The Long Lavender Look: Having read a lot of non-fiction [1] and heavier fiction [2], my mind was aching for something lighter and simpler. So I dove back into familiar waters and read another in the Travis McGee series.
This one started out in a way that made me think I was not going to like it much. Travis and Meyer end up stuck in a town halfway between nowhere and the swamp. All of the characters looked to be the Florida equivalent of swamp people and I was not too excited.
Except that in the time it took me to make that discernment, I had read another page or two and MacDonald had me hooked. I read the whole thing in three sittings and in the middle sitting I only read about fifteen pages.
The story is about small town people who live near the swamp in Florida, but the story doesn't actually go into the swamp and while some of the characters had clearly been there a time or two, MacDonald doesn't wallow in it. [3]
There's murder and unsolved crimes and the requisite "love" interest. [4] Drugs, solicitation, misdirection and the hiding of a dead body. Everything you'd want from the tale.
At a couple of points near the end the writing got a shade to "implying" the action and less "telling" the action. [5] And the ending was kind of rushed in the way MacDonald endings sometimes are. Sort of like he either was tired of the tale or had hit a page limit and decided to wrap it up quick. But neither of those things can keep me from saying I was thoroughly engaged and very much enjoyed it.
So much so that I'm going to start the next in the series as soon as I post this.
The Long Lavender Look: A-
[1] - If you're lucky I'll write about it.
[2] - If I'm lucky I'll finish it.
[3] - Like Reality TV would have.
[4] - Such as they go with McGee naturally
[5] - Of course it is just as likely that I was tired.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Cryptic #2
Sorry I haven't posted in a while. Life is always busy and is even more so currently because of extra-curriculars. And while this is technically a post, it probably isn't what you were looking for.
Anyone who cares to attempt solving it will be appreciated. Please let me know of any errors and if you get stuck and need a hint or two, I'll be glad to help out.
Anyone who cares to attempt solving it will be appreciated. Please let me know of any errors and if you get stuck and need a hint or two, I'll be glad to help out.
Friday, March 1, 2013
I Didn't Want to Go Here, But You Made Me
I'm not sure how this post is going to end or even where I'm going to go in the middle, but I do know what started it.
Facebook started it.
Or more specifically, reading through the posts on FB by people who either clearly never took a civics/government class in high school or more likely paid no attention while they were in it and/or have simply forgotten what little they did learn.
I have to admit that I'm going a little afield of the stuff I usually post about. This is not going to be rant on some movie, book or random food that I recently ate. Instead I'm putting my foot in where I should probably not tread and I'm going to talk about politics. But the completely stupid things that I see otherwise reasonable people posting is driving me up the wall.
Before you start predisposing yourself to disliking what I'm saying, let me get this out of the way.
I am not a democrat.
I am not a republican.
Instead, I'm one of those (evidently) rare people who actually looks at the issues and the candidates and then picks the best match for the job.
And if you just responded to that sentence by saying, "That's what I do too! And the best candidate is always a [insert your political party here]" then think again. Both parties have had their share of wonderful, brilliant people and both have had their share of dolts.
Anyway, back to where we were before, with you driving me up the wall with the stupid reposts of fundamentally retarded posts. And if it looks like this rant is starting to lean a bit to the left, that's only because those of you on the right have lately been hogging the spotlight shouting out to everyone trying to prove your ignorance.
Let's start with this bunch of geniuses.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Obama-is-the-Worst-President-in-US-History/296856040436954?fref=ts
And while were at it let's throw in all the memes, pictures, posts and other FB flotsam and jetsam in the same vein.
Obama is the worst president ever?
Really?
And what are you basing that on?
Because it is clearly not your extensive knowledge of U.S. History.
Spending two minutes reading about Warren Harding and then get back to me.
Now I am by no means saying Obama is the greatest president ever. He wouldn't even make the top ten. But let's be realistic. By any reasonable measurable test he wouldn't make the bottom ten either. Not even close.
Again, go spend a few minutes alone in a closet with a book about the 43 presidents. Then get back to me. [1]
I think through a little arguing, debate and compromise we could probably agree that currently he's pretty solidly in the middle of the pack. [2]
The new round of FB nonsense posts will inevitably be about the sequester. [3] I've already seen one that has a banner essentially blaming Obama because the average American now has less money.
Again, go read a government textbook. I bet amazon.com probably has a Government for Dummies or something. I'll wait. [4]
.......
Done?
Okay, did you notice the part about the three branches and separation of powers?
Go back and reread that part. In particular look and see if says anything about who in our government spends the money and who sets the taxes. It'll probably use some phrases like 'appropriations bill' and 'revenue bill'. Go ahead. I'll wait again.
