"Lock and load"

So. Lately I've been watching the first two seasons of Boston Legal, which together are 44 episodes. Everyone knocks Boston Legal, in part because William Shatner is in it, and in part because it really is a ridiculous show. I'm rather fond of it, though, for a number of reasons.

1) This is kind of odd, but it reminds me of Edward Albee's stuff. From what I've read, Albee, who is generally considered an Absurdist dramatist, tends to use crazy, seemingly unorganized events and silly characters and plots to bring to the surface bold statements about the human condition. In a way, that's what David E. Kelley does with Boston Legal: he uses absurd plotlines, characters and cases, to communicate social and political commentary, as well as to entertain.

One of the attorneys defends a plastic surgeon who injected his own ass fat into women's faces instead of their own. A little old man kills his mother, then kills his neighbor, with a frying pan - and then a little old woman kills him the same way. A couple fight over a collection of Victorian erotica during their divorce. A group of Christians and a group of Wiccans protest a Halloween pageant at an elementary school. A teacher files for a restraining order because a student's parents keep harassing her about their child's grades. A girl who's brother was in the National Guard and was killed in Iraq performing a task he was not trained for, when his tour was supposed to have ended already, sues the government. A decorated general who was dishonorably discharged for being open about his homosexuality sues the government over their "don't ask, don't tell" policy. A man is fired as a department store's Santa Claus for being a cross-dresser. A mayor tries to ban red meat in his town, putting steakhouses out of business. Two science teachers are fired for refusing to teach Creationism. A doctor is sued for prescribing a drug that isn't approved by the FDA, even though it works. A man sues a nightclub because they won't let him sing "War," claiming it's unpatriotic. While this is all very funny and amusing, beneath all the absurdity there are often legitimate points. Generally there's a liberal slant ("They say when people are scared, the first thing they'll give up is their civil liberties"), but that's not unexpected, and the fact that politics aren't simply ignored or dismissed is refreshing.

Kelley has tackled racial profiling, homophobia, discrimination against people with social and physical disorders, public education, the war in Iraq, the ethics of Guantanamo Bay, the situation in Sudan, foreign financial aid, medical malpractice, environmental issues, unethical credit interest inflation, car companies with faulty vehicles, First Amendment violations, assisted suicide, "pill" parties (and clinical depression due to high parental expectations) in today's youth, the death penalty, cock fighting, gambling and other addictions, and a wealth of other issues. It's nice to see a show address (and in a relatively balanced manner, at that) what most shows wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

2) One character in particular, Jerry Espensen, tends to bring up a theme that kind of resonates with me: the increasing isolation of the individual in today's world. Jerry has Asperger's, and when he didn't make partner at the firm, he snapped and took one of the senior name partners hostage with a cake knife at her throat. He wasn't convicted once diagnosed, but later returned to the firm, claiming that he missed the ties with the people. He points out that people are more and more isolated these days: instead of communicating face to face, or even over the phone, people rely on memos, emailing, and texting. I like that Kelley makes a point of bringing this up every once in a while, since it really is so true. People don't connect; they network. Relationships are less fulfilling, and it seems like everyone is always aloof. :: Shrug ::

3) I just love the characters. They're all incredibly ridiculous. Denny Crane is ancient, senile, sexually offensive, delusional, ultra-conservative, and has a propensity to shoot people. Alan Shore is similarly offensive, and he has no problem with using bribery, extortion, and blackmail to win his cases. In one case, he hints to a client that he should flee before appearing before court, and when he's eventually arrested, he still gets himself off. He also generally has all the women in the office fighting over him. Two of the attorneys, at one point, impersonate FBI agents in order to recover a kidnapped child. Another pretends to be looking for a date at a bar to discover privileged information from opposing counsel. Another flirts and leads opposing counsel on, then blackmails them. In court, they all use their connections and understanding of people to work the jury and judge from the right angle, even if it's in a positively absurd way. The thing is, despite these antics and "theatrics" and seemingly unethical behavior, they all do this with the best intentions, for what they truly believe to be right.

