Wednesday, February 27, 2008

"In the Starlight"

In the starlight, in the starlight
Let us wander gay and free
For there's nothing in the daylight
Half so dear to you and me

Like the fairies in the shadow
Of the woods, we'll steal along
And our sweetest lays we'll warble
For the night was made for song

When none are by to listen
Or to chide us in our glee
In the starlight, in the starlight
Let us wander gay and free

In the starlight, in the starlight
Let us wander, let us wander
In the starlight in the starlight
Let us wander gay and free

In the starlight, in the starlight
At the daylight's dewy close
When the nightingale is singing
His last love song to the rose

In the calm, clear light of summer
When the breezes softly play
From the glitter of our dwelling
We will gently steal away

Where the silvery waters murmur
By the margin of the sea
In the starlight, in the starlight
We will wander gay and free

In the starlight, in the starlight
We will wander, we will wander
In the starlight in the starlight
We will wander gay and free


- J. E. Carpenter

"I'm not saying I don't cry, but in between I laugh... Plus, I look forward to a good cry. It feels pretty good."

There are several movies and books that are depressing that I watch/read when the mood strikes me, but when I’m looking for a good cry, I go to one of three things: 1) A certain section of Little Women, where Jo tells Laurie she can’t love him and then he comes back married to her sister, 2) something by Nicholas Sparks, be it book or movie, or 3) the season 2 finale of "Grey’s Anatomy" – the end, where the arrogantly obnoxious Alex consoles Izzie, whom he loves but who was engaged to another man who just died.

I always cry at the end of that episode – always. It was very well orchestrated, I think. You’ve got the other women in the background in their figure-hugging, black and navy colored dresses, with their dark hair simply dressed, and Izzie front and center in her garnet-colored, poofy pink dress, and blonde hair all curly and beautiful, lying in bed next to her dead fiancĂ©. And you have Alex, holding her, and George, Meredith, and Cristina, there with her, and Callie and Olivia in the background. Cristina, who doesn’t agree with what she’s done; Alex, who is still bitter that she chose Denny over him; Meredith, who’s dealing with her own boy problems; and George, the best friend. They all took the hit and went down with her when she snapped and nearly killed Denny and compromised all their careers as surgeons, but they stood by her anyway, to the very end. I think one of the things that I love about this is that even though she loses Denny, when you get down to it, Izzie doesn’t end up alone. She has the other interns. Her friends. As she walks out, George and Alex follow closely, refusing to let her be by herself.

Alex is one of my favorite characters on that show. He’s dark, angry, selfish, arrogant, and utterly obnoxious, but he has a soft side and is still damaged from his past family life – alcoholic, abusive dad, etc. – and he’s just a charming fellow. I was thinking how once in a while one of my guy friends will ask, why is it that girls always fall for the arrogant guys who seem bad but really aren’t and they don’t like the guys who really are just good? I’m always tempted to tell them that the good guys are never as good as they seem (Grigg: Women never go for the nice guys. Jocelyn: Please, men say that, but when you get to know some of these men who complain the most, you find out they're not as nice as they think they are.), and at least the other ones are upfront about it. But really, I don’t have an answer to that. Or at least, not a good one.

Part of me thinks that it’s the tangibility of contrast, and desire to affect change. With a guy who’s arrogant on the surface yet sensitive in nature, a girl feels singled out when he reveals that sensitivity to her. It’s easier for her to feel loved because she can see the difference in how he treats her, in how acts around her. It’s reassuring. She has physical, concrete evidence of his affection – or, of her effect on him. She feels special. Worthy. I can’t really explain it, but sometimes I wonder if that’s part of it.

The other thing about Grey’s Anatomy. Everything is so tangled up. Everyone is in love with everyone else – all of their love lives and connections and relationships are confined to the small world of the hospital. Yet, despite its melodrama and the unrealistic feel of it, is it a microcosm exemplifying a certain facet of humanity? William Arthur Ward said, "Flatter me, and I may not believe you. Criticize me, and I may not like you. Ignore me, and I may not forgive you. Encourage me, and I will not forget you. Love me and I may be forced to love you." And Marcel Proust: "In his younger days a man dreams of possessing the heart of the woman whom he loves; later, the feeling that he possesses the heart of a woman may be enough to make him fall in love with her." I feel like this implies that love can be a matter of convenience. In Grey’s, these people spend most of their lives around one another. They live in the hospital and the only people they see are each other. Is it that unnatural that they should grow to be attracted to each other? If a man is trapped on a deserted island with only one other woman, what are the odds that they eventually will fall for each other, out of convenience? What makes affection grow?

"If gratitude and esteem are good foundations of affection, Elizabeth's change of sentiment will be neither improbable nor faulty. But if otherwise--if regard springing from such sources is unreasonable or unnatural, in comparison of what is so often described as arising on a first interview with its object, and even before two words have been exchanged, nothing can be said in her defence, except that she had given somewhat of a trial to the latter method in her partiality for Wickham, and that its ill success might, perhaps, authorise her to seek the other less interesting mode of attachment."
- Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice

----------------
Now playing: Jim Sturgess - I've Just Seen a Face

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Finding Neverland

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: You should be aware though, James, what some people are saying. Now mind you, I wouldn’t bring it up if I thought that it would pass.
J. M. Barrie: I’m not surprised. What do they say?
Doyle: Very well. That you spend much more time with Mrs. Davies than you do your own wife. And she is a widow, and uh—
Barrie: I’m a friend. That’s it; nothing more.
Doyle: There have also been questions about how you spend your time with those boys, and why.
Barrie: That’s outrageous. How can anyone think something so evil? They’re children. They’re innocent children. . . You find a glimmer of happiness in this world, and there’s always someone who wants to destroy it. No, thank you Arthur, but I don’t think anyone will give credence to such nonsense.
Doyle: Then why is no one sitting with them? Once you get a bit of notoriety, James, people watch you, and they will look for ways to drag you down.

