Mr. Teebs

The Avengers Pre-1965: A disappointment

What was The Avengers like in the seasons prior to 1965?  They pale by comparison to the glory years of 1965 - 1967. 

------------------------------------

1963 Avengers

In my last post, I talked about the Avengers during their "glory years" of 1965 -1967 when the series came to American TV and featured that marvelous chemistry between the characters of Steed and Mrs. Peel.  In fact, I've liked the series so much that I'm probably going to buy the entire 17-disc megaset featuring all 51 episodes from 1965 - 1967.  However, I wanted to find out what the series was like in the earlier years of 1961-1964 and rented a disc set containing the first few episodes from 1963.

In a nutshell: I didn't like it.

Why?  At least five reasons:

1. Technically, these pre-1965 episodes are completely inferior.  They are grainy, have poor lighting, and were clearly shot with lower production values and budgets. They are so bad that they have a feel almost like old B&W movies done in the 1930s. If you've ever watched an old Laurel & Hardy film, you get about the same level of technical sophistication here. It stuck me as at least 30 years behind state-of-the-art for the early 60s. The 1965-67 versions shown on US TV (ABC network) were done on film at ABC's insistence and the quality definitely shows. Watching this 1963 version I felt like I was watching something that was not 2 years older than 1965, but 30 years older. Yes, they were that poor technically.
   
2. The acting was just bad all the way around - worthy of daytime soaps with the amount of overacting I saw.
   
3. Steed's character in particular has a number of nuances that made him quite different...he gets flustered, appears to be an almost bungling sort of side-kick to the strong character of Cathy Gale (played by Honor Blackman), and seems to be a little too eager to romance her. It's a totally different, and far less appealing dynamic than what we later come to love in the Mrs. Peel years with Peel playing coy but not superior to the character of Steed. Here we find a well-dressed Steed as usual, but not quite as suave, debonair, and never-ruffled as we have come to expect from the Mrs. Peel years. In short, I don't like the old Steed very well, and I really don't care for Cathy Gale. I also didn't care for the fact that Gale smoked in the series. Her voice even sounds smokey. Yes, I know that Rigg is a voracious smoker, but her voice didn't belie that in the series and her character of Mrs. Peel didn't smoke. She was just somehow more wholesome and appealing than the Cathy Gale persona given by Blackman. My two cents worth.
   
4. The mystique isn't there. I can't quite describe what it was about the 65-67 series in terms of set design and overall mood that gave such a wonderful quirkiness and mystere, but it is almost totally absent here. These just felt like old, not-particularly-good soap operas with bad stunts, bad acting, and inferior production values.
   
5. The audio quality is poor, tying in with the overall poor production values noted in item #1 above. The audio fades of music, sound effects, dialog, and the overall mix is just poor - often abrupt and unnatural. Again, it feels like something made in the '30s - not the 1960s.

I decided to get the first 1963 disc set to satisfy my curiosity as to what The Avengers was like before Diana Rigg's Mrs. Peel made the series so special and gave it that wonderful chemistry with Steed. In my opinion, I missed nothing by skipping these pre-1965 episodes. I'm glad I only rented this DVD rather than purchased it. I couldn't even bring myself to watch the other 2 episodes on the DVD. I just sent it back to Blockbuster after watching a single episode.

If, like me, you are curious about what the series was like in "the early days" I suggest you rent rather than buy. If you like them - fine. You can find the disc sets on Amazon, eBay, and elsewhere. But if you are like me, simply nothing can compare to the 1965-1967 series which - in my mind - is the REAL Avengers that I've known and loved since my teenage years in the 1970s. As for me, I plan to purchase Avengers DVDs, but will limit my spending to the 1965-1967 megaset offered by A&E.

Again, I realize that hard-core Avengers fans will probably be compelled to check out every episode. However, consider my review here as an alternative viewpoint and instead of offering a glowing review I'm giving a caution that you rent before you buy. You may just thank me for allowing you to save your money for the truly great 65-67 years instead.

The Avengers: Still Cool

From the Flintstones to capri pants, the 60s isn't just retro, it's uber-cool.  One of my favorite 60s TV programs - The Avengers - is now available on DVD.  What could be more cool?

-------------------------------------

The Avengers: Mrs. Peel and Mr. Steed

In the year of my birth, 1961, BBC TV launched a hugely successful series called The Avengers that would go on to gain a huge following in the US when ABC began carrying it on prime time.  Aired in 120 countries, a total of 161 episodes were produced between 1961 until the show's cancellation in 1969.  It reached its peak in 1965-1967 with the introduction of Diana Rigg as Mrs. Emma Peel to join the ultra-debonair Mr. Steed, the man who could inflict more damage with a bowler hat and umbrella than a Navy Seal with a napalm grenade. 

I don't recall seeing the original series when it aired on network TV in the 60s - I doubt my parents would have let a tender adolescent watch it anyway.  It wasn't until at least a decade later when we got cable and the reruns showed up on late-night TV that my dad introduced me to the program and got me hooked.  I'm sure I wasn't the first high-schooler to fall in love with Mrs. Emma Peel, she of the karate chopping, leather-clad, sports car driving, alluring and aloof variety of British espionage agents. 

