Beware the Candy Corn Fungus!!!

Taken at the Charles Burchfield Art and Nature Center, West Seneca, NY.
And apparently, believe it or not, it actually tastes like chicken!
Beware the Candy Corn Fungus!!!

Taken at the Charles Burchfield Art and Nature Center, West Seneca, NY.
And apparently, believe it or not, it actually tastes like chicken!

Poor guy. Because Hobbes is hurt, he wasn’t allowed on the Buffalo Bills’ team plane to London, even though he is the Official Greyhound of the Buffalo Bills. (Yes he is! Look at his cast! He has to be! I’m sure we’ll get the official notification from the team any day now!)
He went into the vet on Friday to get the leg re-wrapped, which he’ll have to have done weekly moving forward; in five weeks he gets new X-rays to see where he is with healing. So far, he seems more annoyed and frustrated than anything else. He really wants to play with Carla and go running in the backyard, and now we can’t just let him out to do his business, so that’s getting old.
But he seems to be coming right along. Sigh. These dogs….
Once again I have a big pile of tabs open, so here’s some stuff!
:: A Highwater Mark in American Mass Culture
An article about the comic strip Nancy.
Perhaps because of this reputation, Nancy has not been preserved the way other strips across its many eras, such as Peanuts and Krazy Kat, have been. This can partly be explained by the uncomplicated nature of Nancy’s characters; even though Bushmiller drew thousands of strips across decades, you don’t get to know Sluggo over the course of a Nancy bender the way you do Charlie Brown. But beyond that, many comics scholars, notably Bill Blackbeard, arguably the single most effective voice for preserving the often-junked funny pages, famously hated Nancy. The strip is noticeably absent from The Smithsonian Collection of Newspaper Comics, an otherwise authoritative reference book edited by Blackbeard in 1977.
Apparently there’s a new biography of Nancy creator Ernie Bushmiller available, and I’ll have to read it; I’ve always loved the strange minimalism of Nancy, along with its willingness to embrace absurdity and meta-comment, a trait that has been carried on by Olivia Jaimes, the strip’s current pseudonymous creator. Nancy tends to be a love-it-or-hate-it strip, but that’s fine. One thing I’ve noticed over Jaimes’s run is a slow unfolding of a long-term story arc, even as time in the strip doesn’t seem to actually pass. It’s a fascinating effect.
:: The Puzzle That Will Outlast the World
Puzzles are designed to take time, right? And the more complicated a puzzle is, the more time it takes. What if a puzzle was designed to take so much time that you have to pass your unsolved puzzle on to the next generation…and so on…and so on? It turns out that’s actually a thing:
Turns out, the ring puzzle has several cousins in the puzzle family tree. They are called “generation puzzles,” because they take generations to solve. You’re supposed to pass them on to your kids, who pass them on to their kids, who pass them on to their kids, and on and on.
And this writer decided to have a puzzle made that can’t be solved before the heat death of the universe. That’s right:
If you were to twist one peg per second, he explained, the puzzle would take about 40 septillion years. By the time you solved it, the sun would have long ago destroyed the Earth and burned out. In fact, all light in the universe would have been extinguished. Only black holes would remain. Moreover, Oskar said, if only one atom were to rub off due to friction for each move, it would erode before you could solve it.
Wow.
:: Death by Design: Why pedestrian deaths are so high in America.
There is nothing surprising here, but it’s useful to see it all laid out.
There are a few things going on here. We prize enforcement as a solution to traffic safety compared to other countries, and it is ineffective. We have the biggest cars. We also have the most dangerous streets. And our regulatory agencies are, at best, defanged and defunded by comparison.
So if you go to Europe and Japan, where pedestrian fatalities are in decline the whole time ours have been rising, you see narrow roads, you see low speed limits, you see expansive public transit, so fewer people need to drive. You see vehicles that are tested and rated for pedestrian safety. There are high fuel taxes and high fuel-economy standards, so driving a big car is unaffordable, so they’re simply not made and not sold. And they’re rolling out effective autonomous technology like intelligent speed assist, which automatically governs vehicle speeds to the road limit.
I continue to be appalled at how big just the standard-size pickup truck is; every time I see one I think, “How can you possibly need a vehicle like that?!” This country’s relentless prioritizing of the automobile is just another of its deeply insane policy choices that is driving us to ruin.
