In case you missed it, the Cavaliers proved that they were mortal and the Celtics took a game in Cleveland.
Who would have predicted such a thing?
Someone wrote the following yesterday.
"Despite my dubious wisdom revealed in yesterday's blog, I do not think the Cavs are that good. If heaven has a team, it would not be that good. And the Celtics are not that bad. The Celtics can hit threes, they can play defense, it is just difficult when everything your opponent throws up is a three and is going in. And even LeBron cannot play at this level every night. He has been ridickalus.
I still like the Celtics to win two games in this series--one in Cleveland, and one in Boston"
Monday, May 22, 2017
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Well...
Last night provides another example of why I should not move to Nevada. If you read my blog yesterday you know that I predicted that the Celtics would not only get within the five point spread, but win outright. The Cavaliers defeated the Celtics like a professional team might defeat five kids who were hanging out in the park. I did, in fact, pick the under correctly but that was the least certain of my forecasts and besides, I picked the under for the wrong reason. I thought the Cavaliers would be cold.
On the contrary I have never seen a team be so hot, or an opponent be so outclassed. This was a stunning beat down. The Celtics looked like they were trying but it was the big kids against the little kids. LeBron James proved once again that he is the best player on planet earth, but everyone else on the Cavs looked like all pros as well. And all the Celtics except maybe the kid Jaylen Brown, stunk up the court. Particularly noteworthy stinkers put in by Horford, Olynyk, and Thomas who figured the ignominy from the first half was such that he did not show his face in the second.
Question du jour from all who follow sports is simply this: Are the Cavs that good, or the Celtics that bad.
Despite my dubious wisdom revealed in yesterday's blog, I do not think the Cavs are that good. If heaven has a team, it would not be that good. And the Celtics are not that bad. The Celtics can hit threes, they can play defense, it is just difficult when everything your opponent throws up is a three and is going in. And even LeBron cannot play at this level every night. He has been ridickalus.
I still like the Celtics to win two games in this series--one in Cleveland, and one in Boston before Cleveland closes it out in game 6. Last night, however, was humbling.
But I did pick the under.
On the contrary I have never seen a team be so hot, or an opponent be so outclassed. This was a stunning beat down. The Celtics looked like they were trying but it was the big kids against the little kids. LeBron James proved once again that he is the best player on planet earth, but everyone else on the Cavs looked like all pros as well. And all the Celtics except maybe the kid Jaylen Brown, stunk up the court. Particularly noteworthy stinkers put in by Horford, Olynyk, and Thomas who figured the ignominy from the first half was such that he did not show his face in the second.
Question du jour from all who follow sports is simply this: Are the Cavs that good, or the Celtics that bad.
Despite my dubious wisdom revealed in yesterday's blog, I do not think the Cavs are that good. If heaven has a team, it would not be that good. And the Celtics are not that bad. The Celtics can hit threes, they can play defense, it is just difficult when everything your opponent throws up is a three and is going in. And even LeBron cannot play at this level every night. He has been ridickalus.
I still like the Celtics to win two games in this series--one in Cleveland, and one in Boston before Cleveland closes it out in game 6. Last night, however, was humbling.
But I did pick the under.
Friday, May 19, 2017
pundits not
I was watching a panel of sports pundits last night all opining on how the Cleveland Cavaliers are superior to the Celtics. Not one of the experts thought the Celtics will come close to winning the series. One, a Boston commentator, said flatly as if a contrary notion was absurd: The Celtics will. of course, not win the series, but she thought that it was possible that the Celtics will win one game of the best of seven.
Okay, I think the Cavaliers will also win the series, but to dismiss categorically the Celtics is just foolish and reflects no awareness of history. Yes, the Cavaliers butchered the Celtics on Wednesday night. They hit everything, nobody could stop James, and the Celtics could not drop the ball in the ocean. However, haven't these experts seen in the past how a team that is cold one night can be hot the next and vice versa.
You read it here first. The Celtics will win tonight in game 2. They will also win one of the two games in Cleveland. Here's why.