........
Did you find it?
In case you were having trouble locating it, I'll go ahead and spell it out for you here.
It's Congress.
That's the House of Representatives and the Senate.
In other words the Legislative Branch of the government.
More importantly, it's not the Executive Branch.
Also known as the President.
So, if you find that your paycheck is suddenly short a few or even a lot of dollars, or perhaps completely gone because of government budget cuts, then the people to blame number 535 and not 1.
Perhaps some of the more astute of you kept reading in the book and got through the part on checks and balances. And now you're throwing back at me that the President actually is involved because he can veto anything he doesn't like.
I might even agree with you IF, and this is a big if, IF Congress had actually passed something that he vetoed.
But they haven't. In fact, the sequester happened because Congress continues to do what it's been doing for the last four years. Which is essentially, "nothing".
It's no defense to say, "Yes, but if they did Obama would just veto it." Well, if that did happen then you could rightfully blame him. But blaming him because he might do something, if Congress ever actually tried to do something is like saying your not going to apply for a job because they might not hire you, or your not going to ask out the girl you like because she might say no or your not going to turn on the light switch because the bulb might burn out.
Give it shot! It might work! If it doesn't then you have a gripe. Before then, you're just somebody that never bothered to try to do anything.
And let's be clear that this isn't a problem with just the Republicans or the Democrats. It's both.
Neither party is willing to compromise at all. And so instead of trying things that might be solutions, they stand around arguing while the house burns down around us.
Oh No! I've once again used that dirty "C" word.
Compromise.
It's seems to me that lately, both parties feel like compromising at all is akin to death. [5]
Check that book again, this country was founded on compromise.
And if you just responded to that by saying something along the lines of, "No it wasn't! This country was created by people standing up for what they know was right and then laying down their lives to make sure that happened", let me fill in a few blanks for you.
First of all, after the Revolutionary War [6] we created a country based directly on the ideas that they were fighting for and guess what? It didn't work.
It was called the Articles of Confederation.
Then when it became clear that the Articles weren't going to work, we scrapped them and wrote the Constitution.
And then we immediately compromised to get it ratified.
Go ahead, check that book again. Look for the part about the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. I'll wait.
........
You done?
See those two groups were essentially our first political parties.
And they couldn't agree. [7]
The one side wanted this. The other wanted that. It was a mess.
But then, after a lot of discussion and debate, they Compromised. [8]
To get that new Constitution ratified, the Federalist gave the Anti-Federalist some of what they wanted so that the Federalist could get what they wanted.
What did the Federalist want?
The Anti-Federalist to sign on to the Constitution.
What did they give the Anti-Federalist?
Not much, except the Bill of Rights.
So when the Republicans say that they aren't going to budge.
And the Democrats say that they won't give in.
It just makes me want to sigh and tell them both to remove their heads from their . . . [9]
Okay, I seem to be losing steam here. I could go spend a few more minutes on FB and get riled up again, but it's late and I'm tired.
I'm not sure what you'll take away from this post, but if it is anything hopefully it's something like this:
Don't post and/or repost political nonsense that you really have no idea about. Especially when, if you did have some idea, you wouldn't be posting it.
Better yet, in all seriousness go buy a book or two and read up about our government. You might find two or three [10] of other Compromises we've made along the way as well.
Seems like it might be time for another.
[1] - Someone out there is currently saying, "Shows what he knows. Obama's the 44th president." My response: Yes genius, but Cleveland served twice. So if you want to read the chapter on him twice be my guest.
[2] - Granted in four years he could have moved substantially in either direction and in twenty years some of the longer reaching effects of his actions and policies might move him further. But how about let's wait for some evidence.
[3] - If you don't know what that is, then why are you posting about Obama making you poorer?
[4] - A quick search of Amazon finds several. If you aren't comfortable calling yourself a dummy. There's an idiots guide to government as well.
[5] - Seems like not compromising might just get the country there quicker.
[6] - During which a lot of people did lay down their lives for their beliefs.
[7] - Sound similar?
[8] - Big 'C' intentional.
[9] - Well, you know.
[10] - Or 50 or 400 or who knows maybe even thousands
Facebook started it.
Or more specifically, reading through the posts on FB by people who either clearly never took a civics/government class in high school or more likely paid no attention while they were in it and/or have simply forgotten what little they did learn.
I have to admit that I'm going a little afield of the stuff I usually post about. This is not going to be rant on some movie, book or random food that I recently ate. Instead I'm putting my foot in where I should probably not tread and I'm going to talk about politics. But the completely stupid things that I see otherwise reasonable people posting is driving me up the wall.