:: At Least He Got a Job Before He Died
I ask the man standing before me to sign his county welfare referral sheet, and to sit down in the chair in front of my desk. I hand James a pen and paper and ask him to fill out a “vocational test.” Once sent away and scored, this will tell me what jobs he’s best suited to, allowing me to direct James toward the career best suited to his skills and interests. Midway through the test, James starts to speak. “I’ve never had much of a job,” he says, “off the farm that is. But I’ve worked. On the farm. Worked hard too. You have to, when you work on the farm …” My studies hadn’t prepared me for this.
“James,” I reply, “you developed so many valuable and transferable skills on the farm – like dependability and punctuality – skills that would make any employer happy to hire you.” James doesn’t seem excited by the prospect of a career. As I get to know him better over the next few weeks, and as he grows to trust me, I discover it’s because he thinks he has a career already. He’s a farmer. He was born a farmer, and he intends to die a farmer – even though he’s not farming at the moment. As I become more involved in James’ life – meeting his mother, Betty – I piece together why that is.
I’ve been working for over 30 years now, and I’ve had one experience a number of times: someone gets hired at one of my workplaces, and that person goes on to be incredibly ill-suited to the job, or working, or both. Everyone around that person hates them, wants them to go away. Then, finally, the person goes away. A while later I ask whatever happened to them, and I’m told–usually by one of the very coworkers who hated them–“Yeah, they’re off on disability now, living off my tax dollars. Why can’t they get a job?”
And I’m thinking, “They had one.”
One time I remember actually responding along the lines of, “You know, some people in this world aren’t cut out for a clock-punching job, and whenever they get one they make themselves miserable and they make their coworkers miserable. If some of my tax money goes to ensuring that they aren’t starving to death while not being in an actual workplace, I’m fine with that.”
The linked article delves into this: people who aren’t afraid of work but who aren’t good at jobs. Our entire culture is not only built around a worship of work but also equates work with jobs, so not having the latter means you’re bad at the former, and as our entire culture is also based on the idea that life has to be earned, you have to earn your keep, we’re all individuals here who don’t owe nothin’ to nobody, if you’re not working you’re worthless. I have no idea what the solution here is…but we’re going to need a solution soon, because I have not seen anything to dissuade my belief that technology is rapidly pushing us to a spot where there simply won’t be enough work needed done by humans to prop up this job-based shell-game we call “the economy”.
:: A photographer I’ve learned about: Stacy Kranitz, who makes documentary-tradition photographs mostly focused on Appalachia. Her Instagram is full of photos that are raw and open about a region many (including, too often, myself) tend to write off.
:: As a baseball fan in the 1990s, I hated Greg Maddux. Not personally, obviously; in fact, I don’t recall him ever saying much of anything at all publicly. He was just one of those guys who was (a) astonishingly good, (b) so good that he made it look effortless–seriously, Maddux never looked like he was working for it at all, and (c) he did those things playing for a team I detested (the Atlanta Braves, whom I disliked in the 90s more than the Dallas Cowboys, which is saying something). I’m sure Greg Maddux is probably a terrific guy. But oh, how I hated him back then!
Yes, it was pure sports-fan nonsense. If he’d somehow signed with the Pirates, he’d probably be on my shortlist of greatest things ever in the history of anything. That’s just how it works: sometimes you hate that guy because that guy is awesome and he’s doing it not for you but for them, which more often than not means that guy is eating your lunch. But not really, because it’s not your lunch, it’s your favorite team‘s lunch, and hey, you don’t know any of those guys, either.
Sports fandom is riddled with absurdity, innit?
But my God, Greg Maddux was a great pitcher. I just saw this on YouTube and I have to share it: it’s every pitch from a complete game Maddux threw in July of 1997. It doesn’t take that long to watch, because he threw 78 pitches in that game. 78 pitches. In a complete game. That’s not even nine pitches per inning. In this day and age where pitchers are so strictly held to pitch-limits that complete games are becoming a rarity (just 35 complete games across all of MLB in 2022, compared with more than six hundred in 1988), this level of pitching economy, combined with Maddux’s complete lack of body language on the mound, makes this performance look like he’s a Zen master.
