Oh, man, I forgot to mention that Faiz is also taken from the arabic and is a name meaning "successful" and "victorious". Also, Greek letters were used thematically- "Phi" appears as the symbol whenever Faiz destroys.. fine, kills, one of the orphenochs. Φ <- a="a" copied="copied" got="got" here.="here." isn="isn" nice="nice" of="of" onto="onto" p="p" part="part" phi="phi" symbol.="symbol." symbol="symbol" t="t" the="the" underline="underline">
Okay something else... unless you want me to keep talking about Faiz? That evil selfish jerk pot-stirrer Kamen Rider Kaixa (pronounced "Kaiza" I guess) is almost the REAL villain of the show. He specifically sabotages the relationship between Takumi and Kiba, which at the time seemed to be a case of sabotaging human/orphenoch relations. All because he wanted the one girl for himself. It doesn't help how much he looks like a psycho stalker.
Anywayanywayanyway. You don't want to hear about Faiz anymore.
Let's see... you know what? It's Halloween, and I'm at home trying to watch me some Ghostbusters. How about I hop on the facebook, and copy paste the super short little anecdote from the evening I've got posted there as my status? Just getting something, then I can post this entry, and call it a night:
I assigned Jordan the task of handing out candy. Eventually, he runs out.
Jordan: Oh, sorry, I just ran out of candy.
Parent: Say thank you
Kid: Thank you
Me: *Heart-broken* He didn't have to say thank you!
Looks like two more boxes of candy needed next year...
I had two boxes last year. Not enough. This year, I got three. Still not enough. It'd be fine if we ran out on the teens that shouldn't be around- but the wee ones!
Jordan quote: "I'm glad the deaf kid got some candy."
Happy Halloween, I'm out! See you next month!
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Kamen Rider Faiz
I've only just recently finished watching the Kamen Rider Faiz series. Otherwise known as 555. Why did I jump to this show out of all the options available? Uh, have you seen this guy? (Pictures provided below)
Pretty cool, right?
I was spoiled on one plot point going in, thanks to Kamen Rider Decade travelling to a version of the Faiz earth- I knew going into it that the main character was secretly an "orphenoch", the race of monsters that get fought in the series proper.
The orphenochs deal is that they were humans until they died, but then woke up again as an orphenoch, with enanced strength, a new form besides their human selves, and other various powers. I originally would have likened them to vampires, but seeing as the series ends with the revelation that orphenoch state of being isn't sustainable, that given enough time all the orphenochs will die off of their own accord (unless the Orphenoch King can be awakened- that's sort of the big deal at the end of the series). Anyways, they're more like zombies I guess. Not that it's that important to liken orphenochs to any other creatures, but it may help give you a clearer idea about them.
Analogy. Yes, that's right.
The main character, Inui Takumi, is the wolf orphenoch and Kamen Rider Faiz. A very interesting point was raised over at the tvtropes page for the show: A superhero who transforms using a high-tech cellular phone has as his tragic flaw an inability to communicate. Everyone is constantly calling each other, but misunderstandings abound. Well over half the conflict in the series would be resolved if people could just sit down in a room, and get things cleared up at once.
This was actually far and away the most series Kamen Rider series I've seen to date (remember that's Den-O, W, OOO, and Decade, though I've just started Kuuga, and that one is pretty serious too so far) but even still it has it's share of wackiness. Random things mostly having to do with the circuitous love quadrangles they've got going on. Takumi himself didn't seem to be too in to the love business, unless you count Kiba Yuji, the horse orphenoch. Those two dudes really dug each other. But mostly Takumi was too worried about turning evil, what with his orphenochness.
It was either half way or three quarters of the way through the series when the director decided all of the characters must be going insane! They introduce some camera tricks, the names of which I don't know, but, you know, it was all instagram-y up in there. It was crazy awesome. Though it had its drawbacks, the sudden lack of narrative cohesion (plus, lets be honest, they were probably rushed for time) hurt the ending of the series. A big explosion happened, and then time skipped ahead a bit, with the big bad guy still alive (though no longer active/conscious), and Takumi starting to deteriorate... well, it's an unsatisfying ending.
