The Patient Predator


Those of us from an an agricultural area have all heard the tales about a parent, usually a mother, preparing a chicken for dinner. When we city-dwellers think of the preparations necessary for a chicken dinner, we think of the five-minute drive to the local supermarket, the time it takes to select the best frozen chicken, and choosing a batter (if it’s not pre-battered). We then sit down for our chicken dinner about a half hour later. That’s been the process for so long that most generations have never heard that for farming families, past and present, there are other steps involved that they’ve never heard about when mothers prepare a chicken dinner.

Disclaimer: Some might deem the following Not Safe for the Workplace, and if you are in anyway squeamish, I suggest you locate the ‘X’ in the upper righthand corner of this screen and exit stage right. Some might deem ‘the other steps’ violent and brutal, but they are a way of life on a farm. “It was just the way we did it,” they say. They way they did it, involved a mother entering a chicken coop to retrieve a chicken or rooster for that day’s meal. Once she catches it, she chops its head off and releases it to allow it to run around, headless, until the life runs out of the body, and it unceremoniously falls to the ground. It usually runs around, crashing and smashing into whatever is around it for about ten seconds without a head, until whatever nerves or final vestiges of their muscles finally run out of power. Some find this funny, others consider it sad, and still others find it so funny that it is kind of sad. Whatever the case is, the next time your mother says that you were “Running around like a chicken with its head cut off” you now know the origin of that phrase.

These chicken/rooster post-mortem displays prompt the question, do all animals do this? Do human bodies run around, crashing and smashing into things for ten seconds after the head gets chopped off, until the lifeforce drains out? There is no evidence that suggests human bodies run around in this manner, but there is some dubious evidence that suggests some consciousness remains in the head. The scientific data is about as far from conclusive as possible, but a researching physician in the French Revolution claimed, based on his observations, that a severed head could retain consciousness for 25 to 30 seconds.

As many times as I’ve heard these chicken preparation stories, over the decades, Ken’s version of this practice involved a twist I’ve never heard before. In his retelling, he remembers his mom stalking roosters in the coop. She would enter the chicken coop with a rooster in mind for their meal before she entered. We could write, “At one point, she caught the rooster,” but this does a disservice to the art of catching rooters, as they are notoriously difficult to catch. We could put them in the smallest of pens and coops, and they will still find ways to elude capture with exceptionally quick movements, tricky maneuvers, and some flying involved in their quest to escape. We could also write, right here, that they’re unusually crafty or surprisingly smart when it comes to eluding capture, but they’re not. They just have what athletes call quick-twitch muscles. As usual with animals at the bottom of the food chain, like the rabbit, roosters have quick-twitch muscles that allow them that first-step quickness and that quick change-of-direction speed and agility that athletes prize. These animals obviously need these abilities to avoid faster predators to sustain the species.

Ken’s mother knew this all of this course, and she knew she wasn’t fleet of foot. She knew she wasn’t quick enough to catch a rooster, because no one is. She knew her only path to success involved a patient pursuit. She could have a rooster cornered several times, in corner after corner, and she knew he would continue to successfully escape until eventually he tired out. “She never grew frustrated by her inability to catch the rooster,” Ken said. “It’s very difficult to catch a rooster, and she knew that.”

It would prove a difficult chore even if it were just she and the rooster in the coop, but what makes it even harder are all of the other eight to ten chickens in the coop running around and flying in short bursts to try to avoid their own capture. As such, Ken’s mother would have to watch her step in pursuit, to avoid stepping on any chickens. We can also imagine that with the effort she put into the pursuit, combined with the heat outside, she would sweat profusely throughout her chase, which would lead to all of the feathers flying around the coop to stick to her face. We have to imagine that this would only add to the frustration and anger of even the most seasoned rooster stalker, but she never showed it. “She never grew frustrated or overly impatient,” Ken said. “She knew all that was just part of it.” There were probably occasions when she caught the rooster fairly quickly, but for the most part she had to engage in this patient pursuit, until the rooster eventually tired out, stood in place and fell asleep. At that point, she grabbed it and twisted its neck.

This is the “Wait a second, what?” twist in story. When someone tells a story that is consistent with everything we’ve heard before, we tend to drift a little. We don’t mean to be rude, but we’ve heard this story so many times, and we all know how it ends. Every time I’d heard this story, it ended with an ax, a knife, or some other sharp instrument applied to the member of the fowl family. The entertaining part, if that’s what you want to call it, usually involves the portion of the tale that describes the rooster running around with its head cut off. So, when Ken added the following, the glaze over our eyes lifted, and we said, “Wait a second, what did you say?” to help the rest of our senses catch up. 

