My new material, such as it is, can now be found at my
Ruin Your Eyes site. Occasional announcements and other stuff will show up on the companion blog.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
The San Francisco Giants are the World Champions of All Time, Space, and Dimension
Yes, I know this is supposed to be a blog, which implies that there are regular updates about every facet of everything I do, but you don’t want to know what I’m wearing on my feet. Perhaps you do want to know, in case this news passed you by, that THE SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS ARE THE WORLD CHAMPIONS OF ALL TIME, SPACE, AND DIMENSION. I never get tired of typing that. Watch: THE SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS ARE THE WORLD CHAMPIONS OF ALL TIME, SPACE, AND DIMENSION.
For something I wrote about the fact that THE SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS ARE THE WORLD CHAMPIONS OF ALL TIME, SPACE, AND DIMENSION, please see It’s True! on the RYE website. Sure, it’s more than a month since the happy event took place, but I’ve been thinking about it all this time, and I’m still not sure it's real.
For something I wrote about the fact that THE SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS ARE THE WORLD CHAMPIONS OF ALL TIME, SPACE, AND DIMENSION, please see It’s True! on the RYE website. Sure, it’s more than a month since the happy event took place, but I’ve been thinking about it all this time, and I’m still not sure it's real.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Blap!
It’s been only five months since my last blog entry, so stop complaining (or cheering, as the case may be). Today I added a new piece, Blap!, to the website. Read. Enjoy (or hate, or maybe ignore). Or don’t do any of those things—I mean, who am I to tell you what to do? Stand up for yourself, already!
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Hatin’ the Saints... Hate Hate Hate
Well, I don’t really hate the Saints, but I’m pretty annoyed that yet another major sports team has won its first championship before the San Francisco Giants have won theirs. If you know me at all, you know that this is one of my little pet peeves about being a Giants fan, and I go a little bananas when I hear about things like Brian Sabean saying the kind of stuff quoted by Steven Rubio in his blog:
“With this lineup, I think we can springboard off the 88 wins from last year and get into playoff contention.“ Here’s Sabes’ rationale: “Number One, we'll have more experience on the field. Number Two, guys will be able to hit in the order where they have traditionally hit.”
I don’t want to use too much of Steven’s article, but what he says here, I think, points to just a small part of what I perceive as the toxicity of the San Francisco Giants:
“What is he telling us about his approach to player evaluation? His first ‘reason’ addresses defense, his second talks about offense. What he is saying in the first case is that the defense will be better in part because there will be ‘more experience on the field.’ He says nothing about the actual defensive abilities of the players on the field; he does not say ‘our defense will be improved because we’ve added some solid glove men.’ He merely says they have added experience to last year’s model. As for hitting, he is saying that the offense will be better because of how the lineup will be constructed. He says nothing about the actual hitting abilities of the players; he does not say ’our offense will be improved because we’ve added some better hitters.’ He merely says that the hitters he does have will fit better into the lineup than they used to.”
I responded on Steven’s blog, and you can always go there to read it, but this is more or less what I said: Sometimes I wonder if Sabean says things just to fill up dead air. When he says the kind of thing quoted above, does he actually believe it? Perhaps more to the point, does he really give Giants fan so little credit as to think we believe it, if only because he, the Baseball Insider, said it? Know what? Yes and yes. At least that’s what I think.
It’s still difficult to believe, but I know there are optimistic Giants fans out there, happily pushing that boulder up the 90-degree slope, only to have it roll right back over them the instant the Giants eat the big one, every season. And these folks are able to dust themselves off and say “Wait till next year!” And to an extent, I envy them, because I’m just not wired with that kind of optimism. I think I suffer from, if not realism, then the wisdom of experience—namely that the Giants have shown no particular willingness to win me a damn ring after all these years.
I honestly love and adore this team—or, at least, “The San Francisco Giants,” regardless of who’s out on the field—but (as with parents and their children) that doesn’t mean that I don’t wanna smack ’em once in a while. Now, I’m not saying that there’s no way the Giants can win a World Series, either this year or next year or ever. Sure they could. I just don’t believe it, because I don’t buy into the Brain Trust.