James Spader's Alan Shore is really the star of the show, and even though everyone puzzles over the fact that he's won two Emmys for it (in addition to the 3 other wins and 10 other nominations the show has garnered, plus Golden Globe and SAG Award nominations and wins), he really is very good. He has such a juicy character, though, whom I absolutely love. Alan Shore is despicable. He's vile, crude, offensive, arrogant, self-centered, and inappropriate. Yet, he's aware of his short-comings, even though he tends to hide them behind his words, and he pushes away everyone who discovers both his flaws and his good side - except for Denny. Alan really does possess good qualities: he's deeply compassionate, and as he's wildly liberal, he has huge concern for civil and human rights, the environment, etc. It's more than being liberal, though: he always works for justice in terms of the situation at hand, not in terms of the concrete law. Alan's compassion, sympathy, and empathy for people always steers him straight. He's also incredibly loyal to the very few who are dear to him, and even though he is a lawyer, he only ever twists the truth when necessary, and when he gives his word, he always honors it. He's untrustworthy on some levels, but when he explicitly gives his word, he is always good for it. Alan really is just a good, strong, but fun character, and I bet James Spader has a blast playing him.

4) Also random, but one thing that I really love about this show and about Scrubs is their portrayal of a strong friendship between two men. Both JD and Turk, and Alan and Denny, have very strong bonds - their idea of friendship is almost above and beyond their concepts of marriage, and they are always loyal to it. I feel like today, two guys can't be best friends without being accused of being homosexuals. Girls get away with it all the time. Hanging out, sleeping over, going out. They're not often called lesbians for it. Yet when two guys hang out all the time, go out in public just the two of them, they're called gay. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being gay - I'm saying it's falsely judging and misrepresenting people as something they're not. And I like that even though there are jokingly homosexual undertones (or is it overtones?) in both these shows, they ultimately celebrate the friendship and love between two men. And I love that Scrubs included a song about it in their musical episode: "Guy Love."

And wow, did not think I could / mean to write that much about freaking Boston Legal. I could probably go on, but I'm going to sleep.

Idealistic or unrealistic?

So a while ago, I ranted (calmly) about how unfortunate it is that escapist stories often make us (even if only subconsciously) long for a fantasy that we know will more than likely never come true. We form this whole distorted view of reality, and we like it. We like having that hope that life can be like a fairy tale, or a myth, or an epic.

Really, though, I think fiction affects us much more than we realize. Or at least, much more than we actively acknowledge. (Damn media literacy. It was actually effective.) We watch movies and TV shows, we listen to music, we see advertisements. All of this registers in our minds and affects the way we perceive everything. Everyone's always up in arms about this, and everyone claims that the media doesn't affect them, but that's such garbage.

When you really think about it, the media dictates what qualifies as the status quo - it sets or announces the standards for everything. What's trendy, what's "unique," what's uncool, what's attractive. So and so wore this designer who used this kind of neckline and this kind of hem, and that's trendy right now. That woman has big eyes and a straight nose and she's beautiful, so that's a new standard of beauty. The awkward nerd in that movie is cute because he's awkward. Etc. etc. It's almost like we conform without even realizing it.

It goes further than that, though. We watch movies where shy homely girls fall in love with an arrogant, impossibly handsome and charming, "misunderstood guy" archetype, where against all odds, he falls in love with her and her influence makes him redeem himself and they live happily ever after. We read books where, like in any good plot, all the characters undergo some kind of change, and often a dramatic one. We listen to songs that explore every emotion concerning and relating to love of all kinds. We fall in love with idealized characters and unconsciously refuse to settle for anyone who isn't as great. We want to believe that these perfect ideas are achievable.

One day this summer, I met my 75-year-old candy nazi of a boss's boyfriend. He was pretty strange. She told me how they met, and it was a cute story - kind of weird and creepy, but cute. She also told me how he's been a bachelor his entire life. My boss, as a widower, told me that this was making it harder to break him of certain habits that she hated, because he was so used to being able to do whatever he liked whenever, without having to be considerate of anyone else. But she also told me that she understood this, and that she had no expectations of making him change. She told me that that's the mistake that a lot of women make - they meet a man, and they say, "Oh, I'm in love - he's practically perfect, except for ______." They think they can reform him, that they can just change what they don't like about him, when really, it won't work out unless they accept him as he is.

Honestly, that's probably the smartest thing she ever said to me. Or rather, the wisest. I think we all expect to be able to change people's basic natures much more than we usually can or do. Sure, it's possible - but I think it's the exception rather than the rule. At least, changing them in the noticeably dramatic fashions that we expect isn't usually what happens. But I also think that we may tend to say that we simply accept people we love when really, we are excusing them. It's okay for them to have certain flaws that we despise because we love them - but it's not okay for other people to be that way. But I digress.

Or not. That was all I really had. Now I need to sleep.

