(no subject)

[shadowkat]

Reactions to things found on my correspondence list...not personal posts, news items...and a review by Smart Bitches.

1. Why Breakfast Should be the Biggest Meal of the Day

Yeah, this works if you don't have a 8-4pm job or a 7:30-3:30pm job. Have an hour and a half commute.
And by train. With no viable breakfast options at work. My coworkers do eggs in microwaves or bring in bagels and put peanut butter on them.

I have one or two hard boiled eggs at home. (Not a fan of eggs, sometimes agree, sometimes, really don't). Chicken bone broth -- which works but doesn't help with cravings. But a great substitute for coffee. High in protein. Or Chia/Buckwheat/Hemp Seed cereal -- ancient grains, also high in protein and omegas. Then I bring in trail mix -- basically just a mixture of nuts, which I eat at work. Also high in protein.

Don't have orange juice, don't do any of the carbs. If I do cereal -- it's oats (which my stomach does not like that much so rare...hard on my digestion but still gluten free), quinoa (not as hard and easier to digest) or something gluten free like a bananae muffin -- which is too high in sugar, but not as bad as some things.

I can't eat a full meal at 6: 30 am in the morning. And I can't do it at work -- I need to have something prior to getting on the subway -- low blood sugar issues. Also I'd rather not be microwaving my food to that degree. (I use microwaves sparingly now.)

And I go in the opposite direction: small, bigger, biggest. Why? Because I work from 8-4pm, with a lunch break. The only meal of the day that I can take a lot of time with and eat at my leisure is dinner. Maybe when and if I retire -- I can do the opposite.

Ugh. I despise dieticians. I remember trying to see one after I was diagnosed with ceiliac disease in 2005 - or prone to it, never been clear on that. Medical science apparently is inexact on some issues. The idiot woman told me to make sure I had a diet made up of grains, vegetables, little meat etc. Basically the Mediterranean Diet. And Dannon yogurt was good. And I looked at her, and said -- I was just diagnosed with gluten intolerance -- I can't eat half of this. She looked confused and flustered. The next one I saw was...I think a little crazy. She told me that she could see the parasites in my body, and that I should give up all these foods, yet take weird supplements. Some of her suggestions sort of worked. She's the one who sent me off to the GAPS/PAEOLO Diets, which also have their issues. Paeolo is a bit over-eager on the meat end. They want you to have meat for breakfast -- eh, no. I just can't. Some people can. But my body won't do it. Then there's my church minister who keeps telling everyone to go on a "plant-based" diet, which is fine if you can digest beans, don't have issues with soy (I do), and can handle plant proteins such as gluten. Dieticians are extremists and somewhat illogical in their thinking. Or so I've discovered. Instead of fitting the diet to the patient, they project their own dietary issues onto the patient.

They haven't figured out yet that no, we do not live in a one-size fits all universe. Life is more complicated than they want it to be.

2. Why Get Out is the Future of the Oscars

I actually agreed with this. I've seen four of the eight nominated films. Of the four, I enjoyed The Shape of Water the most. But, Get Out probably will change film the most. It's the most ground-breaking and surprising. It also takes the most risks.

Sort of similar to what Black Panther did to the superhero genre, in a way.

Get Out is biting social commentary in a comedic horror style wrapping. And it basically comments on how we've done film -- and perceived race in film in a way that is supposed to make you uncomfortable. The Black Panther does this too.

The other films nominated that I've seen aren't quite as ground-breaking, they don't shake stuff up.
I did like them more.

3. Smart Bitches Review of Hello Stranger by Lisa Kleypas

This review irritated me a little. Not that I necessarily disagreed with the reviewer's point, but I felt the reviewer over-reacted, and is weirdly un-selfaware. Is that even a word? As a result, I found myself questioning her rec's and the others on the site. (Although I've been doing that for a while now, after picking up some real stinkers that these ladies loved to pieces. The romance genre like all books and genres is hit or miss. And going by others recs can be dicey at the best of times.)

