Next time I'm placed in a situation where I have no means of refrigeration, I will not ask for leftovers. If I fail to learn that lesson, I will not attempt to make a makeshift refrigerator using ice and a bucket. If I fail to learn that lesson, I will not assume that just because the leftovers are touching ice, they are being kept cold enough to maintain general health standards. Furthermore, if I return after 24 hours to find the ice melted, I will not stick my finger in the food, shrug and say "cold enough," and then eat the food anyway because it was tasty and expensive. I will especially avoid doing this with meats and seafood.
If I fail to learn these lessons, I will at least have the presence of mind to maintain close proximity to a bathroom for the next several hours following my idiotic surge of cheapness.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
JMS
There are few people in this world famous and stylish enough to pull off the three letter acronym. NPH is one of the few examples I can think of. The only other example I can think of is not nearly as stylish or high profile as NPH, but he's definitely made a follower out of me this past Comic-Con. I went into a momentary frenzy over him actually. I'm trying to watch that whole frenzy thing, but it spills out every now and again. Glory be to the great JMS!
J. Michael Straczynski is AMAZING! I had actually read something of his before seeing him speak at comic con. It was fairly good, but nothing too special. It was a final goodbye to the Silver Surfer, a woefully whiny superhero. JMS handled it quite well and made even this annoying fellow palatable and marginally interesting. So after hearing him speak, I read one of his Spiderman comics. It turns out that when he starts with a character who is not fatally annoying, he can create magic. I've never been a hard core follower of Spiderman, though I know some small amount of the mythology. I know enough to pick out a few of the major villains and maybe give a one liner on them. What I do know, I've found pretty interesting. Spiderman has some fun villains and I like that Peter Parker is a total science nerd. So basically, I'm saying that I respected the series, though I wasn't (and still am not) familiar with its nuances.
So I picked up the JMS book that Steven bought for himself because it was cheap and was pretty surprised to find myself riveted from the first few pages. I had seen some of this from Spiderman's cameos in Astonishing X-Men, but Spiderman is really pretty funny. He's lighthearted and he jokes around a lot. He's go a whole mocking his enemies thing going on too. Well that's not too out of the ordinary, but he's actually funny. I found myself with full on belly laughs while reading this comic book. JMS is hilarious! Pair him with a character who isn't totally gloomy and you get some comedic gold! I was chuckling throughout, and I rarely laugh out loud when faced with written text. I can be amused and smile and appreciate the humor, but it's rare for me to give an all out guffaw. The book was an all around, amusing good time.
But when I wasn't laughing, I was dying to know what happened next in the plot. His story ideas are genius. It was a serious challenge just to put that thing down. I couldn't tear my eyes away. He completely reinvented Spiderman- turned him on his ear without changing any of the underlying mythology. It's akin to Alan Moore's treatment of Swamp Thing, except that he started with a well loved character with an invested fan following instead of a boring character who had been laid to rest without much mourning or remorse. In some senses, it is harder to revive a dull character and make them interesting (even JMS had to work pretty hard with Silver Surfer), but there are ways in which it can be harder to write about a beloved character with a fanatical fan following. I cannot speak as a fanatical fan of Spiderman, but speaking as someone who knew the vague history, I have to say even die hard fans would probably have been pleased with this reimagining. It stays true to everything that had happened before while taking an entirely different stance on it and making it fresh. It made even familiar old foes interesting and new by painting them in an entirely different light. And it sure gave Spiderman on hell of a headache, and really, who doesn't love hassling a protagonist now and again? I mean, that's what they're there for, right?
JMS can do comic books and he can do them well, but he's done a lot of other things as well that have had very critical acclaim. He was the driving force behind Babylon 5. Aside from creating the whole idea behind the show, he wrote 2/3 of the episodes. To put it in perspective, Joss Whedon is credited as the creative mind behind Buffy and Angel, but he didn't even come close to writing 2/3 of those episodes. I couldn't give an exact number, but I suspect it would be between 10 and 20 percent. JMS had enormous contributions to Babylon 5, which is a highly thought of Sci Fi series. It's won Emmys for best makeup and costuming, which is television's way of crediting good science fiction shows. For whatever reason, science fiction isn't considered compatible with good storylines or drama. Sci fi never wins those awards, even though they have some amazing ideas and social commentary (commentary that is often off limits to realistic shows- I remember hearing some of the writers for the original start trek talk about how lucky they felt to be able to put in commentary about the Vietnam War when other shows were being censored. Sure it had to actually be about aliens, but the anti-war messages were clear nonetheless. Let's see some CSI bullshit do something more meaningful or poignant). And at the risk of sounding like a fanatic who's lost touch with reality, I even think the acting on sci fi is fine. That's right. I said it. I can't tell the difference between the acting on Star Trek and the acting on some more trendy show that wins awards. Ok, so the actors generally can't do other things other than the characters they play, I'll admit to that. Patrick Stewart has never done a character who wasn't, in essence, Jean Luc Picard. But he does Picard so damn well! He deserves an Oscar! I know it's not a film and thus not eligible for that award! It doesn't matter! He deserves it!
There goes that frenzy again. I'll try to tone that down.
But I've wandered away from the glorious (bad frenzy! bad!) JMS again. I should stop lauding his accomplishments that I haven't even fully read or watched yet and say a few words about his talk that first piqued my interest and sowed the seeds of my fanaticism. It was a talk on how to write. There are a lot of how to panels at comic con that I have to admit I'm pretty interested in. I like to know how things are done and what some of the steps are to pursue certain job paths I'm unfamiliar with, but I have to admit that I also nurse secret hopes of somehow being involved in the creation of beautifully nerdy things. Last year, I went to panel on how to get started in voice acting. I found the panel to be interesting and informative. Besides, I've always nursed a small budding desire to voice pokemon. Just yelling the same word over and over again with various intonations... it may not sound like fun to everyone, but everyone so often when I'm thinking about it, I make bulbasaur sounds. Maybe a squirtle or two. Not pikachu. That prima donna's overdone.
