(no subject)
Sep. 10th, 2005 08:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatEnjoying the quiet buzz of Saturday morning. Workmen are hammering away in the back yard, not what I'd call a yard so much as a space, since no grass to speak of, a couple of trees the landlord is planning on planting, and not that big, but hey its what amounts to a yard for anyone who lives in a city. I generally like Sat mornings, they are quiet and relaxed. A reward for the hustle and bustle of the work week.
Started this one out attempting to read another chapter of the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, but got a bit discouraged by an exercise regarding who would speak at my funeral. The thing of it is? Don't really see myself as having a funeral...want to be cremeated and scattered over the sea. The whole concept of coffins and graves makes me feel itchy. Don't see the logic in it. Anymore than I understand why people feel a need to look at a dead body in a coffin. Or go to a funeral. Might be how I was raised, my mother despises funerals and did not as a rule take the kids along when relatives died. She might go, but she left us with babysitters. I had to beg my mother to let me go to my father's mother's funeral. Weird experience. As if everyone was trying to sum up a life, yet most of the folks who cared the most for her were long dead. Not sure what it is about human nature that we feel a need to do summaries or eulogies. Isn't it how we live day by day that matters, not what we want people to think or say about us after we're gone? Don't have much influence over what someone else says or wants, do I? They have their own expectations after all - expectations that have little to do with me. And from the little I've seen of funerals - TV, my grandmother, what friends have shared - the funeral seems to be more about the people grieving and their lives than the one they are remembering. Their expectations, their desires, their hopes and dreams and disappointments. They are really talking about the person who died so much as they are talking about their relationship with that person. The chapter also wanted me to write a personal mission statement, not great at mission statements.
So put the book aside in a fit of pique. Well, okay not that extreeme. More just set it aside and moved online to order one of my class books from amazon. Assuming it ever shows up. The books I ordered in August aren't going to arrive until literally mid-Oct. Either the Gluten-Free Resource Guide is out of stock or it was sold out and they had to get more printed? They don't say. Just that it has been delayed until October. The more expensive book will hopefully arrive sometime next week. So ordering another one from them may be a bit dicey. But I'm not going through Barnes and Noble, spent two hours in hell hunting class books at their text book store. The experience made me glad I went to a small liberal arts college in Colorado which had a decently stocked, well organized bookstore. Even Law School was more or less reasonable. This was a nightmare, I shudder to think what people go through on University campuses with more than 10,000 students.
This week I spent a great deal of time navigating the human obstacle course and not always succeeding. Almost lost my shoe trying to get to the subway on Friday, some nitwit stepped on the back of my heel, which caused the shoe to come off, and kicked it across the sidewalk. If I knew who the nitwit was, I would have tripped them.
Yes, I can be a vindictive bitch. Surely, you knew that? While I was more or less cheerful this week, I did feel the odd occassional urge to either kick or shake people. New York City in September starts to feel very crowded.
The people who were on vacation in the summer months and the students/teachers have all flooded back into the city along with tourists. It's like you go from reasonable or normal traffic to suddenly feeling as if no matter where you go - there's a line half way around the block, and people blocking your path at every turn. Next week is going to be worse, since 360 world leaders plan to descend on the city for the 60th Anniversary of the UN (at least I think it was 60th, could be wrong, too lazy to check - this ain't the place to get accurate news information, if you want that go to google and find some reliable news sources. This is a personal journal with spontaneous opinions, musings, internal monologues and correspondence, yes that should be obvious from my title but there are some people who oddly expect the information in personal journals to be informed and accurate. Personally I don't think the information on the news is necessarily informed or accurate. But then I'm less trusting than most people, I know that. I've learned to take everything with a healthy grain of salt. I'm not as guillible as you may think, honest.). At any rate the navigation of the city and workworld this week has made sort of itchy moodwise. Yet at the same time, oddly happy and cheerful. A sort of sardonic cheerfulness. I want to kick people on one hand and hug them on the other. Duality, man, life would be boring without it.
