![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatI kind of crashed this weekend. It was hot, and I didn't feel like moving around all that much, just lying about in my cool apartment. (Which is fairly cool even without the a/c do to the fact that I don't get direct sunlight, the external walls are brick, and I have three floors above me.)
Binged all of Star Trek: Discovery S3, which was about as good as S2, seriously it's a toss-up. I preferred Burnam's love interest in S3 (mainly because Ash Tyler was a mess on various levels. And I thought too much about how he was a mess, I got a headache and somewhat grossed out. Cleveland Book is a huge improvement. (Although what I read about S4, I'm thinking they go in a similar direction and screw that one up too? Apparently Star Trek doesn't like heterosexual romances with lead characters that last?)
Best character arc? Phillipa Georgio (Michelle Yeoah) - who I will miss. I missed her after her two-part character centric send-off. She was in many ways the main draw to the series.
I do however love Michael Burnham. And Anthony Rapp's Paul Stamats and Wilson's Hugh Bonneville. The other characters haven't been well developed outside of Saru, and I'm kind of ambivalent about. They need to work on that.
Also the writing continues to be uneven in places. Some episodes are amazing, others drag and are uneven. And the villains are somewhat one dimensional. The villains in S1 and 2, were slightly better and more interesting, and its hard to beat Jason Issacs' Gabriele Lorca (who I also kind of miss). S3 is lacking that presence, in S2 we had Anson Mount. In S3 we kind of have Vance, but he doesn't really register. Not that we need it, in some ways its interesting that we don't. And somewhat subversive for an action space series. The last one that did that was Star Trek Voyager (which was why I liked Voyager).
I'm going to watch S4. Discovery has been renewed for S5, it's the top rated series on Paramount Plus at the moment. Paramount's two best franchises are Yellowstone and Star Trek, which are oddly similar. One is a Western, the other is Sci-Fi, which kind of takes various Western Tropes and throws them into a new environment. (Only someone who has watched a lot of westerns will pick up on it. I was kind of weaned on them - my parents loved them, they also loved Star Trek and space operas.)
Someone on Twitter asked if there was such a thing as a modern Western and aren't all Westerns historicals?
Clearly this person has never been to Montana, Wyoming, or Texas. Or anywhere West of the Mississippi River or the Arkansas Rivers. Nor have they wandered around the Australian Outback.
Yes, there are modern Westerns. The modern Western pretty much ranges from anything taking place in the 20th-21st Centuries. Power of the Dog is a modern Western, so too is Yellowstone, Longmire, pretty much everything by Larry McMurtry with few exceptions, Westworld (a hybrid of sci-fi and modern Western), Firefly (hybrid of sci-fi and modern Western), Star Wars (hybrid of Sci-Fi, Modern Western and WWII movie)....
I like Westerns. But we've already established that I have eclectic taste, and don't choose my cultural enjoyments based on politics, morality tropes, or religious values. If it's an interesting story, with interesting characters, and sparks my curiosity? I'll read or watch it.
***
Been having little epiphanies lately.
I figured out today that I'm not really into achievement, so much as serving others with a purpose. I honestly don't care about accolades, awards or achievements. I just want to know that I left the world a little better off than I came into it, and didn't hurt anyone. But helped as many as I could. This is not as easy to do as it may look. I've had to kind of work hard at it. People aren't easy to help - they set up all sorts of obstacles in your path.
I got this epiphany while watching The Essex Serpent - which is slightly better than the book of the same name. I read the book about five years ago. At least I think it was five years ago? It was the Kindle edition and I got it on sale during a Kindle Daily Deal, per SmartBitches.
At any rate - I liked the characters for the most part. The vicar, who is being played by Tom Hiddleston, is definitely better looking than I envisioned him while reading the book. (I kind of envisioned the guy playing James Herriot actually, I like Hiddleston much better). Same with Frank Dillane - I kind of envisioned someone closer to Peter Dinkalage, for some reason I saw Luke Garrett as small man, who had a pronounced disability. (I may have remembered this wrong?) Clare Danes is perfect as Cora.