It could really use a movie to tie things up.
Man, it is hard to talk about an entire Kamen Rider series, yet I keep trying to do just that. Harder still in that I try to do it when the clock is always ticking away near the deadline. Suffice it to say, I'm not doing the series judgement in describing it.
But the little voice that sounds off as the transformation belt goes off is mighty smooth- opens cell phone, presses 555, enter.
"Standing By"
User calls out "Henshin" into phone, inserts cell phone into belt.
"Complete"
And then tron lines surround the guy and it's mighty awesome.
Okay, need to figure out what to discuss for my last post.
Flowers for Algernon
Technically I should be getting set to head over to d&d/roleplaying/chilling out a table, but I've got this book beside me, and the clock's a tickin'.
So I gave 'Flowers for Algernon' by Daniel Keyes a read. It got a mention a few weeks back on the Daily Show, with the requisite "Read a book, people!" shout out afterwards. So I did.
Thanks to popculture osmosis I was already aware of the story. An issue of Tangled Wed of Spider-Man did a good version with the Rhino. A dumb person wants to get smart, gets a procedure to become smarter, it works and he becomes a super genius, until it all goes away again. Oh, there's also a Pinky and the Brain episode with this premise. Of course.
Finally reading the actual story that inspired all the parody, itself a novel that was fleshed out from the authors original short story, and soon afterwards made into a play that, apparently you can go see at schools and whatnot, but yes- finally reading the novel... it's sad. It's crazy sad. I mean, it's not quite Doctor Who-Rose-is-trapped-in-an-alternate-dimension sad, but it's pretty up there.
There's always a huge narrative danger of inauthenticity when a writer is trying to sell us on a character that is supposedly smarter than the writer could ever be, but that hurdle was readily cleared thanks to the emotional intelligence of Charlie Gordon not really raising a lick.
He became book smart, he knew things (easy when you can read a page a second) but he still knew so little about his traumatized self, he often failed to empathize with others. People could patronize him when he only had a 70 I.Q., but he never really thought to patronize others when he had an I.Q. of 180. That sounds like a good thing, you say? It's terrible to patronize someone, you're thinking.
Not in this case. Here, a patronizing attitude would at least mean Charlie recognized how difficult it was for others to follow him now, would have meant an effort on his part to understand the people around him. But no, he just got mad at them, frustrated that they were all "frauds"- as if anyone could live up to the image of genius and power that the early Charlie Gordon held when he trustingly admitted himself for the brain boosting operation.
I should have written about this book earlier. Ah well.
Part of what fascinated me so much about it was the development into intelligence and self consciousness that Charlie undergoes. I likened it to an accelerated Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man for showing how a child grows into a thinking creature. I'm being redundant.
Regardless- I feel like both those books should be required reading for early childhood educators, but, considering I did ask just such a student whether or not she'd read either book and the answer came back 'no', the odds seem poor. There are certain ideas dealt with in these books that may be challenging to certain world views, but there's nothing wrong with that. Either your views hold fast to interrogation, or become appropriately amended.
I should mention that Flowers here is written first person, as if by Charlie himself. This makes it a little tough at the beginning and ending, when you haf too reli on funetic spelling and suss out the meaning yourself. It's not that hard, but I was glad when the man got his intelligence boosted.
One interesting development over the course of the book. Starting off dumb, he had no idea when all his "friends" were making fun of him, though in the books journals it's pretty clear to the reader. When Charlie himself is finally aware of it, he gets angry, and it creates a distrust that colours his relationships throughout the rest of the novel. Finally, when he's returned to just about his starting intelligence (the book leaves it semi ambiguous whether or not he deteriorates further, I've heard tell of a version where the last letter is reprinted several times, in a sort of stuck drawl, or else a version where the last letter is cut off entirely, as though Charlie died mid-sentence. Of course I only have this one book to go by) Charlie goes to the class for retarded adults that he used to attend. He didn't think anything of it, he was just following his old routine. Of course, Alice Kinnian, the teacher at the front of the class, sees him, cries and hurriedly exits the class. Well, of course! She and Charlie had loved each other while Charlie was able.