Maddux was one of those players who, when they retire, you think, “Do we really need five years to mull over if they’re a Hall-of-Famer?”
Oh, and in looking up some of his stats, I see that since pitch-counts started being tracked in 1988, Maddux holds the record for complete games with fewer than a hundred pitches, with 13 such games. The next most is Zane Smith (who did pitch for the Pirates, so he’s fine in my eyes!), with 7. Wow.

I took this photo last Sunday while walking around the Charles Burchfield Art and Nature Center in West Seneca, one of this region’s underknown gems. It was a stunning morning, because the fog had not yet lifted and therefore the light was soft and diffuse and almost dreamy in places. And I am starting to wonder if maybe I’m starting, just starting, to get the hang of this photography thing.
More photos from that day here.
The spider, dropping down from twig,
Unfolds a plan of her devising,
A thin premeditated rig
To use in rising.And all that journey down through space,
In cool descent and loyal hearted,
She spins a ladder to the place
From where she started.Thus I, gone forth as spiders do
In spider’s web a truth discerning,
Attach one silken thread to you
For my returning.–E. B. White
How it all began, way back when:
Poor doggo!

The other day Hobbes was sprinting around our yard, which he’s done dozens of times since he’s been with us, but this time he cut too close to the fence or maybe he clipped one of our trees or…we don’t know. All we do know is that he suddenly abandoned his run and came back to us, yelping in pain and keeping that leg off the ground. It turns out that he has a small fracture, so no running for him for a while, until we get that healed up! Also, it put the kibosh on our plans to take him on a fall road-trip to Letchworth State Park, which was a favorite thing of ours to do with Cane. Alas, now he’ll likely have to wait until spring to see and smell Letchworth.
This is the first major speedbump we’ve had with Hobbes; in just about every other way he’s been a delight to have around, and he loves Carla and is actually willing to play with her in a way that Cane was often reluctant to do. It’s been interesting to see which traits he shares with Cane and which ones are unique to him–one major one is that getting Cane to go outside and pee was a simple matter of opening the door and letting him out, whereas Hobbes doesn’t seem to have the “marking” thing down, so he’ll end up holding his pee until the bitter end, at which time it takes him up to a minute to actually get things done. Hobbes also eats fruits and veggies (Dude goes apeshit over watermelon!), where Cane’s response to being offered a piece of banana or apple was a look of befuddlement.
Anyway, take a moment to feel sorry for Hobbes. Poor Hobbes!

It is now October and autumn is upon us, which means it’s time for some autumnal music. Autumn, like any subject, means many things to many artists, but it seems to have meant something in particular to Japanese composer Toru Takemitsu, who at the end of his life explored autumn extensively in his music:
Those steps got longer. Attuned to nature and consequently the seasons, Takemitsu became increasingly autumnal, the season he most turned to in his music. In 1973 he wrote “In an Autumn Garden” for the ancient court gagaku orchestra and “Autumn,” a second work for shakuhachi and biwa soloists with orchestra. His last pieces included “A String Around Autumn” (a beautiful, melancholic viola concerto), “Ceremonial: An Autumn Ode” and the most beguiling arrangement of “Autumn Leaves” you’ll ever hear.
In Japan, autumn is a season that echoes both loneliness and gatherings, so exquisitely exhibited in Yasujiro Ozu’s late autumn-themed films. You can’t appreciate one aspect without the other. The cultural journey that began for Takemitsu in “November Steps” led to something far beyond fusion and not exactly integration. He transcended the whole concept of East and West, his oneness being the oneness of our physical reality in which an electron can be both a particle and a wave at the same time. His last solo piano piece, written for Peter Serkin, is “The Ocean Has No East & West.”
I’ve featured Takemitsu’s autumnal music before, and I haven’t come close to exhausting his output on that theme. Here, for another example, is the wonderfully minimalist and meditative Ceremonial: An Autumn Ode.

The Pittsburgh Pirates entered the 1992 season as two-time defending National League East champions. Back then, both the AL and NL had just two divisions, East and West, and the playoffs consisted of a single Championship Series pitting the division winners of each league; the winners of the LCSs would then face off in the World Series. No wild-card teams, no play-in games, no divisional series, just two teams in each league facing each other for the pennant and then the World Series. The Pirates had lost the NLCS in 1990 to the Reds, and then they lost the NLCS again in 1991 to the Atlanta Braves. They lost some talent after 1991–most notably, Bobby Bonilla–and not many people penciled them in for another division crown in 1992.
