In the past week I've sat down with three different people in three different phases of their seminary education. These conversations were unscripted and unexpected. One was a seminary newbie (a Junior), one had been here a year and a half (a Middler), and one was post-Internship (a Senior). What surprised me was that they had many of the same frustrations and saw the same problems with their seminary experience. So, in this medium, I'm hoping to draw together their thoughts and feelings in a way that is both helpful and true to the gravity of the situation, which is (I believe) severe.
I wish my seminary education was more practical.
I heard the same thing from all three. Nobody was complaining about learning theology, but they wanted to make it mean something. The lens of systematic theology to view the world as pastor is a failure; not because systematic theology is a failure but because the language it gives us as pastors is limiting to the experience of the people we serve. None of the people I talked with thought we should do away with systematic theology but each thought it sent a funny message that our systematics faculty outnumbered our pastoral care faculty by more than 2-1. One told me that they approached a seminary faculty member about a class on church finance. "Nobody will take that," she was assured. "Bull----," she told me. And I tend to agree. Classes like these are fit into January weekends when students are on Cross Cultural trips or in days filled with other required classes. What's more important, really, is that any seminary professor could feel that students don't want something practical. We crave practical!
I wish we felt safe at the seminary.
In one conversation, I was relayed the story of what happened in a Pastoral Care class with Dr. Latini when she asked the question, "Do you feel safe at seminary?" The class sat in silence... and nobody said yes. On the surface-level we all know that something we say can, and perhaps will, be used against us in the process of becoming a pastor--this is a constant and insidious threat that inhibits the learning process. However, I think it goes even deeper than this. When we don't know our neighbors it leads to mistrust and defensiveness. Unfortunately, seminary is a place where the defenses almost never come down.
The administration has sold the students out for the future.
This is the hardest to talk about because it could feel like a personal attack. So let me be clear: I don't feel like anybody in the administration of the seminary or the church proper set out to hurt the students--in fact, I think quite the opposite. Nevertheless, the idea that we are a forward-thinking seminary is troubling when you count the collateral damage that has been left along the way. Let me explain.
Luther Seminary has prided itself on the image of an institution that understands the economic realities of being the "declining church" in the 21st century. The administration has taken measures to ensure that the financial stability of the seminary is not withered by the markets and declining membership in the ELCA as a whole. For this they should be applauded. Forward-thinking is never easy and requires an eye on both the current needs and what will make the institution sustainable in the long-run.
The problem is this: in order to preserve the future, the seminary has instituted policies that are based on a principle of scarcity that makes more than a modicum of adaptation to the needs of the church in the world exceedingly challenging. Some of this is almost unavoidable. The kind of wholesale change that the student body would largely like to see (an increased influence in the areas of Pastoral Care, Worship, and Church Administration, among other more day-to-day realities in the parish) means that the status quo cannot remain unchanged. There has to be a demographic shift in the faculty. Nobody wants this--and for good reason. I don't want anybody to lose their job. I simply adore many of the Systematics faculty, and even if I didn't it's no small matter to consider measures that cut at the heart of their vocations. But here's the problem...
We've had three suicides in three years... and somehow nothing has changed.
Seminarians have the same problems as people in the church, because--and I can't believe this isn't more obvious to everybody--we are the people in the church. We spend too much time detailing the small way in which pastors are set apart from their flock at the cost of the whole self that is one and the same with all people of God.
Seminarians are hurting. And they are scared to say anything about it. Who do you talk to? Professors who have a vote in your graduation? Staff who are connected to the assignment process? Administrators and community members who have their hands in candidacy? Too often seminarians vent to the silence of Facebook or to the preoccupied ears of their peers who want to help but don't feel open themselves to pastoring one another.
The single greatest indictment of the seminary education is this: seminary students are not equipped to minister to one another.
So what's the fix?
I joked with my Senior friend and said, "Revolution." But maybe it's not such a joke. The problem is it's not going to happen. The system is perfectly self-perpetuating because students have learned to mistrust one another. They cling to particular professors and give others titles: "Systematicians," or "Feminists," or narrow-minded, or closed-minded. Dogmatic. Heretical. Students have hardly a minute to think about what God is doing in their neighbor's life because the defenses remain. What the student body needs is to see one another for who they truly are: sinners of Christ's own redeeming, yes, but more than that, Luther Seminary students are the future for the church-to-come. And we are the leaders who will lead this church out of the desert wilderness, but only if we see each other now as the gifts of God that we are.
Any change that will happen has to be student-led.
I don't want to preach in chapel because it is only an academic exercise.
My Senior friend hit a nerve here because I took the same stance my Senior year. I didn't preach because I didn't think it would be heard. But she got me thinking about what I would say if I did preach--what I could say to open the ears of a student body that's not listening. I realized finally all that I could say and it looks something like this:
What will it take for you to hear me? What will it take for you to stop speaking ill of this message in the halls and the cafeteria of this building? What can I say that you won't critique in ten minutes? Your ears must be filled with wax! The message from this pulpit has been one and same in all the years I've walked these halls: Christ has died for you. Hallelujah. Now stop acting like this is the small word and the big word is my theological move to get there. It's not. What little weight my words carry is a drop of water in the ocean that is the salvation you have in Christ. So sit down, shut up, and listen. Christ has died for you. Hallelujah.
Amen.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Monday, November 7, 2011
The First Semi-Annual Fantasy Box Office Draft
There are some small things that just make life more fun. I'm not a huge gambler, but putting a few dollars on something that's worth the entertainment value alone is cool with me. This is the best way I can explain the allure of our Fantasy Box Office league--a league designed to draft movies that are going to be successful at the box office.