Anyhow, Hiddleston's character explains to Cora that he chose to be a Vicar over a learned Lawyer, because he wanted to serve a purpose far more than he wished to achieve anything - if that made sense. (It did to me.)
****
And, I'm beginning to wonder if the metroformin is changing my appetite? I no longer wnat to eat meat, of any kind. And lack much of an appetite generally speaking. I may lose weight. Who knows? I've lowered my portions due to this new development and eaten less sweets and baked goods - although kind of off of them anyhow.
**
Tomorrow go back into the office to work. I want to just sleep. I've not been sleeping well, which may be why. Keep waking up in the night to pee. It's annoying.
Anyhow, have a smattering of the Sunday Scaries. It would be easier - I think - if I could just work remotely.
***
Figured out something about the Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones. I prefer the Beatles as a band. After having listened to the entire Beatles song book (and the Stones song book - which took less time), and all the Beatles single LPs or songs, I've come to the conclusion they are a more diversified and interesting band. Partly because they are a recording or studio band that spent most of their time perfecting their music and sound, and writing innovative lyrics, and experimenting with lyrics and sound in a studio environment. While the Stones was primarily a touring band, specializing in live music, and spent most of their time perfecting their on stage performance and on-stage sound. The Beatles were together a far shorter time than the Stones, but recorded far more music than the Stones have in their entire lives. Partly because the Stones spent so much time touring. The Beatles toured for maybe, five years? The Stones have toured for decades and stayed together throughout, they didn't do much in solo recording.
That's the difference. So if you prefer live music and touring bands, you most likely prefer the Stones. But if you prefer studio and recorded music, and recording/studio bands with a large and deep songbook, then you most likely prefer the Beatles.
I'm not a fan of live music. I can't really hear it - to be honest. Too much interference, and the energy gives me a headache most of the time. I've been to a lot of concerts - and I think I only really enjoyed two of them. Most either put me to sleep, bored me, or gave me a headache. Watching people sing and play music doesn't do much for me. Listening to them - I adore.
It's hard to explain to folks who love to go to concerts and hear live music, they just don't get it. I actually understand why they love concerts more than they get why I don't. Which is odd. But there it is.
***
On the book front? Gave up on the Throne of Glass novels - the writing style was getting on my nerves. It was third grade level and it annoyed me.(I had stopped reading third grade level in elementary school - or around the fifth grade.) Plus, I'm a professional writer, and can only handle so many descriptions of the heroine's fashion selections in a fantasy novel where she's supposed to be a highly trained assassin.
So switched over to Kelly Armstrong's Switch in Time - about a woman who inherits her Aunt's English Country Estate, which is allegedly haunted. In reality - it has a kind of temporal anomaly, where she keeps getting thrown back in time, and had been getting thrown back in time every time she visited it in the past. So as a result had developed a relationship and friendship with a boy from another time. But everyone in present day assumed she had created an invisible friend who did not really exist.
Now that she's widowed and inherited the place, she returns - and is encountering the same unsettling switches back in time.
It's an interesting book. And the gimmick reminds me a little of Octavia Butler's Kindred. Although more romantic and less, horrific. It's interesting at any rate and Armstrong is a better writer than Maas, with both dialogue and description. Either that or I have an aversion to YA fantasy novels?
Off to bed, I think.
Binged all of Star Trek: Discovery S3, which was about as good as S2, seriously it's a toss-up. I preferred Burnam's love interest in S3 (mainly because Ash Tyler was a mess on various levels. And I thought too much about how he was a mess, I got a headache and somewhat grossed out. Cleveland Book is a huge improvement. (Although what I read about S4, I'm thinking they go in a similar direction and screw that one up too? Apparently Star Trek doesn't like heterosexual romances with lead characters that last?)
Best character arc? Phillipa Georgio (Michelle Yeoah) - who I will miss. I missed her after her two-part character centric send-off. She was in many ways the main draw to the series.
I do however love Michael Burnham. And Anthony Rapp's Paul Stamats and Wilson's Hugh Bonneville. The other characters haven't been well developed outside of Saru, and I'm kind of ambivalent about. They need to work on that.
