So...I've been really bad about posting and feel fairly guilty about it. I do have some books and such to review, so I'm going to write them up soon. But for now, I had mentioned writing a few stories and had been waiting on some feedback from a few people, but they didn't get back to me. So I'm just going to post them today and tomorrow, and have you guys be my feed back. They still need some work, so tell me what you think. This is the shorter of the two stories, and I'm not sold on the title yet, but I still think it's funny. Oh, and I've thought of building around this story but haven't figured out what to do with it yet.
Runaway Fist
Rich walked into his apartment after being away all weekend to find his roommate John lying on the couch watching TV with a frozen steak on half of his face.
“Dude! What the fuck happened to you? Why the fuck do you have a frozen steak on your face? That’s not one of the good steaks, is it?”
“Nah, man. It’s one of the ones we got on sale last month. Nothing happened. I’m fine.”
“Okay, the last time I walked in here and you had a steak covering half of your face, you got into a bar fight with a tranny. I’m pretty sure something happened.”
“I did not get into a bar fight.”
“Well, that’s good to know. I wasn’t going to drive you to your court date this time if you had. So what happened?”
“I fell down some stairs.”
“Bullshit. The only time that one works is if you’re an old lady and at the bottom of the stairs you yell: ‘Help, I’ve fallen and I can’t get up.’”
“Ha. Fine. I went out last night and ended up going home with this girl.”
“Who? Ms. Olympia?”
“I don’t know. Some chick. I was drunk at the time.”
“Well, unless she’s one kinky bitch, I’m guessing she’s not the one who wrecked half your face.”
“No…that would have been her boyfriend.”
“John…How many times have I told you? The only time you go back with two people to their place is if they are both girls.”
“Thanks…I’ll try to remember that useful bit of information for when it might actually happen. Apparently, the girl I went home with wasn’t exactly single.”
“Eesh. I’m guessing that he walked in on you banging his girl?”
“Something like that. I tried to get out of there, but I sort of ran into a problem. Namely, his fist.”
“That sounds painful.”
“That’s what my face said. He only got me a couple times, but I wasn’t exactly in the best position to defend myself. I just sort of grabbed my pants and got the fuck out of there as fast as I could.”
“Was she hot?”
“I think so. I got pretty shitcanned last night. Ask Chuck. He was with me most of the night until he left with her friend.”
“Please tell me she was good at least.”
“Not sure. It sort of depends. Do I still have all my teeth?”
“Um…looks like you’re missing one.”
“Shit. I had a feeling I puked one up this morning. In that case, she wasn’t that good.”
“Damn man…What are you going to do now?”
“Well, this steak feels pretty good right now, but eating only makes my face hurt. Sunday Night game is about to start. Wanna grab me a beer and watch the game?”
“Sure. Just let me just throw this stuff in my room.”
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Bonding with Bond
Sigh...starting this post fairly late, but I promised one today.
I recently borrowed the first box in the 4 box Ultimate James Bond box set from one of my best friends. He's a huge Bond nut, and I've never seen the old ones all the way through. I've got time on my hands, so I figured I'd watch them. I remember being a lot younger (8ish?), and some TV channel would run one movie a night Bond marathons which I would watch with my parents. Unfortunately, I always had to go to bed before seeing the end, so I've seen the first half of most of the old Bond movies, just like I've seen the first half of the Ten Commandments. It was actually pretty funny because I had gone over to Ethan's place in DC to watch the NCAA title game and, as I was leaving because it was past his and Sara's bedtime, I asked him if I could borrow the first set. He paused and looked at me for about 3 seconds before saying okay. Knowing E as well as I do, I told him that I fully well understood that I was one of the privileged few allowed such an honor and promised to bring it back next time I came over. E and I have known each other our whole lives, our dads have been friends since they were about 3, we can joke around about stuff like this.
Anyway, included in the box set were 5 Bond movies, though the reality is that I feel like I should refer to this set the same way we referred to the Rocky 1-5 box set 1st year, namely, 4 Bond movies and that other movie starring a guy named James Bond. The contents of this set included Goldfinger, Diamonds are Forever, The Man with the Golden Gun, The Living Daylights, and The World is Not Enough (this is the one we pretend doesn't exist.). If you want to know what my problem is with The World is Not Enough, I think it can pretty much be summed up by saying that Denise Richard plays a Nuclear physicist. You can extrapolate from there.
For the rest of the set, my ranking would go as follows:
The Man with the Golden Gun-10.0 This is probably my favorite of the Bond movies. Christopher Lee is an awesome bad guy. Roger Moore makes a great Bond. That amazing 360 car trick. They're in Southeast Asia. And that duel between Scaramanga and Bond is just awesome. Highly recommend it.
Goldfinger-9.5 Roger Moore may play Bond in my favorite single Bond film, but Connery was the best Bond. I don't like it quite as much as Golden Gun, so it gets the 9.5, but it does introduce some of the most iconic Bond characters ever. I mean, if you mention Goldfinger, everyone knows you're talking about James Bond. Also, you have Odd Job and his judo chop and Pussy Galore. Where can you go wrong?
Diamonds are Forever-8.5/9.0 Another Bond classic. As usual, a good showing from Connery, though not my favorite Bond film. These Bond movies do seem to be obsessed with diamonds though. Here, Living Daylights, the one with Halle Berry, I'm sure there are others. Either way, still a really fun flick. The car chase with the cops in Las Vegas was great. It also has perhaps the funniest chase scene ever between a moon robot and guys in cars/three wheeled dirt bikes. Also, the blow up an oil rig at the end. I really enjoyed it, just doesn't stack up to the other two.
The Living Daylights-8.0 I liked the Living Daylights, but this was the worst movie of the this set since I'm not counting the fifth one. It's not that it's bad. Timothy Dalton makes a pretty good Bond. It just has to compete with 3 Bond classics, and it doesn't stack up. My main problem is that Bond seems to fall in love with the Bond girl. Look, it's well known that Bond was a player and slept with plenty of women, but he never, ever falls in love with them, Casino Royale being the exception. Part of what makes Bond, Bond is that he's so suave that even when the girls know he's seducing them, they fall for it anyway. Pussy Galore is a perfect example. Bond is straight up the man, but he never actually falls for any of the girls. In this one though, it seems pretty obvious that Bond falls head over heals for this girl, and I didn't like it. Call me a male chauvinist if you want, but Bond has a reputation to uphold, and Dalton and the script did not hold up their end of the bargain. Still, it's a good Bond movie.
I recently borrowed the first box in the 4 box Ultimate James Bond box set from one of my best friends. He's a huge Bond nut, and I've never seen the old ones all the way through. I've got time on my hands, so I figured I'd watch them. I remember being a lot younger (8ish?), and some TV channel would run one movie a night Bond marathons which I would watch with my parents. Unfortunately, I always had to go to bed before seeing the end, so I've seen the first half of most of the old Bond movies, just like I've seen the first half of the Ten Commandments. It was actually pretty funny because I had gone over to Ethan's place in DC to watch the NCAA title game and, as I was leaving because it was past his and Sara's bedtime, I asked him if I could borrow the first set. He paused and looked at me for about 3 seconds before saying okay. Knowing E as well as I do, I told him that I fully well understood that I was one of the privileged few allowed such an honor and promised to bring it back next time I came over. E and I have known each other our whole lives, our dads have been friends since they were about 3, we can joke around about stuff like this.
Anyway, included in the box set were 5 Bond movies, though the reality is that I feel like I should refer to this set the same way we referred to the Rocky 1-5 box set 1st year, namely, 4 Bond movies and that other movie starring a guy named James Bond. The contents of this set included Goldfinger, Diamonds are Forever, The Man with the Golden Gun, The Living Daylights, and The World is Not Enough (this is the one we pretend doesn't exist.). If you want to know what my problem is with The World is Not Enough, I think it can pretty much be summed up by saying that Denise Richard plays a Nuclear physicist. You can extrapolate from there.
For the rest of the set, my ranking would go as follows:
The Man with the Golden Gun-10.0 This is probably my favorite of the Bond movies. Christopher Lee is an awesome bad guy. Roger Moore makes a great Bond. That amazing 360 car trick. They're in Southeast Asia. And that duel between Scaramanga and Bond is just awesome. Highly recommend it.