But somehow, the Pirates managed to surge early to a lead in the division, which they somehow maintained throughout the season, though in the middle of the season, through July and the All-Star break, it looked like their lead was in trouble. The Montreal Expos were breathing down their necks (partly because of the play of Moises Alou, a former top Pirates prospect that the Pirates dealt to the Expos two years earlier for pitching help), the bullpen wasn’t doing terribly well because for all their talent the Pirates never managed to find or develop a true closer, and the rotation was two really good guys (Doug Drabek, Zane Smith) and a few other OK guys.
Meanwhile, down in the minors, there was a first baseman who occupied his downtime by practicing throwing a knuckleball, one of the strangest of all baseball pitches. When this guy was told straight-out that he would, at best, plateau as a position player no higher than AA ball, he decided to try reinventing himself as a pitcher, with the knuckleball as his main pitch. He didn’t have much other than the knuckleball, to be honest; his fastball speed was never above 80mph, so he was never going to overpower hitters at the plate. No, it was knuckleball-to-the-majors or bust. He made the conversion to pitcher and started toiling away in the minors as a full-time pitcher in 1990.
Knuckleball-to-the-majors or bust, indeed.
It worked.
He made it to the majors on July 31, 1992, when the Pirates decided that they needed some help in the rotation. Up came this weird knuckleballer, who proceeded to go 8-1 down the stretch for the Pirates, with a 2.15 ERA; his presence helped fortify the rotation and provided an exciting boost. The Pirates ended up winning the NL East handily, and went on to face the Braves again in the NLCS.
Honestly, it felt like the run was over very quickly; the Braves took a three-games-to-one series lead–but the one game was a complete game thrown by this rookie knuckleballer who managed to out-duel Tom Glavine, one of the game’s best pitchers and a future Hall-of-Famer. Suddenly everybody knew who this kid was.
His name was Tim Wakefield.
The knuckleball, if you’re unfamiliar, is a very strange pitch. Every other pitch–fastball, slider, curveball, you name it–relies on spin to control the ball’s trajectory. The knuckleball, so named because of the weird grip used to throw it, negates all of that. The idea is the throw the ball with no spin, so that the ball might do anything on its trajectory to the plate. If it’s thrown right, it might start off looking like this big fat old baseball moving slowly into the hitter’s zone…and then drop suddenly, one way or the other, as the hitter swings. Or it might look like it’s going to drop and then not drop, so the hitter either doesn’t correct or doesn’t swing at all. Or…you get the idea. The knuckleball is an unpredictable beast, and since most athletes at that level rely on predictable results from muscle memory, nobody wants to work with a pitch that relies on total randomness. In Wakefield’s first game in that NLCS, Braves hitters–a potent lineup including David Justice entering his prime–were made to look like inept Little Leaguers.
The Pirates won Game Five, behind a complete game by pitcher Bob Walk, setting up Tim Wakefield to go again in Game Six, on three days’ rest (the knuckleball’s other main grace is that it puts very little strain on a pitcher’s arm), again facing Tom Glavine. The series was back in Atlanta for the last two games, all Atlanta had to do was win one to return to the World Series. Surely there was no way this rookie knuckleballer was going to beat the future HOFer again.
Tim Wakefield beat Glavine again. He threw another complete game, his second of the NLCS. The Pirates, who had trailed the NLCS 3-1, now tied it up, 3-3, with Game Seven to come.
It didn’t escape anyone’s notice that the Pirates’ three wins had all been complete games. Everyone knew that the bullpen was not great and that all bets were off if the starter got knocked out. Doug Drabek, the staff ace who had won the Cy Young Award two years earlier, went out and shut the Braves down for eight innings.
And then, the ninth inning happened.
