None of which is here nor there, I just thought it was a neat vintage photo and wanted to share. It appears in a number of places around the 'net, but I grabbed it from the Twitter feed of Todd Lapin, a.k.a. the proprietor of the excellent Telstar Logistics blog, which I have been following for a number of years. Thanks, as always, for finding such interesting stuff, Todd!
April 2012 Archives
None of which is here nor there, I just thought it was a neat vintage photo and wanted to share. It appears in a number of places around the 'net, but I grabbed it from the Twitter feed of Todd Lapin, a.k.a. the proprietor of the excellent Telstar Logistics blog, which I have been following for a number of years. Thanks, as always, for finding such interesting stuff, Todd!
The Enterprise/SCA pairing landed at JFK International, where the shuttle will be removed from the 747 (a process called "demating") and stored in a hanger for the next several weeks. Sometime in June, she'll be transported by barge down the Hudson River to Intrepid, where a crane will lift her into her new place of honor atop the old carrier. My understanding is that the Intrepid organization is trying to get the permits and funding together to construct a permanent building in which to house Enterprise, a science and technology center which will presumably be somewhere nearby the ship. In the meantime, though, the prototype shuttle will be covered by a kind of inflatable tent to protect her from the elements. I was happy to learn that; I have no idea what would happen to a space shuttle's heat-shield tiles after sitting out in the weather for a year or two, but I can't imagine it would be pretty.
Funny thing... Discovery's final flight depressed the hell out of me, because it really did seem like a funeral march with a 747 filling the role of a hearse. But seeing Enterprise up there in the sky atop a jumbo jet again, for the first time in decades... well, that was actually kind of a thrill. For her, the only shuttle that never flew in space, it was a sort of homecoming, one last day in the sun, one last chance to stretch her wings. I almost expected her to cast free of the jet and glide into JFK on her own, just as she did during the approach and landing tests she performed over Edwards Air Force Base back in the late '70s. How cool would that have been? Impractical fancy, of course. Her systems were long ago frozen in place, I'm sure. But I enjoyed imagining it.
Incidentally, if you'd like to bring back memories of the exhilarating early days of the shuttle program -- or see it for the first time, if you're too young to have been there yourself -- some kind soul has uploaded a complete recording of the live CBS coverage of Enterprise's first free flight and landing way back on August 12, 1977. Part 2 is probably the most interesting to casual viewers, as that's the segment when she finally separates from the SCA, but I found Part 1 pretty entertaining as well, for the way Morton Dean, the on-air personality narrating the coverage, tries to explain exactly how this shuttle thing is supposed to work and generally kills time until the actual test begins. Watch for some truly primitive animation, and soak in the general enthusiasm and the sense that what we were about to see was an unprecedented harbinger of... the future! The earnest anticipation in Dean's voice as the "pushover maneuver" approaches nearly breaks my heart. It's so different from the blase attitude we eventually developed toward these machines, and from the thinly veiled contempt so many hold for them today. (Interestingly, Dean does end the segment by pointing out that, even in those heady days, the shuttle had its critics who didn't believe it would be worth the cost, or that the "hundreds of flights" planned by NASA would be necessary or useful. I was only seven or eight when these ALTs took place, too unsophisticated and too excited myself about a new spaceship -- named after the Star Trek spaceship, no less! -- to be aware of these detractors, so I was somewhat shocked to hear their concerns voiced so early in the program.)
Oh, and as a bonus, the recording even includes vintage TV commercials: Mariette Hartley and James Garner shilling for Polaroid cameras, Florence Henderson pushing Tang (what else in the middle of a story about astronauts?), and of course the good-natured cornpone that was used to sell Countrytime Lemonade. I remembered all of these ads within the first five seconds of them. Ah, the '70s... such different times. So much better in many respects...
Seacrest has become so entwined with Clark's story that when news of [Clark's] death broke, it was hard not to picture Seacrest kneeling in some dark rite, screaming to the heavens as Clark's power possessed him, "Highlander"-style.
I long suspected Dick Clark must have been immortal, so, no, that's really not such a difficult thing to imagine at all. Hmm.
