![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This and that and the other thing...
1. Bitter cold today, and no homeless people on the subway (well outside of the creepy guy trying to get subway passengers to give him a sip of their coffee, which was just odd) or more importantly on the streets. I was relieved that they were off the streets...hopefully someplace nice and warm.
I'm beginning to think that I should carry extra cash and whenever I see a homeless person at lunch, I should go to a fast-food restaurant and buy them a meal. (Except it is hard for me to do that for a couple of reasons 1)I hate fast-food restaurants, 2)I think the food in fast-food restaurants is disgusting and will kill you, 3) does this really help them or is it just another stop-gap measure?)
2. This weeks Grey's Anatomy entitled, fittingly, "The Silence", was a work of art. Best thing I've seen on television in months. And perhaps the best episode I'd seen of Grey's in a long time. It blew me away.
The main character, Meredith Grey, who is now a seasoned surgeon in her late 30s, early 40s, with three young children, is attacked by a patient. The patient had just had a seizure. Prior to that, he was a kind man, wouldn't harm anyone.
But the seizure throws him into a fugue-like state, where he becomes insanely aggressive. And he brutally attacks her - to the point in which she barely survives. The episode shows her month-long recovery process. For she can't hear, her mouth is wired shut, she has a broken arm, broken leg, collapsed lung, broken jaw...it's horrific. She slowly heals.
The main themes are the difficulty of being a woman who is not as physically strong or loud as a man, and has to constantly fight to be heard (this theme was subtle and not as strident as I expected).
And forgiveness...Meredith is filled with rage after the attack. Rage at her husband, who died last year, at his sister for not being him and not being there for her, at herself for hating him for dying, at the man who attacked her...at herself for not being able to stop it. She is able to show the man forgiveness at the end, but...the anger is still there.
Awesome episode. There's this wonderful scene regarding forgiveness that ....hit me in the chest.
It's important to forgive not just for the people that have harmed us but for ourselves, so we can fully heal and get past the rage and anger. Except that is so much easier said than done. Particularly when we are still hurting. When the situation hasn't changed or gotten better. When the harm was serious and took something important, be it dream, a hope, a desire, a person, a loved one, a life, a job, an arm, safety....that's really hard to forgive.
At the end of the episode, Meredith still hasn't found the ability to forgive her sister-in-law who was in part responsible for the attack -- she'd ignored Meredith's request for a neurological consult, so as a result...Meredith got attacked, although it may have happened anyway. Her sister-in-law blames herself for it. And hates herself for it.
The emotion was raw but real. And healing in its rawness. I understood the rage. And I understood the struggle to forgive. Along with the necessity.
I'm a sucker for medical serials and procedurals. Probably because I don't know a thing about medicine, hospitals, or working in them. So it fascinates me. Criminal and legal procedurals (with the exception of The Good Wife) on the other hand annoy me and I can't watch them -- because I dabbled in criminal law and know that they are completely unrealistic. I'm guessing if I was a doctor or a nurse, I wouldn't be able to watch medical shows.
3. Batman vs. Superman Movie --- is it wrong that I'm rooting for Superman, and find Bruce Wayne, aka Ben Affleck more attractive than Henry Caville? I'm probably the only person on the planet who does. Also shipping Wonder Woman and Bruce Wayne/Batman hard. (I admit it, I'm a Wonder Woman/Batman shipper. Personally, I prefer Superman with Lois Lane.) Also in the trailer, Affleck and Gail Gadat have chemistry to spare.
Henry Cavill doesn't do a lot for me as an actor. I'm the only person I know on the planet who isn't turned on by him (and is attracted to men). Of course I admittedly go for the tall lean musceled types. Affleck is taller than Cavill by the way. And unlike a lot of folks, I actually like Affleck as an actor. He was very good in the movie about Iran, which took place in the 70s, and the name I can't for the life of me remember. He also directed it. (I don't like his wife or ex-wife, forgotten which, Jennifer Garner, she annoys me - which was my difficulty with Alias. Could not abide the actress. Have the same problem with Madame Secretary - I can't abide Tea Leonie, again amongst the few people on the planet who feel this way, the only others that I know of are my mother and brother, so maybe it's genetic?)
