(no subject)

Okay that's it, I'm not working any more this weekend. I need the mental vacation. Tired of analyzing and problem solving.

Having troubles focusing on reading books for pleasure at the moment. Speaking of...anyone know of any fluffy, funny novels that are not romance novels and require little concentration/focus..and are well sort of mindless? Started Rushdie's "Midnight's Children" but not sure that's the best idea at the moment. I keep bopping from book to book with no ability to commit - bopped from The Kill Artist by Daniel Silva (hard to get into) to The Book Thief to Flat Out Love (silly) to The Emperor of the Maladies. Can't seem to find anything that's grabbing me. I want a page-turner. Something I look forward to reading. Where have all the good books gone? I need a happy book like Harry Potter or PD Wodehouse...suppose I could re-read those. So many books, no ability to focus.

Did watch some mindless tv...gave up on Modern Family and The New Normal - clearly people find these shows funny, but I'm not amongst them. Found both to be cringe-inducing for oddly similar reasons - embarrassment humor and me are unmixy things. Deleted.

Raising Hope, Subgurgatory, Big Bang Theory, Louis, and Don't Trust the Bitch in Apt 23
on the other hand had their moments. Only one's consistently DVR are Big Bang, Subgurgatory and Louis.

Shrek Forever...is a great movie to watch while you are doing something else. Less so, Mary Poppins. One would think it would be the opposite.

Covert Affairs requires more mental attention than I'm willing to give it at the moment, as does Elementary for that matter. Revolution on the other hand...is perfectly mindless.
You really don't have to think while watching it. Actually, it's probably better that you don't. Walking Dead, it isn't.

May go see Skyfall tomorrow..it's also good mindless entertainment. Flist is split on it.
People who love James Bond films and action flicks like the Avengers - loved Skyfall, people who hate James Bond films or are lukewarm on them and not crazy about action flicks like the Avengers...thought it was lame and don't get the appeal. If you fall in the former category, as I do, go see it or rent at some point, if you fall in the latter category? Don't bother. It is a Bond film after all. No getting around that. The only thing keeping me from seeing it - is my dislike of movie theaters. Is seeing Skyfall in a movie theater worth - $13, leg cramps, rude people text messaging and talking during it,
and three hours of my time? Or can I just rent it and enjoy it in the privacy of my home?
It's a Bond film...those work more or less on any size screen and do not require 3D.

Gloria Swanson, Angel, and the pitfalls of confusing legacy with heroism

1.Finished watching the last three episodes of Revolution which reminds me a great deal of Firefly, although Firefly had a sense of humor. Both are similar concepts. It's sort of Firefly by way of Lost and the Hunger Games, with no sense of humor. Takes itself far too seriously, LOST had a better sense of humor. Note to writers of this genre? It works better if you hire some comedy writers and take yourselves a bit less seriously. Also lots of Western cliches.


2. My Mother is reading Swanson on Swanson - the biography of Gloria Swanson, silent movie star and 1930s movie star. She told me that Swanson had to visit her fans by train, and was mobbed at each city. Sort of like the Beatles were mobbed when they first came to the US. Back then movie stars were "mobbed" by their fans because they were movie stars - there weren't as many. It was a big deal to see one. ( Gloria Swanson )

3. Have come to the conclusion that while wrath can be motivating, jealousy and envy are a waste of time and should be removed from the emotional lexicon. I really don't see much point for either.

4. Legacy. The search for or the attempt to leave a "legacy" behind you is incredibly narcissistic, isn't it? I've been flipping this over in my head lately and slowly realizing why I despise the term legacy. It's not about helping people, or making the world a better place, but stroking your own ego and getting your validation from an external source. See? The thing of it is, if you have to get validation or approval from an external source constantly - you are doomed to failure. There's always going to be someone better and badder than you are. That's the wrong reason to do anything. It leads to hell. Always.

Learned this long ago...while in law school of all things, in which I was told that seeking validation externally doesn't work. If you feel you have no value, that you are a "0" and have to constantly achieve, constantly prove yourself, constantly obtain approval...you'll always feel like a 0. An empty well, never to be filled. My grandmother on my father's side was a bit like that..you could never fill that well. The person who explained this concept to me back in 1992, provided the analogy of National Merit Finalists - the brightest kids from high schools all over the country. They come together, and whoa, discover there are people brighter or as bright as they are...there goes their value. Out the proverbial window. Except of course for the kids who aren't basing their entire value or any of it on being a National Merit Finalist.

The character of Angel in Angel the Series is in some respects a brilliant critique of the classic hero trope - the hero's journey, where the guy has to prove himself through all these tasks, has to achieve so some sort of external approval. Whedon through his creation of Angel and Angel's story is in an odd way critiquing that trope, which exists in the Western genre and the comic book and horror genres as well as most religious mythology. We find it comforting, if we do all these tasks, God will choose us, we have a legacy...look how great we are. But how narcisisstic is that? And meaningless?( a somewhat controversial take on legacy and Angel the Series...or not as the case may be )