Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) has a new book about to be released on May 30.  It's not a book on policy, but the story of his race for the Senate in 2008 which he won -- after an eight-month recount and challenges -- by a whopping 312 votes.

While it promises to be a well-written and wonderful tale, particularly based on having read his previous books, it's the incredibly self-deprecating title and cover which makes the book so-especially worth noting.

​I just absolutely love that and keep laughing every time I see it.

(By the way, it's worth noting that when Franken ran for re-election in 2014, Minnesota voters were suitably impressed with the job he'd done during his first term, that they returned him to office with a significantly bigger margin -- just under 203,000 votes, or 53.1% of the total.  His next closest challenger only had 42.9%.)

You can pre-order the book here.  As I said, it gets released in only a week-and-a-half from today.  I'm not a fan of Audiobooks, I prefer reading though if one has long daily commutes, I can see the benefits, but if ever I was tempted to buy one, it would be this since it's "read by the author."  (Maybe after reading it, I'll try to find an inexpensive used AudioCD.)  This is the publisher's description --

Very interesting article in Vanity Fair by Sheila Weller about a new book soon to be published, The Blood of Emmett Till by Timothy Tyson.  The focus of the article is how the author tracked down Carolyn Bryant, the woman who the 14-year-old boy allegedly whistled at, the "inexcusable" act which led to his brutal beating and death -- and how she says that Emmett Till never whistled at her, though at this point she doesn't recall all the other details of her exchange with Till.

No other author has ever interviewed Carolyn Bryant Donham, which took place 10 years ago when she was 72.  She's still alive at 82, though in seclusion.  The book doesn't say she specifically expresses regret for what happened, though she expresses great sympathy and tenderness for Till's mother and what happened to the boy, which the reporter notes comes across like close to the same thing.

The piece isn't very long and worth checking out.  You can find it here.  

Every year around this time, there are articles about which recorded version of A Christmas Carol is "the best."  Usually it comes down to the films that starred either Alistair Sim or Reginald Owen.

But for me, as I explain every year (and did lthe last couple of years here), it's this one.  It's not a movie, though, or a TV production.  It's, of all things, an audio version that was done in 1960 for, I believe, the BBC.  It's quite wonderful and as good an adaptation of the story as I've come across.  It stars Sir Ralph Richardson as Scrooge, and Paul Scofield as Dickens, the narrator.  Casts don't get much better than that.

I first heard this on radio station WFMT in Chicago which has been playing this every Christmas Eve for many decades.  (And still does.)  Eventually, I found it on audio tape.  I've listened to it annually since I was a kidling.  Some years I think I won't listen to it this year, but put it on for a few minutes for tradition's sake -- but after the first sentence it sucks me in.

There are four reasons why, for me, this is far and away the best version. But one reason leaps out.

First, the acting is as good as it gets.  Scofield is crisp and emphatic as the narrator,and almost every creak of his voice draws you in to the world, and Richardson as Scrooge is a Christmas pudding joy.  Second, being radio, you aren't limited by budgets to create the Dickensian world.  Your imagination fills in every lush and poverty-stricken, nook and cranny -- and ghostly spirit, aided by moody sound effects and violins.  Third, the adaptation sticks  closely to the Dickens tale, and Scrooge comes across more a realistic, rounded-person than as a Mythic Icon.  

And fourth, and most of all by far, unlike any of the other version, this includes...Dickens.  While the story of A Christmas Carol is beloved, it's Dickens' writing that makes it even more vibrant than the story alone is.  And that's all lost in the movie versions, even down even to the legendary opening line, "Marley was dead, to begin with."  Or any of the other classic narrative lines.  Or the richness of Dickens setting the mood and tone and description of the gritty and ephemeral and emotional world.  All that's gone in movies, good as the productions may be.  But all of that is here in this radio adaptation, and Scofield's reading of it is joyously wonderful and memorable.  For many, this will be A Christmas Carol unlike any other you're aware of, giving it a meaning and richness you didn't realize was there.  The ending of the tale is so much more moving and joyful here, as we listen to Dickens' own words, that begin with "Scrooge was better than his word.  He did it all, and infinitely more," and it soars from there, to perhaps my favorite passage about the new Scrooge and how good he is in the "good old world. Or any other good old world."

