On Art and Pretension

So I got into a debate with Shardul today (8/10-8/11)--it was inevitable and overdue. I think it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing because I don't know if I've made Shardul self-conscious about his tastes in art and now he is defensive about his preferences before I even get a chance to say something, or if he first started commenting on how sad some of the stuff he consumes is and then he got upset when I pointed it out too. It's probably a combination of these things and much more. And since he's a good friend, I am both more upfront and demanding of him than I would be with any random person. And since I don't go off on these things as often as I'd like to, Shardul gets more than his fair share.

I don't know why people get so worked up when I call their tastes into question. When people tell me that an artist or movie I like is no good, I'm always intrigued to learn why, the same as when someone likes something that I really thought little of. I want to learn more, to improve my understanding and tastes. But people react when I criticize the movies they like as if I called their children dumb. And hell, if their children are dumb, then they're dumb. I'm not going to lie and tell them otherwise. Since when do we all have to feel good about ourselves exactly as we are? When did truth become less important than our need to think we're awesome exactly as we are? What about striving ever upwards?

People make it seem as if I'm missing out on all the enjoyment they're getting. But they're trying to get me to enjoy and appreciate fast food when I'm trying to introduce them to fine cuisine. And sure, they're not going to love all of it immediately when their taste buds, like mine, have been raised on the lard-infested, the saccharine, their eyes on the gaudy, their ears on the cloying and obscene. Like all good things, appreciation of art requires effort. But it's so worth it. It's a common and not altogether undeserved criticism that movie critics no longer have fun when they go to the theater, and I know that aficionados of any good thing have to keep from growing bitter. And there are certainly critics in all fields who are just too in love with themselves, on their being considered experts, and on their ability to turn phrases and determine what art lives and dies with a turning of their wrist, much like the Emperor mentioned below. But the vast majority of critics and--'cause who cares about them anyway--I hate because we care. I kid. What I meant to say is that I love movies, music, TV shows, etc. intensely. While I'll be the first to say that most of what comes out of Hollywood or Bollywood is crap, I would never say something like, "They don't make movies like they used to," (especially because of the inappropriate use of the word "like") and that there aren't good movies still coming out. I just saw a movie day before yesterday (The Hurt Locker) that did everything right and was enjoyable and entertaining on every level. It blew away pretty much every war movie I've ever seen. Even the most hardened critics are much like the food critic in the movie Ratatouille. All it takes is something truly inspired and unique to bring out the kid in them. And works like that abound. You just have to look for them and work to understand them. But it's worth it. The easy answers, easy emotions, pat little lessons summarily and tidily gift wrapped for us to consume and feel good about ourselves and remain the same inside always...they hold us back.

I get worked up about this and try to make a big deal of it because I feel people are being extremely lazy about something that's really holding them back. And while they'll call me pretentious, there's an undue and bloated pride that they take in refusing to expand their horizons, challenge their beliefs/tastes and learn a little. How do the arguments that Shardul makes on their behalf make sense when coming from someone who refuses to just go and read some criticism and consider some alternative viewpoints and even some deeper analysis of things they've liked or disliked? How does it serve us to decide that regardless of how I am, I'm going to think I'm great because that's what I want to believe in myself rather than to be critical and accept criticism enough to reevaluate myself and strive for greatness? It starts with looking at something we already love in a new way and appreciating it that much more. We've all done this with various little things. Why not with these forms of art that are so potentially great and consumed in such a large amount? Why not work from there to see if there isn't more and better stuff out there than that to which I've limited myself? I don't want to tell you that I'm right and you're wrong. I want to open your eyes to new things, not even so you'll agree with me. Once you start thinking about what you like/dislike/believe/experience, you'll be in a better position to help me improve in this, and to open my eyes to all new things. I try to consider what anyone and everyone has to say and recommend, though of course I weigh what you say based on what you've said and done in the past. But even if I'm critical, I'm not dismissive. I can't afford to be, not with my obsessive and inexhaustible desire to understand and experience all that life and art, through each other, have to offer me. I can't afford to dismiss any source, can I?

