Buffeted by the Buffet

Is there anything more glorious, nay, more AMERICAN, than the all you can eat buffet?

No, there is not. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. 

I find buffets to be a delight. The endless array of food, the options, the sheer indulgence in display, it's breathtaking. It makes you want to stand and salute. 

It's a fantastic metaphor. Foods from all around the globe getting plopped together on a heated table, side by side, while hungry customers scoop them up and devour them. 

Uh, I may have lost the thread. I'm a little hungry. 

Really, it is America in a nutshell. Abundance. Plenty. Over-indulgence. Greed. And all for about $20.

Recently, Kim and I went to the largest buffet in the USA. It's in East Earl, PA, only about a 2.5 hour drive from New York City. 

Welcome to the Shady Maple Smorgasbord.

Located in Pennsylvania Dutch Country, you'll see signs on the way in warning you to share the road with the Mennonites driving horses and buggies. And it's a little odd, seeing this monument to over eating in the midst of beautiful rolling farmland. (There's also a casino right when you get off the highway. America! Land of Contrasts!)

You walk in to the giant restaurant and you are greeted by a massive lobby and a wide array of three-dimensional folk art. 

Old man with Amish Wagon

Once you've paid for you're buffet and are seated, the sky's the limit. There are signs encouraging you to remember that it's all you CAN eat, and please don't waste food. Ha! They're funny like that in Amish Country. Get your plate and start in!

And you are honestly not prepared for just how much food there is. Steak, pierogis, fried ravioli, ribs, wings, brisket, kielbasa, meats of all kind, and a lot of it locally sourced. (Please don't get the idea this is some kind of French Laundry farm-to-table deal. This is all about consuming mass quantities, and there just happen to be some local farms.)

There is also a long salad bar, sitting there, very optimistically. Be polite and get a carrot stick or something so it feels included whilst you gorge on your third NY strip steak. 

Vegetable? Is that a kind of table or something?

Now, I know what you're asking. Sure, there's a lot of food, but is it good?

And the answer is, yes! Mostly!

The salad (Kim insisted) is very fresh. There is farm cheese that is great. The freshly baked rolls and cornbread is awesome. The brisket and kielbasa are exceptional (although the piece we had was maybe a little too fatty.) The apple dumplings are also delightful. 

Some items may have been on the serving tables a little too long. You can go ahead and try the heat rack pizza, I'll pass. 

Save room for dessert! There are miles of pies and cakes and ice creams. And fruit, if you're into that kind of thing. 

The whole place is a lot of fun. There is an enormous gift shop featuring a lot of Amish quilts and furniture (as well as more affordable items like t-shirts and keychains) And there is a great farmer's market attached that has an amazing selection of local jams and produce. (I have never seen a more diverse selection of apples than I did here. Apples of every variety you can think of!)

It's well worth a visit if you're in the area. And if you have a car, take a day trip! Just leave time for a nap afterwards because those 4000 calories can make you sleepy. 

And watch out for buggies!

Victor Catano lives in New York City with his wonderful wife, Kim, and his adorable pughuaua, Danerys. When not writing, he works in live theater as a stage manager, production manager, and chaos coordinator. His hobbies include coffee, Broadway musicals, and complaining about the NY Mets and Philadelphia Eagles. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram @vgcatano and find his books on Amazon

The Argument against Arguing (or, The Value of not Tolerating Assholes)

If you've been on the internet, you know people like to argue. About literally everything. 

Monty Python had Twitter figured out 34 years before it was created. 

Movies, politics, sports, best regional cuisine... everything. 

Why do we argue? Well, it's fun! Usually! That is, it's fun when it's not about something serious. 

My co-workers are largely Jets fans, which made it lots of fun for me to wear my Philadelphia Eagles gear throughout their recent playoff run. They're also Yankees fans, which makes it a joy to tease them whenever the Yankees have one of their occasional stumbles. This doesn't rise above the level of good-natured ribbing. I'm not going to refuse to work with them because their evil Yankees beat my beloved Blue Jays or Mets. 

I'm not going to end my friendship with someone if they don't agree with me that DiFara's in Brooklyn has the best pizza in New York City. I'll just tell them they have no taste. My friends and fellow ATB writers Christian, Mary and Karissa are constantly arguing with me about which Star Wars movies are better. Mary and Karissa adore the romance of Ani and Padme in Attack of the Clones, and I think that is by far the worst one. They in turn cannot understand why I do not share their loathing of The Last Jedi. 

What swoony dialogue!

I am going to end my friendship with someone if they start telling me that my trans friends and colleagues don't have a right to exist. 

In the grand scheme of the universe, it does not matter if you don't like superhero films or if you think Crumbl cookies are overrated and that they're underbaked. It doesn't matter if I think you're wrong. It's a matter of taste.

What I object to is the conflation of basic human rights with matters of opinion and taste. There's this idea, mainly put forth by well-meaning liberals, that if we can only have a structured Robert's Rules of Order debate about the issues of the day then we can come to a reasonable solution to our problems.

Sorry, but that's horseshit. It's impossible to have a good faith argument with people who refuse to argue in good faith. And if you get roped into a "debate" with a bad faith actor, then you've already lost. 

It can't have escaped your notice that Pride Month feels a lot more fraught than usual. Right Wing culture freaks have grabbed onto anti-gay and anti-trans rhetoric as a cudgel to score political points. Ron DeSantis is using his "Don't Say Gay" bill and his attempts to brand parents of trans kids as child abusers as a way to launch his presidential campaign. This is wrapped in the language of protecting the children from sexual deviants, which is identical to the language used in the '80s and '90s. 