Charlie, all of a sudden, "remembered some things about the operashun and me getting smart and I said holy smoke I reely pulled a Charlie Gordon that time."
'Pulling a Charlie Gordon' was something his co-workers said all the time, back in the day. It would have been a phrase that the old Charlie wouldn't have thought twice about, and a phrase the smart Charlie would have hated. To see Charlie say this about himself implies a personal growth in awareness despite his regressed intelligence. He soon after has himself commited to an institute for, well, people like him, so that he can't hurt anyone the way he hurt Alice just then.
The whole thing was marvelous... okay, wait, there was one bit of purple prose when Chalie and Alice hooked up that I thought stood too far outside the flow of the rest of the book. So, okay, one bit of criticism.
So I gave 'Flowers for Algernon' by Daniel Keyes a read. It got a mention a few weeks back on the Daily Show, with the requisite "Read a book, people!" shout out afterwards. So I did.
Thanks to popculture osmosis I was already aware of the story. An issue of Tangled Wed of Spider-Man did a good version with the Rhino. A dumb person wants to get smart, gets a procedure to become smarter, it works and he becomes a super genius, until it all goes away again. Oh, there's also a Pinky and the Brain episode with this premise. Of course.
Finally reading the actual story that inspired all the parody, itself a novel that was fleshed out from the authors original short story, and soon afterwards made into a play that, apparently you can go see at schools and whatnot, but yes- finally reading the novel... it's sad. It's crazy sad. I mean, it's not quite Doctor Who-Rose-is-trapped-in-an-alternate-dimension sad, but it's pretty up there.
There's always a huge narrative danger of inauthenticity when a writer is trying to sell us on a character that is supposedly smarter than the writer could ever be, but that hurdle was readily cleared thanks to the emotional intelligence of Charlie Gordon not really raising a lick.
He became book smart, he knew things (easy when you can read a page a second) but he still knew so little about his traumatized self, he often failed to empathize with others. People could patronize him when he only had a 70 I.Q., but he never really thought to patronize others when he had an I.Q. of 180. That sounds like a good thing, you say? It's terrible to patronize someone, you're thinking.
Not in this case. Here, a patronizing attitude would at least mean Charlie recognized how difficult it was for others to follow him now, would have meant an effort on his part to understand the people around him. But no, he just got mad at them, frustrated that they were all "frauds"- as if anyone could live up to the image of genius and power that the early Charlie Gordon held when he trustingly admitted himself for the brain boosting operation.
I should have written about this book earlier. Ah well.
Part of what fascinated me so much about it was the development into intelligence and self consciousness that Charlie undergoes. I likened it to an accelerated Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man for showing how a child grows into a thinking creature. I'm being redundant.
Regardless- I feel like both those books should be required reading for early childhood educators, but, considering I did ask just such a student whether or not she'd read either book and the answer came back 'no', the odds seem poor. There are certain ideas dealt with in these books that may be challenging to certain world views, but there's nothing wrong with that. Either your views hold fast to interrogation, or become appropriately amended.
I should mention that Flowers here is written first person, as if by Charlie himself. This makes it a little tough at the beginning and ending, when you haf too reli on funetic spelling and suss out the meaning yourself. It's not that hard, but I was glad when the man got his intelligence boosted.
