Random Ramblings

Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, In and Out of Time

2011-08-21T22:26:00.001-05:00

I spend way too much time on YouTube. I make playlists to which I listen in lieu of the radio, and sometimes I go exploring hither and yon, be it for music, old movies, interviews or instruction (although I will, I fear, never perfect the art of making pie crust). One day not terribly long ago I happened upon the extended version -- the version I remember -- of the staircase scene from "The Little Colonel," starring (never mind what the credits say) Bill Robinson and Shirley Temple. Along with the clip itself I found a heated argument about racism, stereotypes and all manner of related issues and nonissues.

Since I had feelings and opinions of my own on the subject, and since not all of them had coalesced into coherency, I decided to respond -- and then found my response by far exceeded the permitted length of a YouTube response. For a while I did nothing, and then it occurred to me that y'all might find some interest in my reaction to the video and to the controversy it stimulated. Here, with minor modifications (such as not addressing YouTube or any specific denizens thereof) is that reaction:

A month or three ago I read over 80 pages of comments on YouTube regarding a video clip from "The Little Colonel," and since time has passed, I am not certain whether http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjCFYpWDmfM is in fact the clip in question, but I believe it is. The comments span four years so I have a lot to address; this may be lengthy.

It's difficult to speak about Shirley temple and Bill "Bojangles" Robinson beyond "wow they were so good" without going on to put them into historical perspective. Films are not made in a vacuum. They are made by, and for, people who live in their times, and when we of later times see them, we can't judge them by our times. (How will future generations judge our output?) That doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize and abhor racism and other injustice, and learn from it. It doesn't mean we should forgive it just because it happened a long time ago (and while MOST white people wouldn't pee themselves seeing a black person sitting at the front of the bus, that doesn't mean racism is dead -- and if you're doubtful, just look how may comments upon this clip have had to be deleted). It just means we have to attain SOME kind of perspective. Otherwise we have to dismiss the obvious and huge talent of the two wonderful people in this film clip, and that would be a pity. There is something to be learned from their transcendence of the stereotype (his character is not a slave but may as well be, and yet he is in charge of this little white girl, and if she could even remotely be said to be treating him with disrespect, watch the whole movie and see how she speaks to the grumpy old colonel, whose heart she finally wins) and something to be learned from the fact that in an era in which a black man's holding a white girl's hand COULD cause such a furor, this film got made ANYWAY.

Some of the commenters have suggested reading material and I will add my two cents: The Devil Finds Work, by James Baldwin (and after that, everything else he ever wrote, essays, short stories, novels, grocery list, whatever you can get your hands on). The other suggestions are good too, especially the autobiographies.

About uncles (regarding the perhaps patronizing, perhaps affectionate, perhaps both and perhaps neither habit of white folks calling their male black employees or even neighbors "Uncle," which was under discussion): I am Jewish (so am I white or not? By my skin tone, I am about as white as can be without being albino; I am hopeless at the beach, trying to tan; culturally, don't kid yourself) and I was raised to call my parent's close friends "aunt" and "uncle." Would I call a stranger (of any race) that? No. But some black folks today call strangers of color "brother" and "sister." Was a white person calling a black person "uncle" disrespectful back in the day? I'm too young, and northern, to know for sure, but I'm not uneducated, nor untraveled, so I can speculate. I think sometimes it was and sometimes it wasn't. I think a white employer (we're talking about post-slavery here) could call (his or her own) black servant "uncle" respectfully OR disrespectfully, because "mister" might not have been appropriate REGARDLESS of color just because of the relative social positions, and yet the employer might have wished to show affection and even respect; the difference would be in intention and tone. Calling a black person "uncle" despite not having a relationship with him could be respectful if the black person were older, or disrespectful if said sarcastically or to avoid "mister" (with no relationship, even social position would not excuse that). It depends, too, what the local practice is for whites addressing whites. Read european fairytales; children call females who are, to them, total strangers, "auntie" as a sign of respect. It's not, pardon the pun, as black and white as all that. There are huge patches of gray. It DEPENDS. (I'm still speculating.)

As for the demeaning roles, yes, blacks could play the funny, silly servant, or a slave in a period piece, or an evil offerer of a reefer in a really daring film. There is no getting around that. We're STILL working on that, and only in the last couple decades doing rather well (not so well with Jews -- as performers and creative talent we're overrepresented, but as characters we're underrepresented except as Jews first, people second. In the sixties and seventies we were either the pawnbroker or Rhoda Morgenstern, and there's nothing wrong with either except when that's all you get. Look at TV today and tell me which characters are Jewish, and how you KNOW they're Jewish. Not the actors. The characters. But I digress!) It's painful to watch sometimes. Take mae west's "I'm No Angel." In it, black actress Gertrude Howard plays Mae's maid, Beulah Thorndyke. Her other credits include characters such as "Martha the Maid," "Carolina," "black woman," "black 'mammy,'" "Angelina," "Snowball, servant," "Martha," "Lucy," "Queenie" (in "Showboat"), "Kate -- Mary's maid" and "Aunt Chloe -- Uncle Tom's wife." "I'm No Angel" is not the only film in which she has a last name, like a proper person, but it's unusual. As you see, in some she hasn't even GOT a name. That's how it was. In "I'm No Angel," Beulah Thorndye is a maid, but she has a name, and she has a musical number all by herself, and it's not a funny, silly one, either. I am working from memory here; pardon me if I am misremembering, but I have it stuck in my mind that I was impressed BECAUSE of when the film was made, and that she had to play a maid -- she couldn't be cast as, say, Mae's best friend, although she kind of is, come to think of it -- and yes, she had to be funny, and yes, it was demeaning, but somehow despite all that, SOMEONE (I think it was mae) recognized that she had talent, and gave her a serious spotlight in a white movie. One needs, as i say, perspective. from small things come great things.

Bill rRobinson probably opened doors for other black performers without even knowing it. How can one dismiss his role in history -- not black history or white history but just history -- by paying attention only to the fact that he had to play a servant and not to the fact that for three glorious minutes he was featured as a human being and a dancer? We don't watch BLACK feet tapping up and down those stairs. We watch AMAZING feet... two pair, in fact. I'm not trying to ignore Shirley Temple here. I'm simply addressing the racial issue, a great big issue, a tiny little bit. Shirley needs no defense; she was a child of amazing talent but she didn't write the script and she didn't control casting.

Those YouTube members whose response to this wonderful clip is to call each other names -- and many comments were hidden, so I can only IMAGINE how unpleasant things got) are now going to be called two names here, by me: "ignorant" and "immature."

You Can Only Like One Thing

2011-07-13T21:54:00.000-05:00

I am an omnivore; that doesn't mean I eat tin cans, or drink cola, but simply that I eat from all five food groups (six if you count chocolate) and do not restrict myself to one or two. This simple fact seems unfathomable to a rather large group of people. It has happened more than once, more than twice, even, that I've sat down to eat in the company of other human beings, who, seeing me select, say, chicken, broccoli, and milk, note, "Oh, you're a vegetarian." They perceive this by virtue of my having deliberately, and not at gunpoint, chosen to include a vegetable in my meal. They disregard the fact that I have also selected the flesh of an animal and some of its mammary fluids as well.

Okay, the above seems more a case of folks' not actually knowing what a vegetarian is than a case of their believing you have to like either one thing or another, and stick to your likes and eschew the remainder of the known and unknown universes. However, I've also had folks exclaim, upon witnessing my enjoyment of, say, a Beethoven piano concerto, "I thought you liked rock 'n roll!" Now, just as a broccoli floret does not negate the slab of chicken on my plate, a Beethoven concerto, while hard to hear if played simultaneously with any other piece of music, regardless of genre, does not in itself negate the possibility of its listener enjoying other genres.

I guess it's a matter of folks' expectations matching their own mental capabilities. A singleminded person will expect me to like a single thing. People with at least two brain cells to rub together will recognize the multiplicity of the aforementioned universes and the eclecticity of their enjoyable components. There is enough crap around to dislike; why not also enjoy all there is to enjoy?

FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW (and everyone you don't know; make a pest of yourself).

2011-07-09T18:55:00.000-05:00

You've seen posts like this on your wall. You've gotten emails like this. You've passed these things on without verifying their validity. You're a baaaad pussycat.

How much time does it take to go to Snopes dot com and check and see if you're unwittingly participating in a hoax? It takes at least as little time as it takes to forward every bit of effluvium that makes its presence known to you, usually for the primary purpose of clogging up everyone's space and causing widespread panic. Good job. You've contributed to the general hubbub.

Rule of thumb: if something or someone urges you to flood the superstupidinformation highway, don't. Traffic jams are avoidable. Just say no... quietly.

MORE OVERHEARD

2011-06-07T13:00:00.000-05:00

"There's nothin' worse than goin' the post office and standing in line."

No, seriously? Nothing worse?

Okay, I'm going to take a shot at a challenge, in no particular order:

Having your hands amputated by Rwandan soldiers.

Having your clitoris removed by relatives in a Muslim country.

Tsunamis.

Diptheria.

E-coli.

AIDS

(Okay, let's just imagine all diseases and disorders; I think a cold is worse than standing in line at the post office.)

Polyester double-knit leisure suits.

A spat with... just about anyone, but let's say any family member.

Need I go on? It's just a purely ridiculous statement, almost as stupid as pretending that God wants you to join a certain dating club (and has only mentioned it to the dating club, so its advertisers are obligated to inform you about it).

"You look like a beach angel," followed by a piercing scream.

Yeah, I'm going to buy that product, after its advertisers scream in my ear.

So, you ask, why do I watch? Because as the optimist Theodore Sturgeon once said, 90 percent of everything is crap. I put the percentage at 99. But one percent of everything is a lot! I try to live for the one percent.

Overheard on a Tube for Boobs

2011-04-20T10:23:00.001-05:00

Pardon me if I paraphrase (due to working from memory) the following ridiculous claims I've recently heard on television advertisements:

1. For Stamps dot com: "There's nothing worse than going to the post office and standing in line." What an easy life YOU have!

2. For Audible dot com: (with repulsion:) "My GRANDMOTHER listens to books!" How nice of you to diss your dear old granny; you wouldn't want to be caught dead doing anything SHE does!

3. For Christian Mingle: "God is saying 'it's your turn to act.'" Not a bad concept (for those who believe) but in the context of this ad, it sounds like a testimonial; I want to see it in writing, with an original signature. Also from Christian Mingle: "You're Christian. You're single." I'm neither.

4. For V8, who should know better: "Do you sometimes wish vegetables didn't taste so... vegetably?" No, never. I like vegetables just the way they are. Do you ever wish commercials didn't sound so... commercial-ly?

5. For Fiber One: "Fiber yes, cardboard no." Thanks for perpetuating the myth that anything good for you has to taste like crap. What a wonderful contribution to education. Of course you can get fiber from a banana, too, and bananas are cheaper than Fiber One, possibly because they advertise less (say, whatever happened to Chiquita Banana, anyway? Did she get sued by Carmen Miranda or just fade away?)

6. For Manwich: "There's a full serving of vegetables in every (can? spoonful? gallon? oh serving, oooookay....) of Manwich." No, there's not. Honestly. The main ingredient in Manwich is tomato puree, which is mostly water, and at any rate tomato is NOT A VEGETABLE. It was declared a vegetable by the supreme court over 100 years ago in the context of whether or not to tax its importation, and Ronald Reagan purported to believe that catsup was a vegetable, but politics can't turn a fruit into a vegetable; it can only convince everyone that it is (sort of the same way it can convince people that health care reform involves death panels, and rich people deserve more tax breaks than poor people). Meanwhile, farther down on the ingredients list, less than two percent of this product consists of a dozen items, some of which are dehydrated onions and red and green bell peppers and garlic, and chili pepper not said to be dehydrated, which means it's just the powder. I don't think those count toward a serving, and they're the only veggies mentioned. And FURTHERMORE, they too perpetuate the myth, in some of their other ads, that it is VITAL to hide any vegetable content (as if there BEING any such content were not also a myth!) from children, because veggies are yucky. Of course, children watch these ads and learn that veggies are yucky. Kids who get served real veggies and are not told they're yucky do not necessarily form this opinion on their own, especially if what they're served is fresh and well prepared (meaning, in most cases, not boiled).

Well, a half dozen should hold us for now. Happy viewing.

POLI MORE ITCHES THAN TICKLES

2010-12-18T11:06:00.000-06:00

It awaketh. It returneth. It bloggeth.

One has to wonder... well, hopefully, more than one! Are you wondering? One has to wonder why it is that the full extent and impact of the Watergate debacle was felt only after Nixon was reelected. One has to wonder why election reform -- in particular the issue of how ballots are handled, including the dangling chad problem, certainly already known before the 2000 election -- was only whispered about instead of screamed for until after Dubya was crowned. Now one is wondering why it is only after the 2010 elections that results are issued for a study of news networks' levels of mis- and disinformation.

(I guess you might wonder why I awaken, return and blog ater the "compromise" has been passed by a cowardly Congress [excluding from that adjective some noble representatives, such as my own state's upstanding Keith Ellison, who voted no].)

Those of us with a few remaining brain cells could have told you Fox News lied, but would you have believed us? At best you'd have said 1. they only get things wrong once in a while and 2. they didn't do it on purpose, besides which 3. they really weren't that wrong. The truth (remember truth?) is that 1. they get it wrong almost all the time and when they get it right they twist it to mean something else, and 2. they do it on purpose, besides which 3. you still believe them!

For information about the study, check out http://www.alternet.org/media/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid%20.

If I knew where clues were being sold, I'd buy them up, even without coupons, and put 'em in the water, so everyone could get one. America seriously needs to be clued in, and America seriously needs to pay attention while being clued in.

One of the issues on which America needs to become clueful is that of tax breaks for the very wealthy. Many of you think that the tax breaks either being extended or not (it's all down to Obama's signature now) affect you. (Some of you appear to think there is a tax cut in it for you; there isn't. What there is, though, is the fact that unemployment benefits are being held hostage by those who want the extension of the tax breaks; if the rich don't get a few more years of breaks, unemployment benefits won't be extended, and if the rich do get a few more years of breaks, unemployment benefits will still only be extended 13 more months. Wow, that's fair! Meanwhile, the Payroll tax, from which Social Security is funded, is also being cut.) If you're not one of the wealthiest folks in the country -- in the top two percent -- it affects you all right; they will be getting a tax break at your expense. Others of you seem to think that giving that two percent of the population a continuation on the taxc break they've had a few years already will create new jobs, or at least stop old ones from going byebye. Well... has it worked so far? (Get a clue!) Not al extremely wealthy people have closed their American locations, laying off American workers, and outsourced jobs overseas (let's not even get into the issue of slave labor): just whole bunches of them. Trickle-down didn't work for Reagan (well it may have worked for him personally but it didn't work for America under Reagan) and it didn't work for Dubya and it won't work now or in the future either. Here is a nifty article about some (not all) of the reasons it doesn't and won't: http://www.alternet.org/economy/149201/tax_cuts_simply_do_not_create_jobs . I don't believe it mentions that the tax breaks are for individuals, not corporations, but apart from that, it explains the situation quite clearly.

Amazingly, those of you who think the incredibly wealthy are going to stop screwing you and create jobs and fund programs you won't let the government fund (which it could if the rich would just pay their damned taxes) also think that immigrants (legal and illegal alike) who pick fruit and clean toilets for virtually no money, so that they can live in appalling conditions and be generally abused) are causing unemployment. If your only employment option is to clean toilets, I can't help wondering why you are so hot to extend tax breaks for people who pay other people to defecate for them and would deprive you of your measly, inadequate unemployment benefits.

Time for you to think. Time for me to retreat, nap, stop, for the nonce, blogging.

MORE POLITICKLES

2010-10-08T21:55:00.000-05:00

There is a status makng the round in Facebook and it is full of lies. (So what else is new?) Here is the version I found on my newsfeed: I will keep the poster and any respondants other than myself anonymous.

if you cross the north korean border illegally u get 12 years hard labor if you cross iranian borders illegally you get detained indefinitely. if you cross afghan borders you get shot. cross the saudi border you will get jailed. cross the chinese border you will never be heard from again. cross venezuelan borders you will be branded a spy and have your fate sealed. cross teh cuban border you will be thrown in prison to rot. HOWEVER, cross the United States order illegally, you will get a job, a drivers license, a socials ecurity card, welare benefits, food stamps, credit cards, susidized rent or a loan to buy a new house, free health care, the right to vote, and all without speaking a word of fucking english. this should piss Americans off, and I am truly offended by illegals. "Fuck Off, We're Full"

I had to respond, and I did so, thusly (note: many people are inclined to ignore proper usage of capital letters in common online conversation, be it a private or instant message, an email or a post; I am no exception):

Gail M Feldman: simply untrue. illegals can't vote; even legals can't vote unless they become naturalized citizens. illegals can get only the most menial of jobs, jobs you would eschew, for well under minimum wage (to whom can they complain?), and no hea...lth benefits. their welfare use, except for food stamps, is minimal; what they do get, they get to support their children, only if the children were born here. no one has children in america just to get benefits, and there are at least two good reasons for that: 1. they only get them FOR the children so they make no "profit" from that and 2. they would not even break even, as the benefits are insufficient even to support a child. i know this because i have BEEN on welfare. i was living on $203 a month.

illegals cannot legally obtain socal security numbers or drivers licenses, but of course can cheat to get them... as can and do natural born citizens, sometimes (more, in fact, and unlike illegals, who only get these things in order to survive, natual born citizens who get them by cheating do so for the purpose of comitting crimes!) they do NOT get free health care. more than half of them actually pay taxes (but do not get, for those taxes, the benefits citizens get). they also pay into social security, even though they cannot get benefits.

not all illegal immigrants are unable to speak english! and some very legal immigrants cannot (my grandmother never learned much english, and she was here legally, thank you very much).

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/

http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/illegalimmigrant-driverslicense.html

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/socialsecurity.asp

g

there was a brief response from a (male) friend of the (female) poster's:

still we are full!

now... that means it doesn't MATTER than the original post was vastly inaccurate, and it also is rather meaningless UNLESS you're not actually against ILLEGAL immigration but rather are against ANY immigration. i tried again:

Gail M Feldman: we aren't full. when we get full we may as well no longer be america anymore, because america is the melting pot. when we get full we may as well blow up the statue of liberty because her words will no longer be true. and we wouldn't IMAGINE we were full if corporations were not saving themselves billions of dollars at our expense by outsources jobs to third-world countries.

g

Still ignoring the fact that everything in her original post, at least the part pertaining to America (I have never been to North Korea) was shown to be untrue, the original poster added:

but we are full. We have our own problems, and our own people to worry about, then supporting illegals.. that should be at the bottom of our priority list..

So I tried AGAIN:

Gail M Feldman so does that make any of the untrue stuff true, or saying that it is true, when it's not, right? we aren't supporting illegals. to a large extent, in some areas of the usa, they are supporting US. in most parts of the usa, they're not muc...h of an issue at all. and we are NOT FULL. (but on the other hand, if the duggers would stop having babies, that would help!)

g

Her friend had the following intellectual contribution:

ok, i get it you like immigrants

Again, note that we keep changing the original topic from ILLEGAL immigrants to immigration itself. But he wasn't done, and made another post right away:

or if the illegals would stop making money and sending it back to thier families in there home country maybe the value of our dollar wouldnt be going down so much

Then another male friend of the original poster's chimed in:

ya know your g-parents were once illegals :) you should have said Mexicans. They cross and breed.. Woops! Sorry chris hehehahahahahaha!

