Insert Clever Title Here

So I finished the new (and last) Harry Potter book last night at around 12:30. Started reading it on Sunday, so that makes it 4 days to read 759 pages. Of course, the type is large, the indents are big, and the spacing is more than ample, so really I'd say it's about equivalent to a "normal" 400-45o page book. I was told by my brother Zac that this was a "weak performance" by Harry Potter fan standards, but then he told me that he had purposefully started the day by waking up at 8:30 to watch billiards on ESPN and then he baked a cake, so I'm not so sure he's in a position to criticize anyone. Anyway, the book (which I won't spoil) is excellent. It is very refreshing to see that something that was so mammothly hyped still managed to not disappoint. While I can't say that it's my favorite of the series (I like "Goblet of Fire" the best) I can't think of a better way that it could have ended. It also firmly convinced me of something I suspected ever since I read "Order of the Phoenix" (which I absolutely hated). After "Goblet of Fire", I think Rowling had a pretty clear idea of how it was all going to end, or at least a good outline of the final story arc. But, it was really only 2 books worth of material, so she needed a way to kind of "mark time" for a book before she could start it, and the result was a generally horrid waste of time. Yes, there were a couple of things introduced in that book that come back later, but there are more strange things that never get resolved and characters acting completely unnaturally and, most importantly, very little happening in the whole book. Anyway, while the first 4 books can somewhat stand on their own as individual stories (having at least some semblance of an arc that is introduced and resolved by the end), the 6th and 7th books are clearly just one story and can very much be likened to Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. People reading this series in the future may be able to stop for a while after each of the first 5 books, but most likely no one will even take a coffee break between the 6th and 7th.

Well, while we're speaking of things that are interesting to some people and could not be any less interesting to others, I'd like to revisit my preseason Cubs preview. I was tempted to give an update on this towards the end of May, and let's just say that I am very glad that I waited. Had I done it then, it probably would have looked something like this: "I was wrong. All wrong. There's not even the faintest trace of right in anything I said. I am utterly baffled by my wrongness. You would think, just by sheer chance and law of averages, that one of my statements would have been right, but no. I was wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong." Now, however, things are a little different. I hesitate to write about it for fear of jinxing the team, but I suppose if I am to believe that the Cubs ever have a chance to win it all (and I do), then I have to stop believing in curses, hexes, and such. Anyway, the Cubs season so far has been a tale of Jekyll and Hyde. The first two months, they were one of the most overpaid, underperforming group of stooges to ever don a uniform. All the bounces went against them, and it was Murphy's law everyday. If they managed to get a clutch hit, you were absoutely stunned. The last two months, it seems that they can do almost nothing wrong and all the breaks are going their way. Now, the couple times when they DON'T get a clutch hit, you feel stunned. I'm not going to talk in too much depth about it, since those that care already know all this and those that don't have probably already skipped this paragraph. All I'll say is that the whole Cubs season can be summarized in Carlos Zambrano's numbers: his record through June 1st was 5-5 with a 5.62 ERA. His record since is 8-2 with a 1.56 ERA. Anyway, while I don't think the Cubs are quite as good as they have played lately, I am very optimistic that the "real" Cubs are closer to this version than the one that took the field the first 2 months, and I am just going to enjoy the hot streak while it lasts (which will hopefully go through October).

Heading up to Wisconsin this weekend to camp and see Jimmy Buffett at Alpine Valley. I believe this will mark the 5th time I've seen him, and the first time at Alpine. To date, the band I've seen the most times is Van Halen (also 5 times), so this will tie that. However, since one of those times was during the ill-fated Gary Cherone experiment, I'm not sure it really counts. And since Buffett manages to keep coming back every year and Van Halen . . . uh . . .doesn't, it seems like only a matter of time before I've officially seen him more. Besides those two, the only band/acts I have seen more than once are Mike Doughty (3X solo and once with Soul Coughing) , Joe Satriani (3X), BB King (2X), Buddy Guy (2X), and Eric Johnson (2X). I'd feel better about myself as a person if a couple of those names weren't on the list (hint: I'm not talking about Mike, BB, and Buddy).

Going to see The Simpsons movie tonight at midnight with my bro. Not expecting anything fantastic, but it should be fun. It's always fun to see a midnight show or a premier; always makes it seem like much more of an event to go to a movie, like it was back in the day. Over/Under on number of people I see dressed as Simpsons characters: 15.

Quick marathon update: Did end up running the 10 miles after work on Friday (1:59:37; 11:58 min/mile pace). Wasn't fun, but I did it. Brought my total mileage for last week up to 24, which I'm pretty proud of. This week hasn't been as good. Legs were still sore for a while, so I eased back in with a 3-mile run Monday (31:59; 10:40 min/mile pace) and then a 6-miler Wednesday (1:10:37; 11:46 min/mile pace). Gonna try to get an 11-miler in tomorrow before heading out of town. The half marathon looms large 2 weeks from Sunday.

Have a good weekend everyone (by which I mean all 5 of you)!