The general idea of the league is this: get movies that people go see and then you will score points over a four month period--November to February in this case. You get 10 points for a #1 grossing movie in a given week, 9 points for #2, down to 1 point for #10. There were five of us and for this first draft we decided to stay small-scale: we drafted only six movies each. Each of us was given a $100 in fake auction cash to spend on our six movies and whoever bid the most got the flick.
The following is a pick-by-pick account of our first draft.
Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1
To Pipp for $48
I started off the nominations with this, curious to see who would overspend. The way our league works means that this will in all likelihood be the number 1 movie, but I figured somebody was likely to spend too much. In the end, the price was just about right.
The Descendants
To Pipp for $10
Pipp threw us for a curve on this one. He probably should have just nominated it for $1 because there was absolutely no interest. This is the only movie drafted with a limited release. At this point in the draft I started to salivate at the deals that were coming if this movie went for $10!
Happy Feet Two
To Jeph for $35
A bit overpriced for my liking. This movie opens against Twilight with The Muppets and Hugo coming in the next week. It will stay in the top 10 for awhile but I can't see it staying top 5 for more than three weeks and at this price I was happy to pass.
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
To Kate for $30
I was glad to see Kate get involved and decided keenly to not bid against her. This is a good, fair price for a movie that will do well, though it goes up against some stiff competition at the end of December.
War Horse
To Kate for $20
This is a classic case of taking the "hometown team." Kate wants this movie because it's about a horse and she'll want to go see it. She overpaid for it, in my opinion, but I'm glad she's content with movies she could actually enjoy... some of which I certainly don't have.
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
To Frank for $35
I'm not going to lie: I needed this movie. It's going to do very well, and I told myself before the draft I wanted one of the three top movies. Twilight didn't happen and I wasn't going to bid against Kate for Mission Impossible. This is a sure thing at a reasonable price.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
To Pipp for $37
A woeful overbid in my opinion. Pipp now had three movies and $5 left to spend. Worse still, I wasn't going to spend more than $10 (at most) for this movie. It's opening against Mission Impossible, The Adventures of Tintin and War Horse, with Sherlock Holmes and Alvin and the Chipmunks in its second week. Mark it down: this movie never goes higher than 5th on the weekly charts. Still, I'm going to see it, and I'm going to like it. (A clear case where a movie will be much better than the number of people seeing it suggests)
Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked
To Steve for $25
Steve needed a top-rate movie, having been shutout to this point, and this was about what was left. Really this was about what he should have paid for this, so not much to see here.
The Muppets
To Kate for $25
Again Kate goes for a movie she'll like, but this time she got it for the right price. It has an outside shot of opening #1 (though it's Twilight's second week), and it should stay in the top 10 until about Christmas.
We Bought a Zoo
To Kate for $12
I don't buy that this movie will do well, even though it's been promoted like crazy. I would have thrown out a flier on $1 or $2 so I consider this a little spendy, but with the feel-good strategy in place this was a must-have for Kate.
Red Tails
To Frank for $5
I made a bit of a miscalculation here. Now don't get me wrong, I'm very happy to have this movie for a paltry $5, but I probably could have done even better. There was a movie I had rated higher which went undrafted (we'll get to that later). Still, I think this movie will be successful and has a decent chance to be a top 3 movie for a couple of weeks in the desolate January movie-scape.
New Years Eve
To Jeph for $15
It's hard to draft a movie that looks this bad, so props to Jeph for pulling the trigger. I say this because it has bankability, a cavalcade of stars, and you know it will do well because people are dumb and go to movies that have a bunch of people they recognize. This is such a movie and I think it opens #1 before quickly falling off when word gets out that it is no good (and Sherlock Holmes and Alvin come out next week).
Hugo
To Steve for $9
I know Steve was excited to get this at this price, but honestly I'd rather have Red Tails. There just isn't that much upside here. I think it opens at #4 and stays there for two weeks before slowly sliding down. That said, this is another movie I'd like to go see.
Arthur Christmas
To Jeph for $7
I almost goofed and drafted this. I was very, very, very thankful Jeph came back over the top. Really, this should have been a $1-3 movie. Honestly, I still don't know why I bid $5 on it. Seriously. I must have had a brief stroke or something.
Big Miracle
To Frank for $13
Thankfully, I recovered quickly and got the steal of the draft. Even though this league only runs through the end of February that will be just enough for Big Miracle to have four scoring weeks. I don't think it drops out of the top five in that time. If it doesn't, I have this as the fifth highest scoring movie (behind Twilight, Sherlock Holmes, Mission Impossible and the Adventures of Tintin); for $13 that's a steal.
The Vow
To Kate for $10
I was stoked for Kate to get this. It has Rachel McAdams and Channing Tatum and it opens before Valentine's Day. Can you say assured #1? The only problem is that it only has three weeks in this format. Still, a bargain at this price.
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
To Jeph for $6
Honestly, not much to say here. Looks like a great movie, but I doubt it does well at the box office.
Ghost Rider Spirit of Vengeance
To Steve for $15
See Tinker Tailor, except the exact opposite. This will be bad, but people will be desperate for movies at the end of February and this is all you've got... but we've only got two weeks of it and Steve will only just get his money's worth if it finishes #1 both weeks, which (unfortunately for American intelligence) it probably will.
The Adventures of Tintin
To Jeph for $26
I was happy to at least push the bidding up on this one. Still, I can't help but feel that Jeph might have gotten a very good deal here. Tintin seems likely to open at #3, but I wouldn't be shocked if it stays in the top 10 for a lengthy six weeks just behind Mission: Impossible all the time. Considering MI went for $30, this is a good price.
Joyful Noise
To Kate for $3
Not a bad way to fill out her roster. This is a solid choice. People will see it because it opens in January and it's going up against not much, well... except Beauty and the Beast in 3D...