I’m not going to relate the specifics of that inning; suffice it to say that the Braves managed to get Drabek out of the game, the Pirates’ lack of a closer reared its ugly head in exactly the worst way at exactly the worst time, some backup “whodat” catcher came up with the pinch-hit of his life, Gold-Glover and Best Ever Barry Bonds couldn’t manage to throw out at home a guy who couldn’t outrun a rock…well, that’s a lot of specifics after I said I wasn’t going to relate any, but the bottom of the 9th of Game Seven of the 1992 World Series might well be the most galling memory of my sports-fan life. That one may actually hurt more than “Wide right”. (Google it, if you don’t get the reference.)
After 1992, the Pirates entered a salary purge. Bonds and others were gone, and when 1993 dawned, there were a bunch of rookies up with the club and Wakefield–who had finished third in Rookie-of-the-Year voting just the year before–found himself anointed as Opening Day starter, staff ace, and all of that. It was probably too much for him, and he spent most of the next two years bouncing back down to the minors before the Pirates gave up after the 1994 season. Wakefield ended up with the Boston Red Sox, where he successfully worked his way back into an MLB rotation–and he was a damned good one. He had a couple of really good years, and a whole bunch of solid years, riding that knuckleball all the way to a career that spanned 19 seasons and saw him make crucial contributions to two World Series winning teams.
Tim Wakefield retired after the 2011 season. He’s a fond memory for Pirates fans, but he’s beloved by Red Sox fans, and with good reason. Yes, I wish the Pirates hadn’t screwed up the team when he was there, but getting out of Pittsburgh was the best thing for him as the 1993 Pirates were starting a run of losing baseball that would last more than two decades. Consider: Wakefield came up as a rookie in 1992 during the Pirates’ playoff run that year…and then he played out his entire 19-year career and retired before the Pirates finally made the playoffs again, two years later.
Tim Wakefield died yesterday, aged 57.
Make sure you read Sheila’s post; she comes at it from a Red Sox fan’s vantage point. No doubt more satisfying than a Pirates’ fan’s remembrance, but that’s how baseball goes. Many players start one place and then blossom in another. It happens, a lot. It certainly happened for Tim Wakefield.
It turned out that he had been suffering a very aggressive form of brain cancer. The public wasn’t even supposed to know about this, but his former teammate, Curt Schilling, decided to take it on himself to ignore Wakefield’s and his family’s wishes and reveal Wakefield’s condition on his podcast last week. (Schilling may well have Ty Cobb to thank for keeping him out of first place for Worst Person To Ever Play Major League Baseball.)
Tim Wakefield is not in the Baseball Hall of Fame, and looking at things from a strictly statistical standpoint, I suppose that’s the right decision…but then, I remember what I wrote last year when quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick retired from the NFL:
But I submit that it’s the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Stats. The Hall of Fame does not exist merely to honor numerical excellence. I’m a storyteller, and stories are why I love the Hall of Fame–in fact, stories are what I love most about sports in general. Who doesn’t love sitting with friends around a beer or two, swapping stories about great games and great players or even players who weren’t so great but had some great moments?
We don’t love sports because of stats. Stats help and they’re fun in themselves, but stats aren’t what connect us to sports at the most basic level. Stories are why we connect with sports: stories that we can share, stories that we recall collectively, stories that bind us together in fandom either in love for this team or, yes, hatred for that team or player, the one that always drives in the knife.
I stand by that. Yes, baseball is about numbers, probably moreso than any other sport; when you play that many games in a season and when there have been that many seasons–more than a hundred of them!–then numbers become part of the way we talk about the game more than for any other games. But still, numbers aren’t everything. Numbers offer a shorthand to talking about the game, a way of quantifying greatness…but they don’t capture the game. As I wrote in another post:
You can’t look at a box score and tell how blue the sky was that day, or what it smelled like in the park because maybe the breeze was coming from the lake or the industrial park the other way (in Buffalo, with the cereal plants downtown, it often smells of Cheerios). A box score won’t tell you how scuffed up the first baseman’s jersey is after several close plays, or how the catcher is still trying to work off the gimpy ankle from that play at the plate last Tuesday night. The box score won’t tell you the crowd’s mood: Are they giddy and jubilant, or are they kind of grumblingly negative because the team’s having a rough season and they’re sarcastically cheering the guy hitting .197 who just managed to leg out a weak grounder safely to first?