4. Deadpool Movie -- I may rent this, not sure I watch it on the big screen. But it sounds hilarious - it's a move that makes fun of superheroes and superheroe movies. Of course Deadpool also made fun of superhero comics, when it was a comic. It's a Marvel character, enough said.
Marvel has a tendency to comment on itself, and superheroes in general. More so than DC.
And yes, I have a weakness for superheroes...although it is dwindling, I'm starting to burn out on them. Along with comic book movies. Gee, wonder why? Not like there aren't a lot of them or anything?
I mean we really do need more superhero flicks and tv shows, there's a relative shortage. (I need a sarcasm icon.)
5. Book Reviewing You know the problem with writing a scathing review of a book that you despise on social media? You can never forget that you wrote said review. Because every once and awhile you'll get a notification that people liked it. Or a comment on it.
A while back, I wrote a scathing review of a silly chick-lit best seller entitled Me Before You by Jo Jo Moyes. Which is, for reasons I don't want to think about, the beloved darling of many a lady on Good Reads. Not many men though...
Lately, I've gotten several notices that people love my review. I re-read said review, it's detailed.
And actually not that nasty, just bewildered that anyone in their right mind could like the book. Did they read the same one? Are they on something? If the latter, where can I get that? Can't they see how ludicrous the premise is?
The truth of the matter is - we don't read the same book. Ever. Even if we re-read it, it's not the same one we read before. Why? We bring our own baggage to the book. As we change, our interpretation of the book changes. And no one sees a book exactly the same. But you can occasionally come really close to seeing it the same. When that happens...it's magic and hence the likes and comments. And, as someone on Amazon tried to point out to me in a comment, the main character of the book who instantly turned me off, is a character a lot of women relate to -- which is true of Eat Pray Love by Elizabeth Gilbert as well, another book I can't read without going into rant mode. Which is most likely true. If you hate the protagonist of a book or the character turns you off - you and the book are going to be un-mixy things. It's not necessary to like the character...but strong guttural dislike can ruin the story, particularly if they are the main character and you are in their point of view. It's why I couldn't read Eat, Pray, Love and barely made it through Atonement. I hated the main point of view character. Which in all three cases was the deal-breaker.
As an aside, I'm not sure writers read their work the same after they wrote it. What they thought as they were writing the work, changes each time they edit it. I know it does for me. I'll re-read something -- and think, what the heck was I thinking??? This has resulted in deleted posts. And re-edits. I can never remember what I was thinking. Which is why I try not to re-read what I wrote in the past -- it can be headache inducing, particularly if you are at all critical of yourself and what you write (which I am, aren't most of us?) That's actually why most published writers don't re-read their own work after its been published. Sort of out of their hands by this point. Best to forget about it and move on, unless of course you are writing a series of novels and you have to keep track of what happened when -- then you are basically stuck and have to re-read what you wrote. Or at the very least keep a detailed outline - which does the same thing. You can sort of tell the lazy bums who don't do this. Like I said, headache inducing. But in a way it's also educational -- because you are basically seeing your thoughts frozen in that moment in time. That's what you thought on Friday at midnight on February 12, 2016. It's a funky snapshot of your thoughts. Even if you may think they were insane years after the fact.
Re-reading said review also made me want to edit the hell out of it. Too many typos. I don't edit my work after I write it - I do it during. And often miss stuff. Biggest problem is leaving out words -- my brain moves faster than my fingers, I think. So the fingers don't get the word down before the brain has leapt forward. Typos irritate me. And embarrass me. I don't know why. It's not like other people make typos. Even computers make typos.
I'm beginning to think that I should carry extra cash and whenever I see a homeless person at lunch, I should go to a fast-food restaurant and buy them a meal. (Except it is hard for me to do that for a couple of reasons 1)I hate fast-food restaurants, 2)I think the food in fast-food restaurants is disgusting and will kill you, 3) does this really help them or is it just another stop-gap measure?)
2. This weeks Grey's Anatomy entitled, fittingly, "The Silence", was a work of art. Best thing I've seen on television in months. And perhaps the best episode I'd seen of Grey's in a long time. It blew me away.
The main character, Meredith Grey, who is now a seasoned surgeon in her late 30s, early 40s, with three young children, is attacked by a patient. The patient had just had a seizure. Prior to that, he was a kind man, wouldn't harm anyone.