Before you start predisposing yourself to disliking what I'm saying, let me get this out of the way.
I am not a democrat.
I am not a republican.
Instead, I'm one of those (evidently) rare people who actually looks at the issues and the candidates and then picks the best match for the job.
And if you just responded to that sentence by saying, "That's what I do too! And the best candidate is always a [insert your political party here]" then think again. Both parties have had their share of wonderful, brilliant people and both have had their share of dolts.
Anyway, back to where we were before, with you driving me up the wall with the stupid reposts of fundamentally retarded posts. And if it looks like this rant is starting to lean a bit to the left, that's only because those of you on the right have lately been hogging the spotlight shouting out to everyone trying to prove your ignorance.
Let's start with this bunch of geniuses.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Obama-is-the-Worst-President-in-US-History/296856040436954?fref=ts
And while were at it let's throw in all the memes, pictures, posts and other FB flotsam and jetsam in the same vein.
Obama is the worst president ever?
Really?
And what are you basing that on?
Because it is clearly not your extensive knowledge of U.S. History.
Spending two minutes reading about Warren Harding and then get back to me.
Now I am by no means saying Obama is the greatest president ever. He wouldn't even make the top ten. But let's be realistic. By any reasonable measurable test he wouldn't make the bottom ten either. Not even close.
Again, go spend a few minutes alone in a closet with a book about the 43 presidents. Then get back to me. [1]
I think through a little arguing, debate and compromise we could probably agree that currently he's pretty solidly in the middle of the pack. [2]
The new round of FB nonsense posts will inevitably be about the sequester. [3] I've already seen one that has a banner essentially blaming Obama because the average American now has less money.
Again, go read a government textbook. I bet amazon.com probably has a Government for Dummies or something. I'll wait. [4]
.......
Done?
Okay, did you notice the part about the three branches and separation of powers?
Go back and reread that part. In particular look and see if says anything about who in our government spends the money and who sets the taxes. It'll probably use some phrases like 'appropriations bill' and 'revenue bill'. Go ahead. I'll wait again.
........
Did you find it?
In case you were having trouble locating it, I'll go ahead and spell it out for you here.
It's Congress.
That's the House of Representatives and the Senate.
In other words the Legislative Branch of the government.
More importantly, it's not the Executive Branch.
Also known as the President.
So, if you find that your paycheck is suddenly short a few or even a lot of dollars, or perhaps completely gone because of government budget cuts, then the people to blame number 535 and not 1.
Perhaps some of the more astute of you kept reading in the book and got through the part on checks and balances. And now you're throwing back at me that the President actually is involved because he can veto anything he doesn't like.
I might even agree with you IF, and this is a big if, IF Congress had actually passed something that he vetoed.
But they haven't. In fact, the sequester happened because Congress continues to do what it's been doing for the last four years. Which is essentially, "nothing".
It's no defense to say, "Yes, but if they did Obama would just veto it." Well, if that did happen then you could rightfully blame him. But blaming him because he might do something, if Congress ever actually tried to do something is like saying your not going to apply for a job because they might not hire you, or your not going to ask out the girl you like because she might say no or your not going to turn on the light switch because the bulb might burn out.
Give it shot! It might work! If it doesn't then you have a gripe. Before then, you're just somebody that never bothered to try to do anything.
And let's be clear that this isn't a problem with just the Republicans or the Democrats. It's both.
Neither party is willing to compromise at all. And so instead of trying things that might be solutions, they stand around arguing while the house burns down around us.
Oh No! I've once again used that dirty "C" word.
Compromise.
It's seems to me that lately, both parties feel like compromising at all is akin to death. [5]
Check that book again, this country was founded on compromise.
And if you just responded to that by saying something along the lines of, "No it wasn't! This country was created by people standing up for what they know was right and then laying down their lives to make sure that happened", let me fill in a few blanks for you.
First of all, after the Revolutionary War [6] we created a country based directly on the ideas that they were fighting for and guess what? It didn't work.
It was called the Articles of Confederation.
Then when it became clear that the Articles weren't going to work, we scrapped them and wrote the Constitution.
And then we immediately compromised to get it ratified.
Go ahead, check that book again. Look for the part about the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. I'll wait.
........
You done?
See those two groups were essentially our first political parties.
And they couldn't agree. [7]
The one side wanted this. The other wanted that. It was a mess.
But then, after a lot of discussion and debate, they Compromised. [8]
To get that new Constitution ratified, the Federalist gave the Anti-Federalist some of what they wanted so that the Federalist could get what they wanted.
What did the Federalist want?
The Anti-Federalist to sign on to the Constitution.
What did they give the Anti-Federalist?
Not much, except the Bill of Rights.
