“You Again” and “Within the Whirlwind”: Two Movie Reviews

Tears can’t always be explained. Perhaps you saw this video of a toddler crying as his sister plays Beethoven’s Piano Sonata No. 14 in C-sharp minor (“Moonlight”), first movement. She does a nice job, but he is feeling rather than talking, so there’s no telling. Speaking of inexplicable, this is the 3rd movement played beautifully in full as part of a motivating morning ritual that includes aromatherapy and oils; it’s an ad. Here is Glen Gould, who plays faster than most. Some say this version by Emil Gilels is the best. Perhaps. But it doesn’t make me cry. Whether it would the child we cannot know. Samuel Barber’s Adagio for Strings, though, is the apotheosis of weeping. This short radio excerpt explains its history and impact as it was placed in the National Recording Registry. Here is the debut recording from 1938 with Arturo Toscanini.

There are bad ways to make people cry, of course. One sort uses the saccharin, the overly sentimental story. These have been passed around as long as there have been ways to share.  Someone invented the term “glurge” to separate them from real-life examples. Snopes, of course, is happy to sort the truth from the fiction, the legend from the unconfirmed. A few are even true and cryable as this one might: Jack Benny (a comedian in case you don’t remember) arranged for a rose to be delivered to his wife every day from his death to hers. I emphasize the “might.”

Sometimes, at the last moment, a directorial decision can go beyond sweetness and change tears to anger. In the movie The Notebook, we have Noah going to sleep with Allie. Spoiler: He doesn’t wake up. While we might have expected her passing, his was random and just a wee bit too much. Seriously, part of the pathos of the death of a spouse is that one has to go on without the other. It’s not easy, like this ending. And it doesn’t happen in the book. You can watch the scene here. But far worse was the ending of Downton Abbey Season 3. Spoiler: A baby is born, bliss expressed between doting parents, father killed on the way home. A clip here. I was so upset that I vowed not to watch another minute of the series and continued with that sentiment until the next season began. I figured they were as upset as I was, and I should support them. Knowing that the character left the series helps not a bit, but the actor was still apologizing as recently as 2019. Lady Sybil died earlier in the season, of course, but we were prepared via multiple foreshadowed, poorly decided medical decisions.

Another way to make people cry is meanness, except when it makes us laugh. This brings us to the first movie, You Again (2010). It didn’t get particularly good reviews on RottenTomatoes (19% critics, 43% audience). On Amazon Prime, however, it receives 4.5 stars from over 3200 viewers, with 88% giving it 4 or 5 stars. That’s quite a difference. The older Mean Girls (2004) has been wildly popular since its apparently quotable debut, but the premises are different. The latter is a teen movie, while the former film spans generations. In You Again, it’s not the audience crying; it’s the characters. We are laughing—not at their tears but at the pratfalls and complications. Not a spoiler: There is plenty of meanness to go around.

So what’s to like in You Again? The star power is remarkable, especially for a PG rom-com. The women—Kristen Bell, Jamie Lee Curtis, Betty White, Sigourney Weaver, Odette Annable (later Dr. Jessica Adams on House), Kristin Chenoweth—may be overdoing things a bit, but that’s part of Betty White’s schtick anyway. There are also cameos: Dwayne Johnson, Patrick Duffy, Hall and Oates, and another star not named in cast lists because any mention would give away a funny bit at the end.

The story is not entirely predictable, a good thing. We are prepared (manipulated?) to expect one outcome and get another, probably a better thing. More importantly, however, we learn something about redemption (the 4th  and highest “R” of literature) and even the 3rd one (revelation) as we understand our own misguided expectations. Well, as long as we’re on them—the 1st R is recreation, and the 2nd is recognition—and each has a role in this funny depiction of meanness for us and the characters.

Obviously, the term “meanness” doesn’t seem sufficient for the horrors of history. Because the Russians were allies in World War II, Stalin and the millions of deaths attributed to him are often secondary to their role in defeating the Nazis. It was the Russian Army that secured Berlin, leading to German surrender in 1945. Stalin had Hitler’s body returned to Moscow so that it couldn’t be used as a symbol for sympathizers. However, he failed to punish the soldiers who pillaged and raped afterward and broke promises regarding Sovietization of Eastern Europe. Purges of Communist Party members were common, the basis for Within the Whirlwind (2009).

Yes, this is the movie during which I cried. While there are some WWII movies and television that have humor— (JoJo Rabbit (2019), an amazing use of satire to portray bravery; Life Is Beautiful (1997), a true story; The Producers (1967, 2005), hard to explain; Hogan’s Heroes (1965-1971)—most are heart-wrenching. Within is also a true story, recommended by a friend because it’s about a literature teacher. Emily Watson (not Emma of Harry Potter) plays Yevgenia Ginzburg, a passionate professor and loyal Communist. In the beginning we see her with her classes. She is unrelentingly honest with students, offering pointed criticisms with kindness and honesty. An assassination of a Party official means someone must pay. Ginzburg is arrested and convicted of anti-Soviet agitation, protesting her loyalty all the while. Her husband will not help. She is sent to Siberia. Those of a certain age remember the place, the sentence that meant brutal cold, years of forced labor and deprivation, frequently death.

Without spoilers: The story is not always what you might expect. Fortunes rise and fall. We hear relevant literature (“What shall I do with this body they gave me,” Olip Mandelstam), and we see confused explanations of what Stalin is doing. The years go by, and Ginzburg hears news of her husband and children. Feeling the depths of her suffering and pain, we weep. Someone once told me that there is nothing one human being won’t do to another. I didn’t want to believe it, but I knew it was true. The 1981 review of the memoirs on which the movie is based adds details but, more importantly, explanations for survival (well, sort of a spoiler) and more.

You made me laugh. You made me cry. Both are gifts. Thank you.



Simply, Liv: A Queer LDS Woman Speaks

“What did she say?” was more like “Did she say what I think she said?” The theme of the day was “I Am a Child of God. His Promises Are Sure.” These are the words from the 4th verse of a children’s song, sung here inclusively but missing that verse. Here the Church website has all the words, in 25 languages. If all other hymns suddenly disappeared, this one would remain as the clearest statement of what we believe.

What follows are three reflections on what Liv said.


One sits listening, perhaps dozing comfortably here and there, to lovely speeches or talks of the day. Invited by a friend to watch the BYU Women’s Conference, I was happy to be enlightened and inspired and so on. I must have been happily such when I noticed a young woman standing beside Sharon Eubank, first counselor in the General Relief Society Presidency (the women’s group of the church) and director of the Church’s humanitarian work in the Middle East. Jessica Livier “Liv” Haynes was asked to introduce herself and said, “I’m a Young Women’s president. I’m a daughter, a sister, a returned missionary. I am queer. I am a person who loves going to the temple. And above all of those things, I am a daughter of Heavenly Parents who strives every day to be a disciple of Jesus Christ.”

Liv then goes on to discuss reasons why she stopped going to church for a time and adds how her bishop greets her: “Are you my sister in Christ?” (Watch here at 26:40 or 28:08.) It was short, sweet, and unforgettable. The message argued for inclusivity, though there was no discussion of what she meant by the word “queer” and, indeed, the definition may not be other than describing a person who is not heterosexual. There is a large section on the Church website that includes other member stories and videos. Non-church organizations also exist, such as North Star, a community of individual believers “exploring the complexities of sexual orientation and gender identity within the context of faith.” The website has member stories and videos. Liv is there, too.

Stunned and alert, I then realized that while the topic had been discussed in talks, I don’t think an individual member had ever addressed us. The picture today–a hen protecting her chicks–reflects the protective atmosphere in which we listened to Liv. It’s Biblical, of course: …”as a hen would gather her brood…” We just aren’t used to seeing it happen in real time.


