​One of the few conspiracy theories I believe is that book reviewers are in cahoots with authors to sell books. They write positive reviews in general because there is a battle for the attention spans of readers. So, they hype, making the mediocre or bad appear better than it really is.

Recently, based on those types of positive reviews, I picked up a book, planning on being blown away, absorbed from page one. That was not the case.
 
Instead, I slogged away, reading closely, attempting to find what was so damn interesting that all these other people had found in the plot and characters. In fact, I read more intently and slowly than usual for that very reason – to TRY and make the book hold my interest.  Ultimately, I put it down and gave up.

This is unusual for me. But, over the past two years or so I’ve made the decision to not continue reading when something doesn’t move me in some way. In this most recent case, that came after 60 pages. I hoped to make it to 100 pages at a minimum, but when the slog began after the initial early hype (around page 20), by the time I reached page 60, it was time to give it up.
 
This particular book received particularly positive reviews. The style of the author was praised. The uniqueness of the plot line stood out to reviewers. “A fresh new voice” was the tag line, something that seems to get used a lot to urge you pick up (purchase) a new book.
 
Even more telling was the buddies of the author. This is another technique to suck you in.

The author has fellow writers pen 3-5 paragraphs that go on the back jacket. Of course, these writers want to help their friend out because they are all part of a reciprocal back-scratching society. You write something good for me. I write something good for you.
 
In the case of this novel, there were five friends saying halleluiah on the back cover. I’d never heard of any of them, and when I looked at what each of them had written, I’d never heard of any of their books either. That should have been the red flag, right?
Nope, I tried to give it a chance and believe what they had to say. When reading, I wanted the book to come across well and keep me turning the pages, wondering what happens next – a key criteria that must be met by a successful author. The concept was unusual, the subject matter a bit different. It lined up like it had huge potential.

Sigh. It wasn’t to be. The plot was boring. No tension. Hard to care about the characters. No sense that the story was going anywhere. I kept hoping and hoping, and finally said, “Why are you still reading this?” Put it down and picked up the next book in the pile.
 
Scintillating reviews mean nothing. Exclamation !!!!!!!!!!!! points at the end of sentences prove nothing. Friends and other authors audaciously endorsing the book say nothing. When you put the book down after 60 pages, that says something.
 
I’m too old to keep reading when boredom sets in. There are too many other books out there worth reading. 

​Every once in awhile it’s a good idea to take stock about the various objects you have in your life. Do you need them? Are they useful? Do they perform a necessary function?
 
I apply this concept to clothes -- getting rid of shirts and pants regularly. Shoes go to Goodwill as they wear out.
 
Getting rid of the bigger stuff is a more interesting issue to pose. What, for example, can you do without? We’re not talking about underwear. Something that we’ve grown to love in our modern lives and accept as a necessity. An appliance, for example. What appliance would you eliminate from your life if you were asked to do so? This implies many things.

First, you have to determine it is NOT a necessity. You can live without it and function quite nicely, thank you.

Second, the inconvenience to your life would need to be minimal. You know you can survive without it, but how many complications would it cause if the appliance went missing.
 
We lived in Texas for 12 years, and during that time we knew a minister who gave up showering or using his bathtub for Lent every year. He went into his backyard each morning and washed himself off with a garden hose. Granted, it was not northern climate cold at that time of year, but it still was chilly in the morning, and I’m sure he had his share of goose bumps and the bathing didn’t last long. Still, the point is, he went without a hot shower. It was inconvenient. He survived. But, I doubt he’d want to bathe that way the rest of his life.
 
Would you eliminate your microwave? I’ve often thought if given an option and forced to choose, I would select a microwave to toss out of our home. No more warming up coffee or cooking more quickly. It could easily be done, but it wouldn’t be my choice.

The second one that always comes to mind for me is the dryer. Growing up, our neighbor used a clothesline even in the winter, hanging clothes in their basement during the cold months. It can be done. You don’t need to tumble the clothes in warm air. Hanging the clothes does the job, you just have to be patient since it takes longer.

Maybe that’s the key thing about appliances – they save time so we use them. They typically consume electricity. They tend to make things easier. So we invest money and buy them.
 
The appliance I would reject is the dishwasher. I actually like washing dishes (up to a point). Sure, the dishwasher gets the dishes cleaner. But, it takes forever to run, and consumes way too much electricity and water. Wasting resources. Yes, that’s the one I’d get rid of.
 
Plates might be a bit filmy without it. My hands might get a little dried out soaking in the soapy water day after day, night after night. That would be okay.
 
I’d quick-wash glasses, cups, pots and pans on a more regular basis. Stop letting them sit in the dishwasher for days before running it. Removing an appliance from your life would connect you to the basics, the nuts and bolts of your daily life. What would you give up?

​Big-time sports should get a “delay of game” penalty. That includes football and basketball for the pros and Division I college games. Advertisements and video replay have destroyed the feel of these contests.

Even a mere 8-10 years ago, things were different. Ads weren’t as long. Video replay wasn’t ubiquitous. I don’t know the exact number of minutes and seconds allowed for timeouts back then vs. now, but the change feels titanic. And, it’s in a bad direction – slowing down play, changing momentum, destroying the texture of the game.
I clearly remember the first time I understood how slow game play was when you attend in person. Five of us who graduated from the University of Illinois returned for a reunion football game at Soldier Field in Chicago. We were pumped. Good to see each other. There was excitement about the team that year.
 
We get to the game, probably down a beer or two, do some early chants as the crowd shows its energy. Then, timeout a few minutes into the first quarter and it lasts over four minutes. Several minutes later, a player is injured and it takes seven minutes to get him off the field. Wait, now it’s a TV timeout, and again, that’s another four minutes, maybe more (who’s checking? Seems like forever.). The offense can’t get it together so they call a timeout. Then another injury and who knows how long that took.

All I remember is that we looked up at the scoreboard and there was still a minute or so left in THE FIRST QUARTER and 55 minutes had elapsed since the opening kick. Do the math. There are four quarters in a game. If you multiply an hour by four, that’s four hours, then add halftime and the time between quarters and we were likely facing a four-and-a-half hour+ ballgame.
 
Not acceptable. You can’t sit through crap like that. Boredom sets in. You drink too much. You don’t pay attention to play. Your mind wanders. You wonder what traffic is going to be like getting out of the parking lot. And, fans head for the exits (if they chose to show up in the first place).

The amazing thing to me is how many people still choose to go to live pro or DI sporting events. I include myself in this number, though my willingness to attend is tempered more intensely with each ensuing year.
 
Basketball, highly dependent on momentum, loses much of its mystery and chemistry as long timeouts stop a team in its tracks better than a tight defense. Just this past week, I watched a few minutes of an NBA game that turned an easy replay into a seven-minute extravaganza, as all three officials got called into view and comment on a fairly straight forward situation. Play on.
 
Time for limits. Allow officials three replay looks, then make a decision. Or set a time limit: 30 seconds to make your review, then decide. Ultimately, officiating reviews STILL REQUIRE A JUDGMENT. And, ultimately, there are still going to be coaches, players, fans and announcers who disagree with what the officials do.
 
Head back to high school, folks. The games are shorter, the kids play hard and there are no replays or television commercials. Collegiate Division III games are similar. There’s great intensity. The players and coaches get into it. And you can still get home in time for a good night’s sleep.