The voice acting panel from last year was very informative, but it also convinced me that my pokemon dream really was just a pipe dream after all. The competition is rugged. If I wanted to voice act, it's not all about making delightfully cute pokemon sounds, but rather it's a full time job with irregular work and large demands on your creativity. With enough persistence you might be able to break in, but it would be a real serious commitment, not a matter of driving up to a studio, convincing an exec of my talent with a few touching renditions of "bulbasaur," recording a few soundbytes, and then being on my way.
Where the voice acting panel doused my dreams, JMS's writing how-to panel set them aflame. I've always liked to write (clearly), and a little part of me has always wanted to write something that might one day get published and actually read. It's not a strong enough desire for me to invest the time to sit down and write something. Also, I don't feel like I have something quite compelling to write about just yet. But after listening to JMS, I felt like that didn't matter so much and I just wanted to start writing and get something down. Hence this blog about him. Everything he said made me feel hopeful about writing and not constrained at all. One of the things he said was that when he was first starting out as a writer, he knew how to mimic incredibly well. He could write in the styles of many different writers. He thought that was what writing was. But then he realized that writing is about imparting your unique viewpoint and telling your stories the way you want to. When he started doing that, he was far more successful and the writing flowed much better.
*Hopeful thought number one: I'm clearly good at writing for myself. I know next to no one reads this and the paltry readership that I do have does not particularly affect what I write. Sorry fellas- I don't pander. But hey, if that was a problem, I don't think you'd have gotten this far, so no worries there.
Someone asked him what tricks he had to deal with writer's block, and he apologized and said that's he's never had it. Sure it sounds like a totally dick thing to say, but it sounded like he really hadn't had writer's block. He spoke a little bit about some of the more common reasons for writer's block, and they made a lot of sense. He said that sometimes writers have an idea of where they want their characters to go or where they want them to end up, but there's just no plausible way of getting the characters to do that. The characters won't let the writer bully them around. Once you've got an idea for a character, it's hard to get them to act out of character, and sometimes your overarching goals as a writer just don't mesh with who your character is. When that happens, you either have to rewrite the whole character (very daunting to change your whole conception or to go back changing what you had before) or change where you expected the story to go (which means coming up with a new, equally compelling direction - also not easy). You think your ideas have dried up, but really it's just that you've presented yourself with an unsolvable puzzle and the thought of changing the parameters is overwhelming. He suggested that a problem in the third act can usually be addressed in the second. A problem in the second act can usually be addressed in the first. And so on.
*Hopeful thought number 2: With this demystification of common writing problems, it really felt like I might be able to address problems I came across without getting too bogged down or worried.
Straczynski also said a lot about trying and not worrying about failure. He was saying that no piece of writing is ever wasted. Whatever I do, I can be learning from it. He encouraged different genres of writing to learn about different styles. He encouraged sending your work everywhere and trying to get published (there's a certain boost and validation that comes from seeing your name in print). He encouraged being exploratory and testing your own boundaries rather than focusing on rules or how thing "ought" to be. He was overall very encouraging. He was friendly, funny, and downright amazing. The whole talk was littered with jokes and interesting anecdotes. For example, he talked about one professor he had in college who had a real problem with women. They could never do anything right in his class. This one time the professor was really tearing in to this one girl, criticizing her loudly in front of the whole class. She was crying and he wasn't stopping when someone from the back yelled "Leave her to fuck alone!" JMS commented that he was as surprised as anyone when he realized he was the one who said it. Overnight he went from an A to a C student in the class. The professor was really vindictive about it too. He tried to get JMS suspended or even kicked out, but his aversion to women was too well known for the other faculty to side with him. He told JMS he'd never have a career in writing and he would never be able to have it as a career. After JMS had graduated, he sent his old professor a copy of everything he ever published. He said he did it for years. Then, after enough time, the professor passed away. JMS took one last publication, wrapped it around a pencil and shoved it in his grave. that last part I'm pretty sure was a joke, but I do think he sent that jerk a copy of all his novels, screenplays, and comics.
He's saucy, funny, and kind. I really liked him and all the encouragement he gave this room full of aspiring writers (me included!). He was a nice, interesting guy with practical advice that made my little dream of being published more tangible and possible. He's a real positive guy who seems to have a good grasp on the way things work. I find myself really looking forward to reading more of his works and getting to know his better as a writer. If I ever do publish something, I just might send a copy to him.
J. Michael Straczynski is AMAZING! I had actually read something of his before seeing him speak at comic con. It was fairly good, but nothing too special. It was a final goodbye to the Silver Surfer, a woefully whiny superhero. JMS handled it quite well and made even this annoying fellow palatable and marginally interesting. So after hearing him speak, I read one of his Spiderman comics. It turns out that when he starts with a character who is not fatally annoying, he can create magic. I've never been a hard core follower of Spiderman, though I know some small amount of the mythology. I know enough to pick out a few of the major villains and maybe give a one liner on them. What I do know, I've found pretty interesting. Spiderman has some fun villains and I like that Peter Parker is a total science nerd. So basically, I'm saying that I respected the series, though I wasn't (and still am not) familiar with its nuances.
So I picked up the JMS book that Steven bought for himself because it was cheap and was pretty surprised to find myself riveted from the first few pages. I had seen some of this from Spiderman's cameos in Astonishing X-Men, but Spiderman is really pretty funny. He's lighthearted and he jokes around a lot. He's go a whole mocking his enemies thing going on too. Well that's not too out of the ordinary, but he's actually funny. I found myself with full on belly laughs while reading this comic book. JMS is hilarious! Pair him with a character who isn't totally gloomy and you get some comedic gold! I was chuckling throughout, and I rarely laugh out loud when faced with written text. I can be amused and smile and appreciate the humor, but it's rare for me to give an all out guffaw. The book was an all around, amusing good time.
But when I wasn't laughing, I was dying to know what happened next in the plot. His story ideas are genius. It was a serious challenge just to put that thing down. I couldn't tear my eyes away. He completely reinvented Spiderman- turned him on his ear without changing any of the underlying mythology. It's akin to Alan Moore's treatment of Swamp Thing, except that he started with a well loved character with an invested fan following instead of a boring character who had been laid to rest without much mourning or remorse. In some senses, it is harder to revive a dull character and make them interesting (even JMS had to work pretty hard with Silver Surfer), but there are ways in which it can be harder to write about a beloved character with a fanatical fan following. I cannot speak as a fanatical fan of Spiderman, but speaking as someone who knew the vague history, I have to say even die hard fans would probably have been pleased with this reimagining. It stays true to everything that had happened before while taking an entirely different stance on it and making it fresh. It made even familiar old foes interesting and new by painting them in an entirely different light. And it sure gave Spiderman on hell of a headache, and really, who doesn't love hassling a protagonist now and again? I mean, that's what they're there for, right?
