Brain Hickey

A brain hickey, like a real hickey, is something that leaves its mark. The opposite of a brain fart (when you have a mental disconnect and can’t think of the simplest thing), a brain hickey is a thought so profound, so deep, so mentally tantalizing that it sticks with you. Maybe you’ll change your life because of the enlightenment you experience. Or maybe you’ll just think about what I said for the next few days and then it’ll gradually fade, like a real hickey.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Cleveland Heights, Ohio, United States

I have three sons, a dog, and a very supportive husband. I get to write whatever I like as long as I don't ask him to read it.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Around the World In 80 Days

I just went and saw a great production of Jules Verne's play, "Around the World In Eighty Days" at the Cleveland Playhouse. It was a great show, made even more impressive by the fact that the entire show was acted by a cast of five (a fact that my seven-year-old son tried to contest at the end - "No, but what about the guy that..." "Nope, that was this guy"). It was done so seamlessly (and comically at one point when Passepartout tried to usher the sailor offstage so that the captain could come in).

I had told the story to my son, so he knew how the play would end. At intermission, I had to warn him not to give the ending away for his friend who came with us (when my four-year-old son decided he didn't want to go to the play, I decided not to push it).

In the end, I'm not sure who enjoyed the play more. I do not like to attend plays without first knowing the story; I think I gain more from the experience if I'm not too focused on what is going to happen. By knowing the story ahead of time, I feel like I can notice all the little nuances of the performance - the scenery, the blocking, the costumes, the character choices and development. I love noticing how a line that I had read was interpreted totally differently by the actor; it adds so much depth to the experience.

And it doesn't hurt that the play was funny as hell! So, if you live in Cleveland and can make it out to the show, I would highly recommend it.

But anyhow, the story took place back in 1872. Phileas Fogg, on a bet, set off to circumnavigate the globe in 80 days. So I wonder, with all of the latest technology, what is the fastest that someone could travel the globe today?

I contend that it would actually have been faster back in 1972 than today. Clearly, added airport security these days would slow down the process. But perhaps the longer flights would make up for that difference. Phileas Fogg traveled with only a carry-on bag (a carpet bag). That would speed up the process considerably. But truly, are there flights scheduled such that one could travel eastward around the globe and return within one week? Within three days? What is the comparable time frame now?

Cleveland Wed 3pm - New York Wed 5pm
New York Wed 7pm - Mumbai Thurs 11pm (+ 1 day)
Mumbai Fri 5:20 am - Hong Kong Fri 3:35pm
Hong Kong Fri 5pm - San Francisco Fri 1pm (is this right?)
San Francisco Fri 10:15pm - Sat 11am

So, assuming no delays with customs, perfect weather with all flights exactly on time, it would be possible to follow the same path (except that it completely bypasses London and is instead centered around Cleveland) in three days. Is that about right?
Again, you would ask, why? In this scenario, all you gain are bedsores and a vow never again to eat airplane food.

And yet, with no references to airplanes, cellular phones, iPods, television, video games, cars, or many other technologies that we take completely for granted, this story was entertaining. It held the interest of two second grade boys, who seemed to be the right age to catch the fast speech (and certainly not miss the three curse words, though the double entendres fortunately remained one-dimensional for them - although it seems the time has come for me to take down my print of Dali's - “Gala Contemplating the Mediterranean Sea, which at 30 meters becomes the portrait of Abraham Lincoln (Homage to Rothko)” that I have up in my foyer). I'd like to say it's because my husband has never cared for the piece, because am I sending a bad message if I let my kids' giggling at the nakedity in the piece shame me into hiding a piece of fine art? Am I supposed to leave it up and just make it normal instead of taboo? I'm trying to be a much more laid-back mom than I inherently am; all this takes so much thought that I don't know how to react. I thought I had it all down, but lately, I don't know much of anything anymore. I really take mothering seriously, and I don't think I've been playing my A game lately. It's been a steady decline into bad habits and counter-productive patterns that leave me feeling like my good relationship with my boys is slipping a bit.

But after dropping off my younger sons with their grandparents, then turning around and heading back to the theater to make it to the play on time, my eldest son commented that our weekend was kind of like the story in the play, only instead of a bet, we have tickets.

Ah, a metaphor. I guess it worked.

Perhaps I'll write an adaptation relevant to a working mom, or to a slacker who is forced to get things done but wants to watch certain shows - ooh, and his tivo is busted (which is what motivates him to have to follow a schedule). Somewhere in here there's my next story, I just know it. I just have to find it...

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home