The Cavaliers have played great in their last seven games. The only stinker that they have had is in the very first game in their first series, when they came within a missed shot at the buzzer from losing to the Pacers. The Cavaliers have not been consistent like this all year. LeBron James may be able to turn it on and off and maybe Kyrie Irving, but the rest of the players are not always that good. They are due for an off night.
Tonight the Cavs will come out flat, not shoot a high percentage, and see a better brand of defense. The Celtics will not be as good as they can be, but will be good enough to win. The spread is Cleveland minus 5.5. The Over Under is 219. I like the Celtics on the money line and then of course against the spread, and to a lesser extent I like the under.
Okay, I think the Cavaliers will also win the series, but to dismiss categorically the Celtics is just foolish and reflects no awareness of history. Yes, the Cavaliers butchered the Celtics on Wednesday night. They hit everything, nobody could stop James, and the Celtics could not drop the ball in the ocean. However, haven't these experts seen in the past how a team that is cold one night can be hot the next and vice versa.
You read it here first. The Celtics will win tonight in game 2. They will also win one of the two games in Cleveland. Here's why.
The Cavaliers have played great in their last seven games. The only stinker that they have had is in the very first game in their first series, when they came within a missed shot at the buzzer from losing to the Pacers. The Cavaliers have not been consistent like this all year. LeBron James may be able to turn it on and off and maybe Kyrie Irving, but the rest of the players are not always that good. They are due for an off night.
Tonight the Cavs will come out flat, not shoot a high percentage, and see a better brand of defense. The Celtics will not be as good as they can be, but will be good enough to win. The spread is Cleveland minus 5.5. The Over Under is 219. I like the Celtics on the money line and then of course against the spread, and to a lesser extent I like the under.
Monday, May 15, 2017
Second Level Effects
In the early nineties, as the various capabilities of new technology rapidly became commonplace, two authors wrote a book that in part addressed what they called Second Level Effects of new technology. The book Connections by Sara Kiesler and Lee Sproull argued that there were efficiency effects of new technology and derivative effects.
For example, an efficiency, or first level, effect of a spell check software program is that people can create documents with fewer embarrassing errors. The efficiency effects of e-mail allow for someone in an organization to send messages instantly to a nearly limitless number of people regardless of geographic location. The first level effects of social networks like facebook allow people to connect and reconnect expanding our circle of acquaintances.
Second level effects are also important to consider. A second level effect of spell check is that some people do not study spelling or that homophones like their, there, and they're can be inserted incorrectly since the spell checker might not be sufficiently sophisticated to realize that, in context, a spelling is inappropriate. E-mail indeed allows for rapid communication, but a second level effect is that some people avoid necessary face to face interaction. Facebook does allow us to connect with others but privacy may be compromised. A few months back a visitor was aghast when we informed her that photographs were displayed on Facebook when she had no idea that these dear personal memories had been shared with, or at least available to, strangers.
I am mostly bemused when technology reflects a person's inconsiderate tendencies. On a bus a while back a fellow was on his phone speaking loudly for 45 minutes conveniently oblivious to those who had to endure his conversation. I am startled when I am in a public restroom and someone in a stall feels there is nothing wrong with engaging in a cell phone chat that can be heard by anyone else using the facilities.
I think we can extend the idea of second level effects of technology to second level effects of behavior. It is obvious to many but not all that our behavior has efficiency effects as well as second level effects. Anyone who has read this blog regularly is familiar with the distinction I make between communication as a transmission phenomenon and communication as a constitutive phenomenon. From a transmission perspective the goal of communication is to make sure that a message gets from sender to receiver. We evaluate communicators on the basis of how adept they are at reaching their receivers. The transmission perspective applies to public speaking as well as interpersonal communication to group interaction--to any communication context. The person who gives the commencement address at graduation should get her or his message across to the graduates. When you speak to your spouse in the morning you want to make sure she or he understands what you are saying to ensure there will be no confusion about whatever issue you wanted to convey. The newscaster needs listeners to receive what is passing for news that day.