Halfway through Black Orchid, which I have mixed feelings about. The artwork is in a word amazing. Absolutely stunning. The writing? Does not live up to it. It feels directionless at times. Scattered. It's a feeling I've had when reading other Neil Gaiman works - a sense that the writer is just drifting along seeing where the story takes him, not really creating any strong central character - so much as a cipher or straight man for the other characters to interact with. So there's this empty gap in the center of each of his stories. In Neverwhere the lead character, the guy, who I can no longer remember the name of, is a bit of a non-entity even before he meets the Buffyesque heroine. And he more or less remains one through-out. Becoming what she wants or needs him to be.
Same deal with American Gods, the protagonist in that novel never really has an identity or a name, and becomes more or less a symbol. Whenever he's on stage, my attention wanders, it's when the supporting characters are front and center that I'm riveted. I remember American Gods more vividly than Neverwhere, so I guess I liked it better. Especially considering I read it first. The mythology is interesting and it is the reason I remember either book. Gaiman is one of those writers who creates a fascinating world or universe, builds an amazing mythos, but doesn't quite know how to create strong central characters to populate it. Characters that resonate deep inside me and grip me, making me want to read more. People read for different reasons, some prefer the mythos, the world, the characters that populate it or are the protagonists aren't as important. Others care about the characters, could care less about the world or the mythology or theme, and if the characters don't resonate on some level, they're gone. And others want both. The best books in my opinion do both. For me, Gaiman's biggest weakness is character. Even with Black Orchid, I feel it. Once again we have a protagonist who has no identity, no clue who or what she is, no central defining purpose, she is seeking that from the world outside of her. It's an interesting theme actually - considering what I'm personally struggling with. The idea of finding identity and definition and significance within as opposed to without. And how our culture and society seems obsessed with finding it from without. Even the self-help book I was reading showed that contrast - on the one hand the author instructs you to figure out your own mission, your own purpose or destination within, yet he uses as an exercise how you want others to perceive you or relate to you after you are dead?
I think the reason I read Gaiman, even though I find his writing clunky in places and uninvolving, is his themes and metaphors do resonate for me. And part of me does identify with the cipher character who is hunting a purpose, a sense of self outside others definitions of it.
Black Orchid is about a clone of a superhero who is hunting who she is outside of what the original article was.
Looking for a way that exists outside of the violent existence of her predecessor. She does not want to live a violent life. Sees no satisfaction in vengeance or violent actions. And her struggle to not go there and find who she is. It's an interesting examination of what it means to be a person as well as an examination of the violent DC/Superhero universe - where the day is won when the male hero saves the girl and kills the bad guy or revenges her death by killing the bad guy. How our mythology inadverently leads us to a violent result and how that is just one of several choices we can make and by no means the best or only one.
People who turn up their noses at reading comics, I'm not sure have ever really read them or seen some of the graphic novels out there. A comic is basically a story that combines words and illustrations. You get to see two art forms instead of one on the page. It's also in most cases a collaboration. Although there are a few comic book writers who act as artists, inkers, and writers all rolled into one. But mostly it's collaboration. Sort of like writing a TV script except instead of hiring actors, you hire an artist to draw them. If you can write a comic you can write a screenplay or TV script, I'd imagine, the process is similar. If you are new to comics and would like to try a couple - I suggest going into a comics store and browsing or Barnes and Noble which also carries a selection of graphic novels, not quite the range or selection you'll find in a comic book store, but at least a couple.
Also been watching Dead Like Me this week. Seen five episodes so far. Quite enjoyable. I think I like it more than Wonderfalls. It's less wacky and overthetop and a tad more believable. Wonderfalls often a felt a bit forced in places. Frenetic. As if I were watching a cubist attempt at a TV show. As a result it was hard to care about some of the characters, since they felt at times more like metaphors or jokes or archetypes or what-have-you than actual breathing people who I could identify with. The show was absurd, but I felt at times a bit too absurd. I have the same problem with Malcolm in The Middle. Too over the top. I like my comedies subtle.
