| |
|
Thursday, May 01, 2003
|
|
My Non-Essential Self
My friend Jim and I were having a conversation the other day (via email, since Jim is in Tunisia) about our friend Brad. The conversation, more or less, was about how Brad is in graduate school pursuing an MBA, and that as a result of that I don't get to see Brad as much as I would like to these days.
As a part of that conversation, we started talking about our Essential Selves, which is a term that may or may not exist in some other context, but as far as I know I am officially coining it here and now. All I mean by Essential Self is that which defines someone, more than some other trait. Of course, people are complex and are never reducable to one trait or characteristic, but having said that, there are some things that stand out about people.
Brad's essential self, to me, is that he is a Hard Worker. Ask anybody who has known him in most any context, and they'll probably agree that he is a Hard Worker. I met him through college debate, where he succeeded through talent and...hard work. That same work ethic (and talent) is now helping to carry him through graduate school, and will continue to propel him throughout his life. Even when he becomes successful, he won't just reach a point where he will walk away. He would get bored. He would have to find something else to work at. It's not about the money; it's about the work.
Jim, on the other hand, isn't really about hard work so much as he is about competition. Jim lives to compete. Of course, if you really care about competing, you're going to work hard at it. This (and talent) is why Jim was also an exceptional college debater, and why he has undertaken at least cursory study of things like poker or word play for games like Boggle or Scrabble. It's not because he has an inherent desire to work hard, though he certainly will work hard; it's because he wants to compete at a very high level.
My wife Jane's essential self, I believe, is to nurture. She nurtures me, she nurtures Linus, she nurtures our gardens when she has time. Basically, the entire household is dependent on her to keep a sort of schedule, keep it all together. I am certain that she probably wishes she didn't have to nurture me as much as she does. I also am quite clear that me saying my wife's essential role is to take care of people (me) is going to read very, very poorly, especially to her. I am NOT AT ALL saying that. What I am saying is that she's a person who cares about other people. (I'm having serious doubts about the wisdom of saying anything at all about this, now that I think about how this might be perceived by certain people who I have to face tonight. But if I say nothing, she might also be upset about that. What should I do, invent an Essential Self for her that is different from what I believe her true Essential Self is? She'll see right through that, because she's so smart and insightful. That would be a trap from which I could never recover. Besides, she KNOWS she's a nurturer. You know it, I know it, the American people know it.)
My mother is close to being a nurturer, but she's really more of a caretaker. My mom, above all else, will be the one to take care of people, when nobody else is there to do it. I think she wishes she wasn't that way sometimes. I will conveniently neglect to connect the dots on whether it's a coincidence that the woman who raised me and the woman who now lives with me seem to both be character types that do a lot of the heavy lifting for the people around them.
My essential self, if I am able to even discern that from within myself, is that I live to make fun of things, and to laugh. I believe I inherit this from my dad, who can frequently be heard laughing, though typically he is the only one laughing, and usually at something he himself said. (Hello, Dad...)
There is much to be said for this lifeview; I think this is why I feel a strong connection to Linus and other kids, and why I feel a pretty youthful 34. But at the same time, it's hard for me to reconcile my Essential Self with the Self I always thought I wanted to be, which was a Self where I somehow morphed my observational abilities and lack of attention span into a respectable career which would involve an agent and a headshot photo. Case in point: Last week, when my friend Brent was here, do you know what we did for two hours on Monday afternoon? We played Whiffleball in my backyard. And we loved it. And if we had had the time, we would have played PlayStation for another two hours, followed by any other number of stupid, juvenile things. I could do that all day, every day. Of course, so could Jim. Brad could do it for a couple of days, but then he would get bored, and start to feel unproductive, and ruin it all by doing something stupid like getting a job or going back to school. Sucker. We'll see who's laughing when he's the VP of Acquisitions for a Fortune 100 company, and I'm winning the Super Bowl on Madden 2012.
All of that fits my Essential Self, and I don't want to change that about me. But at the same time, I also want to work harder, follow my dream of trying to be a writer in some medium or another, and be more productive generally. What type of mystical transformation must occur to get me from Point A, where I am a 34 year-old Whiffleball-playing slacker who laughs out loud at stupid things like hearing the jazz radio DJ announce that he's going to play a double set from Dick Hymen, to Point B, where I am a respectable father and husband who has devoted time and hard work to learning a new craft, and being able to earn at least some part of a living with that craft?
I'm wondering if I have it in me to make that change. I'm wondering if a growing family will spur it, or just plain simple advancing age will do it for me. And some days, as I'm laughing at something with Linus and Jane and seeing that my life by all objective accounts is better than I really hoped it would be, I wonder if I need to change at all.