Goldfinger-9.5 Roger Moore may play Bond in my favorite single Bond film, but Connery was the best Bond. I don't like it quite as much as Golden Gun, so it gets the 9.5, but it does introduce some of the most iconic Bond characters ever. I mean, if you mention Goldfinger, everyone knows you're talking about James Bond. Also, you have Odd Job and his judo chop and Pussy Galore. Where can you go wrong?
Diamonds are Forever-8.5/9.0 Another Bond classic. As usual, a good showing from Connery, though not my favorite Bond film. These Bond movies do seem to be obsessed with diamonds though. Here, Living Daylights, the one with Halle Berry, I'm sure there are others. Either way, still a really fun flick. The car chase with the cops in Las Vegas was great. It also has perhaps the funniest chase scene ever between a moon robot and guys in cars/three wheeled dirt bikes. Also, the blow up an oil rig at the end. I really enjoyed it, just doesn't stack up to the other two.
The Living Daylights-8.0 I liked the Living Daylights, but this was the worst movie of the this set since I'm not counting the fifth one. It's not that it's bad. Timothy Dalton makes a pretty good Bond. It just has to compete with 3 Bond classics, and it doesn't stack up. My main problem is that Bond seems to fall in love with the Bond girl. Look, it's well known that Bond was a player and slept with plenty of women, but he never, ever falls in love with them, Casino Royale being the exception. Part of what makes Bond, Bond is that he's so suave that even when the girls know he's seducing them, they fall for it anyway. Pussy Galore is a perfect example. Bond is straight up the man, but he never actually falls for any of the girls. In this one though, it seems pretty obvious that Bond falls head over heals for this girl, and I didn't like it. Call me a male chauvinist if you want, but Bond has a reputation to uphold, and Dalton and the script did not hold up their end of the bargain. Still, it's a good Bond movie.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Jungle Boogie
I promise entries tomorrow and most likely the day after. I've been working on a short story the past few days which will hopefully be finished, edited, and posted soon. Until then, here's something to keep you entertained.
Jungle Boogie by Kool and the Gang
Get Down, Get Down
Get Down, Get Down
(6x)
Jungle Boogie
Jungle Boogie
(Get It On)
Jungle Boogie
Jungle Boogie
(Get It On)
Jungle Boogie
Jungle Boogie
Jungle Boogie
(Get Down With The Boogie)
Jungle Boogie
(Come & Shake It Around)
Jungle Boogie
(Help & Get Down)
Jungle Boogie
(Boogie Baby)
Jungle Boogie
(The Boogie)
Jungle Boogie
(Uhhuhuhhhu)
Jungle Boogie
(Get Down)
Jungle Boogie
(Get Boogie)
Jungle Boogie
(Let Me Jump In)
Jungle Boogie
(Down With The Boogie)
Get Down Get Down
Get Down Get Down
(10x)
Uh, Yea
Feel The Funk Ya'll
Let Me Feel The Load
Get Down With The Boogie
I'm Gonna Knock With The Jungle Boogie
Get Down
Get Down With The Boogie Say
Uhgh
Get Down Say Uhgh
Get Down Say Ugh
Till You Feel It Ya'll
Get Down Ya'll
Get Down
Get Funky Ya'll
With The Get Down
Jungle Boogie by Kool and the Gang
Get Down, Get Down
Get Down, Get Down
(6x)
Jungle Boogie
Jungle Boogie
(Get It On)
Jungle Boogie
Jungle Boogie
(Get It On)
Jungle Boogie
Jungle Boogie
Jungle Boogie
(Get Down With The Boogie)
Jungle Boogie
(Come & Shake It Around)
Jungle Boogie
(Help & Get Down)
Jungle Boogie
(Boogie Baby)
Jungle Boogie
(The Boogie)
Jungle Boogie
(Uhhuhuhhhu)
Jungle Boogie
(Get Down)
Jungle Boogie
(Get Boogie)
Jungle Boogie
(Let Me Jump In)
Jungle Boogie
(Down With The Boogie)
Get Down Get Down
Get Down Get Down
(10x)
Uh, Yea
Feel The Funk Ya'll
Let Me Feel The Load
Get Down With The Boogie
I'm Gonna Knock With The Jungle Boogie
Get Down
Get Down With The Boogie Say
Uhgh
Get Down Say Uhgh
Get Down Say Ugh
Till You Feel It Ya'll
Get Down Ya'll
Get Down
Get Funky Ya'll
With The Get Down
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Matzah...the official cracker of Jesus
Apologies for the infrequent posts recently. Life has been pretty boring, even to me, and I haven't really been inspired to write anything. Well, I have been sort of working on this short story I started. I can already tell I'm going to have to almost completely rewrite it, but at least I'll have a first draft done...eventually.
So I was reading this article on CNN.com today about a rabbi who was training for the Boston Marathon. Being that the marathon falls during Passover, the rabbi had to find an alternative to bread and pasta for the typical pre-race carb load up. So he is going to load up on matzah and potatoes instead. Also, he will not be attending a seder on the 2nd night of Passover, preferring to rest up for the race instead of participating in what will undoubtedly be a long evening between preparing for the seder, having the seder, and clean up afterwards. As a rabbi, this is somewhat controversial because, as the leader of the community, he has a responsibility to set an example. However, he is a Reform or liberal/secular rabbi and, after much thought and consult with a Conservative rabbi, decided that it was okay. Plus, he's running for charity and that is still a mitzvah. I still don't know how I feel about him missing second seder. I'm also a reform Jew and fairly secular, but Passover has been one of the few holidays I've tried to observe pretty strictly. On top of that, we almost always did two seders at my house (My dad was raised Orthodox though admittedly not very well.), well, at least the first half. The first time I did the second half of the seder was when I was in college. Still, I feel that a rabbi should be held to a higher standard. Granted, he is running for charity which is always a good thing, and both of my rabbis have not been particularly traditional. However, for some reason, I've always been fairly particular about the traditions that I do observe, and feel that at least a rabbi would do the same, making some attempt to have a 2nd seder, even if it is abbreviated.
For those readers who don't know much about Passover (all 4 of you that I know about and a few others I suspect), I'll give a little background on Passover for your enlightenment. If you've ever read the Bible or turned on the TV during Passover, you should know the story of Exodus, the flight of the Jews from Egypt. Passover, a holiday that lasts for 8 days, celebrates the escape from Egypt. As one of the most important Jewish holidays, the seder is the most important aspect of the holiday, during which we retell the story of Exodus with various symbolic food elements. Now, I'll admit that some of my best memories growing up deal with the seder. Everybody always comes to our house, and I definitely remember having upwards of 15-20 people at our house for seder. The main reason that everyone comes to our house is that my mom is probably the best cook that any of our friends know, especially for large groups, and the Passover feast is easily the best meal that I had all year growing up. I'm going home next weekend for seder, and I am really excited. On a side note, I have never actually seen the Charlton Heston epic “The Ten Commandments” in its entirety. I know, I know, “The Ten Commandments” and “Fiddler on the Roof” are required viewing for Jews of all religions, and, while I saw “Fiddler” in Hebrew School, I've only ever seen about the first half of “The Ten Commandments.” I remember watching it when I was fairly young and always having to go to bed before it ended. In case you haven't seen it, I'm pretty sure the running time of the movie is 40 years in the desert. I have seen “The Prince of Egypt” though which is not on the required Jewish viewing list.
Perhaps the funniest moment I've ever been the star of, and I've been part of many, came during a seder probably close to 20 years ago by now. As is traditionally done in seders across the country, we were going around the table reading the Haggadah or Passover story aloud, and it was my turn. I was probably 6 or 7 at the time. Something very young though of reading age. Anyway, I was reading my passage and came across the word “miracles.” However, I did not in fact read the word “miracles.” Instead, in my gusto to prove how good of a reader I was, I said the word “mackerals.” Needless to say, this resulted in an inordinate amount of laughter and a story I have never forgotten.
The reality is that I've always been fairly impressed with how well my mom took to the Jewish traditions, despite being raised Catholic, albeit in Spain. For those of you who don't know about the place of religion in Spain, Spain has become an increasingly secular country even though it is still affiliated with the Catholic Church. Very few of my friends go to Church in Spain, let alone believe. My mom has no intentions of ever converting, though the only times I ever see my mom go to Church are Christmas, Easter, and when my abuela comes to visit, but never had an issue with my sister and I being raised Jewish. I once caused a minor tiff amongst my parents when I mentioned how my dad would never marry someone who wouldn't be willing to raise the kids Jewish. Apparently my mom did not know this when they first got engaged. Oops. My bad.