Also the writing continues to be uneven in places. Some episodes are amazing, others drag and are uneven. And the villains are somewhat one dimensional. The villains in S1 and 2, were slightly better and more interesting, and its hard to beat Jason Issacs' Gabriele Lorca (who I also kind of miss). S3 is lacking that presence, in S2 we had Anson Mount. In S3 we kind of have Vance, but he doesn't really register. Not that we need it, in some ways its interesting that we don't. And somewhat subversive for an action space series. The last one that did that was Star Trek Voyager (which was why I liked Voyager).
I'm going to watch S4. Discovery has been renewed for S5, it's the top rated series on Paramount Plus at the moment. Paramount's two best franchises are Yellowstone and Star Trek, which are oddly similar. One is a Western, the other is Sci-Fi, which kind of takes various Western Tropes and throws them into a new environment. (Only someone who has watched a lot of westerns will pick up on it. I was kind of weaned on them - my parents loved them, they also loved Star Trek and space operas.)
Someone on Twitter asked if there was such a thing as a modern Western and aren't all Westerns historicals?
Clearly this person has never been to Montana, Wyoming, or Texas. Or anywhere West of the Mississippi River or the Arkansas Rivers. Nor have they wandered around the Australian Outback.
Yes, there are modern Westerns. The modern Western pretty much ranges from anything taking place in the 20th-21st Centuries. Power of the Dog is a modern Western, so too is Yellowstone, Longmire, pretty much everything by Larry McMurtry with few exceptions, Westworld (a hybrid of sci-fi and modern Western), Firefly (hybrid of sci-fi and modern Western), Star Wars (hybrid of Sci-Fi, Modern Western and WWII movie)....
I like Westerns. But we've already established that I have eclectic taste, and don't choose my cultural enjoyments based on politics, morality tropes, or religious values. If it's an interesting story, with interesting characters, and sparks my curiosity? I'll read or watch it.
***
Been having little epiphanies lately.
I figured out today that I'm not really into achievement, so much as serving others with a purpose. I honestly don't care about accolades, awards or achievements. I just want to know that I left the world a little better off than I came into it, and didn't hurt anyone. But helped as many as I could. This is not as easy to do as it may look. I've had to kind of work hard at it. People aren't easy to help - they set up all sorts of obstacles in your path.
I got this epiphany while watching The Essex Serpent - which is slightly better than the book of the same name. I read the book about five years ago. At least I think it was five years ago? It was the Kindle edition and I got it on sale during a Kindle Daily Deal, per SmartBitches.
At any rate - I liked the characters for the most part. The vicar, who is being played by Tom Hiddleston, is definitely better looking than I envisioned him while reading the book. (I kind of envisioned the guy playing James Herriot actually, I like Hiddleston much better). Same with Frank Dillane - I kind of envisioned someone closer to Peter Dinkalage, for some reason I saw Luke Garrett as small man, who had a pronounced disability. (I may have remembered this wrong?) Clare Danes is perfect as Cora.
Anyhow, Hiddleston's character explains to Cora that he chose to be a Vicar over a learned Lawyer, because he wanted to serve a purpose far more than he wished to achieve anything - if that made sense. (It did to me.)
****
And, I'm beginning to wonder if the metroformin is changing my appetite? I no longer wnat to eat meat, of any kind. And lack much of an appetite generally speaking. I may lose weight. Who knows? I've lowered my portions due to this new development and eaten less sweets and baked goods - although kind of off of them anyhow.
**
Tomorrow go back into the office to work. I want to just sleep. I've not been sleeping well, which may be why. Keep waking up in the night to pee. It's annoying.
Anyhow, have a smattering of the Sunday Scaries. It would be easier - I think - if I could just work remotely.
