What I Learned About Fitness in 2014

Hello world, and Happy New Year. To the few people that know me well, it's no secret that I'm a big fan of health and fitness. This last year especially (thanks in large part to the encouragement of a close friend whom I discovered most of the things on this article through) I've tried my best to dedicate myself to exercising more and being an overall healthier person. There have been ups and downs, and I thought it would be a good idea to reflect on some of the things I've learned, not just about fitness in general, but some of the philosophies I've picked up along the way as well.

I should also say right now that I am by no means an expert on fitness, nor have I gone to school and studied to any great degree some of the things I'll be talking about. I'm just a guy with a blog who spent a long time reading up and observing things. I'll try and be as concise as possible so as not to waste too much of your day, but this article will probably be pretty long. Give me a break though; it was a long year and if you're at all interested in exercising or living a healthier life, you might learn a thing or two (the last point is kinda the most important in my opinion). And it's got headings, so feel free to skip ahead.

And so, in no particular order . . .

YOU CAN'T OUT-EXERCISE A BAD DIET

Diet is literally the most important element of healthy living. I went from a diet consisting mainly of pizza, hamburgers, chicken strips, chips, soda and chocolate to one that was rich in whole grains, fruits and vegetables, low-fat diary, healthy fats, and lean protein. The results were astounding. My energy skyrocketed and my appearance changed quite drastically in a short amount of time. While the biological process is far more complicated than I'm probably making it seem, diet accounts for anywhere between 60-80% of your fitness goals and has a profound impact on your health. You could exercise hours everyday with a shitty diet with no results, while otherwise get great results with a good diet and only a few hours of exercise a week. 

Remember, a healthy meal shouldn't be the exception to your day (i.e. "At least I had a salad for lunch!") but the other way around. Eating an apple doesn't cancel out several candy bars.

HAVING SAID THAT, FOCUSING TOO MUCH ON DIET CAN RUIN YOUR LIFE

I have a very obsessive personality, and when I launch myself into something, I usually do it with as much zeal and effort as I'm able to dedicate. Unfortunately, it's more than possible to take something such as a desire to be healthy and have it transition into a very unhealthy frame of mind. I became obsessive about counting calories and macro-nutrient ratios (the percentage of protein, carbohydrates, and fats you consume daily) and overly critical about how I looked, feeling guilty if I had something like pizza or chocolate. I'm not near as bad as I once was, but it's still something I deal with from time to time.

WHAT YOU SEE IN MAGAZINES/MOVIES AREN'T HOW THINGS WORK IN REAL LIFE

Much like how porn has warped the minds of young men into believing sex operates a certain way, movies and magazines often portray fitness in such an incorrect fashion too. Looking as good as models and actors requires months and months of dedication and discipline. It requires sleeping 8-10 hours a night, consuming dangerously excessive and then dangerously limited amounts of food, and six intense days a week in the gym (with one day for rest). Before a photo shoot or a shirtless scene, models/actors will often dehydrate themselves to lose water weight, plus lighting and camera positioning plays a huge role too. Those instances are often built up to; actors rarely maintain such a level of "shreddedness" for an entire film shoot, and they especially don't maintain that level of fitness once shooting is over. That lifestyle is simply too demanding, and it's especially daunting to even try and attempt when you're working a 9-5 office job.  

IT'S NOT ABOUT BUILDING MUSCLE, IT'S ABOUT LOSING BODY FAT

I, like many others, used to think that the key to a six-pack of abs was an unprecedented number of crunches and situps. My mind was therefore blown when I found out that not only do those two exercises suck for bringing out the ab muscles, but you can get a perfectly decent flat stomach without doing any ab exercises whatsoever. What matters is dropping your body fat to the point that all of your muscles become visible and highly defined (which is most easily achieved through diet). It's an illusion that the fitness industry has capitalized on for decades. Case in point, Brad Pitt - who's body in the film Fight Club was considered the epitome of male fitness for a long time - only weighed around 155 pounds during that film (he's six feet tall). You'll hear it everywhere, but it's true: abs are made in the kitchen.
 
YOU HAVE TO PRETTY MUCH EAT DRYWALL TO GET SUPER TRIM 

The "drywall" bit is a joke Ryan Reynolds made about what he had to eat to get into shape for Blade: Trinity, but anyone who's followed that kind of diet would have to agree. In order to drop body fat you pretty much have to stick to the leanest of proteins and the most nutrient dense of vegetables, which is why chicken and broccoli are such staples of fitness diets.

PEOPLE HAVE A STRANGE DISASSOCIATION FROM THEIR BODY

Sometimes I feel that the majority of people think of their body as some physical entity completely disassociated from their brain, like their mind is a driver and their body a car, and that if the car gets rundown the brain will still be fine. Unfortunately this isn't the case, as the mind and body are BOTH the car, and as one gets rundown so does the other. There's no way to separate the two. Your body is the vessel by which you live, and if you don't keep it in good health, your quality of life will suffer.
 
IT'S AMAZING WHAT YOU CAN TRAIN YOUR BODY TO DO

The human body is a highly adaptive organism, and it's incredibly efficient at learning and adapting to new movements. The nervous system plays just as much a part in weight training as do muscles. It's often the initial hurdle of becoming familiar with new movements that sets most people back, but as many motivational posters claim, your mind will often quit before your bodies does.

COMPOUND BEFORE ISOLATION EXERCISES & BODY BALANCE

This is more actual training related, but an awful lot of people walk nervously into a gym not entirely sure what exercises they should be performing, and immediately start either bench pressing or doing bicep curls because those are the only exercises they're familiar with. It's important when beginning to exercise (honestly, for the first several years) to focus on big, compound exercises that make you use several muscles at once, instead of worrying about doing isolation exercises like bicep curls that only target one muscle. It's also important to make sure you have proper posture and execute everything with good form, otherwise you're setting yourself up for a nasty injury, and for the love of Christ, never try to lift more weight than you can do comfortably. If you want to see what overreaching and bad posture delivers, go to YouTube and check out any number of "CrossFit Fails" compilations.

The best exercises to focus on are things such as bench-presses, deadlifts, squats, pull-ups, dips, shoulder presses, and anything else that requires natural movement and that works more than one muscle group. Unless you're a bodybuilder, there's no reason to try and follow a bodybuilding style training routine. And it's also important to make sure you're balancing your body properly. If all you do is bench press without worrying about working the opposing muscles groups (in this case the back, which is targeted through movements like rows and pull-ups) you're on a one way trip to muscle imbalance, which isn't pleasant. 
   
CARDIO SUCKS FOR FAT LOSS

That's not to say it's not an important part of an exercise regime, but if you're spending hours on the treadmill or elliptical hoping to burn calories, think again. While it might be great for improving your cardiovascular fitness, it won't put much of a dent (like, at all) in your daily caloric consumption. Studies show lifting weights is actually more effective for weight loss with strict cardio a distant second. If you want to lose weight, you NEED to reign in your diet. There's just no other way.