Part of the holiday also includes some fairly strict dietary restrictions. Chief among them is that we cannot eat leavened bread. This restriction stems from when the Jews fled their homes in Egypt. They did not have time to allow the bread to rise, resulting in a flat bread that is the ancestor of matzah. Matzah is perhaps one of my least favorite foods, and all you goyim who rave about how good it is and buy it during Passover, aren't forced to eat it and not much else for a week straight. Try it some time. Also, for those of you who don't know, the famous Last Supper of Jesus was actually a Passover Seder. (Contrary to popular belief, Jesus was not actually Christian but Jewish) Inspired to look up Da Vinci's “Last Supper” right now, I'm pretty sure there is bread on the table. Not very historically accurate. Tsk, Tsk.
This finally leads us to the actual inspiration for this post. In the interesting, but otherwise unimportant article, I found that apparently the writer of the story has quite a funny way with words. The article says: “Matzoh is known to have a binding effect on the digestive tract.” Now, I don't know how many people reading this have been required to eat only matzah for a full week, but if you have, you'll know that a “binding effect” is putting it lightly. One of the things that matzah is used to symbolize during the seder is the bricks that the Jewish slaves were forced to make in Egypt. That's a pretty good thing to have matzah symbolize because, after you eat enough of it, your digestive tract feels like it's lined with cement. Among the many side effects of have cement throughout your entire digestive tract is that it does wonders for your colon, and I mean that as sarcastically as possible. At least this rabbi will be running after only a couple days of Passover, because I couldn't imagine running towards the end of the week. Of course, the good thing about Passover is that you eat so little that you drop about 5 pounds, but then you gorge yourself on pizza as soon as it's over, so never mind. Until next time.
Music listened to while writing this blog: David Bowie-Best of Bowie If you aren't a Bowie fan, go be one. Bowie is awesome!
So I was reading this article on CNN.com today about a rabbi who was training for the Boston Marathon. Being that the marathon falls during Passover, the rabbi had to find an alternative to bread and pasta for the typical pre-race carb load up. So he is going to load up on matzah and potatoes instead. Also, he will not be attending a seder on the 2nd night of Passover, preferring to rest up for the race instead of participating in what will undoubtedly be a long evening between preparing for the seder, having the seder, and clean up afterwards. As a rabbi, this is somewhat controversial because, as the leader of the community, he has a responsibility to set an example. However, he is a Reform or liberal/secular rabbi and, after much thought and consult with a Conservative rabbi, decided that it was okay. Plus, he's running for charity and that is still a mitzvah. I still don't know how I feel about him missing second seder. I'm also a reform Jew and fairly secular, but Passover has been one of the few holidays I've tried to observe pretty strictly. On top of that, we almost always did two seders at my house (My dad was raised Orthodox though admittedly not very well.), well, at least the first half. The first time I did the second half of the seder was when I was in college. Still, I feel that a rabbi should be held to a higher standard. Granted, he is running for charity which is always a good thing, and both of my rabbis have not been particularly traditional. However, for some reason, I've always been fairly particular about the traditions that I do observe, and feel that at least a rabbi would do the same, making some attempt to have a 2nd seder, even if it is abbreviated.
For those readers who don't know much about Passover (all 4 of you that I know about and a few others I suspect), I'll give a little background on Passover for your enlightenment. If you've ever read the Bible or turned on the TV during Passover, you should know the story of Exodus, the flight of the Jews from Egypt. Passover, a holiday that lasts for 8 days, celebrates the escape from Egypt. As one of the most important Jewish holidays, the seder is the most important aspect of the holiday, during which we retell the story of Exodus with various symbolic food elements. Now, I'll admit that some of my best memories growing up deal with the seder. Everybody always comes to our house, and I definitely remember having upwards of 15-20 people at our house for seder. The main reason that everyone comes to our house is that my mom is probably the best cook that any of our friends know, especially for large groups, and the Passover feast is easily the best meal that I had all year growing up. I'm going home next weekend for seder, and I am really excited. On a side note, I have never actually seen the Charlton Heston epic “The Ten Commandments” in its entirety. I know, I know, “The Ten Commandments” and “Fiddler on the Roof” are required viewing for Jews of all religions, and, while I saw “Fiddler” in Hebrew School, I've only ever seen about the first half of “The Ten Commandments.” I remember watching it when I was fairly young and always having to go to bed before it ended. In case you haven't seen it, I'm pretty sure the running time of the movie is 40 years in the desert. I have seen “The Prince of Egypt” though which is not on the required Jewish viewing list.
Perhaps the funniest moment I've ever been the star of, and I've been part of many, came during a seder probably close to 20 years ago by now. As is traditionally done in seders across the country, we were going around the table reading the Haggadah or Passover story aloud, and it was my turn. I was probably 6 or 7 at the time. Something very young though of reading age. Anyway, I was reading my passage and came across the word “miracles.” However, I did not in fact read the word “miracles.” Instead, in my gusto to prove how good of a reader I was, I said the word “mackerals.” Needless to say, this resulted in an inordinate amount of laughter and a story I have never forgotten.
The reality is that I've always been fairly impressed with how well my mom took to the Jewish traditions, despite being raised Catholic, albeit in Spain. For those of you who don't know about the place of religion in Spain, Spain has become an increasingly secular country even though it is still affiliated with the Catholic Church. Very few of my friends go to Church in Spain, let alone believe. My mom has no intentions of ever converting, though the only times I ever see my mom go to Church are Christmas, Easter, and when my abuela comes to visit, but never had an issue with my sister and I being raised Jewish. I once caused a minor tiff amongst my parents when I mentioned how my dad would never marry someone who wouldn't be willing to raise the kids Jewish. Apparently my mom did not know this when they first got engaged. Oops. My bad.
Part of the holiday also includes some fairly strict dietary restrictions. Chief among them is that we cannot eat leavened bread. This restriction stems from when the Jews fled their homes in Egypt. They did not have time to allow the bread to rise, resulting in a flat bread that is the ancestor of matzah. Matzah is perhaps one of my least favorite foods, and all you goyim who rave about how good it is and buy it during Passover, aren't forced to eat it and not much else for a week straight. Try it some time. Also, for those of you who don't know, the famous Last Supper of Jesus was actually a Passover Seder. (Contrary to popular belief, Jesus was not actually Christian but Jewish) Inspired to look up Da Vinci's “Last Supper” right now, I'm pretty sure there is bread on the table. Not very historically accurate. Tsk, Tsk.
This finally leads us to the actual inspiration for this post. In the interesting, but otherwise unimportant article, I found that apparently the writer of the story has quite a funny way with words. The article says: “Matzoh is known to have a binding effect on the digestive tract.” Now, I don't know how many people reading this have been required to eat only matzah for a full week, but if you have, you'll know that a “binding effect” is putting it lightly. One of the things that matzah is used to symbolize during the seder is the bricks that the Jewish slaves were forced to make in Egypt. That's a pretty good thing to have matzah symbolize because, after you eat enough of it, your digestive tract feels like it's lined with cement. Among the many side effects of have cement throughout your entire digestive tract is that it does wonders for your colon, and I mean that as sarcastically as possible. At least this rabbi will be running after only a couple days of Passover, because I couldn't imagine running towards the end of the week. Of course, the good thing about Passover is that you eat so little that you drop about 5 pounds, but then you gorge yourself on pizza as soon as it's over, so never mind. Until next time.
Music listened to while writing this blog: David Bowie-Best of Bowie If you aren't a Bowie fan, go be one. Bowie is awesome!
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Mi vida elegida
So I attempted to write this post yesterday, and it was complete shite, so I'm giving his a second go. On a side note, I recommend the new link I just posted. Really interesting essay out of The Barcelona Review.
