Famous Novelists, 2009's Best Movies and Basketball Recruiting

Just finished How I Became a Famous Novelist by Steve Hely. The book's cynicism is hilarious, as it skewers the writing and book publishing industry (and college education), but it's message is true of almost all endeavors.

As a American Literature major, I especially liked this passage about his time at a fictional liberal arts college studying English:

The actual classes of course were pointless [I try to make this point to impressionable teenagers who work too hard to get 4.9 GPAs]. I signed on as an English major, but the professors were dreary pale gnomes who intoned about "text and countertext" and "fiction as the continuance of a shared illusion." Instead of loving perfectly good books like Moby Dick, where a fucking whale eats everybody, these fuckers insisted on pretending to like excruciating books like Boring Middlemarch and Jack-off Ulysses. They were a bloodless and humorless race who spent their hours rooting around in eighteenth-century sonnets and old New Yorker stories looking for coded gay sex. But I got their lingo down. I could rattle off papers on "Moby Dick: A Vivisection of Capitalism" or whaetever in a couple hours and get an A-.

I think I took the same class. My femi-nazi professor for Late 19th Century Literature nearly through me out of her class for one of the papers that I wrote because it basically boiled down to "How can anyone read this crap." I guess my failings were that I never learned the lingo. I did, however, rattle off some great papers comparing The Death of a Salesman to Al Bundy from Married...with Children and using copious references to Simpson's episodes.

When the protagonist's college girlfriend gets engaged, he decides that he has to do something cool to prove that he has won, so he decides to write a best-selling novel. He uses the drivel on the current best-seller's list to take notes and packs his book with the same sort of plot and character points as other popular books.

This is basically the same way to make a movie. People complain about the lack of originality in movies and the number of sequels, but sequels are easy to get green-lighted because the original proved that there is an audience. A formula film (like a Bromedy featuring Vince Vaughn or Seth Rogen) is easy to sell. But, an original movie?

All those people complaining about the lack of originality should pay their money to see actual original movies. Last weekend, I was at the movie theater and a group complained that Avatar's plot was very basic and like every other movie's. Of course it is. It's a hundred-million dollar plot-line.

People don't want original movies. How do I know? Because Hurt Locker has grossed like $12-million. The #1 rated movie on moviefone is Up in the Air, which is based on a novel, and stars George Clooney, a safe way to attract an audience. It's a nice movie, especially because it doesn't have a happy ending like most cheesey romantic comedies, but I preferred Hurt Locker, District 9, The Hangover, Away We Go and several others.

It's disgusting, to me, that The Proposal gets so much critical acclaim (a Golden Globe nomination for Sandra Bullock?) and Away We Go is ignored even though it is a much better film with some measure of originality.

After he writes the book, he writes about how he sold it and then how it became popular. To summarize, he blames dumb luck. While it is disheartening to blame luck, it's hard to argue.

People who know about publishing will not find this part of my story strange at all - I predict they'll nod with glum recognition - but those readers unfamiliar with how publishing works ma find the story of how I sold my novel to be crazy and implausible. But, trust me, this is how it happened.

Basically, a college friend was an editorial assistant who liked his book:

"Oh not good good," she said. "I mean...I was impressed, you know, that you wrote the whole thing, but...I mean, tornadoes?"
Now I pantomined "hurt."
"So you didn't think it was good."
"Look, Pete." She leaned in close, and whispered. "I can't tell anymore."
'What?"
"I can't tell. I don't know if they're good or bad or what."
"Aren't you supposed to be an assistant editor?"
"Editorial assistant, but I - don;t think anybody knows."
By now we were leaning in like two spies. "They can't tell, my boss definitely can't tell, his boss certainly definitely can't tell. Nobody knows. And we're in a lot of trouble."

Toward the end, the protgonist goes to have lunch with the new dean of his old department. They hired him because he believes in free market reviews: the value of a book is related to its sales, not the reviews by the literary elite. And this is a major point: What is good?

We think that a timeless classic like Old Man and the Sea is better than the latest Robert Ludlow thriller, but is it? Is it better because teachers force students to read it, thus making it more literary or educational? If more people buy and read Grisham's The Client than Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men, why do we insist that Steinbeck is a better writer or that Of Mice and Men is a great book? Why are people who care about their academic reputations afraid to admit that they prefer the fast-moving thriller to a boring 19th century novel taught in most university English courses? What makes it better? What is a truer indicator of better: popularity or elitist book reviews?