One interesting development over the course of the book. Starting off dumb, he had no idea when all his "friends" were making fun of him, though in the books journals it's pretty clear to the reader. When Charlie himself is finally aware of it, he gets angry, and it creates a distrust that colours his relationships throughout the rest of the novel. Finally, when he's returned to just about his starting intelligence (the book leaves it semi ambiguous whether or not he deteriorates further, I've heard tell of a version where the last letter is reprinted several times, in a sort of stuck drawl, or else a version where the last letter is cut off entirely, as though Charlie died mid-sentence. Of course I only have this one book to go by) Charlie goes to the class for retarded adults that he used to attend. He didn't think anything of it, he was just following his old routine. Of course, Alice Kinnian, the teacher at the front of the class, sees him, cries and hurriedly exits the class. Well, of course! She and Charlie had loved each other while Charlie was able.
Charlie, all of a sudden, "remembered some things about the operashun and me getting smart and I said holy smoke I reely pulled a Charlie Gordon that time."
'Pulling a Charlie Gordon' was something his co-workers said all the time, back in the day. It would have been a phrase that the old Charlie wouldn't have thought twice about, and a phrase the smart Charlie would have hated. To see Charlie say this about himself implies a personal growth in awareness despite his regressed intelligence. He soon after has himself commited to an institute for, well, people like him, so that he can't hurt anyone the way he hurt Alice just then.
The whole thing was marvelous... okay, wait, there was one bit of purple prose when Chalie and Alice hooked up that I thought stood too far outside the flow of the rest of the book. So, okay, one bit of criticism.
Now Looper
To get another movie out of the way, a couple of weeks back now I went to see Looper with some friends. If you've seen any trailer or poster or whatever you know it's about a guy that kills people from the future, and one day he has to kill himself, but blows it, and now has to find and kill himself.
Except... we get to that part of the movie, when the two first face off, and the world has only just begun to be explored and I realized "I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN!" I was pretty excited. I had expected a chase film with a twist (that of chasing yourself) but it quickly became apparent that that was only a small part of what was happening.
What the movie is ACTUALLY about is the discovery of who the "Rainmaker" is, a nearly all powerful crime boss from the future that must be stopped before he can start "raining terror" or his "reign of terror". I think it was used both ways.
Early on in the film it looked like Joe (I think that was Joseph Gordon-Levitt's characters name... and therefore also the name for the character Bruce Willis plays..) Young Joe, rather, had died falling off a fire escape. The movie then flipped back to the moment when Old Joe gets transported to the past, and Young Joe has to kill him. I sat there plenty smug, because I was sure I was totally up on my time travel science fiction, and was therefore the only guy to get that the timeline reset, because without Young Joe, Old Joe couldn't be there, so Young Joe wouldn't have been in the position to fall off the fire escape and die. Paradox created, things would reset to avoid said paradox.
However, I was thinking much too hard. What we were actually seeing was the history of Old Joe- the timeline where he successfully killed his older self, and went on to enjoy his retirement in China until his cash ran out, he becomes a hired gun, he finds love, gets clean of the drugs in his system, and redirects all his selfish ways into love for his wife. Sounds sweet, don't it? Except he's so determined to save her life after the Rainmakers goons show up to send Old Joe to the past and end up shooting her in the process, that this determination (Termination? Terminator? Oh, I get it!) is what gets him to clock out his younger self and go find the mysterious Rainmaker as a little kid and kill him. Or her.
Seeing Old Joe kill a random kid (that, spoiler alert, he got the wrong one first), even though it devastates him, he never loses his resolve to do it again. And again. Whatever it takes to save his love in the future. HIS love. Young Joe even points this out in an awesome scene when the two are in a diner together. "Show me her picture, and I'll never marry her. Boom. Saved." (paraphrased obviously) Not that Young Joe cared about this hypothetical woman, he just wanted his old self to die and be done with everything. But still, kid had a point. Old Joe didn't want to sacrifice his time with this woman, maybe he was even counting on being snapped back to the future if he killed the kid that was in charge of sending Old Joe to the past (cause if he isn't sent, then, uh, he wasn't sent). Regardless, Old Joe is still as self involved and monstrous as Young Joe.