I alluded the other day to my overall philosophy on life, promising a more involved explanation of the theory at a later date...today. I don't know how much you guys know about chaos theory, but, if I understand it even somewhat (which is about as far as I'll go), the basic idea is that a very small initial action can lead to a significant and much greater end result that is, in fact, not random. The common metaphor I've heard and will promptly butcher for this theory is the beating of a butterfly's wings in China can cause a hurricane in the Caribbean. In a way, this is how I envision life working. Life is a sequence of infinite choices that can lead to often unpredictable, though not random, results. To me, this makes every choice you make, no matter how small it mean seem to be, important because there is no telling what futures a seemingly insignificant choice has both created and destroyed.
Now some would argue that the path you end up on throughout your whole life is actually the only path you could have taken. You are thus fated to one specific destiny that is immutable. These people are determinists and I have to respectfully disagree. Well, that's not completely true. I will give them this, I have to be the person I am right now, and could not possibly be any other person that who I am. However, this is not because of some predetermined plan ordered by a higher being. I happen to believe that, should Gd exist, Gd is an inactive player in our lives. Gd gave man free will and left us do the rest from there. Rather, we are the people we can be right now because the sequence of choices that we have made created a unique path that could only lead to one result, the person we are now. There is no telling what kind of person we would be right now if we had made different choices, but I know absolutely that one single different choice, no matter how insignificant, would result in a different person, though maybe only slightly, then I am right now, lying on my bed, unemployed, ultimately a happy person, writing this post.
Take a second to think back to any even somewhat important choice you've made, and now make think about the alternative whether it's deciding to go to a different university, accepting a different job offer, or something as simple as a message you decide not to send. Now try to work your way forward again. Every single thing that happened as a result of that decision is now altered and perhaps even annulled. Ask yourself, am I still living where I'm living, friends with who I'm friends with, working where I'm working, reading these words at this very moment? Who even knows, and it's a hell of a mindfuck, but that's not what really matters. What actually matters is the reality we are living in, a reality of our own creation, resulting from choices we knowingly made. Where I disagree with the determinists is that we don't have to be the people we are today. We could have been any of an infinite set of variations, we're the way we are not from a set of external factors that we have no control over (Gd, fate, what have you), but rather from a set of internal ones that we do control. Our past is a straight line ending in the point that is who we are at this very moment.
Now, I don't mean to suggest that external factors have no influence on our lives. That's absurd; of course they do. Nurture plays a huge factor in our personality and how we make our choices. How and where we were raised, the opportunities afforded to us, the things we see as we grow up are all incredibly important. These are the things that when we make any decision, when we stick the two choices on a scale, help us to determine which side gets more weight. I will admit that nature probably has some effect, but it is not the dominant factor that nurture is. However, it is still a choice, and we can either let these factors control our decision-making process or simply use them as tools to help us make that choice. The key is that there are always two alternatives, regardless as to how unappealing one might seem at the time. As I argued before, there's no telling where a decision might lead, meaning that a seemingly unimaginable option now could lead to a far better future than the other, more attractive one. Because you have no idea what is going to happen in the future, you shouldn't be so rash to ignore an alternative just because it seems difficult, unattractive, or scary. Everything has worth and can lead to something amazing in the future. I often jest that my New Year's resolution is simply getting to date two due to a rough set of first dates I've had that frustratingly at the time didn't lead anywhere. My real New Year's resolution though is this: To push the boundaries of who I am and what I'm comfortable with because who knows what experiences I may be missing out on simply because I'm too afraid to try. I think so far, it's done me pretty well, and I only hope it gets better.
The whole point of the philosophy, and why I get increasingly frustrated with a lot of post-modern fiction writing, is that we are responsible for our own lot of life. It's not somebody else's fault that we may be unhappy or unsure of ourselves. We put ourselves in the position we find ourselves today, and only we can get ourselves out of it by making taking the alternative route. We control the way our life turns out. If you're unhappy, obviously the choices you've been making are not leading to your eventual happiness, so make different ones. I'm not going to stand here and say that it's easy to do such things; often it is extremely difficult. But it's not impossible. Nothing is. I unabashedly admit to being an optimist because I know for a fact that despite the future's unpredictable nature, it has the potential to lead us to happiness, as long as we aren't too afraid to act on the opportunity. The past may be a straight line, but I guarantee you that the future is not. It is an infinite and complex web of choices, and all we can do is hope that we make the choices that lead to the happiest outcomes. I accepted this a long time ago, and because of it, I don't regret anything that has happened to me in the past, as bad as it may have seemed at the time. If things had been different, I could very easily have missed out on the really good things that have come into my life recently. Maybe the alternative would have been better, but I don't let the anxiety of What if? keep me awake at night. Instead, I embrace the life I am living right now.
Music listened to while writing this post: Daft Punk-Alive (2007)
I alluded the other day to my overall philosophy on life, promising a more involved explanation of the theory at a later date...today. I don't know how much you guys know about chaos theory, but, if I understand it even somewhat (which is about as far as I'll go), the basic idea is that a very small initial action can lead to a significant and much greater end result that is, in fact, not random. The common metaphor I've heard and will promptly butcher for this theory is the beating of a butterfly's wings in China can cause a hurricane in the Caribbean. In a way, this is how I envision life working. Life is a sequence of infinite choices that can lead to often unpredictable, though not random, results. To me, this makes every choice you make, no matter how small it mean seem to be, important because there is no telling what futures a seemingly insignificant choice has both created and destroyed.
Now some would argue that the path you end up on throughout your whole life is actually the only path you could have taken. You are thus fated to one specific destiny that is immutable. These people are determinists and I have to respectfully disagree. Well, that's not completely true. I will give them this, I have to be the person I am right now, and could not possibly be any other person that who I am. However, this is not because of some predetermined plan ordered by a higher being. I happen to believe that, should Gd exist, Gd is an inactive player in our lives. Gd gave man free will and left us do the rest from there. Rather, we are the people we can be right now because the sequence of choices that we have made created a unique path that could only lead to one result, the person we are now. There is no telling what kind of person we would be right now if we had made different choices, but I know absolutely that one single different choice, no matter how insignificant, would result in a different person, though maybe only slightly, then I am right now, lying on my bed, unemployed, ultimately a happy person, writing this post.
Take a second to think back to any even somewhat important choice you've made, and now make think about the alternative whether it's deciding to go to a different university, accepting a different job offer, or something as simple as a message you decide not to send. Now try to work your way forward again. Every single thing that happened as a result of that decision is now altered and perhaps even annulled. Ask yourself, am I still living where I'm living, friends with who I'm friends with, working where I'm working, reading these words at this very moment? Who even knows, and it's a hell of a mindfuck, but that's not what really matters. What actually matters is the reality we are living in, a reality of our own creation, resulting from choices we knowingly made. Where I disagree with the determinists is that we don't have to be the people we are today. We could have been any of an infinite set of variations, we're the way we are not from a set of external factors that we have no control over (Gd, fate, what have you), but rather from a set of internal ones that we do control. Our past is a straight line ending in the point that is who we are at this very moment.
Now, I don't mean to suggest that external factors have no influence on our lives. That's absurd; of course they do. Nurture plays a huge factor in our personality and how we make our choices. How and where we were raised, the opportunities afforded to us, the things we see as we grow up are all incredibly important. These are the things that when we make any decision, when we stick the two choices on a scale, help us to determine which side gets more weight. I will admit that nature probably has some effect, but it is not the dominant factor that nurture is. However, it is still a choice, and we can either let these factors control our decision-making process or simply use them as tools to help us make that choice. The key is that there are always two alternatives, regardless as to how unappealing one might seem at the time. As I argued before, there's no telling where a decision might lead, meaning that a seemingly unimaginable option now could lead to a far better future than the other, more attractive one. Because you have no idea what is going to happen in the future, you shouldn't be so rash to ignore an alternative just because it seems difficult, unattractive, or scary. Everything has worth and can lead to something amazing in the future. I often jest that my New Year's resolution is simply getting to date two due to a rough set of first dates I've had that frustratingly at the time didn't lead anywhere. My real New Year's resolution though is this: To push the boundaries of who I am and what I'm comfortable with because who knows what experiences I may be missing out on simply because I'm too afraid to try. I think so far, it's done me pretty well, and I only hope it gets better.