THE BODY ISN'T A JIGSAW PUZZLE

Having said that, it's also important to realize that the body isn't broken down into separate entities such as when you divide your routine into "cardio" and "strength training." The body functions as a whole, and while it's possible to work different processes through certain methods, ultimately everything works as a cohesive unit.

PEOPLE WANT A QUICK FIX 

I used to think that one hour of exercise three days a week was enough to offset whatever poor lifestyle choices I was making, and I realize now that was a very unhealthy notion (in the same way I used to think an hour of yoga a week was enough to fix seven day's worth of bad posture). Similarly, I have a coworker I overheard talking about how they have a very bad back and wanted to pursue surgery, but was furious when their doctor suggested exercising first; my coworker didn't want to think that something that would require that much effort and discipline on their part was the solution to their problem - they wanted the "magic pill" solution.

We've become obsessed with the idea that there's a singular cure for whatever ailment we have. A healthy lifestyle is like any other discipline - you can't do it for a day and expect to see results. It takes a lot of time and hard work to see any progress. 

EXERCISE AND PROPER DIET ARE THE MEDICATION NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE

I understand that not everyone enjoys exercising like I do, and I certainly understand that not everyone wants to adjust their diet either. That shit's hard, plain and simple. Unfortunately, being healthy isn't like other hobbies or skills that we can choose to indulge in based on whether we enjoy them or not; our bodies all operate on the same biological processes, and being healthy is literally capable of curing a good percentage of lifestyle-related diseases (of which heart disease, cardiac problems, and a good chunk of cancers fall under). It's a cure that is sitting in front of everyone's face, but few people want to pick up. If there existed a pill with all the benefits of exercise with none of the hard work, it would be the best selling product in all of human history.

REST IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS DIET AND EXERCISE 

I've made the mistake of assuming the key to fitness was strictly exercise, but it's actually a holy trinity of exercise, diet and rest, with each part being just as important as the other. Muscle is grown by tearing it so it may build back up, so you actually "grow" muscle when you're not exercising. Six days of hard exercise a week is probably going to keep you from reaching optimal results unless you're eating a dump truck worth of clean food a day to compensate, or at the very least being smart about how you structure your routine. 

EVERYONE NEEDS TO GET MORE SLEEP 

I truly underestimated the degree to which rest plays in living a healthy lifestyle, and from the looks of a small Facebook poll I took, so does everyone else. I'm lucky if I sleep more than six hours a night, even though it's recommended that everyone should get at least 7-8 on average (more if you exercise vigorously). Hormones released during sleep contribute to everything from stress management to weight loss to muscle growth, and yet I think because it's something free that most people enjoy, it's therefore viewed as an indulgence instead of a necessary element of healthy living. 

FITNESS ISN'T ALL ABOUT MUSCLE 

There are some fun videos on YouTube showing what happens when professional bodybuilders try rock climbing for the first time and are easily beaten by someone half their size with a third of the muscle. Having big muscles won't help you at all if you aren't performing functional training; if someone steals your wallet and runs off, it won't matter how much you bench-pressed the night before if you can't run thirty seconds without being out of breath. Overall fitness is broken down equally between muscular endurance, flexibility, cardiovascular processes (how well your body utilizes oxygen) and body composition (how much fat to muscle you have).
 
WEIGHT LOSS IS A FINICKY THING     

Weight loss is predominantly related to one's diet, but the details are freakin' hard to nail down. Everyone's body is different, and while there are tons of "calorie calculators" online, finding out what works best for you is going to take a lot of trial and error. Eat too much and you'll be gaining more fat than muscle; eat too little and your body will enter starvation mode and you'll actually gain weight. You can also fluctuate up to ten pounds in a single day based on water-weight alone, so don't rely on fitness magazines and the bathroom scale to tell you how much progress you're making.
 
SUGAR ADDICTION AND OBESITY ARE WORSE THAN PEOPLE REALIZE

I've always considered myself an extremely disciplined person, and I always thought the threat of obesity was just a matter of people being too lazy . . . until I tried cutting out all processed sugar from my diet. To say it was challenging is an understatement. I still get cravings and have to fight off the desire for sugar (especially chocolate). Studies show the body reacts similarly to sugar in the way it also reacts to hard drugs, and if I had such a hard time breaking it off then I fear for everyone else, because it's in fucking EVERYTHING.

SERIOUSLY, SUGAR IS THE FUCKING DEVIL

The documentary Fed Up is a great film that I highly recommend because it takes a very no-nonsense approach to obesity and the effects of sugar, and if it's good enough to get Kevin Smith to change his diet, it's good enough for everyone else. To sum up the science, the body can only process about six grams of sugar at a time, and eating more will trigger an insulin response in your body that automatically starts converting food to fat. This provides a double whammy because all the nutrients get stored as fat instead of filling you up and giving you energy, so not only are you still hungry, you feel sluggish as well. Therefore, it doesn't matter how few calories you eat; if what you're eating is still high in sugar, you're still converting a lot of what you eat to fat.

Also, take a look at any nutrient label. Notice how sugar is the only item that doesn't list its "Daily %" value. That's because sugar corporations (I hate using the vague term "corporations" but what else do you call them in this situation) lobbied to have that removed, otherwise a can of Coca Cola would say something along the lines of 110% on the label.  

A CALORIE ISN'T ALWAYS A CALORIE

This is an old school notion that assumed if you burned more calories than you consumed, you'd lose weight. But because the body isn't a calculator and sugar is a nefarious bastard, science has shown that isn't the case. 200 calories of chocolate and 200 calories of vegetables are not going to have the same nutritional effect on your body. 

EVEN IF SOMETHING IS HEALTHY, IT'S STILL POSSIBLE TO GET FAT OFF IT

Almonds are healthy, and there have been some studies that show health benefits to dark chocolate, and yes, even a glass of wine now and then is good, but holy shit, that's not an excuse to shove it down your throat like it's the antidote to a six pack. Almonds and dark chocolate are still high in fat, and any chocolate is still filled with sugar (some types more than others, obviously). Even fruits when eaten in large quantities can be high calorie. Really, vegetables are one of the few types of food that you can pretty much eat with abandon without ever having to worry about their calorie count.

MISLEADING MARKETING IS GOING TO KILL THE MISINFORMED

Fuck fruit juice, and fuck any other thing that claims to be "Gluten Free." There are a lot of old misconceptions about food that marketers capitalize on, and because the majority of the population isn't as informed about nutritional science, the fallout can be rather severe. People may assume the juice from 100% juice is healthy, but without the fiber of the actual fruit to accompany the natural sugars, drinking juice is almost as bad as soda. As for gluten, if you're not actually allergic to it, there's no need to treat it like the devil's food. And don't trust Doctor Oz for your nutritional advice either - the guy was just called out in court because half his claims were proven to be bullshit. I went to a Whole Foods the other day and was really disappointed by how a lot of unhealthy foods were disguised as healthy with overblown prices. 