***
Figured out something about the Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones. I prefer the Beatles as a band. After having listened to the entire Beatles song book (and the Stones song book - which took less time), and all the Beatles single LPs or songs, I've come to the conclusion they are a more diversified and interesting band. Partly because they are a recording or studio band that spent most of their time perfecting their music and sound, and writing innovative lyrics, and experimenting with lyrics and sound in a studio environment. While the Stones was primarily a touring band, specializing in live music, and spent most of their time perfecting their on stage performance and on-stage sound. The Beatles were together a far shorter time than the Stones, but recorded far more music than the Stones have in their entire lives. Partly because the Stones spent so much time touring. The Beatles toured for maybe, five years? The Stones have toured for decades and stayed together throughout, they didn't do much in solo recording.
That's the difference. So if you prefer live music and touring bands, you most likely prefer the Stones. But if you prefer studio and recorded music, and recording/studio bands with a large and deep songbook, then you most likely prefer the Beatles.
I'm not a fan of live music. I can't really hear it - to be honest. Too much interference, and the energy gives me a headache most of the time. I've been to a lot of concerts - and I think I only really enjoyed two of them. Most either put me to sleep, bored me, or gave me a headache. Watching people sing and play music doesn't do much for me. Listening to them - I adore.
It's hard to explain to folks who love to go to concerts and hear live music, they just don't get it. I actually understand why they love concerts more than they get why I don't. Which is odd. But there it is.
***
On the book front? Gave up on the Throne of Glass novels - the writing style was getting on my nerves. It was third grade level and it annoyed me.(I had stopped reading third grade level in elementary school - or around the fifth grade.) Plus, I'm a professional writer, and can only handle so many descriptions of the heroine's fashion selections in a fantasy novel where she's supposed to be a highly trained assassin.
So switched over to Kelly Armstrong's Switch in Time - about a woman who inherits her Aunt's English Country Estate, which is allegedly haunted. In reality - it has a kind of temporal anomaly, where she keeps getting thrown back in time, and had been getting thrown back in time every time she visited it in the past. So as a result had developed a relationship and friendship with a boy from another time. But everyone in present day assumed she had created an invisible friend who did not really exist.
Now that she's widowed and inherited the place, she returns - and is encountering the same unsettling switches back in time.
It's an interesting book. And the gimmick reminds me a little of Octavia Butler's Kindred. Although more romantic and less, horrific. It's interesting at any rate and Armstrong is a better writer than Maas, with both dialogue and description. Either that or I have an aversion to YA fantasy novels?
Off to bed, I think.
no subject
Date: 2022-05-23 06:40 am (UTC)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTZDb_iKooI
Watched it on DVD a few weeks ago. As you may recall, I'm ambivalent about the genre, but indeed there have been some exceptional ones, especially in recent years. I thought this one was superb, 8.5 out of 10 on my usual rating scale.
Came across it by accident while browsing for other discs at B&N, hesitated, but thought-- "Tom Hanks is in it, has to be at least decent."
*******
It's hard to explain to folks who love to go to concerts and hear live music, they just don't get it. I actually understand why they love concerts more than they get why I don't. Which is odd. But there it is.
I enjoy live concerts as long as the sound is well done-- sadly, the exception and why I attend so few these days. Usually way too loud, and worse yet, distorted (mostly by trying to be louder than the amps and speakers can handle).
But it's always a matter of you like what you like. Many people like dogs, even adore them, prefer them to people. My sister has a nice dog, which she's very fond of. I don't dislike him, but I still have no desire to own a dog, even a nice one like him. In general, I find them deeply annoying, especially the ones who bark maniacally at anything that comes within 50 feet of them.
Then there's the dangerous ones that people get for "protection". Just a few years ago, a mother and her small child who live a mere two blocks away from me were horribly injured by a dog that escaped its owners yard and attacked them while the mother was getting her child out of their car. The child suffered the worse injuries, and had to have multiple serious surgeries over months to essentially repair her face and other body parts.
True story from my appliance repair days-- I rang the doorbell on a house where I was called to repair the fridge. Instantly, a dog inside started barking loudly. The owner answers the door, lets me in. The dog backs away from me (a medium size species) but continues barking loudly. The owner ignores the dog and lead me to the kitchen, the dog follows us, moves across the kitchen from where the fridge is, keeps barking. I start to check out the fridge, but can't think for the constant, almost-painful loud noise. The owner sits down in a chair by a table, but again, says nothing about the barking dog.