(Finding Neverland)

Detective Philip Marlowe

"Chandler seems to have created the culminating American hero: wised up, hopeful, thoughtful, adventurous, sentimental, cynical and rebellious."

That is from the New York Times Book Review for The Big Sleep, as quoted on the back of the Vintage paperback edition I have of it for my Crime: Fiction & Film class. We read it this week, and quite frankly, it was awesome. Though his work was traditionally dismissed as trashy "pulp" mystery stories, it really is great genre stuff. The style fascinated me. On the one hand, it was dry and plain, but it was so rich in detail and description - the figurative language and imagery were great. And come on: murder, porn, blackmail, kidnapping - all in one book! The guy definitely can plot.

Our protagonist and narrator, private investigator Philip Marlowe, is a fantastic character. On the surface, he's the stereotypical hardboiled P.I.: he's a hard, thick-skinned wiseass who speaks in similes and isn't afraid of bending a few laws to protect his client. His disregard for the law, though, is born of his years working for the LAPD and witnessing the corruption first hand. He's kind of gutsy, and sticks to his principles. And yes, he actually has principles: he's got his own idea of what it means to be honorable and noble that defies contemporary society's dictums. Though he's pretty misogynistic, it's almost understandable - Chandler paints his female characters in such a negative light, you almost don't want Marlowe to treat them as ladies, though he does anyway. And while he never states it outright, we discussed in class how Marlowe seems to consider himself a knight of sorts. He's very Rick Blaine. And a bit old Western cowboy.

In an essay about realist crime stories, Chandler concludes with what he thinks a realist detective should be:

"In everything that can be called art there is a quality of redemption. It may be pure tragedy, if it is high tragedy, and it may be pity and irony, and it may be the raucous laughter of the strong man. But down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid. The detective in this kind of story must be such a man. He is the hero; he is everything. He must be a complete man and a common man and an unusual man. He must be, to use a rather weathered phrase, a man of honor—by instinct, by inevitability, without thought of it, and certainly without saying it. He must be the best man in the world and a good enough man for any world. I do not care much about his private life; he is neither a eunuch nor a satyr; I think he might seduce a duchess and I am not quite sure he would not spoil a virgin; if he is a man of honor in one thing, he is that in all things.

"He is a relatively poor man, or he would not be a detective at all. He is a common man or he could not go among common people. He has a sense of character, or he would not know his job. He will take no man’s money dishonestly and no man’s insolence without a due and dispassionate revenge. He is a lonely man and his pride is that you will treat him as a proud man or be very sorry you ever saw him. He talks as the man of his age talks—that is, with rude wit, a lively sense of the grotesque, a disgust for sham, and a contempt for pettiness.


"The story is this man’s adventure in search of a hidden truth, and it would be no adventure if it did not happen to a man fit for adventure. He has a range of awareness that startles you, but it belongs to him by right, because it belongs to the world he lives in. If there were enough like him, the world would be a very safe place to live in, without becoming too dull to be worth living in."


- Raymond Chandler, “The Simple Art of Murder”


I think I'd like to meet Philip Marlowe. I liked the NY Times reviewer's choice of adjectives, and liked even more that he chose to lump them under the title of "American hero". Marlowe really is a very American hero. He's smart and strong, sensitive but not soft, cynical yet hopeful. He's honorable effortlessly, and he has a certain disregard for authority that the rebellious side of Americans has always admired. In his narration, there is a lack of pretentiousness (that again, haha), a plainness that is appealing to Americans, who don't have formal social classes. Like Chandler says, he's a common man who walks among common people. And, perhaps most notably, Marlowe is independent - and very much alone, in an almost romantic way. That, I think, is one of the most brilliant aspects of the novel: that it manages to capture so many traits and ideas that are considered to be very American, and that are respected by Americans.

On a side note, I also thought it was really interesting how Chandler used animal imagery and comparisons nearly every time a woman showed up, especially with this one crazy and promiscuous girl, Carmen. It reminded me of how Albee's plays tend to come back to the idea of the animal side of human nature. But, while Albee doesn't distinguish between the animal nature in men from the animal in women, Chandler does, and he uses it to degrade women. I just thought it was interesting how they both use the idea, just to different ends.

That is all.

----------------
Now playing: Chris Ayer - Fade

Monday, February 25, 2008

I have a soft spot for Andrew McCarthy.

Even though he was decent in Pretty in Pink, I'm a Duckie fan all the way. But I absolutely *love *his character in St. Elmo's Fire - Kevin, the cynical aspiring journalist and recent Georgetown grad who wears the strangest clothes (and always a trench coat), smokes way too much (which can be forgiven, I guess) and is secretly in love with his best friend's girl. He broods, he ponders the meaning of life, he rocks out to Aretha Franklin when no one's around, and he has a coffin at the foot of his bed. Before admitting he's in love with Leslie, he staunchly maintains that love doesn't exist.

Kevin: Love, love, you know what love is? Love is an illusion created by lawyer types like yourself to perpetuate another illusion called marriage to create the reality of divorce and then the illusionary need for divorce lawyers.
...
Kirby: You are just pissed off and bitter because you have not had sex in. . . how long? What is it. . . a year. . . maybe two? Refresh my memory please, Kevin. Haven't you heard of the sexual revolution?
Kevin: Who won, huh? Nobody. Used to be sex was the only free thing. No longer. Alimony, palimony. . . it's all financial. Love is an illusion.
Kirby: It's the only illusion that counts, my friend.
Kevin: Says who?
Kirby: Anyone who's been in love.
Kevin: Love sucks.
Kirby: So does your attitude.

Kevin: Marriage is a concept invented by people who were lucky to make it to 20 without being eaten by dinosaurs. Marriage is obsolete.
Alec: Dinosaurs are obsolete. Marriage is still around.