Immortals
To Frank for $5
I have to be honest. I wasn't looking to get this movie, but for this price? Absolutely! Especially when...
Jack and Jill
To Frank for $6
...I can handicap the Immortals pick with another movie opening that week. I should have #1 and #2 this first week and even though I got mocked a little because Twilight and Happy Feet Two come out the next week I think there will be some staying power here (even if I wouldn't be caught dead seeing this movie). For the record, I have both of these flicks staying in the top 10 for five weeks. If so, this is a steal.
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace 3D
To Steve for $3
Now this is a wild card pick. Are people going to go see pod racing in 3D? Or are they going to remember that this is one of the crappy new Star Wars?
J Edgar
To Jeph for $2
It strikes me now that Jeph has an odd collection of movies: the animated (Happy Feet, Tintin, and Arthur Christmas), the likely awful (New Years Eve), and the Oscar contenders (Tinker Tailor and J Edgar). What's more interesting, however, is that all of his movies come out before New Years. So basically he's going to be done scoring by the middle of January. We'll see if that hurts him...
Underworld Awakening
To Frank for $36
This is a case where budgeting better may have produced better results, but the truth is that I was so excited to get Immortals and Jack and Jill at the prices I did that I had $36 left to spend on a single movie and this was the top of my list. Once again, I handicap Red Tails with another movie coming out that weekend. Just watch Haywire finish #1 that weekend... wait no, that won't happen.
Man on a Ledge
To Pipp for $1
Wait, Pipp got this for $1? Seriously. Where was Steve and his $48 to stop this? Good things come to those who wait, I suppose, and Pipp got a serious steal here. The end of January is a tough time to parse, but if I were to bet I guess this opens #1 and could score until the end of the competition.
Chronicle
To Steve for $3
Hmm... not what I would have picked here with some of the choices still on the board, but this should score alright.
The Woman in Black
To Pipp for $1
Definitely a wildcard. Daniel Radcliffe could be a draw, but there seem to be many safer picks still on the board.
Beauty and the Beast 3D
To Steve for $45
OK, so Steve didn't budget well, but this is a great last pick. Tremendous upside. If it has similar success to the Lion King re-release we're looking at a top five overall pick -OR- it could be in theaters a week...
Iron Lady
To Pipp for $1
This is questionable to me mainly because of what is left on the board. Contraband will get points. It might even be a #1 movie. This movie won't. Seriously. Also, we left The Grey and Safe House out of the league, as well as This Means War and Journey 2: The Mysterious Island.
If there's one trend here it's that we're overpricing current movies at the cost of January and February flicks. There's always inherent risk in going for those movies further out on the horizon. For one, the release date could get pushed back (not good) or they might just be a crappy movie, but at the price some of those went (or didn't go at all), there is tremendous value left on the table.
So that's it. I'll post some results as we go along. If anybody is interested in joining the league starting in March let me know. We'll take all comers (within reason), and look forward to the next season of March-May!
The general idea of the league is this: get movies that people go see and then you will score points over a four month period--November to February in this case. You get 10 points for a #1 grossing movie in a given week, 9 points for #2, down to 1 point for #10. There were five of us and for this first draft we decided to stay small-scale: we drafted only six movies each. Each of us was given a $100 in fake auction cash to spend on our six movies and whoever bid the most got the flick.
The following is a pick-by-pick account of our first draft.
Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1
To Pipp for $48
I started off the nominations with this, curious to see who would overspend. The way our league works means that this will in all likelihood be the number 1 movie, but I figured somebody was likely to spend too much. In the end, the price was just about right.
The Descendants
To Pipp for $10
Pipp threw us for a curve on this one. He probably should have just nominated it for $1 because there was absolutely no interest. This is the only movie drafted with a limited release. At this point in the draft I started to salivate at the deals that were coming if this movie went for $10!
Happy Feet Two
To Jeph for $35
A bit overpriced for my liking. This movie opens against Twilight with The Muppets and Hugo coming in the next week. It will stay in the top 10 for awhile but I can't see it staying top 5 for more than three weeks and at this price I was happy to pass.
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
To Kate for $30
I was glad to see Kate get involved and decided keenly to not bid against her. This is a good, fair price for a movie that will do well, though it goes up against some stiff competition at the end of December.
War Horse
To Kate for $20
This is a classic case of taking the "hometown team." Kate wants this movie because it's about a horse and she'll want to go see it. She overpaid for it, in my opinion, but I'm glad she's content with movies she could actually enjoy... some of which I certainly don't have.
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
To Frank for $35
I'm not going to lie: I needed this movie. It's going to do very well, and I told myself before the draft I wanted one of the three top movies. Twilight didn't happen and I wasn't going to bid against Kate for Mission Impossible. This is a sure thing at a reasonable price.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
To Pipp for $37
A woeful overbid in my opinion. Pipp now had three movies and $5 left to spend. Worse still, I wasn't going to spend more than $10 (at most) for this movie. It's opening against Mission Impossible, The Adventures of Tintin and War Horse, with Sherlock Holmes and Alvin and the Chipmunks in its second week. Mark it down: this movie never goes higher than 5th on the weekly charts. Still, I'm going to see it, and I'm going to like it. (A clear case where a movie will be much better than the number of people seeing it suggests)
Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked
To Steve for $25
Steve needed a top-rate movie, having been shutout to this point, and this was about what was left. Really this was about what he should have paid for this, so not much to see here.
The Muppets
To Kate for $25
Again Kate goes for a movie she'll like, but this time she got it for the right price. It has an outside shot of opening #1 (though it's Twilight's second week), and it should stay in the top 10 until about Christmas.
We Bought a Zoo
To Kate for $12
I don't buy that this movie will do well, even though it's been promoted like crazy. I would have thrown out a flier on $1 or $2 so I consider this a little spendy, but with the feel-good strategy in place this was a must-have for Kate.