Meanwhile, hard as you may find this to believe, I do not think Brian Sabean is an idiot. I do think he’s made some bad decisions, possibly based on bad advice. I do think he really doesn’t understand how to evaluate talent, or at least major league talent. Is he the man who realized what Tim Lincecum and even Matt Cain would become? Maybe. Maybe he really was the visionary there. But in Sabean, what I think we’re looking at here is a man who so firmly believes that the old ways are best—whatever those old ways might be, up to and including divination via tea leaves and psephology—that he really has no room for any o’ them newfangled notions such as on-base percentage. Now, to be fair, he has actually used the expression “on-base percentage” at least twice during his tenure with the Giants, but that doesn’t mean he believes in it.
The thing is... well, look, if you really want to get a sense of the various ways baseball is analyzed, just do some Google searches. People—not necessarily Baseball Insiders, either—knock themselves out compiling raw data, then presenting it in various (and often understandable!) ways. I am not one of these people, but often they, their methods, and their results fascinate me. What they’re up against, though, is baseball people whose mindset hasn’t moved much past the 1960’s, the kinds of folks who, when you get hit on the elbow by a 100-mile-an-hour fastball, would advise you to spit on the welt and rub dirt on it.
Baseball is merely one of those realms in which decision-makers just do stuff the way it’s always been done, because it’s always been done that way. There are, however, some baseball organizations that actually embrace new ways of looking at data—and I really wish my team were one of them.
Instead, the San Francisco Giants remain the one team that’s waited longer than anybody else—not only in Major League Baseball, but also in the NFL, NBA, and NHL—to win its first championship in its current general metropolitan area. Even the farkakte Saints, whom we always used to be able to count on to stink, have gone and made the Giants look like fools.
So who’s the next team to win its first championship? Some of you might say “The San Francisco Giants,” and I sure wish you’d be right, but you’ll be wrong. I would, and will, never, but ever, switch my allegiance to another baseball team, but it sure is hard to ignore that boulder flattening me year after year after year. It hurts. Please, boulder, stop doing that for a year, just to be different. Is that too much to ask?
“With this lineup, I think we can springboard off the 88 wins from last year and get into playoff contention.“ Here’s Sabes’ rationale: “Number One, we'll have more experience on the field. Number Two, guys will be able to hit in the order where they have traditionally hit.”
I don’t want to use too much of Steven’s article, but what he says here, I think, points to just a small part of what I perceive as the toxicity of the San Francisco Giants:
“What is he telling us about his approach to player evaluation? His first ‘reason’ addresses defense, his second talks about offense. What he is saying in the first case is that the defense will be better in part because there will be ‘more experience on the field.’ He says nothing about the actual defensive abilities of the players on the field; he does not say ‘our defense will be improved because we’ve added some solid glove men.’ He merely says they have added experience to last year’s model. As for hitting, he is saying that the offense will be better because of how the lineup will be constructed. He says nothing about the actual hitting abilities of the players; he does not say ’our offense will be improved because we’ve added some better hitters.’ He merely says that the hitters he does have will fit better into the lineup than they used to.”
I responded on Steven’s blog, and you can always go there to read it, but this is more or less what I said: Sometimes I wonder if Sabean says things just to fill up dead air. When he says the kind of thing quoted above, does he actually believe it? Perhaps more to the point, does he really give Giants fan so little credit as to think we believe it, if only because he, the Baseball Insider, said it? Know what? Yes and yes. At least that’s what I think.
It’s still difficult to believe, but I know there are optimistic Giants fans out there, happily pushing that boulder up the 90-degree slope, only to have it roll right back over them the instant the Giants eat the big one, every season. And these folks are able to dust themselves off and say “Wait till next year!” And to an extent, I envy them, because I’m just not wired with that kind of optimism. I think I suffer from, if not realism, then the wisdom of experience—namely that the Giants have shown no particular willingness to win me a damn ring after all these years.
I honestly love and adore this team—or, at least, “The San Francisco Giants,” regardless of who’s out on the field—but (as with parents and their children) that doesn’t mean that I don’t wanna smack ’em once in a while. Now, I’m not saying that there’s no way the Giants can win a World Series, either this year or next year or ever. Sure they could. I just don’t believe it, because I don’t buy into the Brain Trust.