Oh, I'm reminded of a conversation I had with someone one day. I went to a show and a couple of after parties with some classmates because I would get the chance to see a friend I haven't seen in a long time. That part of it was nice, but I don't care much for parties, especially the drunken idiocy that got stale in my eyes pretty much as soon as I first experienced it. A friend from my school asked me if I had fun and I said something like, "Ehh, parties aren't my thing." Her friend, also a former classmate of mine, scoffed and asked me what my kind of thing is then, implying that it's retarded not to like parties and whatever I like to do is equally retarded. I replied that I'm more of a quiet conversation kind of guy. I didn't explain further, but this is one of the reason that parties and bar-hopping doesn't appeal to me. There's no meaning in what people say and do in those environments because you can't hear anything anyone says while you're screaming over loud music, and no one is sober enough to say anything of intelligence or import anyway. This sort of celebrating for the sake of celebrating, going wild and crazy so you can talk about how wild and crazy you and the night were, reminds me of the song "This Place Is A Prison" by Postal Service (look up the lyrics). Granted, that's my opinion and other people have very different opinions of these activities, and many of those people have a great deal of respect from me. But here's the thing. These two are 4 years younger than me, and I run into the same error in logic that I notice when discussing good music with people much younger than me. Do they expect that four years from now, they'll like exactly the same things exactly as much as they do now? I personally would be disappointed in myself if that turned out to be the case. I should still be able to enjoy ice cream and pizza now, but if I lost my mind in exactly the same way as I did about those things when I was 5, if I placed as high a priority on those things now as I did then, and if my tastes hadn't changed or improved at all, what kind of growth was I experiencing in my life exactly?

Anyway, let's move along. Everything below is our conversation by IM. I wrote frantically, so I probably contradicted myself many times as well as made grammatical errors and whatnot, but I think I did a decent job of explaining myself considering this topic makes me upset enough to just want to scream incoherently. Oh, and I wrote "ironic" at one point when I meant to say "fitting," and that's just unconscionable. Also, if I remember correctly, Mr. What's his name is Charles Shaw. I have terrible recall, especially when I have to recall something quickly. Since it's by IM, there are times when there's a lag between one of us saying something and the other finally responding to it. Also, I don't mean to imply that everything I said is right and everything Shardul said is wrong. I'm leaving this as an IM conversation not just because I'm lazy but also because he makes a lot of good points, especially in regard to me.