So when the Republicans say that they aren't going to budge.
And the Democrats say that they won't give in.
It just makes me want to sigh and tell them both to remove their heads from their . . . [9]
Okay, I seem to be losing steam here. I could go spend a few more minutes on FB and get riled up again, but it's late and I'm tired.
I'm not sure what you'll take away from this post, but if it is anything hopefully it's something like this:
Don't post and/or repost political nonsense that you really have no idea about. Especially when, if you did have some idea, you wouldn't be posting it.
Better yet, in all seriousness go buy a book or two and read up about our government. You might find two or three [10] of other Compromises we've made along the way as well.
Seems like it might be time for another.
[1] - Someone out there is currently saying, "Shows what he knows. Obama's the 44th president." My response: Yes genius, but Cleveland served twice. So if you want to read the chapter on him twice be my guest.
[2] - Granted in four years he could have moved substantially in either direction and in twenty years some of the longer reaching effects of his actions and policies might move him further. But how about let's wait for some evidence.
[3] - If you don't know what that is, then why are you posting about Obama making you poorer?
[4] - A quick search of Amazon finds several. If you aren't comfortable calling yourself a dummy. There's an idiots guide to government as well.
[5] - Seems like not compromising might just get the country there quicker.
[6] - During which a lot of people did lay down their lives for their beliefs.
[7] - Sound similar?
[8] - Big 'C' intentional.
[9] - Well, you know.
[10] - Or 50 or 400 or who knows maybe even thousands
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Okra
Okra: What can I say about okra that hasn't been said 100 times before. Probably not much, but here goes nonetheless.
Whoever the first brave soul was that upon seeing an okra pod and after more than likely making a quick mental analogy between the okra and an insect cocoon still went on to say, "I think I can eat that", I salute you. [1]
Especially since they then busted open that okra pod and found out that it was completely full of small white beads that remind you of moth balls and snot. And they still went on to eat it. [2]
I want to like okra. Really I do. But okra tries so hard to make you not like it.
First of all it's green. I mean really green in a way that other vegetables don't quite manage. It's green like a plump grasshopper. [3] The green-ness calms down a bit when you cook it, but of course that just amps up some of the other problems, like the fore mentioned snot.
This stuff is straight up gross. Dang yo, that's like six kinds of nasty. [4] I know I keep making the snot reference but it is so perfectly apropos. Okra innards are simultaneously exceedingly sticky and super slickery. You would think cooking the okra would break it down and make the stuff dissolve, but all it does is make it worse. Because the water or soup or gumbo or whatever it is the okra is cooked in does thin out the snot, but at the same time it just makes the whole thing a bigger bunch of thinner snot that is still just as slickery. [5]
To be honest I'm surprised that somebody hasn't made a trillion dollars my making some kind of adhesive based on okra snot. Heck, you could even call it that. [6]
Even if there's enough other things in whatever it is you're eating that you can no longer taste or feel the okra scum, it's still there. Then after you are done eating your bowl of gumbo or whatever, you are left with a weird film coating the inside of your mouth that you try real hard not to think about.
And again, there's still those odd mini-moth balls that I haven't even talked about.
Taste-wise, okra's pretty meh. It's not offensive, but it's not something to write home about either. [7] However, it does somehow imbue an entirely different flavor into the other things it's cooked with. So, while the actual okra in gumbo don't seem to have any real flavor at all, making gumbo without okra would be a fail.
Of course I suspect the vast majority of okra is consumed in the traditional southern manner anyway. Battered, fried and dunked in a sauce or dressing that completely hides the okra all together. Which, is really just fine with me. Because while okra is meh. Ranch dressing is awesome.
Okra: C
p.s. - Here's an update that is being written before this post was even posted! How's that for service!
There are now Okra Chips. They are evidently freeze dried okra cut into slices and meant to be a "healthy" snack. I cannot express how nasty that sounds. But I am will to bet that even the freeze dried chips still have that wonderful okra snot sensation.
[1] - Man was that a sentence. Please to excuse the inevitable bad punctuation.
[2] - Desperation or inspiration, I'm not sure which.
[3] - And be honest, if you busted an okra pod open and found a grasshopper inside would you really be surprised at all?
[4] - Hat tip to Dave Kellett there. He's brilliant. Have you read all of Sheldon? I have. http://sheldoncomics.com/archive/090208.html
[5] - You know I'm not exaggerating at all.
[6] - Move over Gorilla Glue, now there's Okra Snot! Sticks to everything! Except perhaps televangelists.
[7] - Dear Mom, Okra is pretty blah. With love, your son.