Looking through the photos of today's events, one thing that struck my eye is how shabby Discovery looks alongside the spotlessly white Enterprise. That's deliberate, apparently; my understanding is that the Smithsonian specifically asked NASA not to do any restoration or clean-up work on the most-used orbiter in the shuttle fleet, because they wanted to show the public what a real, workaday spacecraft looks like after it comes back from a mission. Personally, I think that's a good call. I like the patina; it makes her look authentic, which Enterprise didn't quite pull off when I saw her in person last year. It'll be interesting to see if Atlantis and Endeavour are presented differently when they reach their respective final resting places.
And I guess that's about all the remains to be said about Orbiter Vehicle Designation OV-103, more commonly known as space shuttle Discovery, the third production model and the oldest surviving example of them. From here on, she's just a tourist attraction. If you'll bear with me for a moment, though, I would like to climb up on my soapbox again and respond to something that's been bugging me.
- The Raven (April 27) -- John Cusack plays Edgar Allan Poe trying to stop a serial killer who's using Poe's own stories as inspiration. In what universe does that not sound cool?
- The Pirates! Band of Misfits (April 27) -- Animated flick from Aardman Studios, the people behind Chicken Run and the Wallace and Gromit shorts. I love their stuff, and this one looks like more of the same old fun.
- The Avengers (May 4) -- This ambitious multi-film/franchise crossover event had my box-office dollars from the moment Samuel L. Jackson appeared as Nick Fury in Iron Man. The fact that it's starting to look as if it's actually good is just icing on the cake.
- Dark Shadows (May 11) -- Lots of folks seem to be down on Tim Burton these days, but I usually enjoy his films at least on the first viewing, and this reboot of the old supernatural soap opera of the 1970s looks really funny to me.
- Men in Black 3 (May 25) -- The trailer looks like more of the same old MiB schtick we saw in the first two, but I liked them a lot, so that's not necessarily a bad thing. And Josh Brolin's impersonation of Tommy Lee Jones looks to be uncanny, and worth the price of admission itself.
- Prometheus (June 8) -- Director Ridley Scott swears up and down this film is not a prequel to Alien, but I ain't buying it, and so I'm pretty ambivalent about this one. Alien is one of my all-time favorite movies, in large part because so much of what happens in it remains a mystery at the end, and frankly I don't want that to be ruined with unsatisfying (and unrequested) explanations. I don't want to know where the aliens come from, or really anything at all about the wrecked spaceship that the good crew of the Nostromo will investigate someday. As far as I'm concerned, those things don't matter. Nevertheless, there's so much buzz growing around Prometheus, I imagine I'll probably give in and see it anyhow. I suppose if anyone could return to the Alien universe and make anything worth watching, it'd be the guy who first took us there. (Of course, it would help if the late screenwriter Dan O'Bannon were involved, too...)
- Rock of Ages (June 15) -- The Girlfriend loves musicals and has been trying for years to find one I'll love too. Between Alec Baldwin as a sleazy nightclub owner, Catherine Zeta-Jones as, well, anything as long as she's in it, and a soundtrack featuring all the lame old '80s hard-rock music I love, this just may be the one she's been looking for. I'm totally stoked for this one and I won't apologize for it.
- Brave (June 22) -- The latest animated film from Pixar, set in the 10th century Scottish Highlands. 'Nuff said.
- The Dark Knight Rises (July 20) -- Meh. I've decided I really don't care for Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan's take on Batman, but there's a trilogy to be squared, and I know some of this one was shot just outside my friend Cranky Robert's office in Pittsburgh, so I imagine I'll see it eventually just out of curiosity.
- Total Recall (August 3) -- I know, I know, it's a remake, and I'm the dude who loathes remakes. But this looks like a somewhat different take on the original source material (a short story by Philip K. Dick) rather than a direct rip of the '91 Schwarzenegger film, so with luck it'll turn out like John Carpenter's The Thing vs. Howard Hawks' The Thing from Another World -- both good films based on the same source, but not really very much like each other. Maybe I'm rationalizing because the trailer looked better than I expected.
- Looper (September 28) -- A time-travel action thriller starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt -- yes, that's the kid from the TV sitcom Third Rock from the Sun, now all grown up and playing a mob enforcer -- and Bruce Willis as Gordon-Levitt's future self. I hadn't even heard of this until a couple weeks ago when a buddy sent me the trailer. It looks good!
- The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (December 14) -- It could be a disaster, I know, trying to integrate a children's book with the much darker and more sophisticated Lord of the Rings saga, and also splitting that relatively short volume across two movies... but what the hell. At the very least, it'll be nice to see Ian McKellen as Gandalf again.