JMS can do comic books and he can do them well, but he's done a lot of other things as well that have had very critical acclaim. He was the driving force behind Babylon 5. Aside from creating the whole idea behind the show, he wrote 2/3 of the episodes. To put it in perspective, Joss Whedon is credited as the creative mind behind Buffy and Angel, but he didn't even come close to writing 2/3 of those episodes. I couldn't give an exact number, but I suspect it would be between 10 and 20 percent. JMS had enormous contributions to Babylon 5, which is a highly thought of Sci Fi series. It's won Emmys for best makeup and costuming, which is television's way of crediting good science fiction shows. For whatever reason, science fiction isn't considered compatible with good storylines or drama. Sci fi never wins those awards, even though they have some amazing ideas and social commentary (commentary that is often off limits to realistic shows- I remember hearing some of the writers for the original start trek talk about how lucky they felt to be able to put in commentary about the Vietnam War when other shows were being censored. Sure it had to actually be about aliens, but the anti-war messages were clear nonetheless. Let's see some CSI bullshit do something more meaningful or poignant). And at the risk of sounding like a fanatic who's lost touch with reality, I even think the acting on sci fi is fine. That's right. I said it. I can't tell the difference between the acting on Star Trek and the acting on some more trendy show that wins awards. Ok, so the actors generally can't do other things other than the characters they play, I'll admit to that. Patrick Stewart has never done a character who wasn't, in essence, Jean Luc Picard. But he does Picard so damn well! He deserves an Oscar! I know it's not a film and thus not eligible for that award! It doesn't matter! He deserves it!
There goes that frenzy again. I'll try to tone that down.
But I've wandered away from the glorious (bad frenzy! bad!) JMS again. I should stop lauding his accomplishments that I haven't even fully read or watched yet and say a few words about his talk that first piqued my interest and sowed the seeds of my fanaticism. It was a talk on how to write. There are a lot of how to panels at comic con that I have to admit I'm pretty interested in. I like to know how things are done and what some of the steps are to pursue certain job paths I'm unfamiliar with, but I have to admit that I also nurse secret hopes of somehow being involved in the creation of beautifully nerdy things. Last year, I went to panel on how to get started in voice acting. I found the panel to be interesting and informative. Besides, I've always nursed a small budding desire to voice pokemon. Just yelling the same word over and over again with various intonations... it may not sound like fun to everyone, but everyone so often when I'm thinking about it, I make bulbasaur sounds. Maybe a squirtle or two. Not pikachu. That prima donna's overdone.
The voice acting panel from last year was very informative, but it also convinced me that my pokemon dream really was just a pipe dream after all. The competition is rugged. If I wanted to voice act, it's not all about making delightfully cute pokemon sounds, but rather it's a full time job with irregular work and large demands on your creativity. With enough persistence you might be able to break in, but it would be a real serious commitment, not a matter of driving up to a studio, convincing an exec of my talent with a few touching renditions of "bulbasaur," recording a few soundbytes, and then being on my way.
Where the voice acting panel doused my dreams, JMS's writing how-to panel set them aflame. I've always liked to write (clearly), and a little part of me has always wanted to write something that might one day get published and actually read. It's not a strong enough desire for me to invest the time to sit down and write something. Also, I don't feel like I have something quite compelling to write about just yet. But after listening to JMS, I felt like that didn't matter so much and I just wanted to start writing and get something down. Hence this blog about him. Everything he said made me feel hopeful about writing and not constrained at all. One of the things he said was that when he was first starting out as a writer, he knew how to mimic incredibly well. He could write in the styles of many different writers. He thought that was what writing was. But then he realized that writing is about imparting your unique viewpoint and telling your stories the way you want to. When he started doing that, he was far more successful and the writing flowed much better.
*Hopeful thought number one: I'm clearly good at writing for myself. I know next to no one reads this and the paltry readership that I do have does not particularly affect what I write. Sorry fellas- I don't pander. But hey, if that was a problem, I don't think you'd have gotten this far, so no worries there.
Someone asked him what tricks he had to deal with writer's block, and he apologized and said that's he's never had it. Sure it sounds like a totally dick thing to say, but it sounded like he really hadn't had writer's block. He spoke a little bit about some of the more common reasons for writer's block, and they made a lot of sense. He said that sometimes writers have an idea of where they want their characters to go or where they want them to end up, but there's just no plausible way of getting the characters to do that. The characters won't let the writer bully them around. Once you've got an idea for a character, it's hard to get them to act out of character, and sometimes your overarching goals as a writer just don't mesh with who your character is. When that happens, you either have to rewrite the whole character (very daunting to change your whole conception or to go back changing what you had before) or change where you expected the story to go (which means coming up with a new, equally compelling direction - also not easy). You think your ideas have dried up, but really it's just that you've presented yourself with an unsolvable puzzle and the thought of changing the parameters is overwhelming. He suggested that a problem in the third act can usually be addressed in the second. A problem in the second act can usually be addressed in the first. And so on.
*Hopeful thought number 2: With this demystification of common writing problems, it really felt like I might be able to address problems I came across without getting too bogged down or worried.
Straczynski also said a lot about trying and not worrying about failure. He was saying that no piece of writing is ever wasted. Whatever I do, I can be learning from it. He encouraged different genres of writing to learn about different styles. He encouraged sending your work everywhere and trying to get published (there's a certain boost and validation that comes from seeing your name in print). He encouraged being exploratory and testing your own boundaries rather than focusing on rules or how thing "ought" to be. He was overall very encouraging. He was friendly, funny, and downright amazing. The whole talk was littered with jokes and interesting anecdotes. For example, he talked about one professor he had in college who had a real problem with women. They could never do anything right in his class. This one time the professor was really tearing in to this one girl, criticizing her loudly in front of the whole class. She was crying and he wasn't stopping when someone from the back yelled "Leave her to fuck alone!" JMS commented that he was as surprised as anyone when he realized he was the one who said it. Overnight he went from an A to a C student in the class. The professor was really vindictive about it too. He tried to get JMS suspended or even kicked out, but his aversion to women was too well known for the other faculty to side with him. He told JMS he'd never have a career in writing and he would never be able to have it as a career. After JMS had graduated, he sent his old professor a copy of everything he ever published. He said he did it for years. Then, after enough time, the professor passed away. JMS took one last publication, wrapped it around a pencil and shoved it in his grave. that last part I'm pretty sure was a joke, but I do think he sent that jerk a copy of all his novels, screenplays, and comics.
