First of all, I am aware that there hasn't been anything new on this blog for quite some time. Looking at the date on my previous post, I went into labor a few hours after I posted Freedom of Speech. And I had a baby an hour and a half after that. I already went into detail on my other blog about the birth of our baby, and there are pictures and everything. It was quite an experience. I'm not going to go into detail here. I learned that I really am not good at handling pain, and that I am one of those screamers that I'm sure nurses complain about. Sorry. There's only so much breathing you can do to manage pain. At least, that's how it is for me.
On a totally different subject, does anyone have any good Halloween costume ideas? I'm coming up totally blank this year. My 3-year-old is convinced that I should be that baby-headed spider thingy in Toy Story (you know, the creepy looking thing from Sid's room), but I just don't think I can pull that off. So, please, inspire me! Last year I put on my BYU t-shirt and hat, painted my face and called it a costume. So lame. Halloween is the best opportunity to be someone totally different, and I'm blowing it!
One more thing. Like the post title suggests, this entry is a bit scattered, but I have a little rant I'd like to make. I went to the eye doctor last week, and, while I'm sure he's an excellent optometrist (I can't tell a difference, honestly, I just try to figure out which is better, one or two, and hope I pass the test), he had me near throttling him by the end of the appointment. Maybe I'm a little insecure about my being a real grown-up, but there is something about people that speak to me like I'm five that really rubs me the wrong way. The entire appointment I felt like I was back in braces and going in for my first appointment. I am 31 years old, for crying out loud! And he couldn't have been much older than 35. My son's previous pediatrician was the same way with me. Very annoying. I think there's a mistaken idea with some doctors, etc, that using a "soothing" voice means having a good bedside manner. To me, a good bedside manner is treating the patient like an intelligent adult, while providing sound medical advice/information. Am I way off here?
Oh, and one more thing--I just finished reading Elantris, by Brandon Sanderson. Thanks, Jenny, for the recommend. It was excellent! I'm about to start on the third Mistborn book now. I just hope I can keep all the stories straight. It's hard when you're sleepy.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Freedom of speech
You may think suddenly I'm going to go all political. No, I'm still me. I am going to rant about something totally unrelated to politics, as usual. Not that I don't care about politics, or the upcoming election--ARGH, stomach ache, must change subject! I'm referring to the strange idea that there are certain circumstances that excuse tact and discretion. First, though, I'd like to tell anyone who reads my blog that I am not pointing fingers at you, just raising awareness. That's what we do instead of blame, right? Here are a few circumstances I have been in that seem to inspire people to say inappropriate things:
1. Being single past age 21. Here are some things people think are okay: "So, when are you getting married?" Um, what? "Why aren't you on a mission?" I think this was right after a talk by the prophet about how missions were not mandatory for women, or even the best choice for some. "You must be picky!" If you mean by picky, I don't keep dating a guy who spends 3 hours on his cell phone while we're on a date at Dennys, then yes, I am picky. "I know someone that's short like you and he is PERFECT!!!" Like being short means we're MFEO. I was set up with a few "short" guys (not that there's anything wrong with short guys) that had nothing in common with me. One grew up in a forest with an outhouse and had no interest in music or pop culture. Yeah, perfect for me. But he was 5' 6" All of these things were said to me at age 21 and 22, and so forth, until I got married at age 25.
2. Married for more than 6 months and not pregnant. The question so many can't help but ask, but which is totally inappropriate and personal: "When are you having a baby?" Or, even worse, "Is it that you can't have kids?" Another, "Are you on birth control? When are you going off of it?" We actually had a combined meeting at church when we were first married, and the bishop basically told everyone to mind their own business and stop asking those questions. I am someone who feels compelled to answer someone's questions fully and honestly, which means a lot of the time, I give away much more info that I want to. These questions don't even go away when you have a baby. After the new baby is 6 weeks old, people ask when you're having #2!
3. Pregnant. I find myself in this position right now, and it seems like as soon as you start showing, strangers feel like they can butt into your life and start being completely nosy! Here are some things I've heard: "Ooh, I'd let you borrow some clothes, but they would be much too small." "Are you having twins?" "Wow, you looked really tired." "Hey, I was that big at 8 months with my twins, too! Oh, you're at 6 months?" And the patting of the tummy by people I don't know. I don't mind friends doing it, or my 3-year-old, or my husband. But strangers really shouldn't. The other thing that happens during pregnancy is an outpouring of horror stories of every variety. Seriously, do you think a pregnant woman really wants to know about how you were in labor for 48 hours with no epidural because your doctor was a quack? Or about how your aunt's cousin's nephew's wife had her baby in the car during rush hour traffic? And those are the nice stories. How about, "I loved how exciting it was to have a baby. Everything will be great!" (By the way, thanks to those who commented about that on my other blog. I'm excited now.)
I'm sure I could come up with some examples of appropriate questions, but I've been told my rants get too long. I'll just trust people to know what's appropriate.
The point I'm making is, no one should feel they're exempt from being tactful, no matter how big a pregnant woman is, or how old a single person is, or how long a couple has been married without having kids. You should be pretty close friends before thinking it's okay to even broach some subjects people feel like they can ask after you've met once. Just raising some awareness. Maybe I'll make a pin.