Quite a sight, isn't it? That's space shuttle Discovery hitching a ride atop a specially modified 747 known in NASA-speak as the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, or SCA. I've always loved this eccentric element of the whole shuttle system, the only really practical way to move the orbiters around the country in between spaceflights. In some ways, I find this pairing as awe-inspiring as the shuttle's complete rocket stack. It's so unlikely, so ungainly, so... weird... to see two aircraft mated together like this. And they're both so large. It's incredible to think they could even get off the ground like this. And yet, they did, many, many times.
If you don't know it, the big building in the background is Discovery's new home, the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center (or, as our Loyal Reader Cranky Robert likes to call it, the Uzzy-Wuzzy). It's an extension of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum located just outside Washington, DC, near Dulles Airport. The Discovery and her SCA flew up there from Kennedy Space Center in Florida this morning, taking the time to do a few "victory laps" around the familiar DC landmarks. Now, this afternoon, the Web is crowded with cool photos from the flyovers, of the shuttle/SCA over the National Mall and the Capitol Building, the Washington Monument and the Jefferson Memorial, and of course countless American flags. But I thought this one was more interesting than the obvious "photo ops."
One of these shuttle ferry flights passed through the Salt Lake Valley a few years ago, and the shuttle/SCA pair even overnighted on the tarmac at SLC International, but for some stupid reason, I didn't make the time to see them. That's something I will forever regret now that it's all over, just as I regret never seeing a launch or landing in person either. There are only going to be just two more ferry flights: one next week when shuttle Enterprise is transferred from the Udvar-Hazy to the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum in New York City, and then the final one in September when Endeavour is sent to California. The Girlfriend has suggested we go see one of the ferry flyovers. Actually, she suggested a couple days ago we go see this one, the last flight of Discovery; she said we ought to just hop on a plane and go to either Florida or DC, and god, how I love her for making the suggestion. But as tempting as the idea was, I decided against it. For one thing, last-minute airfare is pretty exorbitant and we frankly have better things to spend our money on right now. But really, honestly, the biggest deterrent was that I just really hate funerals...
But why this story, this ship, this tragedy? There have been other shipwrecks throughout history that were every bit as tragic, some even more horrifying in nature, some with even greater loss of life. What is it about Titanic, in particular, that holds such a grip over the public's imagination?
I'm not sure I can express how very strongly this resonates for me. I went through a phase in my younger days when I was near-obsessed with the idea that I won't be remembered after my death. I'm still bothered by it from time to time, to be honest. And in fact, now that I think about it, that's been a concern of mine off and on for many years. I remember signing a lot of high-school yearbooks with the phrases "Don't Forget Me (When I'm Gone)" and "Don't You (Forget About Me)"; at the time, I thought I was being impossibly clever by referencing a couple popular songs of the day, of course... but thinking about it now, in context with Ebert's post and a bit more self-awareness than I had at 17, maybe there was something more serious lurking underneath those seemingly innocuous taglines. And then there's the way I still sometimes think of certain ex-girlfriends and wonder if they ever think of me, and if so, what they think about me. I suppose everyone probably does that from time to time, and I don't think I'm unhealthy about it -- it's not like I'm constantly mooning over girls I haven't seen in 20 years or more, and I certainly wouldn't trade the good thing I have now for anyone from my past -- but I do hope I'm well-remembered by those I used to love. Hell, that I'm remembered, period.The photo showed a family gathering in front of a small house in North Champaign, on some land where there's now a shopping mall. In the second row, much taller than anyone else, was Uncle Ben. He was married to Aunt Mame, my father's oldest sister. He drove an oil truck, and when he passed our house he sometimes tooted his horn and I'd run out in front and wave.
...
I think there's a chance I was the only person in the room who knew it was Uncle Ben in the second row. There were probably a dozen who knew in general who the picture showed--ancestors on the mother's side--but does the name or an idea of Uncle Ben linger on earth outside my own mind? When I die, what will remain of him?
Memory. It makes us human. It creates our ideas of family, history, love, friendship. Within all our minds is a narrative of our own lives and all the people who were important to us. Who were eyewitnesses to the same times and events. Who could describe us to a stranger.
...