He's saucy, funny, and kind. I really liked him and all the encouragement he gave this room full of aspiring writers (me included!). He was a nice, interesting guy with practical advice that made my little dream of being published more tangible and possible. He's a real positive guy who seems to have a good grasp on the way things work. I find myself really looking forward to reading more of his works and getting to know his better as a writer. If I ever do publish something, I just might send a copy to him.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Variety, specifically of the sexual kind
I've been reading the guide to sex that I got at my bachelorette party and there seems to be a pretty consistent theme throughout so far: everyone is different. Different things work differently for each person. There is a very wide range of what's "normal" and no two people are going to react sexually in the same way.
After reading for a while, I got to thinking about variety in people. The book is keeping the topics pretty closely targeted towards sex related things, but it got me thinking about non-sexual things as well. Are people that diverse in terms of, say, how they hold a pencil? How they answer the phone? How they look? I think they are that diverse, but we don't really treat them that way. In fact, we love to categorize things and lump them together as much as possible. People sometimes spends inordinate amounts of time studying a particular field (ornithology, for example) in order to tell the difference between things that we automatically group as the same.
The thing that's so interesting about this sex book is that a lot of the premade categories aren't there. Our culture in general (and certainly me in specific) is somewhat ignorant about sex. It's not really a topic that's often open for discussion, or at least, the acceptable forums in which to talk about it are a little limited. In most daily life, categories are very readily available. We hold stereotypes about races and professions and hair color and clothing and all sorts of things. All of these stereotypes and categories are pretty common knowledge. Most small children are aware of them. But is there a stereotype for the shape of a vagina? How much pubic hair a person should have? Women who wear tampons vs pads? There aren't really any convenient categories for most sex related things. Sure there are generalizations people make based on sexual orientation and penis size and a few other sex related things, but most sexual variation I don't think we have easy labels for or preconceptions about. It's probably because it's just not talked about in our culture. I think this is why I was initially so struck by the variety. When I think about it, there's really not that much more variety in sex than there is in the rest of human existence, but I feel almost trained not to see the differences in other aspects of my life.
I have sometimes wondered what life would be like if we didn't have categories for things. I believe stereotypes are a useful and necessary tool, but generalizations like that can never be fully accurate, and their inaccuracies are often harmful to the people being grouped together. Most people recognize the negative aspects of stereotypes and often protest against them, but they really are important for us to function. But I often question things. I often wonder, "What if we didn't have them? What would that be like?" After looking a little more closely at the under-discussed topic of sex, I feel like I have a small glimmer of that. Categories and generalizations are still there, but this book has remarkably fewer generalizations about its topics than most other things I've read.
So what's it feel like to have fewer generalizations? My first reaction was relief. I don't think I had realized how much I was trying to fit into generalizations that I wasn't even aware of. Everyone wants to be normal, but when you don't know what normal is, it can be somewhat stressful, often without you even realizing the cause of the stress. I always felt kind of weird about sex, probably because I didn't really know where I stood. This book described a wide range of normal, and I was relieved to find that I fell within it.
My second reaction came after I stopped worrying about where I was in respect to normal and started looking at what normal was. Normal is huge! It's to the point of almost being intimidating. There's such a wide variety of things that you don't know what to do or how to act. There was a section on testosterone that said some men get calmer with more testosterone and some men get more aggressive. There's a section on kissing that describes some things people like, but in the same breath explains that some people hate those same things. The lack of generalizations or truisms is kind of intimidating. I don't think I ever realized how reassuring those could be, how calming it feels to think "oh so that's what I'm supposed to do." It's kind of like a how to book that says "it could be this, or it could be the exact opposite, or anything in between." Not exactly a how to book I'd recommend. So much of the book says that you just have to find out for yourself what your partner and, even worse, you yourself are in to. It's almost like being told to reinvent the wheel. There are tips and pointers, but really it's up to you to figure out.
Of course that is the way it has to be. Everyone really is that different. Generalizations of things that work would certainly be reassuring and might in fact ease the learning curve a little bit, but they would be less accurate and there's a real tendency to get stuck in generalizations sometimes. You really have to fight to tell yourself that stereotypes aren't true and you really have to work to combat your generalizing instincts. Also, people tend to conform to their own categories, reinforcing them even more.
This brings up an interesting point about our culture's discomfort about sex. If we were more open about it and talked about it more, generalizations would form. They'd have to. If it was acceptable to ask someone casually when you first meet what their favorite sex position is or whether or not they shave their pubes, you would probably start hearing more generalizations about those things. Maybe people who shave their crotch would be thought of as high maintenance or anal and people who didn't shave would be thought of as neanderthalic or lazy, while people who trimmed would be normal. And then even trimming could be categorized into different styles the way that hair styles are, some serious, some playful, some formal, some casual. I know this analogy is getting to the point of absurd, but you get the idea. If we really were as open about sex as we are about hair or clothing or even race, sex would be exactly the same as all of those things. There would be stereotypes, generalizations, people who were typecast (more than they currently are, that is). As scary as it kind of is to explore the less generalized world of sex, it's kind of freeing too. You don't really know what you'll find, nor do you know what to think about it when you do, but that's kind of exciting in a way. I'm not often a fan of puritanical mindsets, but in a way, all the repression has opened a space where people can be far more liberated and less restricted. In general I think the repression just represses people, but if you get past that, there's a lot for you to discover. You don't know what to expect, and in a way, you can't know what to expect because there are few things common enough that most people have been exposed to it and influenced by it. I have to admit, I wouldn't want that level of uncertainty in every aspect of my life, but having it in one doesn't sound like such a bad thing.