A LOT OF TRAINING MENTALITIES ARE ANTIQUATED 

There are a lot of guidelines in the fitness world based on old schools of thought that recent studies have proven to be false, or at the very least, not as concrete as once believed. Protein is a great example. Lots of bodybuilders and fitness enthusiasts still cling to the notion that in order to get big you need to be eating 1-2 grams of protein per pound of body weight a day, but recent studies show that the body can really only utilize 0.8 grams per day towards building muscle. The same thing goes for ideas such as you need to eat several small meals a day to keep your metabolism going (it really doesn't make much of a difference) and you should eat something protein heavy within an hour of working out (while it's good to eat something, the "window" for protein synthesis lasts anywhere from 24-48 hours; your body isn't a clock).

A large number of these notions are based on practices that - because they were part of certain successful routines - were just naturally assumed to be right. It's not to say they're all bad (I still follow certain guidelines myself) but there's really not as many magical formulas as people think. 

PEOPLE CAN BE VERY MISINFORMED ABOUT HOW THE BODY WORKS 

The uprising of fad diets and juice cleanses is very frightening, as is the number of people who read a single article about health and proclaim its content as fact. "Cleanses" are a waste of time because the body is designed to cleanse itself; drinking nothing but juice is only going to make you sluggish and piss yourself silly. The same goes for the demonizing of carbohydrates. There are lots of articles claiming low-carb diets are the secret to weight loss, but it's not limiting the carbs themselves that make you lose weight but the lack of calories you're eating from omitting carbs from your diet. I remember screaming at a weight-loss magazine awhile ago over a similar claim about how you can lose tons of weight drinking only lemon juice a day because they were praising the weight-loss effects of lemon juice instead of acknowledging the weight loss came from not eating anything else.

EVERYONE THINKS THEY'RE AN EXPERT

If you really want to lose your faith in humanity, check out any online fitness forum and count how many insults get hurled at people because their "program" is wrong. This is more just a negative personality trait that many people have, assuming they're an expert on something because of their own personal experience instead of acknowledging that there are many successful practices (and yes, I realize the irony of that statement considering what I've written thus far in this article) and everyone's body responds differently. For added fun, check out how many people claim the cast of the movie 300 were all on steroids because the commenters had been exercising for years without getting those kind of results.

YOU DON'T NEED A GYM MEMBERSHIP

I've been able to achieve a relatively decent level of fitness without having stepped foot in a commercial gym since first year university (almost ten years ago now). There are tons of YouTube channels that show you how to get in a great workout at home with almost no equipment. I myself follow a program that is largely based on calisthenics (body-weight exercises) dumbbells and yoga. If you want to build muscle, you really don't need anything more than a pull-up bar.

LIVING HEALTHY CAN BE EXPENSIVE . . . KINDA

I don't have a gym membership, so I don't have to rely on spending money for my actual workouts. As for food, being smart about what you buy can save you a ton of money in the long run. You don't need to buy everything organic, and avoid anything that's high priced with a bunch of big-print health claims on the packaging. Yes, some foods cost a bit extra, but it's not nearly as bad as you might assume. 

IT'S IMPORTANT TO LOVE YOURSELF

At the risk of coming off too narcissistic with this post, I wholeheartedly 100% agree that first and foremost it is important to love and accept your body for what it is. I went through some bad body image issues myself regardless of what people around me were saying, and my excessive compulsive nature only added to the trouble. It's much better to take the Average Joes approach from Dodgeball: you're perfect the way you are, but hey . . . if you want to take a stab at getting a bit healthier, all the power to you. If you don't want to, that's your decision.

. . . BUT ALSO BE REALISTIC 

It's one thing to be happy with who you are, but it's another to turn that around and take it too far in the other direction. I think fat shaming is a horrible thing, but to grab hold of the "it's okay to be big" movement and take it all the way to "fuck skinny people" kinda misses the point. Fitness models are just as insecure about their bodies as everyone else (one could argue more so, because their actual livelihood is dependent on it) so it doesn't help anyone to go up to a skinny person eating a slice of pizza and guilt them by saying "I wish I could eat that and still look like you" (which happens quite often, whether it's meant to be scornful or not). If you forgo eating healthy and not wanting to exercise, more power to you, but don't try to convince others that it's a superior way to live, in the same way you shouldn't shame others if they enjoy indulging in less-than-healthy alternatives.

THERE IS A GENETIC LIMIT TO HOW FIT YOU CAN REALISTICALLY GET

I didn't realize just how prominent steroid abuse was in the world of bodybuilding until I looked into it. It's sorta startling, actually, so much so that there's actually contests referred to as "Natural Bodybuilding Competitions" which means it's actually expected that you'll take steroids in your typical bodybuilding contest (but that's not to say they're all that way). The reason for this is that there's actually only so much muscle you can build naturally, depending on your genetics and your body type. Some people are just naturally gifted (like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson) while others can achieve a pretty good body with strict dedication (such as skinny-man Adrien Brody's transformation in Predators) but there really is a limit. The average weigh in during "Natural Bodybuilding" contests is actually somewhere in the 170 pound range (and that's at a very low body fat percentage, mind) so if you're looking at someone whose abs look like paving slabs the size of your face, it's safe to assume they may be getting some assistance from steroids.

IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO BUILD MUSCLE

Following that line of thought, it actually takes a very long time to build muscle. Like, years and years. I've been exercising for well over a decade, and while I may have gained some new muscle when I fixed my diet, I also plateaued pretty fast (I'm still pretty skinny). Again, look at movie stars who literally have all the time and money in the world to get fit. Henry Cavill went from being incredibly ripped in Immortals to being still incredibly ripped but with about ten extra pounds of muscle in Man of Steel. The kicker? It took him a year to do it, training three hours in gruelingly intense sessions six days a week, eating five thousand calories per day. Brad Pitt was at his fittest in Troy, which took almost a year to train from how fit he already was. It takes a lot of time and effort, which is why you're not going to look like Stallone overnight.

There are also a lot of women who are afraid to lift weights because they fear getting bulky like some women you see in bodybuilding contests. Women possess about 1/10 the testosterone levels of men (a key ingredient of building muscle) so that woman who looks unnaturally bulky is either a genetic abnormality or getting help from steroids. So ladies, if you want to get "toned," get off the treadmill and start lifting some heavy barbells.

THE HIPPIES WERE RIGHT

A great many ailments of the modern age are a result of us moving away from nature. Our bodies adapted and evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to get used to certain functions and food. Processed food and sedentary lifestyles only developed in the last hundred years or so, and frankly, it shows. Our bodies haven't had the time to adapt to a high-sugar, high-caloric diet, just as they haven't adapted to spending most of our days sitting on our asses. For many thousands of years people exercised by climbing and moving heavy shit, not by dedicating an hour a day to bench pressing; they ate mostly fruits and vegetables and occasionally meat, not two quarter-pounders a day with a gallon of coke and a bag of chips. Honestly, the best way to get fit is to embrace the mentality that evolution forged us a certain way, and if something fits in line with evolution, it's probably good for you to do. This is why activities like sprinting, rock climbing, and gymnastics are extremely effective for getting fit, because they embrace natural movements of the body. 

