Famous names who declined to be royally recognized

As a writer in the silver years of a career as a local columnist - the word "golden" seems so final - it would be nice to be recognized for my contribution to the literary world. Having retired from covering and reporting on all the local community happenings, somehow it's doubtful that readers will recall my pieces focusing on pot holes or lack of snow clearance and the like.

"Ah yes - those great pot hole stories in '98," someone might but not likely recall when discussing writers. "That Eleanor Tylbor sure knew how to cover those large holes in the road! And those wonderful rants about the lack of snow clearance were the best!"

In any case, there are famous writers who have been recognized for their literary accomplishments by none other than Queen Elizabeth, who bestows letters after their names in the way of recognition. These letters mean that their careers have been successful and they are known in their genre. Then there are others who for whatever reason have declined to accept the royal honor.

Contained in a official and formerlyt secret document, were the names of 250 people who declined the Queen's offer to honor their work. This leaves one - me - who wonder as to the reason for the big secrecy. For example and according to an article in Reuters, artist Lucien Freud, sculptor Henry Moore and author Roald Dahl it was "thanks-but-no-thanks" offer. Same thing for director Alfred Hitchcock but he accepted a knighthood eventually. One presumes that a knighthood is a step above three letters. I mean, go know as an ordinary person, which honor is higher. You have your O.B.E. and your C.B.E. and then your knighthood and the female equivalent, sisterhood... Checking further on Wiki, you also have your OBE, GBE, CH, OM...the list goes on. It's like an alphabet soup of honorary letters. But I digress.

Some other well-known public figures that fall into the "thanks-but-no-thanks"category are Francis Bacon, L.S. Lowry and Aldous Huxley.

It appears that the information was made public after numerous requests under the freedom of information laws. This leaves one - me - to ponder why people would want to know who rejected being honored but somebody obviously wanted to keep track of the "nays."

Ruminating further regarding the bestowing of honors, perhaps there should be special honors or mention for your ordinary but very necessary people whose jobs over a long period of time contribute to the well-being of society.

OTC- Outstand Trash Collector - bestowed to brave trash collectors who daring feats of bravery risked their lives hanging on the back of garbaage trucks, holding on to the rear of the truck with one gloved hand while balancing on one foot, and survived.

PDPA - Paper Delivery Person Award - honoring people who get up at the break of dawn to ensure that readers are kept abreast of the latest breaking news at their door steps

SCPPA - Shopping Cart Person Picker-upper award given to supermarket personnel whose job it is to gather and pick up all the shopping carts that are discarded anywhere and everywhere, including on car bumpers

WSPC - Waterspray Produce Creator award given to person who created the water spray that drops seemingly every two minutes inundating and soaking everthing and everybody standing within 3 feet of the produce display.

Any interesting additions to the above are welcome and will be added to the list.

When it's all said and done, my epitaph will be, "she lived - she wrote - she croaked."  Then again, I'm always open for a few letters.

What's wrong with TV these days?

We're barely into the fall TV season and already cancellation fever is in the air. Seems that TV series are already being cancelled, which doesn't bode well for viewers who have formed an early attachment to a favorite program. Alreadyon the chopping block are "Lone Star" (never watched it so don't know what I'm missing, if anything) and "My Generation" (same thing). Even more interesting and telling is that the series were cancelled after only two programs. As is and most likely always will be, ratings is the indicator of a series viability and if the numbers aren't there, bye-bye program!

This season i.e. fall 2010 and for whatever reason, writers and the powers-that-be at TV networks have decided what viewers need - not necessarily want - are more cop programs. While I'm a fan of "Law and Order: SVU", I can't see the need for "Law and Order: LA." Then again, that's just my opinion. I do, however, like "Detroit 1-8-7" because it is a throwback and mix of "Homicide: Life on the Streets" and "NYPD Blue." Although it really doesn't offer anything new in cop dramas, I think there's potential growth for the characters if the networks give it a chance to grow and therein lies the problem. Unfortunately, cancellations come quickly and networks don't give viewers a chance to develop an attachment to the characters and story lines. No sooner are we introduced to a program, than it's cancelled.

Part of the problem - IMHO - is that the writers don't or perhaps can't come up with new ideas. It's variations of old themes, updated. Attention network execs: viewers aren't stupid! We recognize familiar themes! As an early viewer of "Lost" there was an immediate attraction at least for me, because the writers/creators knew how to tell a story. Isn't that what it's about in the end? The story? Can't remember the last time I tuned into a new comedy series. First of all there is nothing worse (for me, anyway) than canned laughter. It interrupts the dialogue and is a constant irritant. It's as if the writers are petrified viewers won't know where the funny parts are and have to tell us! Really - we can discern humor from dumb-ness! Just give us something to laugh at!

And so once again, viewers await the rest of the cancellation list and their replacements. We tune out because in the end, there really isn't any reason to tune in. Give viewers new ideas and solid writing plus plots and we'll be back.