I was thinking about these quotes the other day and about the wonderful Kevin just because I was feeling really cynical and wondering, what if love really was just an illusion? What if it was just a game of seeing how deeply in denial you can get, if you could convince yourself that the illusion is real? What if the only people who won were the ones who could lie to themselves like that? Then would marriage just be a game of seeing who's the best at lying to themselves? Who can maintain the illusion the longest?

Haha. If that's the case, I think I'd fail. Though, "Never underestimate the power of denial." And my powers of denial are great, when least expected.
: D


P.S. [Talking about Andrew McCarthy and why he inspired him to be an actor] "Yeah, St. Elmo's Fire (1985) is probably the one that I love him in the most. He was really vulnerable, really open, I think. And he had floppy hair, kind of bad hair, and I had really bad hair for quite a long time when I was a kid."
- Reason # 96145 I positively adore James McAvoy. <3333 style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">

Thursday, February 21, 2008

What was wrong with a solid sort of guy?

...Did you want a marriage full of surprises, or did you want a guy you could depend on? Someone who, when you looked at him, you knew what he'd be like in fifty years?

She asked Laurie, because Laurie had a theory about everything. "It seems to me," Laurie had said, "that you can marry someone you're lucky to get or you can marry someone who's lucky to get you. I used to think the first was best. Now I don't know. Wouldn't it be better to spend your life with someone who thinks he's lucky to be there?"

"Why can't you both be lucky?" Prudie asked.
"You can wait for that, if you like."
- The Jane Austen Book Club

FRICK. Okay, so I was going to elaborate on this, except for 2 things. One, the day I wrote this, I didn't have the time, and two, I just started to now and Firefox shut down on me. Rawr. I don't remember quite what I said, but I have a vague idea.


I like this passage a lot. I was going to relate it to this quote from either Before Sunrise or Before Sunset, I don't remember which, that basically talks about having a "better self" and an "honest self," because I was thinking about that today - which would be better, to be with someone who makes you feel like you are your "better self" or with someone who recognizes you as your "better self"? To be with someone who makes you feel good about yourself and such, or someone who simply makes you feel like yourself? But I can't find the quote and I don't have time to watch both movies to figure out what it is.


I was reading reviews of these movies before. Most critics agree that the sequel, Before Sunset, is much better than the original, Before Sunrise, which was made nine years earlier in 1995. A lot of critics and people in general condemned Before Sunrise and its characters for being self-absorbed, smug, self-congratulatory, pretentious (that was a popular one), and just generally obnoxious and too dialogue-heavy. One person actually said that they "talk to much, and say too little," and that they "aren't so much waiting to hear as they are for their turn to talk." This amused me. I was amused that people complained that the characters in St. Elmo's Fire are obnoxious and too self-absorbed for the same reason. The kids in that movie were recent college graduates - around 22 or 23 - and in Before Sunrise, Jesse and Celine are both 23. Really, aren't most people that age self-absorbed? And if they're given to self-examination and exploration and reflection and thought at all, aren't many of them pretentious? Hell, pretty much everything I write/post on this damn thing fairly reeks of pretentiousness and self-absorption/involvement/etc. But that's why I try to pour it out here instead of actually talking about it to people and getting that "you actually talk about this crap?" tone from them. I figure, this is how I am right now, and all I can really do is hope I learn and change in time, ya know?


In St. Elmo's Fire, Rob Lowe's character says, "We're all going through this. It's our time on the edge," and Demi Moore replies that she's tired, and she just doesn't even know who to be any more. Except she and all the other characters in that movie are typical '80s kids - parties, relationships, "love," and heading out into the "real world." Jesse and Celine are the slightly more intellectual, deeply-connected version. In their own way, they're "on the edge," and they also don't really know who they are. I guess that's why I really love both movies - I can completely relate to their confusion and utter uncertainty. As I've already pointed out my pretentiousness and overwhelming self-interest, I might as well also point out that if I'm going to be completely honest, I pretty much qualify for the label "walking disaster." [Excised: Excessively Long Self-Examination and Obnoxious Criticisms.] I have an idea that if I went to a shrink, there's at least a 50% chance I'd be diagnosed as clinically depressed. A year ago that'd probably have been closer to 75%. I mean, I don't think I'm clinically depressed. But I bet a shrink would have a field day with me. I mean, isn't it now that about 20% of people this age have been diagnosed with depression? That's ridiculous. But, I have no real reason to be the way I am. I think it's just this particular time of life. I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way, in being insane - I just think that, being the person I am, I choose a less conventional (though not unique, slash probably more annoying) way of dealing with my confusion and general social and emotional dysfunction. And I'm not even going to get into my physical health. Though there are an increasing number of nights that I think, "I really should start drinking," the fact that I don't is probably the only thing stopping me from becoming a complete, certified wreck. Though I'm not even sure any more why I don't, if it's that I still just don't want to, or if it's turned into me being proud and stupid and reluctant to actually do something human-like and put myself out there in any way shape or form. And then there's the fact that I realize a lot of what's wrong about me and have no idea what the hell to do about any of it. Or maybe it's just that I have no idea what to start with, where to begin. And then I stop and think about how I'm really most likely not the only one who feels this crazy, but most normal people - and also people who are way more messed up than I am - don't complain and throw themselves pity parties and obsess over everything, and think I think, "Wow, way to be a complete jerk."


Shutting up. Christ. I'm not really as pathetic as this makes me sound. And I swear I really don't loathe myself and I really don't need someone to stage some kind of Intervention and I really don't think I'm clinically depressed. Just confused. And despite the fact that I seem to constantly soak in pools of self-pity, I really don't want anyone else's. I don't like pity. Pity doesn't help, so I guess I should stop that. And if you despise me now, well, I can't really blame you. And if your best advice is not to write after 2 am any more, don't worry; from now on, I'm on top of that one. As for the obvious, "Don't think so much"...ha. You try it. Then get back to me.