“She would hold the rooster over her head, by the neck, and spin it, until she felt its neck snap,” Ken said. “She then released it and allowed it to run around the coop until the life drained out of it. Then she picked it up, stripped it of its feathers, put it in water, and took it inside to continue preparing it for our meal.” 

“Wait a second, what did you say about spinning?” his open-mouthed audience asked. Ken repeated the bullet points of it. “Did she do that to be … theatrical?”

“My mom didn’t do anything to be theatrical. That was just the way she did it.” When asked if he considered her method in any way inhumane, violent, or brutal, Ken added, “Again, that was just the way she did it. My guess is that that’s probably the way her mother and her grandmother taught her to do it. If you asked her if she considered it theatrical, violent or brutal, she wouldn’t understand why you do. It was just the way it was done as far as she was concerned.

“All you need to do is give the neck a quick jerk,” Ken clarified. “Something to snap the bone. It’s really not as difficult or as violent as you might think.”

***

Flash forward, a couple years, and Ken is a teenager. Ken admits that he was a particularly naughty kid, in his youth, and he met the back of his parents’ hands “More times than I can count. My parents were never ones to spare the rod.” As a teenager, it had been a number of years since any of his punishments were physical, but he upped the ante on one particular occasion. “I can’t remember what I did, but it was above and beyond the typical teenage tests of parental patience.”

“I’m going to have to give you the switch for this one,” his mother informed him. “You have to learn your lesson.”

“That’s all well and good,” Ken said, “but I’m a teenager now mom, and I’m a lot faster than you now.”

“You do what you have to do, and I’m going to do what I have to do,” she said, “but we both know how this ends.”

“We’ll see,” Ken said, as he eluded her and sped out of the house. Out on the farm, we can imagine that Ken found so many hiding places that he had a few favorites that he couldn’t wait to use on this day. He probably heard her calling out to him from his favorite hiding place on the farm, and he probably giggled when he heard the frustration in her voice, but she eventually found him. When she did, he managed to elude capture again, and he hid in another one of his time-tested hiding spots. When she found him again, he ran away and hid again. “I don’t know how long this lasted, but it lasted a pretty long time, hours I think, until I eventually got tired of running.  

“I had it coming, and we both knew it. I didn’t fall asleep, like the rooster, but at some point, I just tired out. To be honest with you, I didn’t see the correlations between her patient pursuits of the roosters and me until much later in life, and when I did, I realized it was pretty funny. She never gave up, she was like a patient predator, and I saw it with the chickens and the roosters. She just never gave up. It was just her way.” Ken’s mother did not further Ken’s punishment by lifting him over her head and spinning him, but Ken never forgot that day with the switch. “It hurt like hell. I still remember how bad that hurt to this day, which was kind of the point. She only swatted me a couple of times, and she was done when she thought I learned my lesson.”    

The Loud and the Quiet


Are you loud or quiet? Tough question, right? You don’t think it is? You think you know? You probably think you’re in the middle somewhere, somewhere a couple clicks south of loud. Lets me ask someone else, someone who knows you well, but not too well. Someone who’s close to you but not so close that they share your perspective on you. What do you think they’d say? 

I don’t know how anyone else approaches their matters, but when it comes to finding answers to deeply personal questions, my mind goes to children’s programming. Some cite thought-provoking authors like Shakespeare, Dickens, and others use The Bible. I find myself in Looney Tunes, Scooby Doo, and of course Sesame Street

In one of their most famous sketches, the Sesame Street team provided a psychological think piece that explored the differences between loud and quiet people. As anyone who knows Sesame Street can guess, the Muppets displayed exaggerated characteristics for comedic effect. After introducing the families, Gordon scrambles the family members together and asks us to determine which individuals belong to which family. Everything the individuals from the loud family did was loud, of course, and everything the quiet family did was quiet. The traits they displayed were comically obvious to the viewers at home, but the individuals in the experiment were surprised when we considered our choice easy. The families knew, because they were members of the loud family and the quiet family, but the individual members of the family probably didn’t think they were as loud or quiet as the rest of their family. Message received: we think we know how we are perceived, but we’re often wrong. 