Do you want to debate these hatemongers? You are already letting them set the terms. Their starting point is "trans people should not be allowed to exist," and that is not actually a point that needs to be debated. Then they'll try and change the goalposts. Oh no, they say, we are just extremely concerned about women's sports. (I'm normally very opposed to gatekeeping, but I have no problem if you ask anyone playing the Women's Sports card to name three WNBA teams.)

Are you familiar with the Paradox of Tolerance? If not, here is a helpful web comic to illustrate it:

Basically, the more you tolerate hate, the more you allow hate to take over and the more you endanger the tolerance you sought to protect. 

So please, this Pride Month, please do not get baited into pointless arguments on social media. Block them and move on. There's no need to entertain people playing Devil's Advocate (and why exactly are you advocating for the Prince of Darkness anyway?) It is never a good faith conversation. It is entirely an attempt to mainline hatred while trying to but their college debate skills to some use. 

I am willing to tolerate your extremely wrong opinions about The Last Jedi. That movie is really good. 

See you on Twitter. Happy Pride!

At the Movies

You may not have realized it, but we a coming up on an important anniversary in a little under two weeks. 

Ten years ago - on April 4th, 2013 - Roger Ebert passed away. And there has not been a critic like him since. 

For people of my generation, Ebert was THE film critic. He, along with his television partner Gene Siskel, was the go to reviewer. Newspapers and television ads would eagerly slap "TWO THUMBS UP!" on every film they could. I would religiously watch "Siskel & Ebert: At The Movies" every weekend, cursing when it got pre-empted by a dumb sports event like the Wimbledon finals. 

The show was fun and breezy, yet still informative. Over the course of 30 syndicated minutes, they'd review four or so new films. To a young boy living in Halifax, NS, it was my first exposure to foreign films, independent films, and stuff you wouldn't see at one of the whopping total of 8 screens we had in the city. (I cannot even describe how wonderful it was to get a tiny, badly-heated, arthouse theatre with uncomfortable seats in town. You kids today with your ability to stream every movie in existence on demand have no idea what it was like to sit in a drafty basement so you could watch Tetsuo: The Iron Man. RIP Wormwood's Cinema.)

Everybody knew who Siskel & Ebert were. Their reviews could make or break a movie. They appeared on late night talk shows all the time! One time, they even bumped a young Jennifer Lopez off of Conan O'Brien when their segment ran long! Can you imagine an ink-stained wretch getting airtime over freaking J-LO today? 

Siskel died in 1999 from a brain tumor. And when Ebert passed away, after his years long battle with cancer, there were effectively no national critics.

Think about it... Is there a name you see in movie ads that could make you change your mind about a movie? Without googling it, who is the lead critic at the NY Times these days? (I thought it was A.O. Scott, but he literally retired a week ago.) Movie ads are as likely to namecheck random users on Twitter or Rotten Tomatoes as they are critics at actual newspapers. (A recent King Arthur film got such terrible reviews, they had to get a pull quote from someone named "Zoidberg95." Twice!)

I know, "gatekeepers bad," but part of the reason that Siskel & Ebert were so great to have around was that you knew what kind of films they liked! I have no idea what Zoidberg95 likes to watch, aside from bad King Arthur remakes. But if Ebert liked a movie, and if you generally agreed with his tastes, you'd probably like that movie, too. 

And if Ebert did get it "wrong," he at least explained why he didn't like something. Famously, Ebert panned David Lynch's film Blue Velvet. While most critics placed it at or near the top of their Best Of lists, Ebert gave it one star. He hated the contrast of stark, raw and emotional scenes that were surrounded by deadpan humor and camp. Which is kind of Lynch's whole thing, but Ebert carefully explained why it didn't work for him. 

Honestly, the last thing Ebert would ever claim to be would be a gatekeeper. He and Siskel constantly championed new voices and filmmakers. Spike Lee, Kasi Lemmons, Carl Franklin all got raves from the duo which certainly led people to their films. He loved movies and it always came through in his writing, which was full of warmth and praise.

The internet has done a lot of wonderful things for society, but it has also accelerated the rise of ironic detachment and sarcasm. Snark and quips have replaced critical insight. Ebert was never snarky, even in his most iconic pan, that of the Rob Reiner movie, North. (Direct quote from his review: "I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it.") Rather, the entire review is more sad. He knows Reiner is a good director, Spinal Tap is a favorite movie of his, so it's terrible that this one is so bad and unfunny.

Considering that on the internet literally everyone's a critic, what would it take to get another critic like Roger Ebert? Not just someone whose reviews are respected and well written, but someone who has a nationally prominent spot in the media. The media landscape is so fractured, could anyone bring enough people together to listen to or read a review?

As someone who likes to watch movies and writes the occasional review, I know I've drawn a lot of inspiration from Roger Ebert. His writing on the whole is beautiful, and happily is all archived at rogerebert.com. If you have a quiet afternoon, scroll through and see what he thought about your favorite movies. And maybe check out Life Itself, the documentary about his life made by Steve James (the director of Hoop Dreams, another film Ebert championed). It's a lovely tribute to Ebert, who was a lot more than just "Thumbs Up."

Victor Catano lives in New York City with his wonderful wife, Kim, and his adorable pughuaua, Danerys. When not writing, he works in live theater as a stage manager, production manager, and chaos coordinator. His hobbies include coffee, Broadway musicals, and complaining about the NY Mets and Philadelphia Eagles. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram @vgcatano and find his books on Amazon

Reading for the Winter Blahs

 It's a grey day in New York today, one of the many you can expect in the northeast this time of year. Even if winter has been warmer than usual, it's still chilly and damp and it still gets dark too early. I've not been exactly motivated to do much writing or reading for fun. 

So when I get mopey, I turn to some of my favorite comfort reads. Here are three great mystery series that deserve a much wider audience. All are available on kindle and other ebook formats. 

