Saturday, September 23, 2006

Blast from the Past

In the absence on interesting things going on in my own life, please enjoy this piece I wrote last Fall for a class.

*****
One Glorious Day

By Angeline Huang

Hand to hand combat has long been labeled one of the few primitive strongholds of the human race. The outcome of the altercation, however, does not interest me as much as the technique and artistry that these fighters must master to compete in a fight that could last only a few minutes. The process of training and motivation to win does not seem to differ too much from the art of writing – which is why, I suppose, many writers find themselves writing pieces on the sport.

A search of Barnes and Noble’s website comes up with 161 titles under the subject of Boxing – General & Miscellaneous, while the Proquest research engine returns 74,901 items for the word “boxing.” In the past six months alone, LexisNexis found 125 documents related to boxing. Although these numbers are smaller than those for sports such as baseball and tennis, the number of boxing titles found at the bookstore website almost equals the number of titles found under News & Magazine Writing, a query that resulted in 221 titles, to be exact.

The making of a boxer starts long before a fight; it begins in the mind. He possesses a way of thinking, putting priority on pride. Pete Hamill found this trait to be exemplified in Floyd Patterson, the subject of “Floyd’s Fight to Save His Pride,” one of Hamill’s many pieces related to the sport. For writers, it is a similar vice: ego. We take it upon ourselves, the only source we feel comfortable relying on, to bring our interpretation of the facts to the world. Whether the world agrees, approves, or dismisses is no matter. We say to ourselves, they will come around. Eventually, writers and boxers think, I will have my glorious day, and everything that came before will be forgotten. In this first matter, the writer finds the boxer to be a kindred spirit.

Physical exertion, exacting workouts, and sparring – hours and hours and hours of sparring, with different partners, in different rings – prepares a boxer for The Big Event. This readies the fighter to face whatever his challenger may throw at him, by learning to adapt. Likewise, the writer goes through drafts, different editors and other critics, to hone a rough piece into a publishable article. Adaptation is a slow process for a writer, as the ideas must first be put down on paper before most of the work can be done. But after the hours of preparation, the writer and the fighter both feel prepared to present a part of themselves to the public.

Both writers and boxers run the risk of being misunderstood. Advertisers, commentators – and sometimes even writers and boxers themselves – draw parallels between any conflict and a battle of good and evil. A boxer with a criminal record, like Sonny Liston, is placed immediately in a devilish position, while reporters go out of their way to make a saint of Floyd Patterson – and this fight was only one of many framed in this manner. In a similar vein, writers are often expected to be motivated by a previously held opinion, when in reality, some of the best reporting is done when the writer has no preconceived notions. We are all fighting for good, whatever our interpretation of good may be.

The similarity seems to end there, as the writer goes on to finally publish, and perhaps hear back from a few who reacted strongly to the piece. Meanwhile the fighter, on a good day, can shake hands, smile for photographers, and sign autographs until the next scheduled fight, sometimes longer. Some would argue that both writing and boxing can bring fame, but in a society that worships its celebrity-athletes – a society that even accepts such a title – that comparison loses its credibility. There are exceptions to every rule, however, but it is certain that while fighters can gain instantaneous fame after a big win, a writer’s work, when deserving of fame, is frequently not valued as such until much later.

Despite these different outcomes, writers and boxers both dabble in a profession that is pieced together by many small, blink-or-you’ll-miss-them moments. Every battle fought and every piece published could be appreciated for nearly the same value whether it was their first, fifteenth, or last. The next piece or fight can make or break the past or the future. So there is no time for those laurels, we must press on.

In the end, writers and boxers are both reluctant to let go. Those that have been successful work long and hard on a comeback, refusing to believe that they have accomplished all they can. Those that have yet to reach their desired peak always see The Big One glimmering on the horizon. Most would agree that boxing’s glory days are over for good. A smaller number would say that respectable writing is less than what it was in the days of Hemingway and Twain. If you ask us, the writers and the boxers, we’ll tell you we’re not done yet.


Friday, September 22, 2006

Recaps and nightcaps

ANTM: I think we've seen how the season is going to go. Surprising standouts were Brooke (bubbly 18-year-old blonde from Texas) and the twins from Anaheim (very Fiona Apple). Tyra is getting crazier and crazier, but I guess that also means she's getting more and more reintegrated into the real world.

*****

In other news, a group at Cambridge University has developed a "shape-shifting" metal that can potentially be used to make roll-up computer monitors. The substance, made of copper alloys, can be bent, twisted or rolled while keeping structural integrity. Read the story here.

Best keep an eye on that laptop in the future, especially if you've got an IBM ThinkPad. A traveler at LAX reportedly had his computer burst into flames (some report that it the computer was dropped, others that it was smoking before combustion).

Think all privacy has been lost due to government surveillance? Not if you have a Torpark. The free portable browser, released by Hacktivismo, can be downloaded, carried around on your jumpdrive and then used on any computer with Mozilla Firefox (also free), which encrypts your online activities. One downside: browsers at even the highest speed connections will probably slow down due to the extra work involved.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Commentary - Television

So America’s Next Top Model Season 7 premieres tonight, and the Beach Boys were right when they sang “California Girls.”