In coaching, the same thing happens. People argue that other coaches are better than Phil Jackson, but by what measure? People point to MJ, Shaq and Kobe Bryant, but others have coached these stars with much less success. They argue that he does not stand and yell, but how is that a measurement of good coaching?

Recruiters constantly argue that an unproductive player with length and athleticism who looks like a great basketball player is the better player, but isn't productivity the ultimate measure? I mean, the literary elite can argue theme, tone, plot, etc, but if more people enjoy, buy and read a science-fiction thriller than Edith Wharton's The House of Mirth, how can you call The House of Mirth better? Reviews are like the recruiters (opinions) and book sales are like productivity (facts).

It's easy to argue for or against, but at the end of the day, book sales and on-court productivity matter. People like movies like Avatar and The Proposal because they are familiar and easy just like college basketball recruiters like length and athleticism. While an original movie may be more interesting to me, just like English professors prefer boring books like The House of Mirth, that doesn't make it better, and if others agree, the only way to ensure more original movies or books is to pay for those in circulation or at the theatres.

The Economics of Collapse

The November 2009 Fast Company profiles economist Noreena Hertz and her vision for "co-op capitalism."

The article is interesting, as it describes Hertz' ascension to pop-economist status. The problem that I have with the article is the idea that nobody saw the economic collapse coming.

I am no economist, and I do not make enough money for the collapse to affect me greatly. I live in the same apartment, drive the same car, shop at the same grocery store, rent Netflix movies, etc. I did not have an extravagant lifestyle to lose.

However, every time I went home to Sacramento, I would ask who was going to live in all the new homes. Everywhere you looked, new homes were being built. And, the only growth industry was the construction industry. I asked what big corporations had moved their headquarters to Sacramento, and none had.

I got a C in microeconomics, but I knew something was wrong if construction workers were effectively just building homes for other construction workers.

When my friends in the loan industry told me about the loans that their companies wrote, I asked them how it was legal. I knew that could not last.

When I saw mediocre homes in below-average neighborhoods skyrocketing to over $400,000, I knew the market was unsustainable. I just did not know when or how it would collapse, but I knew the price of crappy houses could not continue to go up forever.

It's common sense. It's easy to say this in hindsight. But, everyone called me a pessimist or said I did not understand business and economics when I said it at the time.

But, seriously, when I felt that I could not afford a home or a loan, but I saw people who made the same as me and had children to feed putting no money down and moving into $400,000 homes that two years earlier would have cost $200,000, common sense told me that something was wrong with the picture.

I think it is an example of the curse of knowledge. Economists and business people knew too much and were too involved to see with fresh eyes that something was wrong with this picture, and people who struggled to make their car payments every month probably were going to struggle with a $400,000 mortgage, and that eventually people were going to demand a better product or a lower price for these cookie-cutter homes with wafer-thin walls and no landscaping.

Many people encouraged me to jump into the market before it was too late and I was permanently priced out of the market. I resisted. I said that if I was wrong, I would move to a more affordable state. I was content in my apartment with my affordable rent, lack of maintenance and desirable location. Why buy an over-priced house in a neighborhood where I don't want to live just because everyone else is doing it when it was obvious that if construction continued at its torrid pace, there would be a glut of condos and homes on the market because beyond construction, the local economy was not creating new jobs to justify building these homes.

Hertz has some interesting ideas for the future, but her pop-icon status in the economics world seems to be a result of her ability to use common sense at a time when everyone else in the industry lost theirs.

Re-Thinking Education

In school, we learn so that we can do things eventually. However, why not do things in order to learn?

For example, rather than learning various formulas to pass a Geometry test and wondering if the knowledge will lead to something in the future, why not create a model house using the same formulas?

The class lesson is "creating a model house" not "memorizing the formula for volume." However, is a child likely to learn the meaning of volume and retain the information by using the formula to build something or by memorizing an abstract formula to pass a test?

Pulling Universities into the 21st Century

I just read an L.A. Times' article about a study conducted on California Community Colleges and the barriers that students face to transfer to a four-year school. As a former Community College coach, I saw these frustrations, as transfer requirements differ from university to university, and some classes count toward an A.A. but not toward a four-year transfer and vice versa. It is just a mess. Technology should be able to solve many of these problems.