Finally, frustrated, I politely ask the owner if he can put the dog in another room while I work. He asks me why. I tell him that I can't concentrate on repairing his refrigerator with the barking.
The owner gets a disgusted look on his face, and says to me, "Well, if that bothers you, you need psychiatric help." He wasn't joking, I could tell. He then reluctantly gets up and takes his dog to another room, and I sigh and proceed to fix his fridge.
Not. Making. This. Up.
But then, I'm also not making up the one about the woman who told me, in all sincerity, that Jews eat babies. "It's in the Bible!" she said, when I replied, "Oh, really? I did not know that."
Gosh, people are funny! Have to admit, the noisy dog was still better than that. Not sure about his owner, but...
no subject
Date: 2022-05-23 01:45 pm (UTC)Nope. Haven't had the chance. Bro watched and liked it, it kind of fits under the category of Modern Western. (I think it has sci-fi elements? Not sure.)
But it's always a matter of you like what you like.
This is true of pretty much everything, I suspect. It's why I've kind of stopped caring whether people like what I create or not. OR like what I like or dislike for that matter. It has zip to do with me either way. It's often not logical or even predictable, can change on a dime, and in most cases an emotional reaction having to do with that person's background, environment, emotional baggage, etc.
Regarding dogs? Yeah, some people are idiots when it comes to their dogs or dogs in general. Most shouldn't be permitted to own a dog, and the dog would be better off anywhere but in their care.
Just because a person doesn't want to own a dog, doesn't mean they don't love dogs. It may be the opposite. They know they are ill-equiped to care for one, and don't see a dog as a stuffed animal or houseplant. (I live in NYC - about fifty percent of the dog owners here should not be permitted to own a dog. I saw one idiot walking two St. Bernard's (the size of small cows) in the middle of downtown Brooklyn. I felt sorry for the dogs. And I'm constantly seeing dogs pleading with me via their eyes to be rescued...from idiotic owners.)
Also, when a guest, repair man, or delivery person is invited into your home - you put your animal in another room, behind a shut door or out in the yard. That person may be allergic. And should not be forced to deal with your barking dog or cat. It's rude. Some folks are understandably scared of dogs, and triggered by them - my sister-in-law is, as is one of my Aunt's. Imposing your dog onto that person is sadistic and cruel to both your dog and that guest or person.
Like I said there are a lot of idiotic pet owners out there. I have an Aunt who is an idiot about her dogs. She acts like they are her kids and everyone must love them, want to be with them or own one or there is something wrong with the person. No Auntie, there's something wrong with you. Some of us are allergic.
Regarding the insane anti-semtic woman?
She needs to be committed for psychiatric observation before she hurts someone. The Bible doesn't say that. No Bible says that. Seriously that woman is mentally ill.
no subject
Date: 2022-05-24 05:00 am (UTC)I estimate that about 20% of the homes I was in for service calls (or installation or other work) over about four decades had dogs, maybe 10% for cats. If you can't at least get along with the critters, you pretty much need to get another type of employment. While I'm not a big fan of dogs (I'm definitely a cat person if that's the other option), I can get along with any who are not aggressive or obsessive (like barking incessantly, jumping up on you over and over, etc). I'm very mildly allergic to them, but nowhere near like I am to dust and pollen, to which I'm extremely allergic.
And you're right on about some people being triggered/frightened by them, usually because of being attacked/bitten by one or more sometime in their past.
And you are really right on about many pet owners being people who have no business having them. I can't stand to see animals being mistreated, even ones I'm not fond of.
no subject
Date: 2022-05-23 05:34 pm (UTC)RE: The Beatles and the Rolling Stones
As I think I've said before, the Beatles and the Stones are very different when it comes to their origins and how they approach music. The Stones are basically a blues-based rock band (their name comes from a Muddy Waters song), with only occasional forays outside their safety zone. (How you feel about stuff like "Their Satanic Majesties Request" is entirely your business...)
