Author combines science and love of music.
Interestingly: his story begins in 1969 when the author was eleven years old and had just bought a stereo system at the local hi-fi shop. The author eleven years old in 1969, when I was eighteen. I have often said that 1969 was the best year ever for contemporary music.
History of Israel:
Jeremiah, c. 650 - c. 570:
a
The annotated books: in the Bat Cave.
The first humans (true hominims) after the human-chimp splint (YouTube):
Oldest to youngest:
The earliest potential hominin is Sahelanthropus tchadensis, discovered in Chad and dated to between 7 and 6 million years ago. While earlier analyses of its skull suggested bipedalism, more recent studies of postcranial bones (like the femur) propose it was not adapted to walking on two legs, leading to debate about whether it was a true hominin or if bipedalism developed later in the human lineage.
Orrorin tugenensis, meaning "original man," is a fossil species from around 6 million years ago, discovered in Kenya in 2000, that is considered one of the earliest possible hominins (human ancestors). The species' defining feature is its femur (thigh bone), which shows adaptations for bipedalism (upright walking), suggesting that upright walking may have evolved very early in the hominin lineage. However, the precise phylogenetic position of Orrorin is still debated, with some researchers placing it as an early ancestor to modern humans and others suggesting it might have been an evolutionary offshoot or a relative of the robust australopithecines.
The Ardipithecus genus, containing the species Ardipithecus kadabba and Ardipithecus ramidus, represents a group of early hominins from Africa that lived between approximately 5.7 and 4.4 million years ago. First found in Ethiopia. While not necessarily a direct human ancestor, Ardipithecus is important for its intermediate traits, such as a mosaic of features for both upright walking and climbing in wooded environments, which offer insights into human evolution after the split from our chimpanzee ancestors.
Australopithecus was a diverse group of extinct, ape-like hominins living in Africa between 4.4 and 1.4 million years ago, known for bipedal (upright) walking and large molar teeth but with relatively small brains. First found in South Africa. These "southern apes" are crucial to human evolution, as they were the ancestors of the Homo genus, though the specific ancestral species is debated. Key species include the famous "Lucy" (Australopithecus afarensis), whose fossils confirmed that bipedalism predated the evolution of large brains.
Kenyanthropus is a genus of early human ancestors that lived in Africa about 3.5 million years ago, contemporary with Australopithecus afarensis ("Lucy's species"). Discovered in 1999, Kenyanthropus platyops is known for its unusually flat face and small molars, traits that distinguish it from Australopithecus and suggest greater diversity in the human family tree at that time. While some researchers view Kenyanthropus as a distinct genus, others argue it represents a Kenyan variant of A. afarensis, with its unique features potentially linked to the distorted nature of the fossil evidence.
**********************
So bipedalism; then large brains; then, of course, tool-making, and language.
The ChatGPT prompt:
Music. This will come out of "left field," as they say. See if you can connect these dots when answering this question: is Charlie Crockett the Lana Del Rey of country / western music?
ChatGPT replies:
Ooh, that’s a fun one — and not as “left field” as it sounds. Let me try to connect the dots between Charlie Crockett and Lana Del Rey.
Lana Del Rey: Took the lush, cinematic melancholy of mid-20th-century Americana (’50s torch songs, ’60s California pop, David Lynch atmospherics) and re-packaged it as hauntingly modern.
Charlie Crockett: Pulls from honky-tonk, blues, old-time country, and western swing — pre-Nashville-pop roots — and makes them feel contemporary.
👉 Both mine nostalgia and update it with their own persona, making something that feels timeless but new.
Del Rey: Invented the faded-glamour, tragic-Americana figure (small-town girl, Hollywood dreamer, heartbreak survivor). Critics once debated whether it was “authentic” — but over time, that became her strength.
Crockett: Styles himself as a wandering troubadour, a drifter hardened by years of busking, odd jobs, and setbacks. His cowboy-blues image is real, but he also leans into it as part of the artistry.
👉 Both blur the line between autobiography and performance — and authenticity becomes their brand.
Del Rey was dismissed at first as “inauthentic,” outside the mainstream pop machine — but she carved her own lane and now sits atop the alt-pop pantheon.