I started a new job today working as a personal trainer at a university recreation center. Amazingly, our process is equally archaic. Just to fill-in a time sheet, I have to fill out multiple pieces of paper and an online form. To track clients' hours, I have to fill-in a paper and an online form and the online form does not allow edits.

For a potential client at home, he or she cannot purchase a training package online. He or she must go to the recreation center and talk to the student worker at the front desk. After a purchase is made, the purchase is forwarded to the Recreation Supervisor who oversees the personal trainers and she forwards it to the Assistant Director for Personal Training. The Assistant Director attempts to match times and needs with the client and emails a trainer who can accept or decline the new client. If I, as the trainer, accept, I receive the client's information and contact the client to set up the first appointment. At the first appointment, I have the client fill out a PAR-Q form (fairly standard in the training industry) and gather information on the client's medical and training history. If the client has some medical issues (high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc.), I need a doctor's clearance, which means no training during that appointment.

Imagine a streamlined online program:

• Client finds the web page (or is directed to a kiosk on-site) and orders a training package.
• After completing the payment process, the client fills out a PAR-Q online.
• If the client has any red flags requiring a medical clearance, the client is notified and prints out a form to have signed by the doctor.
• The client fills out basic information about goals and preferred training times.
• That information feeds to the trainer's database.

In the trainer's database:

• Trainer's fill-in available time slots.
• Trainer's fill-out information about any specialties that they may have.

Once the client completes the form, the program selects trainers automatically based on the numbered criteria and emails the first trainer. The client rates preferences: for instance, if a woman client prefers a female trainer to a male trainer, she could rate that #1. If the client can train only at a certain time, he or she would rate that as the #1 criteria.

The program matches trainer and client based on the various information and preferences inputted into the program.

The trainer receives an email and has 24 hours to accept the client and upon confirmation, receives the contact information to confirm the first appointment. The trainer also receives the completed PAR-Q for the trainer's files and a basic goal sheet and training history which was used to place the client with the trainer.

In this scenario, a client receives a confirmation phone call within 24 hours to set up an appointment with a pre-screened client and the trainer sets up the first session with a basic medical and training history as well as the client's stated goals, likes and dislikes. Therefore, if the client dislikes free weights, the trainer knows ahead of time and does not plan a one-hour free weight workout.

Upon completion of a workout, I - the trainer - would go to my personal trainer page and mark the completion of a training session with Client X. By clicking on Client X, it would automatically subtract one session from Client X's package. When Client X gets to his or her final two sessions, I would receive a prompt to suggest to the client to purchase a new package and an email would be sent to the client reminding him or her that he or she needs to purchase a new package to continue training.

A site like this would cost less than five-grand (probably less than three though most people would quote a higher cost) and could be designed by a computer science undergraduate or graduate student. The system would eliminate the time wasted doing the same task 2-3 times because of the current inefficiencies and probably would eliminate the necessity of an Assistant Director for Personal Training, paying for itself within a couple months, and would reduce the workload of the student workers at the desk who could concentrate on their other tasks or facilitate speedier service.

It is amazing to me that California has some of the greatest educational systems in the world, yet the infrastructure and technology is from the 80s. UCLA gets credit for designing the Internet (among others), yet the U.C., CSU and CCC systems fail to embrace or maximize its potential to create a more efficient and organized educational process.

Navigating the transfer requirements to a four-year should not be a struggle - that is the mission of the community college system. Community colleges (and UCs and CSUs) should do everything possible to make the educational planning as easy as possible. With budget cuts, hiring more counselors is out of the question. However, for the cost of one counselor for one year, the entire system could overhaul its web sites and requirements to make educational planning online an easy to use, accessible program.

Imagine if a student enrolled in a community college and started with her goal. On her personal page, the program immediately gathered the information and classes to meet this goal.

If I enrolled and entered that my goal is to transfer to a UC and major in kinesiology, the program would find the minimum requirements for transfer to a UC in my major. I would have a list of classes that I had to take and could click on the class links to see if there was a spot open this semester and if it fit into my schedule.

If I had a more vague goal -like transfer to a four-year school - I would see a very general outline of classes that would transfer and move me toward my goal as well as some other prompts that could help to narrow my focus. For instance, what do you envision yourself doing in five years? Why do you want a college degree? What is your favorite subject? What are your hobbies? Each prompt could suggest a different line of study and illustrate the different paths available.