What follows is part of a piece I wrote for the Dallas Morning News in March 2015. My editor had published everything I had submitted; this one he declined, twice. He said the second time that he would consider it if someone notable gave some sort of orientational statement. It was not convincing, and I wasn’t convinced. Still, I think of it from time to time.

For context, remember that Obergefell vs. Hodges was decided in June 2015, with the Supreme Court holding 5-4 that the Fourteenth Amendment rendered unconstitutional bans on same-sex marriages and compelled states to recognize marriages from all other states duly performed. Here I assume that a change was coming but argue a single, minor point.

“In a classic Sesame Street sketch, Carl brushes his teeth and washes his hands, water running the entire time. Frank the Fish has been humming along happily in his pond (connected directly to the faucet) as his life-sustainer drains away. He struggles. He calls Carl to ask him to turn off the tap and to remind him not to waste water. Carl agrees. It’s a 46-second lesson that’s lasted me decades, as I took away the idea that we need to think about the impact of our actions. But my topic is not water conservation but something startlingly different.

Regardless of the sense of joy or defeat for your particular opinion [on the pending court case], consider one word: Restraint. Some people will find this change difficult because of what it will make more open: same-gender displays of affection in public or in media. These individuals may not be members of the LGBTQ community because they’ve chosen not to be open about their orientation. Or perhaps they do acknowledge their orientation but choose not to act on it. They have chosen, instead, chastity.

As private as that decision seems, we need to think about Carl and Frank the Fish again. Our actions affect others, simply put. Why make life harder for someone else?  One person’s decision to announce his orientation is met with respect. Another person’s decision not to offer her inner thoughts and feelings should be as well. It’s an invisible choice, but that doesn’t mean it lacks validity.

Expressing affection in public has met with negative results for some same-sex couples. Strangers have come up and told them their actions are disgusting, for example. Perhaps that reaction will fade.  I expect it will.

What about those for whom those PDAs are not appalling—but appealing? I fear they will be forgotten or discounted as dishonest.  Restraint in the PDA area isn’t about judgment or morals or even good manners. It’s not even about Frank the Fish struggling for air. It’s about someone dear to me trying so, so hard not to look.”


So, several years ago, that was my message, largely unread. These days, and after seeing Liv, I think it wouldn’t be so different. Remember to be civil and loving. You literally don’t know who is dealing with what challenges. Stupid and/or thoughtless things get said all the time. If we didn’t need practice in and instruction on how to love, we would be angels already.

In May 1995, Russell M. Nelson, now the leader of the Church, spoke on tolerance. Here are three essential points: 1) “…there is a difference between tolerance and tolerate. Your gracious tolerance for an individual does not grant him or her license to do wrong, nor does your tolerance obligate you to tolerate his or her misdeed.” The old adage “Love the sinner, not the sin” misses the point; we are already all sinners who, on reflection, cannot cast stones. It is our actions that we can and should control. 2) “To Paul’s list I might add the regrettable attitudes of bigotry, hypocrisy, and prejudice.” The list he is referencing comes in Galatians 5. Beginning in verse 21, Paul lists things not to do; 23 has the “to do” list, by the way. Remember that this is 1995, not last week. 3) Finally, this statement: “Intolerance seeds contention; tolerance supersedes contention. Tolerance is the key that opens the door to mutual understanding and love.” I see a lot of intolerance these days on all sides. Rather than confronting it, too many are ignoring it. Again, again, again, let’s talk openly and not shut others out.


And the Oscar Goes/Went…

Rather than add little gifts at the end, I’ll put them here just in case. Although I worked hard on this blog, interest may be limited, and I think it’s important to give you something.

First, the website FilmSite is amazing. Tim Dirks, a critic and film historian, has compiled hundreds of reviews and organized thousands of films into an accessible, concise, searchable compendium. It’s much easier and more accurate than googling.

Second, there are apps for locating movies on streaming services. I didn’t know. The one that was recommended and that so far is awesome: Reelgood. It’s free.

Third, the clothes. The red carpet was truncated this year, but people still wore beautiful things. Here are a few and here are a lot. Oh, and the winners.

Statistically speaking, you probably didn’t watch the Academy Awards last night nor did you see the Best Picture awardee (Nomadland, no surprise). Even the Grammys were down over 60% from last year. According to Sunny Bunch, the Washington Post movie reviewer, even films on Netflix (now in 2 out of 3 homes) did not have name recognition. He assesses one reason: “And while it would be foolish to suggest that a movie’s artistic merit is intrinsically tied to its box-office take, this is somewhat beside the point. Increasing the number of best-picture nominees has only accelerated the trend of little-watched films becoming awards-season darlings, turning off mainstream audiences.”

Writing about things I haven’t read or seen is not new. I never read The Scarlet Letter, for example, and apparently it was read to high school students for years as a prime example of the literary essay. Perhaps you, too, used Cliff Notes for a test. No, I’m not going opine on the nominees this year. Instead, I’ll share what I do know about them from what I have read, put them in categories/genres, and talk about movies I have seen and recommend.

The Father (2020), directed by Florian Zeller and starring Anthony Hopkins, takes on the parent-child relationship when Alzheimer’s sets in. The review on RogerEbert.com offers insights into the techniques used—different actors in the same role, plot confusion, the shifts in reality—suggesting that the audience is experiencing what this parent does.

Aging as a topic wouldn’t seem particularly “fun,” but this site lists 20 that are, actually, entertaining and even endearing. Driving Miss Daisy (1989) doesn’t deal with dementia, but many issues both of the time setting and the natural effects of aging are explored. A Trip to Bountiful (1985) introduces another spirited older woman as she visits her home one last time. Both were originally plays, with the latter by the Texan Horton Foote. Then there’s The Notebook (2004), which the site calls “sappy” but if you didn’t cry, then we need to talk. One on the list that I haven’t seen, Marjorie Prime (2017) is a sci-fi treatment of a woman who can interact with a younger version of her deceased husband via AI. [Not about aging but using the technique of things-are-not-what/who-they seem are these two: A Beautiful Mind (2001) and The Midnight Sky (2020) with George Clooney.]

Judas and the Black Messiah (2021) and The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) fall into the category of biopics, although they are also historical dramas. The first is the story of Fred Hampton, leader of the Black Panthers Party in Chicago, and the betrayal by William O’Neal. The first sounds more compelling than the second though both are set in the 1960s and Chicago. Mank (2020) is also in this category. The story of the screenplay and production of Citizen Kane (1941) doesn’t sound interesting, but if you haven’t seen what many call “the best movie ever made,” consider doing so. Opinions vary. Best or not, it is fascinatingly well done.

This site lists ten “must-see” biopics. Amadeus (1984) and The Elephant Man (1980) could not be more different stylistically but have interesting parallels. Mozart, the sparkling musical prodigy, toured Europe as a child; Salieri did not arrange his death. John Merrick, born with profound deformities, toured England with a freak show; his captor kidnapped him after he had been rescued. Although both have plays of the same name, the producers of the Broadway The Elephant Man sued for infringement on the name. Another oddity—Mel Brooks (Young Frankenstein etc.) was a producer of the film, but his name was left off to avoid confusion. Another famous one on the list is Schindler’s List (1993), based on a historical novel rather than a biography; the story is largely accurate though the portrayal of Schindler is not.

Nomadland (2020) is both a road movie and semi-documentary-ish production using non-actors who are really living the life of “workampers.” If you’ve never read a screenplay, consider the one for this movie. It’s only 87 pages long, written by the director Chloé Zhao.

This sub-genre has perhaps the greatest variety of offerings per this site—everything from the generation-defining Easy Rider (1969) to The Muppet Movie (1979) to National Lampoon’s Vacation (1983). (Personally, I’ll never forget my mother-in-law watching Dumb and Dumber without much comment, just because her darling boy wanted to take her.) Mixing actors and real people (sorry) also happens in Richard Linklater’s Bernie (2011), with Matthew McConaughey, Shirley MacLaine, and Jack Black. This clip includes one citizen describing the five states of Texas. The movie is a murder-comedy-justice movie with real-life oddities including the director getting custody of the convicted murderer so that he can live in his Austin garage apartment.

(To combine the biopic, historical, and semi-documentary, check out this list of “mostly-accurate” docudramas.)

Minari (2020), the second Korean movie in a row to be nominated for best picture, tells the story of an immigrant family moving from California to Arkansas to farm vegetables. The word minari means “water celery.” Needing help with the children, they bring over a grandmother from South Korea. The genre could be as broad as immigrant movies or as narrow as irritating grandmothers; either is viable, but we’ll go with the first.

This list of ten and this one with dozens has many that are unfamiliar; this one lists and summarizes more dozens. Gran Torino (2008) with Clint Eastwood as a crotchety older man, a beloved car, and a Hmong family. His line “Get off my lawn,” pithy as it is, reflects deeper intent than one would expect. In District 9 (2009), it is space aliens who are the immigrants, refugees really, and the segregation and prejudice are striking. A series based on the 1988 movie, Alien Nation, has the same premise but carries the integration of these smarter, stronger beings in a different direction. Interstellar (2014) includes lots of other themes, some scientific, some romantic, but basically those of us who haven’t died have got to go. It takes the same premise as the series Battlestar Gallactica (1978, 2004) but reverses the direction. Ancient history versus future history. The animated An American Tail (1986) uses mice/Russian-Jewish immigrants coming to this country while also searching for their lost son, Feivel (or Fievel). We had the stuffed animal version and probably watched the film a hundred times. Trivia: Steven Spielberg, a collaborator, had a grandfather with that name. Bend It Like Beckham (2002) is set in the UK and follows a Sikh family whose daughter wants to play soccer. Humans as interplanetary immigrants/refugees are usually dystopian. A new movie, An American Pickle (2020), features Seth Rogan as both an immigrant grandfather and his grandson in an odd combination of Rip Van Winkle, the American Dream, and a revenge them. Quirky but eventually almost worth it.

Oddly described as a “comedy thriller,” Promising Young Woman (2020) deals with trauma and revenge. It would be interesting to understand the comic amid rape and murder. All I’ve seen is her spitting in his coffee before he drinks it; she was sort of smiling.

The history of revenge entertainment (?), of course, is long and robust. According to this SparkNotes explanation (not a reliable source, often), Hamlet is a “revenge tragedy” with two tropes: figure out who’s gonna get it, then figure out how you’re gonna do it. Sometimes both are in play. The Princess Bride (1987), for example, has a subplot with the recurring line: “My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.” All Montoya knows is that the villain has six fingers. And yes, there is a lot of actual killing here. We are currently in the middle (two more in the works) of watching John Wick dispatch lots of people. The dead puppy reminds us of the rabbit boil in Fatal Attraction (1987). All the assassinating suggests the Kill Bill (2003, 2004) movies. Perhaps one of the best movies ever made, The Searchers (1956), finds a niche in Alexandra Heller-Nicholas’s Rape-Revenge Movies: A Critical Study, reinforcing my theory that everything has a scholar. Revenge has a long history, but the iconic phrase “Revenge is a dish best served cold” is neither a Klingon proverb nor a line from Shakespeare. Perhaps it all started with Cain slaying Abel, but it didn’t stop there. Were that we could sublimate via movies and not try to get the guy that just cut us off in traffic or whatever else. This list of 25 movies was drawn from over 300; here are ten unfamiliar ones.

Finally, Sound of Metal (2019) offers insights into the deaf community. This long list is alphabetical and covers decades. Marlee Maitlin won a Best Actress award at 21 for Children of a Lesser God (1986), the youngest ever. Coming in November 2021, the first deaf superhero, Makkari, will appear in Marvel’s Eternals, directed by this year’s best director, Chloé Zhao. I’m there. Musicians are keenly aware of deafness because of its effect on Beethoven, who has his own set of movies—everything from A Clockwork Orange (1971) to Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure (1989). Of particular interest is a documentary, Touch the Sound (2004), about a Scottish musician, Evelyn Glennie, who became profoundly deaf as a child. Here and here are some videos. I saw her in Dallas with the DSO some years ago. She plays barefoot. The documentary about her is not streaming but a DVD is available, per my new app Reelgood.

And there you have it. Thanks to those of you who recommend movies to me and will, I hope, continue. Sometimes I also read books, just not so much. It’s a failing. You may recommend them as well.





After my first blogging year, I summarized my favorites and provided links. Three years into what was planned as a one-year project, let me do it differently. Let me talk about what I was wrong about. Perhaps you’ve heard the saying “If you don’t have anything nice to say about anyone, come sit by me.” The link suggests it wasn’t Alice Roosevelt but her pillowcase. These days (which we say too often), saying bad things about people is the order of the day. And the news. And politics. And, sadly, comedy. It’s just not that fun anymore. Thank you, Facebook friends, who post the good and the sweet things, the inspiring quotations and stories. Lots of people are off FB because of the other sorts.

April 2020

When I read ”Sez who?” again, I thought it was not wrong exactly but not good either. For one thing, there’s a grammar error I didn’t catch in the last paragraph, now corrected. For another, I don’t have a thesis until that last paragraph. Having gotten there chronologically, it makes sense. I wouldn’t do the same again, though. For the third thing, it was a month into the pandemic. We were beginning to wear masks after being told we did need to wear masks. This article asks the oddest question: “Is it safe to send your mom flowers on Mother’s Day?” Short answer, yes, but have her wash her hands. But were florists even open? I don’t know. Lesson: Say what I’m going to say earlier. It’s called not burying the lede. Until this blog, I did not even know that word, thinking it was just “lead” because it goes first.

May 2020

Sometimes writing from feelings doesn’t work. It’s not that “the achieve of, the mastery of the thing” was bad; it just missed an important element of the experience. The Blue Angels flew over Dallas a few days before. Someone questioned the wisdom of that symbolic act. Why utilize those resources when the money could have spent on so many other things for the front-line workers? It’s a point, though the Savior responded to a similar question differently. And the question was from Judas Iscariot, so there’s that. Still, the question ought to have been addressed.

June 2020

The Candy Thermometer” also uses the phrase “these days” when describing a shortage of patience. What I’ve learned recently is that patience is a trait that can’t be modified. If I say I am “usually” patient, then I don’t understand what the word means at all: It’s an all or nothing. I’ve now decided I don’t know what most words mean anyway, so I look more of them up on my favorite dictionary site, onelook.com.

July 2020

Included in “Memories” is a poem I didn’t remember writing or to whom I dedicated it. Later in the year, there was a similar event with a short story. I don’t think my memory is much worse than any one else’s. People much younger stumble for names etc. What I am doing of concern is fervently believing I’ve done something I haven’t or haven’t said something that I did. Be kind, and patient. Eventually, I arrive at “Maybe I did…”

August 2020

Going to take a pass here because I’m still happy with all of them.

September 2020

Recently, I alluded to being called out for what I thought were clever comments. They weren’t received that way. In “What Am I Seeing?” I do briefly introduce the idea that if you post something I don’t understand, I may ask you what you mean. I’m trying not to do that in case it’s considered an intrusion.

October 2020

This one has nothing wrong with it: “Introducing Merrijane Rice.” I’m just wrong not to have done something I thought I would. She wrote a poem weekly about the New Testament—good, thought-provoking poems. Sounds doable, said I. But I haven’t

November 2020

Wow. I offered a lot of scenarios in “Overmorrow” but could not have anticipated the horrors of November 3-January 6. Then again, who could? I guess losing a few friends is a small price to pay for keeping one’s integrity.

December 2020

Hey, it was Christmas! Another pass.