After reading for a while, I got to thinking about variety in people. The book is keeping the topics pretty closely targeted towards sex related things, but it got me thinking about non-sexual things as well. Are people that diverse in terms of, say, how they hold a pencil? How they answer the phone? How they look? I think they are that diverse, but we don't really treat them that way. In fact, we love to categorize things and lump them together as much as possible. People sometimes spends inordinate amounts of time studying a particular field (ornithology, for example) in order to tell the difference between things that we automatically group as the same.
The thing that's so interesting about this sex book is that a lot of the premade categories aren't there. Our culture in general (and certainly me in specific) is somewhat ignorant about sex. It's not really a topic that's often open for discussion, or at least, the acceptable forums in which to talk about it are a little limited. In most daily life, categories are very readily available. We hold stereotypes about races and professions and hair color and clothing and all sorts of things. All of these stereotypes and categories are pretty common knowledge. Most small children are aware of them. But is there a stereotype for the shape of a vagina? How much pubic hair a person should have? Women who wear tampons vs pads? There aren't really any convenient categories for most sex related things. Sure there are generalizations people make based on sexual orientation and penis size and a few other sex related things, but most sexual variation I don't think we have easy labels for or preconceptions about. It's probably because it's just not talked about in our culture. I think this is why I was initially so struck by the variety. When I think about it, there's really not that much more variety in sex than there is in the rest of human existence, but I feel almost trained not to see the differences in other aspects of my life.
I have sometimes wondered what life would be like if we didn't have categories for things. I believe stereotypes are a useful and necessary tool, but generalizations like that can never be fully accurate, and their inaccuracies are often harmful to the people being grouped together. Most people recognize the negative aspects of stereotypes and often protest against them, but they really are important for us to function. But I often question things. I often wonder, "What if we didn't have them? What would that be like?" After looking a little more closely at the under-discussed topic of sex, I feel like I have a small glimmer of that. Categories and generalizations are still there, but this book has remarkably fewer generalizations about its topics than most other things I've read.
So what's it feel like to have fewer generalizations? My first reaction was relief. I don't think I had realized how much I was trying to fit into generalizations that I wasn't even aware of. Everyone wants to be normal, but when you don't know what normal is, it can be somewhat stressful, often without you even realizing the cause of the stress. I always felt kind of weird about sex, probably because I didn't really know where I stood. This book described a wide range of normal, and I was relieved to find that I fell within it.
My second reaction came after I stopped worrying about where I was in respect to normal and started looking at what normal was. Normal is huge! It's to the point of almost being intimidating. There's such a wide variety of things that you don't know what to do or how to act. There was a section on testosterone that said some men get calmer with more testosterone and some men get more aggressive. There's a section on kissing that describes some things people like, but in the same breath explains that some people hate those same things. The lack of generalizations or truisms is kind of intimidating. I don't think I ever realized how reassuring those could be, how calming it feels to think "oh so that's what I'm supposed to do." It's kind of like a how to book that says "it could be this, or it could be the exact opposite, or anything in between." Not exactly a how to book I'd recommend. So much of the book says that you just have to find out for yourself what your partner and, even worse, you yourself are in to. It's almost like being told to reinvent the wheel. There are tips and pointers, but really it's up to you to figure out.
Of course that is the way it has to be. Everyone really is that different. Generalizations of things that work would certainly be reassuring and might in fact ease the learning curve a little bit, but they would be less accurate and there's a real tendency to get stuck in generalizations sometimes. You really have to fight to tell yourself that stereotypes aren't true and you really have to work to combat your generalizing instincts. Also, people tend to conform to their own categories, reinforcing them even more.
This brings up an interesting point about our culture's discomfort about sex. If we were more open about it and talked about it more, generalizations would form. They'd have to. If it was acceptable to ask someone casually when you first meet what their favorite sex position is or whether or not they shave their pubes, you would probably start hearing more generalizations about those things. Maybe people who shave their crotch would be thought of as high maintenance or anal and people who didn't shave would be thought of as neanderthalic or lazy, while people who trimmed would be normal. And then even trimming could be categorized into different styles the way that hair styles are, some serious, some playful, some formal, some casual. I know this analogy is getting to the point of absurd, but you get the idea. If we really were as open about sex as we are about hair or clothing or even race, sex would be exactly the same as all of those things. There would be stereotypes, generalizations, people who were typecast (more than they currently are, that is). As scary as it kind of is to explore the less generalized world of sex, it's kind of freeing too. You don't really know what you'll find, nor do you know what to think about it when you do, but that's kind of exciting in a way. I'm not often a fan of puritanical mindsets, but in a way, all the repression has opened a space where people can be far more liberated and less restricted. In general I think the repression just represses people, but if you get past that, there's a lot for you to discover. You don't know what to expect, and in a way, you can't know what to expect because there are few things common enough that most people have been exposed to it and influenced by it. I have to admit, I wouldn't want that level of uncertainty in every aspect of my life, but having it in one doesn't sound like such a bad thing.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
OOTS
You have to wait forever for updates that don't come on a regular schedule, but I will say this for Order of the Stick: at least each update is pretty meaty. No DBZ style stalling for Rich Burlew- if you're going to get a comic, you're probably going to see something happen.
Masters
My opinion about my masters project has changed pretty drastically over time. I remember when I started the program, I was incredibly indifferent to it, if not negatively inclined. I was not terribly interested in research. I mostly just wanted to stay in Berkeley (which meant getting a masters along with the teaching credential), and I liked the pay increase that I would get from having a few extra letters behind my name.
As the program began and I had to start formulating my research ideas, I started to dislike the whole idea of a masters. I wasn't publishing my research. No one would ever read it again. I had no idea how to begin, and I was pretty disheartened by the people who tried to start, realized how untenable their ideas were, and had to start over. The whole thing seemed pretty pointless. The research was pretty meaningless and low quality since it was our first attempt at research for most of us.