On and on, year after year. I remember them. They exist in my mind -- in countless minds. But in a century the human race will have forgotten them, and me as well. Nobody will be able to say how we sounded when we spoke. If they tell our old jokes, they won't know whose they were. That is what death means. We exist in the minds of other people, in thousands of memory clusters, and one by one those clusters fade and disappear. Some years from now, at a funeral with a slide show, only one person will be able to say who we were. Then no one will know.
I used to imagine I would acquire some degree of immortality through the bestselling novels I was going to write, which would of course become beloved classics that would still be read and discussed and possibly even -- God, I was so arrogant! -- taught in classrooms a century or even two hence. But of course I haven't actually gotten around to writing those novels, have I? And even if I had, and they'd been as successful as I had ever dreamed... well, chances are they'd still be forgotten in time. And a fairly small period of time, too. Consider the bestselling novels from 50 years ago. Not really so far away when you think about it, but how many of those books are still read -- or are even familiar -- today? I know the names of several of the authors on that list, and I've heard of a couple of the titles, but I personally have read only one of them, Fail-Safe. (I sought it out back in high school after catching the movie version on late-night TV.) And I'm willing to bet I'm in the minority on that one, certainly among people of my generation. Now go back another 50 years to the list from 1903; recognize anything? Anything at all? Once those titles represented the blood and sweat of the people who wrote them, and they were popular and read in parlors and on front porches all across the country, and readers must surely have discussed them and loved them... and today, they're all completely obscure.
If my writing won't live on, how about other forms of recording a life? Photographs, perhaps? We are in a golden age of photography right now... there are more cameras, more photos of the average person, than ever before, and I, like everybody else in the industrialized world, have lots and lots of photos of myself. But a generation or two from now, assuming those digital photos don't just evaporate in the wake of a big electromagnetic pulse or something, will anyone remember my face any better than any of Ebert's relatives recall his Uncle Ben? No, of course not. I have in the fabulous Bennion Archives several photo albums that belonged to my grandmother, packed with images from her teens and early twenties. I love looking through them... but I don't know a soul in them, except her and my grandfather. I'm sure some of the other faces in those snapshots belong to family members, ancestors of mine, I imagine... but I don't know their names. I am diligent about writing the names of people on the backs of my own printed photos, and I tag every digital shot I take to a ridiculous degree... but I can't help thinking even that won't make a difference. People in the future may have my name, but no one will remember who I actually was. And that's a factor too, isn't it? Not merely that we are remembered, but how? My memories of my Grandma June are mostly constructed from her latter years, after a stroke robbed her of her mobility and her speech. My mother, however, remembers her very differently... as a young, vivacious, fun-loving woman who liked to play boogie-woogie on the piano and throw parties cook for 20 people while they were all camping. But that woman was a stranger to me, and after my mother is gone, all that will be left -- for a time anyhow -- is the memory of the stroke victim.
You know, it occurs to me that my instinctive resistance to remakes of movies and TV shows I loved when I was young could be rooted in this as well. I always identified with those things so strongly, considering them core parts of what made me me, that the idea that they are now somehow obsolete and need to be replaced... my fear being of course that once replaced, the originals will no longer be seen and will start to fade from memory... and where I'm sort of made up of those things, what does it say about me? Maybe what that's really all about is my own fear of obsolescence and irrelevance. And ultimately oblivion.
The basic existentialist dilemma, especially for the childless: will I have made any sort of impact on the world for having lived? Or is it all futile noise screamed into a windstorm? Is it any wonder that the single word Mr. Spock utters to Bones as he prepares to sacrifice himself for his shipmates in Star Trek II is "remember?"
Forgive me. It's late, and I've had something of a downbeat day anyhow. If I haven't depressed you too much, go give Ebert's essay a read. It really is a lovely piece...
You see how easy it would've been, Disney marketing people? Bunch of schmucks...
You see, when I was younger -- much younger, you understand -- I went through a phase when I, um, actually kinda-sorta liked the artwork of... are ready for this? Thomas Kinkade.
Yes, that Thomas Kinkade, the self-proclaimed "Painter of Light" whose highly sentimental paintings of quaint cottages and Victorian holiday scenes and just-too-perfect landscapes have been licensed to appear on everything from Christmas-tree ornaments to calendars and greeting cards, to "collectible" plates to, I don't know, sanitary napkins, probably. The guy who earned fortunes selling mass-produced kitsch to the QVC crowd while being utterly reviled by serious art lovers. Yeah, him.