Well, I was unable to determine to whom this new voice was speaking; nobody who had posted so far was named Chris. But I'm pretty stubborn, so I tried yet AGAIN, even though now the first two were just piling one ridiculous unfounded accusation upon another

Gail M Feldman: ‎""ok, i get it you like immigrants""

1. i like or dislike people based on whether or not they're good people, not whether or not they were born where i was born. so yeah, i like some immigrants (such as my grandparents and their parents and siblings) and some i can live without (i won't name names).

2. i thought we were talking about ILLEGAL immigrants; are we now talking also about legal ones?

3, your response indicates that you DON'T get it.

g

That of course was hostile of me; I try hard not to call name or characterize. I try hard to stick to facts. However, when others don't make the same effort, I get testy. I continued at length, kindly refraining from correcting spelling errors (that just irritates people):

Gail M Feldman: ‎"or if the illegals would stop making money and sending it back to thier families in there home country maybe the value of our dollar wouldnt be going down so much"

this too is a myth. our dollar is going down because corporations are outsourcing jobs and not allowing american production to regain the quality it once had (not to mention depriving willing american workers of good jobs).

most illegals can only send money home if they, themselves, live in abysmal conditions, sacrificing their own welfare to support their starving families back home. most can't even send anything because they barely have enough to live on. meanwhile they are paying taxes and paying into the social security system, although they get no vote (and i agree, they should not get the vote, but it's not an issue; they don't have the vote and no one is trying to give it to them; the ONLY reason i bring it up is that even so, they do pay taxes) and they don't receive social security. (again, not only is that proper, but no one is trying to give them social security; there WAS a bill on the table in congress that would have provided for FORMER illegals who became legal -- which isn't easy -- to get credit for social security payments they made while illegal, but that bill was tabled and never considered again. it was never voted on and probably never will be. the only reason i bring it up is that despite this, they DO pay social security contributions. so i am being supported at this moment partly by illegal immigrant.)

as it happens, my mother's father's mother was forbidden, back in ukraine, to marry her boyfriend. her folks didnt like him. they arranged for her to marry a rabbi's son, who himself became a rabbi. she had three kids with him and was pregnant with a fourth when he suddenly died. ukraine was a pretty dangerous place for jews to be, and she had no way to survive as a widow with three and a half kids, so she emigrated to the u.s. (her baby was born on the ship!) in new york, she ran into guess whom? her old boyfriend! he told her he, too, had married but his wife had died. since they had been childless, he, too, had emigrated to america. the two married and had more kids. then one day there was a knock at the door. it was my great-grandmother's new husband's SON, coming from the old country to say mama had died. her new husband had lied; he was still married to a living wife at the time he married her, and he had five kids back in ukraine, and one of them was now standing on their doorstep! she forgave him (would you? i don't know if i would!) and they worked very hard to bring the rest of his kids over. yes, that means they sent money out of the united states. horror of horrors! (how come it's okay for big corporations to send money and jobs out of the united states, HUGE money, LOTS of jobs, but we're yapping about some illegal immigrant sending a couple bucks to his starving family?) somehow their doing this did NOT destroy the american economy, or take jobs from americans. my family hasn't got a single drug dealer, rapist or criminal in it (except of course for the bigamist!) we do have a guy who thinks he's jerry lewis, but he was born in philly, as far as i know.

g

To the original poster's credit, she never devolved into namecalling or told me I was an idiot. I actually do respect that, by the way, as horrified as I am at 1. the spreading of lies and 2. the lack of logic I continually encounter. This is how she responded:

i just think that if you want to be here, make an effort to be LEGAL.. instead of comin here expecting everyone AND there G'PARENTS to pay your way to live here

Well if that is JUST what she thinks, how come her original post was not to that effect and instead said outrageously untrue things designed to stir rage in the hearts of innocent Americans who (since so few people actually know how to check facts) might actually BELIEVE that crap? But I did not say that. I said, instead:

Gail M Feldman: i agree. but it's not always possible, and i would like to point out AGAIN that nobody and nobody's grandparents ARE paying for illegals to live here.

g

Her response betrayed a wee bit of irritation:

that's crap.. they live off welfar, they can go to the hospital no problem and they can drive a car around with no registration, no insurance, no problem. I support the fact that the DUI checkpoints here in santa maria arent'e vven for DUIS, but for the illegals that go through town. last week, one person was arrested for dui.. 12 were arrested for being illegal and not having permission to even go around in their car.. sot hat's ok then?? to have illegals driving aroud illegally? living here illegally?

To whichof course I had to reply:

no none of that is okay. (and obviouly it WAS a problen; they got caught.) but that doesn't mean all illegals are doing that, any more than the fact that legal citizens sometimes rob banks makes all legal citizens bank robbers. it's not a sensible or logical conclusion.

by the way, NOBODY "lives" off welfare even the lowliest job pays more than welfare.

g

p.s. i would rather have a sober illegal alien driving a car than a drunken legal citizen doing so.

I should have added that I was speaking from personal experience but I was hesitant to open myself up to accusations such as those I have heard before, born of ignorance, urging me to go get a job (I'm disabled: I was on welfare while waiting for Socia Security to come through; it only took 13 years). Even so, this was her response:

just because the lowliest job pays more than welfare, doesnt' mean that there aren't people in the USofA that just want to live off welfare and do nothing else

and wether they are drunk or not has nothign to do with it. would you just like a...n illegal driving around not taking any responsibility for his own actions

My response was the last entry in the thread. She and her friends gave up... posting. I doubt they ynderstood any of my points, mostly because they did not WANT to understand them. Understanding them would have obligated them to rethink their positions, or admit their positions were held despite the truth. Here, then, is how I finished the conversation:

Gail M Feldman: no but given a choice between the crime of being an illegal alien OTHERWISE obeying the law and a the crime of dui, i find the dui more dangerous.

and yeah there are lazy people in the world. there aren't any more lazy illegals than there are lazy citizens. there is no evidence, much less proof, that illegals are lazier than legals. in fact they tend to work damned hard. i'm not saying people should not obey the law. i'm saying that an AWFUL lot of false accusations are being made.

g

That was that. Silence. The problem is, her original post is viral -- remember, she copied it from one of its many, many appearances -- and people are NOT countering it with facts. They're responding with "Yeah, kill those illegals, they're all rapists and drug dealers," and they're not talking about Swedish immigrants; they're talking about darker-skinned immigrants, since blue-eyed blondes never commit crimes and are welcome to emigrate here to America any old time.

I can see the tears trickling down Lady Liberty's cheeks. Someone hand me a tissue....

POLITICKLES

2010-10-08T20:34:00.000-05:00

One of my Facebook friends asked whether Teabaggers actually believe what they say. I responded thusly:

It is hard to figure, isn't it? I think they all go to some hypnotist and say "Make me believe; I'm gonna talk trash and I wanna be SINCERE."

And then the hypnotist says, "Okay, but first let's sell the election to any foreign power with the moolah to make us all richer than we already are, which of course is almost impossible, and then let's make sure that the trash you talk results in a clean, white, christian, heterosexual, male-dominated America, for I just happen to be white, Christian, hetero and male, and I'm afraid of losing any of the power that currently redounds to that, for I have no inner resources and would not succeed if relying purely on my personal integrity, which, by the way, has anybody seen?"

And then the pols listening to this have not actually understood two-thirds of it, so they nod and say, "so hypnotize me already, Doc, I've got a campaign to run. my opponent is hitting 'em with FACTS. I have to hurry out and drown those with some big bad lies, which is why I need you to swing the pendulum for me in the first place, Doc, so can you hurry it up?"

The hypnotist, not liking to be rushed, adds a little something to the mix when he's got them under, just for spite. and that is why Teabaggers lick their own genitals. BECAUSE THEY CAN. (and because no one else will.)

ALL MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS

2010-09-12T09:14:00.000-05:00

And all illegal immigrants are not drug lords, come to think of it.

I was involved recently in a discussion of why folks are so dead-set against the building of a Muslim community center not terribly far from (but not at, on or next door to) Ground Zero. To be against it, you have to believe that Muslims are terrorists. Otherwise, why shouldn't a community center be built? Would a church or synagogue arouse such ire? Within the discussion was a mild debate about whether it was fear or ignorance that caused such bigoted reactions, sometimes from otherwise fairly decent folks. My response:

In its way, ignorance is one cause of fear. We always fear the unknown. If allwe know about Muslims is that some crazy ones flew into the Twin owers and killed thousands of people, on purpose, and claimed it had something to do with Islam, then all we know is that Muslims are bad. It's not true, but our ignorance produces that "knowledge," which is scary, so we fear Muslims, and fear becomes hatred.
If we knew any Muslims personally, one of two things would happen: either our ignorance would be counteracted and we would get a better perspective and put our fear where it belonged (it's reasonable to be afraid of terrorists!) or we would cling to our ignorant belief and consider any contradictory evidence either untrue or an anomaly. My mother got this all the time: "You don't look Jewish; you're pretty!" and "You don't act Jewish; you're nice!" and those were meant as COMPLIMENTS! The people saying these things could not reconcile their previous impressions with the new ones and change their beliefs, so no matter how any pretty, handsome friendly Jews they ever met in their lives, even if every Jew they met happened to be cool, those ews would remain exceptions to the previously learned rule that Jews are ugly and mean. So people have to be exposed to the truth but they also need to be taught how to handle it!

Drop Dead (from Frustration), TeeVee

2010-08-01T22:51:00.003-05:00

What a brilliant piece of crap.

First of all, the stated premise stinks. Deb -- a sweet, pretty and vapid young model -- dies in a car crash, is accidentally reincarnated, to her horror, as Jane -- a morbidly obese but intelligent lawyer, thanks to a snafu at the gateless intake office of the pearly gates, and from that point on deals with her brainless best friend (who knows the incredible truth), her newly human guardian angel (who got fired for the snafu), her previous incarnation's fiance, who coincidentally works at her law office, and a host of unlikely and potentially embarrassing encounters with her past (her mother, a previously unknown half-sister, a surprise husband), not to mention the challenges of the job itself, which include but are not limited to a boss whose vapidity rivals her own former condition without being tempered by a sweet nature, a bitchy competitor and a cheeky (but supportive) personal assistant, not to mention the actual clients and cases.

Yes, Virginia, that was all one sentence. Get over it.

That was the stinky stated premise. Based on that, we have your basic "oh no, what if someone finds OUT, can she HANDLE it?" on a regular basis. Will Jane make a fool of herself and confess who she is to the plethora of folks who knew Deb and keep popping up? Which will win at any given moment in any given situation: Deb the ditz or Jane the brain? Booooooring. However, there is also the unstated premise, which is that an overweight woman can actually be a cherished human being and effective citizen of the world. To many, in real life, the unstated premise is less realistic than the stated one. It is easier to believe in reincarnation, even in the hazy context of an unspecified religion, than it is to buy that a fat chick can be cool. Sure, once in a while weight becomes a legal issue instead of just a running gag, but it generally takes a back seat to the stupid stuff.

If the creator Josh Berman and his writers had had any guts (pun intended) they'd have just written a show about Jane, and to hell (pun intended) with Deb. Jane without Deb's simper/giggle might not be as much of a challenge to Brooke Elliott, who does the best she can with what they give her, but it would actually be worth watching.

Are You Politically Correct?

2010-06-25T23:43:00.000-05:00

Are you politically correct?

May I ask why?

My family raised me to believe, not to say but to believe that human beings should be valued for their character, for their behavior, rather than for the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, their nationality or their physical prowess or lack thereof. They did not tell me I shouldn't say "nigger" or "fag" because other people might get mad; they didn't have to tell me not to say those things, because I was not raised to think those things to begin with.

The concept of PC has set back actual thinking and actual feeling by a million years or so. My way of speaking sometimes elicits scoffing references to PC from persons who, without PC, would probably say the words from whose utterance they now refrain, not because those words offend them but because they've been told (why can't they figure this out for themselves?) that they offend others, make others mad, brand the utterer as politically incorrect, and therefore something of an outcast outside of certain circumscriptions (the KKK springs immediately to mind). I write "s/he" because "he" doesn't cover 51 percent of the population, and for no other reason. I don't have to force myself, grudgingly, to grant homosexuals freedoms enjoyed already by heterosexuals; those freedoms are not mine to grant or withhold, and it would be cheeky of me to pretend they were. Folks who feel compelled to tell others they're going to hell for not being true to themselves really ought to combine meds and therapy in an attempt to control their own compulsions (instead of trying to control other people). Those people may wish to be PC until sensitivity to the beingness of other humans comes more naturally to them. The rest of us presumably know better.

I hope I do not presume in vain.

Guys, I Just Gagged!

2010-04-20T18:00:00.000-05:00

I don't drive so I don't need auto insurance. To me, auto insurance ads are merely a source of amusement (Geico), bafflemant (Progressive) or annoyance (Nationwide). Isn't it most gratifying to write about annoyance?

There are a few different scenarios; let's take the one in which a nice-looking young woman named Liz places her insurance future in the hands of an obnoxious beyond-nerd who charms her by gagging into the phone while attempting to get her a "brilliant idea." Would you be charmed? I was anticharmed. The advertisers did not make it clear whether we were even supposed to be charmed; Liz never stopped smiling. I did.

Yes, I am aware that the ad was supposed to be humorous. I am equally aware that if I were perhaps 12 years old, male and somewhat dim, it would in fact be humorous. Since I my age is almost five times that admittedly interesting age, I am not now nor have I ever been (or wanted to be) male, and I am willing to take a chance on claiming, in your presence, not to be dim, for me it fell flatter than a Minnesota accent (which I think I do not possess, even after more than a decade here). Sorry, Nationwide: if I drove, I would not choose an insurance company that trusts the advertising company or department that came up with this crap. It would make me doubt your judgment in other areas s well (such as auto insurance).

Everything Changed (Forever)

2010-02-24T15:33:00.001-06:00

Plus ca change, plus c'est la même chose. Just when I thought perhaps not every TV commercial was going to invent its own "technology" to woo your patronage (I am still waiting for "shout in your ear technology" for television itself), documentaries of the sort rerun into the ground by the likes of Investigation Discovery, WE TV and the Bio Channel picked up on a new catchphrase. It's not a sales pitch, rather just lazy writing (on top of their existing illiteracy; an interviewee may get away with "just between you and i" and while we cringe, we know the awful phrase was uttered spontaneously; narration, on the other hand, is scripted and supposedly proofread, maybe even edited, and leaves no possible excuse for its mangling of my mommy tongue. This particular bit of lazy writing, this cliché, is "... changed (his/her/their) life(ves_/everything changed (forever)."

Mary was a happy child. Then something happened that changed her life (dramatic pause) forever. (Cut to commercial.)

Crapville was a peaceful town. Little did they know that in an instant, everything would change (dramatic pause) forever. (Cut to commercial.)

It's getting old, folks. I forgive the recaps after every commercial because the docs themselves are so slow paced I tend to doze off (which is one reason I keep this kind of show on at night) so the recap can actually be helpful; never mind that they exist because you are so sure that your average viewer, coming back from the awfulness of television capitalism, is missing a few more brain cells and needs to be reoriented. I am working on forgiving the shameless recyclingit contains little or no new footage. I even forgive the smarmy tone affected by some of the narrators. Could we just have a moritorium on this particular cliché? It would change my life (dramatic pause) forever.

I Listen to Too Much TV

2010-02-18T03:40:00.003-06:00

I wrote this on February 18, 2010, and used a blank draft instead of opening a new post. Result: this post ends up with a 2008 date on it, tucked away where it is unlikely to be found. I am therefore copying it and reposting it (minutes, rather than years, after writing it).

Having tinnitis, I listen to too much television. I sleep with it on. I compute with it on. I'm selective about the shows to which I tune in but unfortunately it is not within my power to be selective regarding to which advertisements I am exposed. Therefore I find myself in various stages of mental, emotional and even audial irritation.

Now, Billy Mays is dead, and dead younger than one wants to be dead, and far be it for me to wish someone dead, but since he is dead, couldn't he stop shouting in my ear? And now we have Anthony Sullivan, the purpose of whose existence I have not yet fathomed, trying to be Billy Mays, having reshot a Mays ad for some gadget that lets you play your phone calls over your car radio (not a bad idea but, apart from not being a driver, I would never purchase anything touted that obnoxiously; it only encourages the obnoxious to continue their obnoxiousness) almost verbatim, and in a somewhat Maysian pitch. Sullivan is annoying enough just being himself; trying to be Mays too is toeing the human pain threshhold.

Then there is the creep who thinks if he never takes a breath we won't notice he's talking nonsense; his product, some chopper slicer thingie, may or may not be the eighth wonder of the world, but I can't stand his patter, and someone over at the company that distributes the product agreed with the advertising department or ad agency that it would be a good idea to put this annoyance on the air. My only defense is to refrain from purchasing something I might otherwise actually want.

KMart has jumped onto the screechwagon with a series of ads narrated by a woman with a painfully shrill voice (and how dare she wax so chipper about disturbing my rest!) Light and Fit, on the other hand, slurps at me. I always had to look away during their old commercial: the one in which a slender young blonde woman dispatches some yoghurt, right in the supermarket, with such verve that the sides of the small plastic container collapse inward; she then glances furtively around to see if anyone has witnessed her uncouthness. Now it's worse; in the new ad she is absolutely disgusting, licking the insides of the container, swishing her finger around in it, making the kinds of noises that would get some small children slapped at the table (okay, others would be gently admonished) and being something of a sow. My tum's been rough lately anyway; this ad turns it.

There's more -- oh so much more -- but you probably already know what they are, even if you don't always remember the name of the product (and let this be a lesson to you, o gurus of spin) and I need to sleep now. I just hope the late Billy Mays doesn't wake me up.

photo of Billy Mays courtesy Sharese Ann Frederick

Shot in the Chest Area and Basically Killed

2010-02-11T10:04:00.003-06:00

I may have mentioned that I watch too much television. This is not strictly true; I listen to too much television. To counteract tinnitis (which used to be called tintinnitus but somehow managed to lose a syllable during my lifetime) I sleep with the TV on, often tuned to the Science Channel (which gets noisy -- for some reason they think shows about gigantic cranes are enhanced by relentless heavy metal scores) or Investigation Discovery (slower going but generally less noisy). It is from the latter I am learning, and being reminded, and being rereminded, that Americans can't speak English and policepersons, whether they can speak it or not, are unwilling to do so.

Have I somehow missed some legal reason why "the suspect drove into the garage, got out of the car and tried to run away, so the officer shot him in the chest and killed him" instead of "Upon driving into the garage area, exiting the vehicle and proceeding on foot, the officer shot the suspect in the chest area which basically killed him"? I am not presenting the former as a perfect sentence, but the latter is not only ungrammatical (it says, in fact, that the officer got out of the car, when it is the suspect who did so) but hazy (what is the garage area or the chest area and how do you basically kill someone? Is the left arm, for example, part of the chest area? Is the kitchen part of the garage area, or is the lawn? If you are basically killed, are you more or less dead than if you are complexly killed, or would the opposite be "completely killed"?)

The whole matter is giving me a basic pain in my head area.

Product Placement? Entertainment Replacement!