1. Being single past age 21. Here are some things people think are okay: "So, when are you getting married?" Um, what? "Why aren't you on a mission?" I think this was right after a talk by the prophet about how missions were not mandatory for women, or even the best choice for some. "You must be picky!" If you mean by picky, I don't keep dating a guy who spends 3 hours on his cell phone while we're on a date at Dennys, then yes, I am picky. "I know someone that's short like you and he is PERFECT!!!" Like being short means we're MFEO. I was set up with a few "short" guys (not that there's anything wrong with short guys) that had nothing in common with me. One grew up in a forest with an outhouse and had no interest in music or pop culture. Yeah, perfect for me. But he was 5' 6" All of these things were said to me at age 21 and 22, and so forth, until I got married at age 25.
2. Married for more than 6 months and not pregnant. The question so many can't help but ask, but which is totally inappropriate and personal: "When are you having a baby?" Or, even worse, "Is it that you can't have kids?" Another, "Are you on birth control? When are you going off of it?" We actually had a combined meeting at church when we were first married, and the bishop basically told everyone to mind their own business and stop asking those questions. I am someone who feels compelled to answer someone's questions fully and honestly, which means a lot of the time, I give away much more info that I want to. These questions don't even go away when you have a baby. After the new baby is 6 weeks old, people ask when you're having #2!
3. Pregnant. I find myself in this position right now, and it seems like as soon as you start showing, strangers feel like they can butt into your life and start being completely nosy! Here are some things I've heard: "Ooh, I'd let you borrow some clothes, but they would be much too small." "Are you having twins?" "Wow, you looked really tired." "Hey, I was that big at 8 months with my twins, too! Oh, you're at 6 months?" And the patting of the tummy by people I don't know. I don't mind friends doing it, or my 3-year-old, or my husband. But strangers really shouldn't. The other thing that happens during pregnancy is an outpouring of horror stories of every variety. Seriously, do you think a pregnant woman really wants to know about how you were in labor for 48 hours with no epidural because your doctor was a quack? Or about how your aunt's cousin's nephew's wife had her baby in the car during rush hour traffic? And those are the nice stories. How about, "I loved how exciting it was to have a baby. Everything will be great!" (By the way, thanks to those who commented about that on my other blog. I'm excited now.)
I'm sure I could come up with some examples of appropriate questions, but I've been told my rants get too long. I'll just trust people to know what's appropriate.
The point I'm making is, no one should feel they're exempt from being tactful, no matter how big a pregnant woman is, or how old a single person is, or how long a couple has been married without having kids. You should be pretty close friends before thinking it's okay to even broach some subjects people feel like they can ask after you've met once. Just raising some awareness. Maybe I'll make a pin.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The death of romantic comedy
There are few movies I go to see in the theater. It's just so pricey, and on top of that, it needs to be one the husband and I agree is worth the money. I can't remember the last romantic comedy I saw in the theater...I'm guessing it was something I saw with roommates in college. The point is, I am dreadfully behind on the genre. If I don't see it in the theater, I have to remember it exists to add to my Netflix list a few months later when it's on DVD. And there are so many to remember. Thanks to friends who remember to rent the movies, or even make it to the theater to see them, and who proceed to blog about them, I have sort of caught up on what's been out recently. I've decided to just pull out the ones I already own and watch them next time I'm tempted to see a new one. Maybe I've lost a bit of my romantic side. Maybe I've become more prudish. Maybe I am just an old fuddy duddy. But last week I watched 3 different romantic comedies, and they just didn't do it for me.
The first one I watched was "P.S., I Love You." If I'd been thinking, I probably would have saved this one for last. It has the most attractive men, and compared to the others, it was very cute and, if a bit sappy, kind of touching, too. To sum up, a woman loses her husband to a brain tumor (the popular way for someone to go in movies these days, apparently), and he has left her a bunch of letters that are delivered to her by different people using different methods. It was more just romance than romantic comedy, come to think of it. I can't think of much that was funny. I think Lisa Kudrow was supposed to be the comic relief, but I was too busy blowing my nose from crying the whole time to find anything she did all that funny. Just thinking about this movie kind of makes me want to watch it again to remind myself what my complaint was (besides that Hilary Swank looks like a drag queen to me, albeit in cute dresses in this movie). I'm guessing I just got tired of crying by the end of the movie. I cried a lot when I saw "Return to Me" as well, but I also laughed quite a bit, because the comic relief was actually there and a relief. Okay, this one may be worth seeing, if you're in the mood for something sentimental and somewhat romantically satisfying.
Then I saw "Definitely, Maybe." Boo. Boo! I found nothing redeeming about it. Nothing. Not even that cute little girl from "Little Miss Sunshine" (Abygail Whatshername). It started with divorce, followed by sexual dialogue, followed by more sexual dialogue said by an 8-year-old (!!!) and a long, boring story about how the little girl's dad met her mom. The girl is trying to guess between three women with whom he had relationships. So this little girl is sitting there, listening to her dad's sexual exploits with three women, trying to figure out which one is the mom that's divorcing her dad. What a heartwarming story. There was nothing remotely funny about it, nothing romantic about it, and, although they were trying to make it mean something, it was completely shallow and lame. Blech.
