Do you know the story of the scorpion and the frog? Of course you do! Everybody does! What started out as a cool parable of man's essential irrationality has become a cliched shortcut for screenwriters and dramatists to add depth and/or intrigue to nefarious characters.
For me, and I suspect many in my generation, the story achieved meme-like status after its appearance in "The Crying Game" (1992). Subsequently, it has appeared in all manner of programs, including "Star Trek: Voyager" (where the frog, in keeping with the Aesopian origins, is substituted with a fox) to "Robot Chicken." Recently, the parable appeared in the premiere of the Starz series "Magic City." When one character asks the other if he knows the story of the scorpion and the frog--and the response is "No"--I had to resist the urge to scream at the TV, "Seriously?!?"
In case you're among the 0.01% of people unfamiliar with the story: A scorpion and a frog are at a riverbank. The scorpion asks the frog to carry him across the river. The frog says, "No way: You'll sting me." The scorpion points out that this would be stupid: If he stings the frog, then they'll BOTH drown. The frog thinks about it and agrees to ferry the scorpion across the river. Halfway across, the scorpion does, indeed, sting the frog. As they sink below the water, the frog gurgles out, "Why? Now, we'll both die!" The scorpion replies, "I can't help it. It's in my nature."
The worst part about this whole thing is that IT'S NOT TRUE. I sat down with Scorpion to get the real story:
"Look, I don't know how this whole thing got started, but I NEVER stung Frog. Frog and I are friends--more than Frog and Toad, I can tell you: That guy's a schmuck.
"It was all a joke. Yes, I 'stung' Frog--with a thumb tack I happened to be carrying! You should have seen the look on his face! 'Aaaaah! Aaaaaah! Why did you do that?!? Why did you do that?!? Aaaaah!' I admit, I was worried we WERE going to drown just because Frog was flipping out so bad. Somehow, we managed to make it to the other side. When I told Frog what I'd actually done, we ultimately had a good laugh about the whole thing.
"Well, yes, I admit, I DID say 'It's just my nature--to play jokes.' I'm a kidder! Think about it: If I HAD actually stung the frog, how would any of you know this story?!? Am I right, or am I right?
"Personally, I blame Frog for not setting the record straight. If anyone's gotten 'stung' by this whole thing, it's me.
"All I can say is, Never trust an amphibian. Land or water! Make up your mind!"
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Friday, April 6, 2012
Miscellany
Watching "Mad Men" has inspired me to try my hand at copywriting. Here's my first try:
Olive Garden: When you're here, you're family. . . .
. . . After you leave, you can go fuck yourself.
Olive Garden: When you're here, you're family. . . .
. . . After you leave, you can go fuck yourself.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Next Up: 7 Hour Frenzy
This summer in London, it's a safe bet that several world records will fall. Every time I hear about one of these milestones, though, it makes me wonder: What are the limits of human achievement?
For example: According to Wikipedia, the current world record time for running a mile is three minutes, and 43.13 seconds. Of course, according to Wikipedia, this time was turned in by an octopus named Claude, so I'm not sure about the report's accuracy.
But seriously, folks, let's take Wikipedia at face value here, and assume that the world-record time is correct. We've certainly come a long way from the days when people speculated as to whether anyone could break the four-minute mile barrier. Since Roger Bannister first accomplished that feat in 1954, the record has been broken 18 times. And even though the current mark has held since 1999, there is no logical reason to think that the record will never be broken again. After all, if the mile can be run in 3:43.13, we would not find it completely shocking if someone managed the feat in 3:43.12, right?
But at what point is the record physically impossible to break? After all, if people keep breaking the record, even by one one-hundredth of a second at a time, they would at some point get the speed down under three minutes. Or two minutes. Or one. Or one second. Obviously, a one-second mile is ludicrous, but at what point does the potential for a record-breaking performance cross from the realm of intriguing possibility to science-fiction fantasy?