It was frustrating overall, especially since I really didn't know what I was doing. There are some tasks where even though they're hard, you've done them before. You know exactly what kind of hard to expect and you know you can do it. Cramming for a test, for example. It's not easy and it's usually a lot of work, but I know how to do it. I know which parts will be most important to study for and I can work efficiently. When faced with an entirely new task like research where I don't have someone holding my hand and telling me what to do, it can be pretty intimidating. So my second semester, I found myself procrastinating and avoiding the research that I didn't know how to begin. Any procrastinator knows how horrible that feels, so needless to say, I was feeling pretty negatively towards my research at that time.
Third semester, things were pretty bad all around. I was finally working on my masters, but I barely had time to breathe. It was just one assignment after another and it wore me down. I didn't really have time to think about it that much. I was just getting it done. Then when the semester ended, I was so burnt out that I didn't even look at the thing for months. I wasn't intimidated or anything anymore, but I was sick of it.
This last semester has been the real change for me though. I have been so grateful that I ended up doing this project. When I sat down and forced myself to actually do some analysis on all the data I had gathered, it was so interesting! In a way, it was kind of like a puzzle. I had some video data and a few surveys and I had to figure out exactly what was going on. Where did I go wrong? Where did I go right? What were the interactions between the students? There was one part I was particularly pleased about- I had a student who had never participated in class before participate twice during my lesson. I assumed it was because of the change of topic to something he was more familiar with (he did noticeably bring in outside knowledge to the problem that wasn't presented in any of my set up). The did play a role, but upon looking more closely at the video, I saw that the real impetus for him to speak came from one of the top students in the class who was in the same group as him. She was very arrogant and very confused that day. Her pride was hurt because she couldn't solve the problem and it probably made her even more difficult to deal with than usual. Whenever she expressed to me that she was confused, he jumped in with something knowledgeable to say, I believe with the intent of not only making himself look good, but also making her look bad. I completely missed that the first few times I looked at the video, and I definitely missed it the day of the lesson.
There were all sorts of little puzzles like that to unravel, all of which I found pretty informative for my teaching. One major aspect of my teaching that I found has to change is my tendency to make speeches. Occasionally a speech will be useful to students, but most of the time they just zone out. I learned the most in college where pretty much every class I took was one extended speech from the professor. I didn't realize that that sort of learning isn't useful or productive for everyone. In fact, it's useful for almost no one. It's only going to be helpful to that minority of the class that can actually focus and pay attention while you drone on. It's going to be hard for me to change, but now that I'm aware of it, I feel like I have a chance to really improve my teaching.
I feel bad for the people who didn't do their own research. That was almost me. If Randi hadn't held my hand and guided me through the whole process, that's what I would have done, especially in the frame of mind that I was in at the start of the third semester. I would have approached some professor, asked for some data, and gotten to work analyzing it. It would have meant very little to me. I might have taken some random point from it about some esoteric teaching principle, but that's it. It wouldn't have been practical and I would have forgotten it probably. As it is now, I'm incredibly pleased with my final product. It's really something good. And it chronicles my older teaching and some of my goals for where to go in the future. It's a really nice document. And I did have a lot of help getting through the really onerous parts (I didn't really do a lit review, or any statistical analyses, both of which would have been doable, but time consuming and annoying), so maybe I'm biased in its favor, but it was kind of a delight to write and think about. It became one huge, well edited reflection, and clearly, reflections are things that I like to write.
As the program began and I had to start formulating my research ideas, I started to dislike the whole idea of a masters. I wasn't publishing my research. No one would ever read it again. I had no idea how to begin, and I was pretty disheartened by the people who tried to start, realized how untenable their ideas were, and had to start over. The whole thing seemed pretty pointless. The research was pretty meaningless and low quality since it was our first attempt at research for most of us.
It was frustrating overall, especially since I really didn't know what I was doing. There are some tasks where even though they're hard, you've done them before. You know exactly what kind of hard to expect and you know you can do it. Cramming for a test, for example. It's not easy and it's usually a lot of work, but I know how to do it. I know which parts will be most important to study for and I can work efficiently. When faced with an entirely new task like research where I don't have someone holding my hand and telling me what to do, it can be pretty intimidating. So my second semester, I found myself procrastinating and avoiding the research that I didn't know how to begin. Any procrastinator knows how horrible that feels, so needless to say, I was feeling pretty negatively towards my research at that time.
Third semester, things were pretty bad all around. I was finally working on my masters, but I barely had time to breathe. It was just one assignment after another and it wore me down. I didn't really have time to think about it that much. I was just getting it done. Then when the semester ended, I was so burnt out that I didn't even look at the thing for months. I wasn't intimidated or anything anymore, but I was sick of it.
This last semester has been the real change for me though. I have been so grateful that I ended up doing this project. When I sat down and forced myself to actually do some analysis on all the data I had gathered, it was so interesting! In a way, it was kind of like a puzzle. I had some video data and a few surveys and I had to figure out exactly what was going on. Where did I go wrong? Where did I go right? What were the interactions between the students? There was one part I was particularly pleased about- I had a student who had never participated in class before participate twice during my lesson. I assumed it was because of the change of topic to something he was more familiar with (he did noticeably bring in outside knowledge to the problem that wasn't presented in any of my set up). The did play a role, but upon looking more closely at the video, I saw that the real impetus for him to speak came from one of the top students in the class who was in the same group as him. She was very arrogant and very confused that day. Her pride was hurt because she couldn't solve the problem and it probably made her even more difficult to deal with than usual. Whenever she expressed to me that she was confused, he jumped in with something knowledgeable to say, I believe with the intent of not only making himself look good, but also making her look bad. I completely missed that the first few times I looked at the video, and I definitely missed it the day of the lesson.
There were all sorts of little puzzles like that to unravel, all of which I found pretty informative for my teaching. One major aspect of my teaching that I found has to change is my tendency to make speeches. Occasionally a speech will be useful to students, but most of the time they just zone out. I learned the most in college where pretty much every class I took was one extended speech from the professor. I didn't realize that that sort of learning isn't useful or productive for everyone. In fact, it's useful for almost no one. It's only going to be helpful to that minority of the class that can actually focus and pay attention while you drone on. It's going to be hard for me to change, but now that I'm aware of it, I feel like I have a chance to really improve my teaching.
