The jawdropping latest from OK Go.
Update: Well, it’s not two hours, but here’s a few “making of” videos: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
The jawdropping latest from OK Go.
Update: Well, it’s not two hours, but here’s a few “making of” videos: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
In reverse order of watching:
Drag Me To Hell. It barely even qualifies as a horror movie — it’s certainly not scary. In fact, it’s closer in tone to a ghoulish dark comedy: There’s a fun fight scene early on that’s filmed as a 90-second farce. For something approximating frights, director Sam Raimi falls back on ickiness (the heroine gets barfed on a half dozen times or so), and some rather cliche CGI ghosts jumping out of the shadows. The most serious problem is, the lead actress, Alison Lohman, can’t hold up this movie by herself — even when her character stands up to fight back, she comes across as a bit of a wimp. She badly needs an injection of Sigourney-Weaver-in-Aliens — then we might be on to something here.
The Invention of Lying. Ricky Gervais as the one man in the world who knows how to lie. It’s hit-or-miss, but worth it for the scenes where Gervais accidentally invents religion, and has to explain about “the man in the sky” to the masses.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Got bored a third of the way through and stopped. Without the conceit of the main character aging backwards, this would basically be “story of a man who led a varied life.” Hey, filmakers, remember when you studied “theme” in high school? It’s always a good idea to make your movie about something.
District 9. Smashing good stuff. Giant cockroach-like aliens are forced into fenced-in South African slums, and when the humans change their minds and try to get them back out again, nothing good happens. That rarest of breeds: A thoughtful action movie.
Moon. Almost a good movie. Sam Rockwell is fantastic, anyway, as a man who is forced into some eye-opening conclusions about himself as he works alone on a remote mining outpost. I didn’t buy into it as much as I wanted to, but I appreciated the effort.
In The Loop. Brilliant, scathing dark comedy. It’s too early to say it can stand next to an established classic like Dr. Strangelove, but years from now it just might. Great script, great acting, and a downright frightening premise: You know the maxim “Nobody knows anything?” Apparently that applies as much to war as to anything else.
Some Kind of Monster. A wonderful (though long) documentary following the heavy-metal band Metallica as they try to make a new album and attempt to get along with each other after 25 years of getting on each other’s nerves. You don’t have to like their music to respect their struggle to make art. My wife thought I was insane to even put this on the Netflix list, but she loved it as much as I did.
To enjoy a competition, of any sort, you need to have a goal that you can shoot for. Something realistic but challenging. Something, perhaps, that’s just out of reach… but is nonetheless attainable, if the gods decide to smile. It doesn’t have to be climbing Everest or winning the Super Bowl. You can get a form of that same good feeling from nearly anything: Maybe at this week’s bowling night, I will beat my high game. Maybe this weekend I’ll conquer that goddamn dogleg on the 17th hole. Maybe I’ll play a triple-triple at the Scrabble club.
But to have any sort of expectation, you must also be ready for disappointment. You might not succeed at your goal. Indeed, you might very well blow things very, very badly. (I had a triple-triple and I just didn’t see it? Kill me now.)
The trick is to really enjoy the good things when they happen, and try to let the failures slide by. (Probably this is a difficult trick if you’ve just lost the Super Bowl.)
But you always have to have that goal, and — here’s the important part — that goal has to mean something.
All this to explain to you why I jabber on and on about wanting to be a top-100 solver at the American Crossword Puzzle Tournament, hosted by Will Shortz and held each year in Brooklyn, NY. It is hard to imagine a more arbitrary, ridiculous aspiration: As has been pointed out to me repeatedly over the years, it’s the percentile of your rank that really means something, because the attendance increases and decreases from one tournament to the next.
That logic has done nothing to dissuade me. And so, while my friends are climbing over each other, fighting for position on the top ten list and hoping they are fast enough to shoulder their way into the finals… I’m right there beside them, doing my own post-mortem of the puzzle we just solved, updating one and all about my chances of finally achieving a double-digit ranking. They humor me with the utmost grace.