1) Hammerhead Jed Mysteries by A.J. Devlin

The newest series of the bunch, this follows the exploits of Hammerhead Jed Ounstead, former pro wrestler in Vancouver, BC. He's content to now spend his semi-retirement working at his family bar and helping out as an errand boy for his Dad's detective agency. But then one of his old wrestling buddies asks him to help find his kidnapped boa constrictor and he gets drawn back into the shady world of the squared circle. Each book looks at a new sport - book 2 is roller derby, book 3 is mixed martial arts. Great fun, with an engaging lead as a reluctant detective. Go buy them to encourage him to write more. 

2) Holmes on the Range by Steve Hockensmith

If you like mysteries, you undoubtedly like Sherlock Holmes and some of the many imitators and incarnations. This series is the only one I'm aware of that takes place in the old west. Meet Big Red and Old Red Amlingmeyer. After finding an old copy of a Strand Magazine, Big Red reads the Red-Headed League to his older and smarter (though illiterate) brother. After reading the exploits of the world's greatest sleuth, Old Red is inspired to use Sherlock's techniques to solve a murder on the ranch they're working on. The mysteries always play fair, so you're free to puzzle along with Old Red and try and figure things out. The interplay between the brothers along with the clever mysteries make this a rootin'-tootin' good read. 

3) John Ceepak Mysteries by Chris Grabenstein

Stop me if you've heard this one:  There's a rookie cop partnered with a straight-laced veteran. I know, I know. But what makes this series so much fun is the location. The series is set in the fictional Jersey shore town of Sea Haven. Jersey Shore aficionados will recognize that this is a portmanteau of Beach Haven and Sea Bright, and it really is a stand in for any number of shore towns along the east coast. There are the restaurants and hotels with terrible beach puns in the name, run-down amusement parks, clueless tourists, a terrible town slogan ("Have a sunny, funderful day!") oh, and lots of murder. The characters are a lot of fun, too, in spite of the cliched set up. John Ceepak is a great lead - ex-army, come back to his home town to work on the force. He takes young, seasonal recruit Danny Boyle under his wing and turns him into a good investigator. It's a fun, breezy series, and quite literally the perfect thing to read at the shore. 

I hope you enjoy these as much as I have! If you have a personal favorite mystery series, let me know in the comments!

Victor Catano lives in New York City with his wonderful wife, Kim, and his adorable pughuaua, Danerys. When not writing, he works in live theater as a stage manager, production manager, and chaos coordinator. His hobbies include coffee, Broadway musicals, and complaining about the NY Mets and Philadelphia Eagles. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram @vgcatano and find his books on Amazon

When Well-Intentioned Diversity Falls Short

I recently received a promotional email from Disney+. Which isn't anything out of the ordinary. I get a couple a week promoting their new releases. However, the one I got this week made me a little irritated and made me want to talk about corporate attempts at promoting diversity.

In the past few years, and especially since the murder of George Floyd, companies have been trying to highlight all the ways they're promoting diverse voices and viewpoints. Which is great! We need to hear from new and different and underrepresented voices! However, too often these come off as shameless corporate back-patting and just running down a checklist.

Since a middle-aged white guy talking about diversity is, well, not ideal, I turned to my friend and fellow author, Mary Fan to discuss what make a good project with a diverse cast and what needs to happen for it to rise above corporate platitudes.

VICTOR: So the event that made me want to talk about this topic: I got an email from Disney+ promoting all the great content they had to celebrate Lunar New Year with. And it was so sadly predictable.

I asked you to blindly guess what the films were, and you got them 100% correct: Turning Red, Shang-Chi, and live action Mulan. All of which were made in the last three years, and one of which (Mulan) is terrible. Which struck me as the lamest kind of PR approach to diversity. "Look! We have three whole movies!!!" At the same time, that's three more than they had a decade ago.

So my question to you, what can Disney (and other studios) do to showcase diversity without making it feel like they're checking a box on a list?

MARY FAN: What makes this list particularly hilarious is that none of them have anything to do with Lunar New Year. You wouldn’t see them promoting a Christmas movie list with random movies that take place in England or Germany or something — they promote movies that take place at and center on Christmas! In the case of wanting to promote Lunar New Year but having no movies, well, they’re Disney. They could have commissioned a short or two from new Asian filmmakers

VICTOR That would seem like the least they could do. And I think Turning Red is a fantastic movie! Easily the best Pixar film since Coco! But like you said, nothing to do with Lunar New Year. And they have those Pixar Academy short films! This should be easy!

MARY: Exactly! And in fact it’s kind of cluelessly insulting to showcase generally Asian movies for LNY because it implies that these movies are only worth thinking about on LNY. If it were Asian History Month it’d be a different story. Not to mention, lots of Asian countries celebrate Lunar New Year (which is why that’s the common term now instead of Chinese New Year) yet all the movies they showcase are Chinese. Really, Disney!

VICTOR: This is what I mean by “checking boxes” when it comes to diversity. Disney did a similar thing when it was AAPI Month - Lilo! Moana! And, uh, other stuff! And it takes away from those movies. Turning Red is great! Written and directed by a Chinese-Canadian woman, it’s a wonderful film. But it just becomes a box that gets clicked for an e-mail campaign.

Another thing that made me think about this was the new cartoon on HBO Max, Velma. This is based on the Scooby Doo cartoons, showing how the gang met in high school. One of the twists is that they’ve changed the races of the leads. Velma is now South Asian, Daphne is Chinese (but still with natural red hair), and Shaggy is black.