Meanwhile, hard as you may find this to believe, I do not think Brian Sabean is an idiot. I do think he’s made some bad decisions, possibly based on bad advice. I do think he really doesn’t understand how to evaluate talent, or at least major league talent. Is he the man who realized what Tim Lincecum and even Matt Cain would become? Maybe. Maybe he really was the visionary there. But in Sabean, what I think we’re looking at here is a man who so firmly believes that the old ways are best—whatever those old ways might be, up to and including divination via tea leaves and psephology—that he really has no room for any o’ them newfangled notions such as on-base percentage. Now, to be fair, he has actually used the expression “on-base percentage” at least twice during his tenure with the Giants, but that doesn’t mean he believes in it.
The thing is... well, look, if you really want to get a sense of the various ways baseball is analyzed, just do some Google searches. People—not necessarily Baseball Insiders, either—knock themselves out compiling raw data, then presenting it in various (and often understandable!) ways. I am not one of these people, but often they, their methods, and their results fascinate me. What they’re up against, though, is baseball people whose mindset hasn’t moved much past the 1960’s, the kinds of folks who, when you get hit on the elbow by a 100-mile-an-hour fastball, would advise you to spit on the welt and rub dirt on it.
Baseball is merely one of those realms in which decision-makers just do stuff the way it’s always been done, because it’s always been done that way. There are, however, some baseball organizations that actually embrace new ways of looking at data—and I really wish my team were one of them.
Instead, the San Francisco Giants remain the one team that’s waited longer than anybody else—not only in Major League Baseball, but also in the NFL, NBA, and NHL—to win its first championship in its current general metropolitan area. Even the farkakte Saints, whom we always used to be able to count on to stink, have gone and made the Giants look like fools.
So who’s the next team to win its first championship? Some of you might say “The San Francisco Giants,” and I sure wish you’d be right, but you’ll be wrong. I would, and will, never, but ever, switch my allegiance to another baseball team, but it sure is hard to ignore that boulder flattening me year after year after year. It hurts. Please, boulder, stop doing that for a year, just to be different. Is that too much to ask?
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Final Prisoner Piece
The last piece of my four-part epic about AMC’s The Prisoner is available for your reading pleasure at what will eventually become The Usual Place. Another way of looking at this is, whether you like it or not, you can find another Prisoner piece on the Ruin Your Eyes website.
Sadly, the only people who I know have watched the thing are my wife, my son, and me. Somebody out there must have seen it, or could. And then that somebody could leave comments here! Yay!
Indeed, I know a certain blogger who devotes at least as much time to watching TV as I do. I wonder if we’ll ever find out what he or she has to say about The Prisoner, old or new....
(By the way, if it’s any incentive, this last Prisoner piece is a short one.)
Sadly, the only people who I know have watched the thing are my wife, my son, and me. Somebody out there must have seen it, or could. And then that somebody could leave comments here! Yay!
Indeed, I know a certain blogger who devotes at least as much time to watching TV as I do. I wonder if we’ll ever find out what he or she has to say about The Prisoner, old or new....
(By the way, if it’s any incentive, this last Prisoner piece is a short one.)
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Latest Prisoner Thing
I’ve added the third article in what has turned out to be a four-part series about AMC’s The Prisoner. It’s pretty long, but fear not: the next one isn’t.
Since you failed to ask, I have a few more pieces ready to go, though I haven’t decided for sure that I want to include them. Also, they don’t cover the following topics that I thought I might write about:
Since you failed to ask, I have a few more pieces ready to go, though I haven’t decided for sure that I want to include them. Also, they don’t cover the following topics that I thought I might write about:
- Out Of The Park Baseball: This is pretty close to what I always envisioned for David Beck’s and my baseball game that we’d worked on for so long.
- They Might Be Giants: Those who are all too familiar with my overwhelming dedication to the San Francisco Giants might not believe this, but it’s completely coincidental that I spend so much time listening to the music of these talented people.