2010-02-10T23:56:00.005-06:00

I am not familiar enough with Jimmy Fallon to have formed an opinion about him before tonight. Talk shows haven't been my cuppa since they stopped being about conversation and started being about cheap shots and cheap laughs (which these days translate to the same thing). However, tonight's show's first guest is Dick Cavett, a person who actually knows how to carry on an interesting -- even fascinating, even intelligent, even enlightening --conversation without shouting down his guest, promoting homophobia or making fools out of random street people or audience members. Therefore I tuned in to Fallon's show and suffered through a fairly lame but only mildly offensive (and old! who pokes fun at Bill Clinton's sex drive anymore? who cares?) monologue, a silly but totally inoffensive "finger skating" segment and a horrible bit of business in which a "preacher" (perhaps meant to bear a vague resemblance to James Brown, or perhaps I missed the real reference?) "preached" an endless Subway commercial (there was a real one in the next break). Now what is the purpose of presenting a commercial (pretty straight after all, despite the obvious conviction of the participants that there was some humor involved) right before a commercial? Everyone knows, and perhaps groaningly accepts, that these late night talk shows have more commercial time than show time to start with. The only justification I can imagine for this stupidity is that the alternative may have been more of the same crap, or worse, that passed for a monologue.

And to think I actually LIKE Subway. At this point I'd rather see a real Subway commercial (and they're not all that amusing) than Jimmy Fallon.

Then Cavett came out and although the conversation could not be called cohesive, it was at least coherent, because Cavett took control of it, told stories without being interrupted, joked without being trumped and actually wowed everyone with a rope trick.

When Cavett was done, I was also done, and I assure you, it will take someone of Cavett's presence to woo me back.

Panic!

2010-01-18T19:07:00.003-06:00

Facebook is going to charge (fill in blank with price) for using its service starting (fill in blank with date)! If you join this group, my father/mother/brother/sister/dog will stop smoking/shooting heroin/voting the wrong way and/or some unidentified person or group will donate some unidentified amount to some unidentified party in aid of the hapless Haitians/their daughter/sister/neighbor with cancer/cancer/cancer. It's all TRUE, hurry up, the sky is falling!

Okay, none of it is true and the sky is only falling a little bit. Relax.

Why don't people do the teensiest tiniest little research before they jump onto the bandwagon that's tipping over into the quicksand? It's so easy! There are reputable sites that bust urban myths and demystify hoaxes. I like Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/) despite some minorly annoying popups. Check http://www.snopes.com/fraud/distress/valentin.asp out as an example of the tug-on-heartstrings scam (the first part of the page shows the various versions of an email that went out over a period of years, after which you may read what the real situation was and what became of the scammer). Here is a general hoax roundup: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/roundup.asp . To find more hoaxes, just search for "hoax." This result most closely matches the Facebook charge hoax, though it isn't among those mentioned: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/overload.asp. There are sites other than Snopes, too; in addition, one can always Google the specifics of whatever one has heard.

Apart from all that, common sense seems to be a rare commodity. HOW will joining a specific group send money to Haiti? What PROOF has a group got that Facebook intends to charge? Can it quote a legitimate FAQ, email or article? When you look outside and upward, do you see the sky falling, and if not, do you see any secondary indications that it might be? No? Then RELAX. DON'T PANIC.

(And for God's sake, don't pass it on to everyone on your email list!)

Gaming on Facebook

2010-01-18T17:38:00.002-06:00

I've been frittering away my time. I have a good excuse: I am chronically ill and my various types and levels of energies allow me to do only so much, and of only this or that, at any given moment. However, I also happen to enjoy roleplaying games, AKA RPG, and have enjoyed them since discovering Ultima (in JAPANESE, yet!) on Gameboy, some eons ago. I can't help myself.

For a few years I eschewed Facebook involvement, even though I dutifully made a page, populated it with whatever MySpace (totally icky IMNSHO) had asked, to avoid rethinking stuff that hadn't changed, and then pretty much ignored it. I found an old college friend, some people I thought were old friends, turned out not to be and wanted to be Facebook friends anyway, and lots of "friend"-collectors. I was baffled and uninterested.

Recently, though, I've returned to Facebook to find more old friends, current friends, relatives, There friends and WebRing friends... and games. GAMES! Some of them are downright annoying. I am too blind and too laggy to play shooting games, which I don't enjoy anyway. I like the idea of farming, zooing, cafe-running, but can't bear the gameplay in any of the games of those ilks; they afford no actual control to the players over elements that matter most to me (for example, the recipes, or the crops). The farm and zoo animals are, in addition, unbearably cute. I have a low tolerance for "cute."

The first game I enjoyed playing was School of Wizardry. Happily for me, I am almost completely unfamiliar with the Harry Potter phenomenon, so I am not bothered by its association therewith (and possibly, for all I know, plagiarism therefrom/copyright violation thereof -- I am not in a position to know but I have my suspicionsm and if they turned out to be founded I WOULD be bothered); I don't read the actual text. I just "take" the lessons (by clicking), decide which ones to take when, bank or spend the gold, duel, buy "school supplies" or properties, deal with the intricacies of all that per game instructions, increase my order and advance along the pretty rigid lines of the game. I have no idea why this should afford me any satisfaction; there is no story apart from the one I'm ignoring and that is barely a story at all. Yet I do rather enjoy the small decisions that go into playing School of Wizardry.

Unfortunately, the makers of SOW have also produced a few SOW clones, identical in gameplay and differing only in decor and superficial details. Some of them are insulting. World War is SOW in darker colors, with no female character for female players to use (I chose to look something like Martin Sheen as President Bartlett from "West Wing" but would rather have been Mary Robinson or Golde Meir). Pet Wars is just plain obnoxious; it barely even qualifies as cute, but rather strikes me as downright ugly. (Does anyone on Facebook know what a real animal looks like?) City Life: Girls in New York is offensive for its sexist assumptions. I don't spend my energies trying to outwalk fashion models on a runway, and if I had the funds, youth and health my cartoon counterpart had, I would not squander any of it on the activities the makers of this game seem to think females consider the ultimate thrill (I can't remember any of them now; I think an awful lot of them involve lunch at classy New York landmarks, which in itself would not displease me -- I do eat! -- but isn't the be-all or end-all of New York life). Godfather is the Mafia version of SOW and is to me the LEAST offensive, because most people admit they don't actually admire gangsters; this is just acting out, which is in its way healthy.

Treasure Madness does not pretend to be RPG, and involves clicking on squares on different maps, to collect gold, nourishment (for the points to continue playing) and (the object of the game) treasures, in the form of artifacts which can be collected and "secured" in a museum. When a treasure is found, its identification and acquisition must be earned by the playing of a short (timed!) action game, at most of which I am miserably inept. I am not too bad at the memory game but the ones that involve fast mouse clicks to pop little pearls or dissolve stones are only barely doable, and the Tetris and Bejeweled clones too hard. Sometimes I can do the fruit swappy thing (sorry that I don't have this open at the moment to tell you the exact names). Still, I can do enough of them to collect some treasures and feel some satisfaction from the game itself. I don't go there often.

(I should say that because of School of Wizardry, in which the number of one's order members is crucial in winning duels, and which requires that order members first be Facebook friends, I have acquired almost 500 Facebook "friends," with some of whom I have become friendly for real.)

By far superior to any of the above is an almost-real-RPG called Dream World. I only say "almost" because the storyline is so rigid. (Ah, I do miss Might and Magic(s) six through nine!) However, there is a lot to it, especially compared to School of Wizardry and its clones. One chooses a character (one's own photo is the icon, which does not appear as a moving character) and a class (using guns, swords or magic) and proceeds to accept quests from a succession of locations, to which one acquires access as one fulfills the major quests. There are, as with Treasure Madness, puzzles involved, but one need not do any of them to progress (it helps; in Treasure Madness, no game, no treasure!) and they involve thinking rather than just fast clicking. Some of them even involve mathematics and/or logic! There are trivia questions as well. Some measure of humor is buried among these procedings, and best of all, Dream World appears not to be a clone.

All of the abovementioned prevent players from frying their brains too badly, through the device of making one wait from half a minute (Treasure Madness) to six minutes (Dream World) for energy/health/whatever they call them points (without which one cannot make a move) to refresh. Of course anyone determined to roast those cells can do so by playing as many games as possible simultaneously, to avoid waiting, but then this actually exercises said cells, so (hopefully) one breaks even.

There is a Facebook game called Realm of Empires which is even more compelling than any of these and it deserves its own post, so stay tuned for that! I have to go attack an enraged succubus, duel a SOW member who isn't in my order, click a map square in hope of being confronted with a game at which I don't excel, and... you'll see.

Magic Jack

2010-01-18T14:01:00.002-06:00

This is a simple math question. How does $1.70 a month times ANY number of months end up as ANY number ending in a five? The good news is that the annual cost announced is LOWER than $1.70 times 12. The question (apart from the math question) is which one is the consumer actually charged? Is Magic Jack offering a discount for paying for a year in advance, and simply forgetting to mention that discount, or is Magic Jack either bad at math or trying to deceive the consumer, or...? Does anyone reading this actually use Magic Jack and if so, what do you actually pay? And have I used the word "actually" enough yet?

Criminal Minds Revisited, and Bootlegged!

2009-11-07T14:28:00.002-06:00

I know I could have responded to my previous post on this topic but I have enough to say about it that it does deserve its own post. I have now seen every episode of Criminal Minds ever aired, and am totally hooked on the show which, in the previous post, I did blast, rather.

Nothing I said was untrue and I stand by it all. However, I have since been able to appreciate all of the actors and all of the characters, and their uniqueness (some of which was in question), much better for having seen more. In particular I have come to enjoy Kirsten Vangsness' Penelope Garcia, who at first reminded me of whatshername in NCIS, a show I really, REALLY dislike (I must, or I'd be watching it for the marvelous David McCallum): you know, the gothy girl. I thought Garcia was CM's answer to NCIS. She's not. She's herself, a very GOOD self, too. I also have come to appreciate Paget Bewster's Emily Prentice (and her uniqueness) quite a bit more than when I saw her as a replacement for Lola Glaudini's ever-staring Elle Greenaway based PURELY on her having long, dark hair (not to upset the balance in the full-cast picture; I saw their choice of Joe Mantegna's David Rossi as a replacement for Mandy Patinkin's Jason Gideon the same way -- dark-haired white men -- except that I was already very familiar with both actors and despite my opinion of how Mantegna may have been chosen, was glad to see him on the show; I should add that I don't hate Glaudini but she really never drew me in, even when she was the focus of the show and should have done so.) Brewster creates a much fuller character, whose depths have not even yet been plumbed by the writers, who are by and large (not without exceptions, alas) turning out better material than they once did (although an early two-parter, "The Big Game" and "Revelations" was flawless and played a large part in my becoming completely hooked on the show).

But I am not here to write a review (nor, as I may have implied, to apologize for the previous post). I am here to tell you a story about international deceit, if not intrigue.

I asked my fiancé to buy me the boxed set of the first four seasons (for those not familiar with the show, the current season is number five and only a handful of episodes have aired, so this won't be available for a while) if I could find a fantastic price. Amazon's SALE price is $135 plus shipping (or maybe shipping is free, who knows?) I've seen it go on eBbay for as little as $77 (but that was unusual; more often it has sold for $90-120). We decided $75 was our limit. Then he upped it to $80 and then to $100 (which I refused to do; that's too much, as we are impoverished; we should not even have considered spending $75 but for what was being sold and considering the going rate, that would have been a good price). I bid a few times, lost all those times.

Then I clicked on one of eBbay's sponsored links, where the same item was being sold for $49.99 plus $14 shipping. Good price, yes? Not an insignificant amount of money, if you don't happen to be rich, but less than the lowest price winning such an auction, and not itself an auction. It was also not the only sponsored link and the others were a tad higher but comparable, so I did not think it was "too low" (meaning likely a scam). The site, at dvdscollection.com, looked like any other store of its type, with a nice enough picture of the product and an assurance that it was available in both NSTC and PAL formats (a little odd since DVDs are generall classified by regions, not formats, and at any rate there was nothing on the page to permit anyone to choose between those formats). It looked okay and the price was right -- only a little under the lowest winning eBay auction I'd seen for that item. A lot less... yuou have to wonder why. A little less? You grab it!

My fiancé handed me his credit card and hovered while I paid for the item (he himself being hopeless on the computer). Easy, right? Wrong. I was briefly shown a page that said the payment would be verified in 24 hours, and then, without my clicking anything, was redirected to an order page showing the following order status: order confirmed, unpaid, unshipped.

Now, a credit card charge may take time to post, but it gets verified or rejected right away, so what was with the 24 hours to verify? While I pondered that, I received an email with a subject heading indicating that I should confirm (it didn't say precisely what, and the order page showed my order status as confirmed). I opened the email and read an affirmation that I had purchased the item, nowhere in the email was I asked to confirm anything, nor was I provided with a URL or link, nor given instructions (not even "reply to this email). I replied to the email, asking why and what I had to confirm, how to do so, if necessary, and why it would take 24 hours to confirm a credit card payment.

After sending this rather baffled and somewhat cranky email, I returned to the order page and found a new message: I need to confirm my order; click here to have confirmation email sent to me! Irked, I clicked, and to my guarded relif, such an email DID arrive, this time containing a link (or a url anyway, I forget whether it was clickable). I used the link or url and reached a page completely in Chinese, except for the letters HTTP and the number 404.

A moment of stunned silence, please, to match my own when I reached that informative page.

As soon as I overcame my momentary astoundment, I quickly rechecked the order page, which still told me my order was confirmed (without any messages telling me to confirm it, again or otherwise), unpaid and unshipped.

The site is entirely in English (despite that one Chinese confirmation page). The prices are all listed in U.S. dollars. There is no physical address or phone number offered under Contact Information (or anywhere else) but there is an email address -- the same one from which they sent both confirmation requests, the ridiculous one and the actual but useless one. I wrote to them asking to explain what was going on, and why even after much more than 24 hours they had not yet confirmed the payment. They wrote back saying they could not confirm the payment because the name on the card wasn't the same as the name of the person ordering the DVDs. That is when I realized they had not asked for a billing address, which would be different from my mailing address, as my fiancé was paying. They requested that I fill out a form (attached to the email) and send them a picture of both sides of my fiancé's credit card, for our security. I did not download the attachment and Ii wrote back that under no circumstances was I going to send them a picture of the card, which would at any rate prove nothing, since I had already given them the card number, expiration date and three-digit security code. Would my having the card in my possession prove I hadn't stolen it?

They backed down, and four days after payment was made, it was finally acknowledged on the order page as confirmed. It posted a day or two later to my fiancé's bank account... in a slightly higher amount. When we asked the bank what was going on they said the extra (approximately) two bucks was a currency exchange fee (as I understand it, if the price is listed in U.S. dollars, that means, in the absence of notification prior to purchase -- and we didn't get any even AFTER purchase! the order page to this DAY says we were charged $60.99!) -- THEY eat any exchange rate fees or wobbles. The banker disagreed; the customer pays the fee. (But why was that not part of the agreement? We were not buying an item whose price was listed in a foreign currency; had it been, we would have expected such a fee. Why did we need to pay a fee to convert U.S. dollars into U.S. dollars?) The banker was confused, though, about our confusion; hadn't we physically been present in a store to buy this item? After all, the card had been physically SWIPED.

Some at the company with which we were more and more regretting our interaction had made a physical copy of my fiancé's credit card. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that considered at the very least NOT NICE? I am not conversant in international law but I can't imagine there is a reasonably developed country that hasn't got some kind of law against that!

Two weeks after making this order I received notice of an attempt to deliver a package. My fiancé picked it up for me at the post office. The package was from Beijing, People's Republic of China, and had, of course, a different company name on the packing slip than the one on the website. Instead of Dvds Collection, this company now turned out to be (or claim to be) Yan Hai Electronic Commerce (Beijing) Ltd. Nowhere on the site is there any indication that the company has another name (not so much as a dba), or a physical location at all (it floats in space?)

I was quite relieved to receive the boxed set lafter all that; it looked gorgeous but when I opened it up, the DVDswere in plain plastic slips, without episode titles, and there were no episode titles or descriptions anywhere on or in the box (no literature at all). The only information on the DVDs individual labels were the season and disc number (Season 1, Disk 4, for example. I had to play each one to see what was on it, and while all the episodes from all four seasons were represented, there was something else wrong: some of the discs had proper warnings and distribution credits on them, and came with extras, and had episodes complete and uncut, including end credits, but most of the discs were VERY obviously recorded from television broadcast! The CBS or CTV logo was at the bottom of the screen for the duration of an episode, while promos for those channels' shows would pop up the way they do when you watch a tv show being broadcast, the segues (where commercials were cut) were sometimes ept and sometimes inept, and without exception the end credits were missing. Shows ended abruptly with a freeze frame on the producer credit that appears at the end of a show, without regard for whether or not the music had finished fading. It was truly shoddy.

One could argue that you get what you pay for. I would counter by saying this was not a watch sold on a street corner. It was a product sold by an ebay sponsor, for a price not so VERY much less, once shipping was added, than the lowest winning auction price, and that at ANY rate, promises should be kept. By pretending to be a legitimate company, these folks promised me the real article and I got a bootleg, and a poor one at that. Ignoring for the moment the hassle they put us through just to get the order made, consider, please, the fact that they effectively stole my fiancé's credit card! (We're dealing with it, thanks, and the idiots, not asking for a billing address, probably can't use what they have anyway.)

I am not certain how to pursue this, since the company is in China, but I am starting with a complaint to my state Attorney General's Office, and I am sure they will direct me to someone who will direct me to someone who will direct me, ad infinitum, either to the right party or to a dead end.

Meanwhile I have now seen (as I mentioned at the beginning of this post) every episode of Criminal Minds ever aired, albeit most of them I have only seen slightly butchered, and without end credits, and sans extras, even though I have the DVD boxed set. Kind of.

Saturn: Whose POV?

2009-09-13T11:29:00.003-05:00

If I were not chronically ill and stuck in bed for extended periods of time I would not watch/listen to so much television, and you would be reading someone else's blog. But I am, and am, and do, so here we are.

Saturn has a newish commercial out, in which a man speaks past the camera, presumably (therefore) to someone we can't see -- perhaps an interviewer -- and immediately avers that when he comes home, he turns on the television and listens to pundits talking about the fact that American car manufacturers are not producing cars that Americans want to buy. He calls it a fact; I may be misquoting slightly but I have the essentials correct. He uses the word "pundits," these days a rather popular word in ads, meaning "self-professed or actual expert," used in these instances derogatorily to mean "self-professed." So why, then, does he use the word "fact"? It's odd. But he goes on to explain, again oddly, not that Americans DO want to buy some American cars, but that Saturn has recently PRODUCED some new cars. He emphasizes that the cars are not revisions of older models but totally new cars, which may be of interest but certainly has no relevance to his argument against the assertion of the so-called pundits. In fact, he never actually rebuts their assertion. He never even says anything along the lines of, "they're right; Americans don't want American cars... but they SHOULD and here is why!" He just tells us what he hears them say when he comes home from work and turns on the TV, and then drops the ball.

He ends the ad, still looking past us at the unseen recipient of his "information," by urging us to stop by and check out the new Saturns, adding that "we" have always stood by "our" cars (or some such thing). Okay... if he works for Saturn, 1. why does he have to come home and turn on the TV to find out what the "pundits" are saying and 2. why isn't he speaking directly to us when he urges us to come by and see what he's got? Lately I've been seeing this "technique" of having the speaker look past the camera used and abused half to death. SOMETIMES it works. If the intended effect is that the speaker is being interviewed by someone off-camera, or speaking to a friend, not directly to us, this works. But I think some commercial directors use it without understanding (or perhaps caring) what it means, what effect it has or anything other than that "this would be cool" (which, if it gives the wrong impression, has the wrong effect, makes not sense, it is NOT).

Semiotics aside, the whole thing is just a shifting, albeit brief, hodgepodge of non sequiturs. Makes me want to run out and buy a Saturn... NOT. Aww, that's not fair. The new cars might be quite nice. I'll never know.

