Locker Room Twitter
March 18, 2009
by David Krell
david@davidkrell.com
Twitter breaks another sports barrier -- the locker room.
Milwaukee Bucks forward Charlie Villanueva posted the following message during the March 15th game against the Boston Celtics.
In da locker room, snuck to post my twitt. We’re playing the Celtics, tie ball game at da half. Coach wants more toughness. I gotta step up.
On the one hand, posting on Twitter, or ‘tweeting,’ can be a great tool in sports marketing.
It attracts younger, tech-savvy fans.
It gives fans access to their favorite players.
It gives teams another medium to publicize games, players, and trades.
On the other hand, posting on Twitter poses a perception problem.
Bucks Coach Scott Skiles did not like the image projected by a player using Twitter in the locker room.
I think a reasonable person could look at that either way. And I’m a pretty reasonable guy. And so the answer is no, not necessarily. But I also know from the comments I’ve gotten from some people in the game that there could be people who think it’s a sign. We just want to distance ourselves, that’s all.
My personal opinion is, it doesn’t have any place in the locker room. The locker room’s a private place for the players, a sanctuary for the players. But once you walk out of the locker room or whatever, I’m not getting into guys’ personal lives.
By the way, the Bucks beat the Celtics. Villanueva scored 19 points in the game.
It was the highest score on the Bucks.
david@davidkrell.com
Twitter breaks another sports barrier -- the locker room.
Milwaukee Bucks forward Charlie Villanueva posted the following message during the March 15th game against the Boston Celtics.
In da locker room, snuck to post my twitt. We’re playing the Celtics, tie ball game at da half. Coach wants more toughness. I gotta step up.
On the one hand, posting on Twitter, or ‘tweeting,’ can be a great tool in sports marketing.
It attracts younger, tech-savvy fans.
It gives fans access to their favorite players.
It gives teams another medium to publicize games, players, and trades.
On the other hand, posting on Twitter poses a perception problem.
Bucks Coach Scott Skiles did not like the image projected by a player using Twitter in the locker room.
I think a reasonable person could look at that either way. And I’m a pretty reasonable guy. And so the answer is no, not necessarily. But I also know from the comments I’ve gotten from some people in the game that there could be people who think it’s a sign. We just want to distance ourselves, that’s all.
My personal opinion is, it doesn’t have any place in the locker room. The locker room’s a private place for the players, a sanctuary for the players. But once you walk out of the locker room or whatever, I’m not getting into guys’ personal lives.
By the way, the Bucks beat the Celtics. Villanueva scored 19 points in the game.
It was the highest score on the Bucks.
St. Patrick's Day: Go Blue?
March 17, 2009
by David Krell
david@davidkrell.com
Parades. Shamrocks. Bagpipes.
It must be Saint Patrick’s Day.
The day where we celebrate the patron saint of Ireland.
The day where we sing Irish songs.
The day where we wear green.
Initially, blue enjoyed the prominence of being the Saint Patrick’s Day color, a.ka. Saint Patrick’s Blue.
Pictures of Saint Patrick often depicted the saint wearing blue garments and headdresses.
Saint Patrick’s Blue still enjoys visibility as the color on the Coat of Arms of Ireland and the flag of the President of Ireland.
Green eclipsed Saint Patrick’s Blue as the prime color associated with Saint Patrick’s Day. This change likely began in the 1750’s with roots dating back to Saint Patrick’s time.
Saint Patrick used the three-leaf shamrock to explain the Holy Trinity. His followers symbolized their religious beliefs with it. To show pride, linkage, and loyalty in Roman Catholicism, Irish people often wore shamrocks on clothing.
A tradition began and soon expanded.
Green beer. Green dye in the Chicago River. Green clothes.
Erin go braugh!
david@davidkrell.com
Parades. Shamrocks. Bagpipes.
It must be Saint Patrick’s Day.
The day where we celebrate the patron saint of Ireland.
The day where we sing Irish songs.
The day where we wear green.
Initially, blue enjoyed the prominence of being the Saint Patrick’s Day color, a.ka. Saint Patrick’s Blue.