But the constitutive perspective is also important. Communication shapes and forms our organizational, family, and interpersonal relationships. We have all heard the cliche "there is no harm in asking"? According to it, if you ask someone if they will do you a favor, there is no harm. But there could be. Ask a peripheral acquaintance, "Can I borrow your pen" and it is innocuous. But consider asking the acquaintance for a lift home when you live 20 miles out of the way. Sure, the acquaintance can say, no, and according to the transmission notion of communication there has been no harm. Message sent and received. Response sent and received.
It is not that simple. The second level effect of the message may leave an impression that can affect subsequent interactions and even make the receiver want to--for evermore-dodge the person who asked.
Long way to get to where I am going here. Our communications and behaviors are not straight lines with only immediate effects. You tell your colleague that he is an idiot, when the colleague has indeed messed up--even though you may be correct and the comment, at the time, warranted--the residual effect of the interaction will linger and infect the future.
Run for office and tacitly accept the endorsements of fringe groups, and there can be second level effects.
In Charlottesville Virginia, the home of the University of Virginia--one of the great universities in the United States--there was a Ku Klux Klan type meeting. In May of 2017. A white supremacist group apparently felt enabled to congregate with torches in a public park.
The second level effects of technology and residual effects of communicative behavior are not always problematic. A second level effect of e-mail is that more people can type now than ever before. A second level effect of Facebook is I am now acquainted with people who might as well have been on another planet previously. But we must be concerned with the second level effects that can have deleterious effects. Responsible citizens cannot ignore the likely second level effects of behavior that superficially may be benign, but is likely to have corrosive ramifications. Contending that you had no idea that there are residual effects of communicative behavior is either conveniently short sighted, or the drivel of a fool.
For example, an efficiency, or first level, effect of a spell check software program is that people can create documents with fewer embarrassing errors. The efficiency effects of e-mail allow for someone in an organization to send messages instantly to a nearly limitless number of people regardless of geographic location. The first level effects of social networks like facebook allow people to connect and reconnect expanding our circle of acquaintances.
Second level effects are also important to consider. A second level effect of spell check is that some people do not study spelling or that homophones like their, there, and they're can be inserted incorrectly since the spell checker might not be sufficiently sophisticated to realize that, in context, a spelling is inappropriate. E-mail indeed allows for rapid communication, but a second level effect is that some people avoid necessary face to face interaction. Facebook does allow us to connect with others but privacy may be compromised. A few months back a visitor was aghast when we informed her that photographs were displayed on Facebook when she had no idea that these dear personal memories had been shared with, or at least available to, strangers.
I am mostly bemused when technology reflects a person's inconsiderate tendencies. On a bus a while back a fellow was on his phone speaking loudly for 45 minutes conveniently oblivious to those who had to endure his conversation. I am startled when I am in a public restroom and someone in a stall feels there is nothing wrong with engaging in a cell phone chat that can be heard by anyone else using the facilities.
I think we can extend the idea of second level effects of technology to second level effects of behavior. It is obvious to many but not all that our behavior has efficiency effects as well as second level effects. Anyone who has read this blog regularly is familiar with the distinction I make between communication as a transmission phenomenon and communication as a constitutive phenomenon. From a transmission perspective the goal of communication is to make sure that a message gets from sender to receiver. We evaluate communicators on the basis of how adept they are at reaching their receivers. The transmission perspective applies to public speaking as well as interpersonal communication to group interaction--to any communication context. The person who gives the commencement address at graduation should get her or his message across to the graduates. When you speak to your spouse in the morning you want to make sure she or he understands what you are saying to ensure there will be no confusion about whatever issue you wanted to convey. The newscaster needs listeners to receive what is passing for news that day.
But the constitutive perspective is also important. Communication shapes and forms our organizational, family, and interpersonal relationships. We have all heard the cliche "there is no harm in asking"? According to it, if you ask someone if they will do you a favor, there is no harm. But there could be. Ask a peripheral acquaintance, "Can I borrow your pen" and it is innocuous. But consider asking the acquaintance for a lift home when you live 20 miles out of the way. Sure, the acquaintance can say, no, and according to the transmission notion of communication there has been no harm. Message sent and received. Response sent and received.
