10) Keanu Reeves - Ya, I know he is sketchy as an actor but he is quietly more interesting than his initial impression. There is something I find quintessentially Canadian about that. Plus, he's a goalie.
9) Gordon Lightfoot - Perhaps the most Canadian of the list. His first name is Gord and he has a First Nation sounding last name--I have no idea if it is. Plus, two of my favourite songs are about nautical disasters--"The Wreck of the Edmund Fitgerald" and "The Ballad of the Yarmouth Castle".
8) Malcolm Gladwell - Sum smart peeple up here. (In a perfect world Malcolm Gladwell or Michael Pollan would write up all academic work).
7) George Chuvalo - Without question, the toughest heavyweight ever. He was physically battered in the ring, and emotionally battered outside of it. In both places he remained, inexplicably, standing and fighting.
6) Brendan Shanahan - Here's a quick test to know if you are a hockey fan, or an idiot. If you don't like Brendan Shanahan you are an idiot. Everything good about hockey is exemplified by players like Shanny. (Cam Neely also fits).
5) Nardwuar the human serviette - The most knowledgeable interviewer in any field. He is not a star, not pretty, and not famous. But is a great litmus test for musicians. Only the most pompous, most arrogant bands aren't impressed with his research. He is the wildly uncool friend that truly cool people get. Almost single-handedly fighting for substance over style in the pop music world.
4) Leonard Cohen - Speaking of cool. Phrases fall from him, even now, that I could not imagine in a lifetime of trying. His quote from Rollingstone is my favourite of the year: "I don't care terribly much about my own opinions. I find my own opinions very tiresome and predictable".
3) Terry Fox - A bit of no-brainer, but he did something each and every day that I can not fathom doing once. Plus, during much of the latter part of the Marathon of Hope he had massive tumours in his lungs. I like the quiet strength of that. It resonates with many Canadians, who understand that the loudest, or most brash is not the most interesting, or remarkable, person.
2) Stephen Brunt - The pre-eminent Canadian radio sidekick. (To be fair, he may be the only member of this category. Few media people have a better grasp of the Canadian psyche than Brunt. He is an excellent newspaper columnist, and writer, but is happy to be at the party without being the centre of it. He is able to hold true to himself from the periphery of fame in the sports world, without prostituting his views for a taste of the limelight.
1) Marshall McLuhan - One of the most quoted, least understood academics of the 20th century. The more time separates us from his work, the more often he is proven right. Virtually unknown to the south, and underappreciated in Canada. And, as I get ready to publish this post in a world re-organized by the internet I assure you that, "the medium is the message".
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Things I am good at
There are a number of things I am pretty good at. There are even a few things I am very good at. And, without hyperbole, there is little I don't do well if I put effort into trying. However, the consistent phenomenon in all the activities I try is that I am not very good when I start. Put another way, I have a lot of most improved trophies.
The only real exceptions to my poor to mediocre initial attempts were reading and writing. And I have come to understand that this is a double-edged sword. For example, I have done so little work on writing over the years that my first inclination is to explain an important part of my life with a tired and tedious cliche. I also feel the need to explain that a cliche is tired and tedious, when that is clearly redundant given the meaning of the word.
Basically, I cruised through elementary and high school without ever learning about how to write correctly. I was always praised for my writing, and reading was effortless. I even managed to escape high school without ever taking a grammar lesson. I did some work during my B.A. to improve my writing, but mostly that improvement was through practice. And I learned nothing about the process of academic reading until well into my M.A. This lack of critical practice in reading and writing finally caught up to me during my PhD classes. And it continues to be the underlying reason for renewing this blog.
Initially, I was lucky that I could read and write better than my classmates. But that luck, without direction, became laziness and a belief that I did not need to work at these things, only try occasionally at essay or exam time. I remember losing interest in reading in elementary school after I tore through a good chunk of the books in the modest library we had, during a period of my youth I was fascinated by speed reading. When you are in grade 4 but read at close to a university level, there aren't a lot of books in an elementary library that are compelling. I tried to read my parents' collection of Reader's Digest classics but "Ivanhoe" and "Moby Dick" were a little slow for a fourth grade kid. I don't want to sound like I am blaming my school, or my circumstance. I generally had an excellent academic experience. I only mean to remind myself why I tend to stumble and have to restart this project of working on writing, and trying to read more consistently.
Because, as the simultaneously overrated (by fans) and underrated (by literary snobs) Steven King reminds us, a good writer must read lots and write lots. And, those were the only things in life I didn't need to work on growing up and I still resist the necessity of practicing them now.
The only real exceptions to my poor to mediocre initial attempts were reading and writing. And I have come to understand that this is a double-edged sword. For example, I have done so little work on writing over the years that my first inclination is to explain an important part of my life with a tired and tedious cliche. I also feel the need to explain that a cliche is tired and tedious, when that is clearly redundant given the meaning of the word.
Basically, I cruised through elementary and high school without ever learning about how to write correctly. I was always praised for my writing, and reading was effortless. I even managed to escape high school without ever taking a grammar lesson. I did some work during my B.A. to improve my writing, but mostly that improvement was through practice. And I learned nothing about the process of academic reading until well into my M.A. This lack of critical practice in reading and writing finally caught up to me during my PhD classes. And it continues to be the underlying reason for renewing this blog.
Initially, I was lucky that I could read and write better than my classmates. But that luck, without direction, became laziness and a belief that I did not need to work at these things, only try occasionally at essay or exam time. I remember losing interest in reading in elementary school after I tore through a good chunk of the books in the modest library we had, during a period of my youth I was fascinated by speed reading. When you are in grade 4 but read at close to a university level, there aren't a lot of books in an elementary library that are compelling. I tried to read my parents' collection of Reader's Digest classics but "Ivanhoe" and "Moby Dick" were a little slow for a fourth grade kid. I don't want to sound like I am blaming my school, or my circumstance. I generally had an excellent academic experience. I only mean to remind myself why I tend to stumble and have to restart this project of working on writing, and trying to read more consistently.
Because, as the simultaneously overrated (by fans) and underrated (by literary snobs) Steven King reminds us, a good writer must read lots and write lots. And, those were the only things in life I didn't need to work on growing up and I still resist the necessity of practicing them now.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
True Blood
Further proof that not all HBO shows are great--or even good. It is somewhat compelling, even if wildly uneven.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)