Baseball is Also for Littles to be Little

 

This popped up in my memories today. It's my two oldest grandbabies in their first year of baseball. They were five. It doesn't seem like they should be preteens now, but here we are.

Their coach was absolutely wonderful with them. Luckily he's still coaching. Sadly, my littles gave up on baseball. One of them decided not to go back three years ago. The other switched to softball because keeping up with the boys was getting too hard at her age. But that was her last year.

Sadly, even at young ages, too many kids are being pushed out because coaches and leagues are far too competitive-minded. So are many parents. And that's fine if it's fine with their kids, if it's what the kids want, but honestly, little ones who just want to enjoy the game should be able to do so.

One of these babies had a whole lot of potential to be a really good player, but the competition and pushing to "not let your team down" was too much. The other has a whole lot of spirit and love for the game, but also physical difficulties that interfered. They both should have been encouraged by their coaches all the way through. They should have been proud for doing their personal best. They should have had fun while learning the game.

After all, it IS a game.

And they are kids.

The second one went to every practice and tried really hard and was the always the loudest cheering for her teammates. Yet, she was always stuck outfield getting bored out of her mind when she did actually get play time. So she quit. It's disheartening that so many adults are shrugging their shoulders about this. They don't care about that one sweet child because their little superstars can't be held back. Sad. I wish they could see that child's face even now, two years later, when she sees kids practicing baseball. I really wish they could. Because that one child does matter. That child matters more than winning games. 

And what about the kids who get to play constantly and see those other kids get pushed away and not played because they "aren't good enough"? What is that teaching them? Then we turn around and wonder why so many of them turn into bullies at school. They were taught that those "outskirt" kids don't matter.

We are doing this. And it needs to stop.

Those who want to be super competitive can join competition teams and travel teams. That's great, as long as it's what they want and not only what their parents want in order to stroke their own egos. There is too much of that. There is far too much parent hollering at kids not performing to their standards, including to other peoples' kids. There were several occasions in our area where police had to be called due to parent aggressiveness. I would suggest therapy for these souls. And that's not intended as an insult, but anyone who feels they have to succeed through their children badly enough to think it's okay to scream and holler at not only their kids but other kids should take a deep look at themselves.

Why can't we let our kids be children while they are? Childhood is so short. There will be, God willing, many years ahead for them to have to be successful, to push, to be judged for their performance. Just for these few years of beautiful childhood, stop with the competition and let them learn and grow and have fun and thrive in their own ways. And BE inclusive, don't just talk about it. BE inclusive and welcoming and accepting, so our kids will learn to be the same.

And for goodness sake, STOP yelling at and belittling other people's children. It should take only one incidence of this for those parents to get kicked off the field for the season.

Kids' sports belong to THEM, not to us adults. It's for them. Let it be.

Autotelic Arts and Professional Envy

There was this post I'd been thinking about writing for some time. It's not an easy one to write. It's always hard to admit to your darker sides, even when you know everyone has them.

The other day, I ran across this video and it pushed me to write what had been stirring in my head for some time. It's not very related. It is to some extent, I suppose, but... Well, watch first and then we'll talk.

I love Van Gogh. I have ever since the first painting of his I saw jumped out at me and said, "Hey, look at this!" At least they say that to me. The video talks about how "late" in life he decided to paint as a career/living/obsession. He was 27. That didn't sound terribly "late" in life to me, but then people do tend to live longer these days, so relatively, maybe it was.

Then I got to thinking: I was 30 when I began to take my off-and-on writing hobby to an obsessive (aka professional-minded) level. I do feel that was starting rather late, in as much as there were so many years I could have been working hard on it instead of playing at it so I'd be farther along by now. I see young women putting time and effort into their writing career at the age I was very busy with little kids. I don't regret that at all, but I sure could have been writing instead of doing cross stitch while they napped or were in school.

I do have a little bit of envy for those pursuing their writing so seriously so young, even though I realize my choices were mine and maybe what I needed to do at that time. Or I just didn't believe it would go anywhere, so I didn't bother until I had to write. For myself. Because I had to. There does come that point. If I'd found it earlier...

Anyway, my writing is autotelic. I write what I need/want to write, despite the way it doesn't fit today's market and that I may never be one of "those" names due to the fact that it doesn't fit. I even tried a couple of years ago to start a new direction under a different name along with my "need to write" stories, and they slid right back in to what I need to write, not what fits or what will profit financially.