Whoever the first brave soul was that upon seeing an okra pod and after more than likely making a quick mental analogy between the okra and an insect cocoon still went on to say, "I think I can eat that", I salute you. [1]
Especially since they then busted open that okra pod and found out that it was completely full of small white beads that remind you of moth balls and snot. And they still went on to eat it. [2]
I want to like okra. Really I do. But okra tries so hard to make you not like it.
First of all it's green. I mean really green in a way that other vegetables don't quite manage. It's green like a plump grasshopper. [3] The green-ness calms down a bit when you cook it, but of course that just amps up some of the other problems, like the fore mentioned snot.
This stuff is straight up gross. Dang yo, that's like six kinds of nasty. [4] I know I keep making the snot reference but it is so perfectly apropos. Okra innards are simultaneously exceedingly sticky and super slickery. You would think cooking the okra would break it down and make the stuff dissolve, but all it does is make it worse. Because the water or soup or gumbo or whatever it is the okra is cooked in does thin out the snot, but at the same time it just makes the whole thing a bigger bunch of thinner snot that is still just as slickery. [5]
To be honest I'm surprised that somebody hasn't made a trillion dollars my making some kind of adhesive based on okra snot. Heck, you could even call it that. [6]
Even if there's enough other things in whatever it is you're eating that you can no longer taste or feel the okra scum, it's still there. Then after you are done eating your bowl of gumbo or whatever, you are left with a weird film coating the inside of your mouth that you try real hard not to think about.
And again, there's still those odd mini-moth balls that I haven't even talked about.
Taste-wise, okra's pretty meh. It's not offensive, but it's not something to write home about either. [7] However, it does somehow imbue an entirely different flavor into the other things it's cooked with. So, while the actual okra in gumbo don't seem to have any real flavor at all, making gumbo without okra would be a fail.
Of course I suspect the vast majority of okra is consumed in the traditional southern manner anyway. Battered, fried and dunked in a sauce or dressing that completely hides the okra all together. Which, is really just fine with me. Because while okra is meh. Ranch dressing is awesome.
Okra: C
p.s. - Here's an update that is being written before this post was even posted! How's that for service!
There are now Okra Chips. They are evidently freeze dried okra cut into slices and meant to be a "healthy" snack. I cannot express how nasty that sounds. But I am will to bet that even the freeze dried chips still have that wonderful okra snot sensation.
[1] - Man was that a sentence. Please to excuse the inevitable bad punctuation.
[2] - Desperation or inspiration, I'm not sure which.
[3] - And be honest, if you busted an okra pod open and found a grasshopper inside would you really be surprised at all?
[4] - Hat tip to Dave Kellett there. He's brilliant. Have you read all of Sheldon? I have. http://sheldoncomics.com/archive/090208.html
[5] - You know I'm not exaggerating at all.
[6] - Move over Gorilla Glue, now there's Okra Snot! Sticks to everything! Except perhaps televangelists.
[7] - Dear Mom, Okra is pretty blah. With love, your son.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Les Miserables
Les Miserables: I suspect I might step on some toes here, but let me officially go on record as saying, 'meh'.
Having heard about this musical for years, I was expecting more. Granted I have never seen the Broadway version [1] but I was moderately intrigued. I had heard snippets of songs and such from various outlets. [2] So, I had a small amount of preset expectations.
They weren't really met.
I'm led to believe that the movie version tried to make the singing more like acting and less like singing, [3] but whatever it it they were shooting for, it didn't thrill me.
For instance, I always imagined the "I'm Jean Valjean" song as being very emphatic at the end. Sort of an "I'M JEAN VALJEAN!!!!!!!!!!!! and if the rest of the world doesn't like it, they can bite me!" vibe. But when I saw it in the movie it was more like, "Say, does anyone know my name? Oh yeah, that's right. I'm [mumbles]."
Also sorry Russell, but stick to Roman warriors and crazy scientist.
In truth, at one point I thought to myself, "You know, I could fall asleep right now if they would just stop singing." Okay it wasn't that bad, but I did find myself a bit bored at times.
I think part of the problem was that the scope of time covered caused them to go a pretty quick pace through the plot. Thus everything felt way too full of emotions that were not yet warranted. I'll see if I can capture the idea in a quick scene:
Bob and Carl walk down the street. [4] They see someone on the other side of the road.
Bob: Who is that over there? I don't think I have ever seen that person before in my entire life.
Carl: Me neither. But I love her forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bob: I think it's a dude.
Carl: I hate him forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, that kind of captures it.
With out really giving away anything that might happen in a musical entitled, "The Miserable", one of the characters commits suicide. When that was happening, I was a bit perplexed. From what I could tell the character seemed to have a pretty good life, except that every few years he would bump into one of the other characters. Suicide seemed a trifle bit of an over-reaction.