WALKING IS GREAT, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO A BIT MORE 

Walking is a fantastic exercise. It gets your blood flowing, helps improve your cardiovascular system, and is a great overall functional exercise. But if that's the only thing you're doing and you're still waiting for the pounds to melt off, you're going to have to try a bit harder. Walking isn't particularly physical stressful (i.e. it won't stimulate an insane amount of muscle growth) and it doesn't burn an awful lot of calories. At best it's a supplement to a proper exercise program, but it shouldn't be the anchor by which you plan your weight loss strategy.

MARTIAL ARTS AND GYMNASTICS ARE TOTALLY BAD-ASS

Gymnastics and martial arts are probably two of the things I've gained the most respect for in the last year. I have a close friend who is heavily involved in martial arts who was a big inspiration for my fitness endeavors this past year, and learning about how intense martial arts can be was really eye-opening. The same applies to gymnastics, which many dismiss as a "sissy sport" when in fact you'll probably find some of the fittest athletes in the world partaking in such activities. It's one of the reasons I've taken such a huge interest in calisthenics. For anyone who doesn't think you can get strong doing body weight exercises, I challenge you to try your hand at ring dips, one-arm push-ups/pull-ups, headstand push-ups, single-leg squats, dragonflies, or the human flag.

That shit is downright inspiring.

IT'S AMAZING HOW MANY PEOPLE SAY "I CAN'T" WHEN THEY SHOULD REALLY BE SAYING "I DON'T WANT TO" 

This is probably one of the most important psychological lessons I've learned about people in general this past year. Everyone wants to be fit; everyone knows they should exercise (every doctor  in the world wouldn't recommend it if it wasn't an essential part of living a long and healthy life) and yet an awful lot of people will seek out excuses not to. I can understand not enjoying exercise, but I am also intimately aware of the mental gymnastics people often do to convince themselves that something is beyond their control. I have many friends and family who cannot understand my vigorous enthusiasm for exercise, and that's fine. I know I'm a bit more hardcore than I should be, but I enjoy it, and I recognize not everyone does. What kills me, however, is when I hear people say "I want/wish I could do that too, but I can't because . . ." and then follow it up with a very poor excuse, such as not having time or not having a gym membership.

I think it's important to be honest with yourself. If you're unable to replace "I can't" with "I'm physically incapable because . . ." then you're probably just making an excuse, and that's fine, but at least admit it. If you tell yourself that you can't exercise because you don't have the time, genuinely sit down and look at your schedule. If you're spending two hours a night watching reality TV, then it's not a matter of "You can't" but rather "You don't want to."

Exercise isn't easy. It's not suppose to be. It's supposed to hurt, because if you're not sore than you're not challenging your body enough to stimulate growth. People hate being put outside their comfort zone. It's going to be a challenge, especially if you're new to exercise - your body is finally moving in ways it hasn't been forced to move in years (if not decades). Your joints and muscles are probably going to be sore in the beginning (although please note there's a difference between "sore" and "painful" - I'm not encouraging people to hurt themselves) but the body is incredibly adaptive if you give it enough credit and patience. It's one thing to not want to squat because you have a previous injury and are physically incapable, but it's another to tell yourself you have bad knees and just can't do it (especially since after that initial hurdle of getting used to the movement, most exercises are extremely beneficial for your joints). Just be honest with yourself; do as much or as little as you want, and if you don't want to do anything at all, that's fine too, but acknowledge that it's a personal choice you're making and not something dependent on anyone else.

And that's it, folks. That's probably my longest article by far, but what can I say - it was a hell of a year.

Feeling Stronger: A Love Letter to the Rocky Franchise

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I fucking love the Rocky series. It's as close to a guilty pleasure franchise as I can get, and it's stood the test of time for a reason. I will be the first to admit that I suck at sports. Well, not necessarily suck . . . I definitely have an athletic build and I love to exercise, and I imagine if I put in the proper time and effort I wouldn't be half bad. No, I really hate the competitive nature of team sports. Maybe it stems from my lack of trust in group projects during high school - being exploited because I was usually the only one who actually cared about making sure things got done - or maybe it has to do with being an introvert, or maybe because I don't like feeling the pressure of anyone's expectations outweighing my own.

I do, however, appreciate sports that serve as competitions between two people, which in most cases translates to two athletes beating the fuck out of each other, like in boxing or martial arts. It's less the actual beating that I appreciate though, and more the personal discipline required to train oneself to being in peak condition, relying on nothing but your own skill and being 100% accountable for your actions. If you slack off during training, you're going to lose. Your success is all about how much you're willing to put in.

And that's what I like most about the Rocky franchise.

It centers around the sport of boxing, but the actual story is about a man trying to be the best version of himself, overcoming odds, facing adversity, and all that other heartwarming stuff. You could switch out the boxing for any other sport and it would still work just fine. And Rocky is also one of the very few franchises where another entry a decade or two later didn't feel unnecessary (Stallone seems to have tapped into some miraculous secret, given that he pulled off the same feat with Rambo). In fact, my first foray into the series was Rocky Balboa, the final installment, and I was so impressed with it that I watched the rest and found merit and charm in each one. The series has been quoted and parodied more than any other over the years, and it has earned its place in pop culture history.

If you'll indulge me, I'd like to get my fan-boy on and jerk off this beloved franchise in chronological order.

Rocky (1976) - Written by Sylvester Stallone and directed by John G. Avildsen, you don't need me to tell you why it's great. The underdog boxer Rocky (Stallone) gets a once-in-a-lifetime chance to fight the heavyweight champion of the world, Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) under the tutelage of his cranky old coach/manager, Mickey (Burgess Meredith). He ultimately loses the fight, but wins the love of his life, Adrian (Talia Shire), and proves you don't need fame and fortune if you have heart. And who could forget his cranky best friend Paulie (Burt Young), Adrian's brother.

This film is just such a good drama, and it holds up remarkably well today. It's a true love story, and although there are certain parts that would definitely come off a bit rapey today (such as when Rocky is trying to convince Adrian to come up to his apartment) I can't help but get the deep feels at the end when Rocky loses the fight but keeps screaming Adrian's name in the ring, and she finally says "I love you."

Rocky II (1979) - Stallone stepped into the director's chair on this one, and it plays directly off the first, with the opening scene literally being the same final fight from the first film. Rocky has lost, but still becomes an overnight celebrity. He and Adrian are getting married and have a baby on the way, but they soon find that Rocky's qualifications for work don't extend much beyond the sport of boxing. Apollo Creed, meanwhile, is bombarded by accusations that he lost the fight with Rocky to the point that he demands a rematch. Rocky reluctantly accepts, but Adrian doesn't want him to, and the two grow distant. Rocky's training suffers, and all seems lost when Adrian slips into a coma due to complications during childbirth.