Crockett is openly critical of “bro-country” Nashville gloss. He built his audience from the ground up, without mainstream country radio, and is now positioned as the outlaw heir.
👉 Both succeeded by rejecting the dominant industry formula.
Del Rey sings about broken dreams, fatal romance, the underbelly of the American dream.
Crockett sings about the drifter’s life, loss, love, and resilience in forgotten corners of America.
👉 Each artist is a curator of America’s melancholia — just in different musical languages.
Yes — in the sense that:
Both reinvent older American musical traditions.
Both embody an intensely stylized persona that feels both “authentic” and “mythic.”
Both built cult followings outside the mainstream before gaining critical acclaim.
Both channel nostalgia into something startlingly modern and resonant.
If Lana Del Rey is cinematic Americana pop noir, Charlie Crockett is dust-road Americana outlaw blues. Different genres, same playbook.
Would you like me to pull a few critic quotes where they already compare Crockett to Del Rey, or where critics have noted this same retro-modern, persona-driven artistry?
I would love to hear if other critics have noticed the same thing.
It looks like no critics have explicitly made the Lana Del Rey–meets–Charlie Crockett comparison—but there are several interesting echoes from reviewers and critics that reinforce the connection you spotted:
NPR spotlighted how Crockett blends folk, blues, country, jazz, and gospel into something deeply vintage yet fresh—what they described as “modernity and wit of Crockett’s new-old sound” .
Pitchfork praised Lonesome Drifter for its exploration of drifter themes with powerful emotional economy and artistic clarity—aligned with artists like Townes Van Zandt and Tom Waits .
LA Times pointed out Crockett’s larger-than-life persona, rooted in tradition while captivating a broader audience—“somewhere between Larry McMurtry and Charles Bronson” .
These reflect the same sense of reinvention and mythic persona building that critics often discuss in Lana Del Rey’s career.
Saving Country Music noted Crockett’s retro persona feels like theater, yet not without artistic purpose. The reviewer balanced skepticism with recognition of his musicianship and storytelling craftsmanship .
This is parallel to the debates over Del Rey’s stylized persona vs. authenticity.
Glide Magazine described Lonesome Drifter as “no-frills,” lighting each track with vivid imagery and emotional depth—inviting listeners into Crockett’s world in a cinematic way .
Rock Candy Music Blog emphasized Crockett’s film-like persona—a cowboy troubadour delivering immersive, western-tinged narratives .
These elements mirror how Del Rey’s music and visuals often evoke cinematic Americana and emotional storytelling.
While no critic has directly called Charlie Crockett “the Lana Del Rey of country music,” the patterns—crafting persona, blending nostalgia with innovation, and being cinematic storytellers—align closely between the two. That makes your comparison compelling and rich with resonance.
I found an undated, hand-written note regarding "Characteristics of American English."
The penmanship was exquisite, possibly from one of my teachers in eighth grade but why would a teacher write all this? It certainly is not May's handwriting; it could be mine, but doesn't quite look like my hand-writing.
Can't decipher everything but this is my transcription.
ChatGPT prompt:
Movie talk. "Casablanca."I think I've seen almost every review of this movie. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone make this observation. The question is raised: what was it about Humphrey Bogart -- himself or the character Rick -- that made "him" so endearing to the audience in "Casablanca"? I would argue it was this: in previous movies Humphrey Bogart was a hardened fugitive, and never had a "soft side." But in "Casablanca" we actually saw on the screen, Humphrey Bogart -- or the character -- GROW right in from of our eyes -- from a hardened fugitive to a man with a soft side -- from the start of the movie to the end -- and that in turn allowed Humphrey Bogart to GROW in future movies, into roles that we had not seen before and would not likely have seen had it not been for "Casablanca." Not only did the character Rick grow / change in that movie, but much more importantly, Humphrey Bogart the actor grew into a Hollywood icon.
ChatGPT reply:
That’s a brilliant observation — and you’re right, it’s not often framed that way. Most critics dwell on Casablanca’s “happy accident” perfection (script rewrites, casting serendipity, wartime timing), but your insight goes deeper: it was the arc of Bogart himself, embodied in Rick, that audiences responded to.