The urgency of my mission has increased over the years because I’ve come so close so many times. A few years ago I was 111. Last year I was 122. I’m like an amateur trapeze artist that keeps almost grasping the bar, only to watch it swing away from his fingertips as he begins his descent down to earth.
I usually write these tournament reports after the whole event has ended. I am writing this now, however, in the hotel lobby late on Saturday night. We have solved six of the seven tournament puzzles; we’ll solve the last one tomorrow morning. Of the six puzzles so far, I have solved all but one of them correctly, with no errors, and at a reasonable speed. The puzzle where I had errors aplenty was the notorious Puzzle 5 — each year, it is Puzzle 5 where Will Shortz turns the difficulty up to 11. There have been years that I’ve left Puzzle 5 half empty (and believe me, I do NOT see it as half full). This year, I came pretty close to completing the damn thing, but ultimately had to leave an entire corner unfilled.
The end result of all this: With six puzzles down and one to go, I am ranked… {dramatic pause}…. 107.
One. Oh. Seven.
I am so close to the top 100 list, I could give it a kiss. There is one puzzle left. If I solve it clean and fast, I have a reasonable chance of jumping up the few places I need. If I make a stupid mistake or solve even a minute too slow, I will certainly fall back into my usual 125-ish neighborhood.
For you to know what happens, all you have to do is continue reading. I, on the other hand, have to wait ALL FREAKING NIGHT.
Now it is Sunday evening, and the tournament is over.
The final puzzle was a Sunday-size offering from Merl Reagle. My average solving time for a crossword of that size is about twenty minutes — fifteen if my mental gears are really clicking. I had no way of knowing what time I needed to bounce myself up eight places, but I figured I had to solve pretty fast.
So, somehow, I sat down and solved the whole thing in thirteen minutes. Clean, no errors. I’m not sure what the heck happened, and I’d love to figure out how to get in that zone more often. I left the solving room shoulder to shoulder with people who normally outpace me by many minutes. I was sorry that had to be the final puzzle — I was ready to solve another dozen or two.
While I was dwelling on my own personal drama, the real story of the tournament was occuring among the top solvers, who were having their usual heated battle. Only the top three contestants make the finals, and play on large whiteboards in front of an audience, competing for $5,000. There are WAY more excellent solvers than there are slots in the finals. Each year the same questions get asked: Will someone pour on the speed, leaving everybody else behind? (Just so you understand, the puzzle that I so proudly solved in thirteen minutes was completed by the top solvers in less than half that time.) Will someone make a foolish error or even, heaven forbid, leave a space blank? Who will be on top at the end of the day?
Last year, a relatively new solver named Dan Feyer cartwheeled out of nowhere into the spotlight. He led the whole tournament until the final puzzle… at which point he slowed down just enough to drop himself from first place to fourth. Nonetheless, he established himself firmly as Someone To Watch, and this year no one was surprised when he once again took the lead from the get-go. This time he never looked back. At one point he had two full minutes on the second place contestant, Howard Barkin.
In third place there was a tie between champion solver Tyler Hinman and a perennial contender named Anne Erdmann. By tiebreaker rules, Anne would squeak into the finals unless Tyler beat her on the final puzzle. He couldn’t do it, and Tyler’s five-year run as champion was officially brought to an end. (On receiving his fourth-place trophy, he was greeted with a boisterous, moving, and well-deserved standing ovation.)
Dan was widely considered the favorite going into the finals, and this is one of those instances where the “wisdom of crowds” proves to be 100% exactly right. Dan went so far as to deprive this reporter of any drama to share with you. He simply marched up to the whiteboard and started dropping in letters, brushing aside nightmarish clues like he had written them himself.