A visit to my parents house several months ago and a browse through their video collection yielded a few VHS tapes with several episodes of The Avengers.  I decided to navigate to the website advertised on the tape, originalavengers.com, and was pleasantly surprised to find that most of the episodes with the exception of the 1961 and 1969 seasons have made it to DVD for the North American market.  Too cheap to shell out the $400+ dollars that the entire collection would entail, I opted for the less-expensive alternative: Blockbuster.com and my $9.99/mo online rental agreement.

I'm slowly working my way through the episodes and enjoying every black & white moment of it.  Yeah the plots are cheesy.  Yeah the sets are antiseptic looking and they have these comical little signs that label everything like "bomb deployment lever" - as if the evil genius would forget.  It's totally campy.  Totally unrealistic. 

And totally cool.

There are quite a few fan sites on the web.  Some, such as The Avengers Forever, have so much trivia and factoids that I have to seriously wonder about the people who actually have time to research, collect, and post all this stuff.  Do they have a life?  It's mind-boggling.  The wikipedia site is quite informative as well, along with the show's listing on the Museum of Broadcast Communications.  You can even download Laurie Johnson's original theme song from the series at iTunes or listen to it on amazon.com using Windows Media Player.

But heck, why just read about it when you can watch it?  My next disc in the series is slated to arrive any minute via the post office.  I think I'll go have some lunch, enjoy another episode, and remember once again why I fell in love with Emma Peel. 

 

Blockbuster.com: How to make $10 a month go a LONG way

I got tired of shelling out $3.99 for videos and waiting in line only to find shelves that were as bald as Britney Spears' head.  So I went online and couldn't be happier.

-----------------------------------

 

Blockbuster Video Rentals

I'm a technology laggard, which is kind of surprising coming from a guy with a degree in electrical and computer engineering.  I've just never been real keen about adopting the latest fashions - whether it's square-toed shoes or electronic gadgetry or online commerce. 

I watched all the hype surrounding Netflix and then watched the inevitable "me too" businesses spring up in their attempt to cash in on Netflix's success once it caught on.  It wasn't until I ended up with quite a bit of time on my hands due to a lengthy disability from work that I decided to take the plunge, since I was starting to watch more than 2-3 movies a month and the economics of an online "club" for video rentals would make sense.

I did some homework and ultimately decided that blockbuster.com was the best deal going, at least for my particular situation.  For $9.99 a month I can get one movie at a time.  But here's the deal: instead of mailing the movie back, I can simply turn it in at my nearest Blockbuster store (which is only about one mile away) and exchange it for a movie on the shelf.  Blockbuster mails it back for me and I'm automatically sent the next movie on my list.  Basically, it means I never have to be without a movie.  The regional blockbuster warehouse for my area is in Northern California and the mailing time is generally only two days so the whole process works like this:

1. I make a list of the movies I want on blockbuster.com
2. They mail me the first movie on my list
3. I receive it about 2 days later
4. I watch it and keep it for as long as I want
5. I return it to my local Blockbuster store
6. They allow me to pick out any movie on the shelf at no charge
7. They immediately enter my returned movie into their computer, triggering the warehouse to send me another without them having to actually wait for it to arrive in the mail back at their warehouse
8. I get the next movie via mail about 2 days after picking one off the shelf at my local Blockbuster store

 
The bottom line is that I end up with something like 12-15 movies a month for $9.99, which is obscenely cheap - In fact, it seems to me that the fee would barely pay for the 2-way postage charges, but if Blockbuster ins't complaining, I'm not either. 

The online selection allows me to rent music videos, old TV series (like my favorite, The Avengers), and other hard-to-find stuff that isn't carried in the typical Blockbuster store inventory.  I end up using the online inventory for the hard-to-find titles and just get the more popular new releases or easy-to-find stuff at the local store.

Any way you slice it, it's a good deal.  Blockbuster locations are as ubiquitous as Starbucks and McDonalds these days, and it this gives them a big advantage over their purely online competitors like Netflix: since they have actual, physical storefronts, you can "exchange" your mail order movies for another one without having to wait for the mail cycle.  If you live in the boonies, this obviously isn't an advantage, but with me being a mile away from the nearest Blockbuster, swapping a movie is nearly instantaneous and effortless.  By the time I finish watching the one I got at the store, the next mail order movie is waiting for me in my mailbox.  They even give me an online coupon that I can print out and redeem for one free movie a month, in addition to my dozen or so available through mail order and in-store swapping.

No, this isn't a paid ad for Blockbuster, I don't own Blockbuster stock, I'm not a Blockbuster employee, and I'm not even related to any Blockbuster employees that I know of.  In fact, I normally don't like giving my business to the big chains.  But until just a few months ago, Blockbuster was the only video store in my town and I got tired of bending over to the tune of $3.99 per movie so decided to see what my online rental options were.  I looked at Netflix and all the others, but Blockbuster.com was a no-brainer because of their "swap" program - something only a brick-and-mortar chain can offer.  Now, I'm paying something like 85 cents per movie, I have a great selection, and I'm never without a movie.  