It is not that simple. The second level effect of the message may leave an impression that can affect subsequent interactions and even make the receiver want to--for evermore-dodge the person who asked.
Long way to get to where I am going here. Our communications and behaviors are not straight lines with only immediate effects. You tell your colleague that he is an idiot, when the colleague has indeed messed up--even though you may be correct and the comment, at the time, warranted--the residual effect of the interaction will linger and infect the future.
Run for office and tacitly accept the endorsements of fringe groups, and there can be second level effects.
In Charlottesville Virginia, the home of the University of Virginia--one of the great universities in the United States--there was a Ku Klux Klan type meeting. In May of 2017. A white supremacist group apparently felt enabled to congregate with torches in a public park.
The second level effects of technology and residual effects of communicative behavior are not always problematic. A second level effect of e-mail is that more people can type now than ever before. A second level effect of Facebook is I am now acquainted with people who might as well have been on another planet previously. But we must be concerned with the second level effects that can have deleterious effects. Responsible citizens cannot ignore the likely second level effects of behavior that superficially may be benign, but is likely to have corrosive ramifications. Contending that you had no idea that there are residual effects of communicative behavior is either conveniently short sighted, or the drivel of a fool.
Friday, May 12, 2017
Lamont Cranston
I've watched many playoff basketball games. And I have listened to many others before all playoff games were televised. This may seem odd to a 20, 30, or even 40 something, but there was a time when all playoff games were not televised. I can recall, for example, listening to Knick games in the late 60s when the Knicks--abysmal in the 50s and much of the 60s--started to get good and made the playoffs.
Over time I've seen players have amazing games one night, and just okay games the very next day. There are times when someone who rarely plays, shines, and then disappears for the rest of a series. And there have been superstars who are not themselves consistently.
However, I have never seen a Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde, alpha to omega performance, like what transpired with James Harden this past week. Harden was his usual jaw dropping self throughout games one through four of the Spurs-Rockets series. This continued in the fifth game until the overtime. In the extra period, Harden was awful.
Okay, anyone can have five bad minutes--though the performance was such that you thought an unathletic twin somehow got on the floor. Still, it was only five minutes.
But what happened last night in game 6 is almost not to be believed. Harden played as if someone dropped a quaalude in his water. He was worse than terrible. Harden usually has the ball on every possession and often takes the shot or drives to the hoop himself. Harden did not attempt a field goal in the first quarter last night. Did not take a shot. I just reviewed the play by play for the game. The first quarter is riddled with James Harden made bad pass. James Harden turn over. The only shots he took were from the foul line. It is one thing to miss shots, but another not to take any.
As far fetched as it seems, the first thought I had was that some gangster had him in his pocket. Some pundit thought that perhaps he had suffered a concussion at the end of regulation in game 5--that is how bad he played.
Forget the NBA, even in college or high school games, I have not seen someone-who is typically in control and sometimes unstoppable- not take a shot in an entire quarter or throw the ball away so many times. Could he have run out of gas after playing so many minutes in the regular season? I guess it is possible, but the abrupt transformation is tough to accept.
I recall in the mid 90s, the Knicks played the Rockets in game 7 and a guy named John Starks for the Knicks could not throw the ball in the ocean. He missed nearly all his shots. I just looked it up and he was 2 for 18. I remember watching that game and my thinking then was that they got to take him out--because he was so cold. But the difference between that game and yesterday was that Starks was clearly trying to make baskets. Harden last night was not.
It will be interesting in the next several days to hear the conjecture, and maybe some definitive explanations for what took place.
Over time I've seen players have amazing games one night, and just okay games the very next day. There are times when someone who rarely plays, shines, and then disappears for the rest of a series. And there have been superstars who are not themselves consistently.
However, I have never seen a Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde, alpha to omega performance, like what transpired with James Harden this past week. Harden was his usual jaw dropping self throughout games one through four of the Spurs-Rockets series. This continued in the fifth game until the overtime. In the extra period, Harden was awful.
Okay, anyone can have five bad minutes--though the performance was such that you thought an unathletic twin somehow got on the floor. Still, it was only five minutes.