But the thing is, this seems solely designed to get outrage clicks from angry fans! There’s nothing in the show that would indicate how this could change or affect the character, it’s literally like they clicked a color menu. And that’s all the thought they put into it

MARY: Oh Velma. I haven’t watched the show but it does feel like they’re ticking boxes. Like, I’m all for “take this classic white character and make them a person of color”, but it should have some cultural context, maybe? Also based on all the commentary the show makes a lot of anti-woke “jokes” seemed to cater to right wing humor, which confuses me. Like, are you just trying to give everyone a common enemy?

VICTOR: Jokes is giving Velma too much credit. I reviewed Velma for another website and i panned it, but I tried to make a point about how I didn't like it because the jokes were awful.

The “diversity"just feels so extraneous to the show. Like there is no reason why Velma is South Asian now, it adds nothing to the plot except for a talking point for angry YouTubers Like I think there could be something interesting in making Scooby Gang different races and seeing how that impacts their ability to solve mysteries. But Velma doesn’t really care about that

MARY: I’m somewhat torn about premises like that. Like, on the one hand simply coloring in your cast feels cheap. But on the other, characters and creators of color shouldn't have to be tied to certain expectations. Like, I’m Chinese American, but I don’t necessarily want to write about the immigrant experience or whatever. Sometimes I just want to write about kids solving mysteries who happen to be Asian like me.

In the case of Velma specifically though I think there was a lost opportunity. You’re tying these non-white characters and creators to a legacy originated by white creators about white characters. From a business perspective I get that reimagining existing stories is an easier sell. But also you’re depriving these creators the chance to develop something new, and make characters who are truly their own.

At the same time, I get that it’s exciting to see a familiar character reimagined. Like how people call for a Black James Bond or female Sherlock Holmes. Characters that reach icon status start feeling more like myths than something with a specific canon. Like how stories such as King Arthur have been reimagined so many times before modern sensitivities had anything to do with it.

VICTOR: That very nicely leads into my next topic. I recently saw a production of 1776 on Broadway. If you’re not familiar, this is a Broadway musical about the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The cast is (usually) almost entirely white men playing the founding fathers. The twist here was that the cast was all female, trans and non-binary actors of various races playing the parts

This sounds great! Hamilton did something similar and that is a fantastic show! But, unlike Hamilton, this wasn’t an original musical, it was just the actors plunked into the old script and calling it a day. So, there was a black woman playing John Adams, but she was saying the same lines that Brent Spiner did when I saw the show in 1997. Plus the staging was extremely flat and static

Roundabout is a great company, and I’m sure they had the best of intentions but it just did not work at all

MARY: I remember that show! Hmm this is another topic I’m somewhat torn about. On the one hand, there are some great roles out there written for white men that other performers want to play. Like, who could deny Norm Lewis the chance to play the Phantom or Javert? Or heck, I want to play the Phantom or Javert — just let me take it up a fifth.

I also recall they revived Sweeney Todd once with a woman as Pirelli. But I guess it starts to feel performative when you make a point of gender and/or race swapping your entire cast without adding anything else (come to think of it, a Black Phantom or Javert does add some commentary to both those roles whether intentional or not).

And hey, just because you did an admirable thing in giving marginalized actors good roles doesn’t mean the production can’t stink.

VICTOR: Exactly! And I am pretty sure some African American actors have played Erik. I think I remember Robert Guillaume doing it. And Phantom cast their first black Christine Daae just before they announced their closing.

Fantasy is particularly bad about diversity since so much comes from that Medieval European template. There were fans angry about having one of the houses in the Game of Thrones spin off be black because it wasn’t “historically accurate.” News flash: if you have dragons and zombies the show isn’t concerned about history But it worked absolutely fine in the show!

MARY: Oh yeah, I remember all the hullabaloo about casting a Black Guinevere in Merlin back in the day. Or how those same types were upset about a Black Stormtrooper in Star Wars (they really have no excuses there…)

What these types like to yell about is how entertainment should just cast the best actor for the role. It never occurs to them that the best actor might not be white… Hey, Norm Lewis is my all-time favorite Javert. Before I saw him in the role, I used to detest that character lol

VICTOR: I could go on about this topic for ages, but I’ve kept you too long already. Any final thoughts on diversity done well or examples to follow?

MARY: Hah, we could talk about this forever! There’s so many layers and perspectives that it’s impossible to have one “right” answer. Personally I like the kind of color conscious casting they do in shows like Game of Thrones or Rings of Power or the Little Mermaid, where they cast actors of color in traditionally white roles though the mythology it’s based on is European (and in the case of Rings of Power, penned by someone who clearly reflects the race biases of his time). These stories have become so widespread and admired now, with fans from all backgrounds, and it’s great to give them some representation.

And then there are the utopian shows like every Star Trek ever, each trying to boldly go where no (or few) directors have gone before. It’s a hopelessly optimistic view but sometimes it’s nice. And of course we do need culturally specific entertainment, like the movies that started this whole conversation (Turning Red, Shang Chi, Mulan). We need lots and lots of it, and where there’s a gap, those with power should use their vast resources to fill it. So when you want to send out a Lunar New Year email, you have some actual Lunar New Year stories to showcase.

My thanks to Mary for joining me this week. And a festive Lunar New Year to all who celebrate.

Victor Catano lives in New York City with his wonderful wife, Kim, and his adorable pughuaua, Danerys. When not writing, he works in live theater as a stage manager, production manager, and chaos coordinator. His hobbies include coffee, Broadway musicals, and complaining about the NY Mets and Philadelphia Eagles. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram @vgcatano and find his books on Amazon

Trying is Doing

 If you know me, then you know I am deeply into Star Wars. My first ever appearance on this blog was discussing the virtual Star Wars movie marathon that Mary Fan,  Karissa Laurel and I watched during the pandemic.  