But the seizure throws him into a fugue-like state, where he becomes insanely aggressive. And he brutally attacks her - to the point in which she barely survives. The episode shows her month-long recovery process. For she can't hear, her mouth is wired shut, she has a broken arm, broken leg, collapsed lung, broken jaw...it's horrific. She slowly heals.
The main themes are the difficulty of being a woman who is not as physically strong or loud as a man, and has to constantly fight to be heard (this theme was subtle and not as strident as I expected).
And forgiveness...Meredith is filled with rage after the attack. Rage at her husband, who died last year, at his sister for not being him and not being there for her, at herself for hating him for dying, at the man who attacked her...at herself for not being able to stop it. She is able to show the man forgiveness at the end, but...the anger is still there.
Awesome episode. There's this wonderful scene regarding forgiveness that ....hit me in the chest.
It's important to forgive not just for the people that have harmed us but for ourselves, so we can fully heal and get past the rage and anger. Except that is so much easier said than done. Particularly when we are still hurting. When the situation hasn't changed or gotten better. When the harm was serious and took something important, be it dream, a hope, a desire, a person, a loved one, a life, a job, an arm, safety....that's really hard to forgive.
At the end of the episode, Meredith still hasn't found the ability to forgive her sister-in-law who was in part responsible for the attack -- she'd ignored Meredith's request for a neurological consult, so as a result...Meredith got attacked, although it may have happened anyway. Her sister-in-law blames herself for it. And hates herself for it.
The emotion was raw but real. And healing in its rawness. I understood the rage. And I understood the struggle to forgive. Along with the necessity.
I'm a sucker for medical serials and procedurals. Probably because I don't know a thing about medicine, hospitals, or working in them. So it fascinates me. Criminal and legal procedurals (with the exception of The Good Wife) on the other hand annoy me and I can't watch them -- because I dabbled in criminal law and know that they are completely unrealistic. I'm guessing if I was a doctor or a nurse, I wouldn't be able to watch medical shows.
3. Batman vs. Superman Movie --- is it wrong that I'm rooting for Superman, and find Bruce Wayne, aka Ben Affleck more attractive than Henry Caville? I'm probably the only person on the planet who does. Also shipping Wonder Woman and Bruce Wayne/Batman hard. (I admit it, I'm a Wonder Woman/Batman shipper. Personally, I prefer Superman with Lois Lane.) Also in the trailer, Affleck and Gail Gadat have chemistry to spare.
Henry Cavill doesn't do a lot for me as an actor. I'm the only person I know on the planet who isn't turned on by him (and is attracted to men). Of course I admittedly go for the tall lean musceled types. Affleck is taller than Cavill by the way. And unlike a lot of folks, I actually like Affleck as an actor. He was very good in the movie about Iran, which took place in the 70s, and the name I can't for the life of me remember. He also directed it. (I don't like his wife or ex-wife, forgotten which, Jennifer Garner, she annoys me - which was my difficulty with Alias. Could not abide the actress. Have the same problem with Madame Secretary - I can't abide Tea Leonie, again amongst the few people on the planet who feel this way, the only others that I know of are my mother and brother, so maybe it's genetic?)
4. Deadpool Movie -- I may rent this, not sure I watch it on the big screen. But it sounds hilarious - it's a move that makes fun of superheroes and superheroe movies. Of course Deadpool also made fun of superhero comics, when it was a comic. It's a Marvel character, enough said.
Marvel has a tendency to comment on itself, and superheroes in general. More so than DC.
And yes, I have a weakness for superheroes...although it is dwindling, I'm starting to burn out on them. Along with comic book movies. Gee, wonder why? Not like there aren't a lot of them or anything?
I mean we really do need more superhero flicks and tv shows, there's a relative shortage. (I need a sarcasm icon.)
5. Book Reviewing You know the problem with writing a scathing review of a book that you despise on social media? You can never forget that you wrote said review. Because every once and awhile you'll get a notification that people liked it. Or a comment on it.
A while back, I wrote a scathing review of a silly chick-lit best seller entitled Me Before You by Jo Jo Moyes. Which is, for reasons I don't want to think about, the beloved darling of many a lady on Good Reads. Not many men though...
Lately, I've gotten several notices that people love my review. I re-read said review, it's detailed.