But what happened last night in game 6 is almost not to be believed. Harden played as if someone dropped a quaalude in his water. He was worse than terrible. Harden usually has the ball on every possession and often takes the shot or drives to the hoop himself. Harden did not attempt a field goal in the first quarter last night. Did not take a shot. I just reviewed the play by play for the game. The first quarter is riddled with James Harden made bad pass. James Harden turn over. The only shots he took were from the foul line. It is one thing to miss shots, but another not to take any.
As far fetched as it seems, the first thought I had was that some gangster had him in his pocket. Some pundit thought that perhaps he had suffered a concussion at the end of regulation in game 5--that is how bad he played.
Forget the NBA, even in college or high school games, I have not seen someone-who is typically in control and sometimes unstoppable- not take a shot in an entire quarter or throw the ball away so many times. Could he have run out of gas after playing so many minutes in the regular season? I guess it is possible, but the abrupt transformation is tough to accept.
I recall in the mid 90s, the Knicks played the Rockets in game 7 and a guy named John Starks for the Knicks could not throw the ball in the ocean. He missed nearly all his shots. I just looked it up and he was 2 for 18. I remember watching that game and my thinking then was that they got to take him out--because he was so cold. But the difference between that game and yesterday was that Starks was clearly trying to make baskets. Harden last night was not.
It will be interesting in the next several days to hear the conjecture, and maybe some definitive explanations for what took place.
Ball
One can never be certain if the public persona generated by assorted media reports accurately reflects the person.
We can actually say this about people who have no media presence as well, to some extent. When we think about work colleagues or anybody with whom we have only sporadic interaction, we can't be sure we know these people well enough to really know them.. Their individual personae is what we construct on the basis of superficial encounters--and these notions may be way off. You might be able to make the case that even in some intimate relationships, partners engage on the basis of perceived or projected images of the other--which can be unrelated to who the persons actually may be.
With that as a disclaimer, let me make some comments about the way I see LaVar Ball, emphasizing that the way I see him has been constructed from media exposure and nothing else.
LaVar Ball is an irresponsible and inconsiderate parent. He is hurting and not helping his son. Finally he is incredibly foolish in his assessment of basketball talent.
For those unfamiliar with Mr. Ball, he is the father of Lonzo Ball, a college basketball player who played for UCLA during his freshman year. Lonzo Ball has decided to skip the remaining three years of college eligibility and begin to play professionally. His dad is, outrageously, promoting his son. Mr. Ball has said that Lonzo is better than Michael Jordan and needs to seek no council from Kobe Bryant. He also made the comment that there was no way UCLA would be able to be successful in the NCAA tournament because there were too many white players on the team. (This is a particularly strange comment given that his son is biracial).
Let's start with this. Please remember this. I am promising you this. Lonzo Ball will not be a change maker in the pros. He is very good, but so is every player in the NBA. Lonzo Ball will not be that good. If you are an NBA executive and are looking for someone who can catapult your team into a championship contender, don't sell the farm for Lonzo Ball. Lonzo is a kid. He is 6' 6" and 190 pounds. Just for comparison, Jae Crowder on the Celtics is 6 6 and 235 pounds and not the Pillsbury Doughboy. Lonzo Ball is going to get bounced around like a pin ball when he drives to the basket. He has great court vision, but he is nothing extraordinary in terms of shooting or passing. Claiming that Lonzo Ball is better than Michael Jordan is just beyond belief. Jordan is probably collecting social security now and could defeat Ball in a one on one game ten times out of ten.
Even if I am wrong about his talent, what kind of father puts pressure on his son, like LaVar Ball is putting on Lonzo. You compare him to Michael Jordan, say he is good enough so that he does not have to listen to Kobe Bryant. What if Lonzo, as I predict, looks outclassed when he comes to the pros. Let's say Lonzo is better than I think he is, but gets off to a slow start, how will the enormous pressure his father has put on him, affect his basketball potential?
