Know Your Audience
“Know your audience” – sage words of advice that echo in my head when I utter a quote or a lyric that totally fit the situation, but are seemingly known only to me and the person who penned and/or spoke the words.
It just seemed impossible at the time that people would not know the quote I had come up with. I mean, it fit the situation perfectly. Surely, you MUST have heard that quote…? Sadly, it wasn’t just my wife that had to let me know that this quote was pretty much known only to me.
Oh well – occasionally, I’ll get a snicker or an approving smile if someone does get the reference, and this makes me happy. And I am quite capable of making appropriate references that even the most pop culturally devoid person would get. Usually, however, I simply choose to use the one less traveled by.
So, here’s something I’d like to try! I’ll throw out some random quote or lyric or phrase that happens to be floating in the random sargasso sea that constitutes my brain and you feign interest and try to guess the origin of the quote. Simple, right? There are no prizes except a feeling of mild satisfaction and the troubling knowledge that perhaps your mind works like mine.
The quotes could come from anywhere: movies, TV shows, comic books, cartoons, songs, radio/TV commercials; anything that could remotely be considered pop culture. For whatever reason, the phrase will have stuck with me and will then be foisted upon unsuspecting readers.
Ready? Here’s a relatively easy one to get us started:
“Boy, I wouldn’t give a squirt of piss for your ass right now.”
There, that’s not so hard, is it?
If there is any sign of interest in this sort of thing, I’ll keep it going. I thought it could be fun to have a new quote on a daily basis.
Lo, There Shall Be a Beginning
So what the hell was I thinking? There are a gazillion blogs / sites out there that dedicate themselves to reflections on the pop culture industry. Some are quite specific and cover one particular type. Others are more open, and cover the whole gamut.
And what is pop culture anyway? In my estimation, it pretty much covers anything that you want it to. Recent pop culture items have included the 1 year anniversary of the deaths of Michael Jackson and Billy Mays.
Do I remember where I was when I heard of their deaths?
MJ, yes. I was at a bar with friends drinking. We spent all of a minute lamenting his death and then moved on to much more interesting trips down memory lane. Please pass the french fries and…I’ll take another Yuengling, thank you!
Billy Mays? Not really. I do remember finding out on Facebook that ol’ BM had fans. That’s right. Fans. It didn’t even occur to me that a pitchman who tries to get you to buy crap that you don’t need could even have fans, but I was clearly wrong on that front. Good for you, BM! RIP.
I hope that reading this post will generate some conversation. I know from Facebook that many people choose to ignore MJ’s ‘eccentric’ lifestyle, “Jesus Juice” and his “alternate” type of relationship with children and focus on his musical legacy. I do not. I’ll acknowledge that he had a couple of tunes that – if I hear them on the radio, I won’t change the channel. But overall…ehhh.
If you feel strongly about MJ, I do hope you’ll comment on this and try to convince me why I should forget about the blatantly inappropriate (and, IMHO, disgusting) antics with children and focus on the music. I’d love to hear any sensible argument. But I should warn – I don’t necessarily fight fair 🙂 – and I don’t think that “He’s the King of Pop” is a legitimate pro argument for MJ.
And just to reiterate, the core idea behind this blog is “No minutiae too obscure.” We’ll throw out our thoughts on such enthralling topics as:
- Star Wars – Why I have no plans to ever see the last three (in terms of chronological release) movies
- Spider-Man – How Try as they might, Marvel cannot kill him. Clones, Kids and a do-over
- Terminator – How the events and dialogue of the first movie pretty much make the existence of T2 impossible (if you have any sense of continuity, that is)
- Batman – Too many possible topics to list
- Tom & Jerry – I seem to be one of the few who rooted for Tom. Why is this?
- Old Rock ‘n’ Rollers that I wish had just quit – Rolling Stones, Aerosmith
- When quotes are not actually “appropriate” (hee hee, if you can see the dig here, you are going to like this blog)
- Why you should say “could have” instead of “could of” (appropriate use of quotes, by the way) – Mainly, because “could have” is correct! And don’t get me started on the use of “gotta” or “wannabe”…
- Bad puns, obscure quotes and….well, anything, really!
It’s all just conversation/arguing opinions. And that’s the beauty of it. There is no right or wrong answer. There is only heated and interesting discussions of minutiae that nobody should care about…and yet many many of us do.
And yes, I like to use ellipsises (ellipsi?)…Shut up! I don’t need to know how to spell the plural to use the term!! 🙂
Craig’s List Post: WANTED: Runs. Philadelphia. Style points not a consideration.
As I write this, the Phillies are down 9-0 after three innings to the Red Sox. You’d think that this would prompt a commentary about the Phillies pitching. Not a chance. It’s all about the hitting.
The sports radio commentators are full of advice for Phillies faithful. No need to panic. They’ve done this before. It’s just a slump. They’ll come out of it. And they use many words to describe how they see things. Concerned. Upset. Disappointed. Surprised.
I am none of these things. In fact, I think that my word is the one word that I believe that the Phillies would not want to hear. I feel that no organization that is involved in entertainment of any sort would want to hear.