The whole point of the philosophy, and why I get increasingly frustrated with a lot of post-modern fiction writing, is that we are responsible for our own lot of life. It's not somebody else's fault that we may be unhappy or unsure of ourselves. We put ourselves in the position we find ourselves today, and only we can get ourselves out of it by making taking the alternative route. We control the way our life turns out. If you're unhappy, obviously the choices you've been making are not leading to your eventual happiness, so make different ones. I'm not going to stand here and say that it's easy to do such things; often it is extremely difficult. But it's not impossible. Nothing is. I unabashedly admit to being an optimist because I know for a fact that despite the future's unpredictable nature, it has the potential to lead us to happiness, as long as we aren't too afraid to act on the opportunity. The past may be a straight line, but I guarantee you that the future is not. It is an infinite and complex web of choices, and all we can do is hope that we make the choices that lead to the happiest outcomes. I accepted this a long time ago, and because of it, I don't regret anything that has happened to me in the past, as bad as it may have seemed at the time. If things had been different, I could very easily have missed out on the really good things that have come into my life recently. Maybe the alternative would have been better, but I don't let the anxiety of What if? keep me awake at night. Instead, I embrace the life I am living right now.
Music listened to while writing this post: Daft Punk-Alive (2007)
Sunday, April 6, 2008
What's your 20?
The following post is a reaction to this article on CNN.com about relationships and Facebook.
The relationship status has been an aspect of Facebook since its inception. I'm old enough to remember when Facebook first invaded UVa, among the first group of schools that was part of the site, and I remember gleefully starting to construct my profile, adding friends, narrowing down my favorite books/movies, and declaring my relationship status (taken) at the time. I also remember when I was no longer in that relationship, and as a result, my declaration of status changed with it. To many, declaring yourself in a relationship is a badge of honor. It is a declaration not only to all your friends that you are no longer wallowing in singlehood, but also to your new significant other that you are taking a purposeful and committed first step. Moreover, it is a confirmation to the self; a comforting symbol that you have found someone that you look forward to waking up next to in the morning (always my favorite part and significant for its purity).
Similarly, removing that status and converting it to single or nothing at all, can be as painful as the opposite is joyous. It exposes the relationship for what it ultimately was, an imposter. Granted, dating is a process and, as I'm discovering, often a numbers game. You go on a first date, and hopefully a second or a third. If it doesn't work out, you learn something from the experience. What are the characteristics that you need the other person to have. What you're willing to accept and put up with, and what you can't possibly tolerate. That being said, all those failed relationships are still imitations of the one you're really looking for. The reality is that we're all looking for that one last relationship; the one to end all the searching. As Hitch put it quite eloquently, we're searching for that last first kiss. Changing your status from “in a relationship” to “single” is a constant reminder that you are still looking. (Now seems to be a perfectly good time to admit, in case you haven't figured it out already, that I am a bit of a romantic and do believe in true love. I'm try not to be particularly cynical.) It's even more jarring when that status is changed on you.
I think we can all admit that, among friends, it is one of the most talked and gossiped about pieces of information on Facebook. No one really cares which Harry Potter character you are or what your favorite sports teams are, but the second that the status changes, it grabs people's attention. (Thank you News Feed!) Condolences if you've recently broken up, mass stalkings if you declare yourself “In a relationship,” and the attention garnered by a change to “engaged” is unparalleled. We, ourselves, often enjoy making the changes in status because it makes it official and more real. If you've just broken up, it's the first step you taking towards healing.
Yet, in many ways, it's a sad statement that Facebook is what tells us that a relationship status is official. We should be the ones who confirm to ourselves whether a relationship is official. As I ranted about in my last post, there is a constant state of anxiety in our generation with respect to identity and authenticity and our search for it. Of all things, Facebook is providing that for us, and what does that really say about our clawing desperation to find the authentic? Facebook is an Internet website; it exists in a bunch of servers and electrons. Hell, I have no idea how my wireless Internet even works, but I know that when I hit “Publish Post,” somehow everything I've just typed will get posted onto my blog which exists out there somewhere. If I type into my GPS, do you think it will find it? The point being that we get our source of authenticity from something that has no real substance. Plenty of people mock Facebook's relationship status option by being “married” to best friends or other such false relationships, easily destroying the credibility of that declaration. My sister is guilty of this seemingly innocuous stab at the authentic. This is exactly what many artists of all medium, writers, poets, painters, photographers, struggle with or point out in their works. Rene Magritte's The Treachery of Images is a good example of a painter exposing the problems of authenticity.
I felt that the article ended rather humorously, considering that one of the young college students makes an off-handed remark about now knowing what people did before Facebook. I remember what I did before Facebook...I used a lot of AIM, and I talked to people in person. What a crazy concept. Now, I'll admit that I'm not a really big phone person, and often communicate with friends via Facebook, text message (tex mex as my mom would say), or email. But those options don't really compare to hearing someone's voice, and even less so to talking to someone in person. It would seem now that, for some reason, as the degree of distance increases between the lines of communication, the authenticity of that information increases which seems a bit ass backwards.
All this being said, am I going to resist declaring myself in a relationship when I am in one again? Doubtful, for the same reasons that everyone else does it. However, what Facebook says about my relationship or lack there of in the electronic universe does not determine what my status actually is. It is simply a response to an actual reality, and it's the reality of dating that I look forward to and enjoy much more than what Facebook says about my dating life.
Music listened to while writing this post: Keane-Under the Iron Sea (Great album) and Kings of Convenience-Quiet is the New Loud.
The relationship status has been an aspect of Facebook since its inception. I'm old enough to remember when Facebook first invaded UVa, among the first group of schools that was part of the site, and I remember gleefully starting to construct my profile, adding friends, narrowing down my favorite books/movies, and declaring my relationship status (taken) at the time. I also remember when I was no longer in that relationship, and as a result, my declaration of status changed with it. To many, declaring yourself in a relationship is a badge of honor. It is a declaration not only to all your friends that you are no longer wallowing in singlehood, but also to your new significant other that you are taking a purposeful and committed first step. Moreover, it is a confirmation to the self; a comforting symbol that you have found someone that you look forward to waking up next to in the morning (always my favorite part and significant for its purity).
Similarly, removing that status and converting it to single or nothing at all, can be as painful as the opposite is joyous. It exposes the relationship for what it ultimately was, an imposter. Granted, dating is a process and, as I'm discovering, often a numbers game. You go on a first date, and hopefully a second or a third. If it doesn't work out, you learn something from the experience. What are the characteristics that you need the other person to have. What you're willing to accept and put up with, and what you can't possibly tolerate. That being said, all those failed relationships are still imitations of the one you're really looking for. The reality is that we're all looking for that one last relationship; the one to end all the searching. As Hitch put it quite eloquently, we're searching for that last first kiss. Changing your status from “in a relationship” to “single” is a constant reminder that you are still looking. (Now seems to be a perfectly good time to admit, in case you haven't figured it out already, that I am a bit of a romantic and do believe in true love. I'm try not to be particularly cynical.) It's even more jarring when that status is changed on you.
I think we can all admit that, among friends, it is one of the most talked and gossiped about pieces of information on Facebook. No one really cares which Harry Potter character you are or what your favorite sports teams are, but the second that the status changes, it grabs people's attention. (Thank you News Feed!) Condolences if you've recently broken up, mass stalkings if you declare yourself “In a relationship,” and the attention garnered by a change to “engaged” is unparalleled. We, ourselves, often enjoy making the changes in status because it makes it official and more real. If you've just broken up, it's the first step you taking towards healing.
Yet, in many ways, it's a sad statement that Facebook is what tells us that a relationship status is official. We should be the ones who confirm to ourselves whether a relationship is official. As I ranted about in my last post, there is a constant state of anxiety in our generation with respect to identity and authenticity and our search for it. Of all things, Facebook is providing that for us, and what does that really say about our clawing desperation to find the authentic? Facebook is an Internet website; it exists in a bunch of servers and electrons. Hell, I have no idea how my wireless Internet even works, but I know that when I hit “Publish Post,” somehow everything I've just typed will get posted onto my blog which exists out there somewhere. If I type into my GPS, do you think it will find it? The point being that we get our source of authenticity from something that has no real substance. Plenty of people mock Facebook's relationship status option by being “married” to best friends or other such false relationships, easily destroying the credibility of that declaration. My sister is guilty of this seemingly innocuous stab at the authentic. This is exactly what many artists of all medium, writers, poets, painters, photographers, struggle with or point out in their works. Rene Magritte's The Treachery of Images is a good example of a painter exposing the problems of authenticity.
