Selected Aphorisms #4
Posted: January 31, 2009 Filed under: Aphorisms | Tags: aphorism, total zingers Leave a comment »The fourth installment in our arresting new series.
In times of so-called national crisis it’s the sports talk radio hosts, of all people, who implore me to consider what’s really important, who scramble to dismiss sport as “mere diversion.” I’ll admit it, their exhortations are persuasive. In particular, they’ve convinced me of one thing above all others: that sports talk radio hosts are the last people to consult – with the exception, perhaps, of pedophiles and certain Illinois governors – in matters of moral import.
Selected Aphorisms #3
Posted: January 30, 2009 Filed under: Aphorisms | Tags: aphorism, plotinus, priorities (straightness of) Leave a comment »The third installment in our captivating new series.
“This economy is scary,” one gentleman says. “Very scary,” his friend replies. They go on to talk for some time – about their jobs, skiing, whatever. Yet for all that, they don’t even mention – not once! – Plotinus’s treatise on beauty. Talk about scary: to have such an opportunity and yet squander it on fret and trifles.
Aphorism the Second
Posted: January 29, 2009 Filed under: Aphorisms | Tags: aphorism, my entire French vocabulary 1 Comment »The second installment in our new series.
Scientists have found the part of the brain that registers fear, that memorizes telephone numbers, that knows a stove is hot without having to touch it. Good work, guys; I mean it. But what about the part that produces a certain je ne sais quoi? That’s an important quality we need more of in today’s society. Get on top of it.
Introductory Aphorism
Posted: January 28, 2009 Filed under: Aphorisms | Tags: aphorism, wildly successful debut 1 Comment »The first installment in our new series.
“Take a daguerreotype, it’ll last longer”: this was never a popular expression.
Selected Aphorisms for the New Enthusiast
Posted: January 27, 2009 Filed under: Aphorisms | Tags: aphorism, community service, Lautreamont Leave a comment »It has come to the attention of the Editors of this modest weblog that, beyond the Snappy Prose, Able Analysis, and occasional Ecstatic Truth which have become our Calling Cards – that the Readership might also be hungry for some small amount of Moral Edification. Whether it’s the generally sordid nature of Modern Times or just something they (i.e. said Readership) ate, it’s not our business to speculate; rather, as men of action (or, at least, as men who are not entirely inert), it is incumbent upon us to respond swiftly to the needs of Today’s Enthusiast and make ourselves useful for once.
That’s why, in the tradition of Heraclitus, La Rochefoucauld, and Morgan Freeman in most of his later films, we have decided to experiment with that most honored form, the aphorism. Part wit, part wisdom, 100% sweet, the aphorism is notable for its ability to condense big ideas into small packages – sort of like the Amazon Kindle, except way freer and actually useful. No less a personage than coach Mike D’Antoni describes the aphorism as “the surest way to neutralize an opponent’s big man advantage.” (Actually, now that I think about it, that might have been in reference to the relative benefits of his patented up-tempo offense. I’ll check it out. Regardless, the sentiment remains.)
Luckily, an even bigger personage, Isidore Ducasse (whom you might know as Comte de Lautreamont, author of Maldoror and inspiration to most of what the French call Les Enfants Terribles), writes: “The maxim does not need to be proved. One point in an argument requires another. The maxim is a law which contains any numbers of arguments. The closer the argument comes to the maxim, the more perfect it becomes.” Ducasse’s statement is instructive. Once you allow for the fact that you can read aphorism for maxim (and do roughly the same for epigram, adage, proverb, or saying), what you can derive from Ducasse’s claim is that, owing to its elegance and its economy of words, the aphorism is able to say more than its mere length would otherwise indicate. As such, a successful aphorism is typically one that, like a Sportflics baseball card, presents different possibilities depending on how you look at it. Or, re-phrased in Grad Student, one must “unpack” the several connotations of an aphorism to fully enjoy it.
The early desert fathers, when not taking up residence in the ground, had an interesting practice from which anyone could profit – which was, namely, to read a short saying in the morning, more or less memorize it, and ponder it (even if somewhat absentmindedly) for the rest of the day while weaving baskets, or engaging in some other manner of repetitive physical labor. Such a practice would be particularly amenable for that large portion of our readership who are basket weavers by trade. Still, even for the very few of you who find yourselves in some other manner of employ, the basic method ought not to be difficult to imitate. Except for our deceased readers, that is. For them it will be impossible.