The other thing you won't have heard about this movie going in is that, according to the narration, about 10% of the population have acquired telekinesis. Not a lot, they can mostly move quarters around at parties (lot of dudes messing with quarters). Anyways, it's a plot point that was thrown out, then you forget about it until it comes back in a huge way.
I forget the full list of influences the writer-director cited, certainly 12 Monkeys (haven't seen), Terminator (seen 95% of it on tv), and also Akira. Oh, I've seen Akira.
That's the telekinesis influence. Definitely.
Awesome, awesome movie.
Except... we get to that part of the movie, when the two first face off, and the world has only just begun to be explored and I realized "I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN!" I was pretty excited. I had expected a chase film with a twist (that of chasing yourself) but it quickly became apparent that that was only a small part of what was happening.
What the movie is ACTUALLY about is the discovery of who the "Rainmaker" is, a nearly all powerful crime boss from the future that must be stopped before he can start "raining terror" or his "reign of terror". I think it was used both ways.
Early on in the film it looked like Joe (I think that was Joseph Gordon-Levitt's characters name... and therefore also the name for the character Bruce Willis plays..) Young Joe, rather, had died falling off a fire escape. The movie then flipped back to the moment when Old Joe gets transported to the past, and Young Joe has to kill him. I sat there plenty smug, because I was sure I was totally up on my time travel science fiction, and was therefore the only guy to get that the timeline reset, because without Young Joe, Old Joe couldn't be there, so Young Joe wouldn't have been in the position to fall off the fire escape and die. Paradox created, things would reset to avoid said paradox.
However, I was thinking much too hard. What we were actually seeing was the history of Old Joe- the timeline where he successfully killed his older self, and went on to enjoy his retirement in China until his cash ran out, he becomes a hired gun, he finds love, gets clean of the drugs in his system, and redirects all his selfish ways into love for his wife. Sounds sweet, don't it? Except he's so determined to save her life after the Rainmakers goons show up to send Old Joe to the past and end up shooting her in the process, that this determination (Termination? Terminator? Oh, I get it!) is what gets him to clock out his younger self and go find the mysterious Rainmaker as a little kid and kill him. Or her.
Seeing Old Joe kill a random kid (that, spoiler alert, he got the wrong one first), even though it devastates him, he never loses his resolve to do it again. And again. Whatever it takes to save his love in the future. HIS love. Young Joe even points this out in an awesome scene when the two are in a diner together. "Show me her picture, and I'll never marry her. Boom. Saved." (paraphrased obviously) Not that Young Joe cared about this hypothetical woman, he just wanted his old self to die and be done with everything. But still, kid had a point. Old Joe didn't want to sacrifice his time with this woman, maybe he was even counting on being snapped back to the future if he killed the kid that was in charge of sending Old Joe to the past (cause if he isn't sent, then, uh, he wasn't sent). Regardless, Old Joe is still as self involved and monstrous as Young Joe.
The other thing you won't have heard about this movie going in is that, according to the narration, about 10% of the population have acquired telekinesis. Not a lot, they can mostly move quarters around at parties (lot of dudes messing with quarters). Anyways, it's a plot point that was thrown out, then you forget about it until it comes back in a huge way.
I forget the full list of influences the writer-director cited, certainly 12 Monkeys (haven't seen), Terminator (seen 95% of it on tv), and also Akira. Oh, I've seen Akira.
That's the telekinesis influence. Definitely.
Awesome, awesome movie.
Argo
I was not prepared for Argo. Either it's because I kept getting texts that morning waking me up (I had to be constantly updated on whether or not we had tickets I guess) or maybe I'm just coming down with something, but I had a nice headache by the end of the movie. Or else the movie is JUST that tense.
There's essentially two parts to the story- the assemblage of the Argo movie cover story, and then the enactment of the plan.