Art and Money

So this past fall, I was going to go to this forum at the New York Public Library sponsored by the photography journal Blind Spot, which quarterly publishes work by both renowned and up and coming photographers. It's a pretty big deal. But anyway, they were cosponsoring a 3-part forum. The first part was a discussion between two photographers. The third part was "Truth and Authenticity in Photography" - to what extent does a photographer record and to what extent does he create an image? The second part was entitled "Money, Money, Money, Money," which was a panel discussion about commerce and art.

The NYPL described as: "In an era when creativity and innovation have a price tag and the lines between art and commerce are increasingly blurred, how do artists negotiate this terrain? Are commercial entities like Prada, Apple and Louis Vuitton modern-day Medicis or are these corporations and their consigliere simply bandits brokering on the fame of the artist? Is art in the service of commerce or vice versa?" The panel included creative directors and CEO's of magazines and fashion ad agencies, photographers, and co-founder of the Kate Spade label, Andy Spade. I thought it sounded interesting, but I ended up not going.

The concept did get me thinking, though, about how closely art and commerce are tied in our society. Let's say you write a brilliant novel. A brilliant novel that could change the lives of men everywhere, but with no popular appeal whatsoever. With a very small potential audience. What good is that, then? You have something brilliant, but something that a) no one will ever publish, and if someone does, b) no one will ever read it. Does art (or anything, for that matter) have value if it has no audience? And I mean outside the creator's self and close friends and family and whatnot - I guess one should at least be glad that his loved ones will experience it. But if, on a large scale, no one is affected by it, or experiences it, is it still important? I mean, sure, in theory, you should create for yourself. But once you create something beautiful, if there's no way for you to share it, what good does that do? Yet, should you keep a mass audience in mind when you create, so as to have the means to share it with others? And thinking that way, how many undiscovered masterpieces exist to no one's knowledge?

And outside of that, if you're going to make a living solely by committing yourself to your art, it must have some kind of popular appeal on one level or another. Otherwise, you'll never make any money, and won't be able to live without doing something else. Which is why I wish I never had to worry about money and could just do whatever I liked. Haha.

Sooze: That’s my worst fear. Making a sound and no one hears it.
– Eric Bogosian, subUrbia

The Reader's Digest version, and then some other random stuff.

• Sometimes I'm not sure who I am any more.
• Sometimes I don't like who I am any more.
• Usually I'm almost positive this whole caring about people thing is a very raw deal for the person who cares for a lot of people.
• Especially for the person who generally cares about others before oneself, when most care for themselves before others.
• I feel like I don't have faith in anything any more.
• I have no idea what I want and I hate that.
• Life isn't fair and I should just accept that, but that's not really working out.
• I'm pretty sure I'm making everything a lot more complicated than it really is.
• I'm really not sure how I'm going to deal with any of this. And I hate that too.

Now that I've gotten that fully and compltely out of my system, I'm going to stop wallowing. Though I have a feeling that one of these days, I'm just going to explode...

Anyway, I watched Cat on a Hot Tin Roof the other night, and I was a little disappointed in the alterations, especially to the ending. At the end of the play, Maggie takes a stand against Brick, insists that he help her cover up her lie, and tells him that she loves him, truly, and he smiles sadly and says, "Wouldn't it be funny if that was true?" In the movie, he's the one that says they're going to cover up her lie and that's it, pretty much, if I recall. But there was something to the ending in the play - a sort of bittersweet surrender, on Brick's part, to the buried affection deep inside him - not reborn desire for his wife. It was quaint and sad and fit right into the dramatic romance. Edward Albee noted in his foreword to the "definitive" edition of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof that Tennessee Williams was a master at creating dramas that are both romantic and tough - they are both delicate and rough, loved by both men and women. The movie messed that up a little, to me.

I think they changed the Maggie/Brick/Skipper situation a little too. One of the things I loved about the play is its ambiguity about Brick and Skipper's friendship. Though it may be a provacative statement about homosexuality in the fading Old South, I prefer to think of it as Brick thought of it: something pure and real and dependable - something beautiful and untainted - a true comraderie and deep love. Brick still can't get past the fact that others - people who supposedly love him - are defiling it, that they're taking that away from him. They had something innocent and good, and so-called "loved ones" ruined it for him, even disgracing the memory for him. It's like taking a dewy half-blown blossom and throwing it in a mud puddle and stomping on it. I can fully understand Brick's resentment for that.