Pictures of Saint Patrick often depicted the saint wearing blue garments and headdresses.
Saint Patrick’s Blue still enjoys visibility as the color on the Coat of Arms of Ireland and the flag of the President of Ireland.
Green eclipsed Saint Patrick’s Blue as the prime color associated with Saint Patrick’s Day. This change likely began in the 1750’s with roots dating back to Saint Patrick’s time.
Saint Patrick used the three-leaf shamrock to explain the Holy Trinity. His followers symbolized their religious beliefs with it. To show pride, linkage, and loyalty in Roman Catholicism, Irish people often wore shamrocks on clothing.
A tradition began and soon expanded.
Green beer. Green dye in the Chicago River. Green clothes.
Erin go braugh!
It's A Wonderful ©
March 16, 2009
by David Krell
david@davidkrell.com
In 1946, America met everyman George Bailey, guardian angel Clarence, and the people of Bedford Falls in the classic film It’s A Wonderful Life.
Some on the so-called “copyleft” may argue that the film’s iconic status stems from perennial holiday season airings in the 1970’s and 1980’s on PBS and independent television stations (those not owned or affiliated with a television network).
The trigger for the repeated broadcasts was a simple clerical error – failure to renew the copyright.
Under the copyright law in 1946, copyright owners enjoyed their copyrights for 28 years. They could extend their copyrights for another 28 years by simply filing a renewal.
Whoever was in charge of that particular function dropped the ball, just like Uncle Billy did when he put $8,000 in a newspaper and absentmindedly handed it to Mr. Potter.
When the copyright for It’s A Wonderful Life failed to renew in 1974, television programmers took the view that the film fell into the public domain.
For the bean counters, this meant no license fees or royalties.
For the audiences, this meant wall-to-wall broadcasts on Christmas Day.
For the owners and creators, this meant a double-edge sword.
While It’s A Wonderful Life gained a new generation of fans and consequent popularity, it reminded copyright owners of lost financial opportunities.
Additionally, the film suffered creatively in the home video arena where public domain distributors cut out scenes and often used subpar masters to make VHS copies.
In the 1990’s, Republic Pictures fought hard to strengthen the copyright of It’s A Wonderful Life. They realized success because of the Stewart vs. Abend case.
The case boosts the copyright protection of a derivative work that falls into the public domain if the original work enjoys valid copyright protection.
It’s A Wonderful Life is protected because Republic owned a valid copyright to the original story, The Greatest Gift by Phillip Van Doren Stern.
That’s why the broadcasts are still perennial during the holiday season, but not numerous.
Coincidentally, Jimmy Stewart is the star of It’s A Wonderful Life and a major party in Stewart vs. Abend.
All the Best
March 14, 2009
by David Krell
david@davidkrell.com
2009 marks the tenth anniversary of the remarkably personal publication of a highly public figure’s thoughts, opinions, and realizations.
All the Best by President George H. W. Bush displays a collection of letters to friends, family, and colleagues. The missives span 1942 to 1998.
All the Best also contains memoranda to superiors and subordinates, letters to journalists and world leaders, and entries in Mr. Bush’s personal journal.
Absent a memoir from the 41st President of the United States, All the Best reveals the pressures, joys, and costs associated with public service, but mostly hidden from the public view. The human factor.
Published in 1999, All the Best is an excellent reminder of the power of the personal touch. The writings comment on the importance of friendship, the bonds of family, and the challenges of political competition. They do more than simply recount recollections. They unveil the emotions experienced in real time.
Three examples stand out.
First, sincerity.
A bomb explosion in the American embassy in Beirut killed 46 people on April 18, 1983. Then Vice President Bush received a letter from a family member who felt he was insincere at a memorial service. Mr. Bush takes full accountability to clarify, calm, and empathize. Part of the Vice President’s responsive letter of June 13, 1983 reads:
I received many expressions of appreciation from others for coming there; but that matters not. If I seemed casual and unconcerned and thus insensitive to your feelings – that is what matters. I came there to help not to hurt; obviously in your case I failed miserably when I told your Grandmother “I wouldn’t have missed it” – that did not mean I was enjoying some festivity. It meant the least I could do was to be there to express the sincere condolences of a grateful country. It wasn’t easy for anyone – I know that. One of my good friends lay dead.