Me: i don't call u pretentious for speaking the way u do about everything else, u know.. cars, food, cooking, gadgets, clothes
Him: youre right you dont
Me: well this is something about which i know a lot
Him: but at the same time I dont say my view is the "best
Me: u imply it
and anyway i'm not contending it
Him: ok
Me: even though some of the stuff u speak that way about is quite random
Him: ok
Me: but like cars for example, i'm not about to tell u that my accord is better than the cars u rave about
Me: art isn't as subjective as u and other people would like to think
Him: if you told me you liked your Accord better than a Zonda...
I wouldnt say youre "wrong"
Me: but if i said my accord was better than a zonda
or zonda's are whack cuz i don't like them
that wouldn't be very accurate or reasonable
Him: aight well in that you can kinda compare quatifiable criteria...
if I say I didnt like a movie and I said it was whack...
and you loved it...
I would jsut be wrong
Me: well u're right in not liking it.. that's ur subjective impression
Him: right...
Me: that's all
Him: and you'd follow that up with some comment about how I like crap movies or something
u can fill in the blanks
Me: yeah
but that would be an accurate statement on my part
Him: so then how is it inaccurate of me to call you pretentious cuz you think my taste in movies is beneath you?
Me: calling people pretentious for reaching is spiteful
like calling upwardly mobile african americans uppity
art is something that should make us reach higher
Him: Im nto calling you pretentious for reaching... Im calling you pretentious for looking down on other peoples tastes
Me: if i don't understand and therefore dislike shakespeare, i should strive to understand it. my not liking it doesn't make it crap and people who like it pretentious
Him: I think art can appeal to everyone in different ways... even 'bad" art appeals to someone... and its not any less art than the good stuff
Me: no it is
it absolutely is
there's such a thing as crap art
or just plain crap
Him: do then why is the "art" I like crap... but your art not?
so then*
Me: it's not about ur liking something defining it as crap
u just happen to like some crappy stuff..or a lot of crappy stuff
but obviously not nearly all
it just confuses me that u can speak equally highly of such disparate work
Him: see the thing is Im not looking for everything to speak to my soul on some deep level... if it happens it happens... but if i come across something that I simply like... I'll find a way to enjoy it
Him: I wotn just cast it aside as "crap" and say its beneath me
Me: but i get worked up about art cuz when people say things like, "there's no such thing as crappy art.. it's all good to someone" that's like when we tell kids that no matter how they do, they did excellent. no, if they did badly, they did badly. rewarding and exalting mediocre work serves nobody
Him: youre right
but art isnt quantifiable the way school work is
Me: neither is cooking but there's crap cooking and good cooking
i'm not just talking about quantifiable stuff
your taste in art isnt gonna be the same as someone else's who could be an authority on art
and w/ art it's often VERY easy to tell if it's art or just fluff
b/c u have everything that's come before it to compare it to
not in a sense of is this better than what's come before it
but in the sense of.. did this person even try to make something new
or is this the same stuff we've seen a million times before, the same formula recreated b/c the "artist" knows if we've consumed it once we'll consume it again?
i can applaud that as a business venture but not as art
Him: i didn't get ur last comment
but why cant that just be entertaining?
Me: i think mindless entertainment is dangerous
Him: how so?
Me: cuz it's important that we not shut our minds off, let alone value doing that
it's ironic [this should be "fitting"] that i can't refer, with most people, to 1984 to make a point, but i can point to gladiator, which itself was a piece of hollywood fluff, formulaic, self-important, unnecessarily epic... and inaccurate
what commodus did was genius
distracted his people with mindless games. worse still, the nature of the games further decreased their humanity b/c they featured the capital punishment of those people who were too poor or politically unconnected to get out of such a sentence
but this is the same sort of thing that's been described in one way or another in 1984 and brave new world, amongst other works
and cited as the real way that people are controlled in countries like america
and classism is allowed to persist w/o being apparent
mediocrity and mindless entertainment in arenas that would otherwise be considered art are destructive in many ways. they hold back the artists and the consumers alike
Him: I aggree with you to an extent
but sometimes a movie is just a movie... a show is just a show... it doesnt NEED to be anything more than that
Me: and i would argue that mainstream mentality keeps people from using art in its intended, or at least highest purpose, which is to explore and reaffirm life
it's not sometimes [emphasis on "sometimes" in reference to what Shardul just said about sometimes a movie being just a movie]
sometimes a movie is art
and that's rarely
usually it's just this that we talk about
and i would disagree, i feel it does need to be more
it can be crass and stupid, but it should still be inspired, as in the hangover
mediocrity and poor work serves no one
and harms plenty. when people find the most sappy, melodramatic, manipulative movies/books/music to be "life-affirming," they miss out on what life actually is
and when we look at why people in scandinavia, for example, are happier by far than people here, though we have more, it comes down to culture, and this is a huge part of culture
our creation, appreciation, understanding, consumption of art
Him: I aggree with that
america has no culture
its bleh...
Me: it gets drowned in our consumerism/mass media
Him: so the rest of the world is how you would like the US to be? [bleh, why must people always say this? Can't I point out examples of the rest of the world that we should pick up without my argument being that they're perfect and we suck?]
is that what youre saying?
Me: regarding art, i feel like, it's like the example dadaji gives. to an ant, a rotten, stepped on banana on the ground might be cuisine, but to a human who's eaten a fresh, clean banana, barring extreme circumstances, he can't go back to (if he ever was there) eating smashed, stepped on bananas
Him: so I like rotten steppedon bananas while you only like the freshest?
Me: i'm not saying everything i watch/listen to is perfection, and my tastes/understanding are evolving, improving. so i might like a movie like supertroopers b/c i think it's inspired in its own way and others might disagree and say that there's nothing inspired about it. perhaps we'd figure each other out better if we described in detail why we felt that way about the movie, but i would never like it knowing that it's crap or mindless diversion. i'd consider that a terrible waste of a medium