Red Tails
To Frank for $5
I made a bit of a miscalculation here. Now don't get me wrong, I'm very happy to have this movie for a paltry $5, but I probably could have done even better. There was a movie I had rated higher which went undrafted (we'll get to that later). Still, I think this movie will be successful and has a decent chance to be a top 3 movie for a couple of weeks in the desolate January movie-scape.
New Years Eve
To Jeph for $15
It's hard to draft a movie that looks this bad, so props to Jeph for pulling the trigger. I say this because it has bankability, a cavalcade of stars, and you know it will do well because people are dumb and go to movies that have a bunch of people they recognize. This is such a movie and I think it opens #1 before quickly falling off when word gets out that it is no good (and Sherlock Holmes and Alvin come out next week).
Hugo
To Steve for $9
I know Steve was excited to get this at this price, but honestly I'd rather have Red Tails. There just isn't that much upside here. I think it opens at #4 and stays there for two weeks before slowly sliding down. That said, this is another movie I'd like to go see.
Arthur Christmas
To Jeph for $7
I almost goofed and drafted this. I was very, very, very thankful Jeph came back over the top. Really, this should have been a $1-3 movie. Honestly, I still don't know why I bid $5 on it. Seriously. I must have had a brief stroke or something.
Big Miracle
To Frank for $13
Thankfully, I recovered quickly and got the steal of the draft. Even though this league only runs through the end of February that will be just enough for Big Miracle to have four scoring weeks. I don't think it drops out of the top five in that time. If it doesn't, I have this as the fifth highest scoring movie (behind Twilight, Sherlock Holmes, Mission Impossible and the Adventures of Tintin); for $13 that's a steal.
The Vow
To Kate for $10
I was stoked for Kate to get this. It has Rachel McAdams and Channing Tatum and it opens before Valentine's Day. Can you say assured #1? The only problem is that it only has three weeks in this format. Still, a bargain at this price.
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
To Jeph for $6
Honestly, not much to say here. Looks like a great movie, but I doubt it does well at the box office.
Ghost Rider Spirit of Vengeance
To Steve for $15
See Tinker Tailor, except the exact opposite. This will be bad, but people will be desperate for movies at the end of February and this is all you've got... but we've only got two weeks of it and Steve will only just get his money's worth if it finishes #1 both weeks, which (unfortunately for American intelligence) it probably will.
The Adventures of Tintin
To Jeph for $26
I was happy to at least push the bidding up on this one. Still, I can't help but feel that Jeph might have gotten a very good deal here. Tintin seems likely to open at #3, but I wouldn't be shocked if it stays in the top 10 for a lengthy six weeks just behind Mission: Impossible all the time. Considering MI went for $30, this is a good price.
Joyful Noise
To Kate for $3
Not a bad way to fill out her roster. This is a solid choice. People will see it because it opens in January and it's going up against not much, well... except Beauty and the Beast in 3D...
Immortals
To Frank for $5
I have to be honest. I wasn't looking to get this movie, but for this price? Absolutely! Especially when...
Jack and Jill
To Frank for $6
...I can handicap the Immortals pick with another movie opening that week. I should have #1 and #2 this first week and even though I got mocked a little because Twilight and Happy Feet Two come out the next week I think there will be some staying power here (even if I wouldn't be caught dead seeing this movie). For the record, I have both of these flicks staying in the top 10 for five weeks. If so, this is a steal.
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace 3D
To Steve for $3
Now this is a wild card pick. Are people going to go see pod racing in 3D? Or are they going to remember that this is one of the crappy new Star Wars?
J Edgar
To Jeph for $2
It strikes me now that Jeph has an odd collection of movies: the animated (Happy Feet, Tintin, and Arthur Christmas), the likely awful (New Years Eve), and the Oscar contenders (Tinker Tailor and J Edgar). What's more interesting, however, is that all of his movies come out before New Years. So basically he's going to be done scoring by the middle of January. We'll see if that hurts him...
Underworld Awakening
To Frank for $36
This is a case where budgeting better may have produced better results, but the truth is that I was so excited to get Immortals and Jack and Jill at the prices I did that I had $36 left to spend on a single movie and this was the top of my list. Once again, I handicap Red Tails with another movie coming out that weekend. Just watch Haywire finish #1 that weekend... wait no, that won't happen.
Man on a Ledge
To Pipp for $1
Wait, Pipp got this for $1? Seriously. Where was Steve and his $48 to stop this? Good things come to those who wait, I suppose, and Pipp got a serious steal here. The end of January is a tough time to parse, but if I were to bet I guess this opens #1 and could score until the end of the competition.
Chronicle
To Steve for $3
Hmm... not what I would have picked here with some of the choices still on the board, but this should score alright.
The Woman in Black
To Pipp for $1
Definitely a wildcard. Daniel Radcliffe could be a draw, but there seem to be many safer picks still on the board.
Beauty and the Beast 3D
To Steve for $45
OK, so Steve didn't budget well, but this is a great last pick. Tremendous upside. If it has similar success to the Lion King re-release we're looking at a top five overall pick -OR- it could be in theaters a week...
Iron Lady
To Pipp for $1
This is questionable to me mainly because of what is left on the board. Contraband will get points. It might even be a #1 movie. This movie won't. Seriously. Also, we left The Grey and Safe House out of the league, as well as This Means War and Journey 2: The Mysterious Island.
If there's one trend here it's that we're overpricing current movies at the cost of January and February flicks. There's always inherent risk in going for those movies further out on the horizon. For one, the release date could get pushed back (not good) or they might just be a crappy movie, but at the price some of those went (or didn't go at all), there is tremendous value left on the table.