I know my own emotions – I know my own convictions – that you don’t though, is clearly not your fault but mine.
Clearly the letter is written from the heart, as it should have been.
Second, playfulness.
In a letter dated March 30, 1982 to Katharine Hepburn upon her winning the Oscar for Best Actress in On Golden Pond, Vice President Bush writes,
We so enjoyed our meeting – too brief of course; but for Barbara and me, a highlight not soon forgotten. We respect you so – and I guess as a little kid I thought you were the meowest of the cat’s meows –Anyway now we’ve met. But this is about last night’s Oscar too. Hooray for you – 3 cheers for excellence and style and class and honor and warmth. 3 cheers for your decency –
Affectionate regards from yet another Hepburn fan –
Third, humor.
In the 1984 presidential election, George Bush’s Democratic opponent for Vice President was Geraldine Ferraro. A true gentleman, Mr. Bush welcomed Ms. Ferraro to the battle with a letter on July 12, 1984.
It is a good job.
Congratulations on your selection. Good luck – up to a point.
Additionally, All the Best has stellar examples of writing for the reader.
One in particular seems appropriate to recall as baseball’s Opening Day approaches.
In a December 11, 1990 letter to sports writer turned author Dan Jenkins, President Bush injects his love of baseball into a metaphor-ridden letter.
Hope you have a great Christmas. We will, cause even though the economy is batting .199 and the Gulf is hitting .178, life is treating the Bush family with a WILLIAMS like .401.
From 18-year-old pilot in World War II to President to grandfather several times over, George H. W. Bush shows great thought, emotion, and clarity of message in his writings.
In the Preface to All the Best, Mr. Bush indicates the common thread that runs through his writings in his massively diverse roles in public and private life.
It’s all about heartbeat.
david@davidkrell.com
2009 marks the tenth anniversary of the remarkably personal publication of a highly public figure’s thoughts, opinions, and realizations.
All the Best by President George H. W. Bush displays a collection of letters to friends, family, and colleagues. The missives span 1942 to 1998.
All the Best also contains memoranda to superiors and subordinates, letters to journalists and world leaders, and entries in Mr. Bush’s personal journal.
Absent a memoir from the 41st President of the United States, All the Best reveals the pressures, joys, and costs associated with public service, but mostly hidden from the public view. The human factor.
Published in 1999, All the Best is an excellent reminder of the power of the personal touch. The writings comment on the importance of friendship, the bonds of family, and the challenges of political competition. They do more than simply recount recollections. They unveil the emotions experienced in real time.
Three examples stand out.
First, sincerity.
A bomb explosion in the American embassy in Beirut killed 46 people on April 18, 1983. Then Vice President Bush received a letter from a family member who felt he was insincere at a memorial service. Mr. Bush takes full accountability to clarify, calm, and empathize. Part of the Vice President’s responsive letter of June 13, 1983 reads:
I received many expressions of appreciation from others for coming there; but that matters not. If I seemed casual and unconcerned and thus insensitive to your feelings – that is what matters. I came there to help not to hurt; obviously in your case I failed miserably when I told your Grandmother “I wouldn’t have missed it” – that did not mean I was enjoying some festivity. It meant the least I could do was to be there to express the sincere condolences of a grateful country. It wasn’t easy for anyone – I know that. One of my good friends lay dead.
I know my own emotions – I know my own convictions – that you don’t though, is clearly not your fault but mine.
Clearly the letter is written from the heart, as it should have been.
Second, playfulness.
In a letter dated March 30, 1982 to Katharine Hepburn upon her winning the Oscar for Best Actress in On Golden Pond, Vice President Bush writes,
We so enjoyed our meeting – too brief of course; but for Barbara and me, a highlight not soon forgotten. We respect you so – and I guess as a little kid I thought you were the meowest of the cat’s meows –Anyway now we’ve met. But this is about last night’s Oscar too. Hooray for you – 3 cheers for excellence and style and class and honor and warmth. 3 cheers for your decency –
Affectionate regards from yet another Hepburn fan –
Third, humor.