Bored.
That’s right. I’m bored by the Phillies. They’re boring. This is my third season of not being able to watch Phillies games because I don’t have Comcast. I’ve been listening to the Phillies on the radio and had developed an appreciation for taking in baseball games in this manner.
Last night, I went to Citizen’s Bank Park for the first time this season. I saw Roy Halladay pitch for the first time this season. He was great – a little rocky in the first inning, but otherwise, great. No problem there.
The problem was that the hitters were on vacation or something. As I walked though the concourse, hunting down french fries for my son (remember the Bugs Bunny Easter cartoon? “I want an Easter Egg. I want an Easter Egg. I want an Easter Egg.”), I was listening to the broadcast. They actually referred to this game as a pitcher’s duel.
If the Phillies had previously – within, say the last three weeks or so – displayed any grit or pizzazz, then I’d agree with this assessment. Instead, I laughed. This was no pitcher’s duel. This was Josh Johnson mowing down a lineup that should be capable of knocking him out by the 5th inning.
Instead, it was quick at-bats. Inning after inning. At-bats so quick that I missed a few of them due to turning my head away to talk to my son or my father. The Phillies halves of the innings might as well not have been played.
This much maligned pitching staff has performed well above expectations. Far better than this “study in moppishness” that is the current Phillies lineup. Three consecutive shutouts against the hated (and, frankly, pretty lame) Mets? Of all teams, the Mets? Come on guys!!
It’s sad to say. I love my Phillies. And I’ll be there at the end of the season to see how things turn out. But they bore the crap out of me right now. I can’t even be bothered to pay attention. It’s the same old, same old with them. If they right the ship, and manage to make me care again, that would be great.
But right now – I’m too bored to pay any attention. Wake me when the offense makes its way back to Philly.
All Flyered Up! Sort of…
Call this “confessions of a non-hockey fan who happens to live in a hockey mad region.” A region that had the pure sports bliss of witnessing their local team valiantly battle for the NHL championship. Lord Stanley, are you listening?
During the NHL playoffs, I have found myself in an odd position. I never watched a minute, but as a result of friends who were fans and updates on ESPN radio (I still listen despite Mike Greenberg’s increasinlgy fawning and annoying delivery), I managed to keep in tune with what was happening.
I am not a hockey fan, but I am a sports fan. So I get the significance of what the Flyers did. To me, regardless of how many other teams had done it, coming back to win after being down 3 games to none in a playoff series (against the Boston Bruins) is remarkable and worthy of some hype. I actually enjoyed the Flyers’ story a lot more because I wasn’t immersed in it.
I can contrast this to the endless and meaningless hyperbole associated with Stephen Strasburg’s impressive debut. Yes, Strasburg had a fantastic performance. If you based your opinion of that outing solely on ESPN’s (and in my case, the Mike & Mike in the Morning’s perspective) coverage, you’d assume that no pitcher had ever had a pitching performance as great as that one was. The fact is that there have been a few other great performances, and Greenberg, Tim Kurkjian et. al. seem to conveniently forget all that when it suits them. As for Strasburg – it was an amazing pitching line – 14 strikeouts (Ks) out of 94 pitches. Amazing. But let’s see how he’s doing after his 7th or 8th start. He may still be pitching fantastically, but I doubt it will be as spectacular as his debut outing. I don’t think we’ll be seeing 14 Ks out of 94 pitches again anytime soon. I do think he has all the makings of a very good pitcher, though.
Get back to the ice!
Right. Okay, coming back to win the last 4 games of a playoff series is an incredible feat. I remember 2004, when the Red Sox did this to the Yankees, and how against-all-odds that seemed. To see it happen again so soon after that – and to a team that is regionally significant to me is really cool. One could argue that the comeback against the Bruins was the most significant happening of the 2009-2010 NHL season. If one chooses to argue this point – please take it easy on me. I’m a hockey novice…
Something like an incredible and a historic comeback can really make the most hardened, post-season disappointment-expecting Philadelphia fan (and we expect disappointment for good reason) take note and start to believe that, “Yes! a Philly team can win a championship!” Much national and local ink was wasted – before and after the Phillies scintillating run to their awesome 2008 World Series win – about the 25 years of dormancy in Philadelphia championships. (Actually, for me it was 28 years, as I am, in addition to not being a hockey fan, I am also not a basketball (NBA in particular) fan, so the 1982-1983 Sixers title holds little true value for me.)
But I digress…again!
Next up for the Flyers were the Chicago Blackhawks, a team that I later learned was even more snakebit than the Flyers, having last won the Stanley Cup in 1961. Add this to 100+ years of Chicago Cub baseball championship futility, and you can see that Philly and Chicago fans have some common ground.
Of course, with news of tasering, fans premeditated throwing up on fans and kids with beer bottles fresh on the media circuit, it wasn’t long before the alleged loutish behavior of the Philly fan started to surface. But I blocked all that out and waited with an unexpected anticipation for the second-hand updates of the Flyers games.
Keep in mind that I didn’t watch any of the games, so all I can tell is how I experienced these games. It didn’t start out well, as the Flyers dropped the first two games by one goal in each, in what look like close matches when I see them in the box scores.