- People are Wrong: This is a rock opera by singers Julia Greenberg and Robin Goldwasser, the wife of John Flansburgh of They Might Be Giants—which makes it pretty likely that I would never have heard of it if I weren’t a TMBG fan. I do not, however, know whether People Are Wrong is still a rock opera, or if it died on the vine.
- Harry Potter: Oh, say what you will about how I totally sold out by even reading the books. (I’m saying that to a specific friend who probably won’t even read Ruin Your Eyes, now that I’ve gone and told him about it. And I’m characterizing his reaction as far milder, in terms of verbiage, than I know it would be.) It just so happens that I have some opinions about it all, and no, my plan is not to rip the whole concept or deride others for doing so.
- Sudoku: I’ve only started playing this in the last month or two. And is it really anything to write about?
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Subscribe, Please
Down at the bottom of this window is a link that lets you subscribe to this blog. Normally I would be loath to shill myself quite so shamelessly, but I would ask that if you like what I’m doing, or at least hope to, please subscribe via that link... because I don’t wanna have to e-mail you every time I add something, and you don’t want me to, either.
The Prisoner 2009 again
Please visit the Ruin Your Eyes website for the second of my pieces on AMC’s The Prisoner. If you don’t, I’ll whine.
Meanwhile, yesterday I watched about 20 minutes of a movie that really didn’t have much promise to begin with, but I was exactly that bored: This was a Michael Madsen “vehicle” listed in OnDemand as Final Connection but in imdb.com as Dead Connection (1994), which might be what I should have hoped for from Comcast instead of what I actually watched. Lord. Bad. Madsen: hard-bitten detective owns fish bowl full of matchbooks with women’s phone number on them. Why, the ladies love the chain-smoking, hard-drinking lout. I would say “It was like looking into a mirror!” but that would only be funny to those who know me—but then, who else reads my stuff these days?
And you probably shouldn’t tell me I should have known better, given that the co-star was Lisa Bonet (born Lisa Boney, since you asked). Even in her late twenties, she still sported that teenager voice that made her hard to believe as, well, as any kind of adult. Oh, plus: the hair. Did you believe it? You must have seen it, then.
The killer is this dude with an odd accent who (a) whomps the snot out of a couple of big, ugly dorks hoping to rape the 18-year-old girls who refused to dance with them at a club, and (b) later, in his horrendously appointed motel room, whomps the life out of the girls themselves, one at a time. One of these was Parker Posey, who’s about a year younger than Bonet; had their roles been reversed, their respective characters actually might have been more believable, but Bonet (I assume) was supposed to be the draw, see.
Not that it’s any of my business, but it may well be no coincidence that the year after this woofer hit the screens (or, perhaps, went straight to video, but probably not), Bonet legally changed her name to Lilakoi Moon. Since Final Dead Connection the kind of movie from which one should be ashamed to make money, evading governmental taxation had to sound like an attractive option.
Oh, and the best moment involved Tim Russ (Star Trek: Voyager’s Tuvok, only with a patchy mustache, normal ears, and that unusual hairline), a rookie detective, doing some research on his computer: “Division: Homocide,” it read. I promise I’m not joking—I had to rewind to be sure.
Still, since I’ve been told all my life that if I can’t say something nice, I shouldn’t say anything at all, pay no attention to the previous five paragraphs.
Meanwhile, yesterday I watched about 20 minutes of a movie that really didn’t have much promise to begin with, but I was exactly that bored: This was a Michael Madsen “vehicle” listed in OnDemand as Final Connection but in imdb.com as Dead Connection (1994), which might be what I should have hoped for from Comcast instead of what I actually watched. Lord. Bad. Madsen: hard-bitten detective owns fish bowl full of matchbooks with women’s phone number on them. Why, the ladies love the chain-smoking, hard-drinking lout. I would say “It was like looking into a mirror!” but that would only be funny to those who know me—but then, who else reads my stuff these days?
And you probably shouldn’t tell me I should have known better, given that the co-star was Lisa Bonet (born Lisa Boney, since you asked). Even in her late twenties, she still sported that teenager voice that made her hard to believe as, well, as any kind of adult. Oh, plus: the hair. Did you believe it? You must have seen it, then.