In the 1984 presidential election, George Bush’s Democratic opponent for Vice President was Geraldine Ferraro. A true gentleman, Mr. Bush welcomed Ms. Ferraro to the battle with a letter on July 12, 1984.
It is a good job.
Congratulations on your selection. Good luck – up to a point.
Additionally, All the Best has stellar examples of writing for the reader.
One in particular seems appropriate to recall as baseball’s Opening Day approaches.
In a December 11, 1990 letter to sports writer turned author Dan Jenkins, President Bush injects his love of baseball into a metaphor-ridden letter.
Hope you have a great Christmas. We will, cause even though the economy is batting .199 and the Gulf is hitting .178, life is treating the Bush family with a WILLIAMS like .401.
From 18-year-old pilot in World War II to President to grandfather several times over, George H. W. Bush shows great thought, emotion, and clarity of message in his writings.
In the Preface to All the Best, Mr. Bush indicates the common thread that runs through his writings in his massively diverse roles in public and private life.
It’s all about heartbeat.
Caveat scriptor
March 13, 2009
by David Krell
david@davidkrell.com
The admonition goes, Don’t write anything down that you would be ashamed to see on the front page of your local newspaper or read aloud in open court.
Caveat scriptor. (Let the writer beware.)
Because of a recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, digital social media falls squarely under the warning.
In Leduc v. Roman, the court decided on February 20, 2009 that a plaintiff’s Facebook profile is fair game for cross-examination by the defendant in a personal injury claim.
Justice David Brown concluded, [I]t is reasonable to infer that his social networking site likely contains some content relevant to the issue of how Mr. Leduc [the plaintiff] has been able to lead his life since the accident.
The extension of this decision could have far-reaching implications.
Imagine the pressure increasing in an already intense custody battle because one spouse wants to enter the other’s Facebook comments, photos, or status updates into evidence.
Imagine an employee with a valid wrongful termination lawsuit needing to clarify his or her Facebook persona.
Imagine a situation like the one in Leduc v. Roman where your Facebook profile, reserved for people in your circle, now enters truly public view.
Caveat scriptor, indeed.
david@davidkrell.com
The admonition goes, Don’t write anything down that you would be ashamed to see on the front page of your local newspaper or read aloud in open court.
Caveat scriptor. (Let the writer beware.)
Because of a recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, digital social media falls squarely under the warning.
In Leduc v. Roman, the court decided on February 20, 2009 that a plaintiff’s Facebook profile is fair game for cross-examination by the defendant in a personal injury claim.
Justice David Brown concluded, [I]t is reasonable to infer that his social networking site likely contains some content relevant to the issue of how Mr. Leduc [the plaintiff] has been able to lead his life since the accident.
The extension of this decision could have far-reaching implications.
Imagine the pressure increasing in an already intense custody battle because one spouse wants to enter the other’s Facebook comments, photos, or status updates into evidence.
Imagine an employee with a valid wrongful termination lawsuit needing to clarify his or her Facebook persona.
Imagine a situation like the one in Leduc v. Roman where your Facebook profile, reserved for people in your circle, now enters truly public view.
Caveat scriptor, indeed.
Defriend = A New Word?
March 11, 2009
by David Krell
david@davidkrell.com
A certain word is gaining popularity in our everyday language.
It’s not in the dictionary.
It’s not in the thesaurus.
And it’s not in any spell checker program.
The word is defriend, as in “Jill wants to defriend Jack on Facebook.”
As in Jill no longer wants to receive Instant Messages, E-Mails, or virtual gifts from Jack.
As in Jill no longer wants to be updated on Jack’s actions, thoughts, or behaviors.
As in Jill no longer wants Jack in her electronic life.
Defriending is a simple process on Facebook, electronically speaking. Follow the instructions, click on the icons, and remove the person from your digital aura.
Because of Facebook’s popularity, defriend has potential to become an official word like its digital predecessors.
Login, web, and E-Mail were words once known only to computer users. As computer use soared in the 1990’s to the tipping point, so did the use of words associated with computers.
