Matthew Dicks's Blog, page 198

Star Wars got better. Seriously.

I can’t believe it.

Star Wars nerds have actually won me over.

I love Star Wars but have always found the overly-indulgent, obsessive nerds a little too much to handle, but then I see this:

A legitimately brilliant, seamless improvement to the movie that started it all.

I support this. I love this. My apologies and appreciation to Star Wars nerds everywhere. I should have never doubted your dedication to the franchise and universe.

A tennis shoe is designed for tennis.

Sometimes I rail against something of great import:

Our racist, incompetent, self-described sex offender of a President who puts children in cages and refers to Neo-Nazis as “very fine people,” for example.

But sometimes I rail against something slightly smaller and only slightly less enraging. In this case, it’s the tennis shoe, or more specifically, the propensity of some people to refer to sneakers as tennis shoes.

This makes no sense.

And yes, I know that this nomenclature is slightly geographic. Certain parts of the country are more likely to refer to sneakers as tennis shoes, but that doesn’t make it right.

There is a shoe specifically designed for playing tennis. This is rightfully called a tennis shoe.

There is a shoe designed for running. This is called a running shoe.

There are shoes designed for golf, basketball, baseball, and many other sports. Each is named in accordance to its design.

But if you want to refer to the traditional, rubber-soled athletic shoe in a generic way, we have words for that, too, and it’s not tennis shoe.

Sneaker is quite common. You could also call them kicks. Some places in America even call them gym shoes. Originally they were called plimsolls from the colored, horizontal band joining the upper part of the shoe to the sole, which resembled the Plimsoll line on a ship's hull.

No one calls them plimsolls anymore, but if you did, it would make more sense than referring to your sneakers as tennis shoes.

At least you wouldn’t be identifying shoes not specifically designed for tennis as tennis shoes.

It’s really quite simple:

Tennis shoes are technically designed to be worn during a tennis match while sneakers are simple shoes with rubber shoes and a canvas or canvas-like topping designed to be worn anywhere.

Some folks may quibble with my use of the word “anywhere,” but I have wear sneakers year-round to weddings, funerals, and other traditionally former occasions because I don’t allow nonsensical clothing mores and unnecessary protocols to dictate my level of comfort and fashion preference.

I’m not saying it’s wrong to not wear sneakers to these occasions. I just think it’s wrong and stupid-headed to judge someone who does.

You know what is also kind of wrong and stupid-headed:

Calling tennis shoes that are not specifically designed for tennis as tennis shoes.

Fight to ascribe good intentions

They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I hate this phrase. I hate it so much.

I understand the sentiment:

Good intentions do not always produce good results. The law of unintended consequences often demonstrates that that despite a person or government’s most noble intent, effects that are unanticipated or unintended will often happen. Sometimes the best intentions, like in the case of leaded gasoline, can lead to disastrous result.

But what would you have done instead? Act under bad intentions, hoping the law of unintended consequences will somehow turn your bad decision into a good one?

The future is unknowable. We do our best and hope that the results are what we hope.

For this reason, I fight like hell to recognize and credit good intentions whenever possible. I prefer to judge people not upon their actions and words but on their intent. 

Yes, that person said or did something that was hurtful or destructive, but was that the person's intent? 

It doesn’t mean I won’t stand in opposition to what the person has said or done, but if their intentions are righteous, I don’t have to be angry with them as I do so.

This makes life a hell of a lot easier.

In many cases, I’m able to instantaneously forgive the person and move on.

That makes life life far simpler and much happier.

I know some people think this is a ridiculous way to be, and still others are dubious of the the veracity of this claim. Some - including people quite close to me - have occasionally (and not so occasionally) mocked me for this position, claiming that I’m acting with unfounded righteousness.

I disagree. I think I’m acting logically. Selfishly, in fact. A life without anger or bitterness is a better life. In recognizing and crediting good intentions even when the results are not positive, I’m taking care of myself. Removing drama from my life. Allowing time for joy and productivity and achievement. Ridding myself of pettiness and spite.

I’ve seen the opposite of my position, and I don’t like it. I’ve seen the desire to become the victim and assume the worst. I’ve watches people discard a person’s good intentions because the results were unexpected or unfortunate.

I think it’s stupid.

Storyworthy in academia

Exciting news!

My book, Storyworthy: Engage, Teach, Persuade, and Change Your Life Through the Power of Storytelling, is being used by professors at least half a dozen colleges and universities around the country, as well as many middle and high schools.

Yesterday one of those professors posted a photo of the books on the college bookstore shelf.

As a teacher, author, and storyteller, this was an exciting photo to see. I’m thrilled that my book will be used by students who are learning to write and tell stories.

But I’m not going to lie. Thinking that a future homework assignment might be generated from something I wrote is also a little distressing. I’ve already asked the editor of my upcoming middle grade novel, Cardboard Knight, to include a note on the cover that reads:

“Teachers are forbidden to ask any student to write a report about this book.”

A book report is an excellent way to make a kid hate a book. I know. It happened to me many times.

Also, if Storyworthy is going to be used as a textbook, shouldn’t it also cost $900?