I feel bad for the people who didn't do their own research. That was almost me. If Randi hadn't held my hand and guided me through the whole process, that's what I would have done, especially in the frame of mind that I was in at the start of the third semester. I would have approached some professor, asked for some data, and gotten to work analyzing it. It would have meant very little to me. I might have taken some random point from it about some esoteric teaching principle, but that's it. It wouldn't have been practical and I would have forgotten it probably. As it is now, I'm incredibly pleased with my final product. It's really something good. And it chronicles my older teaching and some of my goals for where to go in the future. It's a really nice document. And I did have a lot of help getting through the really onerous parts (I didn't really do a lit review, or any statistical analyses, both of which would have been doable, but time consuming and annoying), so maybe I'm biased in its favor, but it was kind of a delight to write and think about. It became one huge, well edited reflection, and clearly, reflections are things that I like to write.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
I feel so bitchy
Man. I have felt so bitchy lately. I don't know how to explain it. Like I want to hassle people and find fault. I'm feeling kind of guilty about my last blog entry. And last night I snapped at Steven and made him sad. I apologized afterwards, but I've been really snappish and emotional recently. Maybe being mad and stewing about Steven's dad has made me more irritable. But now I feel like I'm just blaming other people, like it's his dad's fault I'm a bitch. I don't know why I feel so irritable. I really have no cause to be. Things are going quite well. And then all of a sudden out of left field I start biting Steven's head off over nothing. I feel awful. He's too nice and puts up with too much of my crap. I wish I were nicer and more charitable towards people. I feel bad about not giving people the benefit of the doubt. Hrm. You just sort of get in the doldrums sometimes. I'll just work on it and get over it.
Venting
I need to vent for a moment because I'm kind of irked. I tried venting to Steven last night but he wasn't really into it. Bitching sessions kind of have to be accompanied by at least a little enthusiasm to keep going. But the blog never says no. Good blog.
So now onto the topic of bitching- Steven's dad (maybe explaining why he wasn't so into it). Sorry Steven! You know I think your dad is nice, but I just have to vent sometimes!
Steven's dad really is a nice person, but in some instances he can be really thoughtless. Honestly, it makes me wonder about the times when he does seem nice. Is he just doing it because he thinks he has to? Because when he feels like getting his own way, he will leave you by the wayside. Ok, that's being too harsh, but I am really annoyed right now. The first thing that annoyed me was how changeable he's been about his girlfriend and the wedding. At first, he decided he wasn't going to invite her because they haven't been dating for long (a couple months) and he didn't want her to interact with Sally. In fact, he forbid Sally to come to his mom's funeral even though Diana wanted her to be there. Sally didn't know she was forbidden to come because Diana was really tactful about it, but everyone was really frustrated by the whole thing. When Ken found out that Diana had invited Sally, he became really upset and worried that Sally an Denise (his new girlfriend) would start fighting or something. That whole idea is ridiculous of course; it's not like they're so immature as to fight at a funeral, but whatever the reality was, Ken did NOT want his ex wife there. So presumably, this is what he was thinking when he first said he wasn't going to bring Denise to the wedding. About a week ago, he asked if he should bring Denise. I said I thought it would be a bad idea. I don't think Denise and Sally will fight, but I think Sally will feel very sad and lonely because she can't find dates the way Ken can. I don't want her to be miserable at our wedding. Denise I barely know (and honestly, Ken doesn't know her that well either) whereas Sally is Steven's mom. I think Ken bringing his girlfriend is a little cruel.
So last week he asked if he could bring her and I said he really shouldn't. Last weekend he told Steven he was bringing her. Why did you ask, huh? There's nothing more rude than someone pretending they're asking your permission when they're just going to do it anyway. Steven said he shouldn't bring her and he did stand up for his mom, but the whole thing is still up in the air. Ken started really pushing for it and Steven conceded that if it was alright with me, it would be ok. Steven is leaning toward a compromise, where she could come to the wedding but not the rehearsal dinner. I just think it's mean and I'm a little disgusted by the whole thing. I know he doesn't care at all about Sally anymore, but you'd think he would at least be respectful and at least consider her feelings. He's been nothing but cruel to her his whole life. He told her he never loved her and only married her to break away from his parents. He cut off alimony payments as soon as her mom died without telling her because he figured she didn't need it anymore (clearly didn't think that sometimes it takes up to a year for all that stuff to finalize- if Steven hadn't helped his mom out, she would have lost her home). He's a cruel and selfish bastard when it comes to his ex wife. He pretends like he's nice, but he's so mean to her. I don't trust him for a second. He'd turn on me just as fast I'm sure. He's turned on Steven before too. Steven didn't like his dad's ex (Susan), so there were a lot of "family" dinners where Steven's sister was invited and he wasn't because Susan didn't like him. When he's dating someone he never makes time for his family. Steven's sister tries to hang out with him sometimes, but he's busy with Denise. It's like his family is a burden to him that he was never interested in and just had because he felt like he ought to or maybe he just saw it as the easy way to move out and get away from the rest of his family. If his family is such a burden, maybe he shouldn't even bother with us at all anymore. I certainly don't have any desire to see him right now. In fact, I'm going to avoid him like the plague I'm so angry. If Steven's dad ever deigns to find time for his family, he can do it without me. And the last time we went out to eat, all he could do the whole time was tell Steven and me what we should do and how to live our lives. He can fuck off. I don't want his advice. I think he's lead a shitty life and I think he's a mean, cruel person. I don't want to have anything to do with him. I don't care if he smiles and acts all nice most of the time. It's all a lie and he couldn't care less about other people. Sigh. I'll have to see him at the wedding and talk to him at the rehearsal dinner and even listen to a toast from him. God it's going to be hard to act like I'm having fun and not like I'm chafing at his very presence.
I hope I get over this recent bout of rage. Steven loves his dad a lot and I know he doesn't want any rifts. It's not like I have much to worry about since Steven's dad doesn't really have time for him anymore. So it's not like he's going to try to hang out with us, but when he does, I should just grin and bear it. I just don't want to though. I hate hiding how I feel. Well we really don't see him that often. And maybe before I get too upset, I should ask how Sally feels about it. Maybe she doesn't care and I'm getting worked up over nothing. But you know what- even if it doesn't bother her, it's not nothing. It would bother a lot of people (I know it would bother me), so for him to not care about that is really insensitive no matter what Sally's reaction actually will be. If she's really fine with it, then Denise can come. But that's the last I want to see of them for a long time. I've been meaning to eat out less anyway, so when Steven goes out with his dad, I'll just say I'm not eating out as much and decline to go on those grounds. It's not rude. Steven still gets time with his dad. And I don't have to look at him. Everyone's happy.