(The final puzzle was supplied by the great Mike Shenk, and some of his A-level clues were the crosswords equivalent of a Major League spitball. Try “Checking account?” for CHESS GAME. Try “Punctuation with four digits” for AIR QUOTES. Try “Gnomes” for ADAGES, which I still don’t understand. Oh, and try “Topic for actors working as waiters” for GODOT.)
In the end, it was never even close. Dan completed his puzzle, error-free, minutes ahead of his competitors, both of whom had made mistakes in any event. The story of the finals this year is not in how Contestant One made an error or got stuck in a corner and let Contestant Two pass him by — the story is instead all about Dan Feyer’s dazzling speed. He now, and until further notice, has to be considered the automatic favorite at the ACPT, leaping ahead of the Wordplay trio of Tyler and Trip Payne (5th place this year) and Al Sanders (9th). It takes away nothing from Tyler’s awe-inspiring accomplishments to point out that he often capitalized on the hasty mistakes of faster solvers. Dan Feyer is fast as hell, and he’s so accurate you might well think he has some sort of Vulcan mind meld going with whatever constructor he’s solving. Discussing it with Tyler afterward, he said, “Dan can go five in a row easily.” He’s right.
BUT, Dan is not a Vulcan. Up there in the stratosphere of the A levels, anybody can beat anybody, and because of that, not a single one of them is going to give up. I’m only sorry we have to wait a full year to see the rematch.
And where did I wind up? How did my blistering-fast-for-me performance on puzzle 7 affect my standing?
As I write this, I am standing on the sunny side of the top-100 divider: I am ranked 96.
Except, no.
Looking over the scans of my solved puzzles just now, I noticed a little problem: The judges missed an error that I made on Puzzle 5. Take a look at 58-Across. The clue for this was “Sales pitch?”, and I had absolutely no idea what this could mean. I had LIE for a little while, and also TIE and DIE and PIE. I had so many erasures in that one square that I’m amazed the puzzle scanned correctly at all. In the end, I chose DIE more or less at random, and hoped for the best.
The correct answer is PIE, as the “Sales” in the clue refers to Soupy Sales, the pie-throwing comedian. And now that I’ve seen this error, I can’t not say something, dammit, so there goes twenty points right off the bat. That’ll move me to 97. And there’s always a little more shifting and settling as other people pipe up about errors. I might hang on to my top-100 score, and by God I’m going to enjoy it while I’ve got it, but I know full well that I am hanging on by my fingernails.
And honestly, I know something else: That even if I stay in double digits, it will change nothing. I will simply arrive at next year’s ACPT, absolutely desperate to be a top-80 solver…
I’m heading out in a little bit to join my friends at the American Crossword Puzzle Tournament — expect my usual epic-length report Sunday evening.
Also: I’ll have the crossword in this Sunday’s New York Times! I hope you enjoy it.
I received an e-mail yesterday from a school librarian in Florida, informing me that Winston Breen is being challenged by a parent in one of the schools in his large district. A parent has taken exception to the phrase “horse’s ass,” an epithet thrown at one adult character by another in the heat of anger. (It’s on page 113 for those of you playing along at home.) The parent is being steered towards a procedure in which the book is reviewed by a committee, and I have been invited to throw in my two cents. The librarian is clear that he and others support my work, and he believes there will be a “positive outcome” from this little episode, and even if not, it is one incident at one school, and it’s not like Florida plans to make Winston the featured guest at a statewide bonfire.
I am aware, of course, that challenges of this nature happen all the time — I read a lot of YA writers’ blogs, and sometimes it seems like a week can’t go by without one or another of them being raked over the coals somewhere.
There is always outrage throughout the writing world whenever one of these challenges crops up, but my feelings about the whole thing are decidedly more mixed. For starters, I think there should be a process by which a parent can comment and, if necessary, seek action against any facet of a child’s education. I wouldn’t want to see such a system become subject to abuse, but schools work for the parents, and when a parent has a problem, that parent deserves to be heard.