If you have the time or inclination, do give it a listen.  Ideally tonight around the fireplace while roasting chestnuts and drinking a Smoking Bishop.  (Listen to the recording, it's from Dickens...)  Even if only for five minutes to at least get the flavor.  You might find yourself sticking around.  Or just let it play in the background during the day, if you have other things to do.  It runs about 55 minutes.

(Side note:  speaking of Dickens, if you know the original cast album of Oliver!, the actor here who plays the Ghost of Christmas Present, Willoughby Goddard, was Mr. Bumble on Broadway and in the original London production.)

This might not play immediately, since it's a large file and may have to buffer first.  But be patient, it's worth it.
​

​Well, huzzah. Wave the big glove with the even bigger index finger raised singularly in the air.  Just a quick note to say that A Christmas Carol 2:  The Return of Scrooge jumped up to #1 on Amazon's Best Seller list for humor/parody in ebooks -- for the second year in a row.. No, that is not the most prominent list around, a few steps above "Buy milk and lettuce" but it beats not being #1.

The epic is on sale this week for a whopping 99-cents, something which if taken advantage of is appreciated by the guy who ruminates about this site, and you can find it right here.

Huzzah.  As I noted yesterday, it's remarkable how few book sales are need to affect one's position on Amazon. On the second day of my promotion for A Christmas Carol 2: The Return of Scrooge, it keeps going up the chart, and is now #2 in Amazon's Best-Seller List for Humor/Parody in ebooks.

Yes, yes, it's not quite a major Best-Seller List (nor has it reached the level of even a minor Best-Seller List, but more a case of a "Well, that's nice, for what it's worth" Best-Seller List.  But it beats not being on the list...

So, if you've bought a copy this year, either for yourself, or as a gift, or just as a way of dropping 99-cents into the Elisberg Industries Appreciation Till, thanks very much.  In the meantime, one can get it here.

If it happens to go higher by one spot, I'll be sure to let you know.

'Tis the season. Yes, it's that time o' year.  Fa la la, I once again have a one-week holiday promotion sale of my book, A Christmas Carol 2:  The Return of Scrooge.  Through Saturday, the Kindle ebook edition is now just a whopping 99-cents.

I'll note, as well, that last year it hit #1 on Kindle's Best Seller List for Humor/Parody.  Not quite the NY Times Best Seller List, but I'll take it.  

As you might imagine, this is the time of year when the book sells.  Hence, promoting it now.  Bizarrely, I do actually get a few sales during the year, which always stuns me, but who am I to quibble.  Maybe it's people who like to do their holiday shopping early.  Or those who live their life with the holiday spirit in their heart the whole year round.  Or maybe they're from Australia and live their life upside-down.  Or who knows why??  God bless them, everyone.

The story continues Dickens' tale as the ghost of Scrooge returns to visit his former clerk Bob Cratchit, who has inherited the counting house from his employer, and mixed into the adventure are a couple dozen characters from other Dickens novels, like Oliver Twist (who doesn't feel he's being paid enough in his job and is chosen by his fellow-clerks to ask for a raise), Mr. Pickwick, Miss Havisham, Little Nell, Fagin, Mr. McCawber, and many others.

By the way, the book is also available in paperback, for a very reasonable $6.95.  I actually prefer the paperback -- not for the price (honest) -- but because the book is full of humorous footnotes that tell a secondary tale if you're paying attention, and I think footnotes work better in a paperback than ebook.  (They work fine in the ebook edition, using hyperlinks, I just personally prefer them there right on the page, rather than as endnotes and jumping back-and-forth.  Chacun a son gout, as the British say..)