In doing some reading on writing effective dialogue, I'm coming across a lot of stuff that says to be very familiar with your characters' motives - that that's the most important part. You have to be very clear in understanding what your characters want, why they do what they do, what their goals are. Isn't that helpful in life, too, though? To understand why people do what they do, and what it is they want - to understand them in general. I guess that's what I love so much about people I don't immediately understand, people with lots of little idiosyncrasies and contradictions - they're complicated (or simple?) to the point that they fascinate me. Like in Pride and Prejudice:

"'I did not know before,' continued Bingley immediately, 'that you were a studier of character. It must be an amusing study.'
"'Yes, but intricate characters are the most amusing. They have at least that advantage...people themselves alter so much, that there is something new to be observed in them for ever.'"

Oh, to be able to create such memorable characters as those. I guess it's worth a shot.

----------------
Now playing: Matchbox Twenty - Bent

Once in a while, I just step back and look at everything and wonder, "When the hell did I become the person that I am?"

Seriously. There are days where I look at what I do, what I say, how I act - I remember the things I've done, the way I've handled different situations - and I wonder, how did I get here. How did I get to be this way.

Then I think, really, do I even have any idea who I do want to be? No. I have no freaking clue. I don't know who I am, who I want to be, what I want to do, or even how I want to be seen. I just want to be me, and I have no clue who that is. How can I have any respect for myself when I can't even recognize myself? How can I expect anyone else to respect me? And if I don't deserve respect, how can I deserve love?

Okay, so that's going too far. I guess I do have an idea of who I am. I used to know. But sometimes now all I can see are shadowy images of myself running away from each other, floating around, sometimes colliding to form something more corporeal, but dissolving away before I can get a good look. I guess it's not even something I should think about. I should just be me. But there are times when I feel like that's so much easier said than done.

There are nights (rarely days) that I just get completely frustrated with me. I don't know what I want. I lack motivation. I lack passion. Or at least, am somewhat lacking. I'm not working at the levels I'm capable of, and I'm shirking responsibility. I'm apathetic and self-indulgent, lazy and selfish, arrogant and self-absorbed. I'm small, ugly, cowardly, weak, plain, and unoriginal. I've got no faith in anything, or anyone, and am utterly incapable of trusting or loving with my whole self.

Okay, going too far again. But that's the feeling I get sometimes. And I feel completely isolated and alone, which is also untrue. I just want to be someone else. Or a better version of me. Or, I want to know who I am. Figure my life out. Everything's a big clutter of loose ends and I'm not getting anywhere.

And odd things stand out in my mind. Like how someone once told me that they feel alone even when they're around others, and that makes it worse. Or how for the longest time, I didn't like any of my friends without realizing it. Probably because I didn't want to accept that they weren't who I thought they were. I can pinpoint the time I became aware of life, aware that there were other people worth loving. People who I shouldn't keep at an arm's length.

Sometimes I'd like to go back to before then, back to when I didn't think about anything. When I didn't care what anyone thought of me, or if anyone even noticed, and just went about my life being relatively invisible and misperceived, and pushed everyone away for no particular reason.

Other times I feel trapped by love, which is just completely wrong. Still other times I feel like the people around me don't let me be me, which is also silly. If anything, I guess I let their presence force me to be restrained, which is also wrong.

None of this makes sense. Which is worse, being sane and spouting nonsense, or being insane and babbling uselessly?

P.S. No one's allowed to worry about me. I'm fine. I'll figure it out. Besides, I'll wake up in the morning (afternoon?) and the feeling will have dissipated completely. That's how it works. I just had to vent somewhere. And please note it's after 5 a.m. We all know I'm not the most rational and coherent at this hour. Yeah. I'm not depressed. I'm just...human. Mmkay?


----------------
Now playing: John Mayer - Slow Dancing In a Burning Room

Ten Movies That "Changed My Life" (or something like that)

10) Dead Poet's Society (Fall 2003)
Yeah, yeah, Robin Williams's John Keating said "Carpe diem, seize the day, boys," but he's got plenty of other great lines, too. Example: "We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for."

9) The Breakfast Club (around 2000)
The first movie I ever saw that takes teenagers and the adolescent psyche seriously. The building and deconstruction of stereotypes and prejudices is masterfully done, and each character has his own deeper character, his own idiosyncrasies. It's really not as overrated as you'd think.

8) Good Will Hunting (Winter 2005-6)
The intelligent, stubborn, insecure, and deeply sensitive Will is a fantastic character. Seeing how he uses his brains and his past to keep everyone at an arm's length makes him enigmatically attractive in every way - you want to be the Skylar, Chuckie, or Sean in his life. As he struggles to accept who he is, you can't help but sympathize, and learn a thing or two yourself along the way.