Reason I compare Dead Like Me to Wonderfalls is they both have the same creator: Bryan Fuller. The difference is one had Tim Minear and one doesn't. It's interesting to me that the one I prefer doesn't, indicating perhaps that I'm not as fond of Minear's writing as others appear to be. Yes, I am stubbornly walking away from the group on this one and following my own beacon. Minear's writing seems a tad more interested in shocking the audience than telling a story. I saw it in Angel - both with Home and the episode with the Serial Killer who Angel felt responsible for creating. Also in Firefly - with Bushwacked and War Crimes. We also see it in Wonderfalls, where he likes to dark outlandish things which don't really further the characters journeys all that much and take one out of the story. Same problem arose in The Inside - I did not believe these characters were solving crimes, nor did I care about them, the writers seemed to be more interested in shocking me than
telling a story. And to be honest, very little shocks me any more. So shocking? Does not do it. Fuller in Dead Like Me does something he didn't do in Wonderfalls create characters that resonate. I enjoy watching them.
They don't feel like stock characters. Or stereotypes. They feel unpredictable. Now, don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Wonderfalls, but I think Dead Like Me is the better show. George resonates more. As do her compatriots.
Her life is harder and more complex than the heroine of Wonderfalls was. Yet both characters start as slackers, as people who feel they have no purpose, no meaning, and care for nothing. George is forced to find her own way, she is literally killed and made into a grim reaper, a person who can't die because she's already dead, but still has to get a job, interact with, and be part of the living, because her job is to release souls when they die. She has no clue where the souls go. Or if there is a god or not. Just that the pattern of life and death and fate has to go on. A pattern that she is resisting and fighting against. Trying desperately to control herself and each time she does things go out of wack. The show examines how we handle fate, life, death, our own destiney, etc. In one episode, Rube (George's boss and head grim reaper of her little division, played by Mandy Pantikan) tells her that she has to find things in her life that she enjoys, decide if she wants to hang around and continue to enjoy them or just be gone. Little things, like for him watching a Cubs game, enjoying a waffle, a good glass of wine, or looking at the stars. Things he wants to continue to do. Got me to thinking how much of life you miss out on when you're focused on that next accomplishment. Sometimes it's good to just chill and enjoy it.
Did not like Dennis Potter's Singing Detective Series. Found it dull in places. Just did not grip me. Deals with similar themes. But instead of being uplifting or even postive, it's a downer. And whiny. The lead character hates his life and his world and himself. And you can see why. Problem was by the second episode, I was reading livejournal or a magazine at the same time, and felt an overwhelming wish that someone would just kill the old bloke and put him out of his misery. Probably didn't help that women are shown as either blatant sex objects or shrews. I think it may just be a mood thing. A few years back, I may have loved it. Now, not so much. Seen far too many things similar to it.
Watched the Jon Stewart Daily Show take on Hurrican Katrina. LOL! Completely agree with Jon Stewart, but that's no surprise been agreeing with Stewart since 2001. Just don't stay up late enough to watch the Daily Show. Saw Jon Stewart in person actually - during a live taping of the David Letterman Show. He is smaller in person.
What I think of our current President can be summed up in the following statement:
Thank god I voted against him in every election. Not sure how I would be able to live with myself if I didn't.
I seriously think that history will show that the worst and most destructive US Presidents are: Bush Jr, Ronald Reagan, and Bush Sr.
