The Top 10 List of Top 10 Lists

It's that time of year again when editors need to fill space and people need to be told what to buy lest they actually think on their own. Thus, we have not only have The New York Times' Top 10 Books of the Year, but also their Top 100 Notable Books of the Year list which, now that I think about it, is a strangely vague title. Are they notable because they're good or just because they got the biggest PR, media and critical attention? Well, Nicole Ritchie's "novel" never made the list, so their credibility is intact for now, no matter how boring and obvious the list may be.

A more interesting list, however, is The Atlantic's 100 Most Influential Americans of All Time. This title is decidedly not vague, but it is a little unambitious. I mean, geez, only 100? "Of All Time"? Slackers.

The list is full of predictable (which I don't use to imply they're undeserved) choices: Abraham Lincoln (#1), George Washington (2), Thomas Jefferson (3) and Martin Luther King Jr. (8). What's interesting is reading about how the ten historians chosen to vote by The Atlantic made their decisions...

No celebrities! What? Are they all living in some stuffy, TV-less, elbow-patched-jacket vacuum? Historian Walter McDougall "eliminated celebrities altogether on the grounds that their influence is shallow, ephemeral, and replaceable." David M. Kennedy said entertainment is "highly evanescent" and that most entertainers "leave no lasting legacy." How colorless and asexual are their sad little worlds.

Of course, there is Elvis Presley (66) and Louis Armstrong (79), but, I mean, come on. Interestingly, Walt Whitman is ranked 22nd. Haven't they heard? Poetry is so 60's! A-duh hickey, too-cool-for-school (or should I say, too-cool-because-of-school?) historians. Since poetry is such a floundering, uninfluential medium today, how could Mr. Body Electric rank so high? (Please note: the last 39 words are totally sarcastic. Poetry isn't floundering. It's dead. Dead as a rotting carcass on top of a dried skeleton on top of Richard Grieco's career.)

So allow me, at the risk of making those so-called "historians" jealous, to make some of my own suggestions for this sorely lacking list:

3) John Travolta. Bear with me here. OK, in Grease he was this totally studly, good-looking, popular guy who could also sing and dance and wear fitted t-shirts all while appearing 100% heterosexual. So, thanks to him, a whole generation of women could believe that the studly, good-looking, popular guys who could also sing and dance and wear fitted t-shirts who went to their high school were actually straight, and those guys could actually convince themselves and others that they were all about chasin' the cooter. Thus, with one jut of Travolta's slithery hips, a whole generational high school survival system was solidified: millions of guys can avoid getting beat up and get to have prom dates and millions of girls can convince themselves that it's normal for really sensitive boyfriends to bake banana bread for their girlfriends. God bless this American tradition. God bless John Travolta.

2) The Sumerians. Because my .5 seconds of online research taught me that the Sumerians inadvertently invented beer 6,000 years ago (although it doesn't say specifically where they were when this happened, it's safe to assume it was either Vegas or the University of Wisconsin-Madison). Anyone who invented this sweet nectar must have been the celebrities of their time (even if we're talking about an entire culture). Sure, they may not be "American" (what does that even really mean anymore, anyway?) but because of them, ugly people get to have sex, frat boys accelerate the Darwinian process by killing 90% of their brain cells within two months of their freshman year and I get through life every day. (Please note: that last part was totally sarcastic. I also use pot. And Starbucks.)

1) Phil Donahue. Not because he introduced whiny, self-absorbed validation-seeking as self-help. Not because he taught us that the best way to communicate is through confrontation and televised humiliation. And not because he was a totally intellectual stud muffin paving the way for the Matt Lauers and Stone Phillipses (remember Stone Phillips? No? Neither do I) of the world. No, Donahue is influential because without him there would be no Oprah, and without Oprah there would be no Tyra Banks. 'Nuff said.

Yeah, so suck it, Thomas Edison. Eat you heart out, Walt Disney. And it's more like the "Wrong Brothers," Wright Brothers.

But, of course, these are just suggestions. The Atlantic's list is still kind of pretty good. I guess.

Look Who's Stalking

I think it's really weird that John Travolta has his own website.

It's not a fan site. It's not created by some dork in his basement who's seen "Pulp Fiction" 500 times.

It's John himself putting together his own site.

I don't really know where to begin with this, but let's give a try:

Why did he do this? Was he not satisfied with his IMDB page? Was he disappointed by his fans' sites? Was he under the impression that there was a void in the World Wide Web, where millions of fans were searching for "official" information about him and not finding it?

I did some (minimal) research, and no other major movie star has their own wesbite, from Tom Cruise and Denzel Washinginton to Reese Witherspoon and Cameron Diaz.

It has news of his current and upcoming projects (including an autobiography - Paris Hilton and Joan Didion better watch their backs), listings by decade of all his movies, a biography, an address to write him, and a page to leave comments and questions.

The simple, straightforward-ness of the site is as off-putting as anything else. You can breeze though it in minutes unless, of course, you actually want to read the descriptions for all of his movies. And the fact that they provide a snail-mail address is so old-fashioned it's almost endearing...operative word being "almost."

I just can't wrap my head around this one. It's one thing when a separate source like the Internet Movie Database lists your entire resume, but why go to so much effort to remind people that you starred in a lot of crap? And John Travolta has starred in a lot of crap, people. I was aware of all the 80's and 90's stinkers, but who knew he was weird, obscure movies in the 70's? I thought his cinematic career started with Carrie and The Boy in the Plastic Bubble, both modern-day classics in their respective genres (thriller/horror and cheesy afterschool-special/disease-of-the-week TV movie). But, apprently, Mr. Travolta starred in a lot of forgettable 70's flicks.

And there's just so much more crap throughout the decades. Does he realize he can actually say "no" to an offer?

No movie star has a flawless resume (Tom Cruise has Legend and Losin' It, Julia Roberts has I Love Trouble and Mary Reilly), but to go out of your way to highlight each head-scratching choice - with descriptions, no less. As if, somehow, by reading the plot of Swordfish we'll understand his decision to sign up for it. And does he really want to focus any more attention on Battlefield Earth?

To top it all off, it links to the website of his wife, Kelly Preston, where she's described as "one of the most sought-after actors in Hollywood." I love this statement for two reasons: a) Sought after? By who? Her last good movie was "Jerry Maguire" in 1996; b) I'm always slightly amused when actresses refer to themselves as "actors," as if we'll automatically take them more seriously.

What were John's intentions behind this website? We may never know (and probably "we" don't really care). I just thought it was weird. And weird stuff is always fun to talk about.