I believe art should be autotelic.

I do.

Still, there's that other post I've been thinking about writing. That one where I talk about professional envy. My own, that is.

It's very hard to work so seriously for so long, as Van Gogh did, for little to no compensation while your writing friends and acquaintances are showing off their successes and big sales numbers and best seller statuses. It's hard. It's envy, of course, and we've all learned that envy is a bad thing.

I think it's not. I think envy is a wonderful challenge. Jealousy, now that's different. Jealous people tend to take it out on those of whom they're jealous, or they manage to hold it in and let it eat at themselves. There is nothing helpful about jealousy that I can see.

Envy, though, says yes, it bothers me that I'm working so hard and not getting the glory you're getting. It says, whether true or not, that my work is as good or better and deserves as much recognition. Maybe it does. But in all honesty, maybe it doesn't. Maybe they made the choice to write for the market and they're pulling the effects of that. Okay. So what? That was their choice, and it was a good choice. They deserve the good effects of their choices.

Does that mean it should be your choice, also, instead of whatever choice you made? Or maybe you didn't see and haven't heard how much struggle they already went through and you're making a sad assumption. Maybe your work isn't as good as you think. Maybe it's outstanding and you're just not hitting the right audience. Maybe...

There are too many maybes to list them all. The thing is: so what? Their path is their path. Your path is yours. If you aren't happy with that path, then use that envy productively. Acknowledge it. Realize you aren't a bad person simply because you're envious.

If you're envious, it means you care about your work. Yes? Caring is good.

If you're envious, it means you want to do better in some way. That's always good. Just figure out how and work toward that.

There is space for non-autotelic art. Obviously there is. Sometimes you can get lucky and what's autotelic is also commercial ("in"/easily salable) at the time you're working. That's a wonderful thing. If it's not and enough of your writing goal is income, then do both if you're able.

Van Gogh died a pauper having sold only one painting while still alive, due to his brother's efforts.

Personally, I find that extreme and I believe there has to be a better balance for autotelic artists. I know there is. I've seen very passionate, talented artists doing fairly well. That makes me envious at times, yes, but it also inspires me. When one person does it, it shows it can be done.

Take notes. Consider the how.

(If you have a loved one who will work hard to promote you when you can't afford to pay them, consider yourself lucky, too, and be sure to return their help as much as possible, which, from what I read, Vincent didn't do at all. Maybe that was part of his downfall. Maybe he needed to learn to give a bit more to others instead of always taking and expecting success before he felt able to give back. Sometimes that doesn't happen and being a leech off someone who cares about you never works out well.)

Professional envy can be very constructive. It can also be devastating. Which one it becomes depends on how you handle it.

Autotelic art can be amazingly creative and beautiful and long-lasting. It can also be soul shattering. Which one it becomes depends on how you deal with the natural results.

Never expect anything from your art. Hope. Work hard. Push yourself (but not beyond your limits). Keep going (or don't if it's too much to handle).

Be honest with yourself. Why are you doing it? For the sake of the art or for sales? Whichever it is, don't expect people to bend to your whims and support it just because you think it's worthy.

Yes, maybe it is. To you. To some. And that's great. But never expect.

Just create and trust.

In the meantime, do something that will support you. Cutting your art hours by having a "real" job or by giving to others while they help support you can be frustrating, yes, but it can also build your passion and create inspiration. It also creates respect.

I love Van Gogh's work. I do. But much of me thinks he would have been better off, physically and financially, if he'd taken up a side job that pulled him away from "it's all and only about my art and the heck with anyone and anything else" attitude. Because it's not. His beloved brother would likely have lived a longer and healthier life, as well, since he wouldn't have had the constant drain of a grown man constantly asking for more money for food and paint on top of supporting his own family.

Yes, at times I have trouble congratulating other writers on their successes. I admit it. That's part of being honest with myself. I still, though, am happy for them, because I know what kind of work and commitment it takes. I know I lack marketing skills and interest. I know I could be doing much more to promote my work. I'm quite sure I could spend more time working at the craft part of my books. There are always things that could be improved. My failures are my own, not theirs, and I remember that. It doesn't make it easier. It does make it acceptable.

Sometimes that's good enough, at least for the time being.