I thought of this the other day, when I went to my local convenience store to stock up on Cheetos and lottery tickets. There, at the counter, right underneath the display for 5-Hour Energy was another display for 6-Hour Power.
Where will this artificial-stimulant arms race end? How much temporary exhilaration can a juice drink provide before it crosses the line into methamphetamine? Not that there's anything wrong with that--except perhaps from a legal and health perspective--but I think we need to explore this further.
For example: According to Wikipedia, the current world record time for running a mile is three minutes, and 43.13 seconds. Of course, according to Wikipedia, this time was turned in by an octopus named Claude, so I'm not sure about the report's accuracy.
But seriously, folks, let's take Wikipedia at face value here, and assume that the world-record time is correct. We've certainly come a long way from the days when people speculated as to whether anyone could break the four-minute mile barrier. Since Roger Bannister first accomplished that feat in 1954, the record has been broken 18 times. And even though the current mark has held since 1999, there is no logical reason to think that the record will never be broken again. After all, if the mile can be run in 3:43.13, we would not find it completely shocking if someone managed the feat in 3:43.12, right?
But at what point is the record physically impossible to break? After all, if people keep breaking the record, even by one one-hundredth of a second at a time, they would at some point get the speed down under three minutes. Or two minutes. Or one. Or one second. Obviously, a one-second mile is ludicrous, but at what point does the potential for a record-breaking performance cross from the realm of intriguing possibility to science-fiction fantasy?
I thought of this the other day, when I went to my local convenience store to stock up on Cheetos and lottery tickets. There, at the counter, right underneath the display for 5-Hour Energy was another display for 6-Hour Power.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Not That There's Anything Wrong with That
When doing crossword puzzles--particularly those from The New York Times--you want to try to figure out the gimmick. Once you have, the puzzle practically solves itself.
The gimmick tends to reside in the "long" answers--especially the long "Across" answers. In the Sunday paper, the puzzle's title gives you a hint, but on the other days, you're on your own. Sometimes, the gimmick is positively fiendish--requiring you, for example, to put multiple letters into one box or involving an answer that actually "bends" up or down. Other times, the answers call for a pun. Such was the case with today's puzzle.
This being a Wednesday, the puzzle was not especially difficult. The gimmick, too, was fairly simple: The "trick" answers simply involved replacing a word ending in a 'z' or 'ze' with a homonym. So, for example, the answer to the clue, "Heckles the Westminster Kennel Club show?" was "boos hounds"; the answer for "Entourages for Odysseus' faithful wife?" was "Penelope crews." (Digression: In case you're not familiar with crosswords, a question mark at the end of a clue generally indicates that the answer involves a pun or other wordplay. EOD) The final "gimmick clue" for the puzzle was, "Ricky Martin or Neil Patrick Harris?" The answer was "star gays."
Now, both Ricky Martin and Neil Patrick Harris have been quite open about their sexuality, and to refer to them as "gay" is not in any way insulting or slanderous. It's basically the same thing as referring to Jeremy Lin as Asian or the Solipsist as brilliant and gorgeous--it simply reflects reality. Still, there's a difference between referring to Ricky Martin as a "gay star" and referring to him as a "star gay"--or as "a gay," period. References to "the gays" would seem more at home among the congregants of the Saddleback Baptist Church than in the pages of The New York Times--even if the page in question contains only a crossword puzzle.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive--I would have a similar twinge if I heard someone refer to "the Jews" instead of "Jewish people." But as a bastion of the elite liberal media, The New York Times should be careful about that kind of thing.
The gimmick tends to reside in the "long" answers--especially the long "Across" answers. In the Sunday paper, the puzzle's title gives you a hint, but on the other days, you're on your own. Sometimes, the gimmick is positively fiendish--requiring you, for example, to put multiple letters into one box or involving an answer that actually "bends" up or down. Other times, the answers call for a pun. Such was the case with today's puzzle.