Of course I don't drive. Please don't take this to mean I'm just a pundit when it comes to auto ads. I know incompetence when I see it. Find yourself a new ad agency, guys!

Addendum, 9/14/09: Well, I do not flatter myself that Saturn or its minions (no, honestly, I have nothing against Saturn; the cars even look okay!) read my blog, but the very same day I wrote this, the ad changed: it begins, audially, the same way, but with a label identifying the speaker as a Saturn dealer, and a line has been added saying outright that (proving the "pundits" wrong) Saturn makes cars that Americans want to buy. Obviously unless I fall prey to a severe and sudden case of megalomania, I must believe that others have noticed the shortcomings of the previous version of the ad.

The POV problem remains.

(And I still don't drive!)

Criminal Minds

2009-09-12T14:06:00.002-05:00

For reasons unknown to me, I've been watching every episode of Criminal Minds available to me, and for reasons also unknown to me, the show's been extremely available lately. In the last couple of weeks I've been able to see at least two full seasons' worth of episodes... maybe more. Most have featured Mandy Patinkin; a few have been late enough to feature Joe Mantegna. I like both actors. I've witnessed the demise of Elle and the rocky introduction of Prentice. I've seen Reid with various lengths of hair.

So, you say, in that comforting tone, now now, there there, lully lully (okay, enough of that!) why shouldn't you? Knock yourself out. Nothing lasts forever. Catch it while you can. You enjoy it, you like it; go for it!

But I DON'T, that's the thing. I mean I kind of do, but it's maddening... because it is NOT a good show. The insufficiencies are overwhelming and I, who enjoy being drawn in, am pushed out by glaring booboos every step of the way. It's torment. Why am I doing this?

Because I like the IDEA of the show and because I like some of the ACTORS in the show (Patinkin, Mantegna, getting to like Gubler, never was a Dharma etc. fan but starting to appreciate Gibson, and I even like one of the sometime DIRECTORS of the show, himself also an actor who appeared (if you can call it that) in one (or two, as it's a double) of the episodes: Charles Haid. Vangsness is funny if somewhat clichéed (as written). Never felt much for Cook or Glaudini one way or the other, though Cook made a funny face the other day. Moore... I like him but (as I shall detail) I heard him blow a(n admittedly badly written) line in one episode. I haven't seen Brewster enough to feel anything. The unsubs: almost all as hammy as a fist in the face.

These ramblings being random, I'll qvetch chaotically. Here, in absolutely no order whatever, are my quibbles, large, small, medium and medium rare:

When the producers replaced dark-haired somewhat older male Patinkin, they chose dark-haired, somewhat older male Mantegna. When they replaced long-dark-locked female Glaudini, they chose guess WHAT? Long-dark-locked female Brewster. It's as if they're making sure that we, the audience, who obviously not only judge people by such superficialities but expect a cross-section of physical types, don't get CONFUSED about these folks' roles. I find this offensive, my longtime admiration for Mantegna notwithstanding.

The plots are twisty, no? Also turny, yes? So how come I, for one, can guess what's going on long before the BAU does? Am I brilliant? Well, yes, but that's beside the point. The point IS: the show wants to make you feel smart (even if you really are). I find this condescending, as, come to think of it, I also find the fact that in every show, the team members explain stuff to each other than they surely already know (or they wouldn't have made the team). This is for the benefit of the audience and probably has to be done, but does it have to be done so heavy-handedly? Can we not explain the different types of serial killers in such stodgy detail EVERY single time, but maybe work it into the dialogue some other way? Of course that would take some writing skill... which brings us to a certain line given the hapless Moore:

"Do you know what they do to guys who hurt children inside?"

Okay, badly written line there. Should be more like "Do you know what they do inside to guys who hurt children?" But we get what we get. Moore could've protested I suppose, but he'd have had to understand what he was reading to think to do that. I'm not calling him stupid. He doesn't seem stupid to me. His reading of that line was stupid:

"Do you know what they do to guys, who hurt children inside?"

Oh, does someone hurt children's insides? And do they do something different to gals?

He could've read it properly this way (it would still be awkward but it would mean what it was supposed to mean):

"Do you know what they do to guys who hurt children... inside?"

Well he should've told the writers it was crap and said what he felt like saying.

This quibble is with A&E and not with the show itself: why is it okay to show lingering closeups of mutilated corpses but not okay to say the words "ass" or "bitch" (both of which also mean certain animals, in which context they're not even deemed offensive, though I admit in no case in this show do they mean certain animals)? If I can watch someone slice a wound into a captive's arm, I should be able to hear the captive utter some fairly graphic language in response.

Oh, there are isolated (but glaring) moments I should've written down to share with you. They're lost in the recesses of my obsessed brain. That's right: obsessed. Why else would I be watching this stuff day after day, sometimes hour after hour?

Optimism.

I keep hoping they'll get it right. I want them to get it right. I need them to get it right.

Such a sucker!

When does Ugly Betty come back? I miss Ugly Betty! That show is PERFECT!

Where to Find my Nonbloggy Writings!

2009-09-03T17:00:00.002-05:00

Try this page: http://sh1.webring.com/people/wg/genessa/writingslist.htm . It lists most of the writing on my website (check the product pages; I have hidden some essays there too!) and links to my ESSAYS page which lists off-site stuff.

g

Controversial Ramblings

2009-07-09T02:02:00.002-05:00

I've done it again; I've rambled about controversial issues and not bothered to do so here. Why? Well, I like my website just fine, thanks, and my index makes it pretty easy for folks to find just what they seek there, instead of, say, trying to guess what month a certain post is in, or scrolling down to try to find it (in reverse order, yet, if it's got multiple parts). So please wander HERE to read my ramble, and then wander right back to post a comment (be nice!)

NEW DOCTOR WHO/TORCHWOOD FAN FICTION STORY READY TO VIEW! COMMENTS WELCOME!

2009-06-14T14:32:00.006-05:00

As you know if you read this blog regularly (and you should admit it, and follow it, so others can see that you do, and so I can see that you do and not think myself pathetic) I am a writer. I write whole bunches of stuff, all sorts of whole bunches, and once in a while I break down and write a little fan fiction. My usual fan fiction has been for Quantum Leap but I am a confessed Whovian and have finally written a nice, long Doctor Who fanfic story, featuring Captain Jack of Torchwood. You may find it here: SMILES. Please feel free to comment (you don't have to love it, and constructive criticism is welcome, but be nice!) as a reply to this post, since I don't actually have a guestbook.

Enjoy!

Crappy Valentine Day

2009-02-08T03:33:00.001-06:00

Let me get one thing straight; I do like teddy bears. I am rather particular about which ones I collect; I'm not so particular about whether my stuffed animals are bears (I like other animals as well). None of this makes me a squealing moron who'll drop her panties upon receipt of an ursine toy, and I resent the crap out of anyone who portrays me or other double-x-chromosomed in such a humiliating light. Hence my objection to Vermont Teddy Bear's choice of advertising.

It's aimed at guys. Okay, fine, no problem there. Its opinion of guys is no higher than its opinion of gals. Oops. Not good. If gals are twits, guys are halftwits, too stupid to get laid without the help of a prefab sentiment delivered by an inanimate (albeit plenty cute -- more than we can say about said guys) object.

The message is, hey, idiot, we KNOW you forgot all about V-Day, and you're too dense to know what your gal wants; furthermore, you don't know her well enough to get her something unique to her taste or desires. However, you DO want to get into her pants. So trust us. All women are the same. They will uniformly, if not actually en masse, melt into unabashed acquiescence if you spring for our adorable, overpriced product, and she'll never notice that your inspiration was not your appreciation of her personality but rather this offensive but ubiquitous TV commercial, which of course she won't see (which market research buffoon decided that women don't watch TV?)

When, in the ad, all the women in an office gush semiorgasmically over the bear received by the lucky one among them, and all the men in that office peek over their cubicle walls in absolute awe because they know some lucky stiff is going to get the promised "results," one of the less lucky ladies sighs, nay, squeals (we said it right the first time), "Where can I find a man like that?" I can only hope she was referring to the bear... the only innocent party in this offensive affair.

Coming Up at Ten....

2009-02-06T10:06:00.000-06:00

Everyone has teasers now. You can't just get the news straight; you've got to click, or stay tuned. Okay... it's a technique to draw people in. It turns me off, but some are drawn in. Thing is, when the theatre is on fire, "What dire emergency is likely going to kill innocent people tonight? Coming up at ten, stay tuned...." doesn't work as well as "FIRE!"

AOL headlines are never "So n so's baby born with two heads"; they're always "guess whose baby was born with two heads?" Okay, that's not urgent stuff, and it's kind of lurid to start with; why is this headline news? Sorry, why is this headline tease? But last night I tuned in to ABC television a little early for Ugly Betty and was hit with "It's not only peanuts causing salmonella; coming up at ten." It was a couple minutes shy of seven, locally; if this was a national announcement, ten was two hours off, and if the announcement was local, make that three.

That's plenty of time for lots of people to eat the mystery food and get salmonella.

Quite frankly, I find that disgusting. The news should be interrupting regular programming, at least with a scrolling message, to announce for us to stay away from whatever it is that's now killing people. And the show to which I had tuned in, aired just before Ugly Betty? THE NEWS. But of course it was probably local; they save the really hot stuff for national. Who cares if people die?

Disgusting.

I Listen to Too Much TV

2008-09-22T14:18:00.003-05:00

I wrote this on February 18, 2010, and used a blank draft instead of opening a new post. Result: this post ends up with a 2008 date on it, tucked away where it is unlikely to be found. I am therefore copying it and reposting it (minutes, rather than years, after writing it).

Having tinnitis, I listen to too much television. I sleep with it on. I compute with it on. I'm selective about the shows to which I tune in but unfortunately it is not within my power to be selective regarding to which advertisements I am exposed. Therefore I find myself in various stages of mental, emotional and even audial irritation.

Now, Billy Mays is dead, and dead younger than one wants to be dead, and far be it for me to wish someone dead, but since he is dead, couldn't he stop shouting in my ear? And now we have Anthony Sullivan, the purpose of whose existence I have not yet fathomed, trying to be Billy Mays, having reshot a Mays ad for some gadget that lets you play your phone calls over your car radio (not a bad idea but, apart from not being a driver, I would never purchase anything touted that obnoxiously; it only encourages the obnoxious to continue their obnoxiousness) almost verbatim, and in a somewhat Maysian pitch. Sullivan is annoying enough just being himself; trying to be Mays too is toeing the human pain threshhold.

Then there is the creep who thinks if he never takes a breath we won't notice he's talking nonsense; his product, some chopper slicer thingie, may or may not be the eighth wonder of the world, but I can't stand his patter, and someone over at the company that distributes the product agreed with the advertising department or ad agency that it would be a good idea to put this annoyance on the air. My only defense is to refrain from purchasing something I might otherwise actually want.

KMart has jumped onto the screechwagon with a series of ads narrated by a woman with a painfully shrill voice (and how dare she wax so chipper about disturbing my rest!) Light and Fit, on the other hand, slurps at me. I always had to look away during their old commercial: the one in which a slender young blonde woman dispatches some yoghurt, right in the supermarket, with such verve that the sides of the small plastic container collapse inward; she then glances furtively around to see if anyone has witnessed her uncouthness. Now it's worse; in the new ad she is absolutely disgusting, licking the insides of the container, swishing her finger around in it, making the kinds of noises that would get some small children slapped at the table (okay, others would be gently admonished) and being something of a sow. My tum's been rough lately anyway; this ad turns it.

There's more -- oh so much more -- but you probably already know what they are, even if you don't always remember the name of the product (and let this be a lesson to you, o gurus of spin) and I need to sleep now. I just hope the late Billy Mays doesn't wake me up.

Ramblings About There.com: 89 Snippets of Important Information

2008-08-19T10:54:00.000-05:00

There (yes, its name is "There" and its address is http://www.there.com/) is the virtual world in which I hang out. I have tons to say about There but today I have a specific agenda.

In addition to the world itself (which is immense) there are supplementary features which can be accessed from out-of world; these include, but are not limited to, Therecare and other customer care features, and a plethora of Thereian forum folders which can be accessed not only from out-of-world but during There's brief maintenance period (3:30 to 5:00 AM Pacific, except for when the world doesn't quite come back on time, or when it comes back early, or when it doesn't come back at all until late afternoon due to an update). Forum topics include, among MANY others, suggestions for staff, developers and other Thereians. Sometimes people post quite useful suggestions which are then implemented by the powers that be and turn up as improvements to the world. Sometimes, on the other hand, people post the most godawful crap.

In response to what this humble rambling blogger considers the latter form of post, in which an otherwise probably truly lovely person innocently suggested putting up SIGNS to tell newbies to turn on their forcefields (and then how about a sign to tell newbies to read the signs?) I posted what started out as a sarcastic list of advisory tidbits to be posted on signs Therewide for the benefit of newbies (and to the detriment of anyone who actually enjoys the scenery) and ended up being a semi-serious bit of instructional material.

Some of it will make no sense whatsoever to a non-Thereian. Some of it will be applicable to your life even if you have never been visually represented by a cartoon.

Here it is:

1. If you are being summoned, you do not HAVE to go!

2. Put your force field on. Otherwise, be afraid. Be very afraid.

3. Warning, spades game in progress. Do not bid 13.

4. Please do not play your radio through your microphone. People with acute hearing may wish to preserve it.

5. Explore your toolbar. It is full of interesting information, such as where you are (sometimes), what you possess and a means to turn your force field on and off.

6. Do not ask total strangers to be your There mom or dad. They might be axe murderers. They probably aren't but how do you KNOW? Get to know someone first. At least find out if they are at least six months older than you are.

7. Adding everyone whose nametag you see in the distance to your buddy list does NOT increase your social skill and DOES make you look rather desperate. If for some reason you really need to buddy someone, at least say HI first. Then it doesn't seem so tawdry.

8. Please do not drive up to strangers and demand that they get into your buggy (whether it is borrowed or not). They might actually be busy, even if they don't LOOK busy.

9. Pllllllllllllllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz isn't a word.

10. WUT? isn't a word.

11. If you've been banned from a zone, running as fast as you can into it will not get you unbanned. It will (did I say this already?) make you look desperate.

12. If an event has a scheduled preparation time, only the event host can get into the zone or lot or whatever during that prep time. Saying "Pllllllllllllllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz let me in right now Pllllllllllllllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz" will not enable the host to allow you in; only canceling the event will allow you entry and why would the host want to do that?

13. Clothing can't be lent so don't ask people to lend you clothing.

14. Don't beg. Really. Just don't. Even if you don't say "Pllllllllllllllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz" it's still begging to ask strangers for stuff. Someone you met two minutes ago is still a stranger.

15. Run around in your There-given undies if you wish but be aware it engenders no respect whatsoever.

16. There are real live people behind these avies, just like (we assume) there is one behind yours. Please do not behave toward them in a manner less considerate than you would assume if you were face to face.

17. It is rude in real life to go up to strangers and ask them how much money they have. It is not less rude to do it here.

18. People may charge any amount they want to for anything they want to in auctions. Do your research. Buyer beware. Caveat emptor. Veni vidi vici. Rikki Tikki Tavi.

19. If you summon people without first asking them if they wish to be summoned, you will find yourself on a surprising number of ignore lists.

20. If you are not receiving the IMs you were expecting, check to see what color the little hand in the lower righthand corner of your screen is. If it's not green, you will not be reached.

21. If you are going to buy, sell or trade with an individual, use the TRADE feature, not GIVE. Some people may try to "trade" you an item they don't actually own. If they cannot put it in the trade box, other than for technical reasons, they don't own it and you will be ripped off if you give them something in exchange for it (its rightful owner will retrieve it and you'll be left emptyhanded).

22. No one can give, lend, trade, sell, buy or receive to or from non-Premium members, so don't ASK.

23. How to put money in the trade box: Go to your balance and hover or click; a menu will come up. The menu includes GIVE. Do not choose that. It also includes TRADE. Choose that. Proceed per directions.

24. If you can't type the amount (or anything else) in the line, your Bedicam is messing up your game. Log out and back in, and turn off your Bedicam.

25. To sidestep, press shift and while holding it down, use the right or left arrow key.

26. Do not schedule an eight-hour event in someone else's funzone. Even if they don't explicitly object, it's kind of greedy. In your own zone, do what you like!

27. Do not drop your documents in someone else's place without permission.

28. "It's only a game" is a surprisingly lame excuse for misbehaving.

29. "It wasn't me, my sister/brother/cousin/neighbor/daughter/son/dog/teacher/total stranger/ was using my account and (insert misbehavior here). Be responsible for your account.

30. Knee-high boots look funny with raves and not ha-ha funny, either.

31. When you win a bidding auction, you have a high chance of being overcharged. You should check your transaction history against the closed auction listing page for each item. The overage will usually range from 25t to 125t but it adds up. Be sure to tell FUZE the auction number, the amount of the winning bid, the amount you were actually charged and (do the math for them!) the difference; be sure to include the total refund you are requesting. They will refund the overage but only if you ASK.

32. It seems some people have had such trouble logging their Coke avie in through the Coca Cola site that they have abandoned said avies, often with deep regret. Did you know you can log a Coke avie in through the normal There log-in screen? You'll still get the cramped forums, the different There Central (it's not called that, is it?), the advanced auction page will let you search by bidder, and by price, date and category, and the rather vibrant color scheme will remind you you're a Coke avie, but inworld function will be normal (if you call this NORMAL!)

33. You do not have to be in the physical proximity of a document to read it. Any document that has not had the "Do not include in Library" box checked can be found by searching the library. You do this just as you search auctions, only change the drop-down menu to read LIBRARY instead of AUCTIONS.

34. To see who (if anyone) bid on and/or won an auction item, including bid auctions and BUY NOWs, change the word "view" in the URL to "bidhistory." Just because people list an item for a million tbux doesn't mean that item has ever been sold for that price.

35. To report a problem with an inventory item, you need to tell There the doid number. You can get this with the ABOUT command in the item's menu. Used to be you had to then go to PROPERTIES but now you can see the URL right in the browser window. The number at the end of the URL is the doid number. Even an error message will give you that doid number but be sure, then, to also paste the error message for them.

36. You may produce the illusion of a fart by doing a handstand and quickly burping.

37. If you are searching for an item or person, remember that There will not search anything with fewer than three characters in it, and seems to have an upper limit as well. Try the first eight characters.

38. People, group and sometimes places search will often come up blank the first time. Refresh the page until results pop in.

39. To compare prices on an item you wish to buy, use TRY if it's not already in your possession, and then click the ABOUT menu item. If anyone is selling the item, there will be links, including to the shop if it's a shop item. Refresh that page a couple times too; sometimes the links don't show up right away.

40. If you see green shades on someone, talking to them is probably useless, as they are almost certainly AFK.

41. Being a cohost at an event by virtue of being in the club assigned cohosting credit doesn't mean you may change the layout around without permission.

42. Telling someone you own a house or a hood that you don't actually own is foolish. Nine times out of ten you are telling the actual owner, who isn't likely to believe you.

43. There is no There police force. If you say you're a There policeman, no one believes you but the greenest noob, and shame on you for fooling a noob.

44. "How do we get money on There?" The first thing we do is BUY it. If we then spend it submitting designs that sell well, or buying low and selling high (not not unfairly high!) then those are ways of increasing your balance, but FIRST you BUY it. It takes money to make money.

45. No, I do not want to hire you.

46. If you are under 13, simply not mentioning it or actively lying about it will not be enough to make people think you're not underage. Acting more mature than a drooling infant might help.