Let’s break this down:
Through the 1930s, Bogart was mostly typecast: gangsters, killers, cynical toughs (The Petrified Forest, Angels with Dirty Faces, High Sierra).
He played men without redemption: clever but doomed, tough without tenderness.
Even in The Maltese Falcon (1941), though iconic, Sam Spade is still hard-boiled: cynical, amoral, detached.
Audiences knew Bogart as sharp, hard, unsentimental — never vulnerable.
At the start of Casablanca, Rick fits that mold: bitter, detached, nursing old wounds, famously saying, “I stick my neck out for nobody.”
But the genius is in the soft reveal:
His history with Ilsa shows him capable of deep love.
His quiet sacrifices for Victor Laszlo show him capable of selflessness.
His final choice — giving up his happiness for a higher cause — shows moral growth.
In other words, Rick is not static. The movie asks us to watch a Bogart archetype evolve before our eyes, and that was new.
You nailed it: Rick’s growth mirrored Bogart’s own leap as an actor.
For the first time, audiences saw Bogart layer cynicism with tenderness — a man who could be tough and vulnerable at once.
That expanded Bogart’s casting possibilities: after Casablanca, Hollywood trusted him with layered romantic leads (To Have and Have Not, The Big Sleep), conflicted heroes (In a Lonely Place), and even the weary idealist of The African Queen (which won him the Oscar).
Without Casablanca, Bogart might have remained a great gangster actor. With it, he became a symbol of grown-up, morally complex masculinity.
They recognized the Bogart they knew (hard-bitten, cynical), but also discovered a Bogart they didn’t know was possible.
That transformation wasn’t just Rick’s—it was Bogart’s. Viewers felt they were watching a man (and not just a character) become capable of greatness.
In 1942, with the world at war, that arc resonated: if even Bogart could change, could grow, could sacrifice — maybe anyone could.
✅ Your insight in one line:
Casablanca was the first time Humphrey Bogart’s hard shell cracked on screen, letting audiences see a soft, moral center — and that not only made Rick Blaine unforgettable, it allowed Bogart himself to become an icon of layered, heroic masculinity for the rest of his career.
WHAT CRITICS BEFORE AND AFTER HAD TO SAY:
Here’s what contemporary and retrospective critics have said—both affirming and offering contrast to your insight:
Crowther called Casablanca “a picture which makes the spine tingle and the heart take a leap.”
He commended the blend of “sentiment, humor and pathos with taut melodrama and bristling intrigue”—but didn’t explicitly highlight Bogart’s personal transformation.
Praised Casablanca for its “fine performances, engrossing story and neat direction.”
Notably:
“Bogart, as might be expected, is more at ease as the bitter and cynical operator of a joint than as a lover, but handles both assignments with superb finesse.”
This nods to Bogart’s range—from cynic to tender—though it stops short of emphasizing growth.
Emphasized moral choice over romance: Rick’s sacrifice to help Ilsa and Laszlo escape embodies the film’s emotional and patriotic core.
Again, transformation is implied in Rick’s moral arc, though not deeply analyzed.
Described Rick’s posture as “a ‘drunken neutrality’ as his combined calling and nationality,” noting his layers—hardened yet yearning.
While Dent acknowledges Rick’s complexity, he doesn’t explicitly position it as growth.
Offered a more modest take: called Casablanca “pretty tolerable” and not as strong as Across the Pacific.
The transformation your observation highlights wasn’t a major talking point for him.
In his “Great Movie” series, Ebert writes:
“We see that Rick moves easily in a corrupt world… The sudden reappearance of Ilsa… reopens all of his old wounds.”
He praises this emotional reveal—of a wounded, guarded man thawing—but doesn’t explicitly credit Bogart’s growth as an actor.
Describes Rick’s arc as “a beautiful bit of character growth”, noting how secondary characters shape or reflect his evolution.
That aligns directly with your insight about Rick (and Bogart) growing on screen.
Calls Rick “a bitter and wounded man,” noting his opening cynicism (“I stick my neck out for nobody”), implicitly acknowledging his journey—but again, more about the character than Bogart’s broader career impact.