So that's it. I'll post some results as we go along. If anybody is interested in joining the league starting in March let me know. We'll take all comers (within reason), and look forward to the next season of March-May!
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Bullying and Survivor
I just finished this week's episode of Survivor and felt the need to offer a few quick thoughts. The first is this: Survivor has all of the insidiousness of other reality shows and from time to time it comes through full force. The rest of this season has the potential to be ugly. You don't need to know much about the show to understand what's happening here; all you need to do is look at a high school cafeteria.
I say this in no small part because, while portraying itself as a game, Survivor has never escaped being personal. Every season the contestants get assigned to tribes arbitrarily and yet by the end of their time in the game they feel as if any breach of the tribal boundaries should warrant something akin to a death sentence. How it gets to that point is something that systems analysts or cultural anthropologists will have to explain. I am more interested in what it says about us as people.
Today, the stereotypical nerd, Cochran, a Harvard law student and all-around smart guy, decided it was in his best interest to go against his tribe. This was a dumb decision for one reason: Because the people he is going to vote out now hate him and everybody treats it as their duty to make certain that people who vote them out don't win. Putting that aside, what Cochran did is essentially what millions of kids fail to do every day of their lives: he stood up to a bully. Jim is a straight-up jerk; Keith isn't much better. Ozzy is kind of like the cool kid, Whitney the cheerleader/hanger-on, etc. Cochran was in a crappy situation and decided to get out of it.
What was Jim's response? The first word out of his mouth was: coward.
Right, Jim. That's what I think of when I see a guy being bullied finally stand up to the bullies. Coward. Brandon's response was apropos: "That's what you get for treating him like that."
My frustration with Survivor and the whole reality genre is unfortunately that it is all too real. There is a prevailing cultural ideology that sees behavior like this as acceptable. Cochran never had a chance to win this game because he was placed with players who decided from the start that he isn't the kind of player worthy of $1 million. Maybe in a different group a person like him would have a chance, but not with this group. All too sadly this is where many people find themselves in lives far more real than network television can ever display.
I'm not sure I have a solution to this. I want to stand up to people like Jim and say, "Coward." But even more I want to stand up to Cochran and say, "Congrats. You aren't winning $1 million, but there are some things far more valuable."
I say this in no small part because, while portraying itself as a game, Survivor has never escaped being personal. Every season the contestants get assigned to tribes arbitrarily and yet by the end of their time in the game they feel as if any breach of the tribal boundaries should warrant something akin to a death sentence. How it gets to that point is something that systems analysts or cultural anthropologists will have to explain. I am more interested in what it says about us as people.
Today, the stereotypical nerd, Cochran, a Harvard law student and all-around smart guy, decided it was in his best interest to go against his tribe. This was a dumb decision for one reason: Because the people he is going to vote out now hate him and everybody treats it as their duty to make certain that people who vote them out don't win. Putting that aside, what Cochran did is essentially what millions of kids fail to do every day of their lives: he stood up to a bully. Jim is a straight-up jerk; Keith isn't much better. Ozzy is kind of like the cool kid, Whitney the cheerleader/hanger-on, etc. Cochran was in a crappy situation and decided to get out of it.
What was Jim's response? The first word out of his mouth was: coward.
Right, Jim. That's what I think of when I see a guy being bullied finally stand up to the bullies. Coward. Brandon's response was apropos: "That's what you get for treating him like that."
My frustration with Survivor and the whole reality genre is unfortunately that it is all too real. There is a prevailing cultural ideology that sees behavior like this as acceptable. Cochran never had a chance to win this game because he was placed with players who decided from the start that he isn't the kind of player worthy of $1 million. Maybe in a different group a person like him would have a chance, but not with this group. All too sadly this is where many people find themselves in lives far more real than network television can ever display.
I'm not sure I have a solution to this. I want to stand up to people like Jim and say, "Coward." But even more I want to stand up to Cochran and say, "Congrats. You aren't winning $1 million, but there are some things far more valuable."
Monday, October 31, 2011
The Anatomy of a Comeback: How to win after making a really bad mistake
Sometimes in life things come very easily and sometimes you mess up. Last night I played one of the worst moves I've ever made in a long chess game--long meaning 90 minute + 30 second increment. In short, I had no excuse for making this mistake. So, with no further ado, let's see what can be learned from such a blunder.
White: Frank Johnson (2352)
Black: Reed Russell (2037)
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7. Bc4 Qa5 8. O-O Ng4?!
This is a bit of a mistake and I rightfully punish it.
9. Qxg4 Nxd4 10. Nd5!
10...e6 11. Qd1 Qc5
So we reach the position of my undoing. I've actually played flawlessly to this point. Any number of moves are good here, but the simplest is 12. Bb3! exd5 13. c3 when the computer gives me almost 2 pawns advantage. I saw that line and thought it looked good, but I also thought I saw something better. I actually made two mistakes here in one move, because what I thought I saw could have been easily achieved by playing 12. Bxd4 Bxd4 13. Nc7+ which would have been simple enough; however, that still isn't as good as Bb3. So what did I play?
At this point I had a choice. I honestly thought about resigning and heading home. It was the last round and I couldn't believe my mistake. Instead, I settled in and hoped for a miracle.
I have a pawn and his king in the center of the board for my piece. Not nearly enough, but it's something. It would have been easy to play moves like f4 right away, but Qd2 is a more solid move because it creates multiple ideas. The more my opponent has to think about, the more chance I have at him falling apart.
The idea is f6-f7. The biggest thing was to create problems, any problems. My opponent was thinking hard. I had around 50 minutes remaining, he had around 20.