Anyhow...my difficulty is she got upset over this passage in the book she was reading:

Reviewer: The Bullshit, you see, is a brief section wherein Ethan explains that he learned all about smexing from an unnamed woman of color while in India as part of his spy training.

Passage:
Gently he murmured in the hollow space just behind her earlobe, guessing at what would excite or intrigue her. “In India, before a man marries, he’s taught how to please his wife according to ancient texts on the erotic arts. He learns about embraces, kisses, strokes, and bites that bring fulfillment.”

“Bites?” she asked dazedly.

“Love bites, darlin’. Nothing that would hurt you.” To demonstrate, he bent to her neck and nibbled softly. She made an agitated sound and arched toward him. “Tis said the joining of two who are well-matched is a high union,” he whispered. “And if they come so intoxicated by love as to leave faint marks on the skin, their passion for each other will not be lessened even in one hundred years.”

Garrett’s voice was wobbly. “Did you learn any of those erotic arts?”

His lips curved against her skin. “Aye, but I’m still a novice. I only know one hundred and twenty positions.”

“A hundred and…” She broke off as he let two fingers slide gently between the soft lips of her sex, teasing back and forth. After a convulsive swallow, she managed to say, ” I doubt that’s anatomically possible.”

His lips grazed the edge of her jaw. “You’re the medical expert,” he mocked gently. “Who am I to argue?”

She squirmed as one of his fingertips wiggled through soft curls and came to rest on an acutely sensitive place. “Who taught you?” she managed to ask.

“A woman in Calcutta. I’d never met her before. For the first two nights, there was no physical contact at all. We sat on bamboo mats on the floor and talked.”

“About what?” She stared at him with dilated eyes, her flush deepening as he continued to fondle the silky, intricate shape of her.

“The first night she explained about Kama…a word for desire and longing. But it also refers to the well-being of the soul and senses…the appreciation of beauty, art, nature. The second night we talked about pleasures of the body. She said if a man was a true male, he would use the rule of his will to cherish the woman, and fulfill her so thoroughly she would have no desire left for another.”

On the third night, she had undressed him and pulled his hand to her body, whispering, “Women, being of a tender nature, want tender beginnings.”

Reviewer: So let’s talk about how damaging this passage is.

It’s basically the definition of Orientalism.
The woman who Ethan describes has no name. She has one speaking line that exists in his memory. She is not a character, nor a person. She’s a prop. She is intended purely as a tool for his learning the sexytimes. It’s prime Bullshit: dehumanizing and racist.
The fetishizing of people of color as inherently more sexual than White people is a big fucking problem. It contributes to the rape culture we live in RIGHT NOW in which women of color are even less likely to report or see justice for sexual assault than White women are.

So forgetting for the moment how horribly written that passage from the novel is, seriously, we do not need the adverbs. And it's hard to follow in places. Plus silly. I wanted to edit the crap out of it. The reviewer is upset that a male character in the 1800s, keep in mind the book takes place in the 19th Century not now, is saying any of this. And feels that the writer is promoting rape culture and racism by having him say it. Again, keep in mind this a man living in the 19th Century in a "historical" romance. And normally, even that would not have made me question the reviewer that much. Because historical romances aren't known for their historical accuracy or necessarily social commentary. Some writers go there, a lot of them do it purely by accident. But...what made me pause and get annoyed with the reviewer is well, I've read her other reviews.

So, consider for a moment, the fact that this same reviewer has no problems with the Outlander series -- where the writer over-employs the use of rape to further her character's plots. In fact -- in the Outlander series every lead character is either raped or threatened with it at some point. And...the reviewer posts recaps on The Bachelor and Bachelorette -- which are modern day examples of some of these issues.

Is she unself-aware? Oblivious?

