Creativity and Play

I just finished Richard P. Feynman's Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman, a book of anecdotes by a great physicist. The tone of the book was off-putting at first. I felt I was being subjected to a precocious child who had never learned to stop — he needed to delight and impress incessantly — without mercy for his audience. He seemed a tiresome chattering braggart.

Even though this is a book of verbal anecdotes, the conversational tone he adopts is itself a bit over the top — he seemed to want to seen as just another guy — except he won the Nobel Prize for Physics. He delighted in going against type; he loved provocation, feeling safe in that his narrowly focused superior intellect, or friends of his superior intellect, would bail him out if things got too tough. He is something of a dummy about art and its meanings, but his self-assertions still landed him a show of his work. I never could find any online examples of his paintings and drawings so I have to suspend judgment as to how accomplished he was. He didn't seem to have the mindset, the soul of an artist, but he was an intensely creative individual nevertheless.

As I read I changed my mind somewhat about Feynman. Feynman uses his anecdotes as a series of intellectual morality plays. He is explaining values he has and lessons he has learned through conversational stories; he was an inventive individual who loved to solve puzzles. A simple skill which increased exponentially as he aged — the difference between him and most people — he continued to grow; as an adult he was solving problems involving the inner workings of sub-atomic particles. The Feynman diagrams posited that diagrams might be more relevant, even more “true”, than the equations which they were designed to represent; these diagrams have been enormously useful in investigating the mysterious reaches of minute reality.

Feynman was open to the wisdom of the creative spirit: when he was feeling flat, he realized that play, the glue of the exploratory human spirit, had led him to his most serious and productive concerns:

It was effortless. It was easy to play with these things. It was like uncorking a bottle: Everything flowed out effortlessly. I almost tried to resist it! There was no importance to what I was doing, but ultimately there was. The diagrams and the whole business that I got the Nobel Prize for came from that piddling around with the wobbling plate.

Edna O'Brien

I've been reading Philip Roth's Shop Talk. This is Roth's attempt at a more personal and intensely focused Paris Review series of interviews. His seriousness, and the quality of writers with whom he speaks, makes the book substantial in a way few books are these days.

His interview with Edna O'Brien had a particular force, because O'Brien is such a clear and forthright individual. She seems to have the strength of truth-telling always at her side.

Roth recounts the epigraph of her novel Mother Ireland, a quotation from Beckett:

Let us say before I go any further, that I forgive nobody. I wish them all an atrocious life in the fires of icy hell and in the execrable generations to come.

O'Brien doesn't make nice, but says: “I picked the epigraph because I am, or was, especially at that time, unforgiving about lots of things in my life, and I picked somebody who said it more eloquently and more ferociously than I could say it.”

Roth asked her about slant in writing: “You write about women without a taint of ideology or, as far as I can see, any concern with taking a correct position.” Edna O'Brien answers:

The correct position is to write the truth, to write what one feels regardless of any public consideration or any clique. I think an artist never takes a position either through expedience or umbrage. Artists detest and suspect positions because you know that the minute you take a fixed position you are something else — you are a journalist or you are a politician. What I am after is a bit of magic, and I do not want to write tracts or to read them…”

O'Brien's estimate of greatness: “In the constellation of geniuses, [Joyce] is a blinding light and father of us all. (I exclude Shakespeare because for Shakespeare no human epithet is enough.)”

Tech Woes

The MacBook looks as though it might be a promising candidate for a new laptop but the build quality has been an issue for some. People are reporting the power supply and fan are noisy and make what some have described as cow-like sounds. There is also an issue where the battery gets too hot and warps the case. I mention all this simply to pay tribute to one of the funniest headlines I've read in a long time. IT Inquirer wrote:

“Woes pile up for the Apple MacBook: Mooing laptop now inflates”

"For Nature Cannot Be Fooled"

Never express yourself more clearly than you think.
—Neils Bohr

What is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth.
—RP Feynman

English Lessons

[ via Eric Meyer ]

” Another Segment of Zuiikin English. At the end of the 30 min program, the girls review all of the English exercises in one scene.”

Gallery Update

Just updated the Selected Works On Paper gallery. The permalink is on the navigation column to the left.

Check out updated gallery of works on paper.

SketchUP

I've never played a video game in my life but Google SketchUp is as addictive as I imagine video games would be. Just can't stop. Download a copy, it is free and fun.

(I never could get the shadows to meet the base.)