As I said, I was young. And I had what seemed like perfectly legitimate reasons at the time. It happened just after I got back from a month-long stay in Cambridge, England, back in 1993. It had been my first time away from home on my own, the fulfillment of a wish I'd nurtured for a very long time, and I loved just about everything about the experience, and about the place. I was especially taken by the soft, fluid quality of the light over there, especially as evening approaches and the summer twilight stretches out for hours after the sun actually goes down. It was so different from the crystalline desert skies I was accustomed to back home... and it was so difficult to describe to my friends and family when I returned.
And then I stumbled across a painting that seemed to capture the qualities I remembered. I think it may have been this painting right here:
But as time passed, my feelings toward Kinkade started to curdle. First, I thought it was tacky when he trademarked the "Painter of Light" nickname. Then his paintings seemed to cross the line from colorful to garish, and their nostalgic tone started to feel more like calculated schmaltz. They began to strike me as cutesy, and one thing I cannot abide is cutesy. I was also repelled when he started wearing his religion on his sleeve and infusing simple subjects with overwrought symbolism. No offense to any of my readers who may actually like cutesy religious paintings, but they're not my thing.
The biggest problem, though, was the ubiquity of his work. I've said before I actually tend to prefer commercial illustration to fine art, so I wasn't bothered by Kinkade's stuff being mass-produced, at least not in principle. But the licensing got so out of hand -- this crap really was everywhere, and on everything, and it got very tiresome.
And then came the revelations that Kinkade wasn't the good Christian he proclaimed himself to be, that he was actually fleecing the poor believers who'd bought into his franchised gallery business, and that he frequently behaved like a drunken boor... well, I decided I was done with Thomas Kinkade at that point. Now when the subject comes up, I feel like I do when I'm suffering a mild hangover: slightly ill, and vaguely ashamed of myself.
Even so, I was shocked and a bit saddened to hear that he died this past weekend at the age of 54. That's only 12 years older than myself, way too early in my book. And once upon a time, I really did find value in at least some of his paintings. So I offer my sincere condolences to his family and to his fans...
Nowadays, though... things are different now. Here in the second decade of the 21st century, every square foot of the Earth's surface has been mapped and photographed from orbit. Ancient cities lost for centuries in desert sands and steaming jungles can be pinpointed from air-conditioned rooms in anonymous suburban office parks using thermal imaging satellites. Any place on the globe can be reached by air in a matter of hours. African safaris and Everest hikes are vacation destinations for those who can afford them. And even distant worlds are accessible to the human race as never before, via our robot proxies and the information-sharing power of the Internet. And that's all good, it really is. Many of those early adventurer/explorers I romanticize met with pitiful and/or horrific deaths because they had to be there in person, and the folks back home never got more than just a glimpse of the sights they saw and things they learned. Today, technology has made discovery much safer, and it's made it truly democratic as well -- everyone can view the latest photos from the Hubble telescope or the surviving Mars rover, or zoom in on some section of the globe at the click of a mouse. People can even participate if they like, though projects like SETI@home. But the trade-off, unfortunately, and the irony as well, is that just at the moment when the average citizen can become more involved in this sort of thing than ever before, not many people seem to care anymore. Exploration and discovery seem to have become, at least as far as I can tell, a niche enthusiasm that attracts a relative few, rather than a society-wide concern.
Why else would there have been so little apparent interest three weeks ago when James Cameron -- yes, that James Cameron, the writer/director of Titanic, Avatar, and, somewhat prophetically, The Abyss -- joined the ranks of the great explorers by riding a revolutionary new submersible to the bottom of Challenger Deep, the very deepest point in all of Earth's oceans? To my mind, this was a Big Damn Deal. The sort of thing that strangers on trains should've been talking about for days afterwards, worthy of front-page articles and magazine covers. Instead, it seems to have been a mere blip on the cultural radar, duly noted and then shoved aside with the turn of another 24-hour news cycle. There are follow-up stories out there, but you have to seek them out if you're interested. And my inner cynic can't help but wonder with a sour grumble just how many of the mouth-breathers walking around out there actually are interested. Neither he nor I like the odds much.