But wait! All hope is not lost! Adrian recovers and encourages Rocky to fight. Following a second spectacular training montage, Rocky goes on to narrowly win against Creed! Not only has he achieved his dream of a family, but now he's the heavyweight champion of the world! What could possibly go wrong for Rocky now?

Rocky III (1982) - Quite a lot, it turns out. Whereas Rocky II came off as a direct followup to the first film (you could literally watch them back-to-back as one feature if you felt so inclined) the third installment is more of a character study on how a person re-discovers who they are. Rocky has become complacent with his title as heavyweight champion and ends up losing to a young and brutal upstart, Clubber Lang (Mr. T). Mickey dies of a heart attack, and Rocky is lost until his old rival, Apollo Creed, steps forward to train him. Going back to his roots and with a stern motivational talk from Adrian, Rocky regains his confidence and beats the shit out of Clubber to regain his title.

Stallone returned as both writer and director, and this is when the series started to emerge as pop culture jail bait. There's a lot of absurd stuff that you can't help but love; Mr. T. as the rival, the extremely flamboyant aspects of the training montage, the unapologetic use of Survivor's "Eye of the Tiger," and the final fade away to the painting of Rocky and Apollo having a friendly fight are all the makings of pop culture gold. As a side note, the film's plot syncs up perfectly with Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises. Some might say that's a knock against Nolan, but I call it unbridled awesome.

Rocky IV (1985) - If the third installment was flirting with the absurd, the fourth was French kissing it with gusto. Much like the third, however, the more it dips into the outrageous, the more memorable it becomes. We're in full on eighties mode here, with all the clothes, music, and political baggage that entails (there's a freakin' robot for Christ's sake). Rocky is the retired champ, content with hanging up his gloves. Apollo Creed, meanwhile, isn't ready to get out of the game just yet. Word reaches him that Russian man-hulk Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren) is on his way to America to challenge the reigning champ. Apollo convinces Rocky to let him take on the superhuman Russian instead, and in a tragic turn of events, Apollo is killed in the ring. Against the wishes of his wife and common sense, Rocky travels to Russia with Paulie to avenge his fallen friend. Following what is hands-down THE SINGLE GREATEST TRAINING MONTAGE OF ALL TIME, Adrian finally comes to her husband's side, Rocky wins over the Russian people, beats Drago, and practically ends the Cold War.

This is the first film that definitely had some political messaging behind it (although the third dipped its feet into issues of race). The Cold War era tension seeps out of every inch of the film's reel, with Rocky's training juxtaposed with Drago's; the Russian is trained in a high-tech facility and given steroids, whereas Rocky goes at it all grit and heart, jogging in the frigid snow, chopping wood, and hauling rocks. I'm sure there was someone in the original audience who was shaking their head and thinking "What the fuck happened to the underdog from Philly?" but as most things that came out of the eighties, time and public opinion has been kind to this film in context.

Rocky V (1990) - Original director Avildsen returned for this one (again penned by Stallone) to ground the series back to its roots. The plane of the absurd is slapped by the almighty hand of God and falls into a tailspin in the first few minutes; the beginning is actually rather poignant. Seconds after defeating Drago, Rocky is in his change room, panicking with Adrian after having suffered severe brain damage from all the repeated hits from the super Russian. They return to America only to find that Paulie had unknowingly provided power of attorney to an unscrupulous lawyer, thereby losing all their money. Humbled and defeated, the Balboa clan return to Philadelphia where Rocky takes up training a new upstart, Tommy Gun (Tommy Morrison) while avoiding the taunts of boxing marketer George Duke (Richard Gant) all the while contending with his rebellious son (played by Stallone's real life son, Sage) who doesn't care for the relationship between Rocky and Tommy.

Tommy rises to the top and is co-opted by Duke, however, abandoning Rocky and everything he was taught about fighting with heart. Tired of living in his former mentor's shadow after winning the heavyweight title, Tommy challenges Rocky at Duke's behest, only to be savagely brutalized in an epic street brawl with the aging champ. It was less about following your dreams and more about rolling with the punches life throws at you, but I particularly liked this entry because it really brought Adrian's character full circle. She was timid and fragile at the beginning of the series, but ends up being the foundation of the Balboa family by the end, replacing Mickey as the one encouraging Rocky and telling him his greatest asset has always been his courage and his heart. It's actually quite touching to see her evolution as a character.

Also, the flashbacks of Mickey during the final street fight screaming "Get up, ya son-of-a-bitch! I didn't hear no bell!" are classic.

Rocky Balboa (2006) - The final entry in the series, over a decade after the fifth. This film achieved the impossible by not ruining the franchise in the eyes of the public. It stands on par with the original, in fact, and it helped that Stallone returned as both writer/director along with as much of the old cast/crew as he could find. It worked because the reason for making this final entry syncs up with the theme of all the other films; it's about having heart and doing what you were born to do.

Rocky is feeling the sting of old age. Adrian has passed away and his son (played by Milo Ventimiglia) has grown even more distant. Rocky spends his days recounting old boxing stories for the customers at his restaurant, visiting Adrian's grave, and chatting with an even more bitter Paulie. A computerized match-up between him and current heavyweight champ Mason "The Line" Dixon (played by real life boxer Antonio Tarver) encourages Rocky to get a license to box again, which is immediately followed by an invitation from Dixon's managers to fight the reigning champ himself in a full-blown exhibition match. Another training montage follows, Rocky reunites with his son, and he gives one more good fight before finally hanging up his gloves, content and satisfied.

All of the different elements of this film sync up just right in a very feel-good way. It's all about life changing as time goes on, yet retaining the same heart in spite of that. Early in the film, Rocky is visiting places where he and Adrian spent time together (all locations from the original) and Paulie accuses him of living in the past. Whereas Paulie would rather forget the past (admitting he was never very nice to his sister) Rocky isn't content to just move on. Being old doesn't mean being useless, which is exemplified in a scene where he decides to adopt an elderly dog as opposed to a younger one. He tells the son of Marie (Geraldine Hughes) - whom he met as a child in the first film and still affectionately calls "Little Marie" - that just because something's worn out doesn't mean its time is over yet. 

This film is also instantly quotable, with such exemplary lines such as when Rocky tells his son "It ain't about how hard you hit, but about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward" or my personal favorite, when Marie asks Rocky why he's being so nice to her and her son, to which he replies "Why do you have to give something to get something?" It's truly touching, and after having absorbed the rest of the series, it stands as a fitting end to the franchise, perfectly book-ending the tale of one man's life. As Marie tells Rocky before his final fight, "You're going to show them that the last thing to age in this world is the heart."