What's not to like?  So far - at least for me - nothing!   

Child Stars, Adult Wrecks

Want an almost sure-fire way to ruin your kids' lives?  Turn them into Hollywood celebrities at a young age.

---------------------------

Britney Spears: age 11

When my son was about five-years old, my ex-wife decided she wanted him to earn enough money to fund his college education.  Like many parents, she was convinced he was the brightest, cutest, most talented child on the planet.  So, in her logic, he was a natural for TV commercials and maybe some even bigger breaks.  She hauled him off to Sacramento to visit some modeling agencies and begged me to go to a variety of "how to" seminars that taught parents how to get their kids "noticed."

Like many things in our marriage, she pouted and whined until she got her way.  I finally drew the line when she wanted to drop hundreds of dollars on black & white glossies so he could have a "portfolio."  She had this notion that he could just do a couple commercials, make a bankroll, walk away, and be ready for college in a dozen years. 

I was deeply skeptical and strongly opposed.  Thankfully, the idea just died a natural death and she moved on, eventually becoming mad and passionate about yet another new idea.  (The marriage ended not long after and my son lives with me full time).

My concerns were pretty simple: I think celebrity - even modest - at too young an age hurts rather than helps, and I didn't think my son needed to be introduced to an alternate-reality world in which there was even a small chance he would be "successful."  For every Ron Howard and Shirley Temple who manage to move from childhood stardom to successful adulthood, there are at least a hundred Britney Spears who crash and burn, regaling us almost weekly by pushing the bizarre-meter ever higher.  The money and fame destroys them far more often than it truly enriches them as human beings (see this ABC News video).  From Joel Haley Osment to Lindsay Lohan to Robert Downey Jr. to Drew Barrimore, the trail is littered with adults and older teens who would very likely press the do-over button now that they've experienced for themselves that money and fame don't equal happiness - and more often are the antithesis of it.  I pity these folks.  I pity their children even more because they are often such children themselves that they have no business creating new life until they prove that they've matured enough to take care of themselves, let alone offspring.  Ever notice how few child stars encourage their kids along the same course?  That might be a clue. 

You would think that Britney's parents and siblings would have learned the lesson, but no - I guess one wreck in the family isn't enough, so now her younger sister Jamie Lynn Spears has to be groomed to careen off the same cliff.  I hope I'll be proven wrong, but I doubt she makes it to 21 before it involves a trip or two through rehab and a plunge off the deep end. 

The moral of the story?  If you want healthy kids, keep them as far from Hollywood as you can.  Have them earn money the old-fashioned way: work for it.  Flipping burgers might not make them rich, but it probably won't land them in rehab minus their hair and sporting a few new tatoos. 

Doing your taxes online: Easy, secure, fast, and cheap

Back in 2001, I stopped using pencil and paper, switched to software for preparing my taxes, and started e-filing.  This year, I even ditched the software.  All I needed was my browser. 

------------------------------------

TurboTax Online

My taxes are pretty simple.  I file a 1040 and itemize my deductions.  I have income from only a single employer, I don't have too many complicated investments (just a 401-k through my employer), and my deductions are primarily limited to interest on my mortgage, property taxes of various kinds, and charitable donations to my church and other organizations.  In the days of pencil and paper, it took me a full morning, a pot of coffee, and some moderate frustration to do my taxes. Usually, a phone call to the IRS was required to order a form or get some clarification, which could add considerably to the preparation time as I was treated to at least 30 minutes of muzak waiting for someone to help me, then at least a week waiting for the form to arrive in the mail.  Finally, everything would arrive, I'd slog through the forms, go down to the store and make photocopies of the finished return, fold everything up and try to jam it into those special envelopes the IRS provides, mail the whole shebang off to Ogden, UT, and usually within 6 weeks I'd get my check in the mail.

I've always planned my withholding fairly carefully each year to minimize my refund.  I don't like the idea of Uncle Sam using my money for 12 months, only to give me the excess back without paying interest on it.  So for me, a smaller refund is always better.  Still, when it does come time for me to collect my refund - even if I've planned it to be only a few hundred bucks - I don't like waiting around for it. So, when I learned that I could e-file and get my return faster, I decided to ditch pencil and paper and go with TurboTax desktop software,  That was in 2001, and I've been using it ever since.  It manages to catch little mistakes and deductions that I might otherwise miss, and this year allowed me to get at least an additional hundred dollars through deductions and credits that I probably wouldn't have been aware of.  Thus, the last five years, the typical tax preparation process involved the following:

• Drive to Staples or Office Depot or Costco and buy a copy of TurboTax
• Load it on my computer
• Do my taxes
• e-files my taxes
• Wait 2-3 weeks
• Get my refund

Total cost was usually about $30 for the software plus $14.95 to e-file (I live in a state without income tax so I only have to file a Federal return).  However, I realized somewhere along the line that buying the software was sort of pointless since I use it once, generate my return, and then never use it again.  As long as I can print out a copy of my return and save it as a PDF, it suffices for my archives.

