A few years ago, I elaborated upon my obsession with the number 17. Now that we're in the year 2017, I've been wanted to mark the occasion in some way, though I'm hard-pressed to do so. Allow me to explain:
For the last few years, I've set a broad, sometimes vaguely defined New Year's resolution. In 2015, I resolved to reconnect with old friends and acquaintances; the end result was, for lack of a more thorough explanation, a mixed bag. Last year I resolved to do things I've been putting off for too long; that was a relative success, though I'm now in a position where I'm overextended and maybe showing signs of burnout. Tentatively, my goal for 2017 is to de-clutter: I need to oversimplify, get rid of deadweight and unnecessary things, and figure out my priorities. Between a full time job and forcing myself through grad school, this will not be an easy task.
This August I will turn 33 years old. While I remind myself that age is a number, being a third of a century old is another reminder of my lurching mortality. I'm an adult, and I feel like an adult, but I keep thinking but that the "fun" years of my life are coming to a close. At lot of the aforementioned deadweight is leftover things, assorted remnants from my teens and 20s that I don't need to hold on to anymore. I'm not in a rush to move on per se, but it still feels like its holding me back.
Throughout the year, I'll be posting updates on my progress. Luckily, I'll make some progress selling old sports cards on eBay and cleaning out the back of my closet, and that's just the start of it.
(539)
Showing posts with label nostalgia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nostalgia. Show all posts
Friday, January 6, 2017
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
Through a Sixth Freshman's Eyes
This week and next, millions of high school seniors will be graduating. Some will take a summer off before starting college, while others might take a semester or a whole year to contemplate their options. In any case, they were all born between late 1997 and mid-1998, offering a different perspective of the world than someone who vividly remembers the end of the 20th century (i.e. someone who is now old). With that said, and with all due apologies to Beloit College, here is my sixth annual homemade "Memory List":
...Google has always been a presence on the internet.
...Apple has always had the upper hand on Microsoft.
...if you're into right-wing conspiracies, you haven't had to look much further than the Drudge Report.
...if you're right-wing but not into conspiracies, you haven't had to look much further than Fox News Channel.
...Monica Lewinsky has always been a household name, and for all the wrong reasons.
...the highest-grossing movie of all time was always a film directed by James Cameron (at least, until a few months ago).
...Animal Kingdom has always been an attraction at Disney World.
...there has always been at least one Harry Potter title available in American bookstores...
...or you could just buy a book on Amazon.
...the Chicago Bulls have never won an NBA title.
...Tim Duncan has always played in the NBA.
...Bartolo Colon has always been a Major League pitcher.
...Roger Maris has never owned the Major League single-season home run record.
...NHL players have always been a presence in the Winter Olympics.
..."Seinfeld" has existed only in repeats.
...CBS has never aired "The Wizard of Oz" during May sweeps.
...you never saw Norm Macdonald anchor Weekend Update on SNL.
...Burgess Meredith, Red Skelton, Toshiro Mifune, Chris Farley, Phil Hartman, Lloyd Bridges, Alan Shepard, Dr. Spock, Bella Abzug, Pol Pot, Shari Lewis, Harry Carey, Jack Brickhouse, Sonny Bono, Carl Wilson, Tammy Wynette and Frank Sinatra have always been dead.
Did I forget anything? If so, feel free to mention it in the comments below. (Here's last year's list.) If this post was too much of a gut-punch, I respect that too.
(516)
...Google has always been a presence on the internet.
...Apple has always had the upper hand on Microsoft.
...if you're into right-wing conspiracies, you haven't had to look much further than the Drudge Report.
...if you're right-wing but not into conspiracies, you haven't had to look much further than Fox News Channel.
...Monica Lewinsky has always been a household name, and for all the wrong reasons.
...the highest-grossing movie of all time was always a film directed by James Cameron (at least, until a few months ago).
...Animal Kingdom has always been an attraction at Disney World.
...there has always been at least one Harry Potter title available in American bookstores...
...or you could just buy a book on Amazon.
...the Chicago Bulls have never won an NBA title.
...Tim Duncan has always played in the NBA.