I was just as shocked as those Muppets to learn that those who knew me well considered it just as obvious that I belonged to a quiet family. I never thought of myself as loud, but quiet, no. My guess is no one, especially children, considers themselves quiet. “Well, I’m not like Johnston over there, who never knows when to shut the hell up, but I’m not a quiet person.”   

Most of us don’t consider ourselves quiet people, but we concede we’re not loud either. If we were to chart our characteristics on a loud v. quiet graph, comparing ourselves to the people we know, we’d probably dot ourselves somewhere north of the point of origin, on the louder side. How shocked would we be to learn that our own friends and family members dotted us on the south side of the point, as generally quiet people? I knew loud people when I was young, and I knew I wasn’t that, but I was shocked to learn that those who know me best dropped my dot on the quieter side, and they were shocked that I was shocked. It still shocks me that I’m generally considered quieter than most, until I see a member of the loud family.

Have you ever met, or witnessed, such an exaggeration of the opposite that it changed how you thought of yourself? “I never thought of myself as a slob, until I met Darrin. He’s a couple clicks north of OCD.” “I thought I was something of an unemotional robot, until I met Adam.” I dotted myself somewhere on the loud side of the graph, until I witnessed a “so obvious, it was hilarious” member of the loud family in a restaurant I was seated in. I didn’t see her grab a napkin from the dispenser, but from everything I heard from her, in such a short time, I have to imagine that it would’ve been the loudest napkin retrieval I’ve ever heard.

Everything this woman did was loud. Her laughter drew our attention. Then, once she appeared on our radar, we realized how loud she spoke. The words that followed her laugh were part of her laughter, and we could excuse that as a natural flow from the laughter, but when she returned to normal conversation, we could hear everything she said. Her normal conversation volume was a whole bunch of decibel levels higher than any of the other patrons in restaurant.

Have you ever heard a laugh so loud that it could silence an entire restaurant? It wasn’t an “I’ll have what she’s having” laugh. It was a short, polite laugh that she unveiled to respond to a joke someone at her table told, as opposed to the raucous laughter that leads everyone to want to know the joke. It was more of a “What the hell was that?” laugh that can be a little unsettling for a couple of seconds, until we all go back to eat our food and engage in our own private conversations. 

Anytime we talk about loud people, we naturally flow into rude, sloppy, or obnoxious characterizations, but this woman didn’t appear to be any of the above. Some people go loud in an unnatural, over-the-top manner to dominate a room, but for others it just appears to be a more organic characteristic. This woman just had one of those voices, and laughs, that all but echoes throughout a sparsely populated diner.

I’ve sat with some naturally and unusually loud people. When they speak, I just assume everyone in the restaurant can hear every word they’re saying. I assume they can hear our small, personal and private conversations, and I imagine that they don’t want to hear it, but this person is so loud that they can’t help it. I was sure that that quiet couple, over in that quiet corner over there, was trying to block us out and enjoy a quiet meal together, but this guy was so loud that they can’t help but eavesdrop. We could be discussing the differences inherent in the Norwegian versus the German styles of knitting, and the rest of the restaurant hears everything he says, whether they want to or not.

When the person at my table is that loud, my shoulders instinctively cinch inwards as I attempt to camouflage myself with my chair to avoid associations with them, and I instinctually avoid dropping additions to any jokes to try to avoid making them laugh harder. Some part of me knows the patrons aren’t paying near as much attention as I fear, but I can’t help but think that it’s almost impossible for them to avoid listening in.

When I hear loud people, up close and from afar, I know I could never be with them romantically, no matter how loving, caring, or attractive they may be, because I am a private person who doesn’t enjoy drawing unwanted attention to myself. And I never thought I would be this guy. When I was younger, I thought they were the life of the party, and as far as I was concerned it was the louder the better. I don’t know if it was a crush, or a temporary romantic fling I had with the notion that louder is better, or if I was just having more fun in life when I was younger, because I thought louder people were more fun. 