The Beatles started out as a blender of American R&B, early rock and roll, Broadway melodies and English dance hall, and just kept expanding their influences as they went along. Their entire catalog was one of restless experimentation, and that so much of it was great is still something of a miracle.
This is not a knock on the Stones: of the millions of blues-inspired bands that came out of England in the sixties, they are far and away the best. But the Beatles were something special.
As for live performances: what I wouldn't give to be in Hamburg in 1960 to see John, Paul and George, hopped up on diet pills, blaze through three sets a night. I heard they were incredible. And while I never saw the Beatles live, I did see McCartney--and the man puts on a helluva show.
The Stones playing live had an unbeatable formula: Mick out front, with his rooster strut and boundless energy; Keith's laid back cool and endless supply of blues licks; and Charlie Watts keeping the whole production in sync on the drums. It kept them on top for 55 years. (Don't know how they'll work it without Charlie...)
no subject
Date: 2022-05-24 12:58 am (UTC)(I'm allergic, I can no longer have them. But the cats I grew up with were a huge source of comfort and I miss them still.)
On point two? I agree. They are very different bands on multiple levels. The Stones is basically a blues/rock band, or classic rock. They weren't really interested in experimenting all that much - with the result being most of their music sounds the same. I honestly think they are best "live" and kind of wish I liked live concerts better, and had seen them when they went on tour in the 1980s, but I was too young at the time, and hadn't heard of them.
The Beatles - after watching the Get Back documentary - it became clear to me that pretty much everyone but Paul and possibly Ringo, did not like performing live and preferred recording their music and playing around with it in the studio. Paul loved live performances. And the split was partly due to that. Paul fights with them all the way through the documentary - to get them to perform another live concert anywhere. He reaches the point in which he no longer really cares where they do it - it can be on the damn roof - just somewhere. John doesn't want to perform live again - he'd rather experiment with Yoko. Once I figured that out - I realized why the Beatles stand out. The really are a studio band. It's why their song book and music is so varied and so vast - they didn't feel the need to cater to a live audience (nor wanted to) and really just enjoyed experimenting. From the documentary - I also picked up on the fact that they loved making music and could not care less about their audience. The audience was nice and all - but music came first. I think only Paul McCartney cared about the audience. John didn't at all. George not so much. I'm not sure about Ringo - he's hard to read and kind of went along with the group anyhow.
The Rolling Stones - are very different dynamic. They love performing. They love classic rock/blues. They don't want to experiment, and they want to please the audience, and play to its needs, often playing various takes on the same songs over and over. Don't get me wrong - they have some amazing songs in their song book, and it is varied, but it is also fairly now and not that vast. And they don't venture far outside of what their audience wants and expects - because they prefer to perform, and that is their favorite venue.
no subject
Date: 2022-05-23 07:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-05-24 12:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-05-23 09:28 pm (UTC)I haven't been to a lot of live music concerts, but I feel like I want to want to go more than I actually am interested in attending. I'm not someone who likes standing the entire time or singing along or places where it gets really crowded/loud. That's part of the reason I didn't like clubbing in my early twenties either.
no subject
Date: 2022-05-24 12:44 am (UTC)Also, on point two - yeah..
I haven't been to a lot of live music concerts, but I feel like I want to want to go more than I actually am interested in attending. I'm not someone who likes standing the entire time or singing along or places where it gets really crowded/loud. That's part of the reason I didn't like clubbing in my early twenties either.
Same. It's kind of how I feel about scuba diving, trapeze, rock climbing, and snorkling - I feel like I should want to do these things, but I just don't.
I love music, but I don't like concerts. You have to stand. It's noisy. It's hard to hear the music. I don't like singing along. And the crowds annoy me.
And yeah, I had the same problem with clubbing in my twenties and thirties - I found it exhausting. I felt I was supposed to love it, but I honestly didn't. And meeting people was close to impossible.
I'm kind of relieved not to have to do it any longer. Being in one's fifties is somewhat freeing in a way - no longer expected to go clubbing or yanked to rock concerts.