June 24th, 2009
I often say that you can gauge a person by the breadth of what amuses them. There are some sophisticated forms of comedy that require great learning to apprehend, involving things like particle physics, nautical terms, the Higgs bosun. Likewise there are simple forms of humor that require a certain lack of self-consciousness: sitting on a plank above a bathroom stall and aerial-bombing the toilet for example. A snob laughs only at the former, an idiot only at the latter.
Most of us stake our territory somewhere in between. I aspire to the full span – for I believe there is wisdom in that. Life is often tragic and yet in every tragedy there is always a kernel of humor – the seed of perseverance.
For a laugh to function though it must be true. The only sound more stressful than the howling of inbreeds at a cockfight is a theater full of pseudo-intellectuals guffawing at lines they suppose should be funny to them; it is the awful music of them affirming their sickly self-image.
Many of us have also fallen for commodity humor, the product of crass journeymen who employ cheap devices, tricking laughter from the audience. The dirty trick elicits a dirty laugh, not the bright, clear laugh the spirit wants. The latest fashion seems to be the random combination of pandering cultural references - how far is this from a randomly blinking light? To find the true humor in something is to know its true name - a secret art that we must never lose.
…
June 17th, 2009
When I was a student many years ago I went for a stroll one lovely evening to return a chessboard I had borrowed for a project. Along the way an man shouted to me from nearly a block away. I slowed my pace and allowed him to catch up – the wisdom of youth. He challenged me to a friendly game of chess. I declined saying that anyone who wanted to play chess was a superior player.
We walked and talked for a while instead, the talk of those who enjoy the company of strangers. I eventually asked if he lived in town and he said no that he was from the City. He told me that he had just been paroled, that he was HIV positive, and that he had had a grand mal seizure and been sent upstate for the hospital facilities; from his pocket he produced rumpled documentation for all of it: identification, medical forms, discharge papers.
Very humbly he asked if I could spare enough for a bus back to the City. I checked the bills in my wallet like hole cards: a pair of twenty dollar bills. His being the worst story I had ever heard I found no trouble giving up one of them. He thanked me profusely. We continued to walk and talk in our friendly way, both of us relieved.
We passed from the streetlights to the dark beneath the shivering elms. I turned then and saw to my disappointment that my friend had pulled a gun. He explained that he had intended to mug me but that I seemed so nice he didn’t have the heart. However, he really needed that other twenty. I’m proud to say I protested at first, but then I suppose I remembered what guns were for. I handed it over; he thanked me again and we said goodbye. Just as he was on the brink of disappearing into the woods he turned and shouted, “Good luck with school!”
…
June 10th, 2009
It is generally accepted in our culture that hard work and dedication will win one success in life. I suppose this is possible, but the notion that this is a truism is ludicrous – possibly the most hard working and dedicated falsehood in the Western world.
Most ‘successful’ people go on to conclude that they and their peers must be generally more determined and intelligent, and that less successful people must be generally lazier or of lesser intelligence. Had they any real intelligence they would know that this is called a deductive fallacy. Countless studies are made correlating income with intelligence – my own research has found that the majority of scientists who conduct these studies are cognitively impaired.
The supposition is that good work in our society yields prosperity, but in spite of that we have a kind of modern gentry, a mediocre lot who advance by favors and nepotism. The rich are capable of egregious errors in child rearing the poor can only dream about. It is true that some have made their own way, but their manic persistence suggests an imbalance of hormones (which may explain the often coincident difficulty with fidelity).
This is not to say there aren’t brilliant and kindly people who have achieved great success in life or that there are not hordes of dangerous idiots among the impoverished, only that each caste is granted the same scant proportions of virtue. The human race has been on this trajectory since the advent of privilege. The only difference is that for the underprivileged a lack of determination leaves their fortunes entirely to the Fates, the same fickle witches who denied them favor in the first place.
…
June 3rd, 2009
Often when people are discussing a television show someone will feel compelled to declare, “I don’t watch television.” What motivated them to interject this autobiographical detail? Ignoring the rudeness of the timing I suppose they want to intimate their uncommitted free time is dedicated to literature and meditation. If there is an attack of deadly nerve gas they are proud to wait for the morning paper.
Reading can be a rewarding pastime (or a reliable sedative), but one can’t read while doing housework or paying bills. They presume intellectual superiority when really they’re only admitting to not being able to do two things at once. Certainly quiet time and going outdoors are important too, it is unfortunate that they can only manage these with an absolute ban on other activities.
It is also strange for self-described intelligent people to express such a willful contempt for a niche of cultural literacy. As other mediums die or decline television continues to flourish; even as its audience and revenues dwindle programming continues to evolve. The complaint that most of it is worthless fodder only means that the complainer is not up to the elementary task of separating wheat from chaff. It also pretends that the same isn’t true of music, film, painting, sculpture, architecture, photography, diorama, the written word, and every other medium – often at less agreeable ratios.
Most claimants to television abstinence are like kids with purity rings; really they take in all manner of shows – by any avenue other than the old cable box. For those who really do watch little or no television well that’s their prerogative, albeit one akin to not dining with silverware. But, I hope that by announcing the fact they don’t think they are doing anything other than confessing a shortcoming. Only an incurious mind could get nothing out of it.
…