Facebook is approaching the tipping point in digital social media. If Facebook continues its momentum, defriend will likely become part of the official lexicon.
It might even open the door for an already existing word to expand its definition.
Presently, we use status to refer to money, power, and social position. On Facebook, status refers to views, thoughts, and actions.
Digital social media is the latest technology to introduce new words, phrases, and languages to society. This expanding communication baseline recalls filmmaker Federico Fellini who said, A different language is a different vision of life.
david@davidkrell.com
A certain word is gaining popularity in our everyday language.
It’s not in the dictionary.
It’s not in the thesaurus.
And it’s not in any spell checker program.
The word is defriend, as in “Jill wants to defriend Jack on Facebook.”
As in Jill no longer wants to receive Instant Messages, E-Mails, or virtual gifts from Jack.
As in Jill no longer wants to be updated on Jack’s actions, thoughts, or behaviors.
As in Jill no longer wants Jack in her electronic life.
Defriending is a simple process on Facebook, electronically speaking. Follow the instructions, click on the icons, and remove the person from your digital aura.
Because of Facebook’s popularity, defriend has potential to become an official word like its digital predecessors.
Login, web, and E-Mail were words once known only to computer users. As computer use soared in the 1990’s to the tipping point, so did the use of words associated with computers.
Facebook is approaching the tipping point in digital social media. If Facebook continues its momentum, defriend will likely become part of the official lexicon.
It might even open the door for an already existing word to expand its definition.
Presently, we use status to refer to money, power, and social position. On Facebook, status refers to views, thoughts, and actions.
Digital social media is the latest technology to introduce new words, phrases, and languages to society. This expanding communication baseline recalls filmmaker Federico Fellini who said, A different language is a different vision of life.
Romeo & Juliet & Law
March 09, 2009
by David Krell
david@davidkrell.com
Most of us read Romeo & Juliet in high school. Shakespeare’s tale of two star-crossed lovers from warring factions is certainly a classic one.
And the premise is a constant in entertainment.
Last month, West Side Story returned to Broadway. The theater touchstone takes Romeo & Juliet into a gang theme.
The powerhouse television series Dallas first revolves around the feud between the oil-based Barnes and Ewing families and the further complications triggered by a Barnes daughter marrying a Ewing son.
The lighter tv-movie Pizza My Heart takes a small business approach with rival pizza parlors providing the conflict.
And the recent phenomenon of High School Musical uses high school cliques to generate the drama.
In the original story, Juliet nicely summarizes her strategy for Romeo to ignore the influence of his family and pursue true and lasting love with her. She does it clearly and concisely.
Deny thy father, refuse thy name.
But what if Juliet was a lawyer? A lawyer can take a simple line and pump it full of jargon.
Whereas we are in love and notwithstanding the potential impact on your inheritance and possibility of retaliation by your family on your person, reputation, or assets, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to abdicate your name, family, and all of the benefits pertaining thereto. If abdication is fully and completely accomplished, we can enjoy our lives freely and without interference from members of either the Capulet or Montague families or duly authorized representatives thereto.
Jargon is clarity’s enemy. Unfortunately, lawyers and other professionals are sometimes beholden to it, to the detriment of their colleagues and certainly their lay readers and listeners.
If we are in a situation absolutely requiring jargon, we cannot let it block the reason for the message. Document summaries, headings, and definitions can be terrific assets in cutting through the jargon’s thickness and clarifying the underlying message.
david@davidkrell.com
Most of us read Romeo & Juliet in high school. Shakespeare’s tale of two star-crossed lovers from warring factions is certainly a classic one.
And the premise is a constant in entertainment.
Last month, West Side Story returned to Broadway. The theater touchstone takes Romeo & Juliet into a gang theme.
The powerhouse television series Dallas first revolves around the feud between the oil-based Barnes and Ewing families and the further complications triggered by a Barnes daughter marrying a Ewing son.
The lighter tv-movie Pizza My Heart takes a small business approach with rival pizza parlors providing the conflict.
And the recent phenomenon of High School Musical uses high school cliques to generate the drama.
In the original story, Juliet nicely summarizes her strategy for Romeo to ignore the influence of his family and pursue true and lasting love with her. She does it clearly and concisely.