Also the definition of Christian is not : I'm holier than thou and thus need to enforce my moral doctrine upon your poor sinful soul. Or you offend me, so I will stone you to death. It is I care deeply about people and would help them no matter what they did or whether or not I agreed with them. It's about compassion not judgement. There's no judgement in that definition. Christianity is about opening your heart to others caring about them, tolerance and understanding. Anyone who defines themselves as a Christian and has the audacity/arrogance to judge someone else for having an abortion, for living a life they don't agree with and condemns them for that life is not Christian. What right do you have to condemn or judge someone else's life? You aren't them. You haven't lived their life. You don't know why they've had to deal with or why they've made the decisions they have made. And you have no clue whether you would do the same thing. Condeming and judging others is the opposite of Christianity, it is what Jesus fought so hard against, it's why he died. The golden rule is not Do unto others as they do unto you. It is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". It's walking a frigging mile in someone else's moccassins before you decide to play judge jury and executioner. The irony is that the people who killed Jesus were doing the same things that people in churches and in power do today. The Christian Right is doing the same things to people that the Romans and Jewish Elite in Palastine were doing then. In 5000 or more years, have no clue how long, you do the math, humanity hasn't learned that much, we keep making the same stupid mistakes. Which may explain why I have not set foot in a Church of any type in well over a year. I can't bear the condemnation coming from people who consider themselves to be teachers and priests. Whose job it is to care not condemn. God doesn't condemn, God watchs, God grants us choice, why do we do it? Course the irony of this paragraph is in the same breath I'm condemning the people doing the condemning, judging the judgers. Sigh. Life is frigging hard, you know?
Well that's it. Moseying off to other things.
Started this one out attempting to read another chapter of the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, but got a bit discouraged by an exercise regarding who would speak at my funeral. The thing of it is? Don't really see myself as having a funeral...want to be cremeated and scattered over the sea. The whole concept of coffins and graves makes me feel itchy. Don't see the logic in it. Anymore than I understand why people feel a need to look at a dead body in a coffin. Or go to a funeral. Might be how I was raised, my mother despises funerals and did not as a rule take the kids along when relatives died. She might go, but she left us with babysitters. I had to beg my mother to let me go to my father's mother's funeral. Weird experience. As if everyone was trying to sum up a life, yet most of the folks who cared the most for her were long dead. Not sure what it is about human nature that we feel a need to do summaries or eulogies. Isn't it how we live day by day that matters, not what we want people to think or say about us after we're gone? Don't have much influence over what someone else says or wants, do I? They have their own expectations after all - expectations that have little to do with me. And from the little I've seen of funerals - TV, my grandmother, what friends have shared - the funeral seems to be more about the people grieving and their lives than the one they are remembering. Their expectations, their desires, their hopes and dreams and disappointments. They are really talking about the person who died so much as they are talking about their relationship with that person. The chapter also wanted me to write a personal mission statement, not great at mission statements.
So put the book aside in a fit of pique. Well, okay not that extreeme. More just set it aside and moved online to order one of my class books from amazon. Assuming it ever shows up. The books I ordered in August aren't going to arrive until literally mid-Oct. Either the Gluten-Free Resource Guide is out of stock or it was sold out and they had to get more printed? They don't say. Just that it has been delayed until October. The more expensive book will hopefully arrive sometime next week. So ordering another one from them may be a bit dicey. But I'm not going through Barnes and Noble, spent two hours in hell hunting class books at their text book store. The experience made me glad I went to a small liberal arts college in Colorado which had a decently stocked, well organized bookstore. Even Law School was more or less reasonable. This was a nightmare, I shudder to think what people go through on University campuses with more than 10,000 students.
This week I spent a great deal of time navigating the human obstacle course and not always succeeding. Almost lost my shoe trying to get to the subway on Friday, some nitwit stepped on the back of my heel, which caused the shoe to come off, and kicked it across the sidewalk. If I knew who the nitwit was, I would have tripped them.
Yes, I can be a vindictive bitch. Surely, you knew that? While I was more or less cheerful this week, I did feel the odd occassional urge to either kick or shake people. New York City in September starts to feel very crowded.