ha, u're taking this so personally. perhaps i'm a bit harsh and i don't recall every [ever] saying u have terrible taste across the board. i never said that everything u watch is crap. but i have said that u've watched crap when i felt that's what u were watching
Him: see the thign is I dont think the "crap" I watch is great... I know its not good... but I find it entertaining... I find it takes my mind off whatever is going on in my life that I find depressing... thats why I like the things I like... and im sure thats why alot of people like all the "mindless" stuff you find to be a waste of a medium...
Me: like a show like heroes, i simply cannot stomach (not that i've seen every episode. perhaps there are bright spots). whatever i've caught has had horrendous acting and the explanation i get is that it has good stories. i'd argue that a few plot points and surprises does not a good story make, but still, if that's what it comes down to, there are better mediums for something that simple
very well. i think i've explained why that kind of diversion isn't a good thing, and how when people do that a lot and never seem to rise above it, what happens
Him: u imply that everyone who watches crap as mindless diversion from their lives realizes that that's what they're doing
no there are people who genuinely think a show like Heroes is a great show
but if they like it... they like it
Me: I dont think they are wrong for liking it
but my ire comes not just from what i've said, but also many discussions or arguments in which people tell me that transformers and gi joe are wonderful pieces of art and entertainment and that the stuff i watch is crap and if i disagree that it's cuz it's just completely subjective and that my tastes are boring and bad compared to theirs
Him: if it "speaks" to them in some way... no matter if tis some deep level or on a superficial level... how can anyway say that it is mindless?
Me: u might think that that's a fitting turning of the tables, but my thinking's based on, well, a whole lot of thinking. anyone who's read, thought and written as much as i have on this stuff for as long as i have has some more weight behind what he says
Him: Im not trying to say you dont know what youre talking about I know you do... and when it comes to movie critiques and what not youre much more of an authority than me...
Me: ha again, this gets into like people's feelings. why would i go and deny people what they feel is great? the same people who say that for this would not say it for things about which they are more knowledgeable, or at least ocnsidered more knowledgeable
Him: I just think its harsh and kinda messed up to talk of other peoples likes and dislikes as crap...
crap.. or mindless
or whatever else
Me: bleh i was going to make a point about objectivity in medicine but i lost how i was going to formulate it
Him: people's life experiences make them relate to things differently on a more personal level than others
its not wrong if they do...
and Alan doesnt [Shardul's referring to Alan Sepinwall, whose reviews for TV shows I really like and refer to when telling Shardul about things I really liked about episodes of certain TV shows. Usually, that's the only way I refer to anything Alan's said and I don't believe I've ever said to Shardul in response to something he said he liked/disliked, "Well, Alan disagrees..." but perhaps that dynamic in our discussions is just so strong that he associates Alan with me and my pretentiousness]
Me: so it comes down to being harsh? again, i don't see why i should be like, "oh, well whatever u think is equally valid and we're all right" when i think that it's far more objective than that
Him: or you dont
Me: again, what u're describing is not as commonly the case as u make it seem
Him: I think it might be more common than you think...
I think people find ways to relate to fantasies to make them their own
Me: and it's one thing when someone says, "i like this movie because it reminded me of this time in my life when..." and another when someone says that the movie was well-made and good, etc. etc.
Him: I think alot of times people tend to like movies because they try to relate to the main character
Me: haha yo seriously this is so PC and coddling
Him: whether it be Josh Duhammel in Transformers... or Kal Penn in harold and kumar
Me: if someone listens to soulja boy and then says soulja boy speaks to him more than hendrix does, then fine
but soulja boy is not good music
not in any sense
Him: no its not
but it doesnt mean they cant enjoy it
Me: and hendrix, whether anyone likes it or not, is much much better music
Him: so fine ifthey enjoy it, but their tastes are crap
Me: i don't care if it's harsh. it's true
kids might like pure table sugar better than swiss chocolates
but that doesn't make their tastes good
Him: but it doesnt raelly make them wrong either
if they prefferr it they prefer it
Me: i'm not talking about preference though
i'm talking about quality
Him: but in this quality can be very subjective
Me: nowhere as much as u'd like to believe
Him: the quality of a 3 dollar wine versus a 40 dollar wine
Me: and it's not like i'd argue something like the wire vs. deadwood
yeah we're not talking about differences like that
three buck chuck IS a lot better than a lot of 40 dollar wines
Him: yeah it is
Me: that's what's so magnanimous about what's his name [Charles Shaw]
but i'm not talking about money either
and wine is far harder to compare than what i'm talking about
i like 1800 better than um.. i forget what it is.. oh patron.. at least the way i've had it. i like jack daniel's better than johnnie walker
but i'm not about to argue that that makes them better
esp. since i don't have much experience or knowledge in these matters
the thing w/ movies and music is, everyone consumes these things
even if they don't consume them as much as i do, they consume a lot
Him: see but the thing I would never say you waste your money drinking 1800 or Jack...
Me: so everyone thinks they're an expert. they'll acquiesce when it comes to things they haven't experienced much. but not in those things
u wouldn't? if i got some real crap stuff u wouldn't tell me i wasted my money?
aside from the point i'd argue that wasting money isn't as bad as the things u waste in consuming large quantities of crap movies/shows/music and then exalting them
i want for people to use their brains more when they experience these things. to not just stick to the same formulas forever. u think it's very common for people to think and feel and experience genuine stuff when they experience these works of art. but that's not what box office returns and music sales show for the most part
Him: aight we're both gonna argue this and not really get anywhere... and its getting late
Me: the people hwo know what they're talking about are the only ones talking about the greatest artists of our age and any age while the people everyone knows and feeds don't compare
aight
Him: goodnight
Me: peace

