When Roger Ebert took ill last fall, I thought it would pass in a week like his previous cancer scares, and he'd barely mention it. Then he didn't come back to work for months, and I thought he'd announce his retirement, because it's really hard to go back to doing something full-time when you've rested too long, even if you love it like he does. Then he announced that he'd be present at his annual film festival this month, and I thought the recovery was done and he was about to return. Now he's facing the press looking like a man transformed and I don't know what to think any more. (link) Academically speaking, he may be a big fish in a small pond, but I've always considered him one of the wittiest and most accessible of writers in any medium, and he seems like a warm and generous person in private. Whatever else his health has in store for him, I wish him the best, and look forward to his professional comeback in any form.


Two Replies to Roger Ebert Should Lay Off the Facial Reconstructive Surgery

Jackie Mason | April 26, 2007
[hidden by author request]

Scott Hardie | May 7, 2007
Just to be clear, since I've heard myself misinterpreted by several people: I don't think Ebert looks bad in these new photos. I just think he looks different, very different, from his traditional image in the press. Maybe I've been lucky in this regard, but I have rarely seen a person transform that much. (The title of this blog post sounds insulting, but I was just borrowing the structure of a South Park episode title.)


Logical Operator

The creator of Funeratic, Scott Hardie, blogs about running this site, losing weight, and other passions including his wife Kelly, his friends, movies, gaming, and Florida. Read more »

Where the Hell I Have Been All Year, Part I

It's been a long hibernation and I'm ready to come out of the cave and see daylight again. For various reasons, I wouldn't talk about why I wasn't around much, and I didn't enjoy being secretive like that, especially since all three were sources of happiness for me. Anyway, I promised recently that I was about to come out of the closet concerning the three things that have occupied so much of my 2006, and it's time now. Go »

No Disrespect

One of my pet peeves is people saying, "Have you ever noticed that the phrase 'no disrespect' is immediately followed by something disrespectful?" Well, YEAH. That's the point of the phrase. Go »

Help Needed

Our friend Bill used to work USF tech support in the early nineties, the days of Windows 3.1 and 28.8k modems. Go »

Ketchup Packets

I was verbally mugged by a former coworker today, a guy I used to think of as a friend some time ago. I had the displeasure of laying him off last year, and after months of struggling to get by with nothing but condiments in his fridge, he started a blog to vent his frustration at me and a few other coworkers he disliked. The comments are very mean-spirited, from professional criticisms about my managerial competence and decision-making, to personal and apparently very nasty jokes about my weight and appearance. Go »

Ten Things I Learned While Kelly's Parents Pat & Russ Spent a Week Visiting Us

• Florida reminds me of Dave Barry's quip that vacationing in Britain is great because you meet people from entirely different states. We stopped a woman to take our picture; she was visiting from New Jersey and her daughter beside her was from California. The only local we met warned us what bridge not to jump off for swimming because the water is shark-infested. Go »

All King and No Kubrick Make Jack a Dull Boy

I recently got to talking with friends who liked The Shining, both Stephen King's novel and Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation of it, but who were unaware that King has always loathed the movie, despite its reputation as one of the best horror films ever made. It's hard to imagine that a writer doesn't know his own work better than someone interpreting it, but I think this is one of those rare cases where the writer is just too close to the story to get it. Here are three reasons why I think Kubrick's film better understands the material, and is better overall, than King's novel: 1) In King's version, Jack Torrance is a fundamentally decent man who wouldn't hurt a fly, but who is down on his luck and desperate. Go »