The Real Late Night

Instead of crashing at 11 or 12 at night my schedule has drifted into 1 and 2 as I try to complete five things at once. So when I get to the late night snack and switch on the kitchen TV, it could be 1 AM. Late night TV is a world unto itself. It has the feeling of the beginnings of TV — just the basics. In the early days they couldn't do much, didn't know how to, didn't have the technology — so the implementation was baseline. Now, late night TV talk shows don't have the money — so it is still pretty basic. No androids in diffused sets with Stepford perfection on late night TV. You get likable funny guys like Conan and Ferguson.

So I had on Craig Ferguson when Sara Rue, an actress I had never heard of, was introduced. Sara is cute, young, with her baby-fat still manifest. But behind the scenes Nature is working full bore on the evolutionary imperative. Sara was ripe and exuding pheromones. Clothe that package in her version of a Coco Chanel little black dress and you have a nubile princess.

She sat herself down, Ferguson asked a question, and as she was answering, his eyes began to wander over the, er, landscape. In the midst of answering she stopped and said, “What are you looking at?” She was peeved, not angry, but it was funny. Ferguson, startled, like a guy with a little too much beer having just had a bucket of cold water dumped over him said, (I'll paraphrase and compress): “I'm sorry, I was listening. But hey, I'm a man. What am I supposed to do, shutter my vision?” This might sound as though it was a contentious moment, but it was more a reveal of mutual surprise and honesty. Ferguson even said later, “I can't believe you said that on national TV.”

Sara Rue is still young enough to be exploring her attractiveness and the confusions that go with it. It was all pretty funny and real.

Entourage

We've been watching season 2 of the HBO show Entourage. Entourage is a twenty-something-male princess fantasy. Everybody loves and wants to give something, or themselves, to the main character Vince. Vince is a stand-in for the producer, Mark Wahlberg, whose story this is. It's an entertaining, fiercely shallow show. When Vince isn't beating off girls who take one look and just can't resist, he is resolving the issues of his traveling family of ne'er-do-well pals, like a benevolent daddy. Nothing ruffles his feathers, because he is a proxy for the producer, and he is supposed to look good.

This might be unfair to Wahlberg, who in interviews seems to be a pretty pleasant, centered guy — maybe he does have his feet on the ground. I remember years ago Howard Stern had lunch with Wahlberg, which was then recounted on Stern's show. Stern's account unwittingly made the dynamic of the meeting plain: Stern was his usual competitive, narcissistic self — at the lunch he was sucking the head of his girlfriend as high-display for Wahlberg. Stern wanted to show he gets some too. That's why we love the Howtch — his insecurity born on his sleeve like a commemorative ribbon. But Wahlberg seemed, from reports, to take it in his stride, saying, “I wish I had what you have” to salve Howard's transparent neediness. It seemed a clever, appropriate and mellow response to what could have been offensive — an in-your-face display when you were supposed to be having lunch with someone you just met.

There are a few actors on the show whom I don't care for, but Piven, Kevin Connolly as the manager Eric, and one of the guys in the group around Vince, Jerry Ferrara as Turtle, are good actors and bring something to their roles. The titillation of a stream of pretty women, semi-clad and usually so available you barely have to say hello, in combination with a putative look inside the mechanism of the Hollywood machine (rumor has it that the show is popular amongst Hollywood insiders), keeps you semi-amused, as you do other things and let the show wash over you.

Freeman Dyson

Freeman Dyson is a smart and decent man. A noted physicist, from his writing clearly a gentle soul, he has written quietly balanced and thoughtful articles about the largest of issues.

Dyson is contending with an especially substantial issue in this review of a book by scientist Daniel Dennett, which attempts to assess religion and its effects from a scientist's viewpoint.

Dyson shifts from nuances relating to the value of religion in its social value; he glides into current concerns about terrorism, pointing to studies that indicate that many terrorists act more to affirm their group membership than out of a commitment to their ideology. He later advocates that we “understand” the terrorists — a familiar marker often indicating that the interlocutor doesn't understand at all; Dyson advocates we understand the very ideology he says is not a principal motivation for terrorist acts, and that we appreciate the collegial motivations amongst the co-conspirators.

I believe that … If we wish to understand the phenomenon of terrorism in the modern world, and if we wish to take effective measures to lessen its attraction to idealistic young people, the first and most necessary step is to understand our enemies. We must give respect to our enemies, as courageous and capable soldiers enlisted in an evil cause, before we can understand them.