The killer is this dude with an odd accent who (a) whomps the snot out of a couple of big, ugly dorks hoping to rape the 18-year-old girls who refused to dance with them at a club, and (b) later, in his horrendously appointed motel room, whomps the life out of the girls themselves, one at a time. One of these was Parker Posey, who’s about a year younger than Bonet; had their roles been reversed, their respective characters actually might have been more believable, but Bonet (I assume) was supposed to be the draw, see.
Not that it’s any of my business, but it may well be no coincidence that the year after this woofer hit the screens (or, perhaps, went straight to video, but probably not), Bonet legally changed her name to Lilakoi Moon. Since Final Dead Connection the kind of movie from which one should be ashamed to make money, evading governmental taxation had to sound like an attractive option.
Oh, and the best moment involved Tim Russ (Star Trek: Voyager’s Tuvok, only with a patchy mustache, normal ears, and that unusual hairline), a rookie detective, doing some research on his computer: “Division: Homocide,” it read. I promise I’m not joking—I had to rewind to be sure.
Still, since I’ve been told all my life that if I can’t say something nice, I shouldn’t say anything at all, pay no attention to the previous five paragraphs.
Friday, January 1, 2010
The Prisoner 2009
On the website I’ve posted the first of four pieces (so far) on The Prisoner, the 2009 remake—or whatever you want to call it—shown on AMC in November. Comcast customers can still watch it via OnDemand.
We’ll be Right Back
A shiny quarter. And it really did shine. Plus, it was kind of golden-looking. That was our remuneration for participating in a television-viewing survey, courtesy of Arbitron. Or perhaps Nielsen. Possibly neither. All I know is that back in about 1974, my family received a booklet in which to fill out what we watched on TV for several days. I was the in-filler. And as sure as this paragraph began with a sentence fragment, you can bet that creative license was taken.
I didn’t want to tell these people what we really watched, though I don’t really remember what that was. Instead, as far as the Arbitron people were concerned—or perhaps Nielsen; possibly neither—we watched an awful lot of PBS.
Television is a funny thing. It’s been a huge part of the American lifestyle for over half a century, and somehow it still smacks of low brows, or at least some of us fear as much. What’s your reaction when someone tells you they don’t watch TV? Do you believe them? Do you think they’re trying to show superiority? Are you afraid that you’ll be perceived as less intelligent because you do watch TV? Other reactions abound, no doubt, but those three choices are the ones that came to mind, because I’ve certainly felt all of them at one time or another.
Why are we—okay, why am I, because it’s not fair for me to speak for you—reluctant to cop to something that’s been so pervasive for so long? Why should anybody worry that someone might disparage his or her viewing habits? Does anybody really worry about that anymore? Why am I asking you? More to the point, why am I asking you without really getting to the point?
I am a relatively unabashed TV viewer. I’m fairly sure I know what’s good and what’s bad, and I’m not ashamed to say that “bad” is part of my TV diet. Sometimes it has to be. I don’t always want to have to reflect on what I’m watching—sometimes I just want to watch, to be entertained. I’ve devoted time to countless programs that are, objectively, crap. Most of the time, a single viewing of a bad show was enough to turn me away from it altogether, but not always, even when it was clear to me that what I was watching was bad.
Like many within, say, five years of my age in either direction, I grew up watching Star Trek, first in prime time (when I was a little too young to get it and was even willing to watch Lost in Space without being tied to a chair), then as part of the family dinner routine, since KTVU out of San Francisco—then an “independent” station; now a Fox affiliate—would run Trek every weeknight at six. As I “matured”—in quotes because you may not buy the notion that I’ve ever matured—I grew to really appreciate the good things about show while recognizing when not to take it seriously. I mean, as much as I still love Star Trek, I am very aware of the fair percentage of episodes, performances, effects, and premises that are just plain brutal.