...Bartolo Colon has always been a Major League pitcher.
...Roger Maris has never owned the Major League single-season home run record.
...NHL players have always been a presence in the Winter Olympics.
..."Seinfeld" has existed only in repeats.
...CBS has never aired "The Wizard of Oz" during May sweeps.
...you never saw Norm Macdonald anchor Weekend Update on SNL.
...Burgess Meredith, Red Skelton, Toshiro Mifune, Chris Farley, Phil Hartman, Lloyd Bridges, Alan Shepard, Dr. Spock, Bella Abzug, Pol Pot, Shari Lewis, Harry Carey, Jack Brickhouse, Sonny Bono, Carl Wilson, Tammy Wynette and Frank Sinatra have always been dead.
Did I forget anything? If so, feel free to mention it in the comments below. (Here's last year's list.) If this post was too much of a gut-punch, I respect that too.
(516)
Sunday, October 11, 2015
I, Blockhead
In the past few days, I've noticed a new meme on Facebook. In conjunction with the new "Peanuts" movie coming out in two months, you can create a likeness of yourself in the universe of Snoopy and Charlie Brown. Its a fun but inconsequential way to remind people that even if the comic strip ended over 15 years ago, the Peanuts brand never went away. Though the shelves of Hallmark are still crowded with Snoopy tchtotckes, the movie is a capital way to bring badly-needed fresh blood into the franchise. The brand has lied fallow for so long, there are now high school kids that weren't alive yet when Charles Schulz died; it's never been a cultural touchstone, just a bunch of cute toys.
That's not to say, however that I didn't have the cute toys. As a kid, I had at least one Snoopy doll, a few videotapes of the early '80s Saturday morning cartoon, and a handful of books. My kindergarten teacher was also really into Peanuts, and we bonded over that. (For a time, I even made my own comic strip collections, cut and pasted from the Chicago Tribune, and gave them to her as gifts. Hey, I was eight.) Even though I don't think we owned a copy, "Race for Your Life, Charlie Brown" was one of my all-time favorite movies. By grade school, I had transitioned from picture books to the comic strip collections.
For a strip that was drawn by the same guy with minimal assistance for nearly 50 years, "Peanuts" was the first time I noticed how an artist's work can change and progress with time. A shy farmboy from Minnesota, Charles Schulz was dead set on being a cartoonist at an early age. In 1947, he landed his first opportunity to draw professionally with "Li'l Folks," a single-panel strip that ran weekly in his hometown Minneapolis Tribune and later the St. Paul Pioneer Press. After 2 1/2 years, Schulz felt stifled by the local papers and approached United Feature Syndicate with "Li'l Folks." He agreed to change the strip's name to "Peanuts" (a reference to Howdy Doody's Peanut Gallery) and the rest is history.
Besides expanding from one panel to four, "Li'l Folks" was very much a rough draft of what "Peanuts" would become. The humor was cute but utterly pedestrian. The name Charlie Brown first appeared in the Minnesota strip, but it was applied to several different boys. The anonymous children in the strip were occasionally accompanied by a silent but knowing dog that was the prototype for Snoopy. Schulz submitted a handful of strips to The Saturday Evening Post, which sometimes featured (gasp!) adults. In adopting a four-panel format and leaping head first at a potential national audience, Schulz set certain rules, including limiting the perspective to children and dogs. Woodstock, the loquacious canary that Schulz introduced in the mid-60s, would forever have Snoopy as his confidant and translator. Miss Othmar, heard but never seen, would always have a voice not unlike a muffled trombone.
So why am I so transfixed on the idiosyncrasies of the universe that Charles Schulz created? Not only is "Peanuts" one of the few things I enjoyed in my childhood that holds up, it might actually be more enjoyable in adulthood. When I was younger, I gravitated toward the '70s and '80s strips, which were more gag- and plot-oriented. As an adult, you grow to appreciate the "classic era" (1956 to about 1971 or so) even more. It was sarcastic in an era of sincerity and earnestness, honest in a time of mincing words. Unrequited love and unattainable goals play heavily. In the 1990s, with the strip's dimensions altered to adjust for the dwindling size of the comics page, Schulz had built enough leverage to finally experiment within his strip. Sometimes he reminisced about World War II, discussed faith and philosophy on a more regular basis, and he even dwelled upon his own looming mortality. And yet, it was still extremely personal to the very end, a daily look into Schulz' tormented psyche.