What does Dyson mean by, “…idealistic young people”? Why isn't Dyson jarred into sentience as he writes what to me is the morally incoherent phrase “… courageous and capable soldiers enlisted in an evil cause”? How do you respect people who want to destroy you born of a fascistic belief in their superiority? Where is the idealism and courage in that?

Dyson's belief, really a kind of genteel yearning, for drawing room discussions amongst decent people, is a wonderful fantasy, but a dangerous one in these times. Knowing our enemy is what we need to do — not understand them.

House of Confusion

There are so few good critics on the NYT. William Grimes is one of them. His review of House of War is a model of morally centered, balanced, sharply wrought assessment.

The book under review is a peculiar book Grimes tells us. A book that hysterically deplores American power — almost to the point of implying that the wrong side won in the cold war. Everything and anything is better than America to the writer, James Carroll:

Always, the Soviet Union is seen as a willing partner for peace, driven into a corner and forced to react defensively by an American government bent on gaining nuclear superiority. (Eastern Europe was acquired, in Mr. Carroll's view, by accident, not design.)

All American apprehensions are either “paranoid” or “hysterical.” All United States arms control proposals and foreign-policy ventures are duplicitous. And continue to be. Today Iran with nuclear weapons is not a threat. “When it comes to nuclear danger, Washington is by far the graver problem,” he writes.

James Carroll, the son of an FBI agent, is working out some problem with pops:

The personal connection makes “House of War” a strange hybrid, part history and part autobiographical psychodrama. Mr. Carroll makes much of the coincidence that he and the Pentagon were born in the same week. It would be too much to say that the building embodies the cold, remote, all-powerful parent who never gave him love or approval, but in an imagined conversation he tells his young self that he will go on to write a book and that “that book will be your long-delayed conversation with your father.”

Carroll is paradigmatic of the ideologues of our time, who have squandered their intelligence, credibility and integrity. The toxic ideological zeitgeist draws people like Carroll out of the woodwork. They can't figure out who the good guys are…

(It was just announced on TV that the real good guys have finally gotten the psychopath al-Zarqawi.)

Seinfeld Xtras, Part 2

A few remaining comments about the Xtras on the Seinfeld DVDs (actors denoted by character's name):

• I think the benevolent glow I associate with the show had more to do with Seinfeld than anyone else. By stepping back and letting everyone share the limelight Seinfeld made the show better. His generosity of spirit — a surprising thing to say about a performer in the cynical world of stand-up — pervaded the show. He didn't always have to say the funniest line. He was willing to be the target of jokes, or a set-up, or absurd.

• The policy of the show was that the writer whose episode was being filmed was made part of the entire process; allowing them into all the stages of production — helping them to, perhaps someday, do a show of their own. The only sitcom that did that.

• The most pleasant commentators to listen to were Elaine and George. They really enjoyed watching the shows again and were in perfect rhythm with what was being shown — their comments didn't distract, but adorned.

• Kramer, as a commentator, didn't work. Kramer's a wonderful performer, but he seems, in real life, either not the sharpest knife in the drawer, or so shy he is out of rhythm, unable to engage comfortably in day to day conversation. (It was mentioned that he never went to the night-outs at a nearby restaurant after the show had wrapped for the week. He might just be awkward. Or extremely sensitive and self-protective. Or all of the above. Amazing to talk about shyness in such a supremely confident performer, but it seems fairly common.) Larry Charles, who looks like a rich homeless person, was an interminable bore in his commentary. I don't know what to make of that — he wrote funny scripts.

• Even though Larry Charles came up with some funny things, he, and two writers who were brought in from Letterman, seemed to be responsible for my least favorite episodes; the more over-the-top ones, the sitcom-y ones. I think this is where Larry David's down to earth approach probably saved the show, because Seinfeld said that he liked those over-exaggerated episodes. (Of course, by disposition, Seinfeld's reaction appears to always be positive — like Joyce's Molly Bloom offering up a big yes to experience.) George said he thought those episodes were a “step in the wrong direction”. But like many performers whose values derive principally from popularity, after those over-the-top episodes received great praise and ratings, he changed his mind. George, you were right the first time.

• The physicality of the acting struck me on the DVD's more than when they were aired. Every word had a facial and physical gesture attached. Elaine was brilliantly expressive. George and Kramer and Newman like dancers.

There is hardly a day that goes by but that some odd human behavior or story of an urban dilemma reminds me of a line from Seinfeld. What a great show.