I feel like I’m missing out on some serious profits.

Elysha knew.

Here’s a crazy thing:

Apparently I make noise while listening to stories.

Elysha and I were driving home from a storytelling show recently. After each show, we run through the stories, discussing what we liked and perhaps didn’t like about each one. At one point, she said, “I know you didn’t like the ending of that story.”

“How did you know?” I asked.

“I heard you,” she said. “You make these sounds when listening to stories. I’ve learned to decipher them.”

“Seriously?” I asked.

“Yes” she said. “In fact, I know that you didn’t like the ending of so-and-so’s story, but then, at the last second, you changed your mind and loved it.”

I hit the brakes on the car. I couldn’t believe it. That was exactly how I had felt about the story. I hated the ending, but then, in the last three or four sentences, the storyteller flipped it and made it work beautifully.

“You can tell all that just by listening to me listening to a story?”

“Yup,” she said.

I was both elated that my wife knew me so well and absolutely terrified about what other possible unintentional auditory information I have been divulging on a daily basis.

Charlie supports the separation of church and state

It’s Mother’s Day.

Elysha, the kids, and I are eating an excellent brunch at Big Daddy’s, a diner on the upper west side.

We’re in the city to visit Elysha’s parents and her grandmother, who is a few blocks north at Mount Sinai, recovering from a recently broken hip.

Elysha hands Charlie a dollar bill to play an arcade game. It’s a version of the claw machine, filled with rubber ducks, except that everyone who plays wins. You just keep grabbing until you have a rubber duck between the claw’s teeth.

It’s great except that it’s establishing some seriously unrealistic expectations for the future.

Charlie looks at the dollar bill, sees the words, “In God We Trust,” and asks her why there is a reference to God on our money.

Elysha explains that it’s simply the way our money was designed.

Charlie, age 6, smacks his palm against his forehead, sighs, and say, “I don’t even believe in God. Do you?”

He apparently supports the separation of church and state. Also, I guess he’s an atheist. And Jewish.

My children will never cease to amaze me.

Speak Up Storytelling: Ted Olds

On episode #49 of the Speak Up Storytelling podcast, Elysha Dicks and I talk storytelling!

In our followup segment, we hear from a linguist who tries to get me out of hot water, and we learn about a new and unique way of recording Homework for Life.  

In our Homework for Life segment, we talk about how to dig deeper into story ideas to allow an otherwise surface level story say more.

Next we listen to Ted Old's high stakes story about a fourth grade multiplication contest.

After listening, we discuss:

The escalation of stakes 

Brevity in storytelling 

Choosing when and what to describe

The advantages of keeping your story "in the moment"

The disadvantages of adjectives

Making your story about something bigger than the story itself

Next, we answer questions about our future employment options and Moth StorySLAM advice.

Finally, we each offer a recommendation.  

LINKS

Purchase Storyworthy: Engage, Teach, Persuade, and Change Your Life Through the Power of Storytelling

Homework for Life: https://bit.ly/2f9ZPne

Matthew Dicks's website: http://www.matthewdicks.com

Matthew Dicks's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/matthewjohndicks 

Subscribe to Matthew Dicks's weekly newsletter: http://www.matthewdicks.com/matthewdicks-subscribe

Subscribe to the Speak Up newsletter: http://www.matthewdicks.com/subscribe-speak-up

RECOMMEDATIONS

Elysha:

Trip or Vacation: A Helpful Guide for Parents

Matt:

Save the Cat: The Last Book on Storytelling that You'll Ever Need by Blake Snyder

Checking in on our relationship...

Back in 2011, researchers from Rice University and the University of Nebraska—Lincoln analyzed data collected from more than 5,000 couples in order to identify similarities among spouses and how much these elements played a role in the success or failure of a couple.

They found that some similarities play enormous role in the success of a marriage, while others play almost no role at all.

On a scale of 0 to 1, where 1 means perfectly matched, physical traits (body shape, weight and height) only score between 0.1 and 0.2 among spouse pairs. Personality traits, such as extroversion or impulsivity, are also weak and fall within the 0 to 0.2 range. 

However, researchers found that spouses’ strongest similarities were in church attendance and political attitudes, outweighing personality and physical appearance by wide margins, and that these were key indicators of a successful marriage.  

Simply put, opposites don’t attract. Couples with more similarities tend to fair much better than those that don’t.  

As a reluctant atheist, I have always felt that I married into the perfect religion, since (as a Jewish friend once said) Jews are just agnostics with complex backstories.

This isn’t far from the truth when it comes to Elysha.

The study, published in the Journal of Politics, lists traits they found similar in spouses, rating them from super-alike to not alike.

Eight years ago, when the report first published, I went through the list to determine how Elysha and I rated on these scales, and we did well. Apparently I set a reminder way back then to review the list in 2019, because one popped up on my calendar this week.

I guess I thought it was worth updating the list to see how we stand today. Maybe I was worried that things would change. I get a lot of reminders from the past version of me, and I’m never quite sure what I’m trying to say to my future self.

Happily, this turned out well.