I'll mention one other thing.  I don't pass the hat for this website, so if anyone feels that buying a 99-cent ebook is a fine way to leave a tip, I won't quibble.  Even if you've already bought the book for yourself, you can give it as a gift to a friend or needy urchin.  Or just have a second copy because it's 99-cents and a nice thing to do!  You can even just delete the downloaded file if you don't want it hanging around.  Hey, it's 99-cents, that's the point.  I say all this because you have no idea how just a handful of sales can make a Kindle ebook skyrocket on one of these Amazon sub-genre best-seller lists (like humor/parody) -- and that raises its visibility, which in turn increases sales.  So, a simple 99-cent purchase has far more impact than most people think.

Just by way of perspective -- when I got up this morning and got around to checking, the book was ranked #192 for ebook Humor/Parody.  Two hours later, after the promotion started, it's now #42..!!

(UPDATE: four hours later, it's up to #30.)

Okay, enough of that.  Get the book or not, your choice.  Have a good holiday season regardless.  End of tidbits for now.

I'm guessing this may not be the first time I mention this...

If you do choose to get a copy, you get find it here.

This past January at the Consumer Electronics Show, I was talking with a tech publicist I quite like, Heather Delaney of the firm Dynamo PR.  It's based in England, as is Heather, not shockingly -- although she's from the U.S.. (Actually, for those of you keeping score, that more properly should be "was based," since she's back now, in charge of opening up an office for Dynamo in San Francisco.  Stop in and say, 'hi,' and you'll perhaps get a scone and clotted cream, along with a beautifully-wrapped gift loaf of sourdough bread to take home.)

Chatting away on all manner of topics, not even necessarily tech, she mentioned a BBC television series she thought I might like.  That's because she was aware of my novella, A Christmas Carol 2: The Return of Scrooge, which is a parody of the tale in which I interweave a couple dozen characters from other Dickens novels.  The British series was titled, Dickensian, which was reason enough for her to bring it up.  But the main reason she thought of mentioning it is because the fun hook of the show is that the story takes place in one particular neighborhood of 19th century London...which is inhabited by several dozen characters from Dickens novels!

Needless-to-say, I was intrigued, but tracking it down was another matter.  The 20-episode series, which each run a half-hour (except for the longer finale) is not available on Netflix, at least currently, and for some reason it's not yet been shown on BBC America.  In fairness, it's quite new -- it aired last year and finished its run only in February, so perhaps it will end up in these parts eventually.  (If you have a multi-region DVD player, however, the DVD can be ordered by Amazon UK here.)  Happily, though, thanks to a high-techie friend with access to such things, he was able to find and download all 20 episodes from a British site online and burn them to several DVDs for me.

I finally finished watching them last week, and...well, the series was spectacular.  One of my favorite things I've seen on TV, period.  Ever.  Unfortunately, the BBC announced in April that they wouldn't be renewing the show, so that one season is it.  My understanding is that Dickensian was respectably popular, but I suspect it was fairly expensive to make -- the period sets, costumes and attention to detail are meticulous and wonderful, and the cast is very large.  So it might have done well, but just not well-enough to justify the expense and continue.  At least it told a closed-ended story, so there's no unresolved cliffhanger.  The tale comes full-circle.

I'm going to write here about why I loved the show so much, but it's a bit odd doing so because most people reading this might not have a chance to ever see it.  My hope though is that at some point it will indeed be on DVD and then Netflix, and even BBC America.  But even if not, it was simply too wonderful not to give it its due.  And its full due begins with high-praise to Tony Jordan who created the show wrote half the episodes.  He was the preeminent writer on the exceedingly long-running British soap opera EastEnders for almost 20 years, and among his many other works co-created the series Life on Mars, which was adapted as a U.S. series which ran here for two seasons.

But Dickensian I suspect, is his masterpiece.