And actually not that nasty, just bewildered that anyone in their right mind could like the book. Did they read the same one? Are they on something? If the latter, where can I get that? Can't they see how ludicrous the premise is?
The truth of the matter is - we don't read the same book. Ever. Even if we re-read it, it's not the same one we read before. Why? We bring our own baggage to the book. As we change, our interpretation of the book changes. And no one sees a book exactly the same. But you can occasionally come really close to seeing it the same. When that happens...it's magic and hence the likes and comments. And, as someone on Amazon tried to point out to me in a comment, the main character of the book who instantly turned me off, is a character a lot of women relate to -- which is true of Eat Pray Love by Elizabeth Gilbert as well, another book I can't read without going into rant mode. Which is most likely true. If you hate the protagonist of a book or the character turns you off - you and the book are going to be un-mixy things. It's not necessary to like the character...but strong guttural dislike can ruin the story, particularly if they are the main character and you are in their point of view. It's why I couldn't read Eat, Pray, Love and barely made it through Atonement. I hated the main point of view character. Which in all three cases was the deal-breaker.
As an aside, I'm not sure writers read their work the same after they wrote it. What they thought as they were writing the work, changes each time they edit it. I know it does for me. I'll re-read something -- and think, what the heck was I thinking??? This has resulted in deleted posts. And re-edits. I can never remember what I was thinking. Which is why I try not to re-read what I wrote in the past -- it can be headache inducing, particularly if you are at all critical of yourself and what you write (which I am, aren't most of us?) That's actually why most published writers don't re-read their own work after its been published. Sort of out of their hands by this point. Best to forget about it and move on, unless of course you are writing a series of novels and you have to keep track of what happened when -- then you are basically stuck and have to re-read what you wrote. Or at the very least keep a detailed outline - which does the same thing. You can sort of tell the lazy bums who don't do this. Like I said, headache inducing. But in a way it's also educational -- because you are basically seeing your thoughts frozen in that moment in time. That's what you thought on Friday at midnight on February 12, 2016. It's a funky snapshot of your thoughts. Even if you may think they were insane years after the fact.
Re-reading said review also made me want to edit the hell out of it. Too many typos. I don't edit my work after I write it - I do it during. And often miss stuff. Biggest problem is leaving out words -- my brain moves faster than my fingers, I think. So the fingers don't get the word down before the brain has leapt forward. Typos irritate me. And embarrass me. I don't know why. It's not like other people make typos. Even computers make typos.
no subject
Bonus boldness points to BvS for casting Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor, Evil Tech Nerd.
Henry Cavill? Just SO dull. Eh, they can work around him.
ETA: Gotta give Ryan Reynolds credit. For most actors, a superhero movie is a fat paycheck to tide them over while they pursue a passion project. From everything I've seen and heard, Deadpool IS Reynolds' passion project, and he's thrown himself into the role with unbridled joy.
Personally, I'm probably going to wait for cable TV, but I hope Reynolds' dedication to getting this movie made pays off.
no subject
Bonus boldness points to BvS for casting Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor, Evil Tech Nerd.
Totally agree. That's inspired casting. The nerdy fanboy -- who is obsessed with power.
Henry Cavill? Just SO dull. Eh, they can work around him.
So it's not just me? The actor just bores me. He's pretty...but..he makes me miss Christopher Reeve who had an innate sense of physical comedy. Reeve was very good at poking fun at his own image. Cavil takes himself far too seriously.
Personally, I'm probably going to wait for cable TV, but I hope Reynolds' dedication to getting this movie made pays off
Yeah, me too. NYC movie theaters are too expensive and annoy me. Now if I lived where they have those recliner seats and 5-6 dollar matinees...it would be a different story.
I saw both Ant-Man and Mad Max Fury Road on Cable. Along with Captain America II, and all so many others. Sort of wish I'd seen Avengers II on Cable, movie was busy and headache inducing in the theater.
Waiting for Mockinjay to come out on DVD.
OTT : What did you think of the Marvelverse turning the character of Cyclops incredibly dark - as in darker than Batman? I've never seen such an insane character arc, which weirdly worked. He went from being Xavier's follower to being a ruthless strategic leader more in line with a seasoned Magneto. Then, they killed him off, off-stage, and made him the unseen villain who destroyed the X-men.