The people who were on vacation in the summer months and the students/teachers have all flooded back into the city along with tourists. It's like you go from reasonable or normal traffic to suddenly feeling as if no matter where you go - there's a line half way around the block, and people blocking your path at every turn. Next week is going to be worse, since 360 world leaders plan to descend on the city for the 60th Anniversary of the UN (at least I think it was 60th, could be wrong, too lazy to check - this ain't the place to get accurate news information, if you want that go to google and find some reliable news sources. This is a personal journal with spontaneous opinions, musings, internal monologues and correspondence, yes that should be obvious from my title but there are some people who oddly expect the information in personal journals to be informed and accurate. Personally I don't think the information on the news is necessarily informed or accurate. But then I'm less trusting than most people, I know that. I've learned to take everything with a healthy grain of salt. I'm not as guillible as you may think, honest.). At any rate the navigation of the city and workworld this week has made sort of itchy moodwise. Yet at the same time, oddly happy and cheerful. A sort of sardonic cheerfulness. I want to kick people on one hand and hug them on the other. Duality, man, life would be boring without it.
Halfway through Black Orchid, which I have mixed feelings about. The artwork is in a word amazing. Absolutely stunning. The writing? Does not live up to it. It feels directionless at times. Scattered. It's a feeling I've had when reading other Neil Gaiman works - a sense that the writer is just drifting along seeing where the story takes him, not really creating any strong central character - so much as a cipher or straight man for the other characters to interact with. So there's this empty gap in the center of each of his stories. In Neverwhere the lead character, the guy, who I can no longer remember the name of, is a bit of a non-entity even before he meets the Buffyesque heroine. And he more or less remains one through-out. Becoming what she wants or needs him to be.
Same deal with American Gods, the protagonist in that novel never really has an identity or a name, and becomes more or less a symbol. Whenever he's on stage, my attention wanders, it's when the supporting characters are front and center that I'm riveted. I remember American Gods more vividly than Neverwhere, so I guess I liked it better. Especially considering I read it first. The mythology is interesting and it is the reason I remember either book. Gaiman is one of those writers who creates a fascinating world or universe, builds an amazing mythos, but doesn't quite know how to create strong central characters to populate it. Characters that resonate deep inside me and grip me, making me want to read more. People read for different reasons, some prefer the mythos, the world, the characters that populate it or are the protagonists aren't as important. Others care about the characters, could care less about the world or the mythology or theme, and if the characters don't resonate on some level, they're gone. And others want both. The best books in my opinion do both. For me, Gaiman's biggest weakness is character. Even with Black Orchid, I feel it. Once again we have a protagonist who has no identity, no clue who or what she is, no central defining purpose, she is seeking that from the world outside of her. It's an interesting theme actually - considering what I'm personally struggling with. The idea of finding identity and definition and significance within as opposed to without. And how our culture and society seems obsessed with finding it from without. Even the self-help book I was reading showed that contrast - on the one hand the author instructs you to figure out your own mission, your own purpose or destination within, yet he uses as an exercise how you want others to perceive you or relate to you after you are dead?
I think the reason I read Gaiman, even though I find his writing clunky in places and uninvolving, is his themes and metaphors do resonate for me. And part of me does identify with the cipher character who is hunting a purpose, a sense of self outside others definitions of it.
Black Orchid is about a clone of a superhero who is hunting who she is outside of what the original article was.
Looking for a way that exists outside of the violent existence of her predecessor. She does not want to live a violent life. Sees no satisfaction in vengeance or violent actions. And her struggle to not go there and find who she is. It's an interesting examination of what it means to be a person as well as an examination of the violent DC/Superhero universe - where the day is won when the male hero saves the girl and kills the bad guy or revenges her death by killing the bad guy. How our mythology inadverently leads us to a violent result and how that is just one of several choices we can make and by no means the best or only one.
People who turn up their noses at reading comics, I'm not sure have ever really read them or seen some of the graphic novels out there. A comic is basically a story that combines words and illustrations. You get to see two art forms instead of one on the page. It's also in most cases a collaboration. Although there are a few comic book writers who act as artists, inkers, and writers all rolled into one. But mostly it's collaboration. Sort of like writing a TV script except instead of hiring actors, you hire an artist to draw them. If you can write a comic you can write a screenplay or TV script, I'd imagine, the process is similar. If you are new to comics and would like to try a couple - I suggest going into a comics store and browsing or Barnes and Noble which also carries a selection of graphic novels, not quite the range or selection you'll find in a comic book store, but at least a couple.