Lord. I'm rambling worse than Dickens. I really need to work on the whole control / brevity / pithiness thing.


P.S. Watching A Streetcar Named Desire today...wow. I forgot what an absolutely brilliant masterpiece that is. As great as Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is, I still think this is better. Never fails to amaze me. If you've never read/seen it, I recommend you do both.

----------------
Now playing: Iron & Wine - The Trapeze Swinger

Sunday, February 17, 2008

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Taking a super short break from working on my Lit and Film paper on "the theme/conflict between the 'significant' and 'insignificant' person in literature in film" to rant really quickly about how much it annoys me when lit professors make you try to find "meaning" in everything. Everything is a symbol; everything means something. The monkey is a symbol! The origin of his name "means" something! He calls her "Anna Karenina" - that "means" something! What does the goose "mean"? What do the cossacks "mean"? What does the department store in Modern Times "mean"? God. I mean, I get the importance of looking for the deeper subtext or being aware that a deeper subtext exists, but really. Everything does mean something in context, so why do we have to spend an hour and a half trying to figure out what the hell Gogol was thinking during the three years he took to write his obnoxious story "The Overcoat" (which, if for no other reason, is obnoxious just because of its lack of paragraphs)?!?! How are we ever supposed to understand what he wanted us to get out of this story that he wrote over 160 years ago?? I can appreciate analyzing literature, I really can. Sometimes I even enjoy looking at themes and archetypes and motifs and style - crazy, I know. But sometimes, especially where symbolism is concerned, I get incredibly frustrated with this whole looking for something that may not be there deal. Also when reading literary criticism. I can't believe people make a living by foisting their convoluted theories onto others. But I digress. My point is, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar - sometimes a starfish is just a starfish - and sometimes a giant monkey picked up off a raft during a typhoon is just a damn lucky monkey.

----------------
Now playing: Chris Ayer - A Starfish In The Front Yard

Thursday, February 14, 2008

I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
- Mark Twain

Argh. If only, if only.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

My Latest Life Plan:

  • Finish college.
  • Grad school?
  • Win the lottery (preferably the mega millions jackpot).
  • Buy a pretty house on a beach / an apartment in New York.
  • Write a novel or screenplay or whatever tickles my fancy. Perhaps start a website and critique movies and plays - it's easy to be a critic when you're not worried about finding a job with a respectable publication! William Wolf does it...AND teaches at NYU, besides. I could do that.
  • Engage in various philanthropic pursuits. Or at the very least, do nice things for my immediate family and close friends. (*See: Franny in 'Friends With Money'.)
  • Finance an independent film.
  • Open a private school or help improve public ones somehow or something.
  • Travel. Photograph stuff. Do good things for others.
  • Just live. Forget planning. Just do stuff.

The Bisy Backsons

There was a man who disliked seeing his footprints and his shadow. He decided to escape from them, and began to run. But as he ran along, more footprints appeared, while his shadow easily kept up with him. Thinking he was going too slowly, he ran faster and faster without stopping, until he finally collapsed from exhaustion and died. (Chuang-tse)

The Bisy Backson is almost desperately active...if you want to be healthy, relaxed, and contented, just watch what a Bisy Backson does and then do the opposite. There's one now, pacing back and forth, jingling the loose coins in his pocket, nervously glancing at his watch. He makes you feel tired just looking at him. The chronic Backson always seems to have to be somewhere, at least on a superficial, physical level. He doesn't go out for a walk, though; he doesn't have time...The Bisy Backson is always On the Run, it seems...always going somewhere, somewhere he hasn't been. Anywhere but where he is...

The Backson thinks of progress in terms of fighting and overcoming. One of his little idiosyncrasies, you might say. Of course, real progress involves growing and developing, which involves changing inside, but that's something the inflexible Backson is unwilling to do. The urge to grow and develop, present in all forms of life, becomes perverted in the Bisy Backson's mind into a constant struggle to change everything (the Bulldozer Backson) and everyone (the Bigoted Backson) else but himself, and interfere with things he has no business interfering with, including practically every form of life on earth. At least to a limited extent, his behavior has been held in check by wiser people around him. But, like the parents of hyperactive children, the wise find that they can't be everywhere at once. Baby-sitting the Backsons wears you out..

[The goals we have] do count, mostly because they cause us to go through the process, and it's the process that makes us wise, happy, or whatever. If we do things in the wrong sort of way, it makes us miserable, angry, confused, and things like that. The goal has to be right for us, and it has to be beneficial, in order to ensure a beneficial process. But aside from that, it's really the process that's important. Enjoyment of the process is the secret that erases the myths of the Great Reward and Saving Time. Perhaps this can help to explain the everyday significance of the word Tao, the Way.

What could we call that moment before we begin to eat the honey? Some would call it anticipation, but we think it's more than that. We would call it awareness. It's when we become happy and realize it, if only for an instant. By Enjoying the Process, we stretch that awareness out so that it's no longer only a moment, but covers the whole thing. Then we can have a lot of fun. Just like Pooh...

When we take the time to enjoy our surroundings and appreciate being alive, we find that we have no time to be Bisy Backsons anymore. But that's all right, because being Bisy Backsons is a tremendous waste of time. As the poet Lu Yu wrote:

The clouds above us join and separate,
The breeze in the courtyard leaves and returns.
Life is like that, so why not relax?
Who can stop us from celebrating?
- Benjamin Hoff, The Tao of Pooh

If I EVER turn into a Bisy Backson, please tell me. I feel like I'm on my to becoming one now, and it's not cool...my awareness is gone, and I've gotten to a place where I often feel like life is a battle, and I have to "fight or overcome" or I'll go crazy. I have to be perpetually busy so I don't have time to think, because even though I miss having down time to write (which I do even when I don't have time, clearly) and just think, and be, I fall into traps of thinking about things I shouldn't, when I have that kind of time.

I've wasted enough time today. Must go be productive.