(assemblage? enactment? are either of those even real words? Too lazy to check right now. Re-enactment is at least seen on "America's Most Wanted" so OBVIOUSLY that's legit)
Putting the movie together was the most fun. Tony Mendez, the CIA guy that came up with the plan, is basically just dragged along while his Hollywood contacts make it happen. It's fun to see his outsiders perspective on the showbusiness involved. Not that Mendez ever stands up and says, "this is crazy, you guys are crazy!" as that would be cliche for one, and two he was the only guy that had any faith at all in, as the movie puts it, "the best bad idea we've got".
When finally putting the plan into action to get those six americans out of Iran, yes, it's a nail biter, arm rest wrenching, edge of your seat affair, but I think to an exhausting degree. They either make it or they don't. Unfortunately, in my ignorance, I hadn't had this real life story spoiled for me. So I didn't know! The movie kept going long after they made it out, and I kept expecting some dude to pop out of the bushes, yell "this is for the Ayatollah!" and then have whomever it was get tragically killed in the last scene.
Nope, despite the dramatic phone calls, paper swishing effects, and what was portrayed as a very close call at the airport, they all made it out in a pretty straightforward manner. I did like how the one guy who was set up to not really believe in the plan was the guy at the airport to describe the movie to the guards there, making it sound convincing. His nerdiness, plus the sound effects he used, made him sound like C-3PO from Return of the Jedi when he was telling the ewoks the story of Star Wars. And I'm positive that allusion was made on purpose- this story would never have happened without Star Wars and its like. The end of the movie, the part where there's text telling us about what happened to everyone after the events shown (like this is Animal House or something!... okay, I've never seen Animal House, but I'm like 90% sure they do that there...), the text is shown beside a bunch of action figures, the lions share of which are from Star Wars.
I'm glad the movie gave us the information that, during this Iranian hostage crisis, the Iranians wanted the return of their Shah for trial. Or maybe "trial". But whatever. I hadn't known (though I could've guess at this point in my life) that the 'mericans had gone in, messed things up, and installed a corrupt Shah to rule over the Iranian people, someone who'd keep the oil gears turning for the world, while exploiting and ruining his country. As much as I get angry at the extremism, and as much as I want those americans to get out of dodge, the Iranian people were driven to this.
But who's to blame? A government from 30 years before? Certainly not the diplomats being used as bargaining chips or bloody spectacles. Most of them, when their ages were given, were specifically under 30.
Ah, but despite the fact that we were given this information, the movie still plays me like a fiddle, and is an example of America saying it's awesome. It could have gone harder on the self recrimination.
There's essentially two parts to the story- the assemblage of the Argo movie cover story, and then the enactment of the plan.
(assemblage? enactment? are either of those even real words? Too lazy to check right now. Re-enactment is at least seen on "America's Most Wanted" so OBVIOUSLY that's legit)
Putting the movie together was the most fun. Tony Mendez, the CIA guy that came up with the plan, is basically just dragged along while his Hollywood contacts make it happen. It's fun to see his outsiders perspective on the showbusiness involved. Not that Mendez ever stands up and says, "this is crazy, you guys are crazy!" as that would be cliche for one, and two he was the only guy that had any faith at all in, as the movie puts it, "the best bad idea we've got".
When finally putting the plan into action to get those six americans out of Iran, yes, it's a nail biter, arm rest wrenching, edge of your seat affair, but I think to an exhausting degree. They either make it or they don't. Unfortunately, in my ignorance, I hadn't had this real life story spoiled for me. So I didn't know! The movie kept going long after they made it out, and I kept expecting some dude to pop out of the bushes, yell "this is for the Ayatollah!" and then have whomever it was get tragically killed in the last scene.