Of the 13 contestants (two will be eliminated tonight), seven are from the sunny state of California:
-A.J., 20, Sacramento
-Amanda, 18, Anaheim
-Eugena, 21, Palmdale
-Megan, 23, San Francisco
-Megg, 18, Los Angeles
-Melrose, 23, San Francisco
-Michelle, 18, Anaheim

What is the fascination with girls from California? It seems to be the perception that the girls there are better (see Beach Boys song above), but having lived in New York for the better part of a year, there are gorgeous people everywhere! True, that L.A. is the place to go for aspiring actors/show business people, but at these young ages, chances are most of these girls (if not all) are native Californians.

Being a native Californian, however, doesn’t mean you’re excluded from the Hollywood buzz. I was just watching a documentary the other day hosted by Debbie Reynolds, star of Singing in the Rain and a former Miss Burbank. She was a bona fide star by the age of 20, and was raised in L.A. Heartwarmingly enough, she’s still active in her career today, mostly doing TV guest appearances.

The best part of the show, of course, will be getting to “know” the girls and watching them interact. Who will emerge as the resident diva (a la Furonda) or the egoist (Jade). Who will be the quiet unassuming one picked up in a mall (Sara - also from California). Who will break down, and who will be the judges favorite (Brooke & Nnenna).

Catch the show Wednesdays at 8/7c on your local CW network.*


*general consensus of various web forums would indicate that CW stands for Columbia (from CBS, owners of the UPN network) and Warner (from the WB).

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

news - media

Thanks for bearing with me as I start up my blogs. For those with a bent for football (american style), check out the Armchair Companion, my latest project, my baby, and one of my dreams brought to life.

*****

Welcome to the era of Rachel Ray.

First guest: Oprah. Way to get your ratings up. True to her image of being the all-american-super-accessible "everyday" gal, she begins by taking video submissions from viewers (or fans, since no one's really viewed it until today). Then she grabs a seat on one of the steps at the edge of her stage and answers questions about shoes. hmmm.

She then follows by giving Oprah a tour of her stage set, and the two compare notes on their respective posts. Way to alienate the audience, as the two stars stand staring about and the audience is just waiting. Best feature: the garage, complete with foosball table. I'd love to spend some time on that set.

And then, of course, they cook. Oprah talks about her project in Africa and growing up poor. Rachel Ray talks about Oprah as a "skinny minnie."

Enough about her.

Monday, September 18, 2006

commentary - fashion

So it's taken a weekend to sink in, this worldwide debate on the weight of catwalk models. London's Fashion Week has decided to NOT ban models with a BMI of less than 18.5, while Milan's mayor is still pushing for it. London's Fashion Week kicked off today, and Milan's kicks off next week.

While it is true that many of these catwalkers are indeed underweight (some BMI estimates being: Giselle at 18.2, Kate Moss at 16.9 and Elle McPherson at 17), we have to keep in mind the product they are modelling and the audience it is aimed towards. Just like writers must keep in mind their readership when coming up with ideas, fashion designers have to keep their buyers in mind when coming up with their seasonal lines.

Fact of the matter is that the majority of women in this world (such as the more-than-half of the American and British population that is overweight) do not and cannot build their seasonal wardrobes (if they even have seasonal wardrobes) from the selections displayed by Versace and Gucci at their couture runway shows. The world of high fashion is set apart because of its exclusivity - why would it want to compromise that by making it universally attainable?

Yes yes, the debate goes on to cite the ads in fashion magazines and how it encourages eating disorders. Yet our country is still majorly overweight. I agree that eating disorders are a serious problem, but it is rarely caused solely through the inundation of images of skinny models. I would argue that there are plenty of healthy women and girls out there that read these magazines regularly, maybe even obsessively, and still feel no pressure to look like them. Yes, psychologically speaking some people are more vulnerable to such images and the messages they send, but in the end, they're just advertisements saying "come buy my clothes" rather than "come look like me." In many of these ads the girls don't even look happy. I think they're hungry.

Another argument that has come up in several articles on the skinny model ban is that women themselves would begin criticizing models for having less than perfect figures. You know those women that snicker every time they see cellulite on another woman by the pool. Even those that have cellulite themselves will do so. Do women want to see people like themselves walking down the catwalks? They'd like to see prettier versions of themselves is more like it. Even plus-sized models are more beautiful than the average woman. With the cult of celebrity so bold and brazen in this age, why make it more accessible to more people? If women are already so critical of other women in the public spotlight, why give them more to criticize?

More importantly, what does BMI really show? For those out of the know, Body Mass Index is a measure of body fat based on height and weight for ADULTS (goodness knows why they made us take that test in high school). It does not take into account the weight or density of your bones. Most methods of calculation (especially the ones online) do not take into account muscle mass, which weighs more than fat. Bottom line: there are many things that BMI does not take into account that are important in accessing "skinny" versus "fat." Based on the calculation of my own numbers in Glamour's BMI calculator, Giselle and I only differ by 0.7 in our BMI. But will I ever look as svelte as her or could I ever walk the runway? Hell, no, for many reasons.

So far, the only people cheering on this movement are public officials. Designers surely are not on board (for more than the reasons specified above). Models are juggling the mixed messages from the public and their modelling agencies. So where does the public stand?

Truth: who really cares? We're not buying the clothes they model or going to these shows. The men in our lives surely are not keeping a close watch on the runways to make sure we're keeping up. There are many many many more problems in adolescent lives that we can help alleviate other than images of skinny models to prevent eating disorders. We can't blame it on them.

If you were told to lose 10 pounds and get paid millions of dollars for it, who wouldn't say yes?

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?