Deny thy father, refuse thy name.
But what if Juliet was a lawyer? A lawyer can take a simple line and pump it full of jargon.
Whereas we are in love and notwithstanding the potential impact on your inheritance and possibility of retaliation by your family on your person, reputation, or assets, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to abdicate your name, family, and all of the benefits pertaining thereto. If abdication is fully and completely accomplished, we can enjoy our lives freely and without interference from members of either the Capulet or Montague families or duly authorized representatives thereto.
Jargon is clarity’s enemy. Unfortunately, lawyers and other professionals are sometimes beholden to it, to the detriment of their colleagues and certainly their lay readers and listeners.
If we are in a situation absolutely requiring jargon, we cannot let it block the reason for the message. Document summaries, headings, and definitions can be terrific assets in cutting through the jargon’s thickness and clarifying the underlying message.
Short Words
March 06, 2009
by David Krell
david@davidkrell.com
Winston Churchill was right.
The British Prime Minister who inspired the world with his words during World War II said, “Broadly speaking, the short words are the best, and the old words best of all.”
As an example, let’s take an excerpt from his famous speech to Britain’s House of Commons on June 4, 1940.
“The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.”
Clear. Concise. Purposeful.
But what if we changed it to the following:
“The British Empire and the French Republic, because of their common connection in their cause and in their need, will take the appropriate and necessary measures to properly protect and defend their native soil, even if their actions lead to death, providing the required assistance to each other like good friends to the absolute capability of their strength.”
Wordier. Clunkier. Tiring. (Ok, ‘clunkier’ is not really a word. But you get the idea.)
A writer’s choice of words is a prime factor in a document’s effectiveness. In this excerpt, Churchill makes three choices that strengthen its message.
First, “linked together” conjures an image of an unbreakable chain, unlike our weaker “common connection” phrase that sounds like something we might find on Facebook.
Second, the word “defend” implies that one will both protect and defend something. There is no need to use the phrase ‘protect and defend’ when ‘defend’ suffices. Why use two words when you can use one to make your point?
Third, the word “comrades” is often used in a military setting, the exact reason for the speech. Churchill is letting the world know that France is more than a friend, it is a comrade with whom Britain will shed blood on the battlefield to secure freedom, if necessary.
david@davidkrell.com
Winston Churchill was right.
The British Prime Minister who inspired the world with his words during World War II said, “Broadly speaking, the short words are the best, and the old words best of all.”
As an example, let’s take an excerpt from his famous speech to Britain’s House of Commons on June 4, 1940.
“The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.”
Clear. Concise. Purposeful.
But what if we changed it to the following:
“The British Empire and the French Republic, because of their common connection in their cause and in their need, will take the appropriate and necessary measures to properly protect and defend their native soil, even if their actions lead to death, providing the required assistance to each other like good friends to the absolute capability of their strength.”
Wordier. Clunkier. Tiring. (Ok, ‘clunkier’ is not really a word. But you get the idea.)
A writer’s choice of words is a prime factor in a document’s effectiveness. In this excerpt, Churchill makes three choices that strengthen its message.
First, “linked together” conjures an image of an unbreakable chain, unlike our weaker “common connection” phrase that sounds like something we might find on Facebook.
Second, the word “defend” implies that one will both protect and defend something. There is no need to use the phrase ‘protect and defend’ when ‘defend’ suffices. Why use two words when you can use one to make your point?
Third, the word “comrades” is often used in a military setting, the exact reason for the speech. Churchill is letting the world know that France is more than a friend, it is a comrade with whom Britain will shed blood on the battlefield to secure freedom, if necessary.
Hooray For Captain Tuttle!
March 04, 2009
by David Krell
david@davidkrell.com
Resume writing is an art form. And our challenging economy demands artistic excellence.
I found an inspired example in a first-season episode of M*A*S*H influenced by the 1927 novella Lieutenant Kijé by Soviet author Yury Tynyanov.
Yes, classic television can inform as well as entertain.
In the 1973 M*A*S*H episode Tuttle, we learn the art of writing a resume for the reader.