The next one in line was "Catch and Release," which looked kind of cute to me when I saw the previews. Once again, I was disappointed. Of course, after "Definitely, Maybe" my expectations weren't all that high, to be honest. This one is about a girl whose fiancee dies on a fishing trip (yes, more death, but this time it wasn't by brain tumor). Inappropriate sexual "humor" at the funeral, blah blah, she starts hanging out with his old roommates and they are supposed to be funny. It feels like you're being set up for her to fall for his one decent friend--the one that puts fresh flowers by her bed when she's sad, who treats her decently, respects her time of mourning, etc. But no, she falls for the slimeball that was involved in that "humor" at the funeral and who keeps her dead fiancee's secret girlfriend in L.A. a secret until she shows up to ask for more child support. So basically, this movie is about how the good guy doesn't get the girl, the slimeball gets the girl, and it's okay to rebound a few weeks after your cheating, lying fiancee dies, because he was a liar. Because the slimeball is cute and reminds you of your dead fiancee. Ick. So unsatisfying, so meaningless, and so trying to be deep without even slightly succeeding.
The conclusion I've come to is that romantic comedy is DEAD. I think writers need to watch a few good oldies and remind themselves what makes a good romantic comedy. Like, romance instead of straight sex, and stuff that's funny and not just crass and vulgar. Here are some recommendations, for any screenwriters out there: "While You Were Sleeping"--what I consider the perfect combination of witty dialogue, tender moments, and family humor with a satisfying romantic conclusion. "Return to Me"--this is for those people who feel like death must be included in the script. I bawled my eyes out for the first 20 minutes and last 20 minutes of this movie, but was delighted for the rest of it. That's called balance. The characters are likeable, there are cute old people that are hilarious, there's nothing that would make you uncomfortable on a date (hello--requirement!), and the clothes Minnie Driver wears are adorable, partly because they almost match, but not quite. And if you're going for straight sappiness, "A Walk to Remember"--so, so, so sappy, but I love the message. How about a movie about a teenage girl that stays true to her values, even when the popular guy starts to notice her, and kids tease her about her wholesomeness. How about if, instead of the guy inspiring her to change into a slutty dress and a new haircut, he changes himself into someone who cares and respects her faith and buys her another cardigan? I know makeovers are fun, and there's always a montage in teeny bopper romances that involves trying on lots of cute clothes and getting haircuts, but it is nice to see a movie that says it's okay to stay true to yourself, and that change from the inside out is better than just a makeover. And guess what? All three of those movies involve kissing but no sex! What? Is that even possible? YES!!! So, maybe one of my writer friends could write the next great romantic comedy (Rachel K? Please?). I'm done with them for now. Off I go to watch North and South again. (More of a romantic tragedy than comedy, but if you haven't seen it, DO! The British one, not the one about the Civil War.)
The first one I watched was "P.S., I Love You." If I'd been thinking, I probably would have saved this one for last. It has the most attractive men, and compared to the others, it was very cute and, if a bit sappy, kind of touching, too. To sum up, a woman loses her husband to a brain tumor (the popular way for someone to go in movies these days, apparently), and he has left her a bunch of letters that are delivered to her by different people using different methods. It was more just romance than romantic comedy, come to think of it. I can't think of much that was funny. I think Lisa Kudrow was supposed to be the comic relief, but I was too busy blowing my nose from crying the whole time to find anything she did all that funny. Just thinking about this movie kind of makes me want to watch it again to remind myself what my complaint was (besides that Hilary Swank looks like a drag queen to me, albeit in cute dresses in this movie). I'm guessing I just got tired of crying by the end of the movie. I cried a lot when I saw "Return to Me" as well, but I also laughed quite a bit, because the comic relief was actually there and a relief. Okay, this one may be worth seeing, if you're in the mood for something sentimental and somewhat romantically satisfying.
Then I saw "Definitely, Maybe." Boo. Boo! I found nothing redeeming about it. Nothing. Not even that cute little girl from "Little Miss Sunshine" (Abygail Whatshername). It started with divorce, followed by sexual dialogue, followed by more sexual dialogue said by an 8-year-old (!!!) and a long, boring story about how the little girl's dad met her mom. The girl is trying to guess between three women with whom he had relationships. So this little girl is sitting there, listening to her dad's sexual exploits with three women, trying to figure out which one is the mom that's divorcing her dad. What a heartwarming story. There was nothing remotely funny about it, nothing romantic about it, and, although they were trying to make it mean something, it was completely shallow and lame. Blech.
The next one in line was "Catch and Release," which looked kind of cute to me when I saw the previews. Once again, I was disappointed. Of course, after "Definitely, Maybe" my expectations weren't all that high, to be honest. This one is about a girl whose fiancee dies on a fishing trip (yes, more death, but this time it wasn't by brain tumor). Inappropriate sexual "humor" at the funeral, blah blah, she starts hanging out with his old roommates and they are supposed to be funny. It feels like you're being set up for her to fall for his one decent friend--the one that puts fresh flowers by her bed when she's sad, who treats her decently, respects her time of mourning, etc. But no, she falls for the slimeball that was involved in that "humor" at the funeral and who keeps her dead fiancee's secret girlfriend in L.A. a secret until she shows up to ask for more child support. So basically, this movie is about how the good guy doesn't get the girl, the slimeball gets the girl, and it's okay to rebound a few weeks after your cheating, lying fiancee dies, because he was a liar. Because the slimeball is cute and reminds you of your dead fiancee. Ick. So unsatisfying, so meaningless, and so trying to be deep without even slightly succeeding.