Nope, despite the dramatic phone calls, paper swishing effects, and what was portrayed as a very close call at the airport, they all made it out in a pretty straightforward manner. I did like how the one guy who was set up to not really believe in the plan was the guy at the airport to describe the movie to the guards there, making it sound convincing. His nerdiness, plus the sound effects he used, made him sound like C-3PO from Return of the Jedi when he was telling the ewoks the story of Star Wars. And I'm positive that allusion was made on purpose- this story would never have happened without Star Wars and its like. The end of the movie, the part where there's text telling us about what happened to everyone after the events shown (like this is Animal House or something!... okay, I've never seen Animal House, but I'm like 90% sure they do that there...), the text is shown beside a bunch of action figures, the lions share of which are from Star Wars.
I'm glad the movie gave us the information that, during this Iranian hostage crisis, the Iranians wanted the return of their Shah for trial. Or maybe "trial". But whatever. I hadn't known (though I could've guess at this point in my life) that the 'mericans had gone in, messed things up, and installed a corrupt Shah to rule over the Iranian people, someone who'd keep the oil gears turning for the world, while exploiting and ruining his country. As much as I get angry at the extremism, and as much as I want those americans to get out of dodge, the Iranian people were driven to this.
But who's to blame? A government from 30 years before? Certainly not the diplomats being used as bargaining chips or bloody spectacles. Most of them, when their ages were given, were specifically under 30.
Ah, but despite the fact that we were given this information, the movie still plays me like a fiddle, and is an example of America saying it's awesome. It could have gone harder on the self recrimination.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Taxi cab slowness and writing
To continue from where I left off, heading home I joined Jimmy's party in his taxi.
Question: those taxi meters are based on time, aren't they? I feel like the driver was, in places, driving much slower than even concern for the storm would merit, in an attempt to goose more money out of us. Like, okay, it's dark and there are street lights out, it's fine that you're going slow, but now we're in a section with full power and that's a green light in front of you. Correction, that WAS a green light in front of you.
We talked about writing during our journey. Jimmy's emphatic that I get to writing, and, you know, do something with my life. He's not entirely wrong- but it's hard to feel to bad about my own output when you've got guys with editors and publishers and writing advances, and it STILL takes them forever to produce something- let alone something of any value.
I brought up the idea of writing as "an inherently narcissistic act". Some other friends of mine suggested that, and I was about to go on about how I disagreed with that, before Jimmy vehemently agreed with the premise.
To put in the most straightforward way possible: you (I) have the gall to think the words that you (I)put on a page are worth the attention of other people? Well, you (I) better! That's what will get those words on the page!*
*disclaimer- these weren't the words used, they are the essential meaning I took from them. If you went to any of my friends to accuse them of this argument, they'd have every right to say they never said any such thing.
But I still disagree. Writing is that art/science mashup of taking your nebulous thoughts and transmuting it into something palatable to yourself, first, and then others maybe. And then, having it grow beyond what you were thinking in the first place. If this, THEN THIS!!.. writeswriteswrites.
Does this even need explaining? It's a creative act! Is it an inherently narcissistic act for someone to paint a picture? To sing a song? Dance a dance? Feng some shui?
I don't believe so at all.
That said, if we're talking about earning a living through any of these creative practices, then okay, that's a different ballgame. And these guys are almost certainly talking about that. So I guess I should get on the same page as them.
I'm sure the majority of my blog is needlessly self-reflective, but it is, in theory, writing exercise. True, I (what's that word...) undermine myself when I don't regularly practice, and try to make up my numbers at the end of the month. But even still, I think I have plenty of good faith entries.
I'm supposed to go see a movie tonight, I'd better be off.
Question: those taxi meters are based on time, aren't they? I feel like the driver was, in places, driving much slower than even concern for the storm would merit, in an attempt to goose more money out of us. Like, okay, it's dark and there are street lights out, it's fine that you're going slow, but now we're in a section with full power and that's a green light in front of you. Correction, that WAS a green light in front of you.
We talked about writing during our journey. Jimmy's emphatic that I get to writing, and, you know, do something with my life. He's not entirely wrong- but it's hard to feel to bad about my own output when you've got guys with editors and publishers and writing advances, and it STILL takes them forever to produce something- let alone something of any value.
