This and that and the other thing..
Jun. 5th, 2021 09:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Watching S3 of Kominsky Method on Netflix - which has Kathleen Turner, Paul Reiser, and Michael Douglas in major roles.
Turner has gained a lot of weight and is almost unrecognizable (except for her voice and eyes. It's weirdly disconcerting, and reassuring at the same time. Same with Reiser.
It's not as funny as the first two seasons. I really miss Carl Reiser.
2. A Close Reading of the Best Opening Paragraph of All Time
It's from Shirley Jackson's "We've Always Lived in the Castle".
My name is Mary Katherine Blackwood. I am eighteen years old, and I live with my sister Constance. I have often thought that with any luck at all I could have been born a werewolf, because the two middle fingers on both my hands are the same length, but I have had to be content with what I had. I dislike washing myself, and dogs, and noise. I like my sister Constance, and Richard Plantagenet, and Amanita phalloides, the death-cup mushroom. Everyone else in my family is dead.
"It almost seems like overkill to explain why this paragraph is so wonderful. It either strikes you or it doesn’t. You must have a certain sensibility to truly appreciate its charms. The rhythm is key. But let’s make an attempt, shall we?" - Emily Temple
Well, it isn't if - people don't happen to agree with you. I don't. I've read better opening paragraphs. Actually Haunting of Hill House had a better opening paragraph. As did Charles Dickens, Tale of Two Cities, or various other works. There's a lot to choose from. So all of this is terribly subjective. And no, I don't hear the rhythm in the paragraph. It's not working for me.
Is it just me or are English Lit Professors and Majors incredibly opinionated about literature and writing? Probably comes from spending all your time doing nothing but analyzing it. It wasn't written to be analyzed to death, it was written to be enjoyed. And we don't tend to enjoy the same books - sometimes we do, most times, we don't. Makes it hard to rec stuff to folks. I'm moody, I might love a book one year, and hate it the next.
3. My Stay at a Devon Rewilding Farm - Wildlife Holiday - in England of all places..
I don't tend to think of England or rather Great Britain as being a spot to enjoy "wildlife". It's kind over-developed and has been for about 100 or so years. I'm not sure there's any land on it that hasn't housed humans at some point.
But...this is the kind of camping I can get behind..
Guests can stay in five new huts, all spaced for privacy across two fields, plus a spruced-up old Gypsy caravan. Each hut sleeps two, and a hot shower and composting toilet are shared by three huts. There’s also a camping field with four pitches. In an open-sided barn is a communal area with pizza ovens, a charging point for phones and cameras, wood-fired barbecues, sofas and board games. The tranquillity is ensured by a no-under-10s and no-dogs policy.
4. I was thinking about this after reading a social media friend's post the other night.
A. Being mindful of writing about folks who aren't white, cis-gendered, and heterosexual. I tend to be fairly good at it - for the most part. But it does make me self-conscious. Actually the internet has made me self-conscious over the years - and hesitant to share my "creative" writing. I know it's odd - I have no problems blogging or sharing meta, but I worry about sharing original creative work. Maybe because I care more? I don't know.
While I do think it is important to be critical of art and how it depicts folks, at the same time - I think it is important to be mindful of shutting it down or censoring it. There's a fine line between constructive criticism and cancelling the art or censure. Yet, at the same time - if the art in question crosses a line and actively "promotes" abuse or injury to a group of people or individuals - than yes, it should be called out, and potentially censured. I.e the line between hate speech and free expression.
It's difficult at times to know when to censure and when to constructively critique.
Also it's worth looking at art in context - or when it was created and the political and societal pressures of the time period. Art, like it or not, is often as much an expression of our society at the time it was created or a snapshot of that societal view, as it is an expression of the artists. Artists are often just expressing what is going on around them.
That said, this just makes it all the more important and critically vital that we call them out and by extension the society and political environment that is either promoting the art or not questioning it.
I mean we should question Friends, Sex in the City, Sienfield, and Gossip Girl for being New York City based series - that did not cast or depict any persons of color, and in the case of Friends, Sex in the City, and Seinfeld, no one who was LGBTA. Those shows were based in NYC, that's glaringly obvious. Roseanne was more inclusive - and it was based in a working class suburb in the Midwest and run by a conservative.
Same deal with the West Wing - which only had one person of color in the entire cast. Or for that matter Buffy the Vampire Slayer - which dabbled in "token" casting throughout its seven year run. At first it was the network and executive producers, but when it jumped over to UPN, the writer and show-runner whined when UPN informed them they had to include POC.
And Angel had a tendency to kill off the POC or the female characters, while Buffy often killed off the POC characters.
It's important to be called out on those types of repeating patterns. Because if you aren't - you will keep repeating them, which is what happened through the bulk of the 20th and the first ten years of the 21st Centuries.