LaVar Ball played in college and also played professional (American) football in Europe. He was not a special player in either sport. It seems to me that his antics regarding his son reflect an attempt to obtain the attention he did not secure as a professional athlete. His behavior is remarkably short sighted and unfair to his offspring. Mr. Ball has become a cartoon character. If he wants to land in the funny papers as a caricature nobody can stop him, but he has the responsibility not to drag his kid down with him.
We can actually say this about people who have no media presence as well, to some extent. When we think about work colleagues or anybody with whom we have only sporadic interaction, we can't be sure we know these people well enough to really know them.. Their individual personae is what we construct on the basis of superficial encounters--and these notions may be way off. You might be able to make the case that even in some intimate relationships, partners engage on the basis of perceived or projected images of the other--which can be unrelated to who the persons actually may be.
With that as a disclaimer, let me make some comments about the way I see LaVar Ball, emphasizing that the way I see him has been constructed from media exposure and nothing else.
LaVar Ball is an irresponsible and inconsiderate parent. He is hurting and not helping his son. Finally he is incredibly foolish in his assessment of basketball talent.
For those unfamiliar with Mr. Ball, he is the father of Lonzo Ball, a college basketball player who played for UCLA during his freshman year. Lonzo Ball has decided to skip the remaining three years of college eligibility and begin to play professionally. His dad is, outrageously, promoting his son. Mr. Ball has said that Lonzo is better than Michael Jordan and needs to seek no council from Kobe Bryant. He also made the comment that there was no way UCLA would be able to be successful in the NCAA tournament because there were too many white players on the team. (This is a particularly strange comment given that his son is biracial).
Let's start with this. Please remember this. I am promising you this. Lonzo Ball will not be a change maker in the pros. He is very good, but so is every player in the NBA. Lonzo Ball will not be that good. If you are an NBA executive and are looking for someone who can catapult your team into a championship contender, don't sell the farm for Lonzo Ball. Lonzo is a kid. He is 6' 6" and 190 pounds. Just for comparison, Jae Crowder on the Celtics is 6 6 and 235 pounds and not the Pillsbury Doughboy. Lonzo Ball is going to get bounced around like a pin ball when he drives to the basket. He has great court vision, but he is nothing extraordinary in terms of shooting or passing. Claiming that Lonzo Ball is better than Michael Jordan is just beyond belief. Jordan is probably collecting social security now and could defeat Ball in a one on one game ten times out of ten.
Even if I am wrong about his talent, what kind of father puts pressure on his son, like LaVar Ball is putting on Lonzo. You compare him to Michael Jordan, say he is good enough so that he does not have to listen to Kobe Bryant. What if Lonzo, as I predict, looks outclassed when he comes to the pros. Let's say Lonzo is better than I think he is, but gets off to a slow start, how will the enormous pressure his father has put on him, affect his basketball potential?
LaVar Ball played in college and also played professional (American) football in Europe. He was not a special player in either sport. It seems to me that his antics regarding his son reflect an attempt to obtain the attention he did not secure as a professional athlete. His behavior is remarkably short sighted and unfair to his offspring. Mr. Ball has become a cartoon character. If he wants to land in the funny papers as a caricature nobody can stop him, but he has the responsibility not to drag his kid down with him.
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
There is such tsuris
Yesterday the bad news was that despite wearing a decent suit I had neglected to put on my belt before I left home. When I got out of the car I realized I was belt-less. The worse news was that my pants had no trouble remaining up--reflecting the recent expansion of my girth.
This should be the most terrible thing that happens to me--an increase in circumference.
My mother's refrain when she heard stories of woe from and about others was, "There is such tsuris in the world." She would shake her head and say again, "Such tsuris."
Tsuris is a Yiddish word that means, roughly, heartache or sadness. It is the opposite of nachas which means joy. The birth of a grandchild brings the grandparent nachas. (If the grandchild grows up to be a Republican there is tsuris).
Anything is Possible is a sequel to Elizabeth Strout's novel, My Name is Lucy Barton. Strout is the author of the brilliant Olive Kitteridge. Anything is Possible is not as good as that novel, but not many books are. It is also not as good as Lucy Barton. That said, it is still a good read.