So it will come as no surprise that I am a huge fan of the latest live action Star Wars show on Disney+, Andor. The show has been justly heralded as a thrilling look at how the average person in the Star Wars universe becomes radicalized against the Empire. It’s a ground level view of the birth of the rebellion. It follows Cassian Andor, one of the protagonists from the Rogue One movie, and his journey from aimless, small time criminal to becoming an active member of the resistance. It is the most mature work Star Wars has produced, something more akin to a political thriller than the space opera adventures we grew up loving. 

There isn’t a single lightsaber or mention of the force or the Jedi, and it’s an absolutely amazing work. 

(Warning: Some spoilers for Andor Season 1 will follow here)

One of the most rousing and inspiring moments in a series full of them (seriously, go take 12 hours and watch Andor if you haven’t already done so) happens in the finale. Cassian joins a group about to launch a raid on an Imperial garrison in order to steal the payroll and use it to fund the rebellion. Several of the party die in the effort, including the idealistic Nemik, who has been writing a manifesto for the cause. Before he dies, he gives his book to Cassian. 

Andor is all about how far people can be pushed before they break and rebel. Cassian got sent to a prison for a few episodes, and most of the prisoners were reluctant to consider an escape attempt, at least until they found out that anyone who got “released” was merely transferred to a different facility. The people of Cassian’s planet, Ferrix, had an uneasy pact with the Empire and their corporate arms, but then the Empire occupied them and tightened down on their freedoms. And the series is pretty open about how many people are pretty enthusiastic about supporting the fascism of the Empire,so long as it means personal advancement. The Empire is shown to be omnipresent, with its Stasi-like Imperial Security Bureau spying on and interrogating citizens everywhere. As a result, the rebellion seems insignificant, hiding in shadows, striking in secret, and taking whatever small victories they can get before the boot of the Empire crushes any dissent. 

All those issues are surely on Cassian’s mind as he reads Nemik’s book at the start of the final episode. 

The passage, read aloud in the series by Nemik, reminds the reader that though things may seem overwhelming and the odds may seem impossible, it is important to carry on. Throughout the galaxy, people are fighting and resisting, unaware of each other’s actions, and one day it will become too much for the Empire to contain. 

“And know this, the day will come when all these skirmishes and battles, these moments of defiance will have flooded the banks of the Empire's authority and then there will be one too many. One single thing will break the siege. 

Remember this. Try.”

It’s a flashpoint for Cassian, and the people of Ferrix begin to fight back during the funeral of Cassian’s mother, Malva. It is an act of open defiance against the occupiers, with the everyday people fighting back against the Empire’s troops. 

It is also a stark contrast to some of the other messages in Star Wars. You probably know that one of the most quotable lines in the original trilogy comes from Jedi Master Yoda. During their training session in the swamps of Dagobah, Yoda challenges Luke to use the Force to pull his X-Wing out of the muck. Luke balks, having never moved something that big before, but says he’ll try. 

Yoda is not having it. “No. Try not. Do or do not. There is no try.”

This is an oft-quoted line, used as an example of the Jedi mentality. And I saw more than a few people contrast that with the hopeful message of Nerik’s manifesto. “See how out of touch the Jedi are? No concept of the real world. People have to try and try until they get results.” Now, Yoda has long been one of my favorite characters so I feel the need to defend my 900 year old friend from slanders. 

The thing is, these two concepts - “Try” and “There is no try.” aren’t contradictory. They can be read as two halves of a whole. 

In other words,  trying is doing. 

When Yoda tells Luke “Do or do not,” he does not mean “succeed or fail.” He means “You either use your powers and grow and improve, or you do nothing.” In this context, “try” does not mean “attempt success.” “Do” means do something, “do not” means do nothing. Even if the attempt is unsuccessful, it is an opportunity to learn and to grow. The only failure is not trying. 

One of the most famous quotes in sports history comes from hockey legend Wayne Gretzky. (I grew up in Canada, so I am legally required to mention hockey every so often.) Namely, “you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.” Each shot is a “do.” Each hesitation is a “do not.” 

Likewise in Andor, “try” means do something, anything you can to fight the fascists. Each attempt is a shot on goal. Each attempt brings your X-Wing closer to the surface. The next brick thrown could be the one that breaks the line of stormtroopers. “Do or do not” does not mean “overthrow the Empire or you have failed.” “Do or do not” means participate or be a bystander. There is no try. You are either a part of the rebellion or you are tacitly endorsing the Empire. 

Remember this: Do or do not. 

And also remember this: watch Andor.

On a personal note, this post marks my one year anniversary of writing on this blog! It's been a lot of fun, and I'm glad that to have an audience that tolerates my musings on Stephen Sondheim, Star Wars, and my little doggy. Thanks for reading!

Victor Catano lives in New York City with his wonderful wife, Kim, and his adorable pughuaua, Danerys. When not writing, he works in live theater as a stage manager, production manager, and chaos coordinator. His hobbies include coffee, Broadway musicals, and complaining about the NY Mets and Philadelphia Eagles. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram @vgcatano and find his books on Amazon.

BACK JACKET HACK JOB: "CLASSICS" EDITION

 Here on ATB we have a sporadic tradition of the Back Jacket Hack Job, where we badly rewrite the summary blurb of a well known novel. 

Today I have selected a "classic" novel, The Mill on the Floss, by George Eliot. This is, quite literally, the worst goddamn book I have ever read in my life. Here is my review I posted on Bookstagram a while ago: 

No stars, one finger.

The context in which I read it didn't do it any favors. It was assigned reading in 11th grade English class. At first, it didn't seem too bad. The books being handed out were small and fairly thin. 

PSYCH! They were 500 pages of single spaced 10pt type on wafer thin paper that was almost translucent. It gave me a headache to read it, and the book was lousy so it gave me a headache comprehending it. 