​I knew when I sat down to watch that there was a murder mystery involved, but that's all I knew about the show.  About 10-15 minutes into the first episode, though, I started laughing because I was absolutely certain I knew who the victim would be.  And if my thought was right (which I was sure it was), it was hilariously clever.  I'm going to tell you, which isn't really giving anything much away, since the character dies about 20 minutes into this first episode of a 10-hour series.  But if you really, truly don't want to know, just skip the next paragraph.  But honestly, knowing may make you even more intrigued to watch it, if you get the chance.

Knowing that this was based on Dickens, I was trying to figure out who was going to bite the dust.  I didn't think it could be a major character, since I wasn't aware of any major Dickens character who died.  But then I didn't think it really would likely be a minor character, since that probably wouldn't be interesting for the audience to care as much whodunnit.  Certainly it possibly could be a non-Dickens character, but that would seem to go against the theme of the series.  So, hmm, who could it be?  The story, like a good Dickens tale, of course starts on Christmas Eve.  And as the characters were being introduced and storylines set up, I kept trying to look for clues about who we might not see much longer.  And that's when I started to laugh.  Because...Christmas Eve?  I knew a Dickens character who died on Christmas Eve!  It's the whole point that sets up A Christmas Carol.  "Seven years ago this very night" is when Scrooge's partner Jacob Marley had died!  Indeed, that's what brings the ghost of Marley to visit Scrooge on the anniversary of his death.  So, I was absolutely sure that that's who the victim would be.  And so it was!  The premise of the show, therefore, is to find out who killed him.

Though the core premise of the series is to find the killer, Dickensian is really about so much more.  Because there are other stories interwoven through it all, some of which touch on the murder mystery, and others that dance by but stand on their own.

Much of the early fun of Dickensian is the introduction of the characters -- some directly, but some in a whimsical roundabout way.  For instance, in what is probably the major dramatic storyline (and not related to the murder mystery), we come upon a brother and sister whose father has just passed away, and the young man, Arthur, is gut-wrenchingly livid that his sister has inherited most of the estate and he only gets a much smaller portion, plus a salary from the family brewery.  For much of the episode, we only know the siblings as Arthur and Amelia.  And then only later, very offhandedly, the young man is quietly referred to by an acquaintance in a good-naturedly way, easy to slip by, along the lines of, "Come now, Havisham, what do you say?"  And that's when you realize that his sister, Amelia, is...Miss Havisham, here the young woman who will grow to be Dickens' memorable centerpiece of Great Expectations.  And the storyline with them is the back-tale of how this charming young lady came to be that famous, half-crazed, torn character we meet in the novel.

To be very clear, you don't have to know Dickens at all to enjoy Dickensian.  The stories and writing and acting and production values are all too good.  It's a wonderful murder mystery, but it's also a separately wonderful and very intriguing drama about a young woman at the center of a profound deceit, and there's another wonderful family drama, as well, of a conflict when the patriarch hits hard times.  And other terrific tales, as well.

As for that family drama, it involves another of the great-fun introductions.  The family is the Barbarys, whose name meant nothing to me, despite having read all the Dickens novels.  The father, Edward, has learned that his fortune in great trouble -- and has to borrow money.  Needless-to-say, the lender is none other than Ebenezer Scrooge, of course!  But when Barbary is unable to pay it back, he's thrown in debtors prison.  His daughters Frances and Honoria have to figure out how to resolve this dire situation.  Several, very interesting episodes later, it all eventually become clear what this story actually is.  That's when the older sister finds that the elderly nobleman she's interested in is not at all interested in her, but rather in her younger, pretty sister Honoria -- who is herself deeply in love with a young dashing soldier, soon to hopefully be her fiance.  But the older, devious sister connives to marry off her sister to the nobleman in order to bring a fortune into the family. Which is how she manipulates things with Sir Leicester Dedlock.  And...wait -- "Sir Dedlock"??!!  When you hear the name, that's when a good Dickens fan realizes that this means....yes, young Honoria is who will later become -- Lady Dedlock!  The mysterious, distant, withdrawn woman at the heart of Bleak House.  And so here we get the back story to that,  But even without knowing any of this, it's a terrific, moving tale on its own.  