47. There sets rent; individuals do not set rent. If you drop a lot, There will take the same amount from your balance, immediately, according to the size of the lot, regardless of which neighborhood you're in, and will then take that amount out every 30 days. There will tick the minutes off your paz at the same rate, also according to size and type, no matter what island you drop it on. By all means compare neighborhoods and other regions to see where you want to live, but it's useless to go about asking what the rent is; the hood owners do not control that. Some may offer you refunds or perqs; I am sure they will volunteer any such information.

48. Lots do not get time added to them as pazzes do, and can only be put out in neighborhoods (just as pazzes canNOT be put out in hoods). Do not mistake one for the other, and do not be fooled if someone tries to sell you a lot with "more time" on it. All lots in auction (and shop) are equal in value to all other lots of the same size. Pazzes, on the other hand, can have fluctuating value according to how much time is on them. Paz auctions now automatically tell how much (if any) time is left. This information is in small print in the upper lefthand portion of the listing.

49. People who are not using Voice for whatever reason are not necessarily non-Premium so please do not make such assumptions.

50. Yes your dog (borrowed or otherwise) is cute. It's not cute EVERYWHERE. Be considerate.

51. Ten bucks for life isn't a bad deal. Become a premium member!

52. Look for blue circles with little orangey yellow arrows in them. They are action tags. They will let you sit, or view a document, or perform any number of actions.

53. Don't give your password to anyone, not even your mother. Don't make an easy-to-guess password. Your birthday is a lousy password.

54. Drama is fascinating on stage and screen. Leave it there. Drama sucks here.

55. When you click on a link, in a document, to teleport to a place, you will most likely not teleport right away, but be taken to the information page for the place. Find the teeny tiny little VISIT button on that page to be teleported. If the link is to an event page instead of a place page, click on GO THERE NOW, which is less teeny tiny. Or if the event has not begun yet, click SIGN UP and then you will be summoned at the right time.

56. Super Bunnies are correctly called Super Bunny Shoes - Men and Super Bunny Shoes - Women, and the designer is There. Their category is Recent Releases, which is stupid but that's how it is. If someone is listing, or trying otherwise to sell you, an item that is supposedly a pair of Super Bunnies, and the designer is not There, or it is called something other than Super Bunny Shoes, or is found in the men's or women's clothing category, that person is attempting to dupe you.

57. Do not sit down to a card game knowing you be unable to stay for the whole game without at least asking the other players if that's okay. No one likes to be left high and dry.

58. You cannot give a copy of a document that is not in gear using GIVE A COPY but there is a trick: use LEND instead and it will not lend the original, but instead will give a copy. Don't ask me why. It just does. Thus you do not have to retrieve a document in order to give a copy of it to someone.

59. To look at a chat log in progress, go to PEOPLE on your toolbar and choose SHOW CHAT HISTORY. You cannot look at it, or attach it to mail or a Fuze report, until you have logged off, because the chat history is continuous. IMs on the other hand can be seen outside There or attached as soon as the IM in question is closed. To report abuse to There, using an attached chat log, go to GET HELP on your toolbar and choose LIVE HELP. Scroll down the LIVE HELP page to the very bottom and choose CUSTOMER SUPPORT (tiny little letters). On the next page choose ASK A QUESTION. Choose the category and subcategory. Write your complains as clearly and unemotionally as possible. Incomprehensibly, t\TOSable language is not permitted in the report, so if you want to say someone called you a certain name, you can't say the name. You can say you were compared to a female dog,or accused or making love to a parental unit, or declared to be someone who mistakes a private part for an ice cream cone, but you can't say the offensive words for any of that.. There will find your chat log directory for you so you will not have to scroll around, but in case you want to open it first in an outside browser to make sure it's the right one, you can find it in There (be it in Program Files, which I eschew, or not, which I prefer)\ThereClient\chatlogs. IM chatlogs will be listed alphabetically under the name of the person with whom you were IM-ing. Chat history chatlogs will be called chatlog followed by a date and time and a lot of other numbers. (Keep in mind these are temporary files and they will poof in a few days, so don't dilly dally; make that report ASAP!) A chat history chatlog will contain everything that was ever said within a certain range of your avie for the entire time you were inworld, so you may wish to say in the body of your complaint the name of the person you are reporting and where in the chatlog that person appears (halfway down, for example).

60. If you are suckered into teleporting into a place where your force field is removed without your consent and you find yourself being paintballed mercilessly or run over by vehicles that send you flying hither and yon, you will not be able to turn your force field back on yet, but all you have to do is go to PLACES and choose UNDO TELEPORT to be whisked back to whence you came. You can, alternatively teleport to one of your favorite places. The best move, of course, is not to get suckered to begin with.

61. If you find yourself in a trap, teleport out.

62. If you're stuck somewhere but it's not a trap, sidestep out. Sidestepping is also good for those little elevations; why jump when you can delicately, daintily sidestep?

63. Using TRY and then BUY in auctions is tricky. Honest it is. Allow me to explain. When you purchase an auction item it can take up to ten minutes (and I've seen it take longer) for the transaction to be completed. Until it is completed, you do not receive your item and you do not lose your money. Then, simultaneously, the item appears and its purchase price goes byebye. HOWEVER, if you have used TRY, the item you are trying vanishes in FIVE minutes. I have seen countless newbies, and even oldbies, try something on, decide to buy it, and then watch the item disappear after five minutes... and think something happened to their purchase. That wasn't your purchase. That was an identical item you TRIED. Your purchase may still have five minutes to be completed. What the befuddled buyer tends to do next is say oh well, it didn't work, and look, the auction is closed, something happened. I will just go buy it elsewhere. So s/he goes to another auction, or to the shop, and purchases the identical item. If s/hepurchases it from the shop, ther isn't that ten-minute delay. The buyer is out the money immediately, and gains the item immediately. Then FOUR minutes later, the original purchase goes through... and fails, because now the buyer doesn't have enough money to complete the original purchase. The auction has ended without sale for the seller, who is now frustrated at having to relist the item, and the buyer has spent more, because the original auction price hopefully was cheaper than the shop price. WHAT TO DO: WAIT! WAIT! It's COMING! Don't go assuming because your TRY item vanished you're not getting what you bought. Wait ten minutes. Don't make the seller miserable by spoiling his or her auction and letting him or her know s/he ALMOST made a sale.

64. When you shop fast, your balance doesn't keep up with you; there is the previously mentioned ten-minute delay. You may find yourself messing up a couple of auctions by not keeping good track of what you're spending. It happens to everyone (even ME!) once in a while but we should all be careful.

65. If you receive a Theremail saying you didn't have enough money for an auction you "bid" on (bought is more like it), contact the seller and offer to buy the item privately. It's only fair. If you're the seller, try to contact the buyer, but don't hold your breath. I have almost never received an answer. If you're the buyer, and the seller contacts you, ANSWER! Clicking CONFIRM is a CONTRACT. Even if you messed up and bought the same item elsewhere, you should keep your promise and buy from the seller.

66. If your auction ended due to technical difficulties (or a buyer who didn't have sufficient funds for any of the reasons above) and now you're in a position to trade or relist, you may find the menu items you need dimmed and unavailable. This is because the abrupt, unsuccessful end of the auction "broke" the item. You can usually fix it by putting it in a directory you don't mind sorting alphabetically, and clicking SORT for that directory. If that doesn't fix the item, relog. If THAT doesn't fix it, report it to FUZE (and remember that doid number). Be clear about what you want fixed or your reply will be "what do you mean broken?" If you have to FUZE it expect it to be fixed in a day or so unless it's a weekend, in which case it may take longer.

67. If your profile suddenly looks weird, for example not showing your clubs, or showing a blue funpass, or giving nonsense letters instead of your membership birthdate, change your preference from "Everyone" to "Buddies Only" (or vice versa) and save, and then change it back. This will fix the problem unless it's an avman server acting up (or down).

68. If you are in an event that is ending and you get an invitation to the next event in the same location, do not click ACCEPT; you will be teleported to the entrance. Instead click LATER. You should not be bothered again and you'll be permitted to remain unless there are certain requirements for the new event (e.g., it's invitation only, or has a fee).

69. If you are on someone else's property and take out a document, vehicle, dog or other non-gear toy (which you shouldn't do without permission anyway), and the owner, host or cohost clicks REMOVE FOREIGN OBJECTS, your items will vanish from sight, but they have gone safely back into your inventory. If the objects you have taken out do not belong to you, though, they will go back to their owners, not to you. Be careful what you drop where.

70. Changing your clothes incessantly in company, practicing your emotes while someone is trying to have a conversation with you, and walking around and around pushing people aside are not illegal activities but they are annoying, and you may find yourself ignored. Incessant clothes-changing can actually cause lag. Nobody likes lag and if you cause lag, nobody will like you either.

71. Trying to skill in socializing by using a macro or typing a stream of nonsense characters is annoying and useless. Why not have (gasp) a conversation instead? You get no skill, by the way, from talking to yourself. Socializing skill comes from typing while in a chat group (a vehicle that seats more than one counts) with at least one other person.

72. If someone has you on ignore, that person cannot see what you type, so do not follow him or her around complaining that s/he has you on ignore. It just confirms his or her opinion of you.

73. If you earn a giftie by leveling in a skill, and you don't want the giftie, please be aware that you can get a paltry 50t if you return the item within ten minutes of its being bestowed upon you, only 25t if you return it within three days of bestowal, 13t if it's under a week and 2t thereafter. The amounts may be different for items you purchased, or were given by an individual, but at no point do you ever get a significant amount of money and sometimes you get zip.

74. If you click the ABOUT on an item and it says BUY ONE, that means it is a There item as opposed to one designed by a Thereian. Clicking BUY ONE will not obligate you to buy one, so go ahead and click to see what the item costs in the shop. If the page that comes up gives you a tiny amount, such as 1t, and does not offer you a chance to buy the item, that means it is no longer available in the shop. It does NOT mean the value of the item is 1t or even that it ever was available for that price.

75. You have a right to think my avie is fat. I have a right to think your avie is anorexic. It would be rude for either of us to mention it to the other.

76. If you experience or witness someone else's misbehavior and don't report it, the misbehavor will victimize someone else. Do not mistake your being annoyed by someone else's opinion for that person's being in violation of Terms of Service or some ethical code. A good rule of thumb is that if the person is interfering with your enjoyment of There by stopping you from freely doing what you want, apart from what you may not, that is reportable. If the person is interfering with your enjoyment by existing, that's YOUR problem.

77. You can turn the water and weather on (default) and off in THERE -- CUSTOMIZE -- WORLD. Some say this cuts down lag. I doubt it.

78. You can choose to accept tbux from anyone who happens to send them without confirmation, or to require your confirmation, in THERE-CUSTOMIZE -- WORLD. The advantage of keeping the default on is that you don't have to be inworld to accept money, even from one of your other avies. The advantage of requiring confirmation is that if you like to keep track of what you get from whom without opening your transaction history, which sometimes doesn't work (it HAS been better lately), you can be aware of each gift or payment.

79. The more apostrophes you use with the emote "yay," the more excited your avie will be. You can go up to six. Twirl!

80. Emotes require apostrophes. Dog commands do not. Why? I have no idea!

81. When you purchase a neighborhood lot in auctions, more often than not the lot is broken; it has no ABOUT, it can't be taken out, it shows as not in gear or as being lent to someone, usually the seller but sometimes the person from whom the seller acquired it. If it's showing as not in gear, you will have to report it to Fuze and they will replace it. However, if it is showing as being lent to someone, you may try to contact that person and ask him or her to LEND you your own lot. Yes, it is showing in your inventory as lent to him or her, and it's showing in his or her inventory as belonging to (or lent to, I forget which) you! A "lend" will complete the transaction and fix the broken item. On rare occasions it has to be attempted twice, but almost always this fix works the first time.

82. The drop trick: you're not supposed to do this. It's a godsend. Go ahead and do it. The drop trick is used for two purposes: fitting a large object into a small space, and getting an extra drop.

To put a large object into a small space: take out the smallest unused item you have. Items have various center points and with a very small object there is not mujch difference between its center point and all other points. You care about this because the large object is going to share its center point with the smaller one.

NOTE: the center point might not be in the center! Decks sometimes are grabbed by an edge and sometimes by their center; I am referring to the grabbing point. wherever it may happen to be. Now that you have taken the object out, place it where you want the center point of the large object to be. Now pick it up again and while holding it, take out the large object. You will now find PUT BACK on the large object's menu. Use is. Put away the small object. The larger one remains.

SECOND NOTE: You will only be able to decorate only those portions of the larger object that are in a paz, lot or zone in which you have decorating privileges, and in which you have available drops of course. For example, if you have two pazzes next to each other and you drop a house in one paz so that it overlaps the other paz too, and you have drops in both places, you may decorate the house in both pazzes. The house will only count as a drop in the paz in which you used the drop trick.

To use the drop trick to gain an extra drop, use the same method, with the additional care taken: Use the drop trick LAST, and instead of using your smallest item, which you will remove after the trick, you're using an item you wish to keep in your decor, so it won't necessarily be small at all. The first item's center point now becomes very important. Bars, for example have their center points centered not only horizontally but vertically, so if you try to use the drop trick with a bar and a carpet, either the carpet will float in the air or the bar will sink into the floor. You may be creative, but the easiest way to get that extra drop is to save a rug for last, and center it under a seating group using the drop trick. (Or put a one-drop circle of flowers around a thin tree, or... you get t he idea! If you want to use a bird as the last drop, find something that has a vertical center point so the bird can hover in mid-air!) It doesn't matter which item comes first except in that there is a time limit, so if you're using There's THIS PLACE -- GEAR instead of, say, bboy's MY GEAR, you will want to use the most difficult item to collect, alphabetically, first, so you can quickly grab the second item from the beginning or end of the alphabet (since scrolling through a large directory takes time).

THIRD NOTE: Once you have your extra drop, if you want to change anything, first remove that extra drop or whatever you try to move will just vanish back into gear. Put the last drop back again when you're done.

83. If you are lagged and can see a sit circle, sit, even if you don't want to. You'll load faster.

84. If your gear isn't loading, give your alt avie or a friend one tbuck. (You can do this even if your balance isn't showing, in fact, this will make it show.) Unless you're just in dire need of a relog, this little act of generosity will hasten the loading processs.

85. The only people who ask everyone they meet, as a matter of course (as opposed to in reaction to some display of immaturity) how old s/he is are the people who are seriously lacking in the age department. In addition, asking everyone you meet what grade s/he's in presumes, incorrectly, that everyone in this wonderful virtual universe is a school child

86. When someone else has possession of a document (it happens!), dog, ball, weapon or vehicle of yours, you can see who has it by virtue of a small, hard-to-read, italicized legend -- the person's name -- after the name of the item. Once you have retrieved your item, there is no record whatsoever of who had your item. It doesn't show up in your transaction history, or any kind of log. If this person had your item without your permission, write the person's name down BEFORE you retrieve the item! You will have no chance to do so afterwards.

87. You need to be inworld to list for auction items you did not design. You may list items you DID design in an outside browser by starting with There Central, going to the Developers page and proceeding from there. You may SHOP out of world in your outside browser as well. If you are in your browser and inworld as well, you may click the IM button next to someone's name or in someone's profile, in your browser, and the IM window will pop up INworld. You may also use TRY that way. You may even teleport that way! You may send Theremail froman outside browser whether or not you are inworld. There is no way to summon anyone from an outside browser. NONE of the above works during There's downtime. During downtime all you can do is log into forums and qvetch about it. NOTE: If you have more than one avatar, you may log into the browser in one name and inworld in another, but then such things as IM, TRY and teleporting will be ineffective.

88. If you need a url, or the doid therefrom, for example, and for some reason you get a page that does not show the url across the top, right mouse click the page and from the resulting menu choose PROPERTIES. The URL is there and can be copied. Likewise if the REFRESH button disappears from the top of a page, you can right mouse click to get that command as well. Right mouse click is a GOOD thing. But if you're not on a page when you use it, you'll just jump. If you're wearing your super bunnies, you may jump too far!

89. Play nice!

Ramblings About TV Commercials

2008-08-07T21:34:00.000-05:00

So many targets, so little bandwidth!

Fortunately, these are RANDOM ramblings, so without stopping to justify my choices, I tuck right in.

Today's Topic: ExtenZe Male Enhancement!

No, I'm not offended by the topic. I'm offended by the dorky dishonesty of the ad. Oh, I don't mean I believe the product doesn't do what it claims to do. And speaking of disclaimers, there is one, in teeny tiny print, for a teeny tiny period of time, reminding those of us who couldn't figure it out that the enhancement is only effective as long as the enhancee continues to consume the product. You'd almost think they didn't want you to read that. (On the website is a much cleverer little ad, presumably containing the same disclaimer, but in print so small it could, for all the reader knows, be saying "Nyah nyah nyah NYAH nyah, you are insecure about your weewee!" At least the website uses the word "penis" [in print]; like the TV ad, the voiceover is still stuck with "that certain part of a man's body.")

The TV ad features two female spokespersons, neither claiming any expertise in male enhancement beyond whatever goes along with their (grasping here for an accurate description without emotional weight) slutty (okay, I failed) appearance; Doctor Daniel S. Stein, who says he has PERSONALLY "researched" this product; a pair of actors portraying a couple shyly eager to check out the product's benefits; and an interviewer presumably stopping couples on the street to ask them how they liked the product.

Let's start with the commercial's irritating coyness. First we get direct appeals from the spokeswomen and the doctor. The dark-haired spokeswoman (the other is blonde) is going to lose an eyelash if she keeps batting hers that way whenever she says "certain part." Even the doctor uses the phrase, although I don't recall his level of eyelash battage. Then we get the indirect appeal of the little drama. The young wife hears "male enhancement" and naively says, "Oh, you mean like for muscles?" (I may be paraphrasing; I am not by the TV.) "No," corrects the husband, adding meaningfuly, "Male ENHANCEMENT."

There's nothing wrong with the little drama but it's baffling after the direct appeal, and then the commercial switches gears again and takes us to the street. This part is more than baffling; it's ludicrous! If someone were giving away a product that could be consumed or otherwise used on the spot, such as chocolate, popcorn or hand lotion, a man-on-the-street interview would make sense. Likewise it makes sense if you're asking people's opinions of subjects that should be common knowledge, such as election affairs, TV shows or celebrities. But a male enhancement product? Are we to assume every man uses one, and a random sampling of pedestrians on an urban street will produce even a handful of men who not only use such a thing but wish to speak spontaneously to millions of viewers about it?

The product itself targets the sexually insecure; the advertisers seem insecure themselves, not willing to commit to one style of communication, and not willing, either, to commit to a straightforward (or humorous, if they chose -- there are some cute moments in the website video) presentation. This insecurity does not increase the viewers' confidence in the ad or, by (guffaw) extension, the product.

Well, it's not my concern, I suppose. I just hate to see less keenly observant folks have their legs (or whatever) pulled.

Ramblings About Language

2008-07-29T12:58:00.001-05:00

My first language is English; it's the first of several and the only one in which I am fluent. I speak Japanese like an incredibly talented infant, and French almost as well.

(I speak better Japanese, but possibly understand it less well, than this child.)

I can mispronounce certain Yiddish words and phrases more or less the way my American-born parents did; as children of immigrants, wanting to fit in and be as-American-as-thee, they shunned that rich and brilliant tongue and lived to regret it.

There are a few other languages in which I know enough words and/or phrases to understand, or, even better, make myself understood, in a pinch. I'm adventurous enough to get myself into a few pinches now and again. But it's English I know and English I love the best. Since I live in my native land, the United States of America, I find myself more often in a flinch than in a pinch.