Shardul wrote to me the next morning after thinking about what I'd said and said that he mostly agreed with me, but reiterated that while he might overestimate people's recognition of quality vs. crap, that everyone should not be required to like or insist on quality. Here was my response:

Yeah I don't mean to invalidate your or anyone else's experiences, your pleasure from watching/listening to whatever. But art is something in which there's always more to appreciate. Even if someone--and such a person is in the minority--can see that The Wire is great television, he can always pick up more and more. For most of us, there are more themes, more elements of how it was shot, more aspects and depth to the acting, etc. than what is immediately apparent. I know enough to pick out the difference b/w inspired and lazy filmmaking, for example, and the same for music, but there's still so much more for me to understand. And I just don't want people who consume art to be so complacent, so lazy and so satisfied with substandard stuff when there's so much better stuff out there. I want everyone to know enough about acting and filmmaking to be able to pick out the brilliance of a movie like Brokeback Mountain, because such a movie comes around only once a decade, but it's far too subtle for people to pick up on and something like Crash, which hits you over the head with easy conclusions and in-your-face-in-case-you-

missed-it emotion, is both much more highly considered by lay fans and even awarded best picture over a movie like Brokeback Mountain, and people don't know enough to see how much an absurdity that is, or to be able to make more of the movie [Brokeback Mountain] than to reduce it to a punchline. Sober discussion about art doesn't make anyone try something new [here, I mean from practice and in regard to people who have little appreciation/understanding of art already], so partially, I am more aggressive in my criticism (and partially, I'm just worked up) in the hopes that someone will think, "Wow, this guy's so sure that Kings of Leon is much better than The Fray. Maybe I should check them out." For my part, when people criticize my tastes or just criticize works/artists that I like, I try to get an explanation out of them. When people praise something that I'd dismissed, I try to get an explanation from them. Cuz if there's something lacking in my understanding, then I want to learn about it so I can better understand and appreciate all this stuff. But people treat art like family members and favorite sports teams, like they've decided to like it and so that's it, it's beyond reproach and wherever their understanding is, it is the ultimate. I want people to reach higher, to not be so satisfied with what amounts to ignorance. I don't mean this to an extreme, like i know everything and everyone else knows nothing, but an attachment to an understanding that is lacking seems irrational, and I think you're right...I would not assume that people know as much about what makes good music/movies/books/TV as you seem to assume. I just want more for people, man. No matter my methods, don't confuse my intention. [end of email]

I still feel that as much as I've said, I could say more and explain this all better. I don't think I emphasized enough why I'm concerned about more than just technical achievement/recognition in art, that I'm especially interested in the art imitating life/life imitating art dynamics of their relationship. Not everything in art is supposed to be an accurate representation of life. If it were, there would be no room for surrealism, fantasy, etc. And there are always aspects of art that are meant to appeal only to our senses (though even there, there's good and bad art, as, for example, too many people confuse the polished look of a non-Pixar Disney movie for technical brilliance when the more raw look of a Miyazaki animated film is indeed brilliant and far more mature). But it is almost all, I feel, supposed to comment on or relate to life. If it had nothing at all to do with anything that we experience in life, I think it would be rather pointless. What's especially dangerous is when a movie purports to be about life when it mostly isn't. What I want from consumers of art and entertainment is awareness (for more on this, check out David Foster Wallace's wonderful commencement speech at Kenyon College, which was made posthumously into a book called "This Is Water"). Racism is something much bigger and more serious than what's in Crash. While When Harry Met Sally is a very funny movie, romantic love is much bigger than what is described in it. It's so big and complex that entire movies can be made about specific experiences or aspects of relationships, as Annie Hall, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and (500) Days of Summer, amongst others, have. Any of these three addresses love and relationships in a much more mature and accurate way than did When Harry Met Sally, which, at its essence, was quintessential Hollywood fluff.

