Lebron James Is Such A...

This morning the funny folks over at Deadspin published two articles. One titled "Lebron James is a Cocksucker" and one titled "Counterpoint: Lebron James is Not a Cocksucker." You see where it's going. Both articles amusing in their own ways, and they got me thinking.
So, since everyone is doing it, so I guess it's my turn to jump off the bridge and offer my thoughts about Lebron James. First of all, to Cleveland fans: Shut up! Shut your ignorant faces! This is basketball. This is a sport that would be nothing without the morals instilled in it (if there are any morals at all) by American capitalism. It's all about money, sex, and performance. That's why people watch it. They don't watch it out of some odd attraction to this so-called moral high ground that Cleveland and its fans pride themselves in possessing. You are not superior to the rest of the country. No one cares about you. That's why you are Cleveland.
Secondly, to Lebron: Miami? You do realize that with Bosh and Wade no one will care if you win 10 NBA Championships. And this point has been made ad nauseum but it is still a good one: Congrats you are now the New York Yankees. Also Lebron: I admire you for taking less money with the hopes of winning. But why Miami. If you are going to pick a city where you can win, fine. But let's just think about where those wins will actually mean something. I have two recs:
Dallas. Yes, Dallas. Even though Dallas sucks because it's mostly interstates and restaurants, it is still a cool city for basketball. People love the Mavs, and they really need a championship at this point. Look at their lineup. They just need that extra little push. Enter Lebron. At least here, he could make a name for himself apart from Cleveland pissant, ninny fans or Michael Jordan's legacy if he were going to Chicago.
And speaking of Chicago and Jordan's legacy. Why do you care Lebron? You are Lebron James. Everyone, including you, regards you as pretty much the Ben Hur of modern Basketball. So why not directly attack Air's legacy? Show us how good you are. Also, you'd give Chicago an actual, viable sports franchise to pull for. They need that. And the Blackhawks don't count, because, let's face it, it's hockey.
It's all too late now, of course. And in the meantime, by choosing Miami - and I don't hold anything against you here - you have given me cause to peace out and not follow professional for another quarter century.

Cogito Ergo Defungo

Even though I hardly ever quit a book once I have started it - and by started it I mean once I have read beyond the first twenty or so pages - I quit Houllebecq's The Elementary Particles. I had been wanting to read this book for a while, or any of his books really, so I borrowed a copy from a friend and set to reading.
I was aware going into it that Houllebecq had somehow garnered a reputation for being misogynistic and a bit too frank with regard to sex, whatever that means. Since reading books is a bit like going to med school (you are going to have to get a look at some naked bodies at some point), I have a pretty high tolerance for subject matter that the majority of the bible-toting world might normally find offensive. After reading 100 pages of The Elementary Particles, I have to say, I never found out quite what the fuss was about. There wasn't anything in the book that seemed beyond redemption.
I did, however, see what the fuss should have been about: the language in the book works in outright defiance of itself. The narrative interrupts itself. These interruptions are in the form of scientific tangent that's not even cool in the way that Pynchon is tangentially scientific but more in the way that Bush is tangentially scientific (yeah, grossly undereducated in research as well as presentation), or an extended passage about the spread of "free love" in the 60s in France (a subject that doesn't really need any elucidation in a novel that only literary people and French people are going to read). Then there are the short little interjections of sexual-ish language that might mostly be heard among a car of fifteen year old boys after football practice.
Of course, there is nothing really wrong with this except for that Houllebecq is a decent stylist. He can write a paragraph that just wows you in its DeLillo-esque sublimity. He can sell you on a character that you would never care about otherwise (Why should I care about THIS boy getting beat up in boarding school?). He basically screws himself by injecting a quick shot of lowbrow into his highbrow prose. This, in effect, makes it neither highbrow or lowbrow. And, honestly, it misses middlebrow, too somehow, which is essentially why I had to put the book down and quit wasting my time. It felt like I was spending time in a room with a Bret Easton Ellis who thinks he is Stendhal. And that's just irresponsible. Moving on.