7) Something's Gotta Give (Summer 2004)
It's corny, yes. But I like corny. And I love Diane Keaton's Erica Barry - she's strong, boldly independent, and successful - a true heroine and role model. Her vulnerability in her upper-middle age that you know she's experiencing for the first time is charming, and seeing her (humorously) gain strength from that, and from love, is both fun and touching - not to mention something of a warning sign in itself.

6) Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (July 2006)
It took me a good 3 or 4 tries to watch this one in its entirety - I kept watching it at the worst times and falling asleep. Once I did, though, I was in love. Not with any of the characters, but simply with the film itself. Kate Winslet is amazing, and Jim Carrey gave the performance of his life. It's crazy, weird, unconventional, and truly unique, which I love. Plus, it's unbelievably hopeful about fate and love, and altogether beautiful.

5) The Philadelphia Story (July 2006)
Marvelously clever, charming, and just brilliantly put together. Katharine Hepburn's strong, standoffish Tracy suited her perfectly, and the chemistry among her, Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, and Ruth Hussey is absolutely delightful to behold. Grant's C. K. Dexter Haven teaches Tracy that one needs to appreciate and respect "human frailty," and that there is a vast difference between being worshipped and being loved. It hit a nerve for me - something about it resonated, making it all the more amazing.

4) American Beauty (December 2005)
Ricky Fitts changed my life almost as drastically as he changed Jane's. I was always sensitive to beauty, and his pitch-perfect description of it (and Lester Burnham's, too) heightened my awareness of it, for which I am utterly grateful. As for Lester - watching him wake up made me feel like I was waking up, too.

3) Before Sunrise and Before Sunset (May 2006)
Watching Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy meet on a train and walk around Vienna all night talking opened my mind to a whole new way of thinking. Never has another film stimulated my brain the way these two have. They completley changed the way I see the world, other people, life - everything. Ever after, I've had a much more active mind. And a whole new idea of romance and love.

2) The Graduate and Casablanca (December 2005)
Okay, so these two are seemingly unrelated. But these are the first two "classics" I ever saw - the first two that I ever saw and appreciated for the masterpieces they are, at least. These are the movies that got me interested in classic films, and along with American Beauty, they made me seriously interested in film as an art form. After seeing these, I couldn't get enough.

1) Garden State (Spring/Summer 2005)
New Jersey. An amazing soundtrack. Zach Braff's quirky, offbeat and dry sense of humor. Taught me that numbness and stoicism are not strength - that there is strength in pain, pain in love, and that's life - and all we really have are moments. Moments and each other.


Honorable Mentions:
- Citizen Kane: Orson Welles wrote, directed, and starred in it when he was 25, and it's absolutely brilliant.
- Edward Scissorhands: An artistic combination of the classic and the quirky. Just beautiful.
- Elizabethtown: Cameron Crowe kind of screwed this one up. It could have been a lot better than it is. But it's still refreshing, comforting, and a nice reminder that we all fail sometimes.
- Peter Pan and Finding Neverland: I told my mum on my 5th birthday that I was still secretly 4, and I didn't want to grow up. Peter and I - and I guess James and I - are kindred spirits.

It's so funny how things change over time.
How people change.
How your perspective changes.
How what's important to you changes.
And it's funny how some things don't change, too.
I'm okay with that.
I'm satisfied right now.
With life. With the people in my life.
I guess you could say it's never been better.
But I feel like you should be able to say that every day.
( :

----------------
Now playing: Alanis Morissette - You Learn

An obnoxious article.

Will the humanities save us?

So, I posted this link on my Facebook a few days ago, and when I reread it, I got annoyed. Really annoyed. It's a discussion on the significance of the humanities in academia and in life, and what the justification for continuing to teach them is, if it's even necessary. Here's an excerpt:

"At one time justification of the arts and humanities was unnecessary because, as Anthony Kronman puts it in a new book, “Education’s End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life,” it was assumed that “a college was above all a place for the training of character, for the nurturing of those intellectual and moral habits that together from the basis for living the best life one can.” It followed that the realization of this goal required an immersion in the great texts of literature, philosophy and history even to the extent of memorizing them, for “to acquire a text by memory is to fix in one’s mind the image and example of the author and his subject.”

"...[Kronman] believes that only the humanities can address “the crisis of spirit we now confront” and “restore the wonder which those who have glimpsed the human condition have always felt, and which our scientific civilization, with its gadgets and discoveries, obscures.”