Also been watching Dead Like Me this week. Seen five episodes so far. Quite enjoyable. I think I like it more than Wonderfalls. It's less wacky and overthetop and a tad more believable. Wonderfalls often a felt a bit forced in places. Frenetic. As if I were watching a cubist attempt at a TV show. As a result it was hard to care about some of the characters, since they felt at times more like metaphors or jokes or archetypes or what-have-you than actual breathing people who I could identify with. The show was absurd, but I felt at times a bit too absurd. I have the same problem with Malcolm in The Middle. Too over the top. I like my comedies subtle.
Reason I compare Dead Like Me to Wonderfalls is they both have the same creator: Bryan Fuller. The difference is one had Tim Minear and one doesn't. It's interesting to me that the one I prefer doesn't, indicating perhaps that I'm not as fond of Minear's writing as others appear to be. Yes, I am stubbornly walking away from the group on this one and following my own beacon. Minear's writing seems a tad more interested in shocking the audience than telling a story. I saw it in Angel - both with Home and the episode with the Serial Killer who Angel felt responsible for creating. Also in Firefly - with Bushwacked and War Crimes. We also see it in Wonderfalls, where he likes to dark outlandish things which don't really further the characters journeys all that much and take one out of the story. Same problem arose in The Inside - I did not believe these characters were solving crimes, nor did I care about them, the writers seemed to be more interested in shocking me than
telling a story. And to be honest, very little shocks me any more. So shocking? Does not do it. Fuller in Dead Like Me does something he didn't do in Wonderfalls create characters that resonate. I enjoy watching them.
They don't feel like stock characters. Or stereotypes. They feel unpredictable. Now, don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Wonderfalls, but I think Dead Like Me is the better show. George resonates more. As do her compatriots.
Her life is harder and more complex than the heroine of Wonderfalls was. Yet both characters start as slackers, as people who feel they have no purpose, no meaning, and care for nothing. George is forced to find her own way, she is literally killed and made into a grim reaper, a person who can't die because she's already dead, but still has to get a job, interact with, and be part of the living, because her job is to release souls when they die. She has no clue where the souls go. Or if there is a god or not. Just that the pattern of life and death and fate has to go on. A pattern that she is resisting and fighting against. Trying desperately to control herself and each time she does things go out of wack. The show examines how we handle fate, life, death, our own destiney, etc. In one episode, Rube (George's boss and head grim reaper of her little division, played by Mandy Pantikan) tells her that she has to find things in her life that she enjoys, decide if she wants to hang around and continue to enjoy them or just be gone. Little things, like for him watching a Cubs game, enjoying a waffle, a good glass of wine, or looking at the stars. Things he wants to continue to do. Got me to thinking how much of life you miss out on when you're focused on that next accomplishment. Sometimes it's good to just chill and enjoy it.
Did not like Dennis Potter's Singing Detective Series. Found it dull in places. Just did not grip me. Deals with similar themes. But instead of being uplifting or even postive, it's a downer. And whiny. The lead character hates his life and his world and himself. And you can see why. Problem was by the second episode, I was reading livejournal or a magazine at the same time, and felt an overwhelming wish that someone would just kill the old bloke and put him out of his misery. Probably didn't help that women are shown as either blatant sex objects or shrews. I think it may just be a mood thing. A few years back, I may have loved it. Now, not so much. Seen far too many things similar to it.
Watched the Jon Stewart Daily Show take on Hurrican Katrina. LOL! Completely agree with Jon Stewart, but that's no surprise been agreeing with Stewart since 2001. Just don't stay up late enough to watch the Daily Show. Saw Jon Stewart in person actually - during a live taping of the David Letterman Show. He is smaller in person.
What I think of our current President can be summed up in the following statement:
Thank god I voted against him in every election. Not sure how I would be able to live with myself if I didn't.
I seriously think that history will show that the worst and most destructive US Presidents are: Bush Jr, Ronald Reagan, and Bush Sr.