And if it becomes unacceptable, well, I need to improve what I'm doing in some way. Or, as the line I most remember from my grandpa, a very wise man, says,

"If you want to be as lucky as him, go out there and do what he's doing and you'll be lucky, too."

If you don't want to do "what he's doing" then your results will be different. When it comes to art, they will very likely be different anyway, because art is subjective and what's beautiful to one is ugly or blasé to others, but that's okay, too. You can't make people think the way you do or appreciate what you appreciate. You have to work with what is, even while striving for improvement, both your own, and your society's.

Be envious. And then put it to good use.

Be autotelic or don't. And realize the results will vary.

What’s in the artist’s name?

I have a dearly departed friend, also my first editor, who wrote a book called “The Real Shakespeare” several years ago. She joined a large debate of those who believe the man named William Shakespeare did not actually write all of those gorgeous plays. I give all respect to Marilyn Savage Gray for her views and incredible research for the book. Maybe she’s right. And maybe those who say it was actually a woman who wrote them, using his name since women were not accepted as writers back then are right. How do we know?

More importantly, how much does it matter?

Today on art.com’s Facebook page, they bring up a painting called “Girl With A Broom” from 1640, signed by Rembrandt. We all know who Rembrandt is, whether or not we could pick out his work. His name is up there with the masters of art, and well-deserved. They ask, though, was that painting done by Rembrandt? Or was it done by one of his students: Carel Fabritius?

I daresay most of us haven’t heard of Fabritius. I hadn’t. And yet, if you look at his self-portrait posted here (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carel_Fabritius ), you see quality work and a departure from Rembrandt in that his background is lighter and the painting in general is less dark.

Did you know that many of the masters had students helping to create their art? They were able to complete more work that way, and in doing so, earn more money. I have personal issues against the practice. Once another’s hands are in a work of art, it is no longer as truly pure. How do you know which comes from the named artist and which from students (or editors, for that matter).

Maybe that’s all besides the point. Maybe it’s what’s left behind that matters and not who produced it. I do feel that way about Shakespeare’s works, although if someone else did do the writing, I would like to know that and give that artist credit. (I don’t believe much in ghostwriting, either, although many writers make a good living with the practice and seem fine with not having the recognition.)

Personally, I feel Shakespeare wrote his own work, possibly with editing help or even with “student” assistance such as the fine art masters had. One of the big objections that critics use against him writing his own is that he was “common” and not school educated. Ah well, so was Abraham Lincoln. That point doesn’t hold an ounce of water with me.

I put much more value in self-education, anyway. School education follows a model, attempting to mold all kids to learn the same way and the same things. It’s like Fabritius studying under Rembrandt’s style so much that we can’t tell for sure which work is from which artist. Rembrandt’s name is the better known because he created his own style after learning bits and pieces from others and changing and manipulating the lessons into something different. That’s self-education at its best.

So does the artist’s name matter? Apparently it does if the artist stands out from the crowd instead of following the beaten path.

Shakespeare was not only a principal actor at the time, but he also was in large part an owner of the Globe theater. In this way, he could be considered one of the leaders of self-publishing.  Did he write his own work? I would say yes, at least enough of it to establish his name. If others did no more than follow his style to add to the body of work, does it matter if we know their names? I’m not so sure. At that point, it’s the work itself that matters.

I had the opportunity to go into the Globe Theater a couple of years ago when we visited England. Of course, it’s not THE Globe, since the original burned to the ground, but still, it was a memorable event and I could almost feel myself sitting amongst the crowd watching an original Shakespeare performance on its premiere showing. It’s a powerful thing to surround yourself with largeness and originality and the work of the masters, and take pieces of that away with you to create your own masterpieces.





 
--

Find Rembrandt’s work on Art.com
Find Fabritius’s work on Art.com

Find Marilyn Savage Gray’s books Here or at BN.com.

Feel Better with London To Tokyo

I first found Simon Steadman when I learned one of my favorite musicians of the past 30-some years had helped to produce an album for a band called Steadman. I had to go give the group a listen, which was easy enough, since they have a very open share policy and plenty of free downloads. I was hooked. Despite the free music offers, or because of them, I had to buy their CDs.

Simon has moved on from Steadman and is now fronting, and writing for, a band called London To Tokyo. I followed along to check them out, despite that their name reflects not only Simon’s English heritage but also Japanese techno. I’m not a big fan of techno. To be honest, I try hard to avoid it. However, there are exceptions to every rule.