I felt that the article ended rather humorously, considering that one of the young college students makes an off-handed remark about now knowing what people did before Facebook. I remember what I did before Facebook...I used a lot of AIM, and I talked to people in person. What a crazy concept. Now, I'll admit that I'm not a really big phone person, and often communicate with friends via Facebook, text message (tex mex as my mom would say), or email. But those options don't really compare to hearing someone's voice, and even less so to talking to someone in person. It would seem now that, for some reason, as the degree of distance increases between the lines of communication, the authenticity of that information increases which seems a bit ass backwards.
All this being said, am I going to resist declaring myself in a relationship when I am in one again? Doubtful, for the same reasons that everyone else does it. However, what Facebook says about my relationship or lack there of in the electronic universe does not determine what my status actually is. It is simply a response to an actual reality, and it's the reality of dating that I look forward to and enjoy much more than what Facebook says about my dating life.
Music listened to while writing this post: Keane-Under the Iron Sea (Great album) and Kings of Convenience-Quiet is the New Loud.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Invisible Monsters
INVISIBLE MONSTERS BY CHUCK PALAHNIUKChuck Palahniuk is known for penning the great novel Fight Club which was produced into an equally great movie by David Fincher starring Edward Norton and Brad Pitt. I have in fact read the novel (highly recommend) and rewatched the movie today for the first time in years. I have been meaning to read another one of this novels for a while now, and last time I was in Barnes and Noble, I picked up Invisible Monsters. What makes Palahniuk's writing interesting is that he's really great at taking the existential question that has become the core of the post-modern era and placed it in some really unique situations. Fight Club is a perfect example of this, and Invisible Monsters continues that trend. The basic premise of the story is that a beautiful model has the bottom half of her face blown off, and must now reorient her new, grotesque self in a world where “Beauty is good” is the mantra. Palahniuk wonderfully constructs the novel so that we view the narrator in many different periods of her life instead of following a linear story arc. Palahniuk has certainly read his Boom novel. These vignettes flesh out the characterization of the narrator much better than having these events described to us by an omniscient narrator. I think the overall style and composition of the novel speaks to both the quality of Palahniuk's writing and his creativity.
Okay, that's enough of me fawning over the novel. I liked the novel. I think Palahniuk is a really good writer, and his story concepts are really well constructed. Different then much of the other books being published and in a good way. That being said, I'm really getting tired of the existential dilemma that is the subject of pretty much all contemporary fiction. The subject consumes almost all of my McSweeney's reading (I know I promised a McSweeney's blog a while ago. I swear it's coming.) and most modern novels as well. I know it's the post-modern question. Who am I? What should I be doing with my life? Why do I find myself constantly unsatisfied? Blah, Blah, Blah. Let me solve it for you. You are a product of the choices you make. Just about everything is a choice. Whatever spot or dilemma you find yourself in is a result of choices that you made to get you there. If you had made different choices, you'd be someplace else. It's quite simple. You are the cause of your own happiness or dissatisfaction. Sure, there are outside influences that have helped to mold you into the type of person to continually make the same type of choices, but you still made them and not someone else. Therefore, you need to accept responsibility for them. Life is probably about 80% nurture and 20% nature. It's also probably 90% free will and 10% out of your control whether because of luck, divine intervention, or simply someone else's choice. Life is an incredibly complex web of interlaced choices that no person can reasonably comprehend beyond their own path. Once you've accepted this into your life, then you can make changes. How? Simply take the other choice. Sure, it can be difficult. Sure, maybe one choice carries more weight than another, making it more attractive, but you don't have to do anything. That's why it's called a choice. It means that there are multiple options. And it's not multiple guess. We are all rational, intelligent beings that can evaluate options and choose between them. So...Who am I? I am me, and I got here because the choices I made got me to this point. ed. I fully realize that this is an extremely simplistic explanation of my overall philosophy on life. I promise that I will write a post to fully explain this philosophy in much better detail. Can we move on now?
I don't mean to take anything away from Palahniuk's writing. He is writing within the parameters of the world around him, and Invisible Monsters reflects that. It's done well and interestingly. I'm just ready for the next literary movement to come along. This one has become far too full of pity and self-indulgence. Douglas Adams wrote it best when he said that the meaning of life is “42.” An answer as cryptic as a question that ultimately cannot be answered at any kind of general level. Instead its answer is unique to each person and is intrinsically related to their overall perception of the world around them.
Though somewhat disjointed from where my writing was taking me, my other criticism of the novel is that it reads too quickly. I read 297 pages in essentially 2 days. Now, I know I have a lot of free time on my hands with which to read, and I know all about flow (The feeling one gets when they become so involved in one action that everything seems to fade out of existence. This was a major point in my thesis, and I'm not going to go into much detail about it now. Ask me if you are at all interested.). However, some books simply read too quickly, just like some read too slowly. I expect this type of writing from beach side bestsellers and the sci-fi/fantasy books I love so much. Part of why you don't mind it so much is because you don't really miss anything if you quickly pass over a few words or a few sentences. These short sections have little relative value to the overall story. It's just the nature of that type of fiction. Likewise, some novels overly slow down your reading to the detriment of your overall impression of the novel. One of my biggest gripes with Realism is that it is so detail oriented that it ends up causing me to tune out some of the more interesting bits. Well-balanced novels have passages that force you to slow down your reading for fear of missing something important. If you've never read it, Lolita by Nabokov does this pretty well. Unfortunately, Invisible Monsters does not achieve this. While some books I rush to pick up again because I'm enjoying the story and want to know what happens next, with Invisible Monsters I simply kept reading because I wanted to finish something that had piqued my interest. I just wasn't overly invested or excited by the novel. Maybe it's a minor gripe in an overall well-written and interesting novel, but it was still something that struck me right away after I had finished it.
Overall, I enjoyed the book and would recommend it to my friends. Just don't expect to be reading amazingness.
Music listened to while writing this blog: Habla con ella soundtrack and Cold War Kids-Robbers and Cowards. The Habla con ella soundtrack is one of the better soundtracks that I've heard, in part because it's a beautiful instrumental album that doesn't need the context of the movie to work as an album.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
A Few Random Thoughts
I'm going to attempt to keep this post short by simply posting a few random thoughts.
First off, I don't know if you've ever seen Jon and Kate plus 8 (a show on TLC about couple with two sets of multiples, twins and sextuplets), but I've become somewhat addicted to it. The thought: Those are perhaps some of the cutest kids ever. Just makes me look forward to having kids myself one day. My enjoyment of this show also means that I may in fact be going crazy. This is what I'm subjecting myself to in order to pass the time. I think I need an unemployment intervention, preferably with a job offer.
Other random thought: Facebook has officially gone crazy. Originally, it was a pretty cool concept. Social networking site. Post informations and pictures about yourself. Look up your friends and use it as a way to keep in touch with them. Etc, Etc. However, things are beginning to get ludicrous. I mean, the applications are bad enough. People have become application addicts. I feel like every time I open up Facebook, it seems that my English cousin Josh has a new application. I have IRead and Happy Hour, and that's probably one too many. (Take a wild guess which application I am less likely to get rid of.) I am tempted to switch to Virtual Bookshelf, but I'm already invested in IRead, so no VB for me. I'm too chaste to go jumping from application to application. Also, those gifts. I mean, people actually pay a dollar a gift to give someone one of these egifts. You just paid one real dollar for one fake gift! If you really don't like your dollar, I'll take it off your hands. I'll make sure it sees a good home, possibly as a tip to a bartender. Oh, and the dating ads on the side. I know I'm single. It's what my relationship status says. Yes, it sucks. I'm still not going to click on that ad. The fact that you're shoving it in my face is pretty annoying. Not to mention that I highly doubt that the pretty girls that are in the ad photos are the same ones that I would actually be set up with. Also, for some odd reason, the ads are occasionally for homosexual males. While I appreciate that Facebook is looking out for the single male who says he is interested in Women, but in reality is just in the closest and looking for a gay lover, I'm not that guy. Just because I really like books and the arts, doesn't mean that I'm gay. That's stereotyping. Basically, stop giving me that dating ad. I don't like it.