And the way the lives in Dickensian work, Honoria Barbary from Bleak House and Amelia Havisham of Great Expectations here are best friends.  Which is one of the ways that characters and stories overlap.

Among the many other characters whose stories cross paths in Dickensian include Fagin, Bill Sikes, Nancy, the Artful Dodger and Mr. and Mrs. Bumble from Oliver Twist.  (Though the storyline with the Bumbles is completely separate for the other Oliver Twist plotline, which crosses paths with Ebenezer Scrooge, who Fagin naturally wants to partner with.)  Bob Cratchit, his good wife Martha, Tiny Tim and the children are here from A Christmas Carol...as well as, of course Jacob Marley, and the aforementioned Scrooge.  There's also Little Nell from The Old Curiosity Show (who is introduced hilariously if one knows that story -- she infamously dies in the novel, in perhaps Dickens' most mawkishly maudlin passage, and when we first meet her in the series, she's of course on her deathbed -- but here recovers.)  And as it happens, one of the Cratchit boys is infatuated with her, and courts the young girl.  And there are a great many lesser-known characters, some of whose names I did recognize, but some I didn't -- though what was fun (and what I recommend if you do get to watch the show) is to track down a character list online and keep it handy like a theater playbill.  (There's a good one in Wikipedia.)  Characters from Our Mutual Friend, Martin Chuzzlewit, The Pickwick Papers and more from Bleak House, Great Expectations and others, like Mrs. Gamp, Jaggers, Miss Biggetywitch, and Mr. Venus (beautifully  played by Omad Djalili), a taxidermist from Our Mutual Friend who offers advice and assistance to Inspector Bucket, the detective from Bleak House who here is investigating the murder.

I didn't know most of the actors, but did recognize a few.  Peter Firth (who starred on Broadway decades ago as the young boy in Equus) plays Jacob Marley.  I also recognized Anton Lesser -- who is in the Masterpiece Mystery series Endeavour as the elderly Chief Superintendent, and played Sir Thomas More in Wolf Hall -- is a superb Fagin, bringing wonderful, humanizing levels to the character.  But the best-known actor to me was Stephen Rea, who got an Oscar nomination for The Crying Game, with numerous other recognizable credits. He plays Inspector Bucket, a minor though important character in Bleak House, here investigating the murder, using this new technique of "detection" which is looked at askance by his superiors.  He's absolutely superb in the series, a quirky master of subtle looks and pointed expressions that he rolls carefully around in his mouth.

Two other actors particularly stood out for me.  Ned Dennehy plays Ebenezer Scrooge, perhaps today the most now-cliched characters in all of Dickens, and he brings such great depth to him, making Scrooge far more human and rounded than we've come to expect of him -- yet just as cold, cruel and spiteful.  And Sophie Rundle is terrific as the lovely and eventually conflicted Honoria Barbary, soon to be Lady Dedlock.  This isn't fair to all the other actors in the series because pretty much all of them are gems, including several who are in major plots -- like Tuppence Middleton, so involving as Amelia Havisham, and Tom Weston-Jones who plays the diabolically ingratiating Meriwether Compeyson from Great Expectations.  But if I kept naming them all, it would just be a long list.

For the most part, the storylines are riveting and fascinating -- whether or not you know Dickens.  A couple slightly misfire, most notably the sub-plot with the Bumbles trying to better themselves.  It seems largely for comic relief, and it's definitely fun but comes across as too separate from the rest of the stories.  There also is a comic subplot with Miss Gamp and her lady friends which centers on the tavern and is lively, but gets a little repetitious.  But the writing for these and throughout the series is so smart, so true to Dickens, so vibrant and accessible that it all comes across as fresh, and the plotting is ethereally good.  I have to note here once again Tony Jordan who created the series, and additionally wrote half of the episodes.  It's a tremendous achievement and deserves a repeat mention.