"...Kronman, however, identifies science, technology and careerism as impediments to living a life with meaning. The real enemies, he declares, are “the careerism that distracts from life as a whole” and “the blind acceptance of science and technology that disguise and deny our human condition.” These false idols, he says, block the way to understanding. We must turn to the humanities if we are to “meet the need for meaning in an age of vast but pointless powers,” for only the humanities can help us recover the urgency of “the question of what living is for.”

Okay. So the guy writing the article, a Professor Fish, argues that this is wrong. That the humanities are actual more valuable when you resist justifying them. That they really do serve no purpose. And that if you really did learn more about life from them, humanities scholars and professors would be the best people on earth. In short, he was incredibly short-sighted and narrow-minded and pretentiously intellectual about the topic as a whole.

Then, while the guy whose ideas he was demeaning, though some of his thoughts were interesting, he, too was short-sighted in his attack of science and technology. A friend of mine put it like this:

"...For me, the humanities are not concerned with mere emulation. The point of reading Hamlet is not to "be as Hamlet is." Art in general is not as utilitarian as that. No good literature, anyway, is as didactic as that, as preachy as having a concrete moral to take away and apply to your own life.

"But, nonetheless, there is definitely something enriching about it. The author of the article fails to distinguish between objective facts learned from literature and the skills that one learns from experiencing it. Rather than applying the 'morals' of literature to one's own life, the fact that you have read the literature (or experienced any other form of art) allows you to observe life itself in a far more complex manner."

In general, I don’t think there needs to be an obvious, didactic message in order for a person to take something away from any kind of art. I don’t think something has to have an obvious message in it in order to be beautiful, either - in order to have an impact on people. Hell, if you had to derive meaning from Jack Kerouac's poetry in order for it to have an effect, in order for it to move you, then most people are screwed - especially if it has to be his intended meaning. But his poems (though, I guess, some would also argue that it's not poetry) are beautiful.

The article bothered me a little in what at least some of the people who commented upon it mentioned – Fish only used a few specific examples, and it weakened his argument – to me, at least. He indirectly defined “humanities” as literature, philosophy, and history, when I feel like it’s a much broader term than that. In a way, I feel like you can’t talk about the “humanities” without talking about “art,” and though he makes a brief mention of it at the beginning, Fish completely abandons it throughout the rest of his article. That bothers me because literature is as much art as music and film and the other areas lumped under the “fine and performing arts.” Then, someone else commented upon the “social sciences” and how you can’t really completely separate humanities and science, and that makes sense too – which is why so many schools have interdisciplinary cores and general education requirements.

In reference to his comment about how literature and philosophy professors aren't actually better people, like with everything else, I feel like it just depends on the person you are. You can be a completely cold-hearted, unsympathetic humanities professor, yet still be able to teach the mechanics of literature, philosophy, the arts, etc. Unless you embrace whatever feelings you let them inspire, whatever understanding or ways of thinking or seeing things they encourage, the humanities are going to be useless to you.

Then Fish's ending, saying how justification "diminishes the object of the supposed praise", bothered me too. It just seemed like a cop-out - an avoidance of the question. Though I wouldn’t exactly call it their “meaning,” I’d say that art and the humanities are capable of nothing if not their ability to cultivate empathy and sympathy and new ways of seeing life – greater understanding of not the physical, but the more abstract. What good is a world where all that we understand is the physical nature of everything, where all we see is one perspective of the concrete?

I really should sleep. More another time maybe. It's a pity I'm only productive between the hours of midnight and 8 a.m.

"His eyes look fondly into mine, with gratitude for my understanding...

...He needs, and he appreciates what he receives, but he is not strong enough to give."
- Marie Antoinette on her husband Louis Auguste in Sena Jeter Naslund's Abundance

So I just finished reading the aforementioned novel. Every review quoted on the cover was accurate: it was indeed "opulent," "rich," "enchanting," "fabulous," "illuminating," "poignant," "vivid," "detailed," "exquisite," "intimate," and of course, "beautiful." What I admired most about the novel, though, was that it was also "sympathetic."

The novel opens with this quote:

"Oh, you women of all countries, of all classes of society, listen to me with all the emotion I am feeling in telling you: the Fate of Marie Antoinette contains everything that is relevant to your own heart. If you are happy, so was she....If you have known unhappiness, if you have needed pity, if the future for you raises in your thoughts any sort of fear, unite as human beings, all of you, to save her!"
- Germaine de Stael, from Reflexions sur le proces de la reine ("Reflections on the Trial of the Queen"), 1793.