The conclusion I've come to is that romantic comedy is DEAD. I think writers need to watch a few good oldies and remind themselves what makes a good romantic comedy. Like, romance instead of straight sex, and stuff that's funny and not just crass and vulgar. Here are some recommendations, for any screenwriters out there: "While You Were Sleeping"--what I consider the perfect combination of witty dialogue, tender moments, and family humor with a satisfying romantic conclusion. "Return to Me"--this is for those people who feel like death must be included in the script. I bawled my eyes out for the first 20 minutes and last 20 minutes of this movie, but was delighted for the rest of it. That's called balance. The characters are likeable, there are cute old people that are hilarious, there's nothing that would make you uncomfortable on a date (hello--requirement!), and the clothes Minnie Driver wears are adorable, partly because they almost match, but not quite. And if you're going for straight sappiness, "A Walk to Remember"--so, so, so sappy, but I love the message. How about a movie about a teenage girl that stays true to her values, even when the popular guy starts to notice her, and kids tease her about her wholesomeness. How about if, instead of the guy inspiring her to change into a slutty dress and a new haircut, he changes himself into someone who cares and respects her faith and buys her another cardigan? I know makeovers are fun, and there's always a montage in teeny bopper romances that involves trying on lots of cute clothes and getting haircuts, but it is nice to see a movie that says it's okay to stay true to yourself, and that change from the inside out is better than just a makeover. And guess what? All three of those movies involve kissing but no sex! What? Is that even possible? YES!!! So, maybe one of my writer friends could write the next great romantic comedy (Rachel K? Please?). I'm done with them for now. Off I go to watch North and South again. (More of a romantic tragedy than comedy, but if you haven't seen it, DO! The British one, not the one about the Civil War.)
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Why is that man crying?
Be forewarned: it is now TV season, and most of my favorite shows are reappearing after a dismal summer of garbage that came after a writers' strike that devastated my groove. So for the next little while, you can expect posts about TV shows I love. It's what's on my mind.
Last night was the season premiere of Biggest Loser: Families. Tim and I watched last season faithfully, which was Biggest Loser: Couples (same diff, really, except this time they are all related to each other, and last time there were friends and brothers and a couple that had never met). It was very inspiring to watch the show as a married couple, especially a couple that both wanted to lose weight. So we'd sit down with a plate of cookies and watch people work out and cry and throw up and get yelled at by Jillian, and think, we should work out more. We were actually involved in a family competition, until I got pregnant and the whole thing went down the drain. Anyway, the point is, the show is extremely emotional, and just about anyone watching can relate to the pain of exercise, and sympathize with the people that have found themselves overweight somehow. Well, there happened to be a pair of brothers that were on the show last season that started out totally rude and the mean one (Mark) had a change of heart after getting kicked off and getting a second chance. Once this guy got back on the show, he was a complete bawl baby, and there came an episode where his brother got the boot. That night, our then 2-year-old couldn't sleep, and we finally gave up and brought him downstairs to watch TV with us. Mark was in the middle of a very emotional scene with his brother, where both men, but especially Mark, were bawling their eyes out. It was better than a soap opera. Our little boy said, "Mommy, why is that man crying?"
There's just a lot of crying involved in that show. Which is a problem for someone like me. I'm a sympathetic crier (sp?), which means I also spend a lot of time crying when I watch this show. And the new season has already gotten me worked up (although now I can blame the pregnant hormones and not that I'm just a big baby). There's something very touching about watching a daughter inspiring her grizzled old cop dad by killing herself to get up a hill first, and seeing a married couple help each other stay on the treadmill, even though they're both ready to drop dead. And the weigh-ins always amaze me! Can you imagine stepping on the scale after trying over and over again to lose a few pounds, and find you've lost 18 lbs? I would cry, too. And I do. I always feel so inspired to cook a healthy meal and to do pushups after I watch that show. Just so I can be healthy for my kids. Of course, I feel inspired, but don't act on it as often as I should. But the fact that reality TV, which has turned out loads of trash, has also resulted in a show that inspires a country that has gotten lazier and eaten worse for decades to get off the couch and lose weight is amazing. I think I balance out my guilt for watching America's Next Top Model, which is totally shallow and lame, but entertaining, by watching a show where people are changing their lives for the better and becoming good examples for people that have given up. I just have to resign myself to the fact that I need a box of tissues next to the couch every time I watch, and that Tim will mock me from time to time when I start to tear up after someone has been yelled at by Jillian and just can't take it anymore.
By the way, about Jillian. Is it really necessary to be that cruel? I know Jillian gets results, but is screaming right into someone's face as they collapse from fatigue really that effective? Bob seems to do okay with his teams, and, although he's strict and stern, he seems to understand that encouragement is just as good. Plus he's all about yoga and meditation, which seems like a nice idea. I know from personal experience that yoga is killer if you want to burn fat. Just holding beautiful warrior for 30 seconds about did me in one time. (And I think I only did it that one time. Oops.)
Okay, back to real life. Instead of running on the treadmill, I'm going to go do the dishes and throw in some laundry. Maybe I'll do it on my toes to get maximum calf workout.
Last night was the season premiere of Biggest Loser: Families. Tim and I watched last season faithfully, which was Biggest Loser: Couples (same diff, really, except this time they are all related to each other, and last time there were friends and brothers and a couple that had never met). It was very inspiring to watch the show as a married couple, especially a couple that both wanted to lose weight. So we'd sit down with a plate of cookies and watch people work out and cry and throw up and get yelled at by Jillian, and think, we should work out more. We were actually involved in a family competition, until I got pregnant and the whole thing went down the drain. Anyway, the point is, the show is extremely emotional, and just about anyone watching can relate to the pain of exercise, and sympathize with the people that have found themselves overweight somehow. Well, there happened to be a pair of brothers that were on the show last season that started out totally rude and the mean one (Mark) had a change of heart after getting kicked off and getting a second chance. Once this guy got back on the show, he was a complete bawl baby, and there came an episode where his brother got the boot. That night, our then 2-year-old couldn't sleep, and we finally gave up and brought him downstairs to watch TV with us. Mark was in the middle of a very emotional scene with his brother, where both men, but especially Mark, were bawling their eyes out. It was better than a soap opera. Our little boy said, "Mommy, why is that man crying?"