Counselors spend hours tabulating and keeping track of this information. With greater cooperation between UCs, CSUs and CCCs, plus an innovative online software program, counselors would be able to spend more time meeting with students and monitoring progress as opposed to tracking down information and students would be able to do a majority of their scheduling and planning on their own.

Healthy Living and Health Insurance

Health care is the national buzz issue. However, I have yet to hear my situation addressed.

Being self-employed, I buy my own health insurance. Over the last four years, my monthly insurance has gone up about 80%.

In the Los Angeles Times today, a report said:

If people would just do four things -- engage in regular physical activity, eat a healthy diet, not smoke and avoid becoming obese -- they could slash their risk of diabetes, heart attack, stroke or cancer by 80%, a new report has found.

I do all four. I swim. I run. I eat pretty well with oatmeal, blueberries, plain yogurt, orange juice, turkey, beans and ice tea comprising the bulk of my diet. I don't smoke and I wear the same pant size that I wore when I graduated from high school 14 years ago.

More to the point, in the four years that my costs have risen 80%, I started to eat better (I cook more often), am in better shape (more running, cycling and swimming) and I live a safer lifestyle (safer driver, safer neighborhood).

Meanwhile the report says:

But less than 10% of the 23,153 people in the multiyear study -- published in Monday’s Archives of Internal Medicine -- actually lived their lives this way.

Therefore, as one of the 10% living a healthy lifestyle and cutting my risk of serious illness by 80%, my 80% raise in expenses seems to be subsidizing the 90% of the population not living a healthy lifestyle.

Why am I punished for their lifestyle choices? As medical costs rise, it is the 90%, not me, costing the insurance companies more money. Why should I pay for it?

After reading the report, shouldn't health insurance companies incentivitize people to live a healthy lifestyle? What about a system that pays for a gym membership with regular attendance? Everything is online these days and every business gathers information electronically. What about a rebate on groceries for buying healthy groceries? What about a discount for a healthy BMI?

Why should I pay more just because I aged four years on the calendar even though I am healthier and in better condition?

A World Class University and Urban Renewal

For years, Sacramento has tried to develop the rail yards north of downtown. Building a new downtown arena for the Sacramento Kings or, once upon a time, a new home for the Oakland A's, was supposed to spur the development and create a huge mixed-use community with retail, office and residential right next to downtown Sacramento.

When Sacramento citizens were asked to pay for the arena, they voted no. Sacramento loves its Kings, but it was hard to vote for tax breaks for the billionaire owners as they appeared on a Carl's Jr. commercial talking about drinking thousand-dollar wine with their $6 burger.

Recently, I had an idea to spur development in Sacramento: Why not use a world-class university to spur development? After all, people want to create a vibrant community in downtown Sacramento that keeps people downtown after dark. What better way to keep people downtown than to have them live there and go to school? What better way to draw more people to the area than with the cultural offerings common at most top universities (exhibits, speakers, shows, concerts, athletic events)?

However, who starts a new university? In this economic climate, who can afford to develop and fund a university?

My answer: Google, Apple and others.

In the September 2009 Fast Company, editor Robert Safian presents the second part of my plan:

American business leaders, especially in the tech sector, lament regularly that our education system isn't producing enough qualified engineers for our future. Why don't they recruit the best talent straight out of high school and train this generation themselves? If the NBA can find Kobe Bryant and Dwight Howard, why can't Intel or Microsoft find what it needs?

Sacramento is close enough to Silicon Valley, but also far enough to create its own identity. The land is cheaper than the Bay Area, but the tech companies could practically create their own urban utopia. And, the new development in the area would provide plenty of office space for the next generation companies developed out of Apoogle U.

This would be the perfect experiment in education and urban design: a downtown extension created as a green community of tech-oriented companies and a university. The buildings could be green-certified and solar-powered. The city streets could be bike and pedestrian-friendly.

A university founded and funded by tech companies looking to educate the next generation of tech employees for their companies as well as for the start-ups the students will inevitably found. The university could own a small percentage of all companies started by the students to form an endownment for the university.

There are so many possibilities and so many reasons for it to work. Sacramento needs a way and a reason to develop the land. Technology companies need more engineers. Our educational system needs a new approach. If some technology companies were willing to work together for the next generation, so many positives could develop from this idea.