The resolution of the murder mystery (don't worry, I won't say who) is very respectably satisfying, which is a difficult trick because you figure that they have to stay pretty true to Dickens.  And I'm not aware of any major characters convicted of murder, and a minor character would seem to be unsatisfying here.  But the writers came up with a solution that I'd say works fine.

Oddly, I found the final episode that wraps up the show and the storylines the least successful for my taste.  It was as richly done as the others, and is very good.  In part, though, my reaction is because the murder investigation is wrapped up in the previous episode, so there's none of that in the finale, and almost nothing with Inspector Bucket, my favorite character.  Instead they deal with several of the other stories.  But, although those stories are great on their own, as I said, it's just that for various reasons I won't get into -- in case people here do see the show -- the finale didn't all pack the punch that for me was the most-satisfying release of everything.  What I'll say is that the main stories they focus on in the last episode -- one with Miss Havisham and another Honoria Barbary (to be Lady Dedlock) -- are incredibly dramatic, indeed riveting, but unlike most Dickens novels, which tend to end on abundant good cheer and the hopes of bright futures, these are not those kinds of storylines.  So, the ending here is more wistful and moody that you might otherwise get in Dickens.  To be clear, the finale was good. Beautifully done and full of emotion.  And everything does get resolved.  And in a way that you look forward, if not to bright futures for all, at least for some, and all with hope.

One final word, about one thing where it does help to know Dickens.  For the entire series, there are hints of lines from the books, but the dialogue is otherwise original, entirely its own.  Except for the very end.  And I mean, the very end.  That's when a little boy is introduced late in the finale, without mention at first of his name, and he weaves his way around for a while alone and homeless.  Eventually, this waif, who goes by the name Oliver Twist, runs into the Artful Dodger..  And the Dodger's dialogue, explaining that he's about to introduce his lucky new friend to his "respectable old gentlemen," Fagin, is a long passage that directly out of the novel, word-for-word.  

And with that, as the two head into a tavern, and the door closes behind them, the series ends.

It's just great.  And I do so hope Dickensian makes its way to Netflix or BBC America.

Here's the trailer, followed by an extended.  Neither does the series justice, the trailer focusing mostly on the murder mystery and Big Dark Drama, and the whole show itself is far more graceful and vibrant, even at times funny.  But this trailer is attention-getting. It also gives away the murder victim (as does the following scene), so if you don't want to know, then skip them.  But really, there's no reason not to know.

It was nice today to hear a piece on NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday about Steve Goodman.  The main focus of the story was that he wrote the song, "Go, Cubs, Go!," which is particularly timely at the moment.  Host Scott Simon talks to Goodman's biography Clay Eals, and plays clips for a few songs in the five-minute segment.  (Left out was that Steve Goodman and Hillary Clinton went to school together, Maine South High School, in Park Ridge. Illinois.

Speaking of high school, if memory serves I’m pretty sure that Scott Simon went to the one I did, New Trier.  He wrote an autobiography, Home and Away, that was fun, and turned out to have a lot of overlap with my early life.
 
I also traded several emails a while back with the guy he interviews, Clay Eals.  I’d mentioned Eals and his biography, Steve Goodman: Facing the Music, in an article I’d written about Steve Goodman, and he sent me a copy, which I wrote about.  (It was enjoyable, most especially for huge Steve Goodman fans, and a seriously impressive bit of scholarship – but is egregiously looooooong.  The book is oversized – much bigger pages than a usual book, and it was still close to 800 pages.  This for a fellow who died at the age of 36.  I read a biography of Winston Churchill that was only 600 pages.  The shame is that the book is well-written and a terrific introduction to Steve Goodman (along, of course, with his albums...).  But no matter how good and especially-scholarly the book is,  if you want to introduce Steve Goodman to people who don’t know him, they might pick up a 350-page book – but most likely not an oversized 778-page book.  So, it probably cuts out a good part of the potential market.  I suspect that Mr. Eals and the publisher recognized that there weren't probably gong to be many other biographies on Steve Goodman, so they wanted to be definitive.  And this is that.
 