There's just a lot of crying involved in that show. Which is a problem for someone like me. I'm a sympathetic crier (sp?), which means I also spend a lot of time crying when I watch this show. And the new season has already gotten me worked up (although now I can blame the pregnant hormones and not that I'm just a big baby). There's something very touching about watching a daughter inspiring her grizzled old cop dad by killing herself to get up a hill first, and seeing a married couple help each other stay on the treadmill, even though they're both ready to drop dead. And the weigh-ins always amaze me! Can you imagine stepping on the scale after trying over and over again to lose a few pounds, and find you've lost 18 lbs? I would cry, too. And I do. I always feel so inspired to cook a healthy meal and to do pushups after I watch that show. Just so I can be healthy for my kids. Of course, I feel inspired, but don't act on it as often as I should. But the fact that reality TV, which has turned out loads of trash, has also resulted in a show that inspires a country that has gotten lazier and eaten worse for decades to get off the couch and lose weight is amazing. I think I balance out my guilt for watching America's Next Top Model, which is totally shallow and lame, but entertaining, by watching a show where people are changing their lives for the better and becoming good examples for people that have given up. I just have to resign myself to the fact that I need a box of tissues next to the couch every time I watch, and that Tim will mock me from time to time when I start to tear up after someone has been yelled at by Jillian and just can't take it anymore.
By the way, about Jillian. Is it really necessary to be that cruel? I know Jillian gets results, but is screaming right into someone's face as they collapse from fatigue really that effective? Bob seems to do okay with his teams, and, although he's strict and stern, he seems to understand that encouragement is just as good. Plus he's all about yoga and meditation, which seems like a nice idea. I know from personal experience that yoga is killer if you want to burn fat. Just holding beautiful warrior for 30 seconds about did me in one time. (And I think I only did it that one time. Oops.)
Okay, back to real life. Instead of running on the treadmill, I'm going to go do the dishes and throw in some laundry. Maybe I'll do it on my toes to get maximum calf workout.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Smile With Your Eyes
Who has guilty pleasures? Everyone, that's who. One of mine is America's Next Top Model (I can see my parents hanging their heads in shame--I can't explain it, you raised us to like classy TV, but somehow I snuck in a few trashy favorites). Did anyone else watch the season premiere last week? Best ever. By far. I think Tyra found a new medication, or went off her old one, because she has reached a new level of crazy. Picture this: 36 squealing, anorexic, ugly pretty (you know, the kind that at first glance seem weird-looking, then strike you as gorgeous after a few minutes) frantic girls showing up at an industrial-looking area of LA, complete with smokestacks (which I swear are the same ones as the ones Mel Gibson keeps painting in "Conspiracy Theory"). They are greeted by the Jays, who are dressed in white leather and wearing silver wigs. Oh yes. This is in the first 3 minutes. The girls are informed that this is the futuristic model facility and that they have to go through a rigorous evaluation to see if they are Top Model material. They are brought to a computerish looking thing that's next to some sort of portal, which you know is going to open and out will come Tyra. The computery thingy starts to smoke likes it's overloading with modelness, and out she comes, complete in black leather and silver lipstick--Tyra Bot. Can you picture the writers sitting around the table coming up with the season premiere? Tyra says, "Come on, y'all, we need to do something edgy!" and this is what they come up with. Super edgy. Like, 1960s edgy. I love it. So Tyra Bot and Alpha Jay and Beta Jay put the models through a "scanner", and then eliminate half of them by having their hands scanned in front of everyone else, and up pops an "Access Granted" or "Access Denied" sign on the screen. Very high tech. This is why I love this show. Every episode is like waiting for a train wreck to happen, and that train wreck happens, and it's Tyra being completely bonkers, and you just can't look away! Plus I like the photo shoots they come up with. I think that conference table is quite the place for inspiration. "This week, let's make the models wear fish suits and tie their hair in a million knots, put them in fancy shoes and hang them off a climbing wall!" So, welcome to the new season, which is sure to be full of fun insanity and wise advice from Tyra (Smile with your eyes, like THIS!). And lots of really emotional, hungry girls (and, apparently, one boy that managed to slip in because he plans on being a girl soon). By the way, 2 more weeks until the Office (that's classy, right?).
Saturday, August 30, 2008
My Take on Historical Fiction
I decided, after spending the entire summer reading fantasy novels, it was time to branch out a little. Plus, I was still waiting for the Brandon Sanderson books I'd requested from the library to show up at the hold desk. So I perused the stacks and came across "The Other Boleyn Girl" by Philippa Gregory. I'd seen previews for the movie, and thought, Isn't this about Henry VIII? I don't know much about him! So I checked it out. I started reading it fully aware that there was a chance that it would get too racy for my taste, and I wouldn't finish it. Oh, Philippa, how clever you are.