Divided into five acts, one review said it was like a Shakespearean tragedy. While the first act depicts the young Dauphine when she first arrives in France and is adjusting to her new life, the second act delves into her court life and explores her pain over her unconsummated marriage. The third act begins with the coronation of herself and her husband as monarchs and the birth of their first daughter. The fourth act is the queen in early motherhood and the beginning of her downfall, and the fifth is the royal family's imprisonment in Paris and the eventual execution of the king and his wife.

While the first two acts paint a charming picture of the young Marie Antoinette (from when she was 14 - 19), and explore the roots of her extravagant nature, it is the last two acts that emphasize her humanity and really present a different perspective of her life. Everyone knows the Marie Antoinette that the poor of late-18th century France knew: the queen who cared so little about how gossip sketched her, but supposedly cared only for her own desires and nothing for her people. Abundance, though, portrays her as a naive, ignorant young royal who loved her people but was incapable of acting in their best interests.

The story of Marie Antoinette has always held a certain fascination for me, ever since I was little and had a book, one of the Royal Diaries series, about her. It was written as though it were the diary of hers from the time she was 11 or so, in Austria, until she moved to France, if I recall. There was an afterward that explained her tragic downfall. Since it was a children's book, it was written in a much more sympathetic manner than I think most other history texts of the time regarded the queen, and I never quite believed she was the terrible, cruel monarch history made her out to be. Which I guess is another reason I really liked this sympathetic view of her.

"Do so much good to the French people that they can say that I have sent them an angel," Empress Maria Theresa of the Austrian empire told her daughter when she sent her away to Paris. Throughout her entire time in France, this novel demonstrates how she so wanted her people to love her. She wanted to care for them. She prayed for peace in her country always, safety and good health and happiness for all her people, and when she wasn't indulging in different escapes from the realities of her unconsummated marriage and her difficulties as queen.

If I had to choose a favorite quote of all time, it would probably be Celine in Before Sunrise: "Isn't everything we do in life a way to be loved a little more?" Even here it's true. It fits everything - it's the ultimate motivation. We give so much love that we want it in return, and everything we do, in some way or another, begs others for love. In Holiday, when Julia tells Johnny she loves him and he asks her, "That's the main thing, isn't it?" she replies, "Darling, that's everything." And I guess it is. Perhaps I'll expand on this another time.

Okay. One last passage. Sorry this is so long again. I ramble when it's late.

"All of them conspire to bring me a priest of the old type, whose allegiance is to Rome and not the republic, and I receive much comfort from confession and communion. I learn that the wars are not going well for France, and the priest holds out some hope that the republic will be crushed and the old regime reinstated. I do not think that the foreign armies will reach me in time, and if they do arrive at the gates of Paris, I will promptly be butchered - still my only hope is for foreign rescue, and I know for this cause Fersen is working night and day.
"I whisper, 'Father, is it not ironic that in my greatest hope also lies my greatest danger?'
"'The human condition is defined by irony,' he murmurs. 'From that prison, there is no escape except through faith in the ultimate goodness of God.'"

"I have learned that to be with those that I like is enough."

I just wanted to mention this because it was bugging me last night.

I was hanging out with a bunch of friends, and later on, it was down to just six of us. One of them was leaving, and most of the others were teasing him because he kept making awkward statements, after which all of us would be silent because no one was quite sure what to say. Then after a moment someone would think of something. Either that or just start talking again anyway.

Anyway, after the Commander of Awkward Silences left, the five of us remaining were just sitting around talking. Well, the other four were talking - I was mostly listening (something else severely underrated). At one point, we all were quiet. It was late - 1:30 a.m., maybe - and at that hour, silence is just something that happens. You can't expect everyone to be as sharp or chatty as usual. Except after about 5 seconds of the peaceful quiet, one of the people left made some smartass remark about how it was like Mr. Awkward Silences never left, or about how he was still here in spirit or something.

It just pissed me off that there are people who can't just sit with friends in silence and enjoy their company, enjoy their presence. They're often the same people who always have to be "doing" something - they can't just hang out and enjoy other people's company; they have to be doing something and be active. I mean, I like having something to do, I like being busy and going places and "doing stuff," but at the same time, I don't think it's necessary. Like Walt Whitman said, "I have learned that to be with those that I like is enough." It really is. With true friends, you don't need them to entertain you or to talk to you all the time. More people need to learn that sometimes, just being with others is enough.