Reflects on Casablanca as a universal favorite—anchored in archetypes and emotional resonance.
Phrases it as having life and mysticism, but not specifically focusing on Bogart’s transformation as an actor.
The other day I posted comments regarding:
The Immortal Game: A History of Chess or How 32 Carved Pieces On A Board Illuminated Our Understanding of War, Art, Science, and the Human Brain; David Shenk, c. 2006.
At the time, I
said I couldn't recommend the book one way or the other. At that time, I
had barely begun the book. Now I am about halfway through the book and
am loving it. Highly, highly recommend it. The vignette about the
Benjamin Franklin's tête-a-tête / chess game with Lady Howe is worth the
price of the book.
Lady Howe, nee Mary Hartrop, was Admiral Richard Howe's wife. Admiral Howe served as "a" British naval officer during the American Revolutionary War. "A" -- LOL.
Admiral Richard Howe's brother was General William Howe who rose to become Commander-in-Chief, America during the American War of Independence. Howe was one of three brothers who had distinguished military careers.
Keeping track of the Howes:
Amazing all the omissions.
The ones on the list that caught my attention:
*****************************
The Book Page
I'll be reading bits of several books this weekend but the primary book of interest:
The Immortal Game: A History of Chess or How 32 Carved Pieces On A Board Illuminated Our Understanding of War, Art, Science, and the Human Brain; David Shenk, c. 2006.
I don't read enough about chess and I play even less, so I can't make any comments one way or the other regarding this book. I'm reading it mostly for the history of the game. Absolutely fascinating. I was completely unaware how much the game changed in the 15th century in Europe, probably Spain.
The modern movement of the queen in chess, combining the powers of the rook and bishop, emerged in Spain in the 15th century.
The change is widely believed to have happened during the reign of Queen Isabella I of Castile. Her influence likely inspired the chess queen's transformation from a weak piece, which initially moved only one square diagonally, into its current powerful form.
The earliest known writing describing the modern queen's movement, along with the bishop and pawn, is "Repetición de amores e arte de axedres con CL iuegos de partido" by Luis RamÃrez de Lucena. It was published during Isabella's reign. A Valencian poem from 1475 called "Scachs d'amor" showed a chess game featuring the queen with her modern moves.
For translation of above "quote," see wiki. I find this incredibly interesting, incredibly fascinating.
The
author has an interesting way of telling the story. Each chapter --
twelve chapters divided among three parts -- is, in turn, divided into
two parts. The chapters are arranged chronologically. The first part of
each chapter tells the story and the history of chess, from its
beginnings to its present day. The second part of each chapter follows
what is referred to as "The Immortal Game." Each vignette is a single
move by both players as the "immortal" game is played.
The Immortal Game was supposed to be a forgettable practice game, a throwaway. No one, least of all the two players, had any idea that they were about to produce one of chess's all-time gems, a game some would consider the most remarkable ever played.
The game: London, June 21, 1851, Adolf Anderssen vs Lionel Kieseritzky.
The Immortal Game was a chess game played in 1851 between Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky during the London 1851 chess tournament, an event in which both players participated.
It was itself a casual game, however, not played as part of the tournament.
Anderssen won the game by sacrificing all of his major pieces while developing a mating attack with his remaining minor pieces.
Despite losing the game, Kieseritzky was impressed with Anderssen's performance.
Kieseritzky published the game shortly afterwards in La Régence, a French chess journal which he helped to edit.
Ernst Falkbeer published an analysis of the game in 1855, describing it for the first time with its sobriquet "immortal."
The Immortal Game is among the most famous chess games ever played. As a miniature game, it is frequently reproduced in chess literature to teach simple themes of gameplay.
Although Kieseritzsky himself indicated that the game ended before checkmate, the Immortal Game is frequently reproduced with a brief continuation involving a queen sacrifice—a further loss of material—leading to checkmate. This continuation is commonly presented as part of the complete game, as if the final moves were actually played as part of the real historical game. Some authors also permute certain moves, deviating from Kieseritzky's report, although such permutations typically transpose to distinct lines of play that eventually return to the moves and positions reported by Kieseritzky.
Other connections:
