Let Go Of My Lego!

Last week Keith, from The Nostalgic Italian, was nice enough to invite me to take part of a forum he was running and relive a few fine childhood memories in the process! He asked us to pick “The Toy Of Your Life” and it seemed most of us have at least one that pops into our head and calls up moments of fond reminiscing.

Growing up in the ’70s, I see I had some things in common with people who’ve already contributed. I think most of us grew up in decent homes, but weren’t Richie Rich clones nor spoiled. I had a good number of toys to play with when young, but my closet wasn’t busting at the seams and I sure was taught young that I couldn’t get anything I wanted just by throwing a tantrum. Typically, outside of a few small dollar-store style toys, if I wanted something major, I’d ask for it and if lucky, it might appear on my birthday or under the Christmas tree. That helped teach me patience, and to save up my little allowance to buy things I really wanted months away from those times. For me, that was largely records, but at times it might be a special toy.

Paul’s Soccer (Football) game was new to me, but reminded me of a table hockey game I had for years – about a yard-long hockey “rink” with little players who slid around when you moved the metal pulls they attached to and would “shoot” the little puck, or try to block it. Like Paul’s game, it came with players in two uniforms (Toronto and Montreal I believe) but you could interchange them and there were other sets of players in other team uniforms available. Eventually I think I had 12 teams, which if memory serves, might have been the entire NHL back then. I liked it, and would sometimes play my older brother (who liked to win – a lot) or even my mother, but it wasn’t my favorite by any means nor something I could do by myself to keep me occupied when alone. The same goes for the several board games like “Monopoly” and “Careers” I had… I liked the latter one more, it seemed more creative and interesting and gave your player choices as to what they wanted to do – go to college? Get into environmentalism? Try to become famous? It was upto you.

Christian already wrote about small cars like Hot Wheels and Matchoxes, and I had quite a few of those and really liked them… in fact I wrote about the Hot Wheels once before! They were something that I had a lot of fun with and valued for years, but they still wouldn’t necessarily take my “favorite” title. When I thought about it, there was only one real option for me – Lego.

I imagine nowadays everyone is familiar with Lego. It’s a multi-million dollar industry across varoius ends of commerce, including of course movies. You can now buy Lego kits to build realistic-looking flowers and much of their product line is now branded – Star Wars for example. It actually dates back to 1949, when a Danish carpenter came up with the idea of interlocking blocks (with the little “studs” on top that lock into the “tubes” underneath to make them sturdy when connected. He called it “Leg godt”, or “play good” which got shortened to the familiar brand name when patented in 1958. It was inducted into the Toy Hall of Fame (yes, there is such a thing – part of the Museum of Play in Rochester, which sounds a fun place to visit) – in 1998. But back when I was a kid, it was a rather different kind of thing, and I dare say, better.

That’s because while you could get some actual “kits” to build specific things (I seem to remember having this little firehouse kit, or at least the vehicles shown)

picture 1

Mostly, it was just sold in big boxes of mixed blocks. There were white ones, red ones, probably some black ones too. Some were rounded so you could build a turret or cylindrical building if you wanted. Plus there were little doors, windows, blue ceiling shingles… all still connected with the blocks, plus a few less 3-d interlocking features like little trees, or wheel sets. Instead of following an Ikea furniture-like instruction sheet to build the kit to specification, we just used our imaginations and build what we felt like. To me that is a much more creative and ultimately satisfying toy, as much as I did like building a few scale models of real trucks in later years and have them look like the picture on the box.

picture 2

I had a very large box of mixed blocks and house accessories like windows, and a case that had extra ones from smaller kits I’d been given. I mostly loved building little houses with it. The blurry picture at the top shows me (on right) at probably three or four years old, with my older brother and some of our Lego creations. You can vaguely make out a little white house with blue roof I’d built, in front of me. And as an added bonus, don’t miss that early-’70s orange wall color! I had hours of fun building the houses, making each one look a little different. Sometimes I’d even draw a sort of floorplan for a house – bedroom here, living room there, door here – on paper and try to build one with Lego. When done, I’d maybe keep it on my desk or a table for awhile, then carefully take it apart and build something new. Every once in awhile, for a change, I’d take the base board that I usually built the individual house on and would stack up blocks into little skyscrapers and create a sort of city skyline, viewed from afar. And the wheels allowed me to change it up and build little cars or vans from my imagination too.

It was a great way to spend a rainy or snowy afternoon, building houses, or little castles or whatever I fancied, having something to show for it and then, best of all, it was reusable. Of course, I guess any really incredible creations could have been preserved, but the basis of the toy snapping together and coming apart meant you could use the same set endlessly…which perhaps was why they turned to more specialized kits later. From a commercial standpoint, a toy you only have to buy the child once and they keep using perhaps limits the market potential a little.

It’s a cliché but it’s also true – it was a simpler time. And, I say, for a kid growing up, a better time. I look back on those Lego creations, and Hot Wheels and model trucks with a lot of affection. I can hardly imagine today’s six year old in 50 years looking back fondly on playing a video game for hours or texting the kid next door all night. Thanks Keith for reminding us of this!

But What If Chuck Is Right?

The first thing you notice about Chuck Klosterman’s But What If We’re Wrong? is that the cover seems to be printed upside down. Which within a few pages, seems to make sense since the book essentially asks if anything we currently assume we “know” is correct, or will be seen as such a few centuries down the road. Maybe gravity isn’t what we think. Maybe Shakespeare wasn’t an especially gifted writer. Maybe octopi are smarter than we are. Maybe many eight-limbed sea creatures are actually called “octopusses”. Why are we so sure?

After all, it wasn’t all that long ago in terms of mankind’s history that people were sure if you went for a long enough sail, you’d sail right off the edge of the world into oblivion. Or, as he points out, that until Newton got banged on the head by an apple about 350 years ago, gravity didn’t “exist”. Or at least, it didn’t exist in our understanding. People had noticed that if you drop a rock off a roof, it would fall, but they assumed that was because the rock simply desired to be on the ground. If it wished to be up, it would just have floated around. Not surprisingly then, one of his first premises is a grabber – maybe we’re wrong about gravity.

Now he doesn’t propose that a rock dropped from above isn’t going to fall, ten times out of ten, but merely that our scientific understanding of the phenomenon may be flawed… and he backs that up with some complicated theories from top-notch scientists who reference things like space-time continuums and alternate universes which reminded me that high school was a long time ago and even then, I only got “C”s in physics! To make matters worse, he admits that when Brian Greene tried to explain it to him, patiently… twice… he didn’t understand it either. He talks to Greene and to Neil Degrasse Tyson in the book, two scientists mostly known to ordinary Joe Six Packs like me through their guest appearances on TV’s Big Bang Theory. Which was one big takeaway of that portion of the book – that the scientific jibber jabber Sheldon spouts on the show are actually based on real things physicists are working on – super symmetry, multiverses operating simultaneously and so on. The other big takeaway is that to simplify, Greene believes we still have a lot to learn and many current scientific “facts” may be proven wrong; Tyson on the other hand suggests that everything can be explained by advanced math and since we have a good grasp on that, we’re now right about everything. At least science-wise. I have to say that while I didn’t understand most of the concepts, it seems to me reasonable to assume we’re still learning and some of our ideas currently may seem laughably dumb in two hundred years, akin to fears of boating off the corner of the globe.

Thankfully he doesn’t spend the whole 200+ pages on physics. He quickly references Moby Dick ,for instance. He points out that when Herman Melville wrote it, he was immensely proud… but soon became distraught because it barely sold and those who did read it tended to attack it in debates and reviews. It was seen as a bad, flop of a book. Fast forward a hundred or so years and as he sees it, any list of the Great American Novel starts and finishes with it. It’s certainly considered one of the finest pieces of literature ever to come from the New World. The book is the same; people’s opinions and evaluations of what makes great literature have shifted. (I might add, though he didn’t point to it, much the same is true of the movie It’s a Wondeful Life, a flop and almost a career-killer for Jimmy Stewart at the time, but since being found by cable TV decades later in the ’80s, now ranked as an essential holiday classic for the ages.) From there he tries to ponder what the future generations will view as the great novels and writers of our time. An interesting idea, and he’s probably right that the opinions of the 23rd Century will be different than ours now. Salman Rushdie might be viewed as excessively wordy and pompous for all we know, Danielle Steele might be seen as the great voice of our century. Who can say with certainty? He ponders the subject and considers the most likely answer to who will be remembered and revered will be no one we know now, someone with a very limited following writing somewhere like the “dark web.” Of course, his own logic seems to fail him at times. While not specifically mentioning “political correctness”, he points out that until the start of this century, “best of” retrospectives seemed to concentrate mostly on White males, but that’s been changing in the past 20 years or so. Now lists of “bests” seem to be more inclusive of other races, and of females. He thus jumps to conclude that the greatest writers of the here-and-now will necessarily be non-White, visible minorities and probably transgendered, somehow assuming that the current shift in attitudes is permanent despite arguing that most opinions of culture tend to be rather transistory and change from decade to decade.

Chuck was a writer for Spin and something of an expert in pop/rock music, so he also tries to establish what the future will remember of “rock”. It’s a lengthy chapter, which among other things tries to distinguish between “rock & roll”, “rock n roll” and “rock” (deciding that April Wine’s “I like to Rock” is the ultimate “rock” song of all-time, but not the ultimate rock n roll or rock & roll song) He notes that we remember composers like Beethoven and Mozart but have forgotten equally talented contemporaries of theirs and figures that is how the future will remember “rock”. One or two names will live on while most others, often equally-talented, will be long forgotten. He examines the Beatles and even though they have been in all likelihood the most influential and successful purveyors of it, suggests they may not be remembered because we seem to have a bias for remembering great individuals instead of groups or collectives. Canadians art lovers might counter with “Group of Seven” – probably the best-known and loved homegrown visual artists but known by a collective name rather than seven individual ones – but I digress. He comes down to suggesting maybe Chuck Berry will be remembered as an embodiment of the spirit of rock, or maybe Elvis Presley or Bob Dylan will be. There he makes the interesting point that if the future will remember Dylan, it will think of rock as being more political and astute than it really is; if Elvis is, it will be seen as even more about superficiality and performance over musicianship or substance than it is. Of course, he hedges his bets and also suggests maybe Journey will be the one artist remembered. But wait, Steve Perry fans, don’t get too excited… he doesn’t think it would be on their merit but because of that one song used in one TV show.

He expects future anthropologists will study TV most closely of all our forms of entertainment and pop culture (a questionable assumption), and makes the leap to assume that they will anoint The Sopranos as the finest thing ever to appear on that medium, because, it seems he thinks that. Ergo, the song that plays at the end of the series, “Don’t Stop Believing” will be held in special reverence and assumed to be the epitome of music of our lifetimes. Although he also points out in a rare display of humor, that he may be wrong and future university courses may instead obsess over every episode of Three’s Company instead.

He notes that our opinions of presidents keep changing and predicts once everyone old enough to have voted for Ronald Reagan dies, future political scientists will point to him as a terrible leader and wonder how he ever got elected – without that grandfatherly charisma to look back on and remember, they’ll see him being in charge of an economy that was in bad shape and got worse for most Americans, see his deregulation as harming the nation and draw no ties between him in the White House and the collapse of the USSR a year later. He figures that seismic bit of history will be attributed to the Soviet Union being a society built on 19th Century agrarian cultures not suited to the modern world. Which led into one of the more interesting topics he studies in it – if the USA can survive. And if it falters, will it be because the Constitution is seen as being infallible and eternal even though drafted in a totally different world which had no concept of nuclear weapons, terrorism, or even the polarization of politicians we see today. What if we’re wrong about the Constitution being the answer to keeping the country united and running properly?

It’s a complicated book, and a bit frustrating in places, but thoroughly interesting. It really gets one re-examining our carved-in-stone beliefs and opinions (which are so ingrained we don’t even see them as “opinions” but as “facts” instead) . It made me look backwards a little at all the changes that have taken place in my lifetime and wonder what will lie ahead in the next 50 or so years. I mean, when I was a child, there’s no way I would have believed that here in 2024, most people would carry a little flat playing card-sized thing in their pocket that could play almost any song they want to hear, watch university lectures or Asian porn in high-definition, call up most of the books in the library and let them read from it, let them send a note instantly to someone on a different continent and have in the process made the whole huge “landline” telephone network obsolete. Yet, here we are in 2024 and people complain their tenth generation I-phone only has a 30 megapixel camera and needs rebooting every few months.

To me, it would seem the only constant is change. But then again, …”but what if we’re wrong?”.

Of Cynics, Skeptics … And Sasquatches?

Well I think I’m overdue to get back here, and once again dig into the weekly writing prompts delivered by John at The Sound of One Hand Typing. He had several good topics this time around, but one that really caught my eye was to tell something I’m skeptical of. Apparently this is in honor of National Skeptics Day, which he says is Sunday… though I’m skeptical of that! Another was to do a post in just 11 sentences. Let’s see if I can combine the two:

I used to be told – frequently – I was too cynical. I’ve tried to work on that as I get older, and hopefully am a little less so now than say twenty years back. The topic made me actually think “what’s the difference between cynical and skeptical?” ; I must admit I probably have used them fairly interchangeably in the past. But according to the Associated Press, “skeptical” is doubting; “cynical” is disbelieving. A good rule of thumb to remember, and a good rule for me is that often it’s good to be skeptical. It’s usually not productive to be cynical. I like to try to keep an open mind on many topics which can lead to a bit of healthy skepticism… but hopefully not cynicism.

Take Bigfoot or Sasquatch for instance. To be skeptical of a photo or video someone comes up with and says is one, is only prudent – there are a lot of people looking for an easy Andy Warhol 15 minutes of fame who happily fake such things, and too many bears in the distance that could actually look like something else. To be cynical and just assume that’s the case and they’re all fake without looking is to fly in the face of science.

Asking a few questions helps one be wise; refusing to believe anything makes one the subject of a documentary about deranged sociopaths.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started