The episode centers on U.S. Army Captain Jonathan Tuttle.
But he does not exist. He is, in fact, fictional.
Initially, Hawkeye creates the fictional Captain Tuttle as a smokescreen to authorize donations of supplies to Sister Teresa’s orphanage under Tuttle’s name.
When word spreads about Tuttle, Hawkeye and Trapper realize they have to build a personnel file to lend further credence to Tuttle’s history.
And they artfully construct his resume by writing for the readers, their antagonists who want to see the file – Margaret “Hot Lips” Houlihan and Frank Burns.
The deed of Hawkeye and Trapper is an excellent example of writing for the reader, in this case, the blindingly patriotic Houlihan and Burns.
Hawkeye and Trapper view the task of writing a resume as a challenge, not a chore. And so, a resume is born for Tuttle.
Birth Year, 1924.
Birthplace, Battle Creek, Michigan.
What’s more patriotic than the home of Snap, Crackle, and Pop?
The tricky part comes when they need a medical school for Tuttle. Knowing that they can’t pick a place that Hot Lips and Frank can check, they invent Berlin Polytechnic or Berlinicius Polyteshnicus.
And in a nod to the ‘write for the reader’ theme, Hawkeye gives specific, physical attributes to Tuttle and emphasizes the purpose, stating, “Now a little something for Hot Lips. Height, six-four. Weight, 195 pounds. Hair, auburn. Eyes, hazel.”
He knows that Hot Lips will be physically drawn to the description. Her attraction will prevent her from realizing the fiction.
Ultimately, Hawkeye has to kill Tuttle when a general wants to give Tuttle a commendation.
Hawkeye explains that Tuttle died when he jumped from a helicopter to perform surgery in the combat field. But he forgot to put on a parachute.
In the eulogy, Hawkeye says, In fact, you might say that all of us together made up Tuttle.
Truer words were never spoken.
david@davidkrell.com
Resume writing is an art form. And our challenging economy demands artistic excellence.
I found an inspired example in a first-season episode of M*A*S*H influenced by the 1927 novella Lieutenant Kijé by Soviet author Yury Tynyanov.
Yes, classic television can inform as well as entertain.
In the 1973 M*A*S*H episode Tuttle, we learn the art of writing a resume for the reader.
The episode centers on U.S. Army Captain Jonathan Tuttle.
But he does not exist. He is, in fact, fictional.
Initially, Hawkeye creates the fictional Captain Tuttle as a smokescreen to authorize donations of supplies to Sister Teresa’s orphanage under Tuttle’s name.
When word spreads about Tuttle, Hawkeye and Trapper realize they have to build a personnel file to lend further credence to Tuttle’s history.
And they artfully construct his resume by writing for the readers, their antagonists who want to see the file – Margaret “Hot Lips” Houlihan and Frank Burns.
The deed of Hawkeye and Trapper is an excellent example of writing for the reader, in this case, the blindingly patriotic Houlihan and Burns.
Hawkeye and Trapper view the task of writing a resume as a challenge, not a chore. And so, a resume is born for Tuttle.
Birth Year, 1924.
Birthplace, Battle Creek, Michigan.
What’s more patriotic than the home of Snap, Crackle, and Pop?
The tricky part comes when they need a medical school for Tuttle. Knowing that they can’t pick a place that Hot Lips and Frank can check, they invent Berlin Polytechnic or Berlinicius Polyteshnicus.
And in a nod to the ‘write for the reader’ theme, Hawkeye gives specific, physical attributes to Tuttle and emphasizes the purpose, stating, “Now a little something for Hot Lips. Height, six-four. Weight, 195 pounds. Hair, auburn. Eyes, hazel.”
He knows that Hot Lips will be physically drawn to the description. Her attraction will prevent her from realizing the fiction.
Ultimately, Hawkeye has to kill Tuttle when a general wants to give Tuttle a commendation.
Hawkeye explains that Tuttle died when he jumped from a helicopter to perform surgery in the combat field. But he forgot to put on a parachute.
In the eulogy, Hawkeye says, In fact, you might say that all of us together made up Tuttle.
Truer words were never spoken.