So this year, I decided what the heck - I'll dispense with the software altogether and do the whole thing online at turbotax.com.  It looks and feels almost exactly like the desktop version of the software.  You can pause and save your work, returning later via password to finish your return.  You can e-file your return, of course, but you can also save it as a PDF file, so it can easily be accessed and printed later.  In all, I found that it was just like using the version that comes in a box on a disc, but with one big difference: it was cheaper.  The price was $14.95 and that includes the e-filing fee.  In other words, I saved about $30 because I didn't have to buy a piece of software that I'll use only once.

Would I recommend it?  Absolutely.  It took me about two hours to do my taxes, it cost me $14.95, and my refund was electronically deposited to my checking account 13 days later.  That's fast.  Come to think of it, I think I've sometimes waited in line at the DMV longer than 13 days. I didn't have to sharpen a single pencil.  The only CD I used was the one to burn a backup of everthing and throw it in a little mylar pouch along with my W-2 slips and some other hardcopies of donation receipts and IRS forms.  And since everyone I have found charges at least $14.95 to e-file, the price at turbotax online is about as good as it gets. Bottom line: It doesn't get much faster, cheaper, or easier.  In fact, I think it was actually more work back when I was a teenager making barely above minimum wage and filing my taxes by hand using a 1040 short form. It certainly took more stamps and I had to wait longer for my refund.   

No, taxes are never fun.  But I think I've finally found a way to make filing my return reasonably painless.  If you've been thinking about taking the plunge and doing the whole thing online, I can tell you that my experience with nothing but the net was nothing but positive. 

When in doubt, yell

In a debate, the volume of one's voice is often inversely proportional to the integrity of one's premise ... 

-------------------------------------------------

Yell

Seems like the statements I hear people asserting most strenuously these days, whether through all-caps posts in their blogs, the size of their picket signs, or the amplitude of their vocal cords, are also the statements I consider to be the most tenuous.  Here's a sampling of some of the arguments I've encountered in the last month or so:

• EVOLUTION IS SCIENTIFIC FACT, CREATION IS AN UNSCIENTIFIC MYTH
• THE DOCTINE OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE APPEARS IN THE US CONSTITUTION
• THE SUPREME COURT IS DOING ITS JOB WHEN IT ACTS INDEPENDENTLY AND MAKES LAW
• GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY MAN AND WILL BE CATOSTROPHIC
• GOD DOES NOT EXIST
• LIFE DOES NOT BEGIN AT CONCEPTION
• THE BIBLE IS A FAIRY TALE AND HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG
• THE UNITED STATES IS DESIGNED ONLY TO WORK WHEN ITS POPULATION IS LIMITED TO WHITE EUROPEAN RACES
• ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

My purpose here isn't to deal with any of these topics directly (I'll tackle some of these in subsequent posts).  It is simply to say that each pronouncement was delivered in a manner that presupposed it was irrefutable - that only an ignoramus would seriously dispute these things.  Thus, whether you agree or disagree with any of the above statements isn't the point here.  The point is that what one person considers to be fact is often subject to considerable debate.

I know what you're thinking right about now: Duh!

Yeah, this isn't exactly rocket science - this newsflash that people tend to disagree about stuff.  But what I find amusing is that often the more tenuous the proposition, the more inclined the person will be to shout it in the hopes of blasting their opponents into submission through sheer decibels rather than the force of the argument itself.  I've seen this many times in business - the weaker the position during negotiations, the more likely to see bulging veins in the neck and screamed ultimatums.  Conversely, I've often noticed in business and elsewhere that the one secure in his position generally doesn't need to shout.

Thus, when I encountered this definition of the word positive earlier this week*, I immediately fell in love with it:

  Positive (adj.): To be mistaken at the top of one's voice.

It comes from a book published in 1911 by Ambrose Bierce called The Devil's Dictionary and sums up in nine words what I've taken more than four hundred to convey in this post.

Yelling has its place - sometimes it just feels good to vent.  But I've learned through my own battle scars that it is rarely persuasive.  Indeed, it's often counterproductive and merely tells the person you are debating that you've run out of ammunition and are now shooting blanks.

 

* Thanks to Hilda Hardcastle of Bath, ME for sharing this via one of her posts at amazon.com based on a book review I wrote.

The Screwtape Letters: Coming to the Big Screen

Is there an unseen world where demons and angels battle for the souls of humanity?  I think so.  So did C.S. Lewis.  His classic tale of how the demonic hierarchy of hell battled for one man's soul is finally coming to the big screen...

-------------------------------------

 

The Screwtape Letters

Dan Brown recently wrote a bestseller titled Demons and Angels but the contents didn't really have much to do with the title.  Had C.S. Lewis's 1942 classic The Screwtape Letters been given another name, it could have easily been the one Brown chose.

