Old news

So I won $90 in a $2 tourney for finishing in 5th. So ridiculously disappointing. I was in control and blew it when I couldn't lay down KK to an A high flop. No question I should have folded. Weird because I was laying hands like that down the entire way, and just fucked it up when we got to the final table - when it really matters. When moving up in the money actually means something to my bankroll. OOOOOOHHHH WELLL, right? Since I make it to final tables all the time, then no regrets!!! Get 'em next time! (SARCASM)

So I decided to try and see if I could run the money up. WTF, right? At the stakes I play, I'm sitting on a pile of dough. My recent cashout made almost no difference in my bankroll compared to the stakes I play. So I played a $5, lost. A $10, lost, and a $30 HU game and lost when I was all in pre-flop with a hand that was dominated. Oh well.

Been reading Dan Brown's new book lately, so I haven't been playing a lot of poker. Brown's books are always very fast paced, interesting, and easy to sink into. It's a mix of real science and a frantic, significant, fictional story. Funny that during the most suspenseful parts - much like a person shielding their eyes from a horror movie - I find myself reading over the words faster just to get the gist of it. I don't think any of his books will be as good as Da Vinci Code, only because of its subject matter, but this one's REALLY good so far, and I'm about half way through it. I find it interesting that the subject matter of this book is an extension of the the most interesting non-Holy Grail topic of Da Vinci Code.

Reading his books always makes me wonder about how great pieces of artwork from the past "become" great works. A painting, is a painting, right? Paint on canvas. But we give it significance. It's one thing to say that a picture "looks" good. We have photos now that are everywhere that almost universally, people can look at a picture and say it "looks" good. But the truly great pieces of art are held in such reverence, and why? I can't figure it out. I just chalk it up to the fact that I don't know enough about the subject matter, which is probably true to a certain extent.

Shakespeare, Mozart, Da Vinci - we have held on to these works, and hold their works in the highest esteem. Dan Brown would suggest we do this for a reason other than that it "looks good". Anyways, some meta-relfection here - How will the future look at Dan Brown's books?

Obviously, it's not a historical document. It's basically fiction. Will history pass it off as a sign of the times? Or is his work something that will endure, and if it does, for what reason? His books are enormously popular, but popularity does not necessarily mean they will be timeless.

Anyways, I enjoy them.