Also why get upset about a passage that is racist/etc when it is clearly the character's perspective, a male character from that time period who would think that way? I know it's a romance, and romance readers want their male heroes to be idealized characters. But, why blast the writer for being accurate? The writer apologized. But I found myself questioning the reviewer and her hypocrisy. I see this a lot in genre reviews from folks. They will blast a historical romance novel as furthering rape culture but have no issues with a contemporary romance such as say 50 Shades of Grey or a paranormal such as the JR Ward series or Maya Banks, which are actually far worse. Ladies? Hello. In the 19th century, these things happened. But it was the 19th century. This is the 21st, wouldn't you be more upset with these acts being portrayed in a contemporary romance?

I had this discussion with my mother recently, and she said that she had issues with contemporary romances for precisely that reason. The women were weaker. The men nastier. In so many of them. I know, I binge read a ton of contemporary then switched over, and the historicals are weirdly nicer.
They were in the 1970s and 60s and they are now. What's up with that? (Note, I am not talking about the small town or village contemporary romances, where the woman or man goes back home and strikes up a romance with a past love or a next door neighbor, which is mostly what Nora Roberts and Debbie MacComber write. Those tend to be fairly tame, although they do further some irritating stereotypes here and there.)

At any rate, I'm beginning to question smart bitches as a reliable source for books. Which is a good thing -- I have too many books at the moment and need to crunch down on that number. Also in a reading slump -- can't find anything that holds my interest.


4. Olivia De Havilland's lawsuit against FX and Ryan Murphy regarding how she was portrayed in the Feud

This is sort of interesting. And informative, in some respects about de Havilland and not necessarily in a way she'd be happy about. First heard about it from shapinglight. Although got the link from petz, along with most of the other links.

I'm struck by the fact that a 101 year old woman cares about this sort of thing. Most of the people involved are long dead. She's no longer in Hollywood. And seriously, it was a fictional portrayal of De Havilland over 50 some years ago. So even if she'd been like that back then, she's not now. And not everyone perceived her in a negative fashion. I didn't. The scant amount of the series that I actually saw -- De Havilland came out relatively okay. Plus, it is Ryan Murphy who is a satirist.
He tends to go over the top on purpose.

Still. Why does she care?

The price of fame, I guess, is an inflated ego and potentially narcissism. Worrying too much about how the world perceives us and will remember us when we are long dead.

It's interesting to note that in direct contrast, the current Queen of England has a series devoted to her reign and her family. That isn't necessarily always flattering of them or her. But remains mute. She hasn't sued. She hasn't even told anyone she's seen it. She just ignores it. As she has all the other films and plays created about herself and her family. So too has George W Bush who had a film made about him, and various others.

Heck, Ryan Murphy just did a fictionalized account of The OJ Simpson Trial.

So, I'm wondering if De Havilland really has a case. Surprisingly enough a judge decided that she did. So we shall see. It could have a major effect on Real Person Fanfic and fictionalized accounts of real historical figures while they are still alive.

In its clearest form, the right of publicity, an offshoot of privacy law, is meant not as a tool of censorship but to enable celebrities and other public figures to protect their images from false or unauthorized endorsements of products. In California, a hub of entertainment where the law is most hotly contested, the issue hinges on whether the person’s identity has been transformed — in other words, used as “the raw materials” for creative expression — or merely co-opts the “sum and substance” of the person wholesale.

Because the makers of “Feud” admitted that they wanted to make the appearance of the de Havilland character as real as possible, Judge Kendig said, her likeness was not transformed, leaving the mini-series open to a right of publicity claim.

On her right-of-publicity website in the last month alone, Ms. Rothman has tracked claims against “The Simpsons” brought by an actor from the movie “Goodfellas,” and one by the estate of the jazz legend Thelonious Monk against a microbrewery making Brother Thelonius beer. In California cases like Ms. de Havilland’s, are measured against a 2001 state Supreme Court ruling that established the transformative test to begin with.

In that case, the owners of the post-mortem rights of the Three Stooges sued a celebrity lithographer, Gary Saderup, for selling T-shirts bearing the comedy trio’s images. The court found that Mr. Saderup was liable because his drawings were too imitative, failing to “transform” the Stooges’ likeness. (In its ruling, the court drew a distinction between Mr. Saderup’s literal depiction of the Stooges and Andy Warhol’s transformative screen prints of Marilyn Monroe.)