In Screwtape we have the exchange of letters between two demons: Wormwood and Screwtape.  Wormwood is assigned to a particular individual with the task of ensuring that he remains unsaved by rejecting Jesus Christ.  Screwtape is Wormwood's immediate superior and acts as a mentor of sorts to his "protege."  Yes, there are org charts in hell.  The idea of hierarchies among demonic ranks should come as no surprise to the Christian, since the Bible talks about powers, principalties, forces of darkness, and the like.  In one place in the Bible (Dan 10:13), we are told that a prayer from Daniel resulted in an angel being dispatched to help him, but the angel was delayed for 21 days because he was in a sort of stalemate with the "Prince of Persia" (a demonic power). Finally, the archangel Michael (one of heaven's most powerful angels), was sent to assist, freeing the messenger angel to complete his mission and answer Daniel's prayer.  Thus, just as there is a hierarchical arrangement of angels in heaven, so is there a hierarchical arrangement of demons in hell who rank in power and authority.  

I'm proud to say that one of my college buddies, Randy Argue (or J. Randall Argue as he goes by these days), is one of the producers of the movie.  Randy acquired a lease on the screenplay rights some years ago and has been waiting for the right time to turn it into a movie.  With the Hollywood success of The Lion, the Witch, and The Wardrobe, and an upcoming sequel, it looks like the time is right and plans are moving ahead.  This article in Variety Magazine gives some of the details. 

I read Screwtape when I was still in high school 30 years ago.  Might be time for me to re-read.  I won't give away the plot here, but it's a book that makes you think about the unseen forces that battle for our eternal souls and try to persuade us to choose for God or against Him. 

It made for a good book - one that has shown no signs of slowing down.  Indeed, the paperback edition by Harper has sold one million copies in the last six years alone.  Not bad for a book that is over 60 years old.

Here's hoping it makes for an equally good movie.

Book Reviews: Confessions of a pulp fiction addict

I'm trying to augment my tastes in reading with more than just the stuff you buy at the grocery store.  I'm slowly making progress with the likes of Faulkner, Hemmingway, Joyce, and others.  But I have to shamefully admit, I generally prefer pulp to literature...

------------------------------------------------------

Book Reviews

I read a lot.  As in a couple books a week.  Right now I'm in a long convolescence period from an illness (more about that later...I have Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and recovery can take anywhere from 6-24 months) so most days are spent on the sofa reading or at the computer composing, musing, blogging, e-mailing, etc.  The point here is that I'm currently on disability from my job and it gives me the chance to read tons of stuff that I'd otherwise never get around to. 

My interests run the gamut and I've read quite a bit of political stuff lately related to the US Supreme Court and the concept of judicial activism, along with various essays and opinions on conservative political thought and theory.  The Book "The Tempting of America" by Robert Bork is excellent along with "The Supremacists" by Phyllis Schlafly.  I'm sure they are available at the library if you don't feel like shelling out the cash for your own copy.  I'm basically a cheapskate and only buy books that I think I'll need for reference - or, if a new paperback comes out from somebody like Grisham, I'll just drop my $7.99 so I don't have to wait in line at the library for 3 months.  

I wish I could say that all my reading was highly cerebral.  It isn't.  Most of it is just that good old-fashioned Wonder Bread of American publishing: pulp fiction.  John Grisham, David Baldacci, Michael Crichton, Michael Connelly, Jeffery Archer, James Patterson, etc.  You know - the stuff you find on the bestseller rack at the grocery store.

But I'm also trying to expose myself to some of the classics like William Faulkner, James Joyce, Ernest Hemmingway, etc. 

I've tried to review most of what I've read recently on Amazon.com and we are currently at 67 book reviews and counting.  So, if you want to know what I've read and what I thought of it, check out my reviews and see if there are any books that interest you.

I have to admit I prefer the literary equivalent of junk food, but at least I'm a little bit selective in my junk food.  I've critiqued most of the pulp I've read if you follow the link above to my book reviews on amazon.com.  I've also reviewed the genuine "literature" I've read thus far, along with some of the heavier political reading I've done. 

Favorite "pulp" in the last 12 months: 

• The Kite Runner (Khaled Hosseini)
• Kane & Abel (Jeffrey Archer)
• As the Crow Flies (Jeffrey Archer)
• Hood (Stephen Lawhead)
• Lincoln Lawyer (Michael Connelly)

Books that made me think:

• Heaven (Randy Alcorn)
• Rise to Rebellion (Jeff Shaara)
• State of Fear (Michael Crichton)
• The Tempting of America (Robert Bork)
• The Supremacists (Phyllis Schlafly) 

I wish the pulp genre in general wasn't so full of vulgarity.  I think that's one reason I like Grisham.  He may not be the best writer in the world, but he never seems to resort to gratuitous sex and language, and he tells fun stories.  As I've read more this year, I've become a bit more of a "pulp connaisseur" (is that sort of like being an expert on wine that comes with a screw-top?).  I've learned to better distinguish between people who can tell good stories but are marginal writers, people who are marginal storytellers but good writers, people who are both, and people who are neither.