It's apparently supposed to be a searing social commentary of Victorian England, centered on a brother (who wants to restore the family fortune) and sister (who wants LUV). What it is, is a big ol' pile of boring. Nowhere near as sharp as Austen, no compelling plot like Dickens, it's just a gloomy slog of misery. 

The characters are, to put it mildly, jerks. Tom, the brother, is a self-righteous git. He shuns his sister, Maggie, and calls her a harlot because she took a boat ride with a friend. There is no one here you'd care to spend five minutes with, let alone five hundred pages. 

And should you stick it out to the end of this wade through the mire of drudgery, you get a twist ending. After our two siblings finally reconcile, they immediately drown. For no reason. At all. It's as if George Eliot has to meet a deadline and just decided to stop writing because ye olde delivery boy was coming to fetch the mauscript. It's dreadful. 

Anyhoo, here's how I would write the back jacket to better describe the book:

"Two annoying siblings spend 500 pages bickering and striving to climb in Victorian society and die in a flood on the last page for absolutely no reason. Take this book and throw it at a fascist politician and you'll have preformed a better social commentary than  Eliot does here. There, I saved you literally days of your life."

Hey, NY Times Book Review! Consider this my resume. 

Victor Catano lives in New York City with his wonderful wife, Kim, and his adorable pughuaua, Danerys. When not writing, he works in live theater as a stage manager, production manager, and chaos coordinator. His hobbies include coffee, Broadway musicals, and complaining about the NY Mets and Philadelphia Eagles. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram @vgcatano and find his books on Amazon

Google Confirms What I Already Knew (Featuring a special guest blogger)

It's been a hectic month for me, but I would never - NEVER - shirk on my blogging duties here at ATB! I have been assigned a google search post this week, so let's fire up the ol' Google machine and see what comes up.

Who is the cutest dog in the world? Well, I have my suspicions, but let's see what the GoogOracle says:

Why... That's my dog! My precious little bundle of cuddles, Danerys. I am glad to report that Google has confirmed what is obviously common knowledge. 

My wife and I adopted Danerys (Dany for short) almost six years ago. She is a pughuahua, half pug and half chihuahua. (Some people call that mix a chug, but I find that horribly undignified.) She has the curly pug tail and the chihuahua nose.  Kim found her on Petfinder and...

Excuse me, daddy.

My editor.

Oh, hello Dany! I almost didn't see you there, standing directly in front of my monitor.

You're telling it wrong. 

Excuse me?

Of how we met! You aren't telling it right!

Oh. Well, do you want to jump in? I have a rental client meeting in about ten minutes, so why don't you hop in and tell everyone the story and I'll give it a quick edit once you're done. 

Cool, move over. 

The 100% True and Unembellished Tale of

How Danerys the Pughuahua 

Came to Live With 

Victor & Kim

(As written by Danerys)

Once upon a time there was a shapeshifting princess. 

This magical being could assume any form she chose. However, she could only do this in her youth. Once she hit a certain age, she would lose this ability. She would need to assume her forever form and choose her forever home. 

Princess Dany was concerned. She enjoyed roaming wherever she pleased. She enjoyed roaming through the woods.

And when she came to rocky cliff, she would assume her dragon form and soar over. 

She would romp on the beach.

And then turn herself into a mermaid so she could play with the fishes. 

But, as much fun as it was to roam, Dany yearned for a companion. She yearned for a true friend that she could play with. Someone to sleep on. Someone who would hand feed her rotisserie chicken and bits of cheese. Someone who needed constant licks on their face. 

Dany's decision day was drawing near. To clear her head, she decided to become and angel and fly about. 

She thought long and hard about her choice. Should she stay a dragon? Live in the water? What would she do?

But as she was flying, she came across a couple. There was a beautiful lady and a goofy-looking man. The beautiful woman said "I am very happy with our life together, but there is something missing."

The goofy-looking man nodded. "Yes, I agree. We desperately need a small dog to spoil."

The pretty lady beamed a smile. "Yes! We need a delightful dog with a curly tail. Someone that will sleep on us and eat cheese out of our hands."

The man agreed. "And who will lick my face constantly. Just never, ever stop."

When Danerys heard that, she knew her choice had been made. She landed in front of them and made her forever choice. 

Please take me home...

And they did. And they all lived happily ever after. 

THE END

Did you like it?

Yes Dany. It's perfect. That's exactly how it happened. 

Thanks to google and my guest author this week. I have to go and feed someone some cheese. 

Danerys is a 20 pounds of cuddles in a 10 pound body. She enjoys cheese and a sturdy squeaky toy. You can follow her on Instagram at @dany_the_pughuahua

Victor Catano lives in New York City with his wonderful wife, Kim, and his adorable pughuaua, Danerys. When not writing, he works in live theater as a stage manager, production manager, and chaos coordinator. His hobbies include coffee, Broadway musicals, and complaining about the NY Mets and Philadelphia Eagles. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram @vgcatano and find his books on Amazon

Jack's Back! A Look at Jack Reacher on Page and Screen

 Yesterday was a happy day for fans of the Amazon Prime show, Reacher. The star of the show, Alan Ritchson, posted on twitter that season two of the hit show would adapt Bad Luck and Trouble. This is - in my opinion - the best book in the series.

“O'Donnell put his hand in his pocket and came out with his brass knuckles. Ceramic knuckles, technically.”

That’s right, season 2 of #ReacherOnPrime will be based on Bad Luck and Trouble (Jack Reacher, #11), written by the legendary Lee Child.