Sigh. I've been feeling this building up for a while, and before I was just irked. I thought writing about it would get me to settle down a little, but it's only gotten me much more worked up. Well I would have gotten this worked up eventually anyway. And I bet it would have been even worse the longer I waited. I have a sneaking suspicion that if I had vented a few days ago, I wouldn't be as mad as I am now. And if I waited much longer, I might have been much more angry. So I guess this is healthy, but I still feel bad about putting Steven in an awkward position. Maybe it would help if I talked to someone about it. My mom always gives me some perspective. Maybe I'll call her.
So now onto the topic of bitching- Steven's dad (maybe explaining why he wasn't so into it). Sorry Steven! You know I think your dad is nice, but I just have to vent sometimes!
Steven's dad really is a nice person, but in some instances he can be really thoughtless. Honestly, it makes me wonder about the times when he does seem nice. Is he just doing it because he thinks he has to? Because when he feels like getting his own way, he will leave you by the wayside. Ok, that's being too harsh, but I am really annoyed right now. The first thing that annoyed me was how changeable he's been about his girlfriend and the wedding. At first, he decided he wasn't going to invite her because they haven't been dating for long (a couple months) and he didn't want her to interact with Sally. In fact, he forbid Sally to come to his mom's funeral even though Diana wanted her to be there. Sally didn't know she was forbidden to come because Diana was really tactful about it, but everyone was really frustrated by the whole thing. When Ken found out that Diana had invited Sally, he became really upset and worried that Sally an Denise (his new girlfriend) would start fighting or something. That whole idea is ridiculous of course; it's not like they're so immature as to fight at a funeral, but whatever the reality was, Ken did NOT want his ex wife there. So presumably, this is what he was thinking when he first said he wasn't going to bring Denise to the wedding. About a week ago, he asked if he should bring Denise. I said I thought it would be a bad idea. I don't think Denise and Sally will fight, but I think Sally will feel very sad and lonely because she can't find dates the way Ken can. I don't want her to be miserable at our wedding. Denise I barely know (and honestly, Ken doesn't know her that well either) whereas Sally is Steven's mom. I think Ken bringing his girlfriend is a little cruel.
So last week he asked if he could bring her and I said he really shouldn't. Last weekend he told Steven he was bringing her. Why did you ask, huh? There's nothing more rude than someone pretending they're asking your permission when they're just going to do it anyway. Steven said he shouldn't bring her and he did stand up for his mom, but the whole thing is still up in the air. Ken started really pushing for it and Steven conceded that if it was alright with me, it would be ok. Steven is leaning toward a compromise, where she could come to the wedding but not the rehearsal dinner. I just think it's mean and I'm a little disgusted by the whole thing. I know he doesn't care at all about Sally anymore, but you'd think he would at least be respectful and at least consider her feelings. He's been nothing but cruel to her his whole life. He told her he never loved her and only married her to break away from his parents. He cut off alimony payments as soon as her mom died without telling her because he figured she didn't need it anymore (clearly didn't think that sometimes it takes up to a year for all that stuff to finalize- if Steven hadn't helped his mom out, she would have lost her home). He's a cruel and selfish bastard when it comes to his ex wife. He pretends like he's nice, but he's so mean to her. I don't trust him for a second. He'd turn on me just as fast I'm sure. He's turned on Steven before too. Steven didn't like his dad's ex (Susan), so there were a lot of "family" dinners where Steven's sister was invited and he wasn't because Susan didn't like him. When he's dating someone he never makes time for his family. Steven's sister tries to hang out with him sometimes, but he's busy with Denise. It's like his family is a burden to him that he was never interested in and just had because he felt like he ought to or maybe he just saw it as the easy way to move out and get away from the rest of his family. If his family is such a burden, maybe he shouldn't even bother with us at all anymore. I certainly don't have any desire to see him right now. In fact, I'm going to avoid him like the plague I'm so angry. If Steven's dad ever deigns to find time for his family, he can do it without me. And the last time we went out to eat, all he could do the whole time was tell Steven and me what we should do and how to live our lives. He can fuck off. I don't want his advice. I think he's lead a shitty life and I think he's a mean, cruel person. I don't want to have anything to do with him. I don't care if he smiles and acts all nice most of the time. It's all a lie and he couldn't care less about other people. Sigh. I'll have to see him at the wedding and talk to him at the rehearsal dinner and even listen to a toast from him. God it's going to be hard to act like I'm having fun and not like I'm chafing at his very presence.
I hope I get over this recent bout of rage. Steven loves his dad a lot and I know he doesn't want any rifts. It's not like I have much to worry about since Steven's dad doesn't really have time for him anymore. So it's not like he's going to try to hang out with us, but when he does, I should just grin and bear it. I just don't want to though. I hate hiding how I feel. Well we really don't see him that often. And maybe before I get too upset, I should ask how Sally feels about it. Maybe she doesn't care and I'm getting worked up over nothing. But you know what- even if it doesn't bother her, it's not nothing. It would bother a lot of people (I know it would bother me), so for him to not care about that is really insensitive no matter what Sally's reaction actually will be. If she's really fine with it, then Denise can come. But that's the last I want to see of them for a long time. I've been meaning to eat out less anyway, so when Steven goes out with his dad, I'll just say I'm not eating out as much and decline to go on those grounds. It's not rude. Steven still gets time with his dad. And I don't have to look at him. Everyone's happy.
Sigh. I've been feeling this building up for a while, and before I was just irked. I thought writing about it would get me to settle down a little, but it's only gotten me much more worked up. Well I would have gotten this worked up eventually anyway. And I bet it would have been even worse the longer I waited. I have a sneaking suspicion that if I had vented a few days ago, I wouldn't be as mad as I am now. And if I waited much longer, I might have been much more angry. So I guess this is healthy, but I still feel bad about putting Steven in an awkward position. Maybe it would help if I talked to someone about it. My mom always gives me some perspective. Maybe I'll call her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)