One quibble with the interview.  That's when they ponder about if the Cubs would lose their mystique if they won the World Series.  I’m sure that will be the case for some people – most of whom aren’t from Chicago -- but  they were talking about Steve Goodman, who was a maniacal Cubs fan, and I can’t imagine him or any Cubs fan who are that die-hard who wouldn’t be going crazy cheering for them to win.  

Of course, with the team down two games to one, we might not have that problem to deal with.  But we hopes...

Here's the five-minute piece --

I didn't plan to post anything else about the Cubs today.  I almost didn't even read this article -- I've read plenty enough about last night's game, so did I need one more?  But my recently-mentioned friend Eric Boardman sent me the link to a piece in the Washington Post, and I'm glad I clicked.  That's because I immediately saw it was by Thomas Boswell, who's my favorite baseball writer.  (As I told Eric, I almost added, "probably my favorite," but then realized that's wrong.) 

Boswell (and what an appropriate name is that for a writer) has written numerous books (that are collections of his Washington Post columns) on a variety of sports, but he shines with baseball.  Two of his books leap out -- How Life Imitates the World Series and Why Time Begins on Opening Day.  If you do love baseball, I can't recommend these enough.  (And since they're both a few decades old, the available price for each can be found for as low as a penny -- plus shipping -- depending on the quality of the copy.)

He's a gem of a writer.  Conversant, matter-off-fact, full of stories, and eloquent.  One of my favorite of his columns is the masterful, "99 Reasons Why Baseball is Better Than Football."  One reason is -- "The poet Marianne Moore loved pitcher Christy Mathewson.  No woman of quality has ever preferred football to baseball."  Another reason is -- "Listening to a car radio on a summer night."

One of my favorite of his lines in another article is when he writes that people always wonder what a manager says to a pitcher when going out to the mound when the player has gotten into a jam, and figure it has to be something like, "Babe Ruth is dead.  Throw strikes."

This article about yesterday's game is pure Boswell.  Conversant, matter-of-fact, full of stories and eloquent.  I even suspect people who don't follow baseball might like it, because it's about more than the game, but about the perspective of things.

You can read it here.

And as long as I'm posting at the moment, I figure I might as well add a couple of photos which I just came across today.

This first was sent to me by my cousin Peter Leviton (who I believe was instrumental in the Cubs success as he was on the field during the team's recent reconstruction of Wrigley, as the Cubs' fortunes began to turn, of which I posted a photo here).  His son Eric -- also my cousin, of course... -- went down to Wrigley Field last night and took some photos of the festivities after the game.  Somehow, he's a White Sox fan, but he at least had the good sense to be part of history and appreciate it.  (By the way, I'm really impressed that there was no car-turning or rampaging after the pennant-clinching win last night, just pure joy throughout the city.)
​

And also, here's evidence that one change which won't be a carryover from the Obama Administration if Hillary Clinton wins. He's a White Sox fan - she however is a lifelong Cubs fan! (And even threw out first pitch at Wrigley Field when she was First Lady.) 

Here she is last night when one of her Cubs-fan aides, Connolly Keigher, was live-streaming the game, and gave Clinton an instant replay of final out.

I've started to see TV ads for the upcoming film, Inferno, the latest in the series based on Dan Brown's books that came to fame with The Da Vinci Code.  And again starring Tom Hanks as college professor and scholar of symbols, 'Robert Langdon," and directed once more by Ron Howard, with a' screenplay by David Koepp who's long list of credits includes Jurassic Park and its sequel.

I enjoyed the book, and thought the film version was well done, though not totally satisfying -- however, I've found that I've liked it more on repeat viewing.  I think that's because I (like most filmgoers) came to it with such high expectations based on the book's truly phenomenal success.