Seinfeld Xtras, Part 1

We've been renting seasons 4 through 6 of Seinfeld, the best seasons, just to see the extras. The commentaries, inside looks, are enough. That's because Seinfeld isn't a show, it is an oasis.

Here are some random reactions, and some simple facts about the show I didn't know (I'll refer to the actors by their character's names):

• Newman, when he couldn't find acting jobs, worked as a private eye. He said that investigatory businesses like to hire actors because “they have no scruples”. Newman as a private eye. It really isn't that much of a reach — his character was used in all sorts of original, surprising ways; they never reduced him to being solely the patsy for fat jokes.

• Jerry Seinfeld was more involved in the writing of the show than I had realized. I thought it was Larry David who did it all. You could paraphrase Arlene Croce about Astaire and Rogers and say Seinfeld gave the show class and Larry David gave the show sex. They would go behind closed doors and polish the material into its final form. One of the writers said they were really hired to provide ideas and a script that would be a jumping off place for the final write by the duo.

• I think one reason Larry David's cable show is funny, but not as funny as Seinfeld, is the way David creates the show. David said that he realized in writing Seinfeld that structuring it was most of the work — the dialog wrote itself if the structure was funny. But I think he is wrong. On David's show he gives the actors the structure of the scene and their intent, but lets them improvise their lines. Comedy is like poetry, so dependent is it on the rhythms of speech. The aid given to timing of well-written lines can't be equalled by an actor's improvisations.

• When we finally hit a commentary that included both Seinfeld and Larry David I thought this would be just great. It turned out it was more like having two dissociated guys sitting behind you in a movie theater, commenting inaudibly but loudly enough to distract, and then cackling, spending most of their time trying to figure out the plot. Go figure — they wrote it and didn't remember the plot. “Now why did he have a cold?” Jerry said about a character who would not shake the hands of someone, causing all sorts of ensuing mayhem. The DVD commentaries were taped sometime after the shows aired — but they don't remember the plot? Jerry and Larry didn't give this commentary their best effort.

• The chemistry on the show was an obvious strong point — the functioning ensemble — it made everyone look good. They genuinely liked one another. George said that when Elaine was brought on-board he was competitive with her, feeling he was second banana. Pretty soon they were all friends and giving each other lines to help each other out.

Another Universe

This online exhibition of Native American art is worth a look. Because the cultural roots of this art is distinct from Western traditions, and obscure to the average viewer, many of the pieces have the human charm of folk art — accompanied by the powerful underpinnings of another culture; which is essentially another universe — a complex interweaving of logic and belief.

Haditha

The discussion Friday about the atrocities in Haditha @ Lehrer sums up much of the underlying thinking in current ideological debate. Shields thinks it is America's rotten core that caused Haditha — the evil use of American power; that we are fighting an illegitimate war that is the same as Vietnam, without good intent, issued from a corrupt society on the wane — and Haditha proves it.

Brooks on the other hand thinks Haditha occurred because of the type of war it is (close to civilian populations, high tech weapons); the fact that atrocities happen in all wars. Brooks feels that Haditha has nothing to do with American values, character, use of power, or the worthiness of the cause in Iraq, which Brooks feels is noble.

MARK SHIELDS: …if these charges are made and confirmed and they're — the sense of the United States, we've always felt that our purposes are noble, our ideals are high. This just goes right to the self-image of the country.

It makes us, in a sense, at moral parity with those that we're fighting. It undermines, obviously, the relations with Iraq itself and its government. You can see its government asserting itself….They're going to have their own investigation. And on top of that, obviously, you've got — if Abu Ghraib was an enlistment incentive for terrorists, this could be a poster for insurgents, that the charge that the United States — this is what they are, they (inaudible) democracy. Actions always speak louder than words. And, finally, for the Marine Corps…

DAVID BROOKS:…we'll have the investigation, but I don't think it says anything about moral parity between the U.S. and its enemies.

I mean, this was an atrocity. What our enemies do is a matter of policy when they do the same thing….I think this says nothing about the American cause, and the American nature, and the nature of the American power…So it's the nature of this kind of fighting. And these things happen when you get this integrated — you don't know who your enemies are. These guys are under tremendous stress, and some of them do horrible things.

Shields isn't on the moral high ground in this dispute with Brooks, but in fact unwittingly makes plain distorted thought processes — for all to see. Whatever his intent, Shields is an enabler.