Sometimes I flinch at the widespread abuse of the language I love; other times I flinch at a perfectly legitimate word or phrase that nonetheless, for one reason or another, rankles. An example of the latter is the use of the word "hysterical." It's in the dictionary; it's an adjective. It's generally used properly. However, the implication of the word (used to describe a state of panic) is that the person it describes is panicking because she is female, or panicking because he is feminine; the "hyster" in question is a womb. I think we should say a person who has reached a certain level of panic is testerical. That at least evens the genderic playing field.

(A real bitch)

I prefer not to call my enemies, of either sex, bitches. I live with a perfectly lovely female Sheltie (named Sarah, if you must know) and would not insult her with such comparisons. I have no standard substitution, though; I name my enemies on a case-by-case basis. (One is "toxic waste.")

Some feral peeves:

1. "Just between you and I." "I" is not an object, but a subject. Would you say "give it to I"?

(The translation is the transgressor.)

2. "That was so fun!" SUCH fun, folks, or so MUCH fun! "Fun" is a noun and is described by an adjective, not an adverb.

(Lip-syncing peeves me as well, but sometimes the artist doesn't actually have a choice... in Italy, anyway.)

3. "I could not help but do it." That means the opposite of what the user thinks it means, and yet is not used sarcastically, as in "I could care less!" (which generally indicates the user could NOT care less). "I could not help doing it" means the user was compelled. Therefore "I could not help BUT do it" means the user was NOT compelled, except possibly compelled NOT to do "it."

(The title is incorrect. I actually find anime pretty annoying, come to think of it.)

4. "I feel badly." Snobby! If you feel badly that means your tactile sense or your emotional palette is impaired. You feel bad. My fiancé smells badly; his olfactory facility is diminished. (He can't tell when dinner is burning!) If he neglects to bathe, he also smells bad.

Some guilty pleasures:

1. "Ain't." I know it ain't a real world; I ain't concerned about it. I use it for emphasis, and only to people who know I know better.

2. "Whatever." I use it to be deliberately dismissive; how rude!

3. "(expletive deleted)." I can stop any time I want. Honest.

(Do not play the above if you prefer your expletives deleted.)

Having exposed my linguistic flaws so publically, I am, quite suddenly, abashed, and no longer wish to pick on other speakers.

Oh wait. Yes, I do!

That relaxation of my linguistic ethics was only a tongue-fart. I beg your pardon.

OBJECTING TO OBJECTIFICATION -- PART FIVE

2008-07-28T18:22:00.001-05:00

"Now, I have asked myself, what on earth could this thing [music] be for -- why are so many people doing this? I've made up several theories.... One is a cynical theory and that is that music is very much indeed like language but doesn't mean anything and so it gives you a feeling of thinking. It uses up parts of your brain that normally are understanding stuff, but without the unpleasant consequences of understanding. So music is relaxing in the sense that it exercises the part of the brain that has a drive to think by thinking about things that are meaningless.... The cynicism is saying that thinking is actually unpleasant and so people like this thing going on that relieves it." -- Marvin Minsky in "Computer Music Journal"

Marvin Minsky
copyright Wikimedia Commons/Steamtalks
Easy listening music is difficult for me to take. Its purpose I think is to remind the listener of music but not actually to require of him/her what music generally requires: attention and recognition. (Here's a rule of thumb: if you recognize the artist, it's not easy listening music.) The interactive nature of music is what appeals to me. I don't want to be reminded of it; I want to be involved in it. For this reason, pornography is also a bore. What, after all, is more interactive than sex? (Well, okay: music.) If the only purpose of a photo or a film or a piece of writing is to remind me of sex, it is of no interest to me; I'd rather do it than contemplate it. Still, it's of great interest to a great many people, because it's safely uninvolving. Again, its appeal to many is its means of losing me altogether.

I find Minsky's theory (one of his many, I remind you) unfactual but true. That is, I don't believe that music is meaningless either for its creators or for its listeners, since it is a form of communication among them, and also because (I feel) it somehow stimulates the communication of the individual with him/herself. However, Minsky's theory seems to explain my reaction to easy listening music, as well as to pornography. These things relieve their participants of, well, participation, while exercising those parts of their psyches that have a drive to communicate in the way both music and sex communicate. In either case, it may simply be that despite the urge for expression, the would-be expressor has nothing to say!

copyright Wikimedia Commons/IntroSpection
On the Internet I have found, among other things, photographs of penises. I am sure the model penises are attached to guys, but the pictures don't show to whom. The people who enjoy looking at seemingly disembodied penises don't care to whom they are attached. They are not parts of people but independent objects. They are not even parts of idols; Typ, Atyp and Ob are all missing. I won't speculate about the uses the pictures' admirers find for them, although they must be fantastical, as pictures are, after all, only pictures, unless of course they function as icons. Penises, however, are NOT only penises. Those which are not attached to people are useless; they have no independent lives. Neither have those which ARE attached to people, despite all the old jokes. (Is a penis an extension of its man or is a man an extension of his penis? Are those of you becoming excited by reading the word "penis" imagining a specific person who happens to possess one?) As Maria Muldaur and her predecessors sang, "It ain't the meat, it's the mo-tion.... It ain't the wave it's the o-cean...."

The glorification of the general blurs the individual into nothing more than a part of the body politic. Maybe this is why Buddhism never impressed me; I don't fancy being God's elbow (and to be fair to those of you who believe God is within us, I don't fancy God's being my elbow either). The glorification of the part degrades the individual from which it is extracted and who is, after all, not separate from the part. Zoom in, zoom out. Perspective is all.

nice guy, not for me
copyright Wikimedia Commons/Tsui
Are we still talking about love? Do we have a definition yet? (Did we really expect one? Ask your teddy bear.) Oh dear, we've rambled. I'll admit we did so by design. However, by way of rambling back, I leave you with another short(er) excerpt from Tzaddik:

THE MONSTER
Once upon a time there was a monster. This monster's name was Love. In this monster's name people enslaved one another, caused one another unspeakable (and sometimes very satisfying) anguish, did one another irreparable and often fatal harm, and occasionally, not without reserve (on the part of the participants and of this chronicler) made each other very, very happy.

[Japanese] Emperor Gozu (posthumously deified as Susanoo-no-Mikoto) kills a dragon to save Princess Inada. Artist: Utagawa Kuniteru.
copyright Wikimedia Commons/public domain

OBJECTING TO OBJECTIFICATION -- PART FOUR

2008-07-28T16:52:00.000-05:00

"He had recognized a quality in her of which no one else among her companions... was in the least aware. The recognition laid special responsibilities on him for were we not all ultimately charged to live not according to general rules but by our own specific recognition of one another's quality? However, having the courage of one's recognitions was a lesson only slowly and painfully to be learnt...." -- Laurens van der Post, The Seed and the Sower

Atyp's mistake, in which Typ indulges with less dire consequences, is in failing to recognize Ob as an individual. He appears to recognize her as one; he appears to distinguish her from all others -- to render her the most individual individual in his world. In fact, though, he mistakes the collecting of details for their amalgamation into a real person. Ob is, for Atyp, Atyp himself, projected outward. Atyp merely has chosen which collection of details (including physical features and emotional output) suits him, and he may well translate these details into a picture or definition that has nothing to do with the real Ob. If she deviates a bit from the picture or definition, Atyp either won't see it or will make it fit. On his Procrustean bed, the teddy bear's image is stretched or chopped. If Ob dares to deviate beyond the latitude Atyp can offer, Atyp may suffer the equivalent of a broken heart. This may manifest itself quietly or Atyp may feel the need to express it, in which case the bear and not only the image may find itself stretched or chopped.

copyright Wikimedia Commons/MatthiasKabel
Public figures, particularly those in the arts, whose work includes higher emotional output than, say, that of a waitress, are particularly subject to the obsessive attentions of strangers, and often are considered to have, by their choice of profession, invited these attentions, or at least to have consented, by invisible contract, to tolerate them. "S/he should've thought of that before s/he became a star," say folks whose idea of what might be an actor's, writer's, painter's or musician's motivations for working, and for seeking publicity for themselves and the work (and sometimes there is only a very difficult to make distinction between the work and the artist). These folks seem also to have forgotten that not only strangers are victims of objectification and its consequences, and not only stars. Waitresses, too, can find themselves thus objectified, as can persons of any profession and either gender. They can remain untouched by the objectification, or be annoyed by it, or have their lives changed. They can have their lives ended.

In The Tzaddik of Tsurumai, my novel in progress (a polite way to say "novel I haven't got around to finishing yet") an actor is assassinated by a "fan." (I hope you have all been admiring my restraint in not pointing out that "fan" is short for "fanatic"; I hope you're not too disappointed that I finally broke down and pointed it out, since I feel this is an appropriate point at which to do so.) One short chapter, narrated by the slain actor's father, a Polish immigrant, now follows:

ACTORS
Joe
I have heard Christians say "Jesus died for our sins." What a funny idea! I think actors do that: die for us, if not for our sins. I am not referring to the real death of my son, Dashiell, but to the deaths actors die on behalf of their characters. We are all afraid of death but we are all drawn to it, too, and are curious, and want to know what it would be like to die, but then to live and remember what it was like, and maybe be reassured.

I have heard that to stimulate and feed this kind of curiosity encourages real-life violence. I do not believe such a thing. Ancient Greek tragedy did not, as far as I know, increase the murder rate in ancient Greek civilization. True, there were no mass media as we know it (but this is a Greek word, is it not?) but our world population is larger now; there are more masses. And furthermore, I wonder, is it believed that the deciding factor is numbers? Frequency? Distance? Is inviting death into your home less safe than going out for it? I wonder, too: if Leopold and Loeb had stayed home to watch something awful on television, would Bobby Franks have grown up and had grandchildren?

But this is not what I wish to tell you. I wish to tell you that actors do not only die for us but also perform for us great heroic deeds as well as murder, and feel for us great emotions that perhaps we are too tired or distracted to feel for ourselves, and be for us people whom we would love to be, die to be, perform great heroic acts to be, but are too tired or distracted or poor or persecuted or lazy or in the wrong place at the wrong time to be. I mean good actors, of course. So then if everyone disagrees about who is and who is not a good actor, is the actor's value to society diminished? I like to read crime novels, not only American ones, and I would like to recommend to you the novels of an expatriated Englishman -- oh, how I think the word Englishman fails to suit him somehow, although all it means is a man born in England -- Nicolas Freeling, whose characters are in their way actors, or at least perform the function, for us, of actors; Freeling reminds us, though I misquote, that bad taste should not be confused with crime.

But, you remind me, my son was literally killed, and literally because of television. Not because of violence on television but because he himself was on television. So television is not dangerous to the general population -- only to actors!

Oh, this is not at all what I wish to say. I mean that people, ordinary people who did not know Dashiell, felt that they knew him, and had opinions about him, loved him and hated him, had expectations of him, and one of them felt so strongly about this that he killed him. Yes, it was a boy, a young man, barely twenty, a fan in the sense of a fanatic, who says now that he is sorry but he could not bear to see such a good man -- a good man! How would he know? -- become so evil. Dashiell had played the villain in a television movie. The orange didn't come up the straw, the cigarettes didn't dance. We saw Jack Ruby commit murder before our eyes, we watched David Frost interview Charles Manson, Los Angeles collapsed in upon itself, first spiritually and then physically, never mind Hitler, never mind Stalin, never mind the Khmer Rouge, we have seen everything there is to see: how can we be so naive?

It is very odd, but in the fifties, when I was first married, there was a big scare about communism, I mean Communism, and a handful, less than a handful, really, of fanatical men decided to control which actors worked and which ones did not. I am not speaking of the House Un-American Activities Committee, which did concern itself with this but also with a much wider range of "activities," mostly imagined; I am speaking of private individuals who appointed themselves the guardians of radio, film and television, and in fact blackmailed the entire industry into hiring only those actors these guardians deemed safe for American consumption. This is bad enough, the blackmail of the blacklist, but there was something else very curious about it, and that is that in retrospect we can see that only bad actors were sanctioned and almost anyone with a scrap of talent was banned. Why should this be? The answer is simple: bad actors say lines and purvey ideas only through words, assuming we are not too bored to be reached, and good actors transmit emotions and make us feel, and feeling the truth is dangerous. Adlai tells me that the Japanese once called actors "riverbed bandits." Shakespeare, who was himself an actor, made asses of them. The only kind of person portrayed by Hollywood writers as worse than the actor is the Hollywood writer (self-hatred is a powerful evil). Yes, there is another amazing thing the Christians say: "And the truth shall set you free." Don't you see that it was not in the interest of the tyrants of the blacklist or of any other tyrants that we should be free? And don't you see now that this is what actors do, and why they are scorned and idolized and feared and loved??

a riverbed bandit?
copyright Wikimedia Commons/Kuniyoshi Utagawa (public domain)
Everyone is objectified to an extent, and objectifies right back. Learning to recognize individuals is a process, and each time we encounter a new person, that person is for us at least partly an object until we begin to recognize his or her individuality. The serious problem begins when the learning-to-recognize process fails to begin. Observation alone is not enough of a catalyst, although it is necessary. Empathy too is needed. Perspective doesn't hurt.

Unfortunately, all of that requires involvement, and that is, to many, a pain in the ass.

OBJECTING TO OBJECTIFICATION -- PART THREE

2008-07-28T16:47:00.000-05:00

Das Flötenkonzert by Carl Spitzeg: Couples in Love

copyright Wikimedia Commons/public domain

"In real love you want the other person's good. In romantic love you want the other person." -- Margaret Anderson

Let's ramble back now from the kitchen to the bedroom -- in particular, the closet door. Let's create a context for the relationship, real or imagined, for which the picture is an icon.

What exactly is the relationship between that fan -- we'll call him Mr. Typical Fan -- and that idol (whom we'll call Ms. Object O. Desire)? Ob doesn't know Typ from a hole in the wall, though he buys all of her records, has been to a few concerts and once even blurted out "I'm your biggest fan" while she scrawled her name across an eight-by-ten for him. (That's it, framed, on the dresser; the one on the door's from a magazine.) Her music reaches right out of the CD player and touches Typ, personally. Her breasts point out of the photo only for him. Ob knows this happens on a grand scale but can't produce a mental image of Typ. Typ too knows it happens on a grand scale, but somehow he also knows he's different. He might know other fans, with whom he gathers to discuss such various topics as Ob's voice, Ob's career, Ob's tour dates, Ob's body, Ob's private life, Ob's face, Ob's body, Ob's assets and charms relative to the assets and charms of her peers, Ob's body, Ob's band and Ob's body. Typ says "I love her" and his love is half hyperbole and half something else.

Typ probably doesn't do all of the above. More likely he does only some, and possibly he does none. He might also mix and match from among the following:

He indulges in sexual fantasies concerning Ob.

He uses her picture and/or his fantasies as an onanistic aid.

He tapes her every television and radio appearance.

He writes her one or more fan letters.

He collects products which represent or refer to her.

He hangs out in places where she has been seen.

He collects information about her.

He worries about the veracity and the meaning of the information he collects.

He shares his collected information with others without regard for its veracity and without regard for its possible effect on others, including on Ob.

He feels personally affected by events in her public and private life, experiencing strong positive or negative emotions as a result.

He feels the need to communicate to her his positive or negative emotions regarding her public and private life.

He expresses his love for her and expects a reciprocal expression.

He threatens the safety of Ob and/or of persons associated with her.

He attempts to harm her.
We're still talking about love here, right?

normal fans
copyright Wikimedia Commons/SV Erlenbach
Apart from the fact that maybe now Typ should change his name to Atyp, what's wrong with this picture? Okay, it's not nice to hurt people, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for talking about masturbation, but look closely at what all of the above elements, innocent and less innocent alike, have in common. There's something odd about the above description of the relationship, and the odd thing about it is that only one party in the relationship is aware of (or if aware, acknowledges) the relationship. In her own life, Ob is a subject, and in any relationship its participants alternate between roles, but for Atyp, Ob is both all-important and nonexistent. Atyp does the thinking and feeling for both of them. When Atyp says "I love you" he means "I created you and you're not only mine, you're me."

Atyp is the guy who sleeps with the teddy bear in the shop window -- but only in his dreams. (Unfortunately, to a large or small extent, he believes in his dreams.) If he attempts to touch the bear, glass gets broken, alarms go off and Atyp gets to sleep on a bunk in a shop window of his own. It's anybody's guess whether the bear survives the adventure.

copyright Wikimedia Commons/MatthiasKabel

OBJECTING TO OBJECTIFICATION -- PART TWO

2008-07-28T16:43:00.000-05:00

In Bernard Pomerance's play, "The Elephant Man," Merrick complains that Romeo did not love Juliet because he didn't call a doctor and try to save her; he declares, "If I had been Romeo, we would have got away."

"But then there would be no play, Mr. Merrick," responds the actress, Mrs. Kendall.

"If he did not love her," asks Merrick, "why should there be a play?"

Joseph Merrick, AKA "The Elephant Man"
copyright Wikimedia Commons/Jack1956 (public domain)

One could ask as well, "If you don't know who your partner is, why should there be a marriage?" This brings us to another question, of course: "If you didn't know who your partner was, who did you think s/he was?" The "what" is not impertinent. Almost no one in modern Western culture consciously thinks of another person as a nonsentient being, or object, or thing, but the idea is not unprecedented. We cannot, for example, believe that half of what is now know as the United States is descended from purely evil persons. Yet that half, once known as the Confederate States of America, once kept slaves and maintained a slavery-based economy (as the Sudan and Mauritania do even now). It would be impossible for an entire nation (as it considered itself) of people to keep human beings as slaves unless it were a nation of evil persons, or unless they did not view the other persons as human.

Illustration from 1907 edition of "Review of Reviews for Australiasia": The human being as object is not a new concept.
copyright Wikimedia Commons/public domain

It is easy to justify almost any treatment of nonsentient objects. Why not? They can't feel anything, after all! There are precious objects in the world, many of them classified as "art"; someone who took a chainsaw to a Stradivarius would be considered insane, and the defilement of a Modigliani or a Van Gogh would evoke more horror and disgust than mere property loss would warrant. Perhaps the pain we experience when a book is burned comes less from the destruction of the physical book (apart from our consideration of how many like it might remain in the universe) than from the unshakable feeling that the author exists somehow inside the pages of the book, just as we feel the painter's presence in the painting. Still, things are, after all, only things, and we give lip service, at least, to the concept of valuing human life over lifeless objects. We recoil in horror when we read in the newspaper of the man who got killed for the dollar and change in his pocket. It puzzles me somewhat that we recoil less and less as the dollar amount increases, but no matter. The point is that we purport to know the difference between a person and a thing, and we purport to care.

Where it all gets murky is when lines get drawn. Is a tree a lifeless object? We all know it is not, and we also have heard in recent years that plants scream, that they feel -- but let's face it: those who become vegetarians in order to avoid hurting animals (there are others who have other reasons) do not anguish over the emotional condition of their broccoli. Some who would not poison a rat still might swat a fly. Some who would go out of their way to avoid kicking a dog might shoot a rattlesnake in the head, not only in self-defense but perhaps in simple fear. Is it beyond our capacity to imagine a man who would not raise his voice to a white child who'd been naughty but would have no compunctions against hanging a black man who had wandered into the wrong part of town, or a woman who would volunteer to bring food to needy but would scream at some homeless guy who was raiding her trash can for scraps.

copyright Wikimedia Commons/Shayan Sanyal

This is only possible if we accept that we are exempt from considering the individuality of some living creatures. All of us accept this to some extent. I personally rejoice at the death of a cockroach, and if that cockroach loved its family, too damned bad. If I truly believed that cockroach had a family, that it knew it had a family, that is, and loved it, I would not rejoice at its death. How could I? The plain truth is, I don't believe it. I don't recognize a cockroach as an individual (oh look, there goes WIlbur! Get him!) because it doesn't fit any of the usual human criteria for individuality (cats do; dogs do; rats do; cockroaches don't; I've drawn a line; I'm a species bigot) and I don't value its life. Sue me.