Yet, nestled deep inside this comparative analysis is the idea that I’m not as quiet as some suggest. Loud people, generally speaking, have been loud their whole lives. They were probably loud babies, attention seeking children, and they never had to put much effort into it. It was just who they were, are, and always will be, and I have to think they don’t care for it. I suspect that when they grow up they find that they cannot stand loud people. Most of us, on subconscious levels, abhor what we regard as our most annoying traits. “I hate complainers,” the biggest complainers we’ve ever met say. “Whiners just annoy me,” they whine, and they’re not trying to be ironic or funny when they say it. If two loud people get together romantically, I have to think it won’t last long, because they will find it exhausting on some level that they can’t quite put their finger on. They might be attracted to one another for reasons they can’t explain, and the breakup might be just as inexplicable to them. “I don’t know why we didn’t work,” is something they might say. “Some people just don’t mesh.”

The only person they could see themselves with, long term, would be a quiet person who gives them the space to be who they are. Yet, if we pointed any of this out out to them, they would be so shocked that they’d refute it, “You think I’m loud? What about Billy?” It’s the whataboutism defense, but it’s not a ruse. They genuinely believe that they’re not loud, because they can always find someone louder. If we concede that they’re not as loud as Billy, we might add that they’re still louder than most. “Why do you say that?” they might ask, and we will have to be careful how we answer, because whenever we point out a trait generally perceived to be negative, most people will exaggerate it into an insult.

I didn’t think any less of the loud patron at the restaurant, as I’m able to block out most distractions around my table, but she did draw my attention away from the conversations I was having, and she did so on at least three different occasions. I don’t view it as a negative characteristic, or even a flaw, to be louder or quieter than the average person, but it’s all those other attachments we make, loud equals obnoxious and obnoxious equals rude, and quiet equals shy, insecure, and personality-free that leads us all to fight labels.   

The Sesame Street sketch was done with colorful Muppets characterizing with exaggeration, but if it were done with real people, individuals from both parties would be insulted to learn that we consider them so obvious and simple for us to decide which family they belong in. Most of us will concede that our dot on the graph sits somewhere around the point of origin, but we’re shocked when someone suggests we’re closer to an exaggeration than we know. We might never know, until we hear a humorous exaggeration. Even then, we might hold onto that exaggeration as an example we use to inform people that we’re not as loud, or quiet, as all those Muppets out there.

Bill Murray is Funny


“It can’t be that easy for him,” Steve Martin is reported to have said about friend and fellow actor Bill Murray. “It just can’t.”

Some guys are just funny. We hated them in high school, because they could effortlessly do, what the rest of us worked so hard to do: Make people laugh. Was there a super-secret formula to their success? Not that we could see. They could just lift an eyebrow in a particular situation, or smirk in a somewhat sarcastic, somewhat serious way, and put everyone on the floor. It was frustrating to those of us who’ve had to work our way through the dark and mysterious halls of funny to find that which they just had sort of attached to them at birth. Everyone wanted to be around them to hear what they might say next, and they hoped that he liked them half as much as they liked him. Why? Because he was funny, naturally and effortlessly, funny. “Some guys just are,” we might tell our kids facing similar circumstances, “and there’s nothing you can really do about it.”

Bill Murray, I have to imagine, was one of those guys we all hated in high school. He was the fifth of nine kids in the Murray family, and we can imagine that some of his comedy came from striving for some attention in such a crowded home, but we also have to imagine that comedy was a way of life in that Irish, Catholic home. Regardless how it came about, Bill Murray became one of the best comedic actors of his generation, and as his stint on Saturday Night Live shows displayed, he had great improvisational skills too, but I’m sure if we saw him attempt to do standup, we might see through his otherwise bullet-proof veneer. We’ve heard man-on-the-street stories of him engaging in improvisational acts that prove hilarious, but those are based on his good guy graciousness as a well-known celebrity. If we could somehow remove his status, and read through these stories, would he still be funny? Impossible to know, because they’re built on his iconography, as well as adding to it. Bill Murray movies, however, are almost all funny, some hilarious, and others are enshrined in our personal hall of fame of funny. 

What is the super-secret formula to Bill Murray’s success? My guess is that there isn’t one, and that might be his secret. Bill Murray does have an undeniable everyman appeal in that he’s not gorgeous, he doesn’t have great skin or hair, and while he’s not fat, no one would say he’s fit and trim. He is just a funny man. He is the embodiment of the annoying “It is what is” principle. I go to see his movies, because he’s funny. Why is he just as funny, or funnier, than his peers? “I don’t know, he just is.” 