Ms. Rothman believes right-of-publicity law is more urgently needed in cases of catfishing and revenge porn, where the victims aren’t celebrities or inherent publicity seekers.

There is precedent on both sides. Lawyers for Ms. de Havilland point to the Stooges case as well as a 2011 California appellate court ruling that found in favor of the band No Doubt, which sued the video game publisher Activision for violating the terms of a licensing agreement in the game Hero Band.

Lawyers for FX are more partial to a 1979 State Supreme Court decision disallowing a post-mortem right-of-publicity claim against a fictionalized TV movie about the life of Rudolph Valentino. Or an appellate court’s 2016 denial of a claim brought by former Army Sgt. Jeffrey Tarver, an explosive ordnance disposal technician who sued the makers of the Oscar-winning film “The Hurt Locker.”

As in “The Hurt Locker” case, “Feud” “is a docudrama, and therefore scenes are dramatized — i.e. transformed,” the defense motion in de Havilland reads. Besides, Ms. Zeta-Jones wasn’t even in enough of the mini-series to merit inclusion in the show’s opening credits.

I don't think she has a viable claim. Not based on what I saw of the series. Actually the part of the series I liked the most was the De Havilland interview, but Zeta Jones didn't look like her. And it took me a little while to figure out it was de Havilland.

Also, not that many people watched Feud. I didn't. I got bored halfway through and gave up.

Comments

[cactuswatcher]

Why Breakfast Should be the Biggest Meal of the Day

My mother studied dietetics in college. She used it a couple of times in her life, once when she was just out of college, helping young, illiterate, white mothers learn how and what to cook for healthier families during the Great Depression, and many years later as a senior citizen volunteer at a hospital teaching the same things to semi-literate black mothers. For those cases, where the learner has no clue about a balanced diet I can see the value of dietetics. But having lived with my mother, I know that a lot of what she learned in college is just warmed over wives' tales. That article is just evidence that nothing fundamental has changed in dietetics in 80 odd years. That doesn't mean dietetics will steer you wrong. But it does mean that what a dietitian will solemnly tell you as what you must do to eat properly is frequently just overkill and wishful thinking.

How many times did I get up in the morning as a kid when there was something big and exciting going on that day? How many times did I tell my mother I didn't want any breakfast on those days and every time I was overruled and had to eat any way? There is no way I could ever convince her that being half sick to my stomach with excitement, I wasn't digesting anything. It's not like I needed the extra energy. I could have handily made up for any shortage by eating afterward, when both my mind and stomach were calm. But no, thou shalt eat breakfast! I was lucky and always kept it down. But how many times did I see kids physically ill from eating before running or some other strenuous activity? It doesn't matter if you are a kid or a world class athlete if you are throwing it up, it isn't giving you any extra energy.

The idea that one should eat the biggest meal at breakfast seems to have come from the days when most adults were farmers or farm wives, who discovered they didn't need a big meal in the evening if they had a big meal at breakfast and/or noon. But as you point out, times have changed and working in an office isn't the same as working in the fields all day. Eating a big meal in the middle of the day is often a mistake for an office worker or student and eating a big meal at breakfast often just isn't practical when you have a set schedule. If you are retired, like me, eating big meals is probably not a great idea morning, noon or night. ;o)

[shadowkat]

I agree. My grandfather had a large breakfast each morning, and his biggest meal was lunch. They had a small supper, and were in bed by about 8 or 9 pm, when it got dark. He was a farmer and a cattle man.

If you are getting up and putting in a full day of physical labor -- yes, you need carbs, protein, and a big breakfast. Just like an athlete would -- they need the energy. But if you are spending your day working at a computer, and not wandering about -- then that won't work.

A lot of nutritional advice is old wives tales -- such as "don't eat carbs and proteins together" or don't drink with meals or you must drink with every meal. It varies.