Film at 11

“This just in … “


This is the heart and soul of the type of writing I probably do the most. Something comes up, blows your mind, and all sorts of profound thoughts make it through the bullshit somehow. Maybe they just slid off the Teflon-coasted blades shortly after impact.
It’s one of those “blurbs” the throw in your face three times within the last twenty minutes of something like “24” or “The Following”, because they know you’ll be more wide awake in those last twenty minutes than you were in the first ten.
These posts are the ones that are a ventricular-jerk reaction to a day’s event. Or an event realized after the fact. In terms of “blurbs”, these are the ones that came to us over the years when John Kennedy or Lee Harvey Oswald or Martin Luther King or Robert Kennedy were shot, when we went into Viet Nam, or beat-it-the-fuck outta Viet Nam,  when Nixon resigned (and most of us were satisfied with the word when John Dean went all Pavarotti on Nixon’s White House …
the Munich Olympics, the Iraq hostages, John Lennon got killed,  Bush beat Gore after Gore was beating Bush (some of that “film” wasn’t in for months), which was repeated with a very poetic and even more theatrical Ryan Secrest type of panache when that South Side brother beat the Hockey Mom on the other side of the creek from Russia.


The Twin Towers and the Pentagon, Waco, Oklahoma City, the Boston Marathon … that’s all we heard. “Blurbs” stuck amid a litany of weak-kneed rumors from “unidentified sources”, AM talk show innuendos, wild-eyed speculation, reckless accusations and ideological digit-wagging.
Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Fort Hood, Fort Hood again…
the guy yelling “Heil Hitler” from the police care who was aiming at a bunch of Jews the eve of Passover but killing  a few goyim instead. That was a week ago.
So when we first find out, we’re dealing with “blurbs” for a period leading up to the Burning Bush scheduled right after a preview of next week’s episode of whatever it was your eyeballs were staring at in between the “blurbs”.


Some people would watch CNN or MSNBC or Fox News and you really have to pity those assholes, ’cause they didn’t catch themselves a damned break. At least the rest of us were hanging out with Jack Bauer or Jack Shepherd or Ryan Hardy or Ryan Seacrest (twice in one post?  Shit . I gotta start writing earlier in the evening), or the guys at “Cheers” or “Central Perk”” or guys who snag catfish with their bare hands.
Or the “other” KKK: -im, -hloe and -ourtney. I don’t include their mother ’cause she probably used to spell it with a “Ch-” before it became a marketing tool.
After all the barely informative interruptions, we might sit through the five to seven minutes at the front of the news that tells us more of what everyone doesn’t know, hiding behind the talking heads trying to pass it off as “reporting”.   
I find that a bunch of my initial posts are essentially “blurbs”, and I really need time to think them over. Not that they weren’t “right”, so to speak. They were just my initial, intuitive reactions to whatever got the juices flowing. You can never be “wrong” in expressing those feelings.
I’d just like the posts to be more responsive rather than reactive, that they include more thought behind them.
But they’ll start because of those initial, intuitive reactions we all have, and some cannot be ignored. You have to let them loose so they don’t homestead your head leading up to a cerebral standoff during which too many innocently bystanding thoughts get snuffed.
(Spell Check tells me there’s no such word as “bystanding”, but if one can be a “bystander”, it means they can “bystand”, which is also not a word. But how can one be a “bystander” if there is no such word as “bystanding”: v. the act of being a bystander; to bystand. One could argue it’s the act of “standing by”, but then wouldn’t the person engaged in the action be a “standbyer“? Which is also not a word.)
So you just have to get that initial thought out there, reel it back in when you can give it your clearest, undivided attention, then send it back out on its merry little way once you’ve stabilized it. Once you’ve given it some more substance.
Kind of like an intellectual “catch-and-release”: you snag one that’s under the limit, toss it back in the water, hope to catch it when it’s gained some weight. (Does that work? I’m not a fisherman, so maybe that metaphor has to be tossed back in the water. I dunno.)

And the fact is, this method is not really a matter of literary prowess or stylistic intent.
It’s the fucking ADD.
On a good  bad  normal day I can have a dozen or so of those initial, intuitive reactions steamrolling through my consciousness at the same time. Right now – or last I looked – I have thirty-seven posts and another twenty in some stage of the drafting process.
This is where I’ll post the more immediate reactions, the more timely ones, the ones I can’t ignore. Then I’ll come back to them with maybe more insight or lack thereof.
We’ll see.

Point of interest: there have been no less than a dozen revisions of this alone.



Tell me anything. Even the stuff I might not want to hear.

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s