----------------
Now playing: Chris Ayer - Fall Away (State I'm In)

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

"Control" is relative.

Me: i hate that, when you can feel the wind pushing your car and you feel like you're not in control of it
Me: haha i guess that would make a good metaphor in a story for life.

I said that tonight. I realized lately how much I don't like not feeling in control of my own life any more. I used to kind of embrace that. But I guess I also used to trust very much that there was some greater force at work, that life just happens the way it happens and there's nothing I can do about it - I just have to roll with it. Then I started having those dreams where my teeth fall out of my mouth randomly, and I guess that was the end of that.

Thinking about this reminded me of June '06. I was walking around with someone one day, and I said how I like the idea that there's something bigger than me in control, and of course, that everything happens for the good. He said he hated that - he hated the idea that he isn't completely in control of his own life. I guess I can understand that better now than I could before. It's funny, I tell people that kind of stuff all the time - that you just do what you can and that's all, that whatever happens, happens, you can't control what other people do, only what you do yourself - and other more hopeful, optimistic viewpoints. It's a wonder that anyone listens to me any more, cause I don't exactly live by that any more. I know I should, and it's really one of those "Do as I say, not as I do" things, but really, I know me - I wouldn't be saying this stuff still if, deep down, I didn't really believe in it.

That reminds me of In Good Company. Topher Grace is in the ad business because he's a hotshot young executive with a life plan to fulfill. Dennis Quaid is the old pro in advertising because he really honestly believes in it - that he's doing a good thing in helping a man promote his independent business, and that sort of thing. Topher realizes advertising isn't for him - that when he does choose a career, he wants to believe in it the way Dennis believes in selling ad space in magazines. I always loved that movie. But I digress.

After mock trial the other day, I was talking to one of the kids who was an attorney this year. They had lost 2/3 of their matches that day; I felt bad for them. Anyway, the one kid says to me, "If there's one thing I've learned, reinforced is probably the better word...it's so important to ensure that you have as much control as possible over your own fate, because once things go from objective to subjective, you've lost the battle." I think I like that. Well, I don't really like it. But I think it's true.

It's strange. When I was little, my parents did teach me that life isn't fair. I learned that life isn't fair, even though it should be, and that even though it isn't, I should treat others fairly, if not mercifully. And I always tried to live up to that. I've realized that even though, based on what I was taught, I didn't exactly expect others to do the same, be the same - fair and forgiving - on some level, I expected people that I respected and was close to, to do that. I think I knew better than to expect people I don't know to live that way, but I don't think I knew enough to expect people that I trusted and respected not to live like that. I didn't know better than to realize that just because I trusted and respected them, and tried to be just and forgiving, that didn't mean that they were going to treat me fairly and mercifully. I wish I had realized that sooner.

Sometimes I wonder if everything really does happen for a reason. In little ways though. Like my abysmal timing. How I manage to run into people when, if I had gone that way just seconds later or earlier, I wouldn't have seen them. Or like, if I drop a folder and have to stop and pick up everything that was in it, but then on my way to class I see someone I wouldn't have seen if I hadn't had to stop and pick up my stuff. That kind of thing. And then I wonder why it is that I had to run into those people. Sometimes it's people that I like seeing; sometimes it's people that I generally hope/think I'll never see again. But even like, the idea that there are no coincidences. "Coincidence is cancelled today," as Eddie Dean would say. Who was it...someone else said, "Everything has a purpose, and it serves you." Or Shakespeare:

"Sweet are the uses of adversity,
Which, like the toad, ugly and venomous,
Wears yet a precious jewel in his head;
And this our life, exempt from human haunt,
Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks,
Sermons in stones, and good in everything."
- As You Like It

----------------
Now playing: Bright Eyes - Classic Cars

Monday, February 11, 2008

I'm a theater dork.

I am. I love plays. I love musicals. Love reading them, listening to the scores/soundtracks, and seeing them performed. By pretty much anyone, as long as it's not completely horribly painful to watch (:: cough BCT Seussical cough ::).

I saw Toms River East do Footloose last night, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. In part because I knew/like a lot of the kids who were in it. In part, though, because I think I just really enjoy seeing kids do fun musicals. There's something about it that's different than seeing professionals put on musicals. I mean, either way it's awesome. But there's something in seeing young kids act like "adults". Well, maybe not adults. But when you're that age, everything is a rush. There's so much promise in life - everything is something new. And to celebrate that through performance is exhilarating.

It reminded me of something from The Jane Austen Book Club (yes, that again).

Prudie found herself in sudden sympathy with Coach Blumberg. How wise was it, after all, to encourage these children to play at great love? To tell them that romance was worth dying for, that simple steadfastness was stronger than any other force in the world? What Coach Blumberg believed - that there was something important about nine boys outpitching, outhitting, and outrunning nine other boys - seemed, by contrast, a harmless fraud. Jane Austen wrote six great romances, and no one died for love in any of them...

I just thought that was so interesting, looking at it that way. And I totally remember working backstage during those musicals. The behind-the-scenes relationships that came of the ones on stage, the drama and craziness, who made out with whom, who went out with whom. It was insanity. But like Fowler says:

Take phermones, add music, rehearsals day and night, people dying for love. What could you expect?

Such a wonderfully cheery book. All happy endings, but that's her point: reading Austen breeds romance. Too bad it's not true. ( :

Sunday, February 10, 2008

A brief rant.

Sometimes, being Asian is a pain in the ass. Rather, being Korean and adopted. Only little annoyances, but still. When?

1) When non-Asians want to try to guess what I am. "Chinese?" No. "Japanese?" No. Korean's usually next. Sometimes Vietnamese or Filipino. And that's only if they know Korea, Vietnam, and the Philippines are Asian/Pacific Island nations. But no one who isn't Asian ever guesses Korean first. And seriously, I could make it so much easier by just telling them from the get-go that I'm Korean. Then they don't have to look like ignorant jackasses when they've run out of guesses after "Chinese" and "Japanese."