At this point black is still much better. In fact, there's a line that basically wins. 26...Bf4! because if 27. Rxf4 Qxe7 28. Rxe7 Bxf6 29. Re1!! white has no adequate way to stop mate. This would have won, but here's the thing: He had to calculate several moves in a line that looks on the surface to be suspect. In short, he's going to have to earn his victory. If he sees that line but doesn't find 29.Re1 then the whole idea doesn't work, which brings me to...
Finally he breaks! 28...Bf8 was holding but difficult to play because 29. f6 Qf7 30. h5 looks intimidating. In fact, white may have enough to draw now regardless.
I give this move an exclamation point for a simple reason: other moves were much easier to calculate. Was this theoretically the best move on the board? No. In fact, after this move black is slightly better if he plays 32...Qg6. And yet, I didn't care. This move embodies all the principles I wrote about up to now: it is patient and calculated. I counted on him playing Rg8 and I would have immediately followed up with Qc4+ Kf8 Bb4+ ab4 Qxb4+ Kf7 Qe7+ Kg6 Rg1+ Kf5 Rf1+ with a draw. If he saw this, he earned it. But it was not so easy to find.
White: Frank Johnson (2352)
Black: Reed Russell (2037)
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7. Bc4 Qa5 8. O-O Ng4?!
![]() |
| Position after 8...Ng4?! |
9. Qxg4 Nxd4 10. Nd5!
![]() |
| Position after 10. Nd5! |
![]() |
| Position after 11...Qc5 |
12. Nc7+??
A second after I played it I realized my mistake.
12...Qxc7 13. Bxd4 e5
And I lose a piece.
![]() |
| Position after 13...e5 |
Step 1: Calm down
14. Bxf7+ Kxf7 15. Bc3 Qc5 16. Kh1 Re8 17. Qd2
![]() |
| Position after 17. Qd2 |
Step 2: Create threats
17...a5 18. f4 Kg8 19. f5
![]() |
| Position after 19.f5 |
Step 3: Think on his time
The following moves were played almost immediately by me, because I guessed what he was going to play and thought about my move on his time...
The following moves were played almost immediately by me, because I guessed what he was going to play and thought about my move on his time...
19...Ra6 20. Rad1 gxf5 21. exf5 Bh6 22. Qe2 Rf6 23.Rd3 Qe7 24. g4 b6 25. h4 Bb7+ 26. Kh2
![]() |
| Position after 26. Kh2 |
Step 4: Calculate the critical position.
26...Rd6
Spend a good deal of time in the critical position and come up with a clean choice. Then don't turn back. I thought for over ten minutes here and came up with a line. Then I played follow-up moves practically instantaneously. All of this put my opponent in more time pressure.
27. g5 Rxd3 28. cxd3 Qd6?
![]() |
| Position after 28...Qd6? |
Step 5: Don't let up the pressure!
Just because I am equal now doesn't give me an excuse to let up!
Step 6: Psychological Warfare
My opponent had stopped notating. He was under five minutes but with increment you must keep notating the whole game; no exceptions. I could have pointed this out to him immediately, but instead I decided to think about my move and decide what I would play. Then I got up and notified the TD to tell my opponent to keep notating and immediately I moved. Thus I put the maximum pressure on him. I didn't do it meanly; I even gave him my scoresheet to help him update, but I'm sure it rattled him and it cost him 30 seconds.
29. gxh6 Qxh6 30. Qg4+ Kf7 31. f6 Bc6
Step 7: Calculate to the end
32. Be1!
![]() |
| Position after 32.Be1 |
I got up and went to restroom after Be1 and returned a minute or so later to find 32...Rg8 on the board, but more importantly I noticed immediately that my opponent's flag was down. He had taken too much time calculating it and somehow I had come back and won this game.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Once Upon a Time: There is hope yet for television!
As movies have gotten more formulaic and... well... bad, television has gotten more formulaic and... well... bad. It's a strange thing, because movies have an opportunity to offer something really entertaining, deep and meaningful in a short amount of time that doesn't allow for fluff. Inception is a great example of a movie that understood this, was written well, and widened the audience's perception of the world. It got people talking. Tree of Life has done the same thing in a very different way. Even if a film is unpopular it hardly can have an excuse for being unthoughtful. Yet, we have Green Lantern, Hangover II, and a barrage of other crappy movies that don't so much make you think as they kill your brain cells with mindless action and a plot that seems thrown together at the last second.
Television has the opposite problem. This is because it is built to be repetitive. Every week a show comes on and many of the ones that work have to follow some sort of structure. Seinfeld was a brilliant show because it didn't pretend to be more than it was: funny situations in the ordinary lives of some eccentric but not unbelievable people. The Simpsons has been doing a similar thing now for over twenty years. The reason so much of television is so awful is because it has now adapted this repetitive model and tried to be more than it is--which often isn't much to start with.
The really ambitious televisions series are ones that understand the structure and say, "Hey, we can be better than that!" LOST is probably the best example, though in the end it failed to be coherent. J.J. Abrams understood how to make a "mystery box" but he could not finally demonstrate that the LOST mystery box had anything substantive inside.
I became disenchanted not just with LOST but all of television when that series came to a close. I thought that maybe it was impossible for a show to actually offer the kind of deep meaning that I'm looking for; it seemed that all television series can do is make money and go on and on until they are no longer appealing. In such a desert-landscape, one might as well watch The Real World or Basketball Wives--it is certainly as meaningful as much of anything you'll see on network television. Maybe television was never meant to make us think; maybe it was just meant to entertain. That seems to be the overwhelming sentiment among couch potatoes these days.
So here I was in this muck. Lately I've been watching TV again--too much TV in fact--and I've been disappointed. Some is entertaining; most is somewhere between awful and unwatchable. But in this period I've been holding out hope and searching for something that gives me more, something that feeds me. It didn't seem likely this season. Terra Nova is entertaining but lacks depth; House is fun but doesn't get me thinking; Survivor is, well, Survivor. Warehouse 13 was my favorite discovery by far, but its brilliant characters don't make up for being a sci-fi series for whom depth takes a backseat to techno-wizardry (albeit in a unique and surely brilliant way).