On a completely separate note, I just really love this song, and I can't find a decent cover of it, and I don't want to buy Rubber Soul just so I can listen to it when I have most of the other tracks. But here are the lyrics.

There are places I remember
All my life, though some have changed,
Some forever, not for better,
Some have gone and some remain.

All these places had their moments,
With lovers and friends I still can recall,
Some are dead and some are living,
In my life I’ve loved them all.

But of all these friends and lovers,
There is no one compares with you,
And these mem’ries lose their meaning
When I think of love as something new.

Though I know I’ll never lose affection
For people and things that went before,
I know I’ll often stop and think about them
In my life I love you more.

Though I know I’ll never lose affection
For people and things that went before,
I know I’ll often stop and think about them
In my life I love you more.
In my life I love you more.

The Beatles, "In My Life"

Oh yeah. I forgot to mention that I like this.

Gabe: Dad, what's the deal with girls? I mean, why are they the way they are?
Adam: You're talking to the wrong man.
Gabe: Well, how come all love has to end?
Adam: Let me tell you something about me and your mom. Once upon a time, we really loved each other, but as time went by, there just got to be all these things, little things, stupid things, that were left unsaid. And all these things that were left unsaid piled up, like the clutter in our storage room. And after awhile, there was so much that was left unsaid, that we barely said anything at all.
Gabe: Well, why didn't you just say them then, dad?
Adam: I don't know, Gabe. I kind of wish I had.

- Little Manhattan

You know, my grandfather was an egg farmer...

...I used to candle eggs at his farm. Do you know what that is? You hold an egg up to the light of a candle and you look for imperfections. The first time I did it he told me to put all the eggs that were cracked or flawed into a bucket for the bakery. And he came back an hour later, and there were 300 eggs in the bakery bucket. He asked me what the hell I was doing. I found a flaw in every single one of them – you know, thin places in the shell; fine, hairline cracks. You look closely enough, you’ll find that everything has a weak spot where it can break, sooner or later.
- Ted Crawford, Fracture

So I'm really not going where you think I'm going with this. Logically, I'd start a long bit about people's weaknesses, finding them, and what people choose to do when they find each other's weaknesses. That'd be interesting, but perhaps another day. No, I'm going into something I thought about today while driving to Island Heights to take pictures of the sunset.

My favorite days to takes pictures of the sunset in Island Heights are the days that are slightly overcast, with a few clouds but not enough to cover the sky or block the horizon. They add color to the sky as the sun sinks, and add character. I was excited because I could tell, even from home, that it was going to be lovely, and it was. The river was all frozen over and the sky was reflected on the ice.



On my way, I wondered how it is that people can watch the sun set and fail to be moved deeply by it. I am not a "religious" person, but there have been evenings when I see the sunset and mornings when I watch the sunrise, that I feel like that those moments are God. I see waves crashing and clouds parting, and brilliant streams of color and light flooding the sky, and sometimes, at a certain moment, I'll feel like I've gotten a glimpse of a higher power - of evidence of a higher power, because so much beauty cannot exist on its own. I wondered, though, how someone could see what I see, and not feel divinely inspired, or at the very least, full of warmth and life and love.

Then I thought about everything else I revel in: a good song or piece of music, a well-done film, a good book or poem, certain plays and musicals, performances of anything good, photographs and paintings and statues and pretty much anything artistic. Including style (yes, I mean clothes) and architecture (the Chrysler Building in New York is my favorite, though I have a soft spot for the old cathedrals of France). And certain feats of athleticism, too. And I wondered how people can not, at the very least, simply appreciate the beauty in them, or even see it. But then I decided that it's not true.

I realize that not everyone is going to appreciate everything that I do, because let's face it, I see beauty in a ton of things that few others would even notice, much less think about. But I decided that everyone has something - there is a way to reach everyone. Everyone has a sensitive spot, everyone has something that will move them. Even if it's as simple as getting choked up during a cliche pop song, or experiencing a change of heart after watching a soap opera, there is a way to everyone - which, to me, means that there's beauty in everything. And I'd much rather look for the beauty in people, for the sensitive spots, the places where they are vulnerable and open to feeling deeply, than look for their weaknesses.

Take my hand and lead me to salvation.
Take my love, for love is everlasting,
And remember the truth that once was spoken:
To love another person is to see the face of God.

----------------
Now playing: Les Miserables Original Broadway Cast Recording - Finale