Some things are just better mixed: nationalities, dog breeds, novel genres, and music genres, to name a few.

What do you know? I’m hooked on their EP, techno included. London To Tokyo is a delightful mix of pop, rock, alternative, and techo. Their style varies even between songs and yet stays connected. With Simon writing the lyrics, it’s a given the songs will be upbeat and optimistic, meaningful, and searching all at once. I’m not a music expert enough to write a detailed technical review (despite having 3 guitars, a drum set, and a piano in the house and having dabbled with all 3 instruments), so this is from the POV of a music-obsessed fan.

I love great guitar technique. I love a trained and talented voice. I love lyrics that say something, and especially those that promote optimism. The drums have to add to the band, not be just a beat in the background. The music has to flow and mesh (no discordance, thank you). It has to make me want to keep listening without tiring of it.

London To Tokyo has all of that. They also have friendly, fan-appreciative members who take the time to interact. That’s always a huge plus. They come across as people you’d want to know as people, not only as musicians. For me, since I’m a people person and attitude matters greatly, that’s another huge plus. I’ve been known to refuse to listen to music or buy books from artists who don’t appeal to me as people. After all, it’s the humanity behind art that makes it what it is.

Don’t take my word, though. Find 6 full songs to check out on their website: www.londontotokyo.net and find their links to Facebook and Myspace. Friend them or Like them and download their EP free! Share it with friends (their request). And then come back here and let me know what you think.

Oh, and a big HAPPY BIRTHDAY to Simon! Go over to his Facebook page and tell him I sent you. ;-)

--

Why I Watch Dancing With the Stars

  

I saw someone online the other day say they aren't watching this season because it's "a cast full of losers."

First, I resent anyone calling someone else a loser unless it's like .. a rapist or murderer or a bottom feeder or the like. Although there is one celeb this year I'm very anxious to see leave, and have plenty of agreement on that, I still wouldn't use that term. Nasty, yes. Loser? Well, who knows what she's gone through in reality? Maybe she's fighting more odds than anyone can know, which doesn't give a person the right to be nasty to innocent parties, but still, calling someone a loser only makes you look ... well, nasty.

Losers? I have to wonder just how much that person has achieved to consider these people losers. My guess is not nearly as much. Consider Buzz Aldrin, the astronaut who walked on the moon. Yes, he’s 80 and dances stiff, but hey, he gave it a good go and was fun to watch because of his attitude and because of his accomplishments. The show was honored to have him, as they should have been. Or Erin, who worked her way up to broadcasting. Nicole, who made her way in the music business before Idol brought no names overnight success.  Same goes with most of the celebs this season: they worked hard to get where they are. Heck, Evan’s been called the hardest working figure skater in the business and he’s an Olympic gold medalist. Hardly loser material. 

That’s all besides the point. I don't care what celebs they have on the show. Some I enjoy more than others. Some I root for and am sad to see leave. But I watch for the pros.

They're great, aren't they? Last night's results show was amazing, because of the two pro dances. I wouldn't watch the results otherwise. I don't like the whole ... "we'll tell you right after this" type of drawn out suspense. I don't believe that the results are purely the results of viewer voting. I don't vote anymore because it feels a waste of time and too much playing in their rating game nonsense. I do think the one everyone wants to have kicked off is only still there because the producers know drama and controversy on online venues will pull viewers in to watch and see what the drama is all about.

Still, I love the dancing. I love most of the pros. Maksim is just heavenly to watch, and Derek is amazing; Louie is a joy as are Lacey and Tony.... In short, they could pull people off the street aka that Idol show that got booted off top ratings by DWTS and I'd still watch. It's about the dancing for me. I love it. I enjoy the celebs with no dance background who go on and work hard and prove that you CAN step out of your element and still succeed if you're determined enough. How long they stay on is a moot point. That they dared to do it is what matters.

I don't watch realities with a very very rare exception, because I don't at all believe any of them are not staged. It's largely a bunch of overdramatic whining set up to make the audience think it's all real. Come on.

I get sick of the celebs who do that on DWTS, also. You know which I mean: the ones who go on and on about how busy their schedules are and how horrible it is to have a little injury and to keep going anyway. Welcome to real life, chickadees. So what? I applaud Evan Lysacek who broke a couple of toes and said nothing about it this week while dancing on them anyway. Not to mention he's also performing with Stars on Ice in between rehearsing and doesn't whine about that schedule, either. That's reason enough to keep rooting for him as a winner, which in my mind, he is (even besides his Olympic medal).