This being a Wednesday, the puzzle was not especially difficult. The gimmick, too, was fairly simple: The "trick" answers simply involved replacing a word ending in a 'z' or 'ze' with a homonym. So, for example, the answer to the clue, "Heckles the Westminster Kennel Club show?" was "boos hounds"; the answer for "Entourages for Odysseus' faithful wife?" was "Penelope crews." (Digression: In case you're not familiar with crosswords, a question mark at the end of a clue generally indicates that the answer involves a pun or other wordplay. EOD) The final "gimmick clue" for the puzzle was, "Ricky Martin or Neil Patrick Harris?" The answer was "star gays."
Now, both Ricky Martin and Neil Patrick Harris have been quite open about their sexuality, and to refer to them as "gay" is not in any way insulting or slanderous. It's basically the same thing as referring to Jeremy Lin as Asian or the Solipsist as brilliant and gorgeous--it simply reflects reality. Still, there's a difference between referring to Ricky Martin as a "gay star" and referring to him as a "star gay"--or as "a gay," period. References to "the gays" would seem more at home among the congregants of the Saddleback Baptist Church than in the pages of The New York Times--even if the page in question contains only a crossword puzzle.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive--I would have a similar twinge if I heard someone refer to "the Jews" instead of "Jewish people." But as a bastion of the elite liberal media, The New York Times should be careful about that kind of thing.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
That Mirror Be Trippin'
What is the deal with all of these fairy-tale reboots? I know that "Shrek" probably started the trend, but the first Shrek movie came out ten years ago--why, in the last year, has there been such an influx of Brothers Grimm-inspired entertainment (or, in some cases, "entertainment")? On TV, you've got "Once Upon a Time," "Grimm," and some other show on the Syfy channel whose name escapes me. (And another thing, what was wrong with "Sci-Fi" as the name for the channel? Sure, many people have a problem with the term "Sci-Fi," but does a random spelling change make things better?) Now, in theaters, you've got "Mirror, Mirror" and, coming soon, a much darker looking Snow White film, "Snow White and the Huntsman." Seriously, what's behind all this?
I suppose adapting fairy tales is somewhat "safe": Studios know that they have a built-in audience of people who will go see these things, out of a sense of nostaligia or boredom or both. But how many different ways can you tell the Snow White story. And in what universe is Charlize Theron not fairer than Kristen Stewart?
I suppose adapting fairy tales is somewhat "safe": Studios know that they have a built-in audience of people who will go see these things, out of a sense of nostaligia or boredom or both. But how many different ways can you tell the Snow White story. And in what universe is Charlize Theron not fairer than Kristen Stewart?
Monday, April 2, 2012
Hunger Notes
What can I say about "The Hunger Games" that hasn't been said before? OK: "The Hunger Games" was originally about penguins, and the manuscript was discovered in a Snoopy lunchbox.
There, now that that's out of the way, some random thoughts:
Overall, a good movie and definitely worth the price of admission, but I've discovered something sad about myself: I don't think I can eat movie popcorn anymore--at least, not while watching a movie. Whether it's because of the artificial butter or the preponderance of jumpcuts, I start feeling queasy about halfway through any film featuring anything but the most sedate Merchant-Ivory-esque cinematography. And if I were to throw up during "The Hunger Games," that would be an insult to the memory of all those starving Tributes from the outlying districts.
What, it's not a documentary?
In the various reviews, much is made of Jennifer Lawrence and the rest of the featured cast, all of whom are quite good. I would like to give a shoutout to Donald Sutherland, though, who plays, in what may be the film's most perfect bit of casting, the diabolical President Snow. I look forward to seeing more of him in the sequels.
The movie stays generally true to the book and does a nice job of realizing the decadence of the Capitol city. Indeed, in certain touches, I think the film offers improvements. In the movie, for example, we get a "mini-scene" that provides a slightly better idea of how [SPOILER ALERT] the Capitol's game-designers are persuaded to allow two Tributes the possibility of survival. And the film doesn't make as big a deal as the book does of Katniss's struggles to overcome injury and find water, etc.--after all, someone looking for water or dealing with infection can make for good drama in a novel but not in a movie that already stretches over two hours. I also commend the filmmakers for their choice at times to let the drama speak for itself, without background music, particularly in the scene when Katniss becomes her district's Tribute. Silence is a nice touch.