I understand that I've completely misinterpreted the relationship between the two, but that's sort of my point. It wasn't really developed. Everything in the musical happened so fast, with no real build up.
You have a job.
You're fired.
You're a prostitute with no teeth or hair.
Say what?
Also, now that I'm thinking about it, in that scene I made up, I should have actually called Carl by the name Marius. I don't think there has ever been a more mercurial character in a movie.
I'm ready to die for the revolution.
Ooh! A pretty girl. Forget that, I'm in love.
Wait, give me a gun, let's fight!
My love is true forever!
To the barricade!
He was like an otter spying a succession of shiny objects. I don't envy Cosette trying to keep him faithful. [5]
I could write more about this and that, but I'll let it go. Let me just finish by saying that I hope Russel and Hugh hit puberty soon.
Les Miserables: C-
[1] - Neither live or otherwise.
[2] - The radio, the Internet, the Pook.
[3] - Or some sort of nonsense like that.
[4] - I swear I picked those names at random. Any relevance to janitors, sci-fi or otherwise, is purely coincidental.
[5] - Or alive.
Having heard about this musical for years, I was expecting more. Granted I have never seen the Broadway version [1] but I was moderately intrigued. I had heard snippets of songs and such from various outlets. [2] So, I had a small amount of preset expectations.
They weren't really met.
I'm led to believe that the movie version tried to make the singing more like acting and less like singing, [3] but whatever it it they were shooting for, it didn't thrill me.
For instance, I always imagined the "I'm Jean Valjean" song as being very emphatic at the end. Sort of an "I'M JEAN VALJEAN!!!!!!!!!!!! and if the rest of the world doesn't like it, they can bite me!" vibe. But when I saw it in the movie it was more like, "Say, does anyone know my name? Oh yeah, that's right. I'm [mumbles]."
Also sorry Russell, but stick to Roman warriors and crazy scientist.
In truth, at one point I thought to myself, "You know, I could fall asleep right now if they would just stop singing." Okay it wasn't that bad, but I did find myself a bit bored at times.
I think part of the problem was that the scope of time covered caused them to go a pretty quick pace through the plot. Thus everything felt way too full of emotions that were not yet warranted. I'll see if I can capture the idea in a quick scene:
Bob and Carl walk down the street. [4] They see someone on the other side of the road.
Bob: Who is that over there? I don't think I have ever seen that person before in my entire life.
Carl: Me neither. But I love her forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bob: I think it's a dude.
Carl: I hate him forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, that kind of captures it.
With out really giving away anything that might happen in a musical entitled, "The Miserable", one of the characters commits suicide. When that was happening, I was a bit perplexed. From what I could tell the character seemed to have a pretty good life, except that every few years he would bump into one of the other characters. Suicide seemed a trifle bit of an over-reaction.
I understand that I've completely misinterpreted the relationship between the two, but that's sort of my point. It wasn't really developed. Everything in the musical happened so fast, with no real build up.
You have a job.
You're fired.
You're a prostitute with no teeth or hair.
Say what?
Also, now that I'm thinking about it, in that scene I made up, I should have actually called Carl by the name Marius. I don't think there has ever been a more mercurial character in a movie.
I'm ready to die for the revolution.
Ooh! A pretty girl. Forget that, I'm in love.
Wait, give me a gun, let's fight!
My love is true forever!
To the barricade!
He was like an otter spying a succession of shiny objects. I don't envy Cosette trying to keep him faithful. [5]
I could write more about this and that, but I'll let it go. Let me just finish by saying that I hope Russel and Hugh hit puberty soon.
Les Miserables: C-
[1] - Neither live or otherwise.
[2] - The radio, the Internet, the Pook.
[3] - Or some sort of nonsense like that.
[4] - I swear I picked those names at random. Any relevance to janitors, sci-fi or otherwise, is purely coincidental.
[5] - Or alive.
New Years
I was a bit late on the Christmas post, so here's a nearly equally late post about New Years.
New Years: On the whole this holiday is kind of lame from pretty much all fronts. Let's start with . . .
The Time Perspective: As somebody once said, "time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin' into the future. [1] Also it's been noted that time doesn't have a start or an end, it just keeps right on going. Nevertheless, we [2] arbitrarily picked a day to mark as the end/beginning of the period of time it takes the Earth to orbit the sun. Then we made it into a party. We could have just as easily picked March 13 or September 25. [3]
I realize that it probably had something to do with the symbolism of winter representing dying and the end. Combined with the birth of the new year with spring, but if that was really what we aiming for then January should have started on the first day of Spring. [4]
The Holiday Perspective: We just had Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanza/Festivus. It's only been one week! We realistically can only celebrate so many holidays in a year and the winter has so many of them. Look at August. There's nothing. I'm just saying.