The plan, from our end, is a picture of simplicity. Each day we will submit a TNE-original aphorism for your consideration. Some will be real winners; some will be duds. Use them however you wish. As for how long this service will last, let’s consider it provisional for the time being. Life being what it is and Baleful Sloth being what it is, it’s hard to say how long something like this could carry on. Quite frankly, it’s an experiment – but an experiment in the goodest faith possible.
The experiment begins in earnest tomorrow (Wednesday) morning, but, in the meantime, here’s another one from Ducasse, which goes some way in explaining the central tenet of The New Enthusiast:
“Up to now, misfortune has been described in order to inspire terror and pity. I will describe happiness, to inspire the opposite” (Poem II).
If on a Winter’s Night an Enthusiast
Posted: January 12, 2009 Filed under: Other | Tags: hypochondria, Italo Calvino, petite mort 1 Comment »January, as the bard most definitely famously said, is the cruelest month. And I can see why he said it! First off, it’s cold as a witch’s broom out. Even for those of us Enthusiasts living in the Godless Northwest, temperatures have plunged below what might be considered polite, and one is therefore forced to wear all manner of layers, or at least one funny-looking ski coat, so’s to ensure safe travel from all the Points A of the world to all their respective Points B.
Second off, and not incidentally related to the first reason, you’ve got to pay some darned high heating bills. Me and the wife had been thinking of taking a luxurious steamboat cruise, but now what with these darned high heating bills, you can just throw that out the window (which, in our case, isn’t even double-paned, for chrissakes).
Third off, it gets dark around 1 pm. Oh sure, it gives you more time to tell your favorite ghost stories, but what about some of the good old Vitamin D, what what?
Fourth off, you’ve got the economy. Am I right, or am I right?
But fifth off is what I really want to discuss, and that is the graven sickness to which one, no matter what precautions he takes, can expect to find himself subject during January – also known definitely, 100% , bard-verified as the cruelest month.
This January alone I have suffered from 23 separate health-related maladies, including, but most certainly not limited to: headache, stomachache, toothache, pulled hammy, tweaked hammy, leftover hammy from Christmas, minor brain cancer, chilblains, bad spelling, and “losing a step,” which last problem I understand is normal for a speed merchant like myself as he gets acquainted with becoming 30-ish.
It will be a difficult month, Enthusiasts – if it hasn’t been already. Aches and pains, fevers and mirrors, contretemps and petites morts. But being forewarned is being, uh, warned ahead of time. And so you have been! It’ll be difficult, but soon it will be over, February will be here and, along with it, its attendant pleasures.*
*Which pleasures I’m forgetting at the moment, but will most assuredly be reminded of come that saving month.
But just as you should never get wet or feed after midnight your Mogwai, there is one pastime which the good Enthusiast ought never endeavor to undertake in the event of ailment this month and it is this: NEVER LOOK UP YOUR SYMPTOMS ON THE INTERNET. Here’s why: you will almost definitely end said internet browsing session under the impression that you’ve contracted, despite years of celibacy and a history of drug use relegated to birch beer and the occasional stinky cheese, that you’ve contracted HIV. Why? Because everything in the whole world, down to liking the occasional Fiona Apple song, is a symptom of HIV. And even though, intellectually, you will totally understand that you don’t have HIV, it will be impossible to forget that one time, with that one girl, at that one party, when you were like, “Why is there a donkey in here?” and then you found out why there was a donkey in there. So here’s the facts: just don’t do it.
Eerie, Pennsylvania
Posted: January 6, 2009 Filed under: Other | Tags: Crab dribble, DeShawn Stevenson's get-up, Hersey "the Hawk" Hawkins, Jeff "the Horn" Hornacek, LeBron, Nixon 2 Comments »So LeBron James pretty clearly traveled.
The postmortem of this incident raises a lot of really interesting and vexed and probably insoluble for the NBA, its officials, and its fans, especially in the wake of the Tim Donaghy game-fixing scandal. Like, are rules selectively enforced in ways that favor certain star players–or is it the other way around, does the selective enforcement of rules create stars by allowing certain players to gain an advantage which other rule-abiding players cannot? And anyway how is it determined who is a star? Is it just a subconscious, prefrontal cortex assessment on an individual ref’s part, or is there something more convolved and systematic and league-directed going on? And most troubling, what business does DeShawn Stevenson have woofing at King James from the bench while wearing this?