However, today Facebook may have reached the pinnacle of lunacy. I was sent an email today saying that, and I quote, “Catherine just joined Facebook. You are getting notified of this because our "People You May Know" tool discovered you and Catherine both went to UVA. If you do know Catherine, check out the links below.” WTF, mate?!!!! Now, Catherine is someone I do actually know because we did several of the Spanish plays together. She's on Facebook. Cool. Those pictures of her daughter are adorable. However, it disturbs me that Facebook is taking it upon itself to tell me who I should be Facebook friends with. Their logic may be that because there is a chance that this person is my friend, I will want to be Facebook friends with them, but it's getting to the point where I feel like they are sort of invading my personal space. Let me decide who I want to be friends with. I think I'm old enough to handle that. I mean, it's bad enough that they have the “People you may know” thing when you go to your home page. More often than not, I have no fucking clue who that person is, and if I wanted to be friends with that person, I probably would have been already. On the other hand, it frequently serves as a reminder that my ex-girlfriend unfriended me on facebook. I mean, who does that?! The only person who I've ever unfriended is some guy who friended me because our names were incredibly similar, and I just tired of seeing info about someone I didn't even know. (He had a d added to the end of his name, and my last name is rare enough in the states that there's a really good chance we're related from somewhere.) Rumor has it that “she didn't want to hurt me” with information/pictures with her and her current boyfriend (who I guarantee is not as cool as me but whatever, if she's happy, then I'm happy for her. Sincerely). Regardless, I'm not 12, and we didn't have a fight. We didn't even have a minor tiff. Her name isn't Manzilla, and as long as that remains true, we're cool. (The story of Manzilla, my insane, first gf in college, will not be written about here for several reasons. However, I am comfortable telling the story in person and will gladly win the “Who has the craziest ex?” game.) We haven't talked in a while, but any of my good friends know that I'm just not the type of person who's going to constantly call and talk to even my best friends, let alone my ex in another city. We're friends in my book, and that's not going to change regardless of how often we talk. I think I can handle something like dating (especially since I know they've been dating since last summer). If anything would send me spiraling down into an alcohol-induced depression, it'd be my unemployment not a relationship that ended more than a year ago, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. Nope, just the normal, party and having a good time-induced drunkenness. Okay...that's enough venting. Facebook just needs to cut it out with the whole, let's see who has the most friends on Facebook game. I've already come to terms with the fact that I'll never win that game. Just let me stalk my old friends in peace. I don't need new friends to stalk unless I've hung out with them recently.
Okay, so maybe that post wasn't as short as I thought it was going to be, but oh wells. I'm nothing if not talkative.
Music listened to while writing this blog: Aerosmith-Greatest Hits
First off, I don't know if you've ever seen Jon and Kate plus 8 (a show on TLC about couple with two sets of multiples, twins and sextuplets), but I've become somewhat addicted to it. The thought: Those are perhaps some of the cutest kids ever. Just makes me look forward to having kids myself one day. My enjoyment of this show also means that I may in fact be going crazy. This is what I'm subjecting myself to in order to pass the time. I think I need an unemployment intervention, preferably with a job offer.
Other random thought: Facebook has officially gone crazy. Originally, it was a pretty cool concept. Social networking site. Post informations and pictures about yourself. Look up your friends and use it as a way to keep in touch with them. Etc, Etc. However, things are beginning to get ludicrous. I mean, the applications are bad enough. People have become application addicts. I feel like every time I open up Facebook, it seems that my English cousin Josh has a new application. I have IRead and Happy Hour, and that's probably one too many. (Take a wild guess which application I am less likely to get rid of.) I am tempted to switch to Virtual Bookshelf, but I'm already invested in IRead, so no VB for me. I'm too chaste to go jumping from application to application. Also, those gifts. I mean, people actually pay a dollar a gift to give someone one of these egifts. You just paid one real dollar for one fake gift! If you really don't like your dollar, I'll take it off your hands. I'll make sure it sees a good home, possibly as a tip to a bartender. Oh, and the dating ads on the side. I know I'm single. It's what my relationship status says. Yes, it sucks. I'm still not going to click on that ad. The fact that you're shoving it in my face is pretty annoying. Not to mention that I highly doubt that the pretty girls that are in the ad photos are the same ones that I would actually be set up with. Also, for some odd reason, the ads are occasionally for homosexual males. While I appreciate that Facebook is looking out for the single male who says he is interested in Women, but in reality is just in the closest and looking for a gay lover, I'm not that guy. Just because I really like books and the arts, doesn't mean that I'm gay. That's stereotyping. Basically, stop giving me that dating ad. I don't like it.
However, today Facebook may have reached the pinnacle of lunacy. I was sent an email today saying that, and I quote, “Catherine just joined Facebook. You are getting notified of this because our "People You May Know" tool discovered you and Catherine both went to UVA. If you do know Catherine, check out the links below.” WTF, mate?!!!! Now, Catherine is someone I do actually know because we did several of the Spanish plays together. She's on Facebook. Cool. Those pictures of her daughter are adorable. However, it disturbs me that Facebook is taking it upon itself to tell me who I should be Facebook friends with. Their logic may be that because there is a chance that this person is my friend, I will want to be Facebook friends with them, but it's getting to the point where I feel like they are sort of invading my personal space. Let me decide who I want to be friends with. I think I'm old enough to handle that. I mean, it's bad enough that they have the “People you may know” thing when you go to your home page. More often than not, I have no fucking clue who that person is, and if I wanted to be friends with that person, I probably would have been already. On the other hand, it frequently serves as a reminder that my ex-girlfriend unfriended me on facebook. I mean, who does that?! The only person who I've ever unfriended is some guy who friended me because our names were incredibly similar, and I just tired of seeing info about someone I didn't even know. (He had a d added to the end of his name, and my last name is rare enough in the states that there's a really good chance we're related from somewhere.) Rumor has it that “she didn't want to hurt me” with information/pictures with her and her current boyfriend (who I guarantee is not as cool as me but whatever, if she's happy, then I'm happy for her. Sincerely). Regardless, I'm not 12, and we didn't have a fight. We didn't even have a minor tiff. Her name isn't Manzilla, and as long as that remains true, we're cool. (The story of Manzilla, my insane, first gf in college, will not be written about here for several reasons. However, I am comfortable telling the story in person and will gladly win the “Who has the craziest ex?” game.) We haven't talked in a while, but any of my good friends know that I'm just not the type of person who's going to constantly call and talk to even my best friends, let alone my ex in another city. We're friends in my book, and that's not going to change regardless of how often we talk. I think I can handle something like dating (especially since I know they've been dating since last summer). If anything would send me spiraling down into an alcohol-induced depression, it'd be my unemployment not a relationship that ended more than a year ago, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. Nope, just the normal, party and having a good time-induced drunkenness. Okay...that's enough venting. Facebook just needs to cut it out with the whole, let's see who has the most friends on Facebook game. I've already come to terms with the fact that I'll never win that game. Just let me stalk my old friends in peace. I don't need new friends to stalk unless I've hung out with them recently.
Okay, so maybe that post wasn't as short as I thought it was going to be, but oh wells. I'm nothing if not talkative.
Music listened to while writing this blog: Aerosmith-Greatest Hits
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Dating because of your books
I'd like to take this short moment to apologize for breaking my promise of writing every day. Friday and Saturday I hung out with some new friends while Sunday and Monday I was just lazy. Like I wrote in my post on the dangers of unemployment, “There's always tomorrow.” Without further ado, today's post.
Note: This entry is inspired/a reaction to a recent New York Times article about love and literature. It is recommended that you read the article before reading the post so you understand some of the context in which this post is written.
I will admit two things off the bat: My favorite book is Cien años de soledad by Gabriel García Márquez which I just read for the 4th time 2x each in Spanish and English (the original is far superior), and, having successively LTRed and dated some non-readers, I've decided that it matters to me that you are a reader. The article does have a point though; as a male, I am unlikely to kick a non-reading girl out of bed (not that I've been in a position to do that recently anyway), but the reality is that I'm going to be much more into you if you are a reader. As the article also says, “to some reading men, literary taste does matter,” and I am one of those men. Also, anyone who has ever seen me attempt (aka fail) to pick up girls in a bar knows I'm unlikely to succeed anyway, so chances are I'm already going to have some previous connection and books are going to have come up.