The Celebration Perspective: And how do we "celebrate" the new year anyway? Did you do anything, anything at all that actually had any relevance to a 'new year'?
Granted some of you may have made a resolution, but what does that have to do with a new year? I mean I get it, new year, new chances, new choices. Or rather that's what it's supposed to be. Instead it's more like, new year, new chances, same old behavior. [5]
For most the holiday was an excuse to drink to much and wake up in a fog wondering what happened. [6] Of course, that's probably the real point of the holiday anyway. New Years is like Christmas' drunk step-father.
And the reality of it is that most people are not looking forward to or actually celebrating on New Years at all. Everyone gets together on New Years Eve. They party it up and then once midnight hits, Jenny McCarthy kisses some random stranger and we all go home. The arrival of the supposed point of the celebration is actually the signal of its end. Seriously when you were anticipating whatever fun you were anticipating for the holiday, I'm willing to bet that what you were thinking of was stuff that you did on New Years Eve and not on New Years Day.
How most people really "celebrated" actual New Years Day was they watched some football and watched a parade. Which might have actually been exciting if you hadn't just finished watching parades on Thanksgiving and Christmas.
New Years: D
[1] - No, it was not Seal.
[2] - Meaning Humans.
[3] - Except then of course those days would have been January 1st, but whatever.
[4] - a.k.a. March 20th
[5] - Be truthful now. As I write this it's January 14th. How many of you who made them are still following your resolutions?
[6] - And thus no different from any other weekend, except that it could actually be Tuesday.
New Years: On the whole this holiday is kind of lame from pretty much all fronts. Let's start with . . .
The Time Perspective: As somebody once said, "time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin' into the future. [1] Also it's been noted that time doesn't have a start or an end, it just keeps right on going. Nevertheless, we [2] arbitrarily picked a day to mark as the end/beginning of the period of time it takes the Earth to orbit the sun. Then we made it into a party. We could have just as easily picked March 13 or September 25. [3]
I realize that it probably had something to do with the symbolism of winter representing dying and the end. Combined with the birth of the new year with spring, but if that was really what we aiming for then January should have started on the first day of Spring. [4]
The Holiday Perspective: We just had Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanza/Festivus. It's only been one week! We realistically can only celebrate so many holidays in a year and the winter has so many of them. Look at August. There's nothing. I'm just saying.
The Celebration Perspective: And how do we "celebrate" the new year anyway? Did you do anything, anything at all that actually had any relevance to a 'new year'?
Granted some of you may have made a resolution, but what does that have to do with a new year? I mean I get it, new year, new chances, new choices. Or rather that's what it's supposed to be. Instead it's more like, new year, new chances, same old behavior. [5]
For most the holiday was an excuse to drink to much and wake up in a fog wondering what happened. [6] Of course, that's probably the real point of the holiday anyway. New Years is like Christmas' drunk step-father.
And the reality of it is that most people are not looking forward to or actually celebrating on New Years at all. Everyone gets together on New Years Eve. They party it up and then once midnight hits, Jenny McCarthy kisses some random stranger and we all go home. The arrival of the supposed point of the celebration is actually the signal of its end. Seriously when you were anticipating whatever fun you were anticipating for the holiday, I'm willing to bet that what you were thinking of was stuff that you did on New Years Eve and not on New Years Day.
How most people really "celebrated" actual New Years Day was they watched some football and watched a parade. Which might have actually been exciting if you hadn't just finished watching parades on Thanksgiving and Christmas.
New Years: D
[1] - No, it was not Seal.
[2] - Meaning Humans.
[3] - Except then of course those days would have been January 1st, but whatever.
[4] - a.k.a. March 20th
[5] - Be truthful now. As I write this it's January 14th. How many of you who made them are still following your resolutions?
[6] - And thus no different from any other weekend, except that it could actually be Tuesday.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Christmas
I've been rather busy and somehow have managed not to write anything here for almost a month. I know some of you were probably anxiously awaiting my post on Christmas, so even though it's come and gone, here you go:
Christmas: I like Christmas a lot. A lot a lot. More than any other four holidays put together. Nevertheless, I can appreciate that it's a holiday chock full of weirdness. if you take a step outside of your cultural niche and look at Christmas traditions as an outsider [1] and there are some real head scratchers. So here are a few of the things about Christmas that when you take a closer look at them are really quite strange.