Then, yesterday, I found it. A friend pointed me to imdb.com where they had the series premiere of Once Upon a Time in full the day before it airs (Sunday on NBC). I watched, skeptical for about half the episode, before realizing that this was brilliant. The project of a couple of the writers from LOST, Once Upon a Time doesn't work with an empty mystery box--you may very well guess the ending from the first episode! Instead, it does what fairy tales do best: it allows us the opportunity to reflect on the truth of their stories. Yes, it's entertaining; yes, it's well-acted and the filmography is wonderful; but it's even more than that. It has the potential to be a television program with heart that isn't afraid to tackle a big question: "In what do we hope?"
Watch it. Share it. Think about it.
Television has the opposite problem. This is because it is built to be repetitive. Every week a show comes on and many of the ones that work have to follow some sort of structure. Seinfeld was a brilliant show because it didn't pretend to be more than it was: funny situations in the ordinary lives of some eccentric but not unbelievable people. The Simpsons has been doing a similar thing now for over twenty years. The reason so much of television is so awful is because it has now adapted this repetitive model and tried to be more than it is--which often isn't much to start with.
The really ambitious televisions series are ones that understand the structure and say, "Hey, we can be better than that!" LOST is probably the best example, though in the end it failed to be coherent. J.J. Abrams understood how to make a "mystery box" but he could not finally demonstrate that the LOST mystery box had anything substantive inside.
I became disenchanted not just with LOST but all of television when that series came to a close. I thought that maybe it was impossible for a show to actually offer the kind of deep meaning that I'm looking for; it seemed that all television series can do is make money and go on and on until they are no longer appealing. In such a desert-landscape, one might as well watch The Real World or Basketball Wives--it is certainly as meaningful as much of anything you'll see on network television. Maybe television was never meant to make us think; maybe it was just meant to entertain. That seems to be the overwhelming sentiment among couch potatoes these days.
So here I was in this muck. Lately I've been watching TV again--too much TV in fact--and I've been disappointed. Some is entertaining; most is somewhere between awful and unwatchable. But in this period I've been holding out hope and searching for something that gives me more, something that feeds me. It didn't seem likely this season. Terra Nova is entertaining but lacks depth; House is fun but doesn't get me thinking; Survivor is, well, Survivor. Warehouse 13 was my favorite discovery by far, but its brilliant characters don't make up for being a sci-fi series for whom depth takes a backseat to techno-wizardry (albeit in a unique and surely brilliant way).
Then, yesterday, I found it. A friend pointed me to imdb.com where they had the series premiere of Once Upon a Time in full the day before it airs (Sunday on NBC). I watched, skeptical for about half the episode, before realizing that this was brilliant. The project of a couple of the writers from LOST, Once Upon a Time doesn't work with an empty mystery box--you may very well guess the ending from the first episode! Instead, it does what fairy tales do best: it allows us the opportunity to reflect on the truth of their stories. Yes, it's entertaining; yes, it's well-acted and the filmography is wonderful; but it's even more than that. It has the potential to be a television program with heart that isn't afraid to tackle a big question: "In what do we hope?"
Watch it. Share it. Think about it.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
The appeal of chance
Kate and I stopped by The Source: Comics and Games store on Larpenteur yesterday to pick up a game to play. Inside, the store was bustling with something called "Friday Night Magic," which is basically a Magic: The Gathering tournament. Magic is a collectable card game that follows a narrative somewhat like Dungeons and Dragons, though it is not role-play. In short, it's a game that involves a fair deal of preparation, work, money and, of course, chance.
My first observation about Friday Night Magic was that it is popular; in fact, I couldn't believe how popular it was. My second, related, observation was that this is a kind of strange thing. More than anything else, Magic is a bit of a paradox. It attracts the kinds of people who have long, scraggly beards and are into video games and comic books, but it's also expensive. Seriously, very expensive. In order to stay up on things, a person has to constantly be purchasing new cards. Only a handful of people in the world turn their Magic-playing into money. The rest are into it for the sheer joy of the game. And winning, I dare say.
Poker is one thing, because poker has the excuse of being a money-maker. Many people can and do make money on poker (though it should be noted that that money is always at the expense of somebody else). Yet, Magic is popular--maybe not as popular as poker but in the same neighborhood--and there really isn't money in it. So, my real question after thinking about this is 'Why?'
I used to play Magic and I sometimes play poker, so I'm not completely out of the loop. Magic is a creative kind of game--this is certainly part of the popularity--but I think the real appeal is for a rather simple reason: there is chance. You can spend and spend and spend, and all you are doing is giving yourself a better chance. In poker and Magic both, you can play brilliantly--in fact, you can make the best possible decisions--and you can still lose. This is why both games are frustrating and also very attractive.
Our culture loves games of chance. Actually, I think human beings in general, love games of chance. Incredibly, we hardly even care when the odds are stacked against us. If I told you and three of your friends to give me $1 and randomly one of you would win $2, most people wouldn't do it. But if I tell you and your 50 million friends to give me $1, and one of you would win $20 million many will be all over it. Super-charge the odds and suddenly games become more attractive. It is the power of the 'What if?'
I say this all because I enjoyed Magic and I enjoy poker, but neither works for me. I've played enough games of chance to realize that somebody's going to win, more are going to lose and I feel like I'm wasting my time. These are the kinds of things I love to do with friends on Friday night--almost any board game is a game of chance. But if I'm going to invest my time in something I want it to be something for which I have nobody to blame but myself. This is why I enjoy chess. It's also why I look at a roomful of Magic players and think, "Man, I wish more people cared enough to work at something that is both meaningful and hard." Pick up an instrument, put on some running shoes, crack open a math textbook, or do a science experiment. For me, it's chess. Maybe it doesn't make the world a better place, but I can think of no better way to challenge myself. The appeal of chance has past: time to get back to work.
