Barry Bonds - MSNBC.com

I'm glad Barry Bonds has taken this approach. Not that it will humanize him in the public mind, but it's nice to see him rooting for a fellow superstar to do something that would be good for the game, even if it would remove his name from one page of the record book. (In fairness to Bonds, his name is currently at or near the top of quite a few pages of the record book--career total bases, career home runs, career walks, season OBP, season walks, season home runs, etc.--so perhaps losing this one doesn't loom as large for him.)

As for Alex Rodriguez, much as I dislike the Yankees it's hard not to be happy for him. He's on a tear, and because his team is doing poorly he's got the potential to be the big story out of New York all on his own this summer. I'm sure he'd rather be in first place, but if Yankee pitching won't support that goal, breaking the home-run record and cementing his status as the best in the game right now would probably be fun for A-Rod after a few years of being not-quite-loved in the Big Apple.

And besides, wouldn't another home-run record chase be fun?

Summer Sooner

HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX on Yahoo! Movies

The link above leads to a page that will allow you to watch the two-minute trailer for the next Harry Potter movie, which opens July 13. After watching it three times (once alone, twice to share with others) I have been successfully whipped into a frenzy and am ready to buy my ticket. Those who know me well know how infrequently I see a movie in the theater these days--the last one was Little Miss Sunshine, and that was only because I was on vacation--so this is a big deal.

But if you've got a theater craving, this seems like a good summer. I know the sequel trend is ruining Hollywood and all that, but honestly, what movies beyond Shrek the Third and Spider-Man 3 and Order of the Phoenix and The Bourne Ultimatum seem worth the trouble of paying all that money and spending all that time packed in with the great unwashed masses just to see them on a bigger screen? Summer blockbusters like this are the only remaining reason, at least for us, that movie theaters exist.

Did I mention the new Transformers movie? If Hollywood has ever had a chance of restoring my former moviegoing ways, this is it. Are you excited about the coming summer blockbusters?

Idol Predictions, Round of Six

A surprisingly good week, wasn't it? But there were definitely different levels of good--and at least one pretty bad performance from a fellow who may finally take his whine home.

This week I predict a bottom three of LaKisha, whose "I Believe" was passable but didn't touch the original; Blake, whose "Imagine," for all of Simon's protests of sincerity, didn't seem believable, and
your loser, Chris, whose vocals will not change the world today, tomorrow, or anytime soon.

What did you think?

Bush is a Boob

White House renews Gonzales backing - Yahoo! News

Forgive the headline, but what other conclusion can be drawn? Yesterday's testimony was, like much of the Gonzales tenure in public office, a disgrace. It, and Bush's response--full steam ahead!--reinforce every bad narrative about this White House that he desperately needs to refute if he's going to accomplish anything in his last 21 months in office. (But who's counting?)

Stubborn and intractable in the face of evidence? Check. Incompetent but loyal to a fault? Check. Eager to speak pretty words that bear no relationship to the truth and not only expect others to swallow them, but appear to believe them yourself? Check!

There is only one politically savvy explanation for all of this, and it would be a doozy--but it might appeal to Bush's Jesus complex. Could he be sacrificing himself to save his party?

Allow me to explain. Yesterday Tom Coburn, the senator from Oklahoma who thinks most of the girls in the state are lesbians, sounded sane for the first time when he suggested that Gonzales step down. Other Republicans have earned similar common-sense cred for making the same suggestion and for speaking out against other Bush bullshit. With most of the public against him, how better for Bush to serve his party than by looking completely batshit crazy and letting members of his own party fire away at him? By isolating the White House from Congress, Bush may not be able to save the GOP presidential candidate who will be stuck trying to explain a way out of his foolish war, but he can at least help Republicans staunch the bleeding in the House and prevent a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. By this logic, every day Gonzales stays is another good day for House and Senate Republicans who can point out vociferously how very much they disagree with the deeply unpopular president they once treated like the king of America.

Of course, all of this presumes a level of humility and smarts that many consider unlikely coming from Bush. More than likely this is simply another case of his stubbornness and loyalty and the White House echo chamber combining to prevent Bush from seeing reality. Stupid like a fox? It's possible, but my money's on just plain stupid.