2) When Asians who recognize that I'm Korean automatically assume I speak/understand Korean and start speaking to me in it. It's easy enough to politely tell them that I'm adopted and haven't been in Korea since I was 4 months old, but still. And half the time, even after I tell them that I don't understand it, they keep speaking Korean to me anyway.

3) When people think I'm a communist when they find out I'm Korean. Communists don't let people adopt their babies, morons. Hell, if you're in China, they don't even really let you have babies. During the 1988 Olympics in Seoul, South Korea, China and North Korea attacked South Korea for letting Westerners adopt so many of their children, saying that babies are South Korea's number one export. I'm not North Korean and I'm not a communist. Jeez.

4) When non-Asians start talking to me about other Asian people they know. Today in Wawa, some random guy first asked me if I was Chinese, then proceeded to tell me how he knows a little Mandarin (only he mispronounced it) and then he told me how he knows a nice Korean woman who works in a casino in Atlantic City. Like I might know her because I'm also Korean. Like I care. Mmm, not so much.

5) People don't do this any more, and I don't remember it happening, but my mum told me that when I was a baby, people in stores used to ask her if I'd be able to speak English when I grew up. No, idiot, I'm going to live with an English-speaking family and magically know only how to speak Korean.

6) When people make stereotypical Asian jokes that aren't even original. If I get asked if I eat cats one more time, I'm going to flip.

7) When other Asians assume that I have some kind of cultural bond with them because we're both Asians. I mean, that's understandable enough I guess, but when you're as much of a "twinkie" as I am, it gets old.

8) When people tell me that I had an easier time getting into college because I'm Asian. Asians are not an underrepresented minority so it's really harder for them to get into colleges / get scholarships. College admissions actually have higher standards for Asian students. So stop telling me that I'm lucky I'm Asian because I'll get more money.

9) When people tell me that I'm smart because I'm Asian and that all Asians are smart slash supposed to be smart etc. etc. Annoying.

10) When I meet creeps with Asian fetishes who are crazy. Like, stalker-crazy. LEAVE ME THE FRICK ALONE.

I love finding old poems.

Sitting high in another world,
Safe behind the smoky glass,
I stare and watch in wonder
As a parade begins to pass.
The marching band blares loudly;
Dancers spin and twirl and leap.
Admirers fall in adoration –
They worship at your feet.

And I watch behind the glass
As they obey your every whim,
Like a powerless machine
Controlled by an intrinsic force within.
Mesmerized, the populace
Sings praises to your greatness
As, masked, you lead them far away
With your cowardly “charms” and “graces.”

I see them crawl on blindly.
You’re inflated by their love,
But their love is really empty:
They’re only sheep stuck in your herd.
Deep down, I think you know this,
That none of this is real,
But desperate to be a hero,
You like how valued they make you feel.

As I watch from high behind the glass,
The parade begins to part:
The people’s souls begin to rise –
Just their ghosts maintain the march.
Shadowy hosts of former selves
Still follow, going along,
But so absorbed by your silver baton,
You don’t see the people are gone.

There’s nothing left but traces
Of the people they used to be.
Blindsided, now the poisonous wave
Of your baton is all they see.
Still, to be followed around by ghosts
Is enough for you to sustain
Your detached façade of arrogance
That enshrouds your human pain.

From behind the glass, I can resist the lure
Of your silver baton, your golden charm;
Yet I cannot but pity you –
You can’t see what you’ve become:
That in spite of thinking that you are loved,
Your followers are soulless drones.
If the wind of reason should blow them away,
You’d see the truth: you are alone.

Friday, February 8, 2008

My Other Point

I have a friend who is ultra-conservative politically, and one day when we were talking he told me that the difference between conservatives and liberals are that conservatives are realists, while liberals are idealists: liberals want to enact plans that would work in an ideal world, while conservatives see that they would fail in the real world and act accordingly.

I'm pretty moderate. Socially more liberal, I guess. I blame college. Haha. Though according to my friend, blaming others and not taking responsibility is also a liberal attitude...but anyway, my point is, I decided today that I was totally designed for utopia. Or a vacuum.

In 20th Century American Foreign Politics today, the topic was liberal internationalism. We talked a lot about World War I, Woodrow Wilson, the Bolsheviks' October revolution, and the rise of Lenin. We spent a lot of time on Wilson's Fourteen Points, reviewing each of them, why we thought he thought they would lead to a perfectly peaceful world, and why Lenin shot them down. Most people said that they thought that the Fourteen Points weren't bad - just not realistic. In a perfect world, they would work - they worked on paper; just, they probably wouldn't in practice.

Some people are incredibly well equipped to succeed in the real world. They have the kind of mindset it takes to survive in the competitive society we live in. They're positive yet realistic; cynical yet happy. Then there are the people like me who were just made to live in a perfect world. The idealists who are capable of accepting the Way Things Are, and who can survive perfectly well in the real world - they're just forever frustrated that the Way Things Are isn't the Way Things Should Be.

That was fairly simple and kind of banal but oh well.

And now the marvelous Chris Ayer:
I don't mind being alone
I don't mind seeing that I'm here on my own
It's the choice that I've chosen
And maybe we're all opening our eyes
To wisemen inside
Who give answers to questions
And make life a lesson
In hoping to the point of denial...

I don't mind being scared
Don't mind seeing that I'm under-prepared
For the life that I've chosen
And the way that it's going
Shows that I ought to give into my thoughts
The philosopher's prayer
Please show me I'm here
So I can be okay to go

All the way to the earth from the sky
Newly made today so I sink when I fly
It's in the way that I walk crooked lines
Gaining strength all the time
And by the ocean I'm told that we'll all be the same
A thousand pieces of an ocean, arriving and changing
We'll wait for the day when we'll evaporate

Evaporate...
We'll change...
Someday.