My first observation about Friday Night Magic was that it is popular; in fact, I couldn't believe how popular it was. My second, related, observation was that this is a kind of strange thing. More than anything else, Magic is a bit of a paradox. It attracts the kinds of people who have long, scraggly beards and are into video games and comic books, but it's also expensive. Seriously, very expensive. In order to stay up on things, a person has to constantly be purchasing new cards. Only a handful of people in the world turn their Magic-playing into money. The rest are into it for the sheer joy of the game. And winning, I dare say.
Poker is one thing, because poker has the excuse of being a money-maker. Many people can and do make money on poker (though it should be noted that that money is always at the expense of somebody else). Yet, Magic is popular--maybe not as popular as poker but in the same neighborhood--and there really isn't money in it. So, my real question after thinking about this is 'Why?'
I used to play Magic and I sometimes play poker, so I'm not completely out of the loop. Magic is a creative kind of game--this is certainly part of the popularity--but I think the real appeal is for a rather simple reason: there is chance. You can spend and spend and spend, and all you are doing is giving yourself a better chance. In poker and Magic both, you can play brilliantly--in fact, you can make the best possible decisions--and you can still lose. This is why both games are frustrating and also very attractive.
Our culture loves games of chance. Actually, I think human beings in general, love games of chance. Incredibly, we hardly even care when the odds are stacked against us. If I told you and three of your friends to give me $1 and randomly one of you would win $2, most people wouldn't do it. But if I tell you and your 50 million friends to give me $1, and one of you would win $20 million many will be all over it. Super-charge the odds and suddenly games become more attractive. It is the power of the 'What if?'
I say this all because I enjoyed Magic and I enjoy poker, but neither works for me. I've played enough games of chance to realize that somebody's going to win, more are going to lose and I feel like I'm wasting my time. These are the kinds of things I love to do with friends on Friday night--almost any board game is a game of chance. But if I'm going to invest my time in something I want it to be something for which I have nobody to blame but myself. This is why I enjoy chess. It's also why I look at a roomful of Magic players and think, "Man, I wish more people cared enough to work at something that is both meaningful and hard." Pick up an instrument, put on some running shoes, crack open a math textbook, or do a science experiment. For me, it's chess. Maybe it doesn't make the world a better place, but I can think of no better way to challenge myself. The appeal of chance has past: time to get back to work.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
In Defense of My Generation
Today I'm piggy-backing off my buddy, Eric Clapp's, post defending our generation, though in some ways I don't want to. The proliferation of social media has made my generation's faults all the more evident. Our politics is often narrow and far too idealistic--whether on the right or the left. We are the generation of people like Lindsay Lohan and Michael "The Situation" Sorrentino. We're brash and inexperienced, captive to technology, lazy and often shortsighted. We treat the internet like our playground and become captive by the vastness of it. So often we'd rather just watch tv than change the world.
But then again...
We are a generation with fresh eyes, who sees the world's problems and has the capability of saying, "Nah, I think we can do better." We love to give away. We're willing to think for ourselves. We know what's going on in the world--even if our opinions on it are subject to change. We don't carry the burden of hatred that is not easily shed by earlier generations. At our best, we're more than tolerant--we're respectful and interested.
All of this is to say that we are like every generation that has gone before. We are considered immature by the same people we consider dated, and in forty or fifty years we'll be the dated ones grumbling over the immaturity of those to come. Everything I've said above is true, at least in part. We are all sorts of good and bad because we stand on the shoulders of all the good and bad who have gone before. We're different--technology, economics and social structures have made us so. But just because things change doesn't mean that we reject the past. The past lives on through us, and the more we hear about it the more we can learn from it.
Eric says that he thinks we are going to do just fine. I think it can be even better than that. As the world is changing, we have the ability to be the next greatest generation: a generation that helps to end famine, to shed hatred, to fix an economic structure that pits the least against the greatest, to change how we view energy, to revolutionize science and technology all over again, to demonstrate what is beautiful about the human spirit, to vanquish diseases, to answer tough social questions, to love each other for our differences, and to pass off to the next generation the burden that they stand on the shoulders of giants.
I hope we can do it.
|
| Some call us the "boomerang generation" |
We are a generation with fresh eyes, who sees the world's problems and has the capability of saying, "Nah, I think we can do better." We love to give away. We're willing to think for ourselves. We know what's going on in the world--even if our opinions on it are subject to change. We don't carry the burden of hatred that is not easily shed by earlier generations. At our best, we're more than tolerant--we're respectful and interested.
All of this is to say that we are like every generation that has gone before. We are considered immature by the same people we consider dated, and in forty or fifty years we'll be the dated ones grumbling over the immaturity of those to come. Everything I've said above is true, at least in part. We are all sorts of good and bad because we stand on the shoulders of all the good and bad who have gone before. We're different--technology, economics and social structures have made us so. But just because things change doesn't mean that we reject the past. The past lives on through us, and the more we hear about it the more we can learn from it.
Eric says that he thinks we are going to do just fine. I think it can be even better than that. As the world is changing, we have the ability to be the next greatest generation: a generation that helps to end famine, to shed hatred, to fix an economic structure that pits the least against the greatest, to change how we view energy, to revolutionize science and technology all over again, to demonstrate what is beautiful about the human spirit, to vanquish diseases, to answer tough social questions, to love each other for our differences, and to pass off to the next generation the burden that they stand on the shoulders of giants.
I hope we can do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)