And that's ultimately what I think I find so appealing about the series as a whole. I don't look at it as six separate films, but as one single story broken into six chapters. Rocky is a character that's curiously like Forrest Gump; he doesn't undergo a very radical transformation over the course of his life, but instead remains stalwart as the world and friends/family change around him. Each film essentially follows the same formula, but there are enough subtle tweaks to make each appealing and different in their own way. Even a character such as Paulie, who remains gruff and bitter until the end, is given enough material over six films that you feel for him and the life he's lived alongside our favorite underdog; he was downright abusive towards his sister in the early films, but by the end you can see what toll his life has taken on him, living alone without accomplishing anything significant on his own and blaming everyone but himself, but you also finally see the love and respect he has for Rocky, his best friend. 

The Rocky franchise snuck up on me, with one entry after another fueling my appreciation for the series. Some parts are fun, some downright absurd, but it always remains touching and inspiring - the tale of one man's extraordinary life. I'll admit I probably have a different appreciation for it having watched the final entry first and then playing catch-up over the course of a weekend with the help of a Spike TV marathon (sorta like my relationship with the Harry Potter books, without the Spike TV, obviously) but it holds a special place in my heart, more so than most other franchises. Despite some entries feeling out of place, taken as a whole they all work, flowing seamlessly from one chapter of Rocky's life into the next, from a down-on-his-luck young underdog to a content old man at the end of his rather amazing journey. It's ultimately a story about following your passion and apologizing to no one for it. As Marie tells Rocky when he's questioning whether he should step back into the ring, "Fighters fight."

You gotta do what you love.  

Interstellar and Classic Science Fiction

Anyone who's had the privilege of hearing me rant about my interests and hobbies for more than five minutes will no doubt know that I'm a pretty big fan of science fiction. But how has the genre most commonly associated with nerds in their parents' basement arguing in chat forums captured my imagination for so many years? I recently watched Christopher Nolan's Interstellar and loved in it ways that are entirely inappropriate between man and film, so I figured now was a good time to reflect on my love for this particular genre.

And just a head's up, there will be spoilers for Interstellar, but I'll try and stick them near the latter part of this article and give you a warning beforehand.

"Science fiction" seems to be a thing that people don't like admitting interest in, probably due to certain negative associates that don't have anything to do with the actual definition itself. It's sorta like how some people don't like saying they're feminists because they think it means something very different than it actually does.  When most people hear "science fiction" they think of Star Wars and Star Trek, and while those are certainly famous examples of the genre, not all examples of science fiction are limited to stories of intrepid space adventurers. The actual definition of science fiction - according to the dictionary app on my phone - is "literary fantasy involving the imagined impact of science on society." That's a pretty big goddamn spectrum, and a lot of movies and books which you probably never considered sci-fi certainly fall into that category.

My personal love of science fiction comes from one word in that definition: impact. What I love isn't necessarily the science, but the moral/philosophical/existential implications that come up as a result. I couldn't give a rat's ass about the technical aspects of creating a true artificial intelligence, but you bet your balls I'm interested in thinking about how such an advancement would make us evaluate what it means to be human.

There seems to be a bit of a resurgence in quality science fiction lately, or at least a resurgence of a particularly introspective form of the genre which I refer to as "classic" science fiction because it epitomizes that whole "impact on society" part of the definition I quoted above. Franchises like Star Wars and Aliens may be popular, but they're more of an entertainment spectacle than an introspective journey plunging the depths of the human condition. When I talk about classic science fiction, I'm talking about stories that make you think about yourself as a person and society at large. Such notable recent examples include Alfonso Cuarón's Children of Men, Neill Blomkamp's District 9 and Elysium, Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain, and Ridley Scott's Prometheus (a prequel to the Alien saga which most people seemed to dislike, which I would argue is because it dared to be introspective instead of an action/gore fest). These movies pose the audience with a lot of personal questions that aren't always that comfortable to contemplate, and won't you watch how the fanboys start throwing around the word "plothole" to dismiss such films as garbage instead of meditating on them and maybe admitting that the world extends beyond their fragile little psyches. 

While I love those movies with a passion that borders on the erotic, I have a particular soft spot for stories that take their speculations a bit further (as some of the above do). I love stories that flirt with the spiritual and that seek to offer explanations for the origins of life and the universe beyond the typical religious explanation of intelligent design. These types of stories seek to circumvent standard notions of why we are who we are and how life on earth came to be, and trying to comprehend such an overwhelming concept on such a magnificent scale strikes me as the epitome of true science fiction because it challenges all notions of the human condition by speculating on the very nature of existence itself.

My favourite book is Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey, which many will no doubt know as the Stanley Kubrick film of the same name. The novel is not some cheap tie-in either; it was written concurrently by Clarke while he simultaneously worked on the film script with Kubrick. I particularly like the book because it provides a narrative perspective that you don't get in the film, although the film is more a visual spectacle than anything else. The book also makes a lot more sense; the film takes the prize for "most confusing movie that can be easily explained with one sentence" award in the annals of film history. In short, a hyper-evolved race of aliens plant black monoliths on Earth and the surrounding solar system to push human development forward (from prehistory to space travel), ultimately ushering in a new stage of human evolution.

The book had three sequels (the first of which was also competently adapted into film and the last of which is soon to get the TV mini-series treatment). The sequels explore the further development of mankind, as well as hint at the intentions of the hyper-advanced race of aliens. What I particularly like about the sequels is that there is never a full degree of disclosure regarding the designs of the aliens and their ultimate agenda with mankind. It leaves a giant question mark revolving around the purpose of human existence, which coincides nicely with a little rant I'm about to take about religion.

The main issue I have with religious institutions is that they presume far too much about the nature of life and the universe. The idea that the will and intentions of a supremely powerful being responsible for the whole of creation can be summed up in a single book is preposterous to me. We barely understand the science of our own world and the infinite depths and complexities it presents us on a daily basis, and yet there are millions of individuals the world over who believe they have a concrete understanding of the origins of life based on excerpts from a book written during a time when wiping your ass with your hand was considered hygienic. Don't get me wrong; most religious texts serve as a great moral compass that get the whole ethics thing (mostly) right, but they should only ever be taken with a grain of salt. I always get stuck in a tight spot when trying to describe my personal affiliation with religion, because I am utterly fascinated with the idea that out in the infinite wonders of a universe that is quite literally beyond our human comprehension there might possibly be a definitive explanation for life and all existence, but I can't bring myself to label such a notion as "intelligent design" in the popular sense of the term. 

Instead, I love to speculate. I hold the same opinion regarding ghosts/spirits and all other matters of the supernatural. While I'm not willing to totally dismiss the possibility that some form of existence awaits us once we shake off this mortal coil, I am not willing to believe such a state of being exists in the traditional sense that modern day psychics and shitty horror films would have us believe. There is a simple fact that I constantly feel the need to reiterate during debates on such subject matter: the universe is literally incomprehensible to us. It is beyond our capabilities to fathom the physical scale of our galaxy, let alone the universe at large and the forces that exist beyond. Speculations regarding the existence of dimensions beyond our mental ability to process abound in science, which is why I can't bring myself to accept the simple explanations given by individuals who wouldn't know science if it ran up and bit them on the ass.