January 2021

This is complicated. In #mypresident#because, I wanted to back off from screaming at the crazies who breached the Capitol and try to support the new president without the rancor that surrounded the old one. So far, I haven’t devolved into a derangement syndrome. Some despair, though, is offset by a talk given by President Dallin H. Oaks on Easter. The title is significant: “Defending the Divinely Inspired Constitution.” Part of my belief system involves being “subject to kings, rulers, presidents, and magistrates.” Pres. Oaks speaks to issues surrounding that belief. Frankly, however, I don’t think the current administration knows what it’s doing. No details forthcoming.

And, while this is not a year’s worth, I think it’s enough. If you’ve gotten this far, thank you. If not, I love you anyway. Oh, and the laptop reminded me to save 300 words ago. That’s a first. I’m thankful for that and many, many other things.


Edited for Clarity

From relay races we get the term “handing off the baton.” There are numerous rules, of course, as in any sport: size and shape of the baton, length of the hand-off zone, placement of the runners’ feet within that zone. This video gives a good little overview. Dropping the baton, with the obvious problem of loss of time, is not disqualifying. The distance must not be shortened when it’s picked up, but otherwise there is no penalty. Here are the rules for the Olympic events.

Three brief videos show different scenarios. First, here is a mixed-gendered relay with some explanations about strategy; it’s a new event as of 2017. Second, here is the men’s 4×100 featuring Usain Bolt, the Jamaican sprinter considered the best of all time, and this race at the 2012 Olympics is the fastest on record. Finally, here we have the American women’s team in the 2016 Olympics. The story includes a dropped baton, a protest because the drop was caused by another runner coming into the lane, a team qualifying by running alone for time, and a gold medal. Yes, it’s worth watching even knowing the outcome.

Now for a moment let’s have that baton be truth. How does one hand it off to another?

These days, we have a plethora of words that have to do with lies: false narratives, obfuscations, lived truth, my truth, possible deceptions; or liars: compulsive, habitual, pathological, sociopathic, narcissistic. This article discusses how to spot lies. This one describes the kinds of liars above, plus others that are merely lazy or careless. Poor Pinocchio, our cultural icon for lying. All he really wanted was to be real. The movie AI: Artificial Intelligence is a retelling, even with the inclusion of the Blue Fairy (in the original version she is the Fairy with Turquoise Hair, so 2021). These days, he is never redeemed but always counted. Four Pinocchio’s is the ultimate—though often ignored—disclaimer of falsehood.

And there is so much of it, lying, even when the true measure may be intent. When truth is the object, however, the passing from one person to another is fragile. The more ways we have to share information, the more insecure it comes. Things are repeated and altered, like in the game Telephone. (Interestingly, it began as Chinese Whispers in England, origins unknown.) Unintentionally, this is understandable. Regardless, there is no winner, just as in the children’s game. It is just observable.

Some recent examples of trampled truth: the Oprah interview with Meghan and Harry (no longer on CBS but discussed and excerpted here); the Ron DeSantis 1:02 on Sixty Minutes still available from CBS on YouTube; the President Biden assessment of the Georgia 2021 voting law.

If I were on an desert island and the only reading material were People magazine, I’d be thrilled to have such easy kindling. Celebrities bore me, but it’s hard to escape the gossip. Two elements of the recent kerfuffle were the statement Markle made about someone in the Palace asking her how dark her child’s skin would be and her belief that his mixed race heritage was the reason he was not designated a prince. Here, in the Hindustan Times of India (randomly), Piers Morgan asks that Meghan Markle disclose the identity of the person who asked Harry—not her—about skin color, ostensibly to cast the racist out. Nothing further has emerged. The truthfulness of her claim, then, remains unsubstantiated. The royal title is easier to understand. Markle implied that Archie as the “first person of color in the family” was not to have a title. As the BBC explains, the protocol was established over a century ago.

First: The truth can be verified from a reliable source.

Second: A misinterpretation of facts, intentional or not, is easily verified when there is an available source.

Those of us of a certain age always watched 60 Minutes perhaps because of Mike Wallace and his sub-genre of reporting called “gotcha journalism.” It wasn’t going to be a good day if he and his crew were in your waiting room when you arrived, the cliché went. The difficulty with the Ron DeSantis excerpt is what some call “deceptive editing.” Marc A. Thiessen, writing for The Washington Post, calls the CBS piece “a hit job.” His saying that obviously doesn’t make it true. His publishing it in WaPo doesn’t make it true. It remains, therefore, his opinion. What CBS did, however, is observable in that they left out a significant portion of the governor’s reply to the question surrounding the use of Publix to distribute vaccine. The reporter says that the company donated $100,000 to his campaign and that he then “rewarded” them with the contract. DeSantis, in their edit, responds angrily when the reporter asks, “How is this not pay-for-play?” The details do matter but don’t tell the entire story. Additional information came out after the piece aired because “even” Democrats said the story was inaccurate. The edited version and the entire segment as filmed are here. It is Tucker Carlson, so there is that layer of additional opinion, but the goal is to watch both versions. This article by Dan Kennedy articulates much the same information but in a less inflammatory manner. Still, he calls the episode “an unusually clear example of media bias.” CBS has of yet not apologized, amended, or explained the segment; CBS has boosted DeSantis’s standing by leaps and bounds, surely not intentionally.

Third: Be aware of your own biases because someone else will root them out if you don’t.

There was a time when states didn’t get into each other’s business. Those days are gone. This chart presents the top national House and Senate recipients of out-of-state contributions in 2020. Top recipients for out-of-state are Steve Scalise (R-LA) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY). This chart shows the 2018 cycle. Remarkable in both are the high proportions: All four parameters are over 90% out-of-state, with three of the four over 95%. That was not the case as recently as 2014. But it’s not just the money or the advocacy even. The newly-passed Georgia voting bill has taken this to the next level. It’s not that Georgia hasn’t attracted attention before (see 2020) or that similar interest was generated elsewhere. The 2016-17 boycotts in North Carolina centered on its HB2, commonly know as the bathroom bill. It was rescinded with the pressure. These days, individuals as well as corporations as well as actual states have and voice opinions based on their perceptions of truth.

[A side note: The word “boycott” has an interesting history. It is the last name of an Irish land agent for landlord who refused to lower rents for impoverished farmers who then refused to harvest the crops.]

Back to Biden and the law in Georgia. He earned the non-coveted Four Pinocchios from The Washington Post for saying the law reduced voting hours and ended them at 5 p.m. “when working people are just getting off work.” The paper is not even sure how that information could be assumed from a reading of the law other than a change from a vague “normal working hours” to a codified “9 am to 5 pm” as a minimum for early voting hours; election days hours did not change from the original 7 am to 7 pm. Further, the change reflected an expansion of early voting in rural counties. But Biden elaborated by calling the initiative “sick” and “un-American” and “outrageous.” Apparently, incorrectly.

The food-and-water provision is more complicated. This article from the BBC seems succinct and unbiased. Essentially, the law prohibits giving anything to people waiting in line within certain distances. Again, this is not a change but a clarification. This long article includes worries as well as explanations, although the former may not seem as important as the latter. The main concern, regardless, is that those harmed will be low-income or Black voters who tend to vote in person and on election day.

Another element of the law, voter ID, presents a topic that surprisingly remains conflicting. The history is long but is not just in the South. Several things in the article suggest that many things can be true at the same time: Voter fraud is not rampant, ineligible voters (as the dead and moved) do remain on the rolls, studies show that IDs do not suppress minority voting, and a majority of voters believe in IDs. Therefore, this isn’t up for discussion here. Possibly cowardly, possibly space considerations.

The Republican reply to the MLB boycott was to cite similar voting laws in Colorado, but, sadly, they hadn’t really compared the two very closely. Coloradoans vote mostly by mail, so few of the restrictions even apply. An easy but avoidable mistake. As with all, check the facts before repeating the message. Reading the entire bill, obviously, helps. It’s only 95 pages.