First, though, a quick summary: Everyone knows Anne Boleyn got beheaded after being married to King Henry VIII. The book is about how her greedy, grasping family got her married to the king in the first place, and what sacrifices were made by her sister, Mary, in order for their family to rise to power. This book may as well be called, "The sexual exploits of the Boleyn girls and their questionable brother." Mary catches the eye of the king while he's married to Katherine of Aragon, Mary becomes his mistress, bears two of his children, a boy and a girl, and is cast aside while pregnant with the boy. Anne catches the king's eye while her sister is busy with childbirth (by the way, hooray for the ridding of a month of confinement before the baby's born). Meanwhile, the queen is trying hard to act like she is the apple of the king's eye, but the king is frustrated by the lack of a legitimate male heir. For 6 years he works with spiritual advisors to weasel his way out of his marriage to a very nice lady. All this time Anne is clinging onto his attention so she can marry him. And she does, as we all know. Mary spends this time as his sometimes lover and wishing she were in the country with her children. And she falls in love with William Stafford, who buys her a farm in the country and they secretly marry. Then Anne has one daughter, Elizabeth, but fails to produce another child, is disliked by the English populus, throws the court into corruption and debauchery, and is beheaded for witchcraft and adultery. So, that's the story.
Ms. Gregory is very very sly in her writing. It's as though she could read my mind and knew that she could start out with fancy, old-fashioned terms to describe the affairs of the king (Mary is dressing alluringly, fade out, fade in and her hair is rumpled and she's exhausted). Then she sneaks in a little more detail, still using antiquated vocabulary that makes everything seem more innocent. And then, at about page 500, she knows you're going to finish the last 100 pages, and starts using the modern-day terms in great detail. Yuck. And it worked. I had already read 500 pages. What's another hundred? Ugh. Boo on her. And boo on me for getting sucked in. So, that's my biggest complaint. I was talking to a friend yesterday who had seen the movie, and I asked what she thought. She said the movie left her feeling icky. Yep, that's how the book made me feel, too. Yucky King Henry VIII. No wonder all those people came to America to live in disease and squalor for years. They had to deal with horrible tyrannical psychopaths that changed laws and religion so they could fulfill their selfish desires. And I felt icky knowing way too much about the Boleyn family as well. I used to feel sorry for Anne Boleyn. Of course, this is categorized as "historical fiction," so I don't know what to feel.
Which leads me to the reason for the title of this particular post. I haven't read a lot of historical fiction. In fact, I think this book was only the second "historical fiction" novel I've read. I read "The Kingdom and the Crown" series by Gerald Lund a few months ago. And I had the same complaint after those books that I do now (nothing to do with the racy content, obviously--Gerald Lund's books are squeaky clean). My beef is that I don't know what is real history, and what is the author's imagination. Was Henry VIII really that disgusting? Probably. Was Anne Boleyn really that conniving? I don't know! I imagine the thoughts of each character and the small details are all fictional, but based on customs of the time. But I don't know! And that drives me crazy. It was the same when I read "The Kingdom and the Crown." Lund was very very very thorough about citing his references, though, and stating at the end of each chapter what was a real event and what was not. He also had a glossary and end notes and footnotes and a long introduction. But after I finished I was scratching my head and wondering, If you are going to spend that much time and research, why not make it pure history instead of adding in romantic characters and side plots? The answer I came up with was: romance sells, and history doesn't. I couldn't help but compare those novels to the books that are strictly historical, like "Seabiscuit" and "The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down" (that one is actually more like a documentary--it chronicles a girl in the Hmong culture that has epilepsy, and how the cultural barrier makes it difficult for her family and the doctors to cope--read it!). Both of the real history books are written in the style of a novel, making them entertaining and fascinating, and after I finished I felt like I knew more, and had gotten smarter by reading them. Not so with the novels. I felt confused and annoyed. On the positive side, the fiction inspired me to research topics I hadn't felt motivated to learn about previously. I just felt like I'd wasted hours of reading filth (in the case of the Boleyn book) and wading through pointless narration to get to the meat. I never would have pegged myself as a history girl, but I guess I care what really happened and what didn't. Go figure. I think it's time I try to read "1776," by John McCullough. I believe his books are good reads that are also historically accurate. Any other recommendations?
First, though, a quick summary: Everyone knows Anne Boleyn got beheaded after being married to King Henry VIII. The book is about how her greedy, grasping family got her married to the king in the first place, and what sacrifices were made by her sister, Mary, in order for their family to rise to power. This book may as well be called, "The sexual exploits of the Boleyn girls and their questionable brother." Mary catches the eye of the king while he's married to Katherine of Aragon, Mary becomes his mistress, bears two of his children, a boy and a girl, and is cast aside while pregnant with the boy. Anne catches the king's eye while her sister is busy with childbirth (by the way, hooray for the ridding of a month of confinement before the baby's born). Meanwhile, the queen is trying hard to act like she is the apple of the king's eye, but the king is frustrated by the lack of a legitimate male heir. For 6 years he works with spiritual advisors to weasel his way out of his marriage to a very nice lady. All this time Anne is clinging onto his attention so she can marry him. And she does, as we all know. Mary spends this time as his sometimes lover and wishing she were in the country with her children. And she falls in love with William Stafford, who buys her a farm in the country and they secretly marry. Then Anne has one daughter, Elizabeth, but fails to produce another child, is disliked by the English populus, throws the court into corruption and debauchery, and is beheaded for witchcraft and adultery. So, that's the story.