Yes, I'm a fan of the show. No, I'm not all pulled-in to the hype or think it's all "reality" as they want us to think. I watch for the dancing. I love the elegance of ballroom as opposed to all of the bump-and-grind of modern days that has received too much attention.

Real dance is incredibly hard. It's true art. It's vivid and alive. If you don't believe how hard it is, give it a try. I'm in favor of anything that promotes elegance and hard work and respect and art and pushing yourself to new limits. I find it a very good sign that DWTS topped the TV ratings. Possibly, all of those values are returning.

The cast, unlike most reality casts, don't get nasty toward each other (at least not on the show). They encourage each other even while competing. They have fun while working hard. They learn how to get along and what makes the individual relationships work enough to spend so much time together in such a stressful environment. The pros are the ringleaders in doing so, in promoting a healthy working relationship, in being honest but respectful.

It's a beautiful thing to see and so rare to find on television these days. Maybe that's what helps make the show such a roaring success.

----

"There are two kinds of teachers: the kind that fill you with so much quail shot that you can't move,
and the kind that just gives you a little prod behind and you jump to the skies."
Robert Frost

As an aside: Maksim Chmerkovsky now owns a dance studio in New Jersey. For the first time in my life, I'm thinking NJ is the place to be, even for an instructional visit. Not that I would actually dare, but the thought is fun. And who knows? Maybe I would dare if I had the chance. ;-)
--

Public Enemies

When a new Johnny movie premieres, I tend to be there opening day. So, we went to see Public Enemies this afternoon, although our local theater wasn't bothering to play it. Yes, I drove the 30 miles on opening day to check out Mr. Depp's newest work.

It was well worth it.

I won't go on about what a great job he did because anyone who has followed him knows he does, and he did. Incredible as usual. But there are many other reasons to see this film.

It's history. John Dillinger was considered a hero by much of the public in the 1930s. It was in the midst of the depression when everyone was angry about how the banks handled things so badly and people lost so much (sound familiar?). Dillinger grabbed lots of it, but never took it from individuals inside the bank, telling them he didn't want their money, only the bank's. Of course there's a bit of logic missing there since people fund the bank money, but only to an extent. They're making bunches off our money and they did then, and when they mismanage it's of course not only their money they lose. So in a time of no sympathy with or high opinion of bankers, Dillinger struck gold with public opinion.

It's societal. I don't want to say too much and spoil anything but there are points made that we need to consider as a society. Dillinger was considered Public Enemy Number One. But what of the Chicago cops taking bribes from gangsters to leave them alone? What of the police brutality? What about being overly punished for minor offenses? Those things build the criminal element, as they helped to build Dillinger's power and public sympathy for him. And they still happen.

It does not glamorize criminal life. It shows straight out the costs, very high costs, of taking that route, with no actual gain. A good lesson there.

It's artistic. This film was very well made. It's not overly gory for being a gangster film. It has beautiful effects that add to the imagery without being over the top. It truly is art, which I don't find a lot of on the big screen anymore.

It's well worth watching. It's even worth supporting, something I also don't find much in Hollywood these days.

The next one I look forward to is The Ugly Truth. That should be a riot!
-

Book Review: A Reason To Hope

A Reason To Hope A.L. Marquardt   2008 Booksurge ISBN: 978-1-4392-1626-2   www.ALMarquardt.com

 

"Hope comes in an unexpected way, but not without a price."

"A Reason to Hope" is an inspiring debut novella by A.L. Marquardt, inspiring not only because of its genre, Christian Science Fiction, but also because it's one of the best indie efforts I've yet seen.

The story of a female assassin thrown from her job by a disfiguring accident leads to themes of perfection vs. misfits, sexuality, acceptance vs. condemnation, drug use, and salvation. Atypical for Christian fiction, homosexuality is portrayed as a main issue and dealt with as a question more than as a definite answer.

Pulled right into Preeah's journey with a hard yank that refuses to let go, a reader is opened to thoughts and ideas but left to come to her own conclusions. Right and wrong is pondered, but not "settled," in the vein of John Irving. "A Reason to Hope" gives us a reason to stop and think. It ends softly, giving us the feeling it is not an ending, but a beginning.