1) Christmas Trees: We have spent a lot of time, effort and money to keep our houses secure. In essence to keep what's inside our houses in and to keep the outside world out. Nevertheless, once a year we go out and chop down a perfectly healthy tree and drag it inside. There we cover it in pretty glass balls, lights and other decorations until it dies.
Then we throw it away.
Why? Because it's tradition.
Of course, for various reasons some people don't want a real tree, so we invented an entire industry in which businesses make fake trees out of plastic for us.
2) Santa Claus: Those same houses that we built to keep nature out are also supposed to keep unwanted guests out. However, once a year we wait in anticipation for a complete stranger to invade our houses while we sleep. He eats our food and then leaves us gifts.
If this were to happen on any other day of the year, you would call the cops and you would eye with a lot of suspicion and such "presents" that were left. And if those presents were food in any way shape or form, there is no way we would eat them.
However in this case, we allow our children [2] to gobble down anything left behind by this midnight invader.
But wait you say, he's not a stranger. He's Santa Claus!
Really, what do you actually know about him? Let's start with looks. What does he look like? Have you ever actually seen him yourself? His modus operandi is that you don't ever see him. He could actually be a 10' tall Chinese woman and you wouldn't know. All that we supposedly know about Santa is 100% stuff other people told us. The kind of testimony that every court in the country would throw out as hearsay. [3]
Another darker side to the Jolly Old Elf is that he's the ultimate stalker. Whatever it is that you are doing, he knows! He's sees you when you're sleeping! He knows when you're awake!
I've seen this movie, it was called Sliver
and it didn't go so well.
3) Fruitcake: I think I've met two people in my life who actually claim to like this stuff. However, I don't think that I have actually ever seen a fruitcake in my life. So for all of its purported ubiquitousness, it's quite possible these are about as real as #2 above.
Christmas: A+++
Christmas Behind the Curtain: C-
[1] - An alien from Alpha Centauri say.
[2] - Who it is our duty to protect.
[3] - In the end, I'm not sure if it speaks volumes about our kids gullibility or faith in us that they believe any of this stuff at all. Last year when we were explaining it to the Bear, I swear the look he gave us was more akin to, "Do you really expect me to believe that?" than anything else.
Christmas: I like Christmas a lot. A lot a lot. More than any other four holidays put together. Nevertheless, I can appreciate that it's a holiday chock full of weirdness. if you take a step outside of your cultural niche and look at Christmas traditions as an outsider [1] and there are some real head scratchers. So here are a few of the things about Christmas that when you take a closer look at them are really quite strange.
1) Christmas Trees: We have spent a lot of time, effort and money to keep our houses secure. In essence to keep what's inside our houses in and to keep the outside world out. Nevertheless, once a year we go out and chop down a perfectly healthy tree and drag it inside. There we cover it in pretty glass balls, lights and other decorations until it dies.
Then we throw it away.
Why? Because it's tradition.
Of course, for various reasons some people don't want a real tree, so we invented an entire industry in which businesses make fake trees out of plastic for us.
2) Santa Claus: Those same houses that we built to keep nature out are also supposed to keep unwanted guests out. However, once a year we wait in anticipation for a complete stranger to invade our houses while we sleep. He eats our food and then leaves us gifts.
If this were to happen on any other day of the year, you would call the cops and you would eye with a lot of suspicion and such "presents" that were left. And if those presents were food in any way shape or form, there is no way we would eat them.
However in this case, we allow our children [2] to gobble down anything left behind by this midnight invader.
But wait you say, he's not a stranger. He's Santa Claus!
Really, what do you actually know about him? Let's start with looks. What does he look like? Have you ever actually seen him yourself? His modus operandi is that you don't ever see him. He could actually be a 10' tall Chinese woman and you wouldn't know. All that we supposedly know about Santa is 100% stuff other people told us. The kind of testimony that every court in the country would throw out as hearsay. [3]
Another darker side to the Jolly Old Elf is that he's the ultimate stalker. Whatever it is that you are doing, he knows! He's sees you when you're sleeping! He knows when you're awake!
I've seen this movie, it was called Sliver
and it didn't go so well.3) Fruitcake: I think I've met two people in my life who actually claim to like this stuff. However, I don't think that I have actually ever seen a fruitcake in my life. So for all of its purported ubiquitousness, it's quite possible these are about as real as #2 above.
Christmas: A+++
Christmas Behind the Curtain: C-
[1] - An alien from Alpha Centauri say.
[2] - Who it is our duty to protect.
[3] - In the end, I'm not sure if it speaks volumes about our kids gullibility or faith in us that they believe any of this stuff at all. Last year when we were explaining it to the Bear, I swear the look he gave us was more akin to, "Do you really expect me to believe that?" than anything else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)