When I do see "The Peanuts Movie" in a few weeks, it will be an intensely personal experience. I can't get through most of the old TV specials without crying, and I haven't seen "Race For Your Life" (despite being a light, slapstick-heavy kids movie) for fear of doing the same thing. I'll probably go the multiplex by myself, buy a ticket, sit in the back row and hope I don't use up all my paper tissue. I want to see this movie in a theater, partially to see if children can still relate to Schulz' little crew of underdogs and eccentrics, but also for closure.
(494)
That's not to say, however that I didn't have the cute toys. As a kid, I had at least one Snoopy doll, a few videotapes of the early '80s Saturday morning cartoon, and a handful of books. My kindergarten teacher was also really into Peanuts, and we bonded over that. (For a time, I even made my own comic strip collections, cut and pasted from the Chicago Tribune, and gave them to her as gifts. Hey, I was eight.) Even though I don't think we owned a copy, "Race for Your Life, Charlie Brown" was one of my all-time favorite movies. By grade school, I had transitioned from picture books to the comic strip collections.
For a strip that was drawn by the same guy with minimal assistance for nearly 50 years, "Peanuts" was the first time I noticed how an artist's work can change and progress with time. A shy farmboy from Minnesota, Charles Schulz was dead set on being a cartoonist at an early age. In 1947, he landed his first opportunity to draw professionally with "Li'l Folks," a single-panel strip that ran weekly in his hometown Minneapolis Tribune and later the St. Paul Pioneer Press. After 2 1/2 years, Schulz felt stifled by the local papers and approached United Feature Syndicate with "Li'l Folks." He agreed to change the strip's name to "Peanuts" (a reference to Howdy Doody's Peanut Gallery) and the rest is history.
Besides expanding from one panel to four, "Li'l Folks" was very much a rough draft of what "Peanuts" would become. The humor was cute but utterly pedestrian. The name Charlie Brown first appeared in the Minnesota strip, but it was applied to several different boys. The anonymous children in the strip were occasionally accompanied by a silent but knowing dog that was the prototype for Snoopy. Schulz submitted a handful of strips to The Saturday Evening Post, which sometimes featured (gasp!) adults. In adopting a four-panel format and leaping head first at a potential national audience, Schulz set certain rules, including limiting the perspective to children and dogs. Woodstock, the loquacious canary that Schulz introduced in the mid-60s, would forever have Snoopy as his confidant and translator. Miss Othmar, heard but never seen, would always have a voice not unlike a muffled trombone.
So why am I so transfixed on the idiosyncrasies of the universe that Charles Schulz created? Not only is "Peanuts" one of the few things I enjoyed in my childhood that holds up, it might actually be more enjoyable in adulthood. When I was younger, I gravitated toward the '70s and '80s strips, which were more gag- and plot-oriented. As an adult, you grow to appreciate the "classic era" (1956 to about 1971 or so) even more. It was sarcastic in an era of sincerity and earnestness, honest in a time of mincing words. Unrequited love and unattainable goals play heavily. In the 1990s, with the strip's dimensions altered to adjust for the dwindling size of the comics page, Schulz had built enough leverage to finally experiment within his strip. Sometimes he reminisced about World War II, discussed faith and philosophy on a more regular basis, and he even dwelled upon his own looming mortality. And yet, it was still extremely personal to the very end, a daily look into Schulz' tormented psyche.
When I do see "The Peanuts Movie" in a few weeks, it will be an intensely personal experience. I can't get through most of the old TV specials without crying, and I haven't seen "Race For Your Life" (despite being a light, slapstick-heavy kids movie) for fear of doing the same thing. I'll probably go the multiplex by myself, buy a ticket, sit in the back row and hope I don't use up all my paper tissue. I want to see this movie in a theater, partially to see if children can still relate to Schulz' little crew of underdogs and eccentrics, but also for closure.
(494)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