Here are the results:

Church attendance: Alike   

Political attitudes: Super alike    

Drinking frequency: Somewhat alike

Education: Super alike  

Height: Alike

Smoking frequency: Super alike

Sleep length: Not alike 

The only one of these to change in the last eight years is drinking frequency, going from alike to somewhat alike. While Elysha will have a glass of wine with dinner, particularly when we’re out with friends, I can’t remember the last time I drank alcohol.

Our politics, thanks in part to the racist old horny burger goblin who literally steals children from poor people in the White House, have probably become even more similar in the last two years. Galvanized, in fact.

Here is a selection of specific issues and attitudes that couples had similar views on, again rated from super-alike to not alike:

School prayer: Super alike

Abortion: Alike

Gay rights: Super alike

X-rated movies: Huh?

Death penalty: Super alike 

Divorce: Super alike

Women's liberation: Alike

Nuclear power: Not alike  

Astrology: Super alike 

Willingness to take a dangerous drug: Super alike 

Modern art: Somewhat alike

Censorship: Super alike 

Belief that it's better to follow the rules: Not alike 

Liking to intimidate other people: Somewhat alike 

Having been "fresh" to their parents as a child: Not alike

In these categories, “modern art” went from alike to somewhat alike. Elysha loves modern art. I don’t like it better or worse than any other period. I’m surprised I felt differently eight years ago.

Maybe I was just trying to impress Elysha.

“Liking to intimidate other people” also changed, going from not alike to somewhat alike. Elysha has no desire to ever intimidate other people. I still find it very useful, but I’m more nuanced today. I don’t immediately turn to intimidation but instead consider my options first.

I’m maturing, perhaps. Or simply becoming more methodical and ruthless.

Lots of changes have taken place since I first wrote about this survey.

Charlie was born.
I began telling stories for The Moth. Performing on stages around the world.
We launched Speak Up.
I published two more novels and a book of nonfiction.
I started teaching storytelling and public speaking around the world.
Both of our children went off to elementary school.
We lost our dear pets, Kaleigh and Owen, and adopted two new cats from Egypt.
Elysha learned to play the ukulele. She gardens, now. No longer kills plants indiscriminately.
The Patriots won three more Super Bowls.
We’ve made new friends. Watched with heavy hearts as others have moved away.
We launched a podcast.
Elysha went back to work as a kindergarten teacher.

While the last eight years have brought us so many changes, the important things have changed very little. Based upon this study, we are destined to remain in wedded bliss.

Unless I screw something up.

Not going to the racist's house is a reasonable choice

The Red Sox, World Series champions last year, were invited to visit the White House this week. About one-third of the team, including the manager, did not attend. The team split along racial lines, with almost exclusively white athletes making the trip.

This is nothing new for the Trump Presidency. While past Presidents have welcomed and been visited by all championship teams, half of the 20 championship teams during the Trump administration were either not invited when they made it clear they wouldn’t attend or declined the invitation completely.

The ceremonies for the other half were often marred by the absence of notable players, the presence of players who looked unhappy, teams that appeared to be embarrassed about the trip, and the growing habit of serving fast food to world-class athletes.

Yesterday, I listened to former Yankees first baseman Mark Teixeira on the Michael Kay Show explain that a division like this can permanently damage a team. He questioned the Hispanic and African American players who refused to attend the ceremony, advising players to keep politics out of the game for the good of the team.

I was on a treadmill at the gym at the time, but still, I yelled at the screen. “Maybe they just didn’t want to go to the racist’s house!”

The woman to my right looked in my direction. I offered an apologetic smile.

But it’s true.

Maybe the manager, Alex Cora, a Puerto Rican, didn’t want to visit a man who has been blatantly and unequivocally lying about the amount of hurricane relief that has been provided to the island.

Maybe the African American players didn’t want to visit the man who refers to African nations as “shithole countries.”

Maybe the immigrant players didn’t want to break bread with a man who separated families on the border, put migrant children in cages, and lost track of those children when it came time for reunification.

Maybe all of the players of color didn’t want to shake hands with the man who declared that white supremacists are “very fine people.” The man who white supremacists think of as one of their own.

Hell, maybe some of those players didn’t want to spend time with a self-admitted sex offender.

And maybe… just maybe the white players should’ve felt the same.

Yes, this racial division might do damage to the Red Sox team, but why isn’t Teixeira suggesting that the white players on the team instead support the players of color? Why can’t the answer be “Don’t visit the racist” instead of “Keep politics out of baseball.”

This is not an issue of politics. This is not a normal Presidency. This is a President who repeatedly demonstrates his disdain for people of color through both words and actions. This is not an argument over the size of government, marginal tax rates, universal healthcare, or even abortion. This is an objectively racist man. If players of color don’t want to visit the racist’s house, they shouldn’t be criticized by anyone. Instead, they should be supported by their teammates,

The Red Sox sent the white Sox to the White House this week. The white Sox should’ve stayed home.

Benji the Hunted

This 30 second clip from the 1987 film Benji the Hunted says everything you need to know about the difference between how my generation and the millennial generation was raised.

I grew up watching stuff like this - a movie for little kids - and thinking absolutely nothing of it.