The box score won’t tell you if the players are attacking an early season game with vigor, or if they are visibly just playing out the last few weeks of the schedule, mired in fifth place and just wanting nothing more than to go home and rest for about a month. The box score will tell you that a particular player homered in the sixth, but it won’t tell you that he was on a hot streak and he came up against a tiring pitcher who probably should have already been pulled and who had of late been surrendering homers to right-handed hitters at a surprising rate for a guy who, up to a few weeks before, had been almost unhittable.
Numbers are great and important and useful…but they are also a flattening force, a force that tends to flatten out story. A baseball player who collects more than 3000 career hits is almost guaranteed a spot in the Hall of Fame…but is that all that player does? All I really know about Robin Yount is that he hat 3000 hits in his career. That’s numbers: for me they reduce a Hall of Fame player to a guy who had roughly 150 hits a year over his 20-year career.
But, what if I ask a person who has been a Milwaukee Brewers fan their whole life, “Hey! Tell me about Robin Yount?” Then, I’m not going to hear about 3000 hits. Then, I’m going to hear stories.
Sport isn’t just numbers, it’s also stories. I think that’s why we follow sport so adamantly as a species–well, partly, anyway. I don’t want to discount numbers, after all. But numbers aren’t the whole story.
Yes, I stand by all of that, as well. One common thing that I hear often in Hall of Fame discussions when players come up whose statistical accomplishments seem to make them a borderline candidates is, “Can you tell the story of the sport without mentioning this person?” And I suppose, depending on how deep you want to go, maybe you can tell the story of Major League Baseball, or the last thirty years of it, without mentioning the Tim Wakefields of the game…but it’s the Tim Wakefields of the game who flesh out the stories, who make them live. Every sports fan talks about their team’s Hall-of-Famers…but I wonder if it’s the not-quite-HOF guys that sports fans actually prefer to talk about. I wonder if they’re the ones whose stories summon up those knowing smiles and the twinkles in the eyes of the people who know.
I’ll always be a stories-over-stats person. It’s in my nature. And though he may not be in the Hall of Fame, but Tim Wakefield is in mine.
For the first time in my life, I own a pair of Levi’s.
Overalls, of course.

The fit on these is damned near perfect! I knew these were out there but I always assumed they weren’t my size, until someone on eBay sold a pair with pictures of the measurements, demonstrated with an actual yardstick. At that point I thought, “Hmmm….”
And I love the burgundy color! Men’s overalls are almost exclusively blue, brown, or Hickory stripe these days. Those are all lovely colors, but this will be very welcome once we get to sweater season.
Meanwhile, another eBay seller had a pair of vintage Hickory stripe overalls by Key up for sale. I resisted these, since I already own two…but these had one nifty feature in particular: the elastic shoulder straps. On my other two pairs, the straps are Hickory stripe denim all the way down, so these looked really neat. I put a “watch” on them on eBay, figuring that someone else would beat me to the punch.
They lasted for something like three weeks.
“Fine,” I said. I actually got them about a month ago, and I’ve worn them a couple of times since, but I planned to wear them on our annual trip to Ithaca, NY for the Apple Harvest Festival. Yes, I plan my annual Ithaca outfit weeks, or even months, before the actual trip, because I’m geeky like that. The outfit was a new navy-blue Renaissance Faire shirt with those very vintage Key overalls, and wouldn’t you know it…I got three different compliments on the shirt, the overalls, and the entire outfit yesterday! That made me happy as a clam.



More on our Ithaca trip to come…but for now, I note that I saw more than a dozen people in overalls while we were at the Festival. If that’s not a sign from the heavens telling me that Ithaca is where we need to be, I don’t know what is.
Why write bad reviews?
Roger asked me an interesting question via email:
This was in response to a comment I left on his post in which he talked about “reaction videos”, which he’s not a huge fan of but which I actually enjoy greatly. Here’s an excerpt of what he says:
And here’s part of my comment:
Actually, that is my entire comment. Why excerpt myself? Sheesh!
Anyway, the question led us to discussing bad reviews, when they’re appropriate to write, and so on. Roger noted his own negative experience at a recent concert he attended, and it got me thinking about why I avoid writing bad reviews.
Well, I generally don’t write bad reviews for a number of reasons, so let’s run through them! These are in no particular order.