Also the definition of Christian is not : I'm holier than thou and thus need to enforce my moral doctrine upon your poor sinful soul. Or you offend me, so I will stone you to death. It is I care deeply about people and would help them no matter what they did or whether or not I agreed with them. It's about compassion not judgement. There's no judgement in that definition. Christianity is about opening your heart to others caring about them, tolerance and understanding. Anyone who defines themselves as a Christian and has the audacity/arrogance to judge someone else for having an abortion, for living a life they don't agree with and condemns them for that life is not Christian. What right do you have to condemn or judge someone else's life? You aren't them. You haven't lived their life. You don't know why they've had to deal with or why they've made the decisions they have made. And you have no clue whether you would do the same thing. Condeming and judging others is the opposite of Christianity, it is what Jesus fought so hard against, it's why he died. The golden rule is not Do unto others as they do unto you. It is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". It's walking a frigging mile in someone else's moccassins before you decide to play judge jury and executioner. The irony is that the people who killed Jesus were doing the same things that people in churches and in power do today. The Christian Right is doing the same things to people that the Romans and Jewish Elite in Palastine were doing then. In 5000 or more years, have no clue how long, you do the math, humanity hasn't learned that much, we keep making the same stupid mistakes. Which may explain why I have not set foot in a Church of any type in well over a year. I can't bear the condemnation coming from people who consider themselves to be teachers and priests. Whose job it is to care not condemn. God doesn't condemn, God watchs, God grants us choice, why do we do it? Course the irony of this paragraph is in the same breath I'm condemning the people doing the condemning, judging the judgers. Sigh. Life is frigging hard, you know?
Well that's it. Moseying off to other things.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-10 05:07 pm (UTC)I've been a huge Jon Stewart fan for a while, and The Daily Show is really my main 'must see TV', but this past week he seemed like more than that to me. When Jon came on (on Tuesday) and was so clear in his POV, it seemed to heal my heart a little bit. It was kind of like when Louis Rukeyser came on after 9/11...he seemed to bring normalcy back or something. I'm not expressing that well. sigh
no subject
Date: 2005-09-11 02:32 am (UTC)I had no clue who most of the people were by the 10th episode. The only characters the writers seemed to flesh out were the lead and to some extent her sister. The others felt disturbingly stock or stereotypical.
I loved it and enjoyed the series, but watching Dead Like Me which I'm enjoying far more is making me aware of the flaws.
Actually you expressed that very well. Wish I could watch the Daily Show, but on too late for me. So only been able to catch snippets here and there. His bit on Bush this week made me feel better as well. Okay, yes, I thought, I'm not crazy, Bush is an incompetent nit-wit. Thank you.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-10 07:05 pm (UTC)...the funeral seems to be more about the people grieving and their lives than the one they are remembering. Their expectations, their desires, their hopes and dreams and disappointments. They are [sic] really talking about the person who died so much as they are talking about their relationship with that person.
And I think that's exactly what the book is asking you to imagine and write about.
;o)
no subject
Date: 2005-09-11 02:23 am (UTC)Not imagining or worrying about what others think, not seeking the external validation. Because honestly what someone else thinks about me now or when I'm dead has zip to do with me and everything to do with them.
The funny thing about the book - is it contradicted itself. It starts out with the exercise then circles around and says that what you imagine shouldn't matter, if you create a strong personal misson/strong identity you won't care.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-11 03:37 am (UTC)Yes, that's true, of course. But what you would write would not be what they thought about you, would it? You don't really know what they think about you. What you write would, indeed, end up being what you think about yourself, or perhaps how you fear others see you. And I think that's where they intend the revelation to come from. It's sort of a hidden double-whammy. You start out by saying, "Well, so-and-so would probably say X about me," and then you have to confront why you think so-and-so feels that way about you. Is that what you're projecting to them? Is it what you want them to feel about you? Is there something about yourself that you feel they are mistaken about? etc, etc.
Not really that important, of course. I've used these sorts of exercises in various circumstances in the past, with varying results. They are usually somewhat revealing though.
;o)