Authors I enjoy:

• John Grisham
• Jeff Shaara
• Michael Connelly
• Michael Crichton
• Stephen Lawhead
• Jeffery Archer
• David Baldacci
• Khaled Hosseini
• Nicholas Sparks
• Dan Brown (but DaVinci Code was a crock)
• Lincoln Child & Douglas Preston (they co-author a lot of thrillers like "Ice Limit" and "Riptide")
• Robert Ludlum
• Isaac Asimov (in small doses...don't like sci-fi all that much)

Authors / genres I avoid: 

• Horror
  Can't stand this genre.  Some people don't believe in the supernatural.  I do.  Angels and Demons isn't just the name of a pop-fiction thriller by Dan Brown, it describes the beings in an unseen but very real world where good and evil are battling constantly.  Not something to kid around with.  (It's also why I refuse to celebrate Halloween)As such, I avoid the genre entirely along with authors like Steven King.  I'm sure he's a fine writer.  The only thing of his I've ever been exposed to was the movie "The Green Mile" starring Tom Hanks, but it wasn't really in the horror genre and was actually enjoyable.  I also avoid Anne Rice.  Whether the writers achieve popularity or not, I simply won't read this stuff.  Period.
  
• Serial Killer Thrillers
  I like crime thrillers, but when it is about serial killers who kill strictly for the sport of it, I'm outta here. I avoid most of the newer stuff by Patricia Cornwall, Dean Koontz, and some books by Michael Connelly because they deal with this subject.  There are some places I refuse to go.  Inside the psyche of serial killers is one of them.
  
• Romance
  I don't know exactly how you would characterize the genre, but I've never read a Harlequin and never plan to.  It ranks up there with National Enquirer, fuzzy slippers, and hair curlers.  I have enjoyed some of the books written by Nicholas Sparks and two by James Patterson that were in the same genre as Sparks.
• James Patterson
  This guy is a former ad exec who turned his efforts to writing.  He's authored tons of books and nobody can argue with his success: his books have grossed over $1 billion (yes, that's with a B).  Trouble is, his books aren't very good writing in most cases. I've reviewed quite a few of them on Amazon but I've given up on this guy's thrillers.  He's cranking out something like 5-6 books a year and it is honestly like something you'd expect from a drive-thru window.  I particularly suggest avoiding the books he's written for teens (the Maximum Ride series) and I've reviewed these books with my extensive critiques on Amazon.com.  The only books from him I can honestly say I got much enjoyment from were the ones that were sort of in the genre of Nicholas Sparks: quasi-romance stories like "Message in a Bottle" of Kevin Costner fame.  I've reviewed both of Patterson's romance books on Amazon.  I found them moderately good.  Skip his thrillers, though.  Particularly the "Alex Cross" series.  They are beyond lame.
  
• Patricia Cornwell
  Some of her thrillers are fun, but many (particularly the recent ones) are obsessed with getting inside the heads of serial killers (see my comments on the serial killer crime/thriller genre above).  Her writing has also deteriorated over the years to the point where I'm almost wondering if she used a ghost writer.  The plots have become more and more implausible and her characters (Kay Scarpetta, Frank Marino) have become unlikable and boring.
  
• Catherine Coulter
  I actually recommend reading one of her thrillers just to expose yourself to what really bad writing looks like.  Lame characters, lame details, lame dialog, lame plots = lame books.  I've been as scathing as I can possibly be of her writing on Amazon.com in my reviews.  I read 3-4 of her books just to give her a fair chance, but she was consistently pathetic.  I think she made her name writing so-called "Bodice Rippers" (romance novels).  She'd be best sticking to that genre.  Her thrillers read like junior high kids telling scary stories around a campfire.
  
• Adrian McKinty
  A guy who write thrillers about Irish organized crime and gangs.  His books have been "critically acclaimed" for dialog that is witty and gritty.  Translation: the f-bomb is used at least twice in every sentence.  No thank you.  These book are noir all the way.  
  
• Dean Koontz
  I read a book by this guy years ago called "Intensity."  It is about a serial killer who poses as a cop and it still haunts me from time to time, particularly his torture of children.  Why do we want to crawl inside the head of the Son of Sams and Ted Bundys of the world? 
  
• John Sandford
  Don't like his writing for many of the same reasons I don't like McKinty.  Language is too over-the-top. Frankly, it is hard to find writers in the Mystery/Thriller/Crime genre that keep things reasonably clean.  I've found I have to put up with a certain amount of it, but some writers feel compelled to use more of it than others.  

The art of the non-apology

John Edwards' new blogmistresses demonstrate how to give the appearance of an apology without actually apologizing...

-----------------------------------

We've all seen it.  We've all done it - at least when we were kids.  That "go tell Joey you're sorry" ritual where you went, shook hands, and verbalized the words "I'm sorry" while conveying very clearly to Joey that you actually wished he’d fall headlong into a nest of fire ants.  This, of course, would be followed by the obligatory parental admonishment of "No, say it like you mean it," which would result in yet another enunciation of the two words with only slightly less contempt than previously.  