Ms. Gregory is very very sly in her writing. It's as though she could read my mind and knew that she could start out with fancy, old-fashioned terms to describe the affairs of the king (Mary is dressing alluringly, fade out, fade in and her hair is rumpled and she's exhausted). Then she sneaks in a little more detail, still using antiquated vocabulary that makes everything seem more innocent. And then, at about page 500, she knows you're going to finish the last 100 pages, and starts using the modern-day terms in great detail. Yuck. And it worked. I had already read 500 pages. What's another hundred? Ugh. Boo on her. And boo on me for getting sucked in. So, that's my biggest complaint. I was talking to a friend yesterday who had seen the movie, and I asked what she thought. She said the movie left her feeling icky. Yep, that's how the book made me feel, too. Yucky King Henry VIII. No wonder all those people came to America to live in disease and squalor for years. They had to deal with horrible tyrannical psychopaths that changed laws and religion so they could fulfill their selfish desires. And I felt icky knowing way too much about the Boleyn family as well. I used to feel sorry for Anne Boleyn. Of course, this is categorized as "historical fiction," so I don't know what to feel.
Which leads me to the reason for the title of this particular post. I haven't read a lot of historical fiction. In fact, I think this book was only the second "historical fiction" novel I've read. I read "The Kingdom and the Crown" series by Gerald Lund a few months ago. And I had the same complaint after those books that I do now (nothing to do with the racy content, obviously--Gerald Lund's books are squeaky clean). My beef is that I don't know what is real history, and what is the author's imagination. Was Henry VIII really that disgusting? Probably. Was Anne Boleyn really that conniving? I don't know! I imagine the thoughts of each character and the small details are all fictional, but based on customs of the time. But I don't know! And that drives me crazy. It was the same when I read "The Kingdom and the Crown." Lund was very very very thorough about citing his references, though, and stating at the end of each chapter what was a real event and what was not. He also had a glossary and end notes and footnotes and a long introduction. But after I finished I was scratching my head and wondering, If you are going to spend that much time and research, why not make it pure history instead of adding in romantic characters and side plots? The answer I came up with was: romance sells, and history doesn't. I couldn't help but compare those novels to the books that are strictly historical, like "Seabiscuit" and "The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down" (that one is actually more like a documentary--it chronicles a girl in the Hmong culture that has epilepsy, and how the cultural barrier makes it difficult for her family and the doctors to cope--read it!). Both of the real history books are written in the style of a novel, making them entertaining and fascinating, and after I finished I felt like I knew more, and had gotten smarter by reading them. Not so with the novels. I felt confused and annoyed. On the positive side, the fiction inspired me to research topics I hadn't felt motivated to learn about previously. I just felt like I'd wasted hours of reading filth (in the case of the Boleyn book) and wading through pointless narration to get to the meat. I never would have pegged myself as a history girl, but I guess I care what really happened and what didn't. Go figure. I think it's time I try to read "1776," by John McCullough. I believe his books are good reads that are also historically accurate. Any other recommendations?
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Scattered Brain
The review I did of Breaking Dawn is glaring at me every time I look at my blog. I'm not saying I'm sorry I did it, I'm saying, it's been a while since I posted and I'm guessing the 3 people who read my blog would probably appreciate something new to look at. The problem is, I just don't have that much to say right now. I think my problem is that I'm 7 months pregnant and my brain retains about 20 seconds of information before it turns to mush and I can't think anymore. So I'm going to list a few random things that are on my mind that wouldn't really warrant a full post.
1. Am I an old fogey, because I just don't get what the big deal is with texting! I realize I am way behind the times here, but I'd like to know why it's so great. If I were in high school, or even college, and had something really urgent to say to a friend in the middle of class, like, "Oh my heck, that new guy is HOT!" or "Your fly is down. LOL," I'd get it. But it seems like most grown-ups are doing it, too. In the middle of movies and conversations and fun nights out. It seems like, since it doesn't make noise, it's perfectly acceptable to carry on a text conversation in the middle of dinner while people are trying to carry on a conversation with you VERBALLY. You know, when you talk to people in person? I don't want to make this post turn into "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People," so if you love texting, I love you, but I just don't get it. It seems like we're losing our ability to interact with other people face to face. (And here I am, on my computer writing a blog. I know it's a little hypocritical.) I'm a proud owner of a pre-paid, emergency-only Tracfone, and I ask you to please explain.
2. I love the TV show "So You Think You Can Dance." I really enjoyed this past season, and, being a Utahn, I was happy to cheer on our 4 representatives. Of course, I never vote on shows. Too lazy. I just yell at the TV when someone gets the boot that didn't deserve it. So I was very sad to see Chelsea from Pleasant Grove get sent home instead of what's-her-name from Jersey. I really missed Shane Sparks as a judge and choreographer this season, and wondered where he'd gone until I tuned into "America's Best Dance Crew" and saw that he'd become a judge there. I guess that's more his scene than trying to analyze a Fox Trot, but I wish he'd come back to SYTYCD. Any other fans out there? Remember last season's Transformer dance with Pasha and Lauren? So much fun. Now there's a new hip hop choreography team, Tabatha and Napoleon, and I'm sure they are great, but every dance they do is all touchy-feely and has some complex back story. How about just for fun? Besides the disappearance of Shane Sparks, though, I think the show is improving each season. I think Cat Deeley is a fantastic host (have you ever seen Ryan Seacrest outside in the blowing snow interviewing hopefuls and doing a happy dance with them? I know I haven't). I thought the dancers this year were fantastic. And I was very happy that Josh the street dancer won. He was amazing. I just wonder if he'll disappear like Sabra, the winner from last season, did. I hope not.