Other than a minor criticism of wanting more varying sentence structures and less use of "she" instead of the character's name (which I heard from early critiques of my work), Marquardt's prose is smooth and well-edited (a big plus for indie work), with pacing that keeps a reader well into the story.

The back cover states the author is seeking an agent for her full-length novel. I hope that happens soon, as this is an an author to watch!

** Side note: a signed copy of "A Reason to Hope" is included in the raffle below.

P.S. I Love You (no spoilers review)

Gerard Butler and Hillary Swank

in

P.S. I Love You

Scotsman Gerard Butler came to the forefront in Hollywood with Phantom of the Opera, starred in Shattered (among others), and picked up speed in 300. Anyone who has seen him on Letterman or Craig Ferguson knows he is a true, all-or-nothing, high adventure, charming and seductive Scot. It was said that his newest movie shows the true Gerry. If so, it must have been a lot of fun on the set of P.S. I Love You. Can you tell I'm a Gerard Butler fan?

I'm actually a new fan who was less than impressed with some parts of his rendition of Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom of the Opera. It wasn't the voice that bothered me. It was the fact that some of it was out of his range -- the fault of the producer/director, not the actor. He tried, and otherwise it was pleasant and the acting of it was beautiful.

He also sings, this time with acoustic guitar (my favorite way to listen to a nice voice), in his newest film. I was actually quite impressed. I tend to be a music snob. I like many genres but they have to have true music quality, not only cute faces or pounding beats. I would love to have the full versions of Gerry singing the songs he did bits of in the movie. Very nice. Very smooth. Very sensual. Alas, they are not included on the soundtrack, so I will not be picking that one up.

As for the movie, it was nicely done, filmed both in the States and in Ireland, featuring the Emerald Isle's incredible scenery. With most films, I can guess the ending within the first ten minutes. I didn't with this one. I like that about it. I like the true-to-life emotions that weren't overdone or underdone. I like the points made about life and love and loss and moving forward. I loved the fun playfulness of Gerard's character and the way he portrayed it. I liked the bits of Irish customs that were real, not characterized or cliched. And I liked the music.

I write literary romance and that's how I would describe this movie. It's romance, yes, but it has such a nice story and realistic, likeable characters who matter to the audience. It has culture, psychology, relationship issues of different kinds, and a suitable (not sappy) ending. This is a romance at its best.

The only thing I didn't quite understand is what Hillary's character was living on financially. It makes a point of showing how tight money is, but she doesn't seem at all constricted once she's on her own. That point threw it off just a bit for me, as I'm a realist type, but it wasn't a big issue.

All of the actors did a nice job. Hillary Swank portrayed a confused artistic-type wife trying to fit into society's expectations and the world of 9-to5 jobs quite well (which is hard for business types to truly understand), and Lisa Kudrow is always enjoyable, but Gerard Butler made the film worth buying. I will be buying it as soon as it's available.

Mel and Maks: as great as M&Ms

"Every ballet, whether or not successful artistically or with the public, has given me something important."
Mikhail Baryshnikov


Okay, Mel and Maks should've won last night. Really, they should have. Their technique was better. Mel was solidly good throughout the season, while as I loved Helio at the beginning, he kind of lost interest for me during mid season with a lack of versatility. He can move, granted. During certain routines he was wonderful. At other times, he was rather boring, but then Julianne is always incredible to watch and her routines are great. Maksim's routines are always a treat to watch.

That's what happens, though, when you open things to popular vote. You get personal opinion about personalities/backgrounds/careers interfering with the actual business of what is supposed to be judged. It happens with everything. I've seen writing contests judged by popular vote whose outcomes, predictably, show popularity, not writing quality. It happens in the business world of fiction. It happens in politics. Popularity sells better than quality.

So, I was completely unsurprised when Helio won. He's charming. He's a race car driver. He even admitted it was based largely on popularity.

In my mind, Mel was the true winner and I applaud her efforts and so enjoyed watching her and Maks together; not only for technical quality and versatility, but also for their fun chemistry that showed tons of respect for each other.

You don't have to have a trophy in hand to be a winner. Your efforts and the search for quality and pushing yourself make you a winner.

On that vein, CONGRATS to all who are pushing through with Nanowrimo for the next three days. Word count isn't important, either. The trying and pushing and learning makes you winners.

Now, how about having an author on Dancing With the Stars????