Clarke speculates a lot in his novels (especially Childhood's End and the Rendezvous with Rama series) about the origin and purpose of life, but like the best science fiction, it's grounded in concrete notions of science that lend it an air of plausibility instead of putting it in the realm of far flung fantasy. Clarke was too steeped in science to write compelling characters (they are often far too rational and lack emotional depth) but I always find his existential ideas remarkably profound. Like the best science fiction authors and directors, he speculates without offering concrete explanation, leaving it up to the reader/audience to carry the speculation further. I get the sense that modern audiences are uncomfortable being left to contemplate such things for themselves instead of being handed an answer, which is why I hypothesize there was an overall lukewarm reception to Prometheus and the ending to the TV series Lost, both of which left a significant amount of details to the audience's imagination. If anything though, I think that's reflective of how complacent we have become as a species, preferring to have the answers handed to us rather than spend any significant time meditating on such mysteries of life for ourselves (which kinda forms the whole basis of organized religion).

SPOILER ALERT! I'm about to dig into Interstellar and its ending, so avert your eyes if you don't want to know what happens.

Interstellar stars Matthew McConaughey as Cooper, a former engineer and pilot turned farmer on a near-future earth that is ravaged by dust clouds and blight. He is asked to pilot a ship into space through a wormhole near Saturn to investigate potentially habitable worlds in a distant galaxy. In doing so, he is forced to leave his family (in particular, his young daughter) as he faces the wonders of uncharted space. What the film does beautifully is meld the scientific and the emotional, grounding concepts such as relativity so that we as an audience are able to comprehend in a rather overwhelming fashion the absolute awe that exists in celestial phenomena like nothing else in cinema before. 

There is a particularly guttural scene in the middle of the film where Cooper and a few scientists take a small shuttle to investigate a potential planet that is orbiting a black hole. It is established that the physical nature of the black hole warps gravity and time the closer they get to the planet, and thus exploring the surface has potential consequences; in a nutshell, time passes more slowly on the planet's surface, so for every minute they explore, several months will pass in real time. Shit goes wrong naturally and their mission is delayed forty minutes on the planet's surface. Upon returning to their main ship, they learn that twenty-three years have passed as a result. An entire film could have been made about the isolation suffered by the single crew member left behind while they were exploring the planet's surface, but the biggest emotional gut punch comes when Cooper rushes to check the messages from Earth that have been piling up over two decades, and essentially witnesses his children age twenty-three years in front of his eyes over the course of a few minutes. McConaughey delivers in this scene, as do Jessica Chastain and Casey Affleck (who play his middle-aged children, respectively). This scene makes you feel the consequences of this force of nature. It's like standing before a hurricane - you can't help but be filled with awe and terror.

Throughout the film, it is hypothesized that the wormhole has been placed near Saturn by a race of fifth-dimensional beings that have mastered manipulation of the previous four dimensions (time being the fourth, for those unfamiliar). At the end of the film, Cooper is thrown into the center of a black hole, which in the realm of real science remains completely unexplored, and thus is where Christopher Nolan takes the greatest liberties with his speculation. In the film, Cooper is stuck in a three dimensional representation of the fourth dimension; he is able to manipulate events through the past and present, and uses this to communicate essential information to his daughter back on Earth that ultimately allows her to save the human race. 

While in this strange space between dimensions, Cooper theorizes that these mysterious "fifth-dimensional beings" are actually a hyper-evolved form of humanity that has developed past the point of being able to manipulate space and time, and thus deposited the wormhole in the past so that humanity could survive to thrive into whatever they ultimately become. It's a mind-bending paradox, but what's great about is that - like the best stories of science fiction - it never comes right out and establishes his hypothesis as the concrete state of things. Cooper is only saying what he believes to be true, but the entire film reaffirms that the mysteries of the universe are ultimately beyond human comprehension, so the real answers aren't within humanity's grasp or understanding. These beings could be an evolved form of humanity, or they could be any number of other things so fantastical that they exist beyond the realm of our imagination. Whatever they are, they simply have an investment in humanity's survival. 

It is left entirely up to the audience to deliberate and reflect on the nature of such beings as well as their intentions. I particularly enjoyed this because to me it is the closest idea I can come up with when I think about what sort of "intelligent design" or "God" might exist - grounded in science, but utterly incomprehensible to us. Interstellar does what the best science fiction stories do - it proposes without insisting, encouraging introspective meditation while ultimately leaving its audience humbled.
 
We will never, ever have all the answers, and we should never pretend like we do. The fun is in the speculation, and in considering the scale and unfathomable mysteries and wonders that exist in an overwhelmingly massive universe that we will never fully comprehend.

This Man Does Not Represent Us . . .

I doubt anyone will remember the title of this article, but it's a line from The Simpsons that always makes me laugh to think about because of the way it's delivered. The episode is entitled "D'oh-in' in the Wind" and follows Homer as he tries to reconnect with the spirit his mother stood for by befriending two of her aging hippy friends (played by Martin Mull and George Carlin). At the end of the episode, Homer messes something up as per usual, and as the police or whomever bear down on the poor older gents, Homer grabs the two hippies in headlocks and says something to the effect that they'll never back down even if they have their skulls beaten in. And then George Carlin, in one of the best deliveries ever, says: "This man does not represent us."

I don't know if there's a sound bite of that already, but there damn well should be.

I was reminded of that line after watching and reflecting on the Internet's latest orgasm - a verbal tussle between Ben Affleck and Bill Maher. For those unaware, Affleck was on Maher's show and provided what amounted to a verbal slap to the TV host by calling him out as racist for his comments regarding Islam. Maher and another of his guests were trying to argue that as liberals they should be campaigning for rights of equality and such, and that according to polls 90% of Islamic people hold beliefs that are counter to those ideals. Maher argued that this was a serious issue and essentially called for some sort of action against it. Affleck, in response (or the best he could do because barely anyone would let that hunk of man-meat speak) pulled a Batman and swooped in to defend those without a voice in the debate and said it was racist of Maher and his other guest to paint all Islamic people with a broad stroke and make claims regarding their beliefs. 

I had just watched Gone Girl the night I saw the video so I was already on a magnificent Affleck high, and God bless 'em. I normally enjoy Maher's rants and opinions, but he always felt a bit too much like a liberal extremist to me (if there is such a thing). I enjoyed his movie Religulous and thought it did a good job of demonstrating just how absurd the institution of religion can be. What I didn't enjoy, however, was that his call to action at the end of the film was for the eradication of all religion because it's essentially an atom bomb waiting to annihilate the planet.

Bit of a stretch there, Maher. Religion was only ever an excuse for war - people will still find reasons to destroy one another without that calling card. Not to mention that he completely ignores the benefits that religion has had for many, many individuals, and the positive nature of spirituality as a whole.