Fourth: Read original sources and reasons for changes, with care taken to compare, rather than taking someone’s word.

So, handing off that baton requires attention and practice, training and rules. Emotions and assumptions should not play a role. The parable that ends with a reflection on when to cast the first stone comes to mind. Personally, I’ve got a ways to go, otherwise known as leaping to conclusions or taking a bad handoff. The old saw “Consider the source” has become “Trust the source,” which is probably not the best idea. Look for yourself.





“Begin with the end in mind” is one of Stephen Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Millions of copies sold! Best selling audio, the first to hit over a million copies! I actually met him once, told him how deeply he’d affected a friend at her request, asked him his favorite hymn, and led the singing of it is his honor: “Love at Home”, a song for which my dislike was strong. A friend in the audience was beaming during the song, but that’s what you get when you tell people your thoughts on any particular topic.

Back to the end. After taking a hearing test this week, I realized that we need to know that we don’t know what we don’t know. In the test, there were these odd periods of silence. Sometimes I could hear just the tiniest bit of sound at the end. Otherwise, nothing. Extrapolating that to life (sorry), I could suppose that I did well on the test, except for the fact my responses were on a chart and documented electronically. Clearly, I missed some sounds. While that doesn’t sound profound (sorry), it did clarify my point: We really don’t know what we’re missing.

Over the past weeks, I’ve been researching sound. My first discovery was 111 Hz. This brief video of a Himalayan singing bowl includes a discussion of that tone’s history. The mystic possibilities are associated with sacred sites such as burial grounds, ancient temples, and Stonehenge. Paul Devereaux, a British scientist, has written about the phenomenon he calls archaeoacoustics. His best book title—not associated with our topic—is Fairy Paths & Spirit Roads. The science of 111 may be in question.

Sound frequency is measured in hertz (plural and singular are the same); Heinrich Hertz proved the existence of electromagnetic waves. It’s actually much more complicated as a measurement because of the use of waves that explain sound but also other things as well, even photon energy and the clock rate of computer processing units. Obviously over my head.

Another word for Hz is pitch. Humans have a range of 20Hz to 20,000Hz. I can feel-more-than-hear the lowest but can’t hear anything over 9,000Hz. YouTube has everything, of course, and you can hear any tone for an hour or ten. This chart gives pitches and analogous frequencies, excluding the lowest two. I can’t hear the highest here at all.

Of relevance again is 111Hz, which is a low A, basically, although it should be noted that the letter names are assignments that obviously don’t exist in nature. Orchestras tune to an A that is (now at least) 440 Hz; that’s the A above middle C on a piano and on a musical staff. The controversy, if that’s what it should be called, is between A 432 and A 440. This guitar video explains the difference in tuning (that’s 8 cents) and demonstrates. I can tell the difference. Perhaps you can, too.

The other metric of sound is loudness, measured in decibels (dB). The origin of the word is—guess what!?—Alexander Graham Bell. The bel was considered too large, so the deci- was added. The human thresholds range from 0 (which means there is sound but we can’t hear it) to 140 dB (meaning that anything more can be heard but causes damage). Breathing is 10dB. This is a good description and chart.  Here the CDC warns us about danger. The real meaning has to do with logarithmic ratios between two signal powers, but, as with much in this post, that’s over my head. I’ll stick with loudness.

Whale vocalizations deserve a mention. This article includes a discussion of the different species within the baleens that sing. They don’t have teeth, you see, but plates for sifting the krill, which allows the whole phenomenon. Humpback males (and it’s only males–one scientist described a parallel to the peacock feather display) can sing at that 20Hz we just barely hear. Scientists now believe that there are patterns that transfer from one population to another, hence “cultural transmission,” according to this video snippet. (Whale hunting only ended in 1986, I also learned. Not in the 19th century as previously thought, a la Moby Dick.)

A lagniappe: In that February poem-a-day effort, I decided to use sound to create a work that might be called a poem. I love windchimes, and that was the inspiration. I gathered the pitches, found them on YouTube, added a windchime link (about 40 minutes so completely repetitive), and wrote a haiku. It’s a bit clunky to implement, but I never said it was a good poem. I have an idea my neighbors hate mine, especially on a blustery night, but they’ve never said. If you are one of those rare people with the talent/gift known as perfect pitch, you’ll notice that the pitches I found on my windchime are not the ones on the windchime video. It is an oversight, as I now observe. Most of us wouldn’t notice.


Needs wind, God’s or a child’s hand:

Windchimes, day and night


The tall, black gas lamps cast a certain slant of light as Jennifer started down the path. The primroses were in full bloom, a deep, rich fuchsia pink. At intervals were stands of blue delphinium, for height. The flowers and gaslight lamps were on her right. To her left was a stream in which the lamplight reflected and twinkled as she approached the footbridge which was verdigris wrought iron, impossibly pretty. She sighed. “Late nineteenth century excess interpreted by late twentieth century romanticism. Might as well do it up.” With her enhancer program, she added a cache of primroses near the base of the bridge and compared it with the original print inset on her screen. To her delight she had remembered correctly: Kinkade, the great painter of light, once consigned to calendars and ceramic plates, had indeed done the same.

Across the bridge, the path narrowed to a sea of flagstones that curved gently to the left and took Jennifer under the graceful arch of climbing yellow roses. The walled fence was covered with English ivy and stands of pink and white hollyhocks which obscured her view of the depths. It was a familiar sight: “Glory of Morning,” Thomas Kinkade, 1995. It was her favorite, so much better than the rea-but-boring entrance to the academic building at the small college where she taught.

The phone on her ear rang. “Hello?”

“Jennifer, this is Brandon. What was the Star Trek episode you analyzed last month at MLA?”

“The Trouble With Tribbles.” Where were you, anyway?”

“I don’t know.”

“Brandon, how can you not know where you were? It’s your favorite conference.”

“Don’t be so . . .whatever, Jennifer. I was stressed.  Okay? I sort of holographed that I was there and let it go.

I caught the other nets for the review but needed your subject.”

“Brandon, that is so lame. Are you really that lazy? You could have . . .”

“I know. Bye, Jennifer. Gotta another call coming.” Jennifer rolled her eyes. No manners.

As Jennifer passed through the arch, she saw the mansion, a two-story Southern antebellum with white columns and green shutters on the windows. Broad porches wrapped the structure and light streamed from both stories.

Jennifer decided to add music and chose some Yanni as she entered. The odd association was not her favorite, but the documentation from most literary societies supported her choice. She would have preferred something more stimulating, like Guns-N-Roses but didn’t feel she could go against conventional wisdom, poetry of motion, as it were.

Then she heard the laugh and saw the young woman, sitting in her white crinoline. A roguish young sailor reclined nearby and whispered in her ear. They were on a heavy wrought iron settee of the same pattern as the bridge. The laughter was high and surprised, full of the implications of what he was saying, an epiphany in progress. Jennifer knew immediately they were laughing at her. She blinked the enhancement off as she entered the building.

Her phone rang. “Hello?”

“Jennifer? This is Heather. Are you…”                                                          .”

“Not now, sorry. I’m going into class.” The line went dead.

Slowly, the Kinkade faded as she neared the lecture hall. It was almost time for her first class, Allusions 1301. Phoebe and Delbert, the couple from the settee, now just an old vinyl-covered couch, sat more quietly as Jennifer approached, but the girl’s eyes danced as the joke played itself out. She smiled at them, rather weakly, and walked up the steps. Had the program been on, she would have added falls of white wisteria down a wide marble staircase, but she now felt humiliation festering in her thoughts. These steps, copied from old limestone patterns, were badly worn. Because everyone used enhancement programs, building upkeep was at a minimum. Furniture was shabby and unmatched. Classrooms were even worse, and occasionally even students complained about weeks-old French fries or rotting hamburger leavings, munched on by little elves/mice. Administration responded by clearing trash, but otherwise things rarely changed anymore.