Of special note is LeBron’s postgame response to the call. Check it:
“I took a crab dribble, which is a hesitation dribble, and then two steps. What happens is when you take a crab dribble and you hesitate, that is not one step, because you still basically have a live ball. And then when you go into your one-two, that’s when the steps get counted. So if you look at the play, I take a crab dribble and find a crease and then I take my one-two. So it’s a perfectly legal play, something I’ve always done and always been successful with.”
First thing to note is his liberal statutory interpretation of what constitutes a dribble. As commonly understood, the rules mandate that a player in possession of the ball must dribble once for every step taken, excluding the last two steps, provided those two are taken in the process of taking a shot or making a pass. With the “crab dribble” or whatever, LeBron seems to invert this relationship. Instead of “I’ve taken a step, so I must dribble,” he’s saying something like, “I’ve dribbled, so I get to take a step.” Rather than viewing the rule as a restriction, he’s choosing to see it as some sort of bestowal of a right.
Which is wrong, but also pretty telling. LeBron is admitting to taking three steps, which means–regardless whether it was the right call in that situation, or should have been ignored because of the whole megastar-in-the-deciding-moments-of-a-game corollary–LeBron seems to be admitting that he traveled.
Except that isn’t what he is doing. He confesses to acting in a way that violates a rule, but maintains that he in fact did not violate that rule. His explanation is that the crab dribble is his “trademark move,” and that “it’s a perfectly legal play, something [he's] always done.”
Echoes of this excuse-by-exceptionalism can be heard in movie theaters nationwide right now. At the climactic moment of Ron Howard’s gripping but troubling* “Frost/Nixon”, the glibbly fey Frost manages to wheedle Nixon into proclaiming about an alleged crime that, “when the President does it, it means it isn’t illegal.”
In the movie, this admission is portrayed as audacious and ballsy and pretty incriminating. This is only partly true. Public response to the interviews at the time doesn’t indicate that this moment was a decisive victory for Frost or an American people supposedly hungry for a reckoning. And also, the President is granted some extra-legal privileges, though these privileges are vague and controversial and pretty constrained. Though the words sound downright dastardly coming from Tricky Dick, a whole bunch of administrations have advanced similar claims at some time or another.
This is in no way a defense of Nixon. And anyway Executive Privilege is kinda beside the point, which is that, given his biography, psychology, and stature, Nixon almost undoubtedly and utterly believed that he hadn’t done anything illegal. His response wasn’t cagey, or evasive, or hair-splitting–he truly believed that he, Richard Nixon, had and could do no wrong. He was filled with an unassailable, pathological presumptuousness. Anything he could do he was free to do–which, considering he was a bitter, paranoid, intolerant, and vindictive hard-drinker from nowhere who nevertheless managed somehow to get himself elected to the highest office in the land, was true. Right up until it wasn’t.
Maybe this, to answer an earlier question, is what makes a star a star. In his postgame interviews, LeBron James claims to have watched the replay of his crab dribble 10 times, and still can’t understand what all the hubbub is about. Everyone else who watches it can see the hubbub plain as day. And maybe that’s part of the reason why we’re everyone else, and he’s LeBron James. A world in which he cannot do whatever he wants whenever he wants–in basketball, at least–is literally unenvisionable to him.
******
Ready to be SOMEWHAT ASTOUNDED! Then continue reading this post!
Some idle basketball-reference.com noodling lead me to the 1992-93 Philadelphia 76ers team page, and just if you will check out this comparison of team-/soulmates Hersey “The Hawk” Hawkins and Jeffrey “The Horn” Hornacek
Hawkins: 20.3 ppg 4.3rpg, 3.9apg, 1.7spg, 2.2TO, 2.3PF, .470FG%, .3973P%, .860FT%
Hornacek: 19.1ppg 4.3rpg, 6.9apg, 1.7spg, 2.8TO, 2.6PF, .470FG%, .3903p%, .865FT%
Eerie, right? And further check this out: both players stood 6’3″ and weighed 190lbs, and both were from Illinois. Also, Hawkins once booked a theater in a warehouse, while Hornacek warehoused a theater in a book.
*Some questions arose regarding the play/movie Frost/Nixon’s faithfulness to its source material. Clearly some dramatic license was needed to turn what was essentially two dudes chatting in a living room into compelling theater/film. But, considering that the play/movie’s plot is the real-life effort to get a real-life person to confess to a real-life scandal using his own words, how much can you amend those real-life words before you betray the motives–and results, for that matter–of those real-life people? I certainly don’t have clue one.