The novel is essentially a collection of stories about people who are somehow connected to Lucy Barton. In the earlier novel Lucy is in a New York hospital after some complications from an appendectomy. Her mother from the midwest comes to visit her. During her visits and flashbacks to childhood, we learn how poor the Barton family had been and how, in addition to the actual hunger, the family was emotionally malnourished.
In Anything is Possible the reader is taken to the area where Lucy grew up. We meet her brother, sister, cousins--who had been even poorer, some classmates, the janitor from her high school and assorted others. The characters in these stories have tsuris. They have, in fact, "gehoketh" tsuris, which means real bad tsuris. (Literally "chopped up" tsuris).
The brother and sister have holes in their hearts from the upbringing. A classmate, now a guidance counselor and widow, is hauling around the memory of coming home one day from school as a child and discovering her mother "in flagrante delicto" with one of her teachers. A man who had been relatively affluent loses his livelihood in a fire and becomes the janitor in the public schools. We learn of an actress whose childhood was affected by her mother and father's unnatural marriage, and yet another woman who has made peace with a marriage to a man who rents out rooms to women where cameras are installed so that he can stare at these renters as they use the toilet and shower. A Vietnam vet has an affair which, if the war did not do this already, all but destroys him. The cousins can recall a childhood where they frequented dumpsters in order to find something to eat.
Lots of tsuris. Lucy has gotten out. She is a successful writer in New York. When she returns to visit with her siblings we see clearly that she is still scarred but apparently has been able to function. The janitor also is living happily despite the financial disaster. The cousins have carved out a piece of this life that has allowed them a degree of happiness.
The point of the novel is in the title. Anything is Possible. Despite tsuris. Even gehoketh tsuris.
This should be the most terrible thing that happens to me--an increase in circumference.
My mother's refrain when she heard stories of woe from and about others was, "There is such tsuris in the world." She would shake her head and say again, "Such tsuris."
Tsuris is a Yiddish word that means, roughly, heartache or sadness. It is the opposite of nachas which means joy. The birth of a grandchild brings the grandparent nachas. (If the grandchild grows up to be a Republican there is tsuris).
Anything is Possible is a sequel to Elizabeth Strout's novel, My Name is Lucy Barton. Strout is the author of the brilliant Olive Kitteridge. Anything is Possible is not as good as that novel, but not many books are. It is also not as good as Lucy Barton. That said, it is still a good read.
The novel is essentially a collection of stories about people who are somehow connected to Lucy Barton. In the earlier novel Lucy is in a New York hospital after some complications from an appendectomy. Her mother from the midwest comes to visit her. During her visits and flashbacks to childhood, we learn how poor the Barton family had been and how, in addition to the actual hunger, the family was emotionally malnourished.
In Anything is Possible the reader is taken to the area where Lucy grew up. We meet her brother, sister, cousins--who had been even poorer, some classmates, the janitor from her high school and assorted others. The characters in these stories have tsuris. They have, in fact, "gehoketh" tsuris, which means real bad tsuris. (Literally "chopped up" tsuris).
The brother and sister have holes in their hearts from the upbringing. A classmate, now a guidance counselor and widow, is hauling around the memory of coming home one day from school as a child and discovering her mother "in flagrante delicto" with one of her teachers. A man who had been relatively affluent loses his livelihood in a fire and becomes the janitor in the public schools. We learn of an actress whose childhood was affected by her mother and father's unnatural marriage, and yet another woman who has made peace with a marriage to a man who rents out rooms to women where cameras are installed so that he can stare at these renters as they use the toilet and shower. A Vietnam vet has an affair which, if the war did not do this already, all but destroys him. The cousins can recall a childhood where they frequented dumpsters in order to find something to eat.
Lots of tsuris. Lucy has gotten out. She is a successful writer in New York. When she returns to visit with her siblings we see clearly that she is still scarred but apparently has been able to function. The janitor also is living happily despite the financial disaster. The cousins have carved out a piece of this life that has allowed them a degree of happiness.
The point of the novel is in the title. Anything is Possible. Despite tsuris. Even gehoketh tsuris.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