In her command voice, a sotto voce, Jennifer called up her daily planner. It hovered in the air as she scanned for details about her class. Phoebe and friend were there, of course. Today was an introduction to the Star Wars trilogy. Students usually didn’t like it and thought it was boring. Jennifer had netted several pieces on it her first year teaching and felt a particular fondness for it. She never understood why the students didn’t like it and insisted on making fun of Han and Leia’s first kiss. It was so, well, so perfect. And how could they understand the scene in Look Who’s Talking Now, with the John Travolta character frozen to death in the morgue, and Kirsti Alley crying, if they didn’t know the allusion to The Empire  Strikes Back? It was one of her very favorites.

“Call Heather,” Jennifer commanded


“It’s me. What did you want?”

“Thanks. Well, not much. I was just wondering whether you put in that call to Lipton-Jones. You said you would after his last episode aired.”

Jennifer flushed. It was well known how she felt about Jason Lipton-Jones. And it was also well known that he felt obligated to return all the calls he received. He was old-fashioned and lived in a house that had been modeled on Kinkade’s “Beyond Autumn Gate.” It was said that he never used his enhancement program. He actually cultivated living flowers. He was hospitalized an entire day once after falling when trying to repair a trellis above the esplanade. But his writing was so wonderfully clever, so intellectually allusive, that Jennifer was smitten.

“Yes. I did it yesterday. So what?”

“So nothing. Can’t a friend just ask?”

“You’re not my friend. You’re my sister.”

The line was strangely silent. “Very funny. Well, if you’re going to be that way. . .” The line went dead again.

Heather was that way sometimes. She’d sulk a few hours then call back. Jennifer was busy thinking and didn’t worry about it. Was it worth the trouble to do a retrospective for the special effects? Should she have the class move to split screen for all the kisses? They should surely see the wonderful paired dialogue, characters switched, in the last two films: “I love you./ I know.” Jennifer sighed. Teaching was all such a chore, really. And for what? Students who read old things, odd things, like Walker Percy and Doris Lessing and Blake and Frost, for goodness sake. Where would that get them?

Phoebe and Delbert came in. They were still laughing. Gertrude was with them, and they were trying to explain the joke to her. Of course, she couldn’t get it. She never got anything. Gertrude would glance over at her with a worried nod and a smile. They were wasting their time. But Gertrude finally snickered and sat down, her eyes glued, for once, on Jennifer.

“Let me check your homework first,” Jennifer said with a certain malice aforethought. She could ask for it sweetly, as a teacher should, and still realize the sway she had over these students, at least for the month that the term lasted.

She decided to check Georgie’s first. He was her favorite. The first day of class he discussed with some fluency Gilligan’s Island and had won the respect of his classmates with his cool delivery, if not the subject matter. He sat quietly today. His program work was astonishing, Jennifer thought. He had set himself in the middle of Kinkade’s “The End of a Perfect Day,” appropriately outfitted in fishing gear and a can of Diet Coke. Jennifer felt that warm glow of success. Then she realized she had a class with nothing to do, so she added aloud: “Please download Program Two.jol.lucy.3#99.” Star Wars could wait. It was a particularly essential I Love Lucy episode, the candy factory.

As everyone began whispering the soft commands, the door swung open rather dramatically. Jennifer had forgotten to lock it. Joe Mack came in, winded, and walked toward his seat. Jennifer hoped he wouldn’t say anything. He seemed to have something against her and asked really hard questions in class.

“I’m sorry I’m late,” he said. “Family crisis. My uncle Gene, who was falsely imprisoned years ago for stealing, adopted a young girl when her mother died. Cosette was taken quite ill this morning, and Gene asked me to sit with her when he went out. He must’ve had trouble getting home.”

Immediately Jennifer was concerned. “As you know, the door was not locked. Perhaps that was just providential today, Joe Mack.” There were snickers. “I’m sure you must be quite upset.” Several students laughed aloud and looked around at the latecomer.

Phoebe said, “Yes, you must be quite miserable.” The entire class burst into loud cackles. Jennifer blushed. Joe Mack was making a joke, at her expense, based on some obscure book, she supposed.

Someone flashed an image on her viewer of a waif-like creature. She felt another hot flush of embarrassment. She should have known the reference, really. Late 20th century popular staged work, tiresome. Jennifer stared at Joe Mack, who was still standing, and told him to sit down, please. And she reminded the rest to get to work.

The remainder of the homework assignments were dull and repetitive. Students portrayed themselves in the expected settings. Sears Homelife stores were obviously the farthest things from their minds. She gave everyone a low A. They would be upset, of course, but she had her standards. Only Georgie had shown any originality and deserved the 100.

Then her phone rang. It was egregious behavior to answer in class, grounds for suspension for a student, poor form for a teacher. It was just not done. But Jennifer had that funny feeling.




“Jason Lipton-Jones, returning your call. Do I know you?”

“No, not at all.” One knew and spoke to so many people, after all. “I’ve netted several pieces on your work. I just wanted to say hello and tell you how much I liked your last work. It was so wonderfully . . . allusive.”

“Why, thank you so much. Really thoughtful of you. May I ask the topic of your last article?”

“Of course. “Parallel Structure: Lipton-Jones and His Use of Similarities to Earlier Works.” The Jeannie episodes in Rolling Thunder, Heaven Waits. It was . . .they were, well, really neat. I noticed particularly the double allusion to the Brady Bunch pilot. Very clever, wonderful.”

“Thank you, so much, well…”

“I wonder—ummm, would you like to download my last paper?” Jennifer was breathless, but terribly bold, bordering on rude. One did not ask. One waited to be asked.

Lipton-Jones was so polite. “I would be most interested. Your address?”

Jennifer began to give her personal code, then remembered where she was. She looked out from her screen to see the entire class in complete silence, riveted, staring, for once, at her. She turned around, actually let them see her back (it was never done), and whispered: “JennyO@gmail.com.”

“Fine. I shall be most interested. Well, I’m quite busy. Calls, you know. Good-bye.”

Jennifer turned around slowly. Should she excuse herself to the class, knowing they wouldn’t care? Should she explain what this great artist had produced? Should she plead the significance of his acceptance of her net piece?

“If everyone has finished, let’s move on to your next assignment. Tomorrow we will look at the Dallas allusions, so scan the soap references in your programs. Set a piece in a mid-twentieth century bedroom and kitchen. We’ll add some dialogue in class. Questions?” Everyone stood up immediately and began leaving.

Georgie stood up and turned away slowly. Then he turned back to face Jennifer. His enhancer package was modern and expensive. Jennifer did not approve of such extravagance for the young. The design of these enhancers also frightened her although she could not explain why. They covered his eyes like the old contact lenses on which they were modeled, but his were totally, glinty black. The outer edge had the thinnest rim of gold. When she commented on how odd they were, he said something like, “Tiger, tiger, burning bright,” but she did not catch his meaning. He seemed disappointed.

“I enjoyed your work,” Jennifer offered. Slowly, he moved his hand across his forehead.

He looked at her for a long time.

“Why did you do that?”

“Do what?” Jennifer was puzzled.

“Why did you give him your personal address? Couldn’t you have used the professional?”

Jennifer realized that only Georgie had heard, had paid any attention to what she’d done. “It’s permissible. Rarely. He’s a famous, well-thought-of person. I can trust him.”

Georgie looked at her directly for several seconds, and she could see her reflection in his enhancers. He seemed very wise and old, but his eye shadow was shiny, youthful, a very pretty shade of blue. Like the sky, she had heard.

“Good-bye, Jennifer.” He turned and left.

She sighed. What a rotten day. And it had been so carefully planned, too.