It's known as the non-apology. 

With adults, it takes on a slightly different form.  It invariably starts with the word if - as in "If I've done anything to offend you..."

With the possible exception of "Not tonight dear, I have a headache," I don’t think there are less satisfying words in the English language.

Now, for proper effect, the if is usually followed by words like "truly sorry" and "deeply regret" along with a suitably somber tone throughout.  However, to the offended party, make no mistake: the most important word is the initial one, and when it consists of if, the words that follow it, however many or few, have been essentially rendered null and void.

There are many messages that the "If I've done anything to offend you..." clause can convey.  Here are a few of the more popular ones:

1. You're too sensitive.  The implication here is that a normal person wouldn't be offended, shouldn't be offended, and couldn't be offended.  Hence, you're not normal.  You're hyper-sensitive and the offending party has magnanimously taken the high road by offering an apology where one is not warranted.
2. I'm too ashamed.  This is generally much better than message #1, because it means the offender knows they were way out of line and feel so guilty about it they can't quite bring themselves to make a full admission.
3. I'm too lazy.  This is a sort of blanket statement intended to cover any and all offenses without the need to specifically go to the individuals that have been hurt and specifically ask forgiveness for specific wrongs.  It is essentially the class-action approach: none of the recipients actually find it satisfactory, but the individual now feels off the hook from further obligation.

A variation on this basic theme is to preface the apology with, or embed within the apology, the words "it was never my intention to (hurt, offend, frighten, etc.) anyone."  This tactic is also known by its more technical name: lying.

To see what these look like in practice, one need look no further than Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, the two recently hired and controversy-ridden bloggers enlisted by John Edwards to head up the online aspects of his presidential campaign. 

In a previous post, I discussed their distinctly gag-inducing blend of hypocrisy, intolerance, hate, vulgarity, radicalism, and cluelessness.  Not surprisingly, they managed to offend several million people, not the least of whom was Edwards himself who had this to say in a written statement:

"The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwen's posts personally offended me.  It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor or anything else."

Enter the non-apology.  Ms. McEwan, ever resourceful, managed to incorporate not one of my above-outlined tactics, but both of them in a single sentence:

"It has never been my intention to disparage people's individual faith, and I'm sorry if my words were taken in that way."

Ms. Marcotte, not to be outdone, used two entire sentences to convey similar sentiments.  Further, in a stunning display of constitutional fluency, she assures us that she does, in fact, support the First Ammendment.  How positively magnanimous of her:

"My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics.  Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact."

Now let me get this straight.  These gals post blogs for the express purpose of making political commentary.  Their posts routinely receive dozens, if not hundreds, of comments, both favorable and not.  They pride themselves on their savvy with current political events and their ability to offer commentary.  And it wasn't their intention to offend?  They seriously ask "if" someone was offended? 

I've got an idea: Let's send these two into a crowded room and have them start swinging a baseball bat.  When the inevitable concussions, broken noses, chipped teeth, and worse ensue from their actions, they can stand before the judge and claim that it was "never their intention to hurt someone."  Uh huh.  You go girls.  They can also turn to the assembled ranks of bandaged and bloodied faces in the courtroom and say "if we managed to injure any of you..."  After the judge quells the riot, he'll promptly send our two clowns for a psychiactric evaluation. 

That's exactly what we've got here:  Twin sluggers with blogs instead of baseball bats.  Sure they've got the right to say what they want - I'm as familiar with the First Amendment as the next person.  But I've also got the right to point out their absolute stupidity at pretending they can't distinguish whether a large number of people would find their remarks deliberately offensive and inflammatory. 

Contrition from these two?  Hardly.  Frankly, I don't think it's in their DNA.  Genuine apologies?  Not even close.  But let's give credit where credit is due - when it comes to the art of non-apologies, Edwards has settled for nothing less than truly world-class talent.

1970s Flashback: Furniture Masquarading as Stereos

My journey from some of the worst audio equpment of the 20th century to some of the best...

 -----------------------------------------------

 

Console Stereo

About the same time that Harvest Gold and Avocado Green became popular choices in home appliances, another piece of distinctly 70s furniture began showing up in homes: the "entertainment" console.  Those of us born in the 60s or earlier remember these things.  Rectangular altars upon which to sacrifice our vinyl disks, replete with four legs, little sliding doors to hide the speakers when not in use, and a hinged top from which to access the bowels of the beast.  In our home, the brick-shaped dispenser of audio was strategically placed so as to aim directly at the back of the couch, approximately 36 inches away.  This was so that the already mediocre sound quality could be more fully obliterated in coil springs, cotton batting, and paisley upholstery.

To better care for the vinyl, records were stacked on top of one another and then dropped to the spinning 33 - 1/3 RPM platter beneath, allowing the scratching and ruining of the records' surfaces to be accomplished automatically rather than via the stone-age mechanism of manually handling them.  This was the 1970s!  Automation was not just for washing dishes and clothes anymore - it was for ruining records. 