Anytime we discuss the merits of one actor over another, there is always the question of presentation. Everyone from the lighting guy to the director and the editor plays some role in the way Bill Murray is presented to the audience. Murray, as has been reported, can be difficult to work, because he doesn’t feel like certain people know how to do their jobs. Does this have anything to do with the idea that Bill knows how all the players need to work together to form this presentation, because he’s seen quality players do it? If that’s the source of his reported obnoxiousness, then he obviously knows how to cultivate and foster his presentation, which is more effort than that which we accredited to him.

To everyone from the frustrated peer to the casual fan, it appears as though Bill Murray just coasts through his movies, and he isn’t even trying to be funny or dramatic, depending on the role he’s playing in a movie. He’s just Bill Murray in the way Tom Cruise is just Tom Cruise and Clint Eastwood is just Clint Eastwood. Bill Murray is also so consistently Bill Murray that we know what to expect from the productions he participates in, in the same manner we know what to expect in a Starbucks franchise or an AC/DC song. 

Now we have Steve Matin, one of Murray’s peers and colleagues, a man who began around the same time, has attempted to do as almost as many comedic and dramatic movies, and TV shows saying he basically agrees that it doesn’t appear as though Bill Murray is even trying. Regardless the actual number of movies, or the debate over comedic quality, the two can be viewed as colleagues in many ways, and he views Murray’s career as so effortless that it’s almost frustrating to him. 

It’s not our intention to belittle Steve Martin’s brilliant and influential career, as we think it speaks for itself, but he’s obviously worked very hard to achieve everything he has. Bill Murray, on the other hand, has achieved similar heights without seeming to try near as hard. We’re sure that Murray does his due diligence, research, mental preparation, and everything else it takes to make a quality production, but it doesn’t appear that way. In terms of perception alone, it appears as though Bill Murray rolls out of a hammock shortly after someone yells, “Action!” delivers his lines, and goes back to his hammock funnier than the rest of us will ever be no matter how much work and effort we put into it. 

If you have to try that hard, you’re probably not very funny, you might counter, and you’d be right, but we have all had to learn how to be funny. Learning the beats, rhythms, and everything else it takes to be funny is often done by osmosis. We don’t learn how to be funny in the same way we learn math, how to play baseball, or how to be an electrician. We pick up various elements of our presentation from our peers, that crazy-funny uncle, and our TV shows and movies. If you were around during the Seinfeld/Friends era, you saw how they influenced what it takes to be funny, and you picked up some tips and copied the actors’ mannerisms, their tones, and sometimes we stole the lines their writers wrote for them. They, and numerous others of course, defined funny in our era. Other eras had Abbot and Costello, The Honeymooners, and The Lucille Ball Show define funny. We’ve also had others tell us “That’s not funny!” and we adapted and adjusted to the current cultural norms of funny, and in some ways, it took some definition of work to do so. Others, it seemed, didn’t have to go through all those trials and errors. They just seemed to fall into funny, because that’s who they were.     

These funny people weren’t great looking either. Bill Murray, for example, does not have what we consider “leading man” looks. I’m not trying to diss the man, as he’s probably better looking than I am, but if we were to take headshots and show them to citizens of another culture, with the headshots of a couple of great looking character actors and ask them to, “Pick out the leading man in movies in our country,” Bill Murray might be the last chosen. I don’t know if he’s ugly, but he has an unmade bed look about him. He doesn’t have great skin, and he barely has any hair left, and he rarely changes facial expressions in the course of his movies, but movie directors flood his 1-800 number to try to get him to lead, or at least appear, in their movie.   

Most of us worked hard to be funny, shortly after we realized we didn’t have anything else going for us, and it was so frustrating for us to see someone roll out of bed funny. We can all identify with Steve Martin’s complaints, because we all know someone who achieves what we worked so hard for with such apparent effortlessness. If you’ve ever watched camp counselors, teenagers, try to MC an event, you’ve seen them try to work the audience (of camp goers and their parents), you’ve seen them try to act crazy, nuts, and fun, and you’ve walked away thinking, they could really use a natural speaker with some unusual levels of charisma, a Tripper (Bill Murray’s character in Meatballs). If you’ve ever seen a grown man sing with a full stage show, with dancers, pyrotechnics, and anything and everything to entertain an audience, you know that there are just some men and women who, armed with nothing but a microphone, can sing a song called Star Wars, and produce one of the funniest things ever seen. How does he do it? No one, not even one of the other funniest men of his generation, knows. He just does. When we watch it, we send out Steve Martin’s “It can’t be that easy!” complaint sent out to the unfairness of the universe.