Wilbur
copyright Wikimedia Commons/Wm Jas

(Where do you draw your line? Would you step in front of a speeding car to avoid squooshing an ant? Would you run in front of that same car to save a child's life? What if it was your child?)

Violence is something most of us abhor but objectification, or the act of viewing someone as an object, is not usually about violence; it just makes violence easier. It's easy to squoosh a bug. It's easy to deprive a group of people of basic human dignity, to say nothing of what is needed for subsistence, if you believe that the group is lower than you on the food chain. The operative word here, though, is not, as you might think, "lower"; it's "group." The problem lies not in someone's feeling superior. All humans are not equal. Some are smarter, kinder, nimbler, more talented in various skills, more physically attractive to a larger number of admirers, more generous, more sensitive and/or more industrious than others.

The problem lies in viewing a group of people only as that group, and not as a collection of individuals -- individuals who have something important in common, but individuals nonetheless.

I personally belong to a number of groups and am seen at different times predominantly as a member of one or another of those groups. How I see myself depends largely on context. Here are some of the things I am, off the top of my head and in no particular order: Jew, woman, middle-aged person, baby boomer, redhead, fat person, bespectacled person, leaper, Whovian, writer, "lupique" (pardon my French), singer (hey, I didn't say I was any good!), retired teacher, fianceé, daughter, sister, aunt, orphan, herring-eater, genius (I don't put much stock in those numbers but it would be dishonest of me to leave that off this list, as I have been and am judged by it), nullifidean, ailurophile, tenant, former ex-patriot (that sounds like a double negative but it's not), former homeless person.... there is, of course, more. Some of the items on the list were not always true (I was born a blonde girl, not a red-headed woman; I was a skinny child; there was a time when I had not yet ever lived outside of the United States; I believed in a personal god when I was 15 years old) and there are some that may not be true in the future (I hope to reside in my own home one day and not be a tenant; I may -- but probably won't -- lose my taste for herring; with luck I will outgrow being middle-aged and advance to "elderly"; a time will come when "engaged" gives way to "married").

Now, if I were to be identified by one, or perhaps two, of the above labels, all of which are true but none of which is the complete picture, most people would be able to come up with an image of me based on some stereotype which might or might not apply. The more labels I gather and present, though, the clearer the picture that emerges of me as an individual, and their ability to stereotype me most likely would be impaired; they would not be able to help viewing me as an individual. However, anyone who had a strong prejudice for or against one of those labels, or even a strange association that could not be called "for" or "against," might have a hard time viewing me as an individual even in the face of the most overwhelming evidence. Depending on which labels were involved, we would consider that person stubborn, or bigoted, or perhaps wise! In fact s/he probably has been brainwashed.

Dante Gabriel Rossetti: Holy Grail; this lovely redhead is not me, and shares few, if any, of my other labels (if she is holding what she or the artist believe to be the Holy Grail, for example, she certainly isn't Jewish; if she is a damsel she is single although she might be engaged; she isn't American; neither "Quantum Leap" nor "Doctor Who" existed during her lifetime.)
copyright Wikimedia Commons/public domain

There are people who believe that Jews run the world while gladly accepting me and my poverty as a notable exception; they cannot be shaken in that belief. There are people who believe that geniuses are egotistical, devious or prone to be lazy (things must be so "easy" for us -- ha!); one of my high school teachers gave me back a paper with a "B" on it, saying, "This is the best paper in the class but I know you can do better." As it happens I had done my best. There are those who believe that fat people have no self-control, or that we are jolly, or that we prefer to be called "persons of size." (Some of us are! Some of us do! It's an individual matter. I prefer to be called "Gail.") Some believe that women belong in the kitchen. (Some women do. Need I mention that some don't?)

a woman's place?
copyright Wikimedia Commons/Joel Dorman Steel and Esther Baker Steele, A Brief History of the United States, 1885 (public domain)

OBJECTING TO OBJECTIFICATION -- PART ONE

2008-07-28T16:40:00.000-05:00

"All happiness or unhappiness solely depends upon the quality of the object to which we are attached by love." -- Baruch Spinoza

Baruch de Spinoza (1632-1677)
copyright Wikimedia Commons/public domain
Define love.

I'd be willing to bet each of you can come up with a dandy definition and not only not agree with one another but not be able to stick to your own definition for long. There are too many kinds of love.

Is the love a mother has for a child the same as the love between best friends? Is it even the same as the love a child has for its mother? Does the love it has for its teddy bear count too? Does an historian's love for history, or a miser's love of money? How about my love for my cats, or my best friend's love for his dogs? Is the love that dazzles young lovers the same as what sustains them when they are in their seventies? If they are all different, are they still all love?

Pepohoan Mother and Child, John Thomson, The Straits of Malacca, Indo-China and China or Ten years' travels, adventures and residence abroad London: Sampson Low, Marston, Low, & Searle. 1875. p.224

copyright Wikimedia Commons/public domain
Let's eliminate "being in love" for the moment, which implies a kind of exclusivity of emotion and even commitment, and only consider love itself. There is no love itself; we cannot consider it independently of its subject and its object. Without someone to do the loving and someone or something to receive the love, love has no definition at all. It's not a thing; you can't pick it up and throw it, or drive home in it.

We use the word a lot in hyperbole. "Oh, I love pizza! I love to swim!" That's okay; everyone understands hyperbole; no one misunderstands you to mean that you want to marry, suckle or even devote a fair portion of your life to pizza. (Mind, there are those who do, and those people are considered to be ill.) We say it about performers too, and not only regarding love: "I hate him!" can simply mean you don't care to watch his films. "I love her!" could mean you find yourself whistling along with all of her tunes; you might even have her picture taped to your closet door. In neither case does the subject have any personal relationship with the object; the child sleeps with its bear but most of us have never met our favorite performers, or if we have, it was a brief, impersonal encounter. Sometimes, though, we manage to confuse ourselves with words. We begin to believe our own hyperbole. Thus begins obsession.

I have met men who say they love women. This, to me, is as dubious as a claim to be in love with pizza. Of course, these men could be speaking of their sexual preference for women, usually as opposed to men, and/or their fondness for the company of women, sometimes in addition to the company of men, children and members of other species. However, it generally turns out that men who claim to love women -- and the fact that they claim to love them as a group is telling -- have no individual woman in mind. They quite often have various parts of an individual woman in mind, but no whole individual woman.

a whole, individual spinach pizza, worthy to be the object of love

copyright Wikimedia Commons/Nova
These men do not speak in hyperbole. Although the similarity of this sort of love to a love for, say, pizza is chillingly close, they have no awareness or intention of hyperbolizing.

Why should I pick on men? After all, I have spoken to too many women who have expressed an eagerness to be married. "To whom?" I always ask, and they look at me as if I have asked them to multiply 3,492,234 by the square root of 45,730,221 off the top of their heads. To whom doesn't matter. Well, it matters -- he has to be "nice," or "rich," or "handsome," or "tall" -- but it doesn't matter that they have no one specific in mind; what matters is that they crave the married condition; with whom to share it is a variable to be filled in later. That marriage is considered to be a condition rather than a relationship is what I find problematic. Anyway, I'll tell you why I am, at least for a short while more, picking on men: it's because men are traditionally in charge of keeping both attitudes alive.

Let's go back, then, to the men who love women. You'll find breast men and leg men, butt men and even the romantic eye men. A good whole-woman man is hard to find, and when you find him I have no doubt you'll also find that his idea of loving a whole woman is loving the sum of her parts. There is no individual, integrated woman in his fantasy. She is a combination of qualities.

copyright Wikimedia Commons/Matthew Bowden
Of course we all tend to idealize: children dream of the ideal parent long before they begin to seek partners, and a mother wonders what the little mite in her womb will grow up to be. Alas, the little mite, once born, might remain an idealized object of its parents' plans for it. They might or might not ever love it for itself. First comes recognition of the individual; without that, there is only objectification. (Ever ask your teddy bear who it really is?)

Who is this bear?
copyright Wikimedia Commons/Matthew Bowden
Marriages can fall out that way too. One spouse discovers that s/he has no idea who the other spouse is. The whole deal was concluded, from daydreaming to first meeting to courtship to the birth of the first couple dozen kids, without any attempt to recognize the individual hidden within the illusion of the ideal. "I don't know who you are anymore!" cries the frustrated partner. "You never did," comes the sad, accurate reply.

Ramblings About Actors and Acting -- EXPRESSION OF THE WHOLE SOUL

2008-07-28T16:00:00.000-05:00

prostitute in the Middle Ages; how my father tended to view actors

copyright Wikimedia Commons/public domain

Although my father maintained that all actors were prostitutes, he still came to see every play I did in school (he couldn't come to the ones in L.A.) Perhaps he trusted me more than he trusted other actors, although I, like they, shamelessly gave away my emotions, bared them for all to see. What impelled me to expose myself like that, while also hiding behind my own face, the mask I wore, as the fictional Guy Burgess (yes, there was a real one) put it, only to be who I was?

(Motivations may be plentiful job is twofold: to be who s/he must be and to be in the situation [emotions count as a situation] in which s/he must be. That is all. convince him-/herself of that in order to convince us, and all is well.)

Whether they are intensely private people or gregarious, actors must have a need to share their beings. (I recognize in myself a need to share who I am, a need to be understood and known.) True, their job entails being other beings, but the fabric from which they create those other beings is... their selves. It's all they have, finally. Oh yes, and a little makeup, sometimes some prosthetics, costumes, props, and lines written by other people, not to mention whatever was created all around them by others, from sets to interplay with other actors to feedback from audiences, and the direction they receive which comes from others, but the lowdown is they use themselves to create these others.

Costume for actor Frédérick Lemaître in "Paris le bohémien" by Joseph Bouchardy, Théâtre de la Porte Saint-Martin, Paris, April 18, 1842
copyright Wikimedia Commons/public domain
Why this need to share themselves? (Why does this not extend to a need to share details of their private lives? Ah, this is a whole other issue!) We call it expressing ourselves, but as much as a painting is an expression of an individual, the painter smears paint on the canvas, not literally his or her guts! This is not to downplay the personal nature of other arts; I put a lot of myself into my writing and showing it to others is showing others my soul. It's not showing them my whole soul all at once; I can send it out without following it, whereas Bakula, for example, can't send himself out without following. He has to be there. He has to be that. I have to be here, writing, but no one sees the physical me, whereas even if Bakula doesn't have to be there in the movie theatre with us, he sends himself out there. It does make a difference.

Even if an actor is shy, then, must s/he be something of an exhibitionist? More likely it's a cry to be known. If so, it's also a cry to know, because an actor gets to meet his or her creation, and understand and get inside that person, and get that person inside him/herself! So many actors have said they began to act to escape reality but I think many do it (even the same ones who are escaping) to find a reality, even more, to make a reality. They run to as well as from.

Don't we all, in our way?

Källunge kyrka auf Gotland. Hauptportal: Eidesleistung; two people sharing (as this author sees it) in their everyday lives
copyright Wikimedia Commons/Wolfgang Sauber

Ramblings About Actors and Acting -- MIND AND BODY, BODY AND SOUL

2008-07-28T15:34:00.000-05:00

The actor Henry Samary, painted by Henri de Toulouse-:autrec, 1889, said painting hanging in the Musée d'Orsay, Paris

copyright Wikimedia Commons/public domain

Acting is physical. I know I already said that, or at least that emotion is physical but I mean something different this time. There are five actors I can think of offhand who consistently and with absolute integrity "live in their bodies" and I am on shaky ground here trying to explain, even to myself, what I mean by that, especially since although I believe that this physicality is vital to acting, I am not putting these folks forth as the best five actors in the world or anything of the sort. The world is too big and the one percent of its working actors who are superb amount to a great many actors indeed! Still, I do not hesitate to present these five actors as special in the way I am about to describe: they are Alan Bates, Martin Shaw, Gary Cole, Glenda Jackson and Scott Bakula. I repeat that there are many fine actors about, some of whom have qualities that shine above those of the gang just mentioned, but what I see among other things in these five is that they are so intensely physically present during a role. They don't just say lines, they don't just feel emotions, and they don't just run and/or jump and/or climb and/or fall and/or take off their clothes (and I think Bates takes his clothes off more, and takes off more clothes, than Bakula!) They don't even just use their whole bodies to express themselves, although that's part of what I mean.

I saw Bates in a pretty bad movie once, one of two bad movies he did in the late sixties/early seventies, one called "Very Like a Whale," which is a reference to Hamlet, and the other called "Impossible Object." There is a scene in one of these two bad films (I can't remember which one) in which he is sitting in a chair. That's it. Nothing else about the scene is in any way memorable, at least to me -- just that he was sitting in a chair. Exciting, huh? -- but I remember his hands. They weren't doing anything. He wasn't shaking them or gripping anything with them, clenching them, moving them or in any way calling attention to them. There certainly was no closeup of his hands in that scene. Yet there was turmoil in his heart and I knew everything he was feeling by looking at his hands.

detail of Da Vinci's Mona Lisa; her smile is mysterious; what do her hands reveal?

copyright Wikimedia/public domain

Most of my friends are by now tired of my harping on a particular scene in an inferior but pleasant "Quantum Leap" episode, "Animal Frat." Sam is in the library, trying to persuade Elizabeth to give him another chance, when Duck comes to her "rescue." He and Sam struggle briefly, and he accuses Sam of not caring about ending the war in Vietnam. Sam backs Duck into some shelving and books tumble down onto their heads; this and perhaps Sam's recollection of why he is there effectively stop the fight, and Sam walks away. Suddenly he turns back and, barely containing himself, tells Duck that he lost a brother in Vietnam (this episode precedes the "Leaps Home," in which Sam reverses his brother's fate). As he turns again to leave, Duck shouts out that maybe Sam didn't care enough about his brother. Sam stops but does not turn. We can see everything he's feeling in his back, just as Bates' hands told all. Most likely Bates didn't sit there and think, I am now going to do something with my hands. He probably wasn't even aware of what he was doing with his hands, although he might have been; what an actor intellectualizes and what s/he does intuitively is his or her own business, as long as it works. Bakula surely wasn't thinking, now I'm going to do something with my back. No: he was feeling that pain all over and it came out of his back the way Soon-Teck Oh's death came out of his stomach.

The 1968 Oscar-winning Ken Russell film "Women in Love" has so many scenes in which Bates' physicality is an integral part of his expression of the character as well as of the moment that it is hardly worth picking one or another to describe, but in the same film, Glenda Jackson's dance for the bulls and subsequent taunting of Oliver Reed is astounding. She, like the four gentlemen I mentioned, is so physically present. When she is there, all of her is there.

two actors wearing a costume, 1870s

copyright Wikimedia Commons/Fratelli D'Alessandri

Alas, the world has lost Bates since I first wrote this article.

Ramblings About Actors and Acting -- SENDING LOVE

2008-07-28T15:12:00.000-05:00

Actress demonstrating initial reactions of fear andpanic

copyright Wikimedia Commons/bantosh

Most actors study something called sense memory. This means reproducing in ourselves an emotion we once felt by remembering whatever produced that emotion in us. This sounds difficult; it is.

First of all, those who first try this are tempted to remember the emotion itself. This is rough because emotions are abstract, not concrete, although they produce in us physical reactions which are concrete. How do you remember "love" or "fear"? Sense memory therefore involves a certain amount of trust, both of our own ability to feel the emotion as a result of having the memory, and of our audience's ability to perceive what we are feeling even though we do not try to "pretend" to have those feelings. If we do not trust the audience, we will indicate. If we do not trust ourselves, we will indicate.

If, however, we allow ourselves to remember what our five senses perceived at the time we felt the original emotion, those memories will bring the emotion back to us. If, for example, you are seeking to reproduce fear, remembering a fearful time in a vague way may not be enough. Remembering what we saw, heard, touched, tasted and smelled at that time will bring the emotion to us, and this is where the second problem with sense memory comes into play: no one enjoys feeling fear! If we are not willing to reexperience the negative emotions as well as the positive ones, perhaps acting is not what we should be pursuing.

As for trusting the audience to know what's going on, we would not be wrong to do so, because emotion does not only produce physical reactions in the person feeling it; it is transmissible and produces similar reactions in witnesses.

Elaine Funk taught us to call up emotions two ways: one was purely physical and the other used imagery, often but not always drawn from memory, but became physical. (Emotion, good or bad, is physically stressful.) The imagery we used to call up an emotion was up to us, and depended on what emotion we were after, but it had to be concrete. However, the point finally was not just to call up an emotion but to transmit it. We spent a lot of time and energy transmitting emotions to each other.

Mrs. Funk could knock a person backwards, from a distance, by contracting certain stomach muscles. (I could too and think I still can, but I never do.) She could also attract you to her with different stomach muscle movements. It wasn't hypnosis or magic. It was simply the fact that we are drawn or repelled by the emotions of others -- have you never walked into a room and found the tension in it palpable, even before you noticed the expression on anyone's face? Have you never sat quietly with your husband, wife, lover, friend, not even looking at him or her, but feeling the love s/he has for you and that you have for him/her? This isn't fancy; it's real! To an actor it's a major resource.

We learned to call up sense memories and other imagery and use it to create within ourselves the physical sensations attached to the appropriate emotions, and we learned to tell what those sensations were and how to create them even without the imagery (hey, I can't wiggle my ears but some people can!)

Sad

copyright Wikimedia Commons/steenslag

an involved audience

copyright www.sxc,hu/leocub

(After a performance of Lanford Wilson's "Serenading Louie," in which Big Bob had to sit quietly for several minutes, facing the audience, and slowly begin to weep, we asked him what imagery he had used to call up the tears. He told us he was remembering how, when he was a child, his bicycle had been stolen.)

One day Amy's younger brother, Jeb, decided to try something. We were all sitting, as was our custom, in a circle, on the stage, transmitting (we just said "sending") love -- something I was very good at. Ironically, considering that one of my chronic ailments is lupus, which involves an oversensitivity to sunlight, I always sent the sun! I just took the nice, warm sun and put it in my stomach and there it grew and grew and spread all over my body and rayed out to everyone else, and I would find everyone in the circle leaning in toward me, which meant I was sending very strongly. (Later I was able to begin with the warmth in my stomach by controlling the appropriate muscles there, but the results were always much better when I called upon the imagery.) Jeb decided, without telling anyone, to send hate.

We were very disturbed by this. We couldn't have known what Jeb was doing by looking at him because our eyes were closed, but we felt something wrong and one by one opened our eyes to see where the wrongness was coming from. It was Jeb, and he was cramping up and curling into a ball and hiding inside himself and he wouldn't come out. We kept telling him to stop, that he didn't have to do this, but I guess he did; I guess he had to know. He felt pretty sick afterwards. Anger does feed on itself, and although they say revenge is the best medicine, anger really isn't. Jeb was making himself sick, in a relatively safe environment after all (because we refused to return the hatred he was sending out and instead kept sending him love until he had to stop) as a kind of experiment. He never repeated it.

body language

copyright www.shc.hu/januszek

When Bakula is strapped to that bed, Nolan is feeling all that pain, but Bakula has to feel it too in order to transmit it to us. He has to make himself sick, and everyone around him can feel it too, which means the crew must be feeling pretty uncomfortable watching him even from a distance. Acting can be playing but think of all the fear Bakula had to call upon, voluntarily, to play Nolan, or to portray Sam in many episodes of "Quantum Leap," most particularly "Shock Theatre" and "Dreams." Ted Levine may not really have smacked Gary in the face with a shotgun (in a harrowing episode of "Midnight Caller"), but Cole had to feel it, and its aftermath, nonetheless; when Tina died in Jack's arms, it was Cole who had to experience Jack's grief; those were not onion tears, I assure you. Martin Shaw took his lumps, physically and emotionally, in "The Professionals"; in the British TV film "Ladder of Swords," witness his mixed dread and resentment in any of his scenes with Bob Peck.