“Check email.” Lipton-Jones had not, as yet, asked for her net. The delay was unusual, but perhaps there was an explanation.

“Call Heather.”


“What are you doing?”

“Nothing. Class over?”

“Yes. Want some lunch?”

There was a pause. “Jennifer, you never ask me for lunch. Problems?”

“Oh, no. Just haven’t seen you in a long time.”

“At least a week. Okay. Why not?”

“We could go to a film later.”

“Depends. What do you want to see?”

“The Inwood has one of the last copies of Dumb and Dumber on this afternoon.”

“You’re kidding!” It was rare to see anything so delicious as the early Carrey works. Jennifer liked being the older sister and knowing the best things. And Carrey was Heather’s favorite.

“Great. Can we have pizza?”

“Sure. See you there.”

Jennifer sighed. She blinked the enhancer back on but did not feel like changing the Kinkade

program. As she strolled down “Lamplight Lane,” the glow seemed faded. Maybe she needed a new battery so she took off the earring-like generator. She made a note, “Remember: new battery.” She put back on the little ball that connected her to the entire world, to everyone in it who could speak, and made everything so nice.

Then her phone rang. “Hello?”

“Hello. Please don’t hang up. Your professional number has been chosen to receive…”

“No!” Jennifer said, emphatically. For once, she did not feel like listening to the entire message and hung up without listening. She lifted her hair, greying but long and highlighted a bright silver, and put it over to the other side. It had been a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day. Or something like that. She smiled, surprised and delighted by the allusion to the familiar childhood book. She still felt very clever.

The Stendhal Syndrome; or, A Week in Paradise

They only want you to come if you’re well, putting obstacles in the way if you’re not. A COVID-19 test within 72 hours, for one thing, usually at your expense because why would you be taking one other than traveling to Hawaii unless you were sick. The paperwork verifying the test results takes time and effort as well, and you must report your itinerary (flight numbers and address of stay), your purpose for coming, your occupation, and more. Daunting and time consuming. The flights are long and not particularly comfortable. No one serves meals these days, concerned perhaps that you might get the virus having tested negative, thereby arriving and spreading. With no time between connections to purchase airport food, you will beg “Please, may I have more pretzels, more Biscoffs?” Landing, walking down stairs instead of through a corridor, still hungry, you wait in line with 1043 people (not accurate but not an exaggeration either) in order to provide verification that you are yourself and that the self is well. Emerge into a warm sunny day, rent a car, learn that everyone says mahalo for thank you, and drive away.

Another part of your country, yes, but within minutes of a beauty explosion, you wonder, “Why don’t I live here?” Flowers bloom everywhere—bougainvillea, plumeria, plumbago, hibiscus, impatiens—are the ones that grow in pots in your kitchen and whose names you know, waiting for spring, but in Hawaii some are 20 feet tall and a riot of colors. The non-flowering plants like pothos and elephant ears know no frost will get them, and the ivy clambers up the trees, the tubers bust out in happy groups where someone arranged them.

And that’s just the flora. The fauna also seem content. You see the sparrows and house finches, the doves and cattle egrets just like at home, but there are the protected nenes and the bright-red-headed crested cardinals. Snorkeling, you’re likely to see the reef triggerfish, with its elegant design that seems, well, designed. Its Hawaiian name is quite famous: humuhumunukunukuapuaa, which translates as “triggerfish with a snout like a pig.” Poetry all its own, for a state fish. A gray Manx cat lives among the flora at the condo, coming out to greet you, though he also hisses. His eyes are beautifully golden, and a woman bending down to talk to him drops her bottle of A-1 sauce, shattering it and smelling up the place. Clandestine food trays hide in the shadows.

The blues of the sea—so many shades from deep navy to lightest turquoise, depending on the light and the air. The greens of the plants stand heightened by the stark black of the volcanic rocks. The pale purple of the taro fried pie from McDonald’s.

The two best places take care in a car: the road to Hana (waterfalls, beaches, lava flows, mountains and valleys) and the climb to the dormant volcano Haleakalā—Hawaiian for “house of the sun (hairpin turns ascending to 10,023 feet, more valleys, the red terrain of Mars above the treeline, life above the clouds with lights so magnificent at sunset a child calls it Heaven).

And then you’ll have to come home. It’s too expensive to stay, not just the gas prices or the food prices or the rent prices but the lack of ways to earn the money for such things. Your chores will call you back. The elation continues.

The French writer Stendhal wrote of this ecstasy after in Florence, and as they often do, the psychologists call the effect the Stendhal syndrome. It’s not an official DSM-V condition, but apparently medical personnel routinely treat visitors to Michelangelo’s David for palpitations. Perhaps you’ve had a similar experience at the birth of beauty. You carry it with you, that beauty, and whether or not it’s real or mathematical or Keat’s truth, you know you’ve received a great gift. You’re thankful you were well enough to come.


The Stendhal Syndrome:

Real or not, not in any

DSM, so named after

The writer (pseudonymous)

Who described his arrival at the tombs

Of Machiavelli, Michelangelo, Galilei

(Firenze, Basilica di Santa Croce).

His response—staggering, palpitations—

“Celestial sensations”:

The ramp up to Thorvaldsen’s Christus,

Summer 1995, first viewing, I, too,

Staggered and felt to weep

For more reasons than one.

At da Vinci’s Amboise tomb,

Stendhal had no sway.

Yes, awe at the genius, but the body-now-bones

Lay feet away from my feet.

Above my shoulder as I sit here,

A copy recalls but does not replicate

Those summer feelings, first viewing,

With a translucence through human-God

Fingers, cuticles even,

The artist thought to etch.



Working Hands

For many years, I worked interviewing people in their homes. The first 11 were not easy: My presence was not welcome because I was investigating reports of child abuse or neglect. The second 25 focused on entirely different criteria: Returning children to their families. One thing I learned became a motto: Don’t skip steps. The other thing I learned was to wait until I heard the most important thing, the thing that would guide all the rest of the things I would say.

Among the Things I Planned But Have Not Yet Finished is the podcast For the Girls of Laredo, written about here some many months ago. One hates to blame COVID for everything, but I think I could make a pretty good case if I don’t have to supply details. I haven’t given up the idea, and with this being Women’s History Month (International Women’s Day March 8, 2021), the concept still rings true. (Google’s animation on the 21st didn’t feature women in traditional roles, even a single one and not a nod to motherhood, which I found wrong, thereby making my own project seem off.) But that means my podcast will be apt.

In fact, I have done one interview, with the inspiration for the podcast, my daughter-in-law who builds furniture and decks. I had a good script, and things were going along fine. One of the questions, however, yielded an answer that was “the moment” described above.

“Many words describe difficulties: hurdles, barriers, closed doors, glass ceilings. Has anything stood in your way? How did you overcome that?”

Much of the rest of the interview had been expected, more or less. Her response to thing question was unforgettable. It’s the basis of the poem that follows. But I added more than the skill we were talking about (building furniture) because more women are in Hobby Lobby than in Harbor Freight. There are certain similarities, I realized. It was originally posted with a group I’m in (MoPoWriMo) which supplied the goal of a poem a day for February. Not necessarily a good poem, but I’ll quit talking and just let you read the thing.

Hobby Harbor

Is there swagger entering Harbor Freight,

More than Hobby Lobby?

The banks of carabiners—all sizes and colors—

No more tools than this year’s silks and dried

In tall black tubs, row by row.


Hot glue guns

Soldering irons


Stretched for painting

Loose for protecting

Cutters, sealers, good lights,

Magnetic screw/pin holders.


One day, a selection of sawblades

Arrayed before me as I tested hefts and holds

(Having squinted elsewhere assessing 2x4s),

A man shopping for replacement hacksaw blades

Found the day’s deal, 10-pack on for $2.99,

But he stayed, looking at me, and then asked,

“What are you doing?”