If you think that such a movie is just a diversion and doesn't mean anything, you're wrong. Unfortunately. Far too many people who were raised on Disney princess movies and Bollywood love stories that are essentially the same thing think that that's what life and love are. They seek out movies like that because they reaffirm the conclusions they've come to through this kind of conditioning, and the more they reaffirm them, the harder it is for them to break out of that cycle and, worse, they end up being poorly equipped to deal with life as it is. There is ugliness in life and there are hard truths, and these things need not only to be dealt with, but also they add to the range of our experience. Like the contrast ratio on a flat screen TV, an awareness and appreciation--in a sense--of ugliness in life informs and enhances the beauty in it. This is what makes a Pan's Labyrinth so affecting and moving and blurs the lines between fairy tale and reality. What made Freaks and Geeks such a great TV show, amongst other things, was that it accurately, and yet entertainingly and movingly, depicted what our actual experiences of high school were. At least 90% of movies about high school or college or life, for that matter, are mostly fantasy and don't reflect much on life. I'm not saying that movies that are exaggerations or fantasies about reality shouldn't exist, but shouldn't the ratio be 90% in favor of reality and not fantasy? What? Don't believe me? Take, for example, how sex/love-making in movies is so slick, so without awkwardness, mistakes and screwups--even when between people who've only just met and aren't long-time lovers--and so exactly the same from movie to movie. It's to the point where the conventions of the sex scene, like the sheets that cover the man from the waist down and the woman from the upper chest down, are so laughably familiar and unrealistic as to make the sex scene pointless and a more savvy filmmaker would skip it altogether (well, aside from how skin sells only if we see it) and jump right to one or the other lover walking out of the bathroom in a towel or leaving after donning a pair of shoes to inform us that they just had intercourse. At least 90% of movies are iterations of the same formulas we've seen forever. People call Bollywood movies formulaic, and they're right, but Hollywood differs from Bollywood mostly in that there are more formulas to choose from here. Why else would we have such terrible sequels and remakes all the time in theaters if our filmmakers had not stopped thinking and their audiences with them?

Movies "speak" to people more often than not because of the reaffirmation of the conditioning we've all received than because we're actually aware and introspecting during movies. As Don Marquis (whoever that is) aptly said, "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you. But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." I need no better explanation for why most of the best movies/music out there is not anywhere near the top sellers lists, why I can go see Sufjan Stevens most any night I want for about $7 in NYC though his last full album was the best reviewed album of the year and reminded me of Dante's writing. So, I think it's rare that movies really DO speak to people and change their world view for the better, or even in a deep, significant way. I'm happy for art because it hasn't just helped me pass the time (which it absolutely has), but it also has made me grow as a person. The love and more that I give to others is passed on not only from that which I've received from people in my life but also from all the heart, courage and acceptance that filmmakers have poured into their work. People who cannot distinguish this from those filmmakers and films that don't recreate and evoke as much as they parrot and manufacture are missing out not only on art, but also on fitting heroes, on meaningful goals, on life.

If you made it this far, surely you can read a bit more. One of the critics at Pajiba.com recently wrote about the need for honesty in stories, an objective good and bad in movies, and why people watch bad movies. Regarding honesty, here's a bit of what he said about The Wire, with which I wholeheartedly agree both in regard to that show and all storytelling and art:

It is honest to a fault, honest to its heart, and honest above all things. It is recognizable as a perfect story not because it defines quality but because it adheres to the definition passed down through all art, to hew as closely as possible to the beats and rhythms in the heart and soul of every viewer, and to make a made-up world feel like it's right outside the window. I look for honesty because that's what's worth seeking.

I agree with his conclusions, though not always with his explanations (for example, most of the people who saw Transformers 2, from what I heard, loved it and thought it was great). But he makes good points and probably does so with much better and organized writing than I managed above.