To be fair to the mouth-breathers, though, a big chunk of the blame for the indifference that surrounded this story must be thrown at the media. There wasn't much news about Cameron's plans beforehand -- I myself only heard about the expedition by chance a couple weeks prior, via the blog Boing Boing, if I remember correctly -- and, as I said, the coverage of the actual dive has been perfunctory at best. I guess a good old-fashioned adventure is just not that important at the moment, not when there's an endless race for the Republican presidential nominee to focus on, and hey, did you hear Snooki's pregnant, and of course Facebook just bought Instagram, whatever the hell that is. If people who don't follow certain types of blogs aren't hearing about expeditions like Cameron's, why should they care?
I also wonder if perhaps part of the problem is James Cameron himself. My mother's reaction when I told her about the expedition was something to the effect of, "Why him?" And I imagine that's not an unusual reaction. He's a filmmaker, after all, not any sort of scientist (although the National Geographic Society has named him an explorer-in-residence, and he's made over 70 deep submersible dives in the last couple decades, which I think qualifies him for this). That "king of the world" thing at the 1998 Oscars still sticks in some people's craws, and he has a reputation for being a royal son-of-a-bitch to work with. But hey, let's be honest: I think a certain degree of arrogance is probably a requirement to doing something like this. You have to believe that the thing can be done, and you have to believe you're the one who can do it, and both require a sizable belief in oneself. In this case, Cameron wasn't the first human to journey into the Challenger Deep -- two men did it in 1960 with the help of the U.S. Navy and a submersible "bathyscaphe" called the Trieste -- but he is the first to do it in 52 years, and the first to do it solo. And the conditions he knew he'd be facing were pretty daunting, even with a half-century of technological advancement since the Trieste.
Cameron's submarine, the DEEPSEA CHALLENGER, dropped seven miles straight down into the Pacific Ocean, the downward journey taking close to three hours while his six-foot-plus body was folded into a steel sphere only 43 inches in diameter. The pressure outside grew to an astonishing 16,285 pounds per square inch -- barely less than the pilot sphere's rated capacity of 16,500 psi -- pressure so intense that the sub actually shrank in height by a couple of inches. Meanwhile, the temperature inside Cameron's sphere fell from uncomfortably warm near the surface (because of the electronics and Cameron's own body heat in such a confined space) to meat-locker cold at the bottom of the sea. And of course it was pitch black at the bottom. He was all alone in utter darkness farther below sea-level than Mount Everest rises above it, trusting that the engineers who designed and built DEEPSEA CHALLENGER hadn't overlooked anything. In other words, this situation was very much like a flight into space... and as much as I admire astronauts for their drive and guts, I admire James Cameron for his.
The Sunday he went down, March 25, I was following along on Twitter, a service I normally find rather silly, but that day it was the only place I could find any news. I was on the edge of my seat as each new update came in from the expedition, ticking off the latest depth he'd reached, the time elapsed since he'd submerged, etc. And when Cameron's own tweet flashed across the Internet -- "Just arrived at the ocean's deepest pt. Hitting bottom never felt so good. Can't wait to share what I'm seeing w/ you" -- I exhaled a breath I didn't know I'd been holding, and thought of the words of Charlie Duke, the CAPCOM on the Apollo 11 mission, when Neil Armstrong radioed back that the Eagle had landed: "Roger, Tranquility. We copy you on the ground. You got a bunch of guys about to turn blue. We're breathing again. Thanks a lot." (Sidenote: How bizarre is it to think that a man was able to send a "tweet," surely one of the most frivolous means of communication ever invented, from the bottom of the ocean? We really are living in the future, aren't we?)
For the record, Nichelle was the first celebrity I ever encountered. It was at a one-day Star Trek mini-con held at the Salt Lake Airport Hilton back in '87 or '88, during my freshman year of college. To place that in some context, the last Trek movie to play in theaters had been Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home -- that's the one with the whales, for you civilians out there -- the previous year, and Star Trek: The Next Generation had just gotten off to a bumpy start in television syndication. (I didn't think it would survive its first season, to be honest. Boy, was I wrong!) I'll admit to being a wee bit awestruck when I found myself standing on the other side of an autograph table from a woman I'd been watching on TV since before I could remember, but to my everlasting gratitude, Nichelle turned out to be as warm, gracious, friendly, and beautiful in person as she'd ever been on screen. It looks to me like none of that has changed...


Recent Comments