----------------
Now playing: Chris Ayer - Evaporate

Thursday, February 7, 2008

The Russian Spirit

If there's one thing I love about my courses here, it's how interdisciplinary they are. Half the stuff I learn in one class ends up being relevant in another one. It gets redundant and frustrating some times, but overall, it makes it more interesting.

Like last year. So much of the stuff my crazy liberal Social Issues professor brought up was explored (more rationally and less extremely) in my Intro to International Studies the next semester. Some random topics from my Intro to American Studies class came back in my Immigration to America class, and things from there are coming back in my 20th Century American Foreign Policy class now. As are bits about Russian culture from my Literature and Film class. And in that class, stories from my freshman seminar last year (though we didn't do much of anything there) are being used again, and we're also watching a film that relates to my Technology and Culture in America class. And stuff I learned from the Smiths comes back in everything.

Anyway, in Literature and Film the other day, we watched this Russian film called The Barber of Siberia. It was fantastic, mostly. There was one specific part about the ending that I hated, but other than that, it was great. Compelling plot, good acting, sufficient cinematography and technical stuff. 3 hours long, but you don't even notice. It's the story of this American woman, Jane, who goes to Russia in 1885 to help her father, an inventor who's created a machine called "The Barber of Siberia" that will chop down trees at an amazing rate. He needs the Tsar's help to get the funding to complete it, and Jane is to help him get a meeting with the Tsar by going through one of the generals, Radlov, who happens to be the head of the military academy in Moscow. While there, one of the young cadets, Tolstoy (no relation to the writer) falls in love with her. Most of the movie is about the destructive nature of his love for and relationship with Jane, highlighting the cultural differences between the American woman and all the Russians she meets. It balances comedy, drama, and romance, with a bit of tragedy thrown in. It's really great. Definitely see it if you can ever get your hands on a copy; it's kind of hard to find it with English subtitles, apparently.

We talked about it in class today. I mentioned how the film rather subtly comments upon the cultural differences all throughout the film. At one point, the week before Lent begins, Jane is at a carnival celebrating; at the week's end, it will be a day of forgiveness - everyone, full of good will, shall beg everyone else's pardon. She notes how extreme the Russians are: at the carnival, she witnesses a giant fistfight, where dozens of men are beating each other up, knowing that at the end of the week they will all forgive each other. She says how they can't do anything in a small way: it's always one extreme or another; all or nothing. Though she observes this in retrospect, (spoiler alert! haha) it's her lack of understanding just how much this notion pervades the Russian spirit that leads to her downfall - as well as everyone else's.

A lot of the other people in class hated her for ruining other people's lives - for not giving up her business transaction. I didn't like her for it, but I understood why she did it - or, I suppose, the writer had her do it. My Russian professor said the same thing - that she understands her, and therefore doesn't hate her. We also talked, though, about how Jane is intended to be a symbol of Western culture, and a criticism of it, too. I found it really interesting that everyone hated the person that symbolized the American state of mind, and everyone loved the young, naive Russian cadet.

When I noted Jane's observation of the Russian tendency to go to extremes, Professor Ivushkina told us that this is very true, that that's how things in her country are. She pointed out, every time there's a revolution, their government is completely eradicated and they start over from scratch - they can't do anything partially, or half-heartedly. This idea is also common throughout Russian literature, she told us.

She also said, but not condescendingly, that there's no way that we can fully understand the Russian spirit - that passion, the intensity that drives them, or the camaraderie that is still incredibly important to them in a way that has gone out of vogue in America. There, still, friends put everyone else before themselves; and they're just very warm people in general. My other professor, who visited Russia for the first time in 25 years last summer, told us how she experienced this first hand - she would meet people on the streets, and start talking to them, and after only a few minutes, they would be asking her what she's passionate about, what is important to her, and other questions that people here rarely ask those close to them, let alone people they've just met. Here, she said, people will ask you what you do - not what you love, what's important to you.

Not everyone there is like that, of course, but it was still interesting. It's a shame people here aren't more like that. At least, in that they talk about that stuff. I think I'd go crazy if everyone I knew always went to extremes like the people in that movie did. In a way, though, it was beautiful. In a way, it was right.

I'll get to my other point later.

Monday, February 4, 2008

"Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together."

So today I had to read an excerpt of Russia: A History. I bet you can guess how much I enjoyed that. Once I woke from my coma-like stupor, I processed the fact that most of the...one page...on literature and arts in pre-WWI Russia discussed how they were a departure from the civic-minded stuff of tradition and a move towards modernism. My assignment was to write a "reaction paper" on this excerpt (for my Lit and Film class...go figure) and find parallels and contrasts between the two. The two what, I have no idea. So I started skimming a Wikipedia article on modernist literature, which cites "disillusionment" as one of its major thematic characteristic. This made me think of two things.

1) When Sam and I studied for the APUSH exam with the SparkNotes study cards, we decided that if there was a question on the exam that was about the early 20th century and we didn't know the answer, when in doubt, the answer was "disillusionment," because the word came up on every other card. It was ridiculous.

2) I feel like people like to use the word "disillusioned" with the word "alienated." If you're disillusioned, the general consensus probably is that you're alienated, too. So disillusionment and alienation were big modernist themes. Discontentedness was so common, it might as well have been trendy. Everyone felt society was fragmented and disconnected and everyone was trying to make sense of the whirlwind world of progress and industry and change. And so on and so forth.

Really, though, it's not uncommon for people to feel alienated from others and disillusioned with the world and socially isolated from everyone else and so on and so forth. But why is that? It seems like that shouldn't be a problem at all.

"Everyone is less mysterious than they think they are."
- Claire, Elizabethtown

At the core, everyone is human. Everyone shares the same basic foundation. People tend to go around thinking they're unlike everyone else, they don't fit in, etc. (guilty...) - even when they do. Everyone thinks that no one "gets" them, that no one understands or can understand. Really, we have no excuse for that. We all share the deep, innate connection of existing together as humans - it's so deeply buried, that we forget it exists. What is it about us that keeps us so guarded, that makes us completely disregard the common ties we have with everyone else? And what is it that makes us so afraid when we find "kindred spirits," people with whom we connect? Maybe that's just it: fear.