The Specialist vs The Generalist

Timothy Fentriss, author of The Four Hour Work Week, has a blog about the generalist making a comeback. He offers five reasons:

1. “Jack of all trades, master of none” is an artificial pairing.
2. In a world of dogmatic specialists, it’s the generalist who ends up running the show.
3. Boredom is failure.
4. Diversity of intellectual playgrounds breeds confidence instead of fear of the unknown.
5. It’s more fun in the most serious existential sense.

I am a generalist and I agree. In my business, training basketball players, I am a generalist. The perception is that specialists are superior teachers in their area of expertise: coaches and trainers call themselves shooting coaches or post play specialists or basketball conditioning coaches. In most cases, the specialist gets hired for a position in the discipline or is asked to speak at an event.

I study different subjects and follow a different path to avoid boredom. There is no way I could last in an office job. I enjoy learning. I took a class to be certified as a Spinning instructor because it seemed interesting, even though it has nothing to do with my career ambitions. I like to do different things. In my mid-20s, I learned the Olympic lifts and did those for a while. I got bored of lifting and joined a boxing gym to learn boxing and kick boxing.

When potential customers ask me how I differ from competitors, I think it is the diversity of my experience and pursuits. I explore new things and am constantly learning. I am more confident in my teaching and training. While most basketball guys stick to basketball, I study a wealth of information on different subjects and relate it to training basketball players. I used a book on chess strategy as a basis for tactical development; studying to be a strength coach taught me more about movement; boxing has taught me more about learning and different ways to train.

Unfortunately, as much as I agree with Fentriss’ sentiments as an individual, I disagree with Fentriss in terms of career advancement and marketing. Society prefers specialists because they are easy to categorize. People want to categorize and label other people and occupations.

When I meet another adult, inevitably the first question is: “What do you do?” I never have an answer. I do not have a career. I do not want a career. I do a lot of things, but none in the grown-up sense. I train basketball players. I coach high school volleyball. I write books. I run a web site. I consult with basketball coaches and leagues. I take boxing and kick boxing lessons. I read. I study biomechanics. I teach Spinning classes. I write for a half-dozen web sites.

Most adults have a neat, concise answer. I am a doctor or a lawyer or an accountant. People naturally limit themselves. In our society, we determine worth my career status. This is how we evaluate whether a person is worth our time. For college-aged young adults, the first question is “Where do you go to school?” or if on a campus, “What is your major?” We want to categorize people. If we know a person’s career or alma mater or major, we can put them in a category.

I do not fit neatly into a category. Even within my primary “business” – training basketball players, writing books and articles about training basketball players and co-founding a web site to provide online basketball training for players – I do not fit into a category. Within the basketball training industry, the most profitable category is the shooting coach. Shooting is the game’s most basic skill, and possibly the most difficult to learn. Much like a quarterback coach or a pitching coach, it is the most popular and easy to define role within the industry.

Shooting is not an isolated skill. I had a player try me after 3-4 other “shooting coaches” who could not help him improve his shooting. One shooting coach even told the player to get his eyes checked. The problem was not his shooting mechanics, but his balance. His basic movement skills were poor, which led to mistakes in his mechanics. The other shooting coaches specialize in shooting and instructed proper technique, but he did not improve because they never attacked his weakness. Training movement skills was beyond their training. However, it is a part of my general workout and early progressions with a new player. While kids go to the “shooting coaches,” sometimes they need a “generalist.”

The generic term “Basketball Trainer” is not a common title. People are unsure what it means. I have colleagues who strictly run shooting clinics and they make a lot more money, even though my teaching ability is superior. However, they are specialists, and when someone needs a shooting coach, they hire a specialist. I suffer in terms of profitability because I am a generalist.

I advise coaches on a wide range of subjects because I am a generalist and have knowledge in several areas. I am a certified strength and conditioning specialist, so some coaches seek my advice on their strength and conditioning programs. I have studied sports psychology and written about visualization, so some coaches approach me on this subject. I have written about youth programs and long term athlete development, so facilities have sought me for long term program development.

However, because of my breadth, I appear to lack the depth for certain positions. I approached an NBA Assistant General Manager about a position with his club as their Player Development Coach. However, because he knew me from my book on youth basketball development and my DVD on ball handling, he assumed I lacked the specific skills for post play that he sought. However, one of my greatest successes was a post player I trained in Sweden. I am confident working with post players. However, I am not a “post development coach," so the team hired a coach with that label.

I think it is more fun to study different subjects and find the synergy between them. I started boxing and kick boxing to put myself back into the position of learner after seven years in the position of “expert” or “teacher.” I love learning.