1. I avoid writing bad reviews because I can avoid writing bad reviews.
I’m not a professional, or even an amateur, critic; I have no real obligation to review anything that I don’t want to review, and usually I’m much more motivated to write a positive piece about something I loved than a negative one about something I didn’t. Now, I wasn’t always this way, and if you really want to, you can find a lot more negativity from me probably in the ancient archives of this site, or if you really want, you can track down my Usenet postings, though I have no idea how you’d go about doing that. But why do I mostly choose not to write bad reviews? Well:
2. Writing bad reviews doesn’t make me feel good.
There are some critics, pro and amateur and self-appointed, who obviously get a visceral thrill out of being negative. And yes, there are times when negativity helps produce some good writing! But generally, I don’t get a good feeling from having ripped some work, no matter what it is, to shreds. And I am a firm believer in “Do what makes you feel good and don’t do what doesn’t.” If you’re a pro or if you can write negatively without feeling bad about it, fine! I’m not in either of those camps, though.
Now, reading bad reviews by professionals is something I’ll enjoy doing, sometimes especially if they’re negatively reviewing something I think is terrific. It’s fun to challenge my own thoughts or analyze theirs, sometimes. And sometimes the bad reviews are a delight, such as those by Roger Ebert, who really had a special way with movies he didn’t like. But there are other critics out there whose negative reviews have a mean and sadistic feel to them; those critics I tend to ignore completely. (John Simon is a good example here.)
3. There are enough people writing negative reviews in the world already.
Sometimes the chorus really doesn’t need another voice.
4. Bad reviews require you to know your shit.
Yes, all reviews require this, but it seems to me that bed reviews require it more, if you want to be taken seriously. You have to know the history of the genre of the thing you’re reviewing, you have to know what context it is aimed for, you have to know what the artist is trying to achieve, and so on. It’s not enough to be able to artfully say that a thing is bad; you have to be able to describe and illustrate why the thing is bad. Again, if you want to be taken seriously in your positive writings you have to do this stuff too, but it’s easier to be motivated to really plumb the depths of why I love a thing than why I do not. In terms of James Bond movies: I would be much happier to prattle on for an hour about why I love On Her Majesty’s Secret Service than to talk for sixty seconds about why I dislike Live and Let Die.
5. If I don’t like something, I don’t finish it. And fairness dictates that I don’t review something without having experienced all of it.
This is mainly about books and music. If a book or an album or a classical work or whatever isn’t doing it for me, I put it away and don’t write about it. I think it’s wildly unfair to assign a star rating on Goodreads to a book I didn’t finish, which is why I don’t do that. Many folks over there would disagree with me on this; I know quite a few who rank “DNF” books (Did Not Finish) with one star, which then gets added into that book’s rating average. I have a real problem with assigning a rating of any kind to a book I did not finish (or an album I stopped listening to, or a movie I turned off, or whatever). What I might do is note why I put something aside, if there is a specific reason (I once started a graphic novel that opened with a dog being killed, and that was it for me), but more often than not, I can’t put my finger on something specific that turned me off and it’s more of a “mood” thing.
And that’s not even taking into account the fact that many books that have become beloved to me over the years were books I laid aside the first time I tried reading them. Bad reviews feel “permanent” in a way that I don’t like.
So, back to Roger’s question: How do I decide to actually write a bad review? It comes down to completeness and conviction, I guess. If I grapple with an entire work or something and I don’t like it and I’m pretty sure of why, then yes, I might very well give my thoughts. If it’s something I’m known to generally know well and have opinions of, then the chances might go up…say, a new Star Wars or James Bond movie comes out that I end up disliking. Or I may attend a concert that doesn’t work for me…or a particularly favorite author has a book that I think is a clunker. But honestly, these days? More often than not I might just note “This didn’t do it for me,” and move on.
I’m currently working on a book of essays about Star Wars, much of which is culled from the many years’ worth of posts I’ve written on this site and its predecessor. But I’m about to run into a problem when I have to write about The Rise of Skywalker…which is a movie I seriously disliked. The problem? I never wrote about it here. A Star Wars movie that so frustrated me that I never blogged about it. So I’m going to have to watch the damned thing again and come up with new thoughts…
…but…
…what if I end up liking it?
(I won’t.)