I will gladly admit that for me nothing is sexier than intelligence; more than a pretty face, a great body, or sexy lingerie (though they don't hurt). As someone who got an MA in literature and who blogs about that topic more than any other, literature is a pretty big passion in my life, and being content with a book club for that stimulation and not my significant other, like one person in the article, simply isn't good enough. Now, I'll admit that my tastes recently have lent themselves to the esoteric side of the literary spectrum, so I won't expect whatever girl I'm interested in to share it exactly, but romance novels and beach side bestsellers aren't going to cut it. The reality is that I don't want my significant other to share my interests, literary or otherwise, exactly. That's boring. I go back to my original statement: intelligence is sexy. I would much prefer someone have an intelligent thought that is their own and challenges my own, than completely agree with me, or, even worse, believe something just because someone told you to think that way.
I feel like the friend at the beginning of the article got it all wrong. The fact that her boyfriend had never heard of Pushkin (or any other writer for that matter) shouldn't be a deal-breaker. It gives her an opportunity to expose her bf to something new, something for them to talk about rather than their typical conversation. Now, if he resists or the conversation reveals something else about your relationship that is grounds for breaking up, then by all means break up. But the idea of having simply not read something as grounds for breaking up is redonx. ed: On the ridiculousity scale, ridiculous is the lowest followed by redix, redonkulous, and capped off by redonx. For the record, Pushkin sounds awfully familiar, and I'm pretty sure I've read something of his. I just have no idea what. Guess she would have broken up with me.
As I've already hinted at, I will agree though that literary tastes are a good measure of someones interests in general and our compatibility. It isn't so much what specifically you're reading; Gd knows there's tons of interesting literature out there. Instead, it's the level and to a certain extent genre that you are reading. If you're reading The Secret while I'm reading Proust or even Heller or Burgess to use something more modern, then we have a problem. However, if you're reading something cutting edge or just something that I've never heard of before, it could be really awesome as well, and I'm a fan of reading all things awesome. Again, with literature being such a huge part of my life, it's going to be something I want to share with whomever I'm dating. Oh, I also wish to respectfully disagree with the person who thinks Ayn Rand is a “hilariously bad writer” since, with some exceptions, I find her writing to be quite good.
I will admit though that as someone more or less in the minority of male readers, I would have thought that it wouldn't be as hard as it is to find people to date. Not to say that I haven't met dating potential girls, because I have, but things don't seem to be working out as well as I would like. Of course, this could also be a result of my own idiocy, but oh wells. I mean, I'm the type of guy that you are almost never going to have to drag to some cultural activity. I enjoy the theater immensely, have started to take a real liking to art museums, and I'm never without at least 1 book on my night table. I also have the unique ability to have intelligent conversation on a myriad of topics. You'd think I'd be a hotter commodity than I am. ::shrug:: Life works in interesting ways.
To sum up a mostly discombobulated ramble, what a girl reads matters to her overall appeal. Too far a gap between our reading tastes is just not going to cut it. That being said, I'd never break up with a girl simply because she's never heard of Neruda (Though it really doesn't get much better than 20 poemas de amor y una canción desesperada which never leaves my night table.) or Vargas Llosa or Albertí or any number of amazing Spanish-language writers, or even some of my favorite English writers (Rand, Heller, Pratchett among others). All I ask for is that she be open to reading something new, and I'll do the same. I'm sure that we're not going to be compatible on every level. Like I said before, what would be the fun in that? But, as was a problem in a previous relationship, if one person has a passion that the other person simply has no interest in whatsoever, then there are problems.
I wonder if any of that made any sense? Oh wells, off to continue reading Walt Whitman. Read on!
Music listened to while writing this blog: Justice-Cross (cool electronika my friend introduced me too)
Note: This entry is inspired/a reaction to a recent New York Times article about love and literature. It is recommended that you read the article before reading the post so you understand some of the context in which this post is written.
I will admit two things off the bat: My favorite book is Cien años de soledad by Gabriel García Márquez which I just read for the 4th time 2x each in Spanish and English (the original is far superior), and, having successively LTRed and dated some non-readers, I've decided that it matters to me that you are a reader. The article does have a point though; as a male, I am unlikely to kick a non-reading girl out of bed (not that I've been in a position to do that recently anyway), but the reality is that I'm going to be much more into you if you are a reader. As the article also says, “to some reading men, literary taste does matter,” and I am one of those men. Also, anyone who has ever seen me attempt (aka fail) to pick up girls in a bar knows I'm unlikely to succeed anyway, so chances are I'm already going to have some previous connection and books are going to have come up.
I will gladly admit that for me nothing is sexier than intelligence; more than a pretty face, a great body, or sexy lingerie (though they don't hurt). As someone who got an MA in literature and who blogs about that topic more than any other, literature is a pretty big passion in my life, and being content with a book club for that stimulation and not my significant other, like one person in the article, simply isn't good enough. Now, I'll admit that my tastes recently have lent themselves to the esoteric side of the literary spectrum, so I won't expect whatever girl I'm interested in to share it exactly, but romance novels and beach side bestsellers aren't going to cut it. The reality is that I don't want my significant other to share my interests, literary or otherwise, exactly. That's boring. I go back to my original statement: intelligence is sexy. I would much prefer someone have an intelligent thought that is their own and challenges my own, than completely agree with me, or, even worse, believe something just because someone told you to think that way.
I feel like the friend at the beginning of the article got it all wrong. The fact that her boyfriend had never heard of Pushkin (or any other writer for that matter) shouldn't be a deal-breaker. It gives her an opportunity to expose her bf to something new, something for them to talk about rather than their typical conversation. Now, if he resists or the conversation reveals something else about your relationship that is grounds for breaking up, then by all means break up. But the idea of having simply not read something as grounds for breaking up is redonx. ed: On the ridiculousity scale, ridiculous is the lowest followed by redix, redonkulous, and capped off by redonx. For the record, Pushkin sounds awfully familiar, and I'm pretty sure I've read something of his. I just have no idea what. Guess she would have broken up with me.
As I've already hinted at, I will agree though that literary tastes are a good measure of someones interests in general and our compatibility. It isn't so much what specifically you're reading; Gd knows there's tons of interesting literature out there. Instead, it's the level and to a certain extent genre that you are reading. If you're reading The Secret while I'm reading Proust or even Heller or Burgess to use something more modern, then we have a problem. However, if you're reading something cutting edge or just something that I've never heard of before, it could be really awesome as well, and I'm a fan of reading all things awesome. Again, with literature being such a huge part of my life, it's going to be something I want to share with whomever I'm dating. Oh, I also wish to respectfully disagree with the person who thinks Ayn Rand is a “hilariously bad writer” since, with some exceptions, I find her writing to be quite good.
I will admit though that as someone more or less in the minority of male readers, I would have thought that it wouldn't be as hard as it is to find people to date. Not to say that I haven't met dating potential girls, because I have, but things don't seem to be working out as well as I would like. Of course, this could also be a result of my own idiocy, but oh wells. I mean, I'm the type of guy that you are almost never going to have to drag to some cultural activity. I enjoy the theater immensely, have started to take a real liking to art museums, and I'm never without at least 1 book on my night table. I also have the unique ability to have intelligent conversation on a myriad of topics. You'd think I'd be a hotter commodity than I am. ::shrug:: Life works in interesting ways.
To sum up a mostly discombobulated ramble, what a girl reads matters to her overall appeal. Too far a gap between our reading tastes is just not going to cut it. That being said, I'd never break up with a girl simply because she's never heard of Neruda (Though it really doesn't get much better than 20 poemas de amor y una canción desesperada which never leaves my night table.) or Vargas Llosa or Albertí or any number of amazing Spanish-language writers, or even some of my favorite English writers (Rand, Heller, Pratchett among others). All I ask for is that she be open to reading something new, and I'll do the same. I'm sure that we're not going to be compatible on every level. Like I said before, what would be the fun in that? But, as was a problem in a previous relationship, if one person has a passion that the other person simply has no interest in whatsoever, then there are problems.
I wonder if any of that made any sense? Oh wells, off to continue reading Walt Whitman. Read on!
Music listened to while writing this blog: Justice-Cross (cool electronika my friend introduced me too)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