The second movie in the series, Angels & Demons, was actually the first "Robert Langdon" book that Dan Brown wrote.  I thought it was pretty good, too, some wonderfully clever, though the movie suffered from the same problem as the book, a convoluted and somewhat silly resolution.

They skipped over making a film from the third book, The Lost Symbol, which was just as well.  Much of the book, which took place in Washington, D.C., was reasonably enjoyable, even fun, but it gets sort of messy throughout, and is a total jumble in the third act.

Which brings us to Inferno.

I hated Inferno.  It almost gets me gnashing my teeth when I think about it.  That's not because the whole book is awful.  It's not.  In fact, for much of the book it's great fun, with plenty of reasonable twists and turns that author Brown is so good at.  Along with a plot twist that is utterly idiotic.  But being charitable I could accept that, albeit with gnawing difficulty, since as annoying as the twist is it impacts the story effectively and lets the plot go off in a fun direction.  It's the conclusion, however, that is just utterly galling.  I won't go into why, so as not to give anything away, but that makes it difficult to explain what bothered me so much about it.  But I'll say this -- I thought the last 10 percent or so was thoughtless, lazy and, while certainly full of surprises, a cheap way to deal with the reader.  And I disliked it so much that I waved the white flag and lost interest in reading any further Robert Langdon stories.  

That's how much I disliked it.

The problem was that Brown set up a story that was difficult to resolve well without more work, perhaps setting things up differently, or taking the time to create more (or fewer) twists at the end to make for a conclusion more respectful to the reader.  At least for my taste.  I do understand what Brown seemingly wanted to do, and to a certain degree I even respect him for it.  But only a certain degree, because if you're going to play around with things, you still need to have it come to an ending that the rest of the book supports.

(Sorry for being cryptic, but as I said, I don't want to give anything away.)

Having said this, I'm not convinced that the movie will end the same way as the book.  I think it's reasonable to think that the filmmakers -- fairly sharp people at structure -- are well aware of the issues and would see it's a mistake to go down that path.  And I can see them telling Dan Brown that they like his work, but this just won't fly with movie audiences, and we're making a film, not a carbon copy of your book, and things will be different.

There's plenty of precedence for doing such a thing.  The movie of The Natural has a very different ending than Bernard Malamud's book.  (Rather than hitting a majestic home run that crashes off the light tower, exploding into fireworks and winning the game...Roy Hobbs strikes out.)  The classic Rodgers & Hammerstin musical Carousel changed the ending of Ferenc Molnar's play, Liliom, taking a bitter moment when the ghost of the father slaps his daughter in an effort to teach her the harshness of life, and turned it into one of Broadway's most glorious hymns of hope, "You'll Never Walk Alone."  (Famously, when the Hungarian playwright came to a rehearsal of the musical, he not only loved the adaptation but added most of all he loved the new ending.)  And of course, there are many other examples of films changing the ending from their original source -- for better and, in fairness, for ill.

Whether the filmmakers of Inferno have fixed the third act and changed things, getting them (in my opinion...) right and proper, I have no idea.  It's a toss of the coin, but if I was forced to bet (with my heart leading the way) it's that they did change it.  As a writer, I want to support the "vision" of the original writer.  But since I think Dan Brown got it so profoundly wrong, I'd accept it here.

At the moment, as you might expect, I have no intention of seeing the movie.  But I'm going to do something uncommon -- I'm going to ask people who do see it what the ending is.  (This isn't a case of "giving it away."  After all, I read the book, I know how the story ends.  I just want to find out if they fixed it.)  And if does get fixed, then I'll go.

I hope they fix it, obviously, for several reasons.  Most of which is up to the resolution, the story is pretty good and very exciting (idiotic plot twist aside).  And the trailer brings that out.  Such a fun adventure deserves an ending that justifies everything that went on before it.  I look forward to finding out what they did.

As for the trailer showing the exciting adventure well -- here it is, as you'll be able to see for yourself.