The entire design seems to have been aimed at one glorious, overarching purpose: the worst possible sound encased in an ugly piece of furniture.  

35 years later, apparently these things are worth quite a bit of money.  Proof positive that those paying top dollar on eBay have pocketbooks inversely proportional to their IQs.

I don't recall much about the day we got it, nor the day we sent it to that Zenith graveyard in the sky, but I do recall the day I was introduced to real audiophile-quality stereo.  I was 14 years old and the family had taken a long weekend to go shopping in Eugene, Oregon - home to the University of Oregon and about a 3-hour drive from our little hamlet of Ashland.  While the clothes horses of the family busied themselves making that hideous screeching sound that the metal hanger hooks make on the metal clothing racks as they perused the entire inventory of every department store in the downtown mall, my dad and I stepped into a little nook called Toad Hall Hi-Fi.  I can still smell that new electronics aroma those places used to have - similar to the new car smell, but with a distinctly different bouquet.  I'm sure the smell has been banned today - at least in California since they appear to be the only state in which it is known that every substance commonly used by man causes cancer.

But it wasn't the smell that transformed me.  It was the sound.  Sound unlike anything I'd ever heard. 

I knew from that moment that the old Zenith at home would be absolutely incapable of satisfying my ears any longer.  I returned home passionate to earn enough money to buy my own stereo, not a small undertaking since my dream system totaled something like $1,600 and I was making minimum wage working weekends and after school. 

Ultimately, I decided I couldn't wait a year and discovered something called "the installment plan."  Perhaps you've heard of it.  The concept is simple: don't let something as silly as money come between what you want and what you can afford.  I somehow managed to secure a loan at the local credit union (I'm sure my dad must have co-signed) and paid the the whole thing back in a year.  We won't talk about the financial wisdom of paying interest on a depreciating asset, although it's probably been enough years now that the stuff has achieved antique status and has actually increased in value. 

That was in 1976.  I've purchased a lot of things in the intervening 31 years, often with buyer's remorse of one kind or another, or just with a sense that the purchased item never quite lived up to its promises.  But I can honestly that my first stereo was one purchase that truly exceeded my expectations in every respect.

For you retro stereo enthusiasts for whom this list might actually make sense, here's what my hard-earned $1600 bought me:

• Integrated Amplifier: Sony TA-5650 with VFET power amps
• Turntable: Dual 502 belt-drive single play w/ Grace stylus cartridge
• Cassette Deck: Nakamichi 500 2-head cassette transport
• Speakers: Carlsson Sonab OD-11 "cubes"  
• Tuner: a vintage 1960s Harmon-Kardon ST-1500 given to me by a friend

I still have every piece of gear today and it is still in use, with the exception of the turntable which is gracefully aging along with my record collection somewhere in the attic.  When it comes to stereo equipment like this, they truly don't make 'em like they used to.  About five years ago when I finally had to break down and buy another amplifier for my home theater system (my original system above is used in my bedroom now), I was appalled at the sound quality of the new stuff.  Yeah, the user interfaces are slick and can switch audio and video, and they work with infrared remote controls, and they they look space-age, and they don't take up as much space - but there's that small matter of sound quality for those who care to listen to their stereo rather than just look at it.  Most of what is being sold today is junk.  The good old days of discrete components and the superior sound they could produce are gone, replaced by the stereo-on-a-chip.  For non-audiophiles, it's the difference between fast food and a 5-star restaurant.  Your ears are like your tastebuds - you CAN tell the difference. 

Sonab OD-11

The centerpiece of the whole system always was, and has remained, my beloved Sonab speakers.  I cannot say enough good things about these little beauties.  To a person, everyone who has ever been in my house has marvelled over these, the same way I marvelled when I stepped into Toad Hall over the sound that could emerge from a pair of 12" cubes that sat on the floor and projected their acoustics upward rather than conventional speakers.  You can read more about the entire line of speakers developed by Stig Carlsson, the Swedish "enfant terrible" of the speaker design world, at Carlsson Planet, a website set up by his still-faithful following of enthusiasts.  His speakers show up from time to time on eBay.  One word of advice: snatch them up if I don't beat you to them.  They are unlike anthing you have ever heard and can be restored relatively easily with components true to his original designs, but which actually outperform his original choice of drivers.  Like fine wine, they have truly gotten better with age.

I bought a pair for my parents, as well as my sister and brother-in-law, and they absolutely love them.  I also bought the larger version of these speakers, the OA-12s, and they sit proudly in my family room.  When you have a decent pair of stereo speakers, those 5-way and 7-way speaker systems with subwoofers that are now the norm for home theater systems become passe.  Two really good speakers will beat five or seven or umpteen mediocre ones hands down, every time.

In a future blog, I'll right more about the amazing Sonab speakers and some of my other gear, including the reasons they don't make 'em like they used to when it comes to stereos. 

In the meantime, I'll continue to listen to my 30-year-old technology that outperforms 99% of the stuff being sold today, and I'll continue to watch jaws drop when people enter my home for the first time and listen to the sound of components that are antique in name only - not performance.