Where's Ra's al Ghul When You Need Him?

Over the past year or so pizza joints have been lowering their prices to an insanely affordable degree that borders on "too-good-to-be-true" territory: Pizza Hut-$10, Domino's-$5, Little Ceaser's-$5, etc. On one hand, this is fine. I love pizza. Most people do. The more pizza out there, the happier and less-violent the world would seem to be.
But, as is always the case, there is something revealing just beneath the surface. You have to ask yourself why pizza places - once America's fun-time culinary destination on the weekends and still kind of reminiscent of old-school TGIF programming and other pre-pubescent rituals of that ilk- are all of a sudden charging so little for their product.
Answer's easy, right?
Slow economy + less disposable income = less eating out = less profits for Big Pizza.
Again, this is fine. It's America. Everyone seems to benefit from low-price giveaways. But I am concerned about the fact that these pizza joints are "giving away" their pizzas and still making healthy profits. It makes me think that they could have been selling them for cheaper than a McDonals 20-piece chicken nugget meal all along - and, by the way, I find it interesting that the 20-piece meal counts as a two-person meal with two drinks and two orders of fries in Chicago, but as a one-person meal in Mississippi, but that's another discussion for another time.
Bottom line: if Big Pizza is still in business at five quid a pie, they could have been doing that all along, but they weren't; the prices they were charging (in the neighborhood of $20 a pizza) is just another example of unchecked corporate greed that is driving this country toward a Corporate Death Match where the last human being walking the earth is one with singles bulging out of his suit-trouser pockets. It's the kind of greed that Ra's al Ghul talks about in Batman Begins that has infiltrated literally every level of our infrastructure. I mean, they have taken our pizza! And I want reparations for all the money I spent. Or at least some League of Shadows-type wrath. Screw capitalism and supply and demand. I want my money back. Or at least a little more art in pizza making like the Yoda-pizza above. Where's the craftsmanship even?
Okay, maybe all of this is a stretch and an uneducated rant on the global dynamics of pizza economics. It's knee-jerk and inaccurate and unfair. But I still feel cheated. Especially since Domino's pizza is more like breadsticks than a pizza. Pizza's are ROUND, Domino's. Round.

P.S. Chicago: pizzas are supposed to be cut into slices, not little squares that yield soggy, inedible leftovers.

Entertainment, Capitalism and the Lower Classes

I had a conversation with a friend of mine the other afternoon and we came up with an idea. Well, he came up with it more than I did, but I fully support its brilliance. It goes like this:
Living in a downturned economy where more people slobber in front of the television at Lady Gaga (men pretending she's hot, women pretending she's some sort of post-Madonna messiah) than go to the library or book store or art gallery, wouldn't it be great if we, as a nation, supported the government subsidization of cable television for poor folks. Yes, I am one of those poor folks, but I still have good reason.
In the technological age, economic slumps seem always to be remedied (at the behest of politicians who "know best") by everyone going out and getting some old-fashioned American shopping done. If this is in fact true, wouldn't it be wise for the government to get cable to as many people as possible so to let the hypnotic flash of commercials wash over citizens in bulk? I'm not talking HBO and Showtime here. Just the regular old 90+ channels. Although, HBO would be nice. I have quite the shameless addiction to Entourage.
Think about the number of folks out there going without cable that could be watching a highly attractive and convincing ad right now for a beefy 5-layer burrito at Taco Bell. Boom! Instant economic stimulus.

...And Here We Go!!

Welcome internet. My name is Gary Sheppard and this is my blog. I am a full-time writer (mainly fiction) and student (I know, I know, like the internet needs more of my ilk). This'll be a place for me to let the world in on my cultural/artistic criticism, pessimism and enthusiasm. I hope everyone enjoys the ephemera herein.