But, at the same time, it's important not to censure completely - there is a lot of good in those shows. They shouldn't be erased. Same with Disney's Song of the South - which while uncomfortably offensive, is also, if you look at it in the context of the time period - somewhat forward thinking for that time. It's a snap-shot. And there is good in there too, along with the bad. I don't remember it well - I saw it when I was seven years of age, and the only things I remember are the animated Tar Baby stories that provided moral lessons from Uncle Remus to the kids (who were white and black in the film), the kids ending up in the Everglades and struggling not to be bit by mosquitoes, and the song Zip-dee-do-da, Zip-dee-de-a, as sung by Louis Armstrong and is the earworm song to end ear worms. Quite a lot considering I saw it at 7 and haven't seen it since - it's been pulled completely and kind of cancelled out for being "racist".
And I'm not sure that's a good thing. Any more than Huckleberry Finn should be erased, it was hated by White Supremacists at the time it came out. Now, it's considered racist for its depictions of people of color. Or Gone with the Wind - which is a book I've never made it through and don't enjoy, although the film is admittedly a masterpiece, even if the story is a difficult one. But it is an important film because it provides insight into how someone else thinks, and that time period. It shouldn't be erased.
I don't think we should erase the things we hate - no matter how tempting.
But question and critique them, show why they don't work for us, or how they could have been written differently.
B. The other bit that I've pondered since reading that post is whether I should post a warning or meme regarding my own socio-political views. And whether anyone really wants to know them. I admittedly discovered in 2003 that a lot of folks I'd friended on fan boards had problematic political views. I discovered it on LJ. Although I kind of figured it out for a few prior to that. Politics is problematic - particularly with how divisive we've currently become.
I can't imagine anyone whose been reading this journal for any length of time - doesn't already know mine. I've not exactly been quiet about it.
My co-workers know, people at church kind of know, I'm very open about that sort of thing - for the most part or have been recently at any rate.
I'd do a meme, but it's late and I want to go to bed.
Turner has gained a lot of weight and is almost unrecognizable (except for her voice and eyes. It's weirdly disconcerting, and reassuring at the same time. Same with Reiser.
It's not as funny as the first two seasons. I really miss Carl Reiser.
2. A Close Reading of the Best Opening Paragraph of All Time
It's from Shirley Jackson's "We've Always Lived in the Castle".
My name is Mary Katherine Blackwood. I am eighteen years old, and I live with my sister Constance. I have often thought that with any luck at all I could have been born a werewolf, because the two middle fingers on both my hands are the same length, but I have had to be content with what I had. I dislike washing myself, and dogs, and noise. I like my sister Constance, and Richard Plantagenet, and Amanita phalloides, the death-cup mushroom. Everyone else in my family is dead.
"It almost seems like overkill to explain why this paragraph is so wonderful. It either strikes you or it doesn’t. You must have a certain sensibility to truly appreciate its charms. The rhythm is key. But let’s make an attempt, shall we?" - Emily Temple
Well, it isn't if - people don't happen to agree with you. I don't. I've read better opening paragraphs. Actually Haunting of Hill House had a better opening paragraph. As did Charles Dickens, Tale of Two Cities, or various other works. There's a lot to choose from. So all of this is terribly subjective. And no, I don't hear the rhythm in the paragraph. It's not working for me.
Is it just me or are English Lit Professors and Majors incredibly opinionated about literature and writing? Probably comes from spending all your time doing nothing but analyzing it. It wasn't written to be analyzed to death, it was written to be enjoyed. And we don't tend to enjoy the same books - sometimes we do, most times, we don't. Makes it hard to rec stuff to folks. I'm moody, I might love a book one year, and hate it the next.
3. My Stay at a Devon Rewilding Farm - Wildlife Holiday - in England of all places..
I don't tend to think of England or rather Great Britain as being a spot to enjoy "wildlife". It's kind over-developed and has been for about 100 or so years. I'm not sure there's any land on it that hasn't housed humans at some point.
But...this is the kind of camping I can get behind..
Guests can stay in five new huts, all spaced for privacy across two fields, plus a spruced-up old Gypsy caravan. Each hut sleeps two, and a hot shower and composting toilet are shared by three huts. There’s also a camping field with four pitches. In an open-sided barn is a communal area with pizza ovens, a charging point for phones and cameras, wood-fired barbecues, sofas and board games. The tranquillity is ensured by a no-under-10s and no-dogs policy.
4. I was thinking about this after reading a social media friend's post the other night.
A. Being mindful of writing about folks who aren't white, cis-gendered, and heterosexual. I tend to be fairly good at it - for the most part. But it does make me self-conscious. Actually the internet has made me self-conscious over the years - and hesitant to share my "creative" writing. I know it's odd - I have no problems blogging or sharing meta, but I worry about sharing original creative work. Maybe because I care more? I don't know.
While I do think it is important to be critical of art and how it depicts folks, at the same time - I think it is important to be mindful of shutting it down or censoring it. There's a fine line between constructive criticism and cancelling the art or censure. Yet, at the same time - if the art in question crosses a line and actively "promotes" abuse or injury to a group of people or individuals - than yes, it should be called out, and potentially censured. I.e the line between hate speech and free expression.
