Back when I was twelve or thirteen, my parents went out, leaving me home alone, and I thought this would be a great time to watch The Exorcist. It was on TNT or A&E, or maybe it was BRAVO, I can’t remember, point being, even with the commercial breaks, that movie scared the crap out of me. I think it was the last horror movie that gave me nightmares, and made me sleep with a light on. I still hold it’s the scariest I have ever seen.
So, when I saw that Rob Hill, through his Bad Movie Bible page, was adding The Exorcist to his “Borrowing Blockbuster” series, at first I was sure about this addition. First, I agree that The Exorcist is an amazingly influential movie, if not one of the best movies ever made. But, I couldn’t really think of any movies that ripped it off. That’s where Rob Hill comes in, and I will never doubt his judgement again.
(The short story “Family Lore” by Téa Obreht appeared in the November 9th, 2026 issue of The New Yorker.)
Illustration by Tabby Booth
I have been trying to find the source of this quote, and I believe that either Edward Albee or David Mamet said it, but it goes something like this: All modern drama revolves around the idea of deception, or characters hiding the truth from each other. (I do know that characters deceiving each other is like 99% of all the plots for situation comedies.) This dramatic device makes total sense; a character wants something, so they lie to others to achieve their goal. And there is another element, which is the penalty that will occur if the lie or deception is exposed. This is the risk, which frames how powerful the character’s want is, but it also shows what will happen if the lie falls apart, which you know, creates peril and more importantly, drama. It’s a simple device, and in regard to Téa Obreht’s “Family Lore,” a device whose execution in this story was fumbled, leaving the story on flimsy legs.
“Family Lore” does play a bit like a sit-com. It’s the story of a family returning from the hospital with their new born baby. The husband bumbles his way through issues, trying to solve them as best as he can, all the while trying to keep these issues from his wife. At first, he struggles at finding an inconsequential baby hat that he lost, but then it gets more complicated when he tries to recover a bat, that may have bitten his dog, so he can send it to Animal Protection to test for rabies. See, a rather sit-com like premise, which implies opportunities for complications and comedy. Yet, the husband’s motivations are never solidly concrete in the story. You could make assumptions about his motivation, but as far as I could tell, there was only one line in the third paragraph of the piece; “But his job was to keep the world at bay.” And this line was regarding the husband trying to keep the wife calm when things go bad. Sure, it works as his motivation, but it’s flimsy. I have to say that this is an example of why a writer should “show” and not “tell” the reader. As in, what happens when the wife gets upset? Did it happen in the past, and if so, what was the outcome? How did that outcome affect the husband, let alone the relationship between the two? Obreht does “show” other situations with characters, the neighbors for example, which explain why the husband treats them the way he does. So, I am confused why this fundamental motivation of the story is resigned to just one line.
This flimsy motivation choice by Obreht does have a ripple effect as the story progresses. As the stakes get raised in the story, and the husband stumbles into more and more lies, I began to question why he was doing this to himself? I understood the lies toward the downstairs neighbor, but why was he lying to Animal Protection, or the upstairs neighbor, or the party goers, and especially his wife. It appeared that if he told the truth to these people, he would have gotten what he wanted easier. It started to build a resentment, and a frustration in me toward the husband. Honestly, if he picked up his phone and told his wife everything, I think it would have solved his problems with a minimum of effort. So, why was he lying?
It’s as if “Family Lore” was almost there as a story. Which is too bad, because I don’t think The New Yorker publishes very many humorous stories. And it did have all the pieces to be a good one; it was building toward something, I enjoyed how the piece ended, and most importantly, it was funny. It reminds me of another old adage when it comes to a character dealing with a situation that keeps getting more and more out of control; for it all to work, the audience has to understand that the character fully believes that they will still succeed. When you can’t figure out why a character is doing what they’re doing, it’s hard to have confidence that their success is even important.
(I did a lot of foolish things, that I really didn’t mean…)
It’s candy season, and have you seen the price of candy? (Honestly…) Sure we have, and that is why I am very excited for the amazingly huge haul of candy that my daughter is about to bring home in the next twenty-four hours. (And here comes diabeetus…) There is no way on God’s green earth that my kid is going to eat a bucket of candy, and as a decently responsible parent, I should not allow my kid to eat a bucketful of candy. Which means the wife and I will slowly eat candy out of her bucket for the next few weeks. Which will be all the candy she hates. I just once she’d leave me a roll of Sprees, or some chewy Sweettarts. A Rollo would be cool. Some of those mini Crackle bars hit the spot.
We have a family theme this year, and it’s Gilmore Girls. The wife and daughter will be Lorelai and Rory, andI get to finish out the look by going as Luke. I am happy to do this, not only because it makes my wife and daughter very happy, but because this might be the easiest costume I have ever had to wear. I just went to my closet, and got a pair of jeans, thermal shirt, flannel shirt, grabbed my army coat, and turned the navy ball cap I always wear around, and Boom! I’m dressed up as Luke.
Happy Halloween, ya’ll! Don’t do anything too crazy. Have fun with the kids, drive slow, and give Friday the 13th: Part 3 a watch. It’s not a good movie, but it is a fun movie. And it’s the movie where Jason gets his hockey mask from the guy named Shelly. That’s important to remember, because one of you will be at a Halloween trivia night, and that question will come up.
We are down to the final two weeks before election day on November 3rd. I don’t know what it’s like where you live, but even in Very Blue New York City, the political campaign ads are now running full steam ahead and nonstop. I will say that the ads do make me wish that the election was over, so we can just move on.
Political ads have never made me want to vote for or against anyone. But they must work, right? I mean, why would anyone spend this much money on something that doesn’t work. Honestly, I have never known a person who was swayed by a political ad. Then again, maybe these ads are meant for me, or the people I know.
What I do know is that they have had an effect on my kid. Not that these ads have made her for or against a candidate. No, these ads have made her create a “politician” character that she rolls out when one of these commercials comes on. She tells us how she’s not a rubber stamp for Trump, or that the will stand up to Trump. How she’ll help lower or electricity bills by stopping data centers, or stopping the war in Iran to lower out gas costs. The kid takes on this weird serious tone when she plays this “politician” character, and defiantly lets us know that she approves this ad.
I would like to say that this political season has caused me and the kid to have conversations about the state of affairs in our city, state, and our country, but that would be a lie. The wife and I have tried to instill in the kid the importance in voting, and we have taking her many times to our local polling location so she can see us vote, and see what the process is like. That voting is out civic duty, one of our fundamental responsibilities as Americans, and how the right to vote hasn’t always been extended to all Americans, and thus we must be the stewards so that franchisement remains extended to all Americans.
Politicians kind’a do suck, and there are very few good ones out there. This time of year, it seems like all of them are just the worsts and will do the worst if they get elected. But, I believe that the kid is getting it, you know. Figuring out that the ads are kind’a stupid, but elections and voting are important, and a necessary part of being an adult and a citizen of this country.
I would like to believe that I am not a contrarian. That if I don’t like or enjoy something, it’s because I have a good reason for it.
In that vein, I have never been a fan of “Waterfalls” by TLC. I have nothing against TLC, I think they’re a solid group. And I fully admit that “Waterfalls” is a good pop-music song, and deserves all the recognition and alcolades it has earned.
But I just never liked the song. Sorry.
Yet, “Waterfalls” does have have a hell of a hook in its chorus. When I hear it, like yesterday at Trader Joe’s, it just lodges in my head. Which means I am on day two of humming that song.