And he pretty much did it again on his show, and thankfully there was a giant, beautiful man with rippling biceps and a chiseled chin of the gods to oppose him. After reflecting on the incident, I came away with two points:

1) Bill Maher is a rich, white, liberal male. As such, he only has authority to make claims on the beliefs of other rich, white, men. He's at his best when he's criticizing congress because he's attacking people in his own demographic, but he in no way has any authority to comment on the beliefs and practices of the world's second largest religion and the people who follow its ideologies when he is so ridiculously far removed from them economically and culturally. I felt a little disgusted listening to the audience applaud his rants because it felt akin to an evangelist declaring a moral war on (insert conservative phobia here) and his followers with no minds of their own clapping in agreement. 

2) Maher is essentially declaring himself the thought police. His main point (let's just ignore how ridiculous it was for the sake of argument) was that 90% of Islamic people hold counter ideologies to the liberal west, and we should therefore develop some sort of strategy to contend with that. My big takeaway from this was that he was declaring war on their beliefs. You can criticize actions (violent or otherwise) all you want, but the moment you start declaring a moral war because of the way people think,  then you've become a villain of Orwellian proportions. Islam is a religion with close to a billion followers. It doesn't matter what they believe - having a late-night talk show doesn't give you moral authority to break into their clubhouse and tell them how they should be running things.

Which brings me around to The Simpsons quote. As a white liberal male myself, I just kept thinking that someone should throw that line out there somewhere in the debate, both because Maher doesn't represent me or my beliefs even though we technically fall into the same political spectrum, and also on behalf of Islamic people everywhere to say "It doesn't matter what polls or studies this white guy has his hands on, he doesn't represent us."

As Batfleck tried to point out, you can't associate the actions of a small percentage of violent extremists with the culture as a whole. He also tried to remind Maher that historically Christians have killed a hell of a lot more of their people than they us, and also we kinda invaded two of their nations with less than probable cause and they sorta have a right to be a bit pissed about that.

Many years ago I was at a family dinner and one of my relatives remarked something that didn't quite sit well with me. One of my cousins is in the military, as was her boyfriend. My relative thanked him for his service but then added "Better we go over there and get them before they come over here and get us." Maher's position strikes me as very similar; we divide the world into us and them, which therefore makes it easier to declare moral war because we are right and they therefore must be wrong. Justifying our own acts of violence because someone somewhere might be harboring ill thoughts against us is like slaughtering deer with the excuse that without thinning out their numbers they'll all just starve. That sort of mentality has caused more damage to the human race than any single religion or set of beliefs; I would go so far as to say that mentality is at the heart of every conflict - big and small - in the history of the human race: you are different and I don't like that.

You're a funny guy Maher, but you should probably limit yourself to just being a late-night entertainer and stop calling for action in your personal war against things that oppose your personal values.

And Affleck . . . please, don't ever change.

The Creative Grey Area

Being an artist and being frustrated seem to go hand in hand. In my experience, you can't have one without the other; it's a mutually exclusive relationship, like a roller coaster that constantly goes up and down with a depressing ebb and flow; you stroll down the street holding your lover's hand, and then as a joke they push you in front of a bus.

All of this is to say that I've been plagued with self-doubt lately regarding my creative projects and the direction I should be taking with them. It probably doesn't help that I'm also facing a professional quandary as well. There was a long stretch of time when I first started my current job where my work life left me feeling creatively fulfilled (I work in the television industry) and so my personal projects took a back seat. I always knew that if I were to work in a field that didn't allow me to express my creativity in some way, I'd probably be working much more feverishly in my downtime.

My current contract expires in a few months, however, and right now there's a big fat question mark sitting at the end of that road. I can't expect to stay on at my current place of business, and the desire to formulate a plan of action that would see me build a career on my writing and other talents has been on the rise. I don't expect to suddenly become a best-selling author in a few short months, but it's certainly a shit-or-get-off-the-pot moment for me, where I've realized that if I want to make a living as an artist creating their own work then I gotta get this gravy train rolling and on its way out of the station. 

There's just one nagging question: where the hell do I start? 

Where the hell does any artist start? There isn't a handbook for this sort of thing, and this is where the relationship with frustration starts to pick away at your confidence and withhold sex. You can train to be an artist, go to school to perfect and practice your skills, but making your way in the world? That's a different story entirely. Almost all of the artists I admire (which includes those who work in film, literature, and other mediums) all had a different recipe for success that seem one part talent and three parts pure damn luck. There were those who went to school and made connections which led to subsequent employment, and they simply climbed the ladder from there; there were those who simply created with no better intention than to make their work available for free until people finally noticed; and then there are those who fell somewhere in the middle, who created the right thing at the right time with the right people watching.

But where does that leave the rest of us? 

I currently have multiple projects on the go, and I don't know what to do with any of them. I feel like I'm one of those people who should just create without worrying about the business side of things, because I swear the business aspect of the artist-driven industry sucks every last morsel of fun from the creative side. I love to sit down and write a story, but I dread thinking about submitting it to publishers, which is why everything I've done is almost available exclusively through this blog. 

As it stands, I'm currently writing a new novel, which I'm releasing episodically. Writing novels is my bread and butter; I wish I could do that and nothing else and just be allowed to survive comfortably doing it. I'd love to only write and think nothing of what needed to be done afterward, but there's this niggling doubt in the back of my head. It says things like, "what's the point of writing something if you can't market it so people will actually read it?" and "maybe you're just not good enough to make a living as an artist, and that's why nothing's happened yet."

Those are paralyzing thoughts, and they're strangling the creative spark in me. I just want to create, but I (like every artist before and all of those still to be born) realize that unless I have a means to support myself, I won't have the freedom to create the things I want. And because the world doesn't owe me a damn thing, the only outlet I have to vent is this blog.

I've spent the last few days researching literary agents, and I think I just need to come to terms with the fact that I absolutely suck with the business side of things. For all the creative spark in me, there's that voice in my mind that likes to rear its ugly head to cut down the enthusiasm. 

For every blog article posted, there's: "Only the same four people will end up reading it."
For every book written, there's: "You've already written a bunch and they weren't good enough."
For every song played, there's: "Now you just have to compete with everyone on YouTube."
For every film idea, there's: "You don't have the resources to do it properly."
For every screenplay, there's: "You don't have the right connections, and the Canadian industry sucks anyway."

I'm starting to think my mind is my own worst enemy (a hypothesis I've been contemplating for awhile now) but I get the sense that every artist - or at least everyone who considers themselves an artist - experiences the same crippling self-doubt at one point or another. It's the line between wanting to create and wanting recognition, or at the very least wanting the means to continue creating comfortably without wondering how you'll afford food next month. Perhaps it's fueled by ego and greed. Perhaps it's an aspect of human nature. 

Perhaps it's my mind indicating it might be best to take a break and clear my head for a bit.

Or perhaps it's time I stop complaining and just keep creating without giving a fuck about the rest.