But it seems to me that if you’re the kind of person who can watch science-fictiony things without batting an eye, you’re probably also the kind of person who can suspend your disbelief without having to try real hard, and that’s me in a nutshell: I use six-inch-thick steel cables to suspend my disbelief. And when some show, or element thereof, manages to break through that curtain of belief that I’ve managed to construct, it’s not always enough to put me off. I might snort dismissively and say “Yeah, right,” but then I’ll just keep watching, mainly to see how the story ends. As a result, I am perhaps way too familiar with Star Trek and a whole host of other shows.
Sometimes a TV show will spark an all-consuming interest. When I was in high school, Monty Python’s Flying Circus did exactly that: It wasn’t enough to watch the show. I had to audio-record each episode (and I do mean “each”—I still have all 45 episodes on tape), buy all the records, and record those onto tapes to prevent wearing out the records. I even bought the books put out by the Pythons themselves. In later years, I bought a number of books about Python, and when the Independent Film Channel recently ran a six-part series about the history of Python, I recorded it on a DVR and watched it avidly, and I have no intention of erasing it—at least not until it’s available on DVD (if ever). I’m very familiar with the sketches, having listened to the tapes over and over and over and over and over, all through high school. (I even audio-taped Monty Python and the Holy Grail.) The last few days, I’ve been listening to the Python records on my iPod. The material still stands up—these were brilliant comedy writers and performers. And if it weren’t for Python, I probably wouldn’t have developed much of an interest in other British programs, comedy and otherwise.
Another show that worked its way deep under my skin is The Prisoner, which I first watched around 1980. The imagery and the weirdness of the episodes was enough to get me hooked then, and I finally was able to video-record the episodes about 20 years ago. In 2000 I started writing about The Prisoner, to the point where, after two or three years, I completed the first draft of a really large book. (Sadly, I haven’t done much on it since then, having become discouraged for a variety of reasons, but that’s a crappy excuse. See, I want to make money from it, but I don’t know how realistic that is.) And in doing so, I watched each of the 17 episodes a billion times, stopping the tapes constantly to take notes. I audio-taped some episodes to play in the car during my commute, just to become as familiar as possible with the dialogue. I did lots of research, mainly on the Web.
That’s what TV can do, at least to me. And on this site, you—or whatever part of my reading audience sticks around—will see the product of that.
Why “Ruin Your Eyes”?
At one time I had planned a sort of all-TV-reviews-all-the-time site, but then I realized that I didn’t want to write just about TV. Movies, books, baseball, or anything else that inspired me to sit down and type—that, I decided, would all be fair game. Naming the site, though, proved to be harder than I expected. The name of my longtime San Francisco Giants site, EEEEEE!, was an easy choice, and if you’re a Giants fan, probably you know why. But this one... well, I wasn’t sure where to go. At first I thought I’d be doing a 100-percent TV-related blog, hence titles such as Televitching,” “Telerelevance,” “Televendetta,” “Televengeance,” “Televigor,” “Televibble,” “Televomitrocity,” “Trayf-O-Vision,” “I Won’t Have My Courtroom Turned into a Circus,” and “Gregg Make TV Blog.” I rejected most of these upon deciding that I didn’t want to limit my writing to TV, or even a blog, which led to titles that I hoped would be provocative, evocative, and odd enough to make you wonder what you might be about to click on. Candidates included “Uvula,” Uvulescence,” “Quink,” “Sphink,” and “’Muse Muse,” He Mused.” I considered “Willing Suspension of Disbelief,” but I actually had a website by that name in the late 1990’s—but nobody read it or even knew about it, and it had only a few pieces.
I settled on “Ruin Your Eyes,” mainly because I sort of liked it, but also because “ruin your eyes” is exactly what our mothers used to tell us about sitting too close to the TV or trying to read in insufficient light—and websites and blogs provide the opportunity to ruin your eyes in both those ways at the same time. (I say I settled on “Ruin Your Eyes” because I’m not enthusiastic about the title; if a better one comes along, I’ll grab it.)
Ruin Your Eyes is a website and a blog. (That link is to the website.) God, and anybody who’s been reading my Giants stuff over the last 13 years, knows that I was born without the brevity gene, so my long pieces will go onto the website, and shorter comments—including, I hope, yours—will show up here. With any luck, the piece you’re about to finish reading will be the exception.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)