It's difficult at times to know when to censure and when to constructively critique.
Also it's worth looking at art in context - or when it was created and the political and societal pressures of the time period. Art, like it or not, is often as much an expression of our society at the time it was created or a snapshot of that societal view, as it is an expression of the artists. Artists are often just expressing what is going on around them.
That said, this just makes it all the more important and critically vital that we call them out and by extension the society and political environment that is either promoting the art or not questioning it.
I mean we should question Friends, Sex in the City, Sienfield, and Gossip Girl for being New York City based series - that did not cast or depict any persons of color, and in the case of Friends, Sex in the City, and Seinfeld, no one who was LGBTA. Those shows were based in NYC, that's glaringly obvious. Roseanne was more inclusive - and it was based in a working class suburb in the Midwest and run by a conservative.
Same deal with the West Wing - which only had one person of color in the entire cast. Or for that matter Buffy the Vampire Slayer - which dabbled in "token" casting throughout its seven year run. At first it was the network and executive producers, but when it jumped over to UPN, the writer and show-runner whined when UPN informed them they had to include POC.
And Angel had a tendency to kill off the POC or the female characters, while Buffy often killed off the POC characters.
It's important to be called out on those types of repeating patterns. Because if you aren't - you will keep repeating them, which is what happened through the bulk of the 20th and the first ten years of the 21st Centuries.
But, at the same time, it's important not to censure completely - there is a lot of good in those shows. They shouldn't be erased. Same with Disney's Song of the South - which while uncomfortably offensive, is also, if you look at it in the context of the time period - somewhat forward thinking for that time. It's a snap-shot. And there is good in there too, along with the bad. I don't remember it well - I saw it when I was seven years of age, and the only things I remember are the animated Tar Baby stories that provided moral lessons from Uncle Remus to the kids (who were white and black in the film), the kids ending up in the Everglades and struggling not to be bit by mosquitoes, and the song Zip-dee-do-da, Zip-dee-de-a, as sung by Louis Armstrong and is the earworm song to end ear worms. Quite a lot considering I saw it at 7 and haven't seen it since - it's been pulled completely and kind of cancelled out for being "racist".
And I'm not sure that's a good thing. Any more than Huckleberry Finn should be erased, it was hated by White Supremacists at the time it came out. Now, it's considered racist for its depictions of people of color. Or Gone with the Wind - which is a book I've never made it through and don't enjoy, although the film is admittedly a masterpiece, even if the story is a difficult one. But it is an important film because it provides insight into how someone else thinks, and that time period. It shouldn't be erased.
I don't think we should erase the things we hate - no matter how tempting.
But question and critique them, show why they don't work for us, or how they could have been written differently.
B. The other bit that I've pondered since reading that post is whether I should post a warning or meme regarding my own socio-political views. And whether anyone really wants to know them. I admittedly discovered in 2003 that a lot of folks I'd friended on fan boards had problematic political views. I discovered it on LJ. Although I kind of figured it out for a few prior to that. Politics is problematic - particularly with how divisive we've currently become.
I can't imagine anyone whose been reading this journal for any length of time - doesn't already know mine. I've not exactly been quiet about it.
My co-workers know, people at church kind of know, I'm very open about that sort of thing - for the most part or have been recently at any rate.
I'd do a meme, but it's late and I want to go to bed.
no subject
Date: 2021-06-07 01:42 am (UTC)FB does have the added component of family, plus other IRL friends, etc, that I need to be careful with. I've got people from various aspects of my life on that thing, and it can get dicey.
It's better now that the whole political situation has stablized in the US and isn't quite as nasty as it was from 2016-2020.
I won't read or friend folks who like or support Trump. That's my line in the sand. Luckily this has not been a problem on DW or FB, for the most part.
Sure, call them out as problematic for our times, but they often still have value and it's all too easy for unimaginative people to say, "Well, I wouldn't have been like that in the creator's place". They indeed provide a valuable window into a different view, even if it's not one to be lauded.
Exactly. I remember seeing the remastered, Gone with the Wind in a cinema in Colorado Springs in 1988 or thereabouts. I saw it with a college friend who hailed from the deep south. We had a lengthy discussion about the problematic nature of the film - and how much it was a creature of its time. Also, how the film explained the "white" Southern mindset. I didn't agree with it, and aspects of that film - I find deeply offensive, but it helps to understand how they thought.
A lot of films and works that may be considered problematic from a social justice perspective today, were ironically works that pushed for social justice and racial equality. Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn - was pushing for racial equality and an abolition of the slave trade - he wrote it during a time when slavery was still an issue in Missouri. Same deal with Uncle Tom's Cabin. And various others. To judge it from a modern perspective isn't always fair to the work.
We don't know how we would have viewed it in times past.
But at the same time, we do need to be critical of it, and critical of modern works that either copy it or don't learn or change or grow from it. But it's a fine line between critical and censure, and not a lot of modern critics get that.