Filming will commence this fall. pic.twitter.com/bOua7LSsLY

— Alan Ritchson (@alanritchson) May 18, 2022

For those unacquainted with the glories of the Jack Reacher series, here is a brief recap. Written by British author Lee Child, they follow retired MP Jack Reacher as he wanders across the country. He has no fixed address, preferring to see the country on his own terms. He winds up helping people out of trouble and cracking a few heads along the way. 

The Amazon series is eminently bingeable and perfectly captures the spirit of the books. I watched the whole series in a weekend. 

To celebrate this season two announcement, I invited my friend and fellow Reacher-phile , Karissa Laurel to come and chat about Jack Reacher on the page and on the screen.  

VICTOR: I've been a fan of the Reacher books for a long time, which is a little strange since this is not the kind of book I usually read. But after I read one, I was hooked and proceeded to read the other 20. What is it about the character that drew you in?

KARISSA: I only got into the Jack Reacher books this past year. I decided to pick up the first book when the new streaming series was announced on Amazon Prime. I had seen the original Jack Reacher movie that Tom Cruise was in and liked it well enough. But when they announced that Alan Ritchson would be filling the role of Jack Reacher, I needed to know why someone with such a completely opposite physical appearance from Tom Cruise was chosen for the role. I wanted to go to the source material and find out what the heck was going on. I read "The Killing Floor" and was instantly hooked.

I'm a huge fan of The Punisher and there are *a lot* of similarities between Reacher and Frank Castle. I like the anti-hero personality. They both have a strong sense of justice, they both approach getting that justice by operating outside the bounds of the law, but they have extremely strict moral codes that keep it all in check. But Reacher steps it up a notch by also being extremely romantic. Honestly, a lot of Jack Reacher novels include a lot of romance novel tropes and I'm a huge fan of romance novels.

VICTOR: Hmm, I never really thought of Jack as a romantic lead. He tends to hook up with women in the towns he roams through, but I always looked at that through the prism of action movie tropes. Can you elaborate on that? Is the brooding loner a romantic ideal for you?

KARISSA: There are two rules in romance novels that are unbreakable. One is that the development of the romance has to be the main plot and the other is that the story has to end "Happily Ever After" or at least "Happy for now". Reacher of course breaks those rules, so his novels can't be completely "romance" by definition, but they have so many of the tropes that they can definitely be considered romantic. Take the Killing Floor for example. Lee Child put a lot of energy into developing the romantic chemistry between Reacher and Roscoe. He didn't skip over the love scenes either. There's this ongoing joke in "Romancelandia" (what romance fandom is generally called) that romantic heroes are always huge and tall. The brooding loner part is certainly part of Reacher's appeal, but it don't hurt that he's 6'5", 250 pounds and has a "mesomorphic body type" (that's a direct quote from "Never Go Back") which is short hand for saying his muscular physique is perfectly proportioned. It don't get more romance cover model than that! Plus he has a really great respect and appreciation for women in general. He's a hard character for women to resist.

VICTOR: Not only that, he embodies the idea of the "man's man." Big, strong, smart, ready with a quip. So literally something for everyone!

KARISSA: He's really a super hero in a lot of ways

VICTOR: He's really kind of a throwback. Back in the '80's and '90's, the ideal action hero was Stallone or Schwarzenegger, big muscly dudes. And, ironically, Alan Ritchson played a superhero, when he was briefly Aquaman on the Smallville show.

KARISSA: I know! I even remember him from those days...vaguely.

VICTOR: Let's talk about casting. We've both seen the Tom Cruise version of Reacher. I saw both of those movies - the first one was fun, the second...wasn't.

KARISSA: Agree!

VICTOR: And I think we'd both agree that Ritchson is a FAR superior choice in the role

KARISSA: Indeed

VICTOR: Not just from a physical standpoint, either.

KARISSA: Right! I've talked to some Reacher fans who are defensive of Cruise's portrayal and they say he still did Reacher's personality right, but... I disagree. For a few reasons.

VICTOR: Lee Child has a very direct and sparse prose style. The only character description Reacher usually gets is "big." Like he is described as a refrigerator, hands the size of hams, etc.

Pictured: NOT a ham-handed refrigerator.

KARISSA: But the thing is that "Bigness" of Reacher colors absolutely everything about his psyche too. It affects the way he approaches the world and the way the world approaches him. And that's something that someone who looks like Tom Cruise can never portray.

VICTOR: That's a very good point. I actually didn't mind Cruise in the movies. I had my doubts about him, but I thought he pulled off Reacher's attitude pretty well. But you are right. Jack moves through life expecting people to react to him a certain way and using that to his advantage.

KARISSA: An Alan Ritchson version of Reacher can demonstrate how someone can intimidate simply by walking into a room and scowling. Who want's to mess with a mountain of muscle like that?

But Tom Cruise walks in and scowls and...well...people might be willing to accept that challenge. They'd be willing to fight him.

VICTOR: It was very reminiscent of Tom Cruise as Lestat. Like, the casting choice turned out better than I expected, but it would never have been my first pick.

KARISSA: I never read Interview with a Vampire but I do know what people thought of his casting.

VICTOR: I guess Lee Child and Anne Rice should start a support group. Lestat in the books feels like a version of Sting or David Bowie. And Tom Cruise... is not that.

KARISSA: LOL!!! In some ways, Cruise's Reacher is an extension of his Ethan Hunt character from Mission Impossible

VICTOR: Yes, very much agree. But! That is an entirely different character. That is someone who is literally trying to stay hidden, which is absolutely not Reacher.

KARISSA: I agree with that, but that kind of points back and the physicality discrepancy in his casting.

VICTOR: I did not know a lot about Alan Ritchson going in, but five minutes into episode one and I was won over completely.

KARISSA: Reacher wants to walk into a room and have people take note of his "bigness" and use that as a basis in deciding not to mess with him. Reacher also very much depends on people to look at him and think of him as big and dumb and underestimate his intellect, and Reacher is extremely smart and intuitive.