And it’s disingenuous, I think, to simply say, “If you don’t want your child to read something, don’t let your child read it!” Because how are you supposed to know you don’t want your child to read something, unless you first read it yourself? And who has the time (or the desire) to read every book a child might bring home? That is why we put our trust in our teachers and librarians to exercise some level of discretion — James Patterson’s kidlit novels are fine for an elementary school library (probably — I haven’t read them); Patterson’s Alex Cross novels, not so much. And if we discover that our sense of what’s appropriate is at odds with the people educating our kids, we as parents should have the right to express an opinion about where that line should be drawn.
That said, when we’re talking about removing a book from a classroom or a library — not just for the complainant’s child but for everybody — then the onus of proof should be heavily weighted against the parent. One parent cannot dictate standards for an entire community, nor should a school librarian be required to view the contents of his library through the eyes of the most conservative possible parent. Removing a book from a school library should not be impossible. It should, however, be very, very, very… imagine a great many more “verys” here… very difficult.
(And by the way, the concerned parent really needs to be aware of the Barbra Streisand effect, in which an attempt to censor only serves to bring more attention to whatever it is one is trying to suppress. I can’t think of a better way to get kids to read a particular book than to tell them they absolutely shouldn’t.)
As a parent of school-age children myself, I have some sympathy for the woman who is complaining about my book. We feel a natural inclination to protect our children… or, anyway, to hold some sway over what they experience and when. Eventually they are going to be exposed to the big, wide world and all its messiness — we can’t shield them from it forever — but I understand the instinct to try to preserve their innocence for one more day.
The problem is this: We also want our children to read, and reading necessarily exposes our kids to words and ideas and concepts that may be out of step with our carefully ordered plans on how a child should be raised. And even if a child reads only Dick and Jane, there is a galaxy of music and movies and television and other children, all ready to step up to drag that child off the parent’s preferred path.
You can’t block it all out, nor should I think you’d want to. The only alternative is this: To talk with your kids and teach them what is acceptable and what is not. There is a huge difference between reading the words “horse’s ass” in a book and using that phrase as an insult against someone else. In my opinion, reading those words is a touch naughty, and nothing more — if I thought the phrase was truly egregious, I wouldn’t have used it. You might disagree; we can debate it; it doesn’t matter now. But I would not expect any of my young readers to actually use that phrase, and if any of them were to try, I assume that a parent or teacher would be there to set them straight. My daughter uses expressions she picks up from books all the time, and some of these are annoying enough that we have to step in and put a stop to it. That’s just the way it goes. That’s a fair amount of what parenting is, isn’t it?
Here is my message to parents who want to remove Winston Breen or any book from their local library: No book could possibly match you as the most important influence in your child’s life. If you are a good example to your children — if you teach them well, through your own words and actions — then the book hasn’t been written that can lead your child away from you. You certainly needn’t worry about a single two-word phrase in a 200-page story.
One final thought: Irresistibly punny headlines notwithstanding, if this woman succeeds in getting Winston removed from her school, I still will not say my book has been “banned.” The books I wrote are available all over the country — I’d have a long way to go before I could legitimately use powerful words like “banned” or “censored.” Books that have truly been banned cannot be ordered on Amazon for next-day delivery.
Here’s a fun new puzzle game, for some reason called Gold Mine. It’s a nice little variation on Rush Hour.
Every once in a while, I present a puzzle on Facebook in the form of a series of status messages. Today’s puzzle has only been solved by two people so far — obviously a little harder than I intended — so I thought I would put it out there for the WHOLE INTERNET to solve. Here are my status messages, in the order they were presented:
BYE (9)
DANCE (4,6)
ICE (1)
BAD (1,2)
LIAR (4)
HUNGRY (1,2)
TRY (5)
PETER (5,6,7)
DUCK (1)
Can you figure out my intended answer?
I think I intuitively understood this…
Ad blockers suck.