Finally, after watching "The Hunger Games." I don't think I can ever watch "Survivor" again. I didn't watch it before, either, but now I have an even better excuse.
There, now that that's out of the way, some random thoughts:
Overall, a good movie and definitely worth the price of admission, but I've discovered something sad about myself: I don't think I can eat movie popcorn anymore--at least, not while watching a movie. Whether it's because of the artificial butter or the preponderance of jumpcuts, I start feeling queasy about halfway through any film featuring anything but the most sedate Merchant-Ivory-esque cinematography. And if I were to throw up during "The Hunger Games," that would be an insult to the memory of all those starving Tributes from the outlying districts.
What, it's not a documentary?
In the various reviews, much is made of Jennifer Lawrence and the rest of the featured cast, all of whom are quite good. I would like to give a shoutout to Donald Sutherland, though, who plays, in what may be the film's most perfect bit of casting, the diabolical President Snow. I look forward to seeing more of him in the sequels.
The movie stays generally true to the book and does a nice job of realizing the decadence of the Capitol city. Indeed, in certain touches, I think the film offers improvements. In the movie, for example, we get a "mini-scene" that provides a slightly better idea of how [SPOILER ALERT] the Capitol's game-designers are persuaded to allow two Tributes the possibility of survival. And the film doesn't make as big a deal as the book does of Katniss's struggles to overcome injury and find water, etc.--after all, someone looking for water or dealing with infection can make for good drama in a novel but not in a movie that already stretches over two hours. I also commend the filmmakers for their choice at times to let the drama speak for itself, without background music, particularly in the scene when Katniss becomes her district's Tribute. Silence is a nice touch.
Finally, after watching "The Hunger Games." I don't think I can ever watch "Survivor" again. I didn't watch it before, either, but now I have an even better excuse.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Now It Can Be Told
It all started after the election. Michelle and I were getting ready to move into the White House, and I was concerned about maintaining my "common touch" while living in the famous bubble of the American presidency. Michelle said, "Barack, you are about to become the most powerful man on the planet. You're going to have trouble staying 'common.' What are you going to do? Drink Budweiser? Start a blog?" In retrospect, I think she may have been kidding, but who was I to question Michelle's instincts? And so, just before New Year's 2009, I started "The Solipsist."
I was sure SOMEONE would figure it out! But, I guess I'm shrewder than even I give myself credit for--and I do give myself a great deal of credit. (Heck, people STILL haven't been able to prove definitively that I was born in a Kenyan madrassa, despite all the hints I keep dropping!) I made a point of constructing the most un-me-like persona I could think of. As a graduate of both Columbia and Harvard law, I needed to create a truly blue-collar "character" to "write" this blog--and what could be more blue-collar than a Jewish New Yorker, living in California, who only holds two masters' degrees and teaches at a--get this--community college?!? I worried that, when I spoke in favor of community-college education, people would put two and two together, but they never did!
I've had a lot of fun over the last three-plus years. It hasn't been easy, but I've managed to post just about every day. You've even seen me doing it. Here, people thought I was putting the finishing touches on my 2010 State of the Union speech:
I need to stop writing this column now, what with the election coming up. So, just to clear up everything: I DON'T really have anything against Canada--especially their vast oilfields. I DO have a bit of a man-crush on George Clooney. And I would really appreciate it if the Supreme Court doesn't overturn Mecare. I'll be turning reponsibility for the Solipsist over to a randomly selected citizen who can consistently maintain the trannsplanted-New-Yorker-community-college-teacher persona I have so carefully constructed.
Thank you for reading. God bless you. And God bless the Solipsist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)