VICTOR: He just exudes charm and affability. It's almost impossible to dislike him in this role.

Much better...

KARISSA: I picked that up about Ritchson in the trailers before the show even came out. I was like: this is SO different from the Tom Cruise Reacher, I need to know who this character really is, and I think Alan nailed it. I mean... rarely does a character get cast so exceptionally well. I am delighted with his performance.

VICTOR: Yes, I think the series is overall very well cast. I was not familiar with most of the actors, but I was very impressed with them, particularly Willa Fitzgerald as Roscoe and Maria Sten as Neagley

KARISSA: So, that is actually a great segue into something else I want to make sure to point out about Reacher. They did absolutely get Roscoe and Neagley right in this series. Spot on. What's important for me about the series is that people might not expect it but Reacher has a wide feminist streak. Yeah, he loves to romance a woman, but he sincerely enjoys working with them professionally, too.

VICTOR: One of the reasons I'm so glad Bad Luck and Trouble is the basis for next year is that it brings back Neagley and the other special investigators. And you see in the books that he absolutely respects Neagley. She is the first one he turns to when he needs help.

KARISSA: And those women are usually police, military, or some other tough girl type, and they totally captured that in the casting and performances in season one. I LOVE Neagley. I'd love her to get her own spin off series. He is so good with Neagley. She's actually a bit prickly and has had some past trauma. He utterly respects her boundaries.

VICTOR: Absolutely. She's only in a few of the books, and I would love to see her in a spin off following her as a security consultant.

KARISSA: In every book she's been in, I thought she stole the show.

VICTOR: I also appreciate that her past isn't explained. Reacher accepts that it's her business and if she wants to share it she will. He's not one to pry.

KARISSA: Yup! Same thoughts exactly. He never pushes. He never pries. He intuits that she has boundaries and he never oversteps. His respect for her is one of the things that immediately drew me in about him as a character. That differentiates him from so many of those muscly macho men characters.

VICTOR; Another interesting aspect of the character is his "homelessness." He has no home base, rather he wanders the country and dispenses justice. (On a podcast, Kevin Smith compared it to the old Incredible Hulk TV show - where Bruce Banner would roam the country and the Hulk would crack some heads.) It's interesting because currently there are a ton of #VanLife videos on YouTube, with people converting their vans into little mobile homes. Jack Reacher, trend setter!

KARISSA: But Jack would never even have a van!

VICTOR: No, he has the Greyhound schedules memorized.

KARISSA: He utterly eschews physical possessions. That's another (what seems like a tiny) detail that the Tom Cruise movie got wrong. The movie shows Reacher showing up with a bag. Nope. It is at the core philosophy of Reacher's character that he carries NO possessions other than his wallet and maybe a folding tooth brush. He makes a big deal in almost every book about having to find some place to buy an outfit--usually a thrift store or military surplus. He'll sometimes wash his clothes out in a sink and "iron" them by putting them under his mattress. But he'll make one pair of pants last the whole book. Then he throws them away before leaving town. He doesn't do luggage.

VICTOR: Yes, that made me so happy when counted out Jack's possessions when he got arrested in episode one and they pulled out the tooth brush.

KARISSA: I thought the same thing. The tooth brush!!!

VICTOR: I think I've taken up your entire lunch hour. Is there anything else Reacher-related you'd like to discuss?

KARISSA: I guess my only real negative critique of the show was it's tendency to venture into sentimentality. Jack has a soft heart under all those layers of muscle and brooding, hard exterior. But I don't think I'd be wrong to say he is never sentimental. He's loyal, he's caring, but he's not the one-tear-rolling-down-his-cheek type. EVER. In fact, in the first book, he almost seems a bit cold about his brother's death. It's only over the course of the series that you start to see that Jack internalizes his grief.

VICTOR: Yes, they work a lot of his backstory into the series. That's not in Killing Floor, but it comes out in later volumes and some of the short stories. Especially his relationship with his mother.

KARISSA: Yup. There's a book later in the series (another in which Neagley plays an awesome and pivotal role) in which Reacher comes to Washington and meets one of his brother's former lovers. That book did a lot to expose Reacher's complicated relationship with his brother. I know the show can't expect folks to stay in for multiple seasons to eventually see that side of Reacher, but that single tear moment was just a little too much.

But other than that, I can't really complain too much. That was one of the best book-to-screen adaptations I've seen in a while and I am SO STOKED for Season 2.

VICTOR: Yes, BRING ON THE 110th REUNION!

KARISSA: You and I talked earlier about how badly we wanted this to be the book they did next because we want to see Reacher's team. I'm so excited the producers read our minds.

VICTOR: Absolutely. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk about Reacher today.

KARISSA: Thanks for inviting me. Kind of like how you can talk about Batman all day, I can do that for Jack Reacher. So glad for a chance to word vomit about one of my most favorite action heroes.

VICTOR: Batman-Reacher team up issue!

KARISSA: I would die. It would be like Batman v Superman but worse. Talk about conflicting moral philosophies! But that's another discussion for another day. They wouldn't bond over both their mothers being named Martha. It would be pandemonium. Dogs and cats living together!

You don't have to put that in.

VICTOR: Oh, that's absolutely going in.

My thanks to Karissa for joining me today! You can find out more about her books at karissalaurel.com. 

Victor Catano lives in New York City with his wonderful wife, Kim, and his adorable pughuaua, Danerys. When not writing, he works in live theater as a stage manager, production manager, and chaos coordinator. His hobbies include coffee, Broadway musicals, and complaining about the NY Mets and Philadelphia Eagles. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram @vgcatano and find his books on Amazon