3. On the continued subject of TV, has anyone else started writing the dates of the new seasons on their September calendars? After a really boring summer of TV reruns and (mostly) lame reality shows, I am thrilled to have my shows back: "The Office," "Chuck," "House, MD," "Ugly Betty," "America's Next Top Model," "Dancing With the Stars," and others that I can't think of right now. I saw the teaser for "The Office" while watching the Olympics last night with my husband and we both shouted with joy. I miss Dwight. I just wish the last week of September were sooner. Of course, at that point my feet will be twice their normal size and I'll be happy to make it from bed down the stairs to the couch in time for my shows.
4. Does it bother anyone else that Walmart won't even put your bags in your cart anymore? It's not just that they won't do it, they start putting other people's stuff in bags before you've had a chance to lift the 50 lb. box of detergent from the top of the bag carousel into your cart. And they give you this look like you're IN THE WAY. I love that they stack 3 gallons of milk and a carton of eggs on top, then double up the bags, all while you're answering their 50 questions about whether the store was clean (no) and did the checker greet you (no) and is this amount okay (3 times). Boo on Walmart. I swore when I moved away from the South that I would never shop there again, but when there's non-food stuff to buy as well as groceries, the 5 minute drive seems so convenient compared to the 25 minutes to Target. So not worth it. I made a goal this week that the 25 minutes would NOT matter and I will boycott Walmart until they start doing their job (which is never).
Yep, that's what's been on my mind this week. Not a whole lot. It's clear I've been to Walmart recently and that there's nothing to watch on TV. Now I'm off to figure out dinner.
1. Am I an old fogey, because I just don't get what the big deal is with texting! I realize I am way behind the times here, but I'd like to know why it's so great. If I were in high school, or even college, and had something really urgent to say to a friend in the middle of class, like, "Oh my heck, that new guy is HOT!" or "Your fly is down. LOL," I'd get it. But it seems like most grown-ups are doing it, too. In the middle of movies and conversations and fun nights out. It seems like, since it doesn't make noise, it's perfectly acceptable to carry on a text conversation in the middle of dinner while people are trying to carry on a conversation with you VERBALLY. You know, when you talk to people in person? I don't want to make this post turn into "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People," so if you love texting, I love you, but I just don't get it. It seems like we're losing our ability to interact with other people face to face. (And here I am, on my computer writing a blog. I know it's a little hypocritical.) I'm a proud owner of a pre-paid, emergency-only Tracfone, and I ask you to please explain.
2. I love the TV show "So You Think You Can Dance." I really enjoyed this past season, and, being a Utahn, I was happy to cheer on our 4 representatives. Of course, I never vote on shows. Too lazy. I just yell at the TV when someone gets the boot that didn't deserve it. So I was very sad to see Chelsea from Pleasant Grove get sent home instead of what's-her-name from Jersey. I really missed Shane Sparks as a judge and choreographer this season, and wondered where he'd gone until I tuned into "America's Best Dance Crew" and saw that he'd become a judge there. I guess that's more his scene than trying to analyze a Fox Trot, but I wish he'd come back to SYTYCD. Any other fans out there? Remember last season's Transformer dance with Pasha and Lauren? So much fun. Now there's a new hip hop choreography team, Tabatha and Napoleon, and I'm sure they are great, but every dance they do is all touchy-feely and has some complex back story. How about just for fun? Besides the disappearance of Shane Sparks, though, I think the show is improving each season. I think Cat Deeley is a fantastic host (have you ever seen Ryan Seacrest outside in the blowing snow interviewing hopefuls and doing a happy dance with them? I know I haven't). I thought the dancers this year were fantastic. And I was very happy that Josh the street dancer won. He was amazing. I just wonder if he'll disappear like Sabra, the winner from last season, did. I hope not.
3. On the continued subject of TV, has anyone else started writing the dates of the new seasons on their September calendars? After a really boring summer of TV reruns and (mostly) lame reality shows, I am thrilled to have my shows back: "The Office," "Chuck," "House, MD," "Ugly Betty," "America's Next Top Model," "Dancing With the Stars," and others that I can't think of right now. I saw the teaser for "The Office" while watching the Olympics last night with my husband and we both shouted with joy. I miss Dwight. I just wish the last week of September were sooner. Of course, at that point my feet will be twice their normal size and I'll be happy to make it from bed down the stairs to the couch in time for my shows.
4. Does it bother anyone else that Walmart won't even put your bags in your cart anymore? It's not just that they won't do it, they start putting other people's stuff in bags before you've had a chance to lift the 50 lb. box of detergent from the top of the bag carousel into your cart. And they give you this look like you're IN THE WAY. I love that they stack 3 gallons of milk and a carton of eggs on top, then double up the bags, all while you're answering their 50 questions about whether the store was clean (no) and did the checker greet you (no) and is this amount okay (3 times). Boo on Walmart. I swore when I moved away from the South that I would never shop there again, but when there's non-food stuff to buy as well as groceries, the 5 minute drive seems so convenient compared to the 25 minutes to Target. So not worth it. I made a goal this week that the 25 minutes would NOT matter and I will boycott Walmart until they start doing their job (which is never).
Yep, that's what's been on my mind this week. Not a whole lot. It's clear I've been to Walmart recently and that there's nothing to watch on TV. Now I'm off to figure out dinner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