I was fortunate enough to see two performances, by the East-West Players (another small repertory theatre company, this one in Los Angeles), of the Stephen Sondheim musical "Pacific Overtures." In one performance the male lead was played by the wonderful, underrated and underused (often misused) actor Soon-Teck Oh, who in the other performance played the male lead's wife. As the male lead, Oh was killed; he fell to the ground (the stage, which was not far from any seat in the house; I happened to be right up against it), rolled, and died. As he rolled, the ray of emotion he was sending cut right through me. It was coming from his stomach. I felt his death; I nearly leapt out of my seat.

When at the end of "The Deer Hunter," Christopher Walken put the gun to his head, smiled and shot himself to death that first time we saw it, Erik jumped in his seat; it was not the noise of the gun; he wasn't startled; he wasn't even surprised (we knew it could happen! -- and we had heard louder noises before in the film). He was hit with the sudden absence of the human being who had just been there, and the pain of the one who still remained. That wasn't an intellectual reaction; there was no time for an intellectual reaction. Something had been transmitted.

I have felt what these actors feel, and if I were to work as an actor I know I would have to commit myself to the extent of being willing to feel pain, angst, grief, rage and all manner of extreme unpleasantness when necessary, because otherwise I couldn't be satisfied with my work. I don't think Stockwell could be satisfied with his work either unless he gave of himself like that, and at the same time I don't see his being willing to cross a certain line; that is why I don't think Stockwell would ever take a part like that of Nolan or even Sam (age and the ridiculous concept of type aside); he would take parts he could bear to take. Therefore it is actually Stckwell's integrity which keeps him away from roles that Bakula would accept. (I imagine that Stockwell has enough credibility and respect in Hollywood that he is offered a variety of roles; indeed he has played a variety, some of them fairly challenging.) The pain in "M.I.A." must have been real enough and he did that beautifully, so he was willing to go that far. I don't think a lesser actor would have been willing or able to do so.

drama masks

copyright www.sxc.hu/plasmatic

Ramblings About Actors and Acting -- COMMITMENT

2008-07-28T14:34:00.000-05:00

Allegory of the Five Senses

copyright Wikimedia Commons/Gérard de Lairesse

At the WTC I studied improvisation, scene preparation and performance, fencing (which I soon quit because I was afraid of being poked, since my eyes were so weak -- I had not yet read J. D. Salinger's Seymour: An Introduction, or I might have realized that I did not need to look so hard), dance (oh, if I had only had then what I have since gained by taking so many aptitude tests: a sense of spatial relationships!) and something else which is hard to name and even harder, it seems, for most people to accept is true. We called it "sending"; if we had another name for it, I don't remember it, but it is related to sense memory.

The WTC was not an acting school but a small repertory theatre which, in order to support itself, regularly took on a limited number of students, most of us in our mid-teens. We were instructed, or trained, if you will, not by professional acting teachers, but by professional working actors. (One of them, Arlen Dean Snyder, with whom I did not study, played the sheriff in the "Quantum Leap" episode "Promised Land"; another WTC performer of that time was John Hillerman, a regular on "Magnum, P.I.") I don't remember hearing the word "method," though I think what we studied was the technique, or collection of techniques or attitudes toward acting which is commonly called "method." What every one of our instructors emphasized again and again was honesty.

Our improvisation instructor, Bob Darnell, who shows up in series television now and again, was relentless in his insistence on our commitment to the honesty of the moment. We had to be in the reality, totally, or else.

In our improvisational exercises generally two students were given common information about a scene -- who they were, the location, the general situation -- and then each was given other details privately. Perhaps both neophytes would be told that the setting (in truth a grubby room with a few ratty-looking pieces of furniture in it) was a park, that today was Monday and that they were strangers to one another. Then one would be drawn aside and told that she was hungry and that her goal was the get some money from the other; the other would be told that he was a lonely man looking for a lover. (This is not a real example, but, off the top of my head, the type of thing that would set up enough of a conflict to force both actors to think on their feet and to avoid making facile assumptions and cliched decisions; it would also leave enough latitude for a story to happen.) Once my friends Amy and Jane were in an improvisational scene in which they had been told in common that they were coming home from somewhere, walking into their own apartment. I don't know what they were told privately to create the conflict but they certainly were not told that Big Bob (as we called him to distinguish him from the WTC's other resident Robert, the less strapping and therefore "Little" Bob Spencer) would be sitting there on the sofa when they walked in. When they did walk in, together, they saw him sitting there and began to giggle. Big Bob was furious. If they came home to find a total stranger sitting on their sofa, he demanded to know, would they giggle? Could that possibly be an honest reaction? He sent them out to make their entrance again. This time he stood up on the sofa and draped himself over the doorway; as Amy (I think) happened to walk in first, he immediately grabbed her, threw her against the wall and screamed, "Now do you believe me? Now do you believe me?" She believed him, she believed him!

A few years later, in college, my best friend, Erik, and I prepared for our final acting exam. We had selected a scene from "Waiting for Godot" by Samuel Beckett (no relation to the fictional time-traveling physicist). Being young and confident (I hesitate to add foolish), we chose not to block the scene but rather to memorize the lines together and work on our characters without regard for our physical movements on the stage, which we felt sure we could work out a mere half-hour before performance. I don't know whether our idea was mainly to keep it fresh or to keep ourselves from working any harder than we had to, but the scene involved no props, no scenery and no fancy footwork so we weren't worried; we trusted that our movements would come from within our characters and our motivations, and in fact we had no trouble blocking out the scene in the time we had. That was no problem. What was a problem was that from the moment we started, the whole thing felt terrible. We didn't miss our lines, we didn't wander about the stage, but we were as lost as if we never had found the stage. Then came the moment when Erik had to remove his boots and I had to comment upon the smell of his feet. Erik had a little difficulty getting the boot off and I didn't have a line to say.... Suddenly I was hit by what should have been my driving force all along: I had no idea, after all, that Erik was going to remove his boot or have stinky feet. I was just waiting for Godot! So I waited for Godot. Godot never showed, but eventually Erik got the boot off and I smelled his feet and commented, and we proceeded. Everything was just fine.

Our teacher looked at us afterwards and shook his head. He said it was our finest work ever, except he couldn't understand what the hell we'd been up to at first. From the time of the boot, though, it'd been superb.

"Waiting for Godot"

copyright www.shc.hu/sphaera

Ramblings About Actors and Acting -- HONESTY

2008-07-28T14:16:00.000-05:00

Jessamyn West in her office

copyright Wikimedia Commons

When at the age of 15 or 16 I developed an interest in acting, my parents allowed me to study with the actors of the Washington Theatre Club in Washington, D.C. This was magnanimous of my father, since he believed (or claimed to believe) to his dying day that all actors are prostitutes. I think my father's mind and mine must be similar, since one reason I admire actors so much is their willingness to get naked in front of us -- only unlike my dad I mean emotionally naked (though certainly many are called upon to remove their clothing as well, and often, too, to simulate sex -- whether or not to do this is also a matter of choosing how far to go; also unlike my dad I do not believe that every actor's avocation is hopping in and out of bed with other actors.) On the other hand, perhaps what shocked my father about actors was after all their emotional nakedness; he was an extremely generous man whose generosity seems the more marvelous when contrasted with his suspicion of anything which was designed, or which conspired as he most likely saw it, to move us. He did not want to be fooled and I think he saw acting as trickery. He even saw rock 'n' roll that way, and the more attracted to it he was (and I believe he was tremendously attracted to it, as he liked both folk music and true blues) the more furious he became.It is possible that my father confused fiction with falsehood and mistook it for the opposite of truth. Jessamyn West said, "Fiction reveals truths that reality obscures." Edward Albee added, "A play is fiction -- and fiction is fact distorted into truth." Pablo Picasso was more brutal in his assessment: "We all know that art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth." Alan Bennett, in his play "An Englishman Abroad," put these words into the mouth of real-life spy and traitor to the crown, Guy Burgess: "If I wore a mask it was to be exactly what I seemed."

Edward Albee

copyright Wikimedia Commons/Carl Van Vechten

Perhaps my father believed, as many do, that that actors can't be honest, that they have to act all the time. First of all, as I have said, acting isn't pretending (and it mustn't be dishonest), and secondly, it's hard work, so no one could or would even be tempted to do it all the time on purpose, much less be able to get away with it. Of course there is an aspect of acting that is playing too, a lot of fun and very gratifying, and I like that part a lot; it has a place in my life, but its purpose is not to fool people. I have some facility with accents. I am imitative and enjoy assuming personalities I have observed or using aspects of my own self to create characters. I do this with my friends, who know who I really am and who know I am playing; I don't do it to get good press coverage, win friends or influence people! (Yes, we each put on a charming smile during a job interview, even if we don't feel so great that day, but it's our own smile, isn't it? -- I don't think we need to feel deceitful about that.)

Joan Crawford's act wouldn't fool many today, but Michael Jackson's hype still draws crowds. Perhaps the difference is that Michael's fans know it's hype and like him anyway, or even because of it. Joan's followers believed her publicity absolutely. Still, Crawford had quite a machine working for her (as does Jackson) and those closest to her certainly knew the score. If my father, an intelligent man, was afraid of being taken in not only by an actor's hype (which does not have to be the concern of someone who enjoys the actor's work -- do we ask whether our plumber is cheating on his wife or whether the clerk who checks out our groceries has paid her taxes?) but by his or her work, whose purpose is momentarily to take us in, then was my father not in fact more afraid of his own susceptibility than of the actor's prowess? Indeed, an actor's ability to move the audience depends neither on its susceptibility (the advertisers, not the actors, hope we are gullible dupes!) nor on his or her dishonesty; it is an actor's honesty that moves us.

If acting isn't an inclination to be dishonest, or to pretend, or to fool people, what the hell is it? What makes people act, and how can they stop when it's time to stop? Beats me; I can only speak for myself. At first it was, as I said, a relief to be someone else for a while to overcome shyness, and a way to free myself to say and do things I otherwise wouldn't. It was also a way to interact with others in a safe environment, and to learn about people and experiences not normally within my environment. Later, pride in my craft became a factor. Interestingly, people with Multiple Personality Disorder use their multiple personae much as actors use acting, but with an important difference. The person with MPD most often uses other personalities to protect him- or herself from emotions (generally reactions to events of the past, appropriately or inappropriately perceived as being a part of the present) while the actor uses his or her inner population (and if you don't believe we have an inner population, read Steppenwolf by Hermann Hesse) to reach out safely for new experience. MPD is an incredibly sophisticated, intelligent, frightening and inconvenient way for a psyche to survive the unsurvivable; acting is safer in that it has defined boundaries. I don't think Sam Beckett will leap into Bakula at the dinner table to protect him from a sudden unwanted memory; I would be surprised to learn that Jack Killian (or more frighteningly, Lucas Buck) emerged to protect Gary Cole from freeway traffic; most likely Martin Shaw has not lately seen much of Raymond Doyle.

Joan Crawford

copyright Wikimedia Commons/Yousuf

Ramblings About Actors and Acting -- SHYNESS

2008-07-25T22:48:00.000-05:00

copyright www.shc.hu/bvdwiel

I was painfully shy as a child and young adult, but I never had stage fright, since the person on the stage was not me. You don't have to be shy in every situation to have shyness. I am no longer painfully shy and indeed in most situations I am as bold and aggressive as I need to be (some would say more but I pay them no heed). Thus it is even more surprising to me than it used to be when I suddenly find myself in a situation where I still am shy! It does happen.

I have noticed that Scott Bakula has some facial expressions and gestures (in interviews, etc.; I mean as Bakula, not as a character he portrays) that indicate to me that he is not shy but, what's the word: unassuming? and that he may have moments of shyness. Still, what I see in Scott isn't exactly shyness. What is the word? It is something I do recognize! It's certainly not embarrassment -- that's different. The thing is, what killed me most about my shyness is that I have a big mouth! Now what do you do when you're shy but can't shut up? Ho! You take up acting is what. Maybe Bakula had a little of that.

Acting isn't pretending. Pretending is indicating, pointing to an emotion instead of feeling it, pointing to an action instead of doing it. All acting teachers say don't indicate! Dean Stockwell pretends that he indicates instead of acting but he's full of it. He acts, and he's damned good too -- very damned good. Something, though, puts Scott in a class above him, and this has nothing to do with talent but rather has to do with how far each man is willing to go. I just don't see Stockwell allowing himself to do that scene from "The Invaders," strapped to the bed, writhing and screaming, crying in fear. See, to do that, he'd have to feel all that. Maybe I'm wrong about Stockwell there (and I know some of Stockwell's fans are well prepared to show me the error of my ways!), but even if I am right I don't disrespect him, I really don't; I've seen some fine work from him. How far to go is his choice.

Who has made that kind of choice is something I believe I can see. I have many disabilities, if you will, not like being shy an arm or leg, and I don't even mean my poor eyesight or my chronic ailments, but stuff like being afraid of airplanes and not swimming... not being good in math and science... not being able to recognize faces well (except of actors!) However, I have some abilities that are just as quirky, and one of them is this thing that lets me see. Now it's not all that special. I'm not psychic and I'm not so tremendously talented, here, but I know I see things in people that others don't and which are proven time and again to be correct. I see this limitation in Stockwell, and I see this openness in Bakula, and it's this which makes Bakula the better actor, not the fact that he's younger and more handsome (for indeed Stockwell was once younger and quite handsome himself, not that he isn't still handsome, and Bakula won't always be either!)

2008-07-25T22:33:00.000-05:00

Welcome to the random ramblings of the Random Rambler. My rambles will seem, perhaps, to have no rhyme or reason, but this is, of course, an illusion.

Some of my rambles will be on topics that have been on my mind; others will be put into my mind by sponsors. This doesn't mean my opinions are bought and paid for; you can ask me to review your website (and we can talk about a fee) but you can't ask me to be other than honest about it. Be assured my opinions, and the expression thereof, are my own.

I have sponsors and I may link you to them as appropriate. If you have trouble with any of my sponsors, I would like to hear about it, so I can check into it and drop any sponsor who's doing something I find unacceptable.

A random ramble will follow shortly; meanwhile here are, respectively, a link, speaking of links, to a place you can read a great deal of my existing work (not to mention unbloggy, rambleless stuff I will write in the future), and another link, this time to a sponsor's website, speaking of sponsors:

Tags: blogging, welcome, sponsors, writing, random, rambling, rambles, opinion, honesty, hire, write

Random Ramblings

Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, In and Out of Time

You Can Only Like One Thing

FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW (and everyone you don't know; make a pest of yourself).

MORE OVERHEARD

Overheard on a Tube for Boobs

POLI MORE ITCHES THAN TICKLES

MORE POLITICKLES

POLITICKLES

One of my Facebook friends asked whether Teabaggers actually believe what they say. I responded thusly:

It is hard to figure, isn't it? I think they all go to some hypnotist and say "Make me believe; I'm gonna talk trash and I wanna be SINCERE."

The hypnotist, not liking to be rushed, adds a little something to the mix when he's got them under, just for spite. and that is why Teabaggers lick their own genitals. BECAUSE THEY CAN. (and because no one else will.)

ALL MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS

Drop Dead (from Frustration), TeeVee

Are You Politically Correct?

Guys, I Just Gagged!

Everything Changed (Forever)

I Listen to Too Much TV

photo of Billy Mays courtesy Sharese Ann Frederick

Shot in the Chest Area and Basically Killed

Product Placement? Entertainment Replacement!

Panic!

Gaming on Facebook

Magic Jack

Criminal Minds Revisited, and Bootlegged!

Saturn: Whose POV?

Criminal Minds

Where to Find my Nonbloggy Writings!

Controversial Ramblings

NEW DOCTOR WHO/TORCHWOOD FAN FICTION STORY READY TO VIEW! COMMENTS WELCOME!

Crappy Valentine Day

Coming Up at Ten....

I Listen to Too Much TV

Ramblings About There.com: 89 Snippets of Important Information

Ramblings About TV Commercials

Ramblings About Language

OBJECTING TO OBJECTIFICATION -- PART FIVE

Marvin Minsky

copyright Wikimedia Commons/Steamtalks

copyright Wikimedia Commons/IntroSpection

nice guy, not for me

copyright Wikimedia Commons/Tsui

THE MONSTER

[Japanese] Emperor Gozu (posthumously deified as Susanoo-no-Mikoto) kills a dragon to save Princess Inada. Artist: Utagawa Kuniteru.

copyright Wikimedia Commons/public domain

OBJECTING TO OBJECTIFICATION -- PART FOUR

copyright Wikimedia Commons/MatthiasKabel

ACTORS

Joe

a riverbed bandit?

copyright Wikimedia Commons/Kuniyoshi Utagawa (public domain)

OBJECTING TO OBJECTIFICATION -- PART THREE

Das Flötenkonzert by Carl Spitzeg: Couples in Love

copyright Wikimedia Commons/public domain

normal fans

copyright Wikimedia Commons/SV Erlenbach

copyright Wikimedia Commons/MatthiasKabel

OBJECTING TO OBJECTIFICATION -- PART TWO

Joseph Merrick, AKA "The Elephant Man"copyright Wikimedia Commons/Jack1956 (public domain)

Joseph Merrick, AKA "The Elephant Man"

copyright Wikimedia Commons/Jack1956 (public domain)

Illustration from 1907 edition of "Review of Reviews for Australiasia": The human being as object is not a new concept.copyright Wikimedia Commons/public domain

Illustration from 1907 edition of "Review of Reviews for Australiasia": The human being as object is not a new concept.

copyright Wikimedia Commons/public domain

copyright Wikimedia Commons/Shayan Sanyal

copyright Wikimedia Commons/Shayan Sanyal

Wilburcopyright Wikimedia Commons/Wm Jas

Wilbur

copyright Wikimedia Commons/Wm Jas

copyright Wikimedia Commons/public domain

a woman's place?

copyright Wikimedia Commons/Joel Dorman Steel and Esther Baker Steele, A Brief History of the United States, 1885 (public domain)

OBJECTING TO OBJECTIFICATION -- PART ONE

Baruch de Spinoza (1632-1677)

copyright Wikimedia Commons/public domain

Pepohoan Mother and Child, John Thomson, The Straits of Malacca, Indo-China and China or Ten years' travels, adventures and residence abroad London: Sampson Low, Marston, Low, & Searle. 1875. p.224

copyright Wikimedia Commons/public domain

a whole, individual spinach pizza, worthy to be the object of love

copyright Wikimedia Commons/Nova

copyright Wikimedia Commons/Matthew Bowden

Joseph Merrick, AKA "The Elephant Man"
copyright Wikimedia Commons/Jack1956 (public domain)

Illustration from 1907 edition of "Review of Reviews for Australiasia": The human being as object is not a new concept.
copyright Wikimedia Commons/public domain

Wilbur
copyright Wikimedia Commons/Wm Jas