Took some courage, I’d think.

So I explained my project, the current situation,

The current problems.

He stood silent a second or two, then asked,

“You know what you’re doing?”

Beyond courage there.

I nodded, said sure,

And without pausing this time, he asked,

“Let me see your hands.”

His just looked, didn’t touch, while I explained

This scar (from batting a kid away from danger,

That, electric nail gun. No missing fingers, I joked.

Working hands.

He nodded, said, “Hmmm. Good job”

And walked away. I see where I might have been offended.

I wouldn’t have asked him what he was doing if I found him

In the beading supplies at my other haunt.

It’s good to know two worlds, two lingos,

Neither better, both fraught.

A good pride, I hope, when I have proven worthy

And turn to making moons.



Silencing, Slicing, and WandaVision: Seeking Peace

Three things caught my attention this week. At first they seemed unrelated, and in some ways, they are. On Monday, a Christian shocked me. On Tuesday, a tweet that seemed shocking turned out to be a misrepresentation of something that was said elsewhere, which shouldn’t shock anyone these days. Wednesday through Friday, I watched WandaVision, which, shockingly, I liked.

First, listening to a scholarly lecture on Christianity in society, I didn’t expect to be surprised. But things got interesting. When the speaker began discussing the movement called Christian Nationalism, it became clear we were going to be political. He showed two clips, one of a Black pastor urging the congregation to be better at charity and one of a white pastor talking about taking America back. The differences were apparent, and our speaker described what the second preacher was doing as Christian Nationalism. It was not a term I knew. Soon, however, the speaker (also a Christian) hijacked our opinions: These voices were “dangerous and must be silenced.” I was stunned. How could a practicing Christian say that about anyone? Why does he think Jesus was crucified? Or Lincoln? Or Gandhi? Or Joseph Smith? Martyrs of all religions and causes? Each of them was considered a threat of some kind who had to be silenced. If the solution ever worked, you’d think it would stop. Never happens. Except when it does:  witness protection (WITSEC) exists for a reason, Alexei Navalny et al poisoned, and (maybe?) Jeffrey Epstein. Silenced one way or the other. It’s possible to watch many YouTubes on the topic of Christian Nationalismw or buy many books, most of which are negative. There is a political party (“thankfully very small”). General beliefs include mandating observance of the Sabbath via Blue Laws, encouraging the birth of as many children as possible, and abolishing Social Security. As yet, I haven’t been able to pin down the danger here, but lots of people are making money with the books, etc., for what seems fringe to me. Yes, fear sells.

Second, much gets said about fake news, but Tuesday produced a sample of what happens when one person has an agenda and, intentionally or not, skews news in a certain direction. A lawyer named Tyler Bishop tweeted a brief exchange from a Supreme Court proceeding. He inserted wording that did not reflect what was asked then sliced away part of the answer. The meaning was drastically changed. He also used the phrase “this literally just happened” when, in fact, it hadn’t. Comments then show the success of his attempt to inflame, though I haven’t included those. Here is the tweet:


“This literally just happened at the Supreme Court

Justice Barrett: What is the interest of the GOP in keeping (laws that suppress minority voters) on the books?

Republican Lawyer: It puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats. Politics is a zero-sum game.”

Here is the transcript of the actual exchange:

JUSTICE BARRETT: “What’s the interest of the Arizona RNC in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?”

CARVIN: “Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats. Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 hurts us, it’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing an election 51 to 50.”

The obvious concern is the phrase “laws that suppress minority voters” because it is neither the letter nor the spirit of the actual law under consideration. Whether the law actually limits minority voting is the question, not the conclusion. This article includes a summary.  The GOP versus the Arizona RNC matters, of course, but leaving out half the rest of the response changes the speaker’s meaning. So much for the “literally.” I wonder, however, why Bishop would think no one would ask how such an egregious thing might be said. Merriam-Webster defines zero-sum game as a “situation in which one person or group can win something only by causing another person or group to lose it.” The point made by the attorney for the Republican party is that the vote is the prize, and if one side wins it, the other loses. That seems obvious enough, with no suggestion of suppression. To make his case stronger, Tyler Bishop needs to present his side, not an altered version of the other one. A caveat: It is not to say that the law in question may be tossed out once the arguments are presented. The concern is manipulation.

Third, a review of a Disney original based on Marvel characters Wanda Maximoff and Vision. Spin-offs have long been fan favorites, even back in the day. Rhoda was taken from The Mary Tyler Moore Show; All in the Family generated Maude and The Jeffersons; Law and Order, who knows? Hundreds of others span the decades. Movies are the same, of course, and sequels/prequels risk failure. The Mandalorian, based on a minor character in Star Wars lore, is not a personal favorite. The story is fine, but the dialogue (in my opinion) is wooden, predictable, and shallow, to the point of self-parody. This reviewer agrees with my conclusion if not my reasons; his are better. This one focuses on a single episode that involved eggs, not good on many levels. Apparently 91% of viewers—a staggering number—disagrees with me, and I’ve found that to disagree with them borders on sacrilege. I do like the way the Mandalorian says the word “child,” and I have watched every episode, but not with great interest.

All that prefaces WandaVision, which I would argue is not a spin-off but a tribute, both to the sitcoms that frame it and the lives of the superheroes who populate its universe.

It has always bothered me that Superman can’t just marry Lois and settle down to raise a family, superheroing on the side. Superficially, that is the premise of WandaVision. As newlyweds, the couple moves into a home that resembles the one in The Dick Van Dyke Show that ran 1961-66. The first episode references the gag that opens the earlier series when Vision does not stumble when he enters. [In fact, Van Dyke (according to this source, beginning at about 1:14:45) consulted on the set design so that the paint scheme so the colors would look the same as his even though they were at first in black and white. And yes, he’s still alive at age 95!] The first episode uses the trope of the boss coming for dinner. Even with the live audience (!), the meal disaster, the witch-save, and the boss-save, it’s puzzling somehow. The next episode, released at the same time, is based on Bewitched. Another witch-save with a gum-victimized Vision. Again, not particularly resonant.

Episode 3 brings changes, and it’s not just the addition of color. The premise of sitcoms through the decades begins to thin as odd things happen. Some don’t seem significant at first. Wanda becomes pregnant (how is that even possible?) and gives birth to twins within hours with the help of a mysterious Geraldine.  A neighbor pruning bushes begins to cut into the concrete fence separating the properties, and we learn that Geraldine has neither family nor home. It is becoming increasingly clear that things are not what they seem.

Rather than share spoilers, I’ll just say that the reasons for the conflicts and mysteries do not resolve easily, with some promising another season. This poignant, iconic scene from Superman (1978) gives a clue. A 1902 short story “The Monkey’s Paw” uses the traditional three wish plot to show the horror of unintended consequences. The magnitude of what Wanda is causing takes some time, however. (Vision’s line has been written on many a heart: “But what is grief, if not love persevering?” Yes, out of context but still wonderful.)

But how to get all of this to a conclusion? Elie Wiesel, a survivor of the Holocaust, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. He gave an acceptance speech, but there is also a lecture which in this case is more specific. The topic is memory. Wiesel was himself attacked by a Holocaust denier and worked tirelessly not only to keep the suffering of the Jews in the forefront but also the stories of any other group regardless of the oppressors. The next step, found in his last sentence, is this: “Mankind must remember that peace is not God’s gift to his creatures, it is our gift to each other.” Vision gives Wanda that gift. The struggles of politics take on such legalistic battles, and whether the field is the Supreme Court or the pulpit, the goal of peace seems rarely the goal. I find optimism harder and harder to support lately. Peace outside of the heart may be harder to find, so inner peace may need to be the goal for now, not the need to silence others or manipulate their words. As for Wanda, it’s a monumental struggle for each of us to accept loss; it’s what we make of it that matters.