Then the Flyers got their mojo and won the next two games, including an overtime win in Game 4 that I actually listened to on the radio – the closest I had come to actually personally witnessing any of this series. Looking good, right? Well, it was good while it lasted.
Consigned to the ranks of history is the knowledge that the Flyers lost the last two games of the Stanley Cup Finals and then they and their fans had to endure the Blackhawks celebrating their win on Flyer ice. I have heard over the years (mostly in baseball stories) that when this has happenned to other teams, that they forced themselves to stay and watch every moment of the celebration. To burn that moment into their minds and remember forever how it felt to be that close to their dream and then have to watch someone else walk away with their trophy. In short, to use that experience as motivation for the next year. The idea here being that if they ever get back to the championship round, they’ll rememeber last year and things will be different. After all, who’d want to relive such an unpleasant experience?
So what does all this mean? This Flyers playoff run has been really interesting to me, as one who is not a hockey fan. I was not following it day-to-day as I do with football or baseball, so I feel I had a refreshing view of the whole thing. I was still able to feel the excitement of the Flyer wins and the disappointment of the Flyer losses. I was able to hold conversations with die hard hockey fans – as long as the discussion didn’t get too involved – and I enjoyed hearing and feeling their passion. Some of my best friends are hockey fans!
Postscript: Again, I am talking strictly from second-hand information here, but I’d have to think that the NHL must be thrilled with this Stanley Cup playoff. It went six games (as opposed to a quick four-game sweep), and held a high position on ESPN’s radar in terms of coverage. After decades of pretty much (perhaps this is only in my eyes) being a second-tier sport – this series was just what they needed. And the Flyers and their dedicated and spirited fans were an integral part of that.
So give yourselves a pat on the back, Flyers fans! And who knows? Maybe next year, the Flyers will have earned themselves another crazed fan. If this makes me a bandwagonner, then I can accept that. I only hope that my fellow bloggers MPH and Michael Rappa (rabid hockey/Flyer fans both) can forgive me this indiscretion.
Andy Blank
Mike Frangione
Depends on What the Meaning of the Word 'Blog' is 
Well, I’d Read Watchmen…
For some reason, lately I’ve been feeling that I need to beef up my literary acumen. When your literary laundry list consists of Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, Captain America, The Hulk and other comic book figures, you are steeped in pop culture…but perhaps a bit lacking in culture.
Just for fun, I looked up that Time Magazine list of the Top 100 Books since 1923, and I had read…(care to guess?) five of the 100 books on the list. Sadly, one of these was Watchmen.
I kinda feel like George Costanza when he answered “Mike Lupica” to a question of who was his favorite author. I think that my answer of Alan Moore, Peter David, Stan Lee, Frank Miller or James Robinson (to name just a few great comic book writers) would probably have been received with even less interest than “Can’t Stand Ya’s” answer.
Never mind what the books I’d read were – seriously, it’s four out of 99. Why even bother?
So I got it in my head that I need to read some classics. I chose William Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury and got right to it. After 20 pages, I was compelled to ask if Faulkner was going to be going on about this day outside for the entire 75 pages of the first chapter. I’m not going to say that I am intimidated or that I am going to stop reading, but I hope that Doctor Doom shows up soon and livens things up. 🙂
Then I sought out the opinion of a colleague, who indicated that The Sound and the Fury came highly recommended. I mentioned that I had thought I’d read Great Expectations, but was unable to find it on my bookshelf. This prompted me to ask if it was as dry as A Tale of Two Cities (which I hated). I was assured that it was a completely different type of book and very much a good read – and the book offered some action to boot.
I was also surprised to learn that Charles Dickens was not actually paid by the word. This was, apparently, a myth. Could have fooled me – I can’t imagine any other reason why there were so many words that I didn’t want to read in A Tale of Two Cities – but this is most likely just my semi-literate inner self fighting to get out. I wonder if Mike 2.0 – who is (God, I hope so!) much older and wiser than Mike 1.0 – would actually enjoy A Tale of Two Cities now. The world may never know.
So, after my revelation about Dickens and remuneration concerns, I moved on to The Great Gatsby and said that I’d heard lots of great things about this book, and thought this might be a good one to choose as well. This was confirmed, of course, and then… my semi-literacy reared it’s ugly head. My guess as to the author of this prized work? Why, Faulkner, of course.
My colleague smiled politely. “Well, it’s actually F. Scott Fitzgerald.” So close, right? At least I didn’t guess Art Vandelay! I guess I shouldn’t find this scenario embarrasing. After all, I was not an English major. But I couldn’t help but feel like poor Mallory Keaton at that moment.
Alex Keaton: What does S.C.U.B.A. stand for?
Mallory: Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus!
And if you remember this episode of the great ’80s TV show Family Ties, you’ll remember that Alex and Mallory, who were prepping for a High School Knowledge Bowl or something of that ilk, said “Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus” a couple of times, even making it into a bit of a joyous song. Then:
Alex: And who invented it?
Mallory: (excited) Magellan!!
I know how you felt, Mallory. I know how you felt…