I figure the change will come naturally, if it comes at all. I assume it happens, because you don't see many 40 year-olds out playing Whiffleball. Which is good for them, because I have a curveball that would really eat them alive.
12:46:41 PM 
|
|
Just Like That?
One dunk, and this series is over?
That appears to be what the LA Times and Mark "It is now safe for me to genuflect before Kobe again" Heisler believe. Now, granted, Kobe's drive-the-baseline, up-and-under one-hander was pretty. Damn pretty. And no doubt, it was a part of the end of Game 5, which is now officially known to Pipeline as Fucking Game 5. (But this nonsense that Kobe dunked on KG's head has to stop; it's a miracle KG was there in the first place, rotating to the third man in the possession.)
But pretty enough to declare the rest of a hard-fought series null and void? I don't think so. But that's the LA writers for you; one Lakers blowout, and everything else becomes the fluke, Games 2 and 3 the anomaly. From where I sit this series breaks down like this:
Somebody besides Shaq or Kobe makes shots, Lakers win. In Game 1, it was Fox and Fisher, in addition to Kobe and Shaq. Laker blowout. In Game 4, it was Devean George and Brian Shaw hitting big buckets, in addition to Shaq. Lakers win a very close game that the Wolves let get away. In Game 5, it was Fisher and Horry, in addition to Kobe. Laker blowout.
But when the Wolves shoot well? Wins in Games 2 and 3.
That's an oversimplification, but I think it holds pretty well. The Lakers act like winning this series is Divine Providence, that all they have to do is show up now. But in reality, the team that is hitting shots is the team that is winning, and the Lakers have spent a fair amount of this series not hitting shots. In fact, of the 21 periods that have been played in this series (four games and the one overtime) the Wolves have won 13, compared to the Lakers' 8. No, I'm not agitating for a CBA-style points system here, and I understand that the Lakers are winning the war.
My point is that the Wolves still have every reason to feel they can play with this team, while the Lakers seem to be in a frame of mind to give grades for dunks. You can't blame them for being confident, after having genuinely been worried and winning a HUGE road game in Fucking Game 5. But they've let that confidence bite them before.
Of much greater concern for the Wolves is whether they will have the legs to do what is necessary on the defensive end, while still having enough to rely on their jumpshots late in the game. Of course, the ideal solution would be to not rely on those jump shots quite so much, but the Wolves are what they are, and that is a perimeter-shooting team. When they can hit those shots, and get them in the flow of the offense, they have proven they can play with anybody.
But what about the press? There are two worrisome questions the Wolves must answer tonight in Staples. First, is the press even effective at this stage of the series? The Lakers only committed seven turnovers (netting the Wolves 4 points) on Tuesday night. Instead of bringing Shaq up as a release valve, they are keeping him back and trying to throw over the press; when successful, Shaq has a high-percentage one-on-one situation, and the Wolves can't afford that or the fouls necessary to keep Shaq contained in that situation.
Second, even if the press is effective, can the Wolves legs hold up to it? Hudson already is known to Wolves coaches and followers as a player who tires in the 4th quarter, and he sure looked tired the other night, even with Rod Strickland's extended court time in the 4th quarter. Combine that with all the energy Garnett is using at every moment setting picks, rebounding, covering on D, not to mention Anthony Peeler being exhausted from guarding Kobe, or Wally being exhausted from chasing his shots around or suffering whiplash while watching the Lakers streak downcourt after one of his turnovers, and you have a tired bunch of guys.
Phil Jackson knows this, or at the very least is trying to make the Wolves know this. You think the Zen Master isn't trying to get in their heads by talking about how, at the 35th minute, teams that press get tired?
Too bad it's usually true.
I expect to see a different Wolves team than I did Tuesday. I expect them to slow down and execute on offense, in an attempt to get Wally some shots. A scoring and confident Wally is dangerous to both teams, as opposed to the frustrated and pressing Wally who is only dangerous to the Wolves. I expect them to pass the ball, and continue being aggressive in going to the basket.
I expect them to compete, more than anything. I'm not saying I want them to, because that's obvious. I'm saying I anticipate that they will compete. Because if they don't, everything that has been accomplished in this series will be for naught. All the questions will come back about whether this team, the players AND coaches, have any real meaningful future ahead of them. Simply playing hard and competing will, I think, put those questions to rest for another year.
And if they don't play hard, and get blown out? We're back to square one with this team. We'll have a lovable superstar, an overpaid and extremely limited sidekick, and another spring of playoff ridicule, with little hope for improvement or change in sight.
The Dull Pain will become much more acute.
10:46:14 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2003 Doug Hennessee.
Last update: 6/2/2003; 10:57:59 AM.
|
|
|