Uh, yeah, those last two questions don't really have anything to do with each other; I'm not really sure how I made that leap. But fear is another subject completely, and now, I have work to do.

Sunday, February 3, 2008

Peck: We're just the gatekeepers, Cor, I'm telling ya...

...We're just the gatekeepers. We spend four years scaring you about college, and then when you go away, you realize, it's really not that bad - it's just like high school.
Me: No. You spend four years getting us excited for college, and then we go, and we're disappointed that it's just like high school.

Oh, the "wisdom" of Mr. Peck. What a nut.

Though I'm not quite as cynical as that conversation with Peck makes me sound (stop laughing!), I do always laugh when people go on and on about how "different" college is from high school. Especially the ones who insist that in college, cliques are nonexistent. False. "Drama" gets left in high school? More false.

I was talking to an old friend about the latest drama in a circle of people that I'm on the outside of now. He says to me, "Why are we even talking about this? This shouldn't even be brought up. Aren't we supposed to be hearing about GOOD things happening to people we know? New jobs, career choices, being in love, engagements, that sort of thing? Isn't that supposed to be starting now?"

That's what you'd think, isn't it? And I guess it used to be true. Back when people married younger, and undergraduate school meant more. These days, fewer couples marry right out of college, or right out of high school. And for a lot of jobs, where you earned your bachelors isn't nearly as important as where you got your graduate degree. It's strange, how the timeline shifted like that. Even more strange are the implications of that shift.

"It used to be that you came out of school, and you got married - those who were going to get married. But my peers are getting married in their early 30s, so now there's like this extra 10 years of that angst."
- Zach Braff

He makes a good point. It seems like teenage angst is no longer reserved just for teenagers. It's extending into our twenties - throughout college, and beyond. But why exactly is that? What is different about twenty-something year olds today than twenty, thirty, forty years ago? Since that angst is extending past our teens, has our rate of maturity decreased? And if it has, why has it? What separates our generation for those before us?

I think responsibility is a factor. How it's taught, how much is given. I feel like people often "grow up" when they are forced to - when they are dealt responsibility and must accept it. The concept can be taught, but I guess it's really a more hands-on thing. And with an increasing number of kids going to college, that's another four years that they delay entering the real world. Another four years where they only need to take limited responsibility for themselves. In theory, I guess college is, in part, supposed to teach you to take responsibility for yourself and your actions and whatnot, but it's really just another sheltered environment where, if you don't actively choose to accept your responsibilities, you can skate by. It's hard to actively make that decision, when the alternative is so convenient. Who really wants to be an adult, with responsibilities and obligations? I prefer the Peter Pan route.

And now I'm just rambling. Shutting up now.

----------------
Now playing: Chris Ayer - We Are Birds

Friday, February 1, 2008

"Wanna go get a drink?" "Yeah. I've had a shit day." "I've had a shit year."

1) I've been awake since 5:06 a.m., and I think that's completely unreasonable and unfair. I should be asleep right now. My brain should be asleep right now. Sleeping is my escape time. I guess that's wrong and probably a sign of clinical depression or some other psychological condition, but whatever. How I choose to get through life right now is my own business and I am perfectly capable of handling everything.

2) The title sums up my week. I don't even want to think about it. I just want this week to be over.

3) I was thinking the other day about how arrogant so many people are, and it made me really wonder. What is it that gives people the idea that they are better than others? Why do so many people think that because, say, they're slightly more intelligent than the average person, that makes them better human beings? Or more entitled to being happy? It sounds ridiculous that people think that way, but they do, even if it's subconsciously. It's annoying, because it's so completely wrong. But how do they arrive at that point? Is arrogance an inherited or acquired trait? If it's acquired, I'm inclined to think that it comes in part because somewhere along the line, we're being taught it. Like, for instance, in being praised by adults for being smart, intelligent children aren't learning the distinction that while it's something to take pride in, it doesn't necessarily make them better than others. They're not taught that there's more to being a good person than being smart. That might be a completely "liberal" attitude, but whatever. ( ;

I'm also inclined to think that in many people, arrogance is facade. It's a defense, a mask to hide insecurities, a lack of self-confidence, etc. I suppose that's understandable, but is it acceptable? I don't know why I just asked that question. I don't even think it's a relevant query. It doesn't really matter, does it? And I also have to think that arrogance can also be falsely attributed, that other traits/attitudes can be misinterpreted as arrogance. I mostly just have to think that as I've been told my shyness has been considered arrogance. It's annoying, but I suppose it's my own fault, and I don't care enough to change my behavior just so that people I don't know or care to know don't automatically assume I'm arrogant because I'm quiet. I have no idea what most people think of me, what kind of person / who they think I am, and I've given up trying to figure it out. Apathy is a bitch. Haha. Or maybe not in this case. Is it still apathy if you clearly take the time to think about it? Whatever. Again, irrelevant. And annoying.

Speaking of annoying, this is a complete digression and departure from the previous topic, but another thing that bothers me is when people argue with you about how you feel, and imply or state right out that what you're feeling is "wrong." That really gets me, that people feel like they have the authority to tell you that you don't have the right to feel the way you do, or that they feel like they can argue with you about how you're wrong in feeling the way you do, and win the argument. Sure, they may be right in that you would be a better person if you felt another way. But they can't tell you that you shouldn't feel the way you do. You're allowed to feel however the hell you feel, and you should never have to justify that. The moment you start letting other people dictate how you feel, is the moment you start to lose yourself, and lose everything you are. Letting others control how you think is bad. Letting them control how you feel is worse.

----------------
Now playing: The Verve Pipe - The Freshmen