I brought up the idea of writing as "an inherently narcissistic act". Some other friends of mine suggested that, and I was about to go on about how I disagreed with that, before Jimmy vehemently agreed with the premise.
To put in the most straightforward way possible: you (I) have the gall to think the words that you (I)put on a page are worth the attention of other people? Well, you (I) better! That's what will get those words on the page!*
*disclaimer- these weren't the words used, they are the essential meaning I took from them. If you went to any of my friends to accuse them of this argument, they'd have every right to say they never said any such thing.
But I still disagree. Writing is that art/science mashup of taking your nebulous thoughts and transmuting it into something palatable to yourself, first, and then others maybe. And then, having it grow beyond what you were thinking in the first place. If this, THEN THIS!!.. writeswriteswrites.
Does this even need explaining? It's a creative act! Is it an inherently narcissistic act for someone to paint a picture? To sing a song? Dance a dance? Feng some shui?
I don't believe so at all.
That said, if we're talking about earning a living through any of these creative practices, then okay, that's a different ballgame. And these guys are almost certainly talking about that. So I guess I should get on the same page as them.
I'm sure the majority of my blog is needlessly self-reflective, but it is, in theory, writing exercise. True, I (what's that word...) undermine myself when I don't regularly practice, and try to make up my numbers at the end of the month. But even still, I think I have plenty of good faith entries.
I'm supposed to go see a movie tonight, I'd better be off.
Cream of Comedy, sharing the view
Been back for about a half hour, it's late night. I've got a big ol' pile of laundry to fold on my bed, and my radio turned on. I know I've reported that I listen to the radio while driving- well, laundry folding is also excellently accompanied by the radio.
It took me a while to remember the word 'accompanied'. But that's how it always goes.
Deluged by facebook stati concerning this hurricane business. When a man has been killed by a flying Staples sign, well, okay, I guess it's justified this time.
A quick word on the use of 'stati'- I got some jerk on the facebooks pointing out to me that that isn't grammatically correct. Which is the first time in adulthood I think that I've ever been grammar nazied. That actually happened months ago now, but it clearly still burns me up.
More importantly, I've returned from the Cream of Comedy 2012 show, five acts, one prize: $5000 from the Tim Sims Encouragement Fund (for comedy). All the performers were really strong, but when the time came to announce the winner I was curled up in a ball of tenseness, breath appropriately baited (I'm.. not sure I've warped that phrase the correct way. Oh, there's no doubt I've warped the phrase.), would it be my buddy who wins out???
Ah- Jimmy didn't win. It's really tough, but so was the competition. There were no losers this night, just people that didn't get an hilariously large cheque.
I stayed out much too late with everyone afterwards. I shared my thoughts on ironically loving Marmaduke despite the obvious dangers of hipsterfication through irony, and apparently my presentation of those thoughts was funny and enjoyable. Huzzah.
(I would have said it 'killed', but for tonight that terminology should be held in reserve for my buddy's performance tonight for Cream of Comedy. Uh, also, for Staples signs. Whoops..)
I'm fading fast, and yet still have that laundry to fold. All right, there are worse things than continuing this in the morning. While still also posting what I have now, thereby adding to my count.
I'm a rotten cheater I am. Oh, nostalgic song just came up on the radio. Never actually learned the name of the song.
***
Ah, it's a Chili Peppers song (I should have been able to figure that out). "Scar Tissue".
And, according to this, the only bit of lyric that I "knew" was totally wrong.
I thought it was "what the brothers shared was a lonely view".
Nope. "With the birds I'll share this lonely view".
Then again, this commenter is questioning the lyric himself. He thought it was "burden shared" instead of "birds I'll share". SO WHO KNOWS.
I still like my version.
It took me a while to remember the word 'accompanied'. But that's how it always goes.
Deluged by facebook stati concerning this hurricane business. When a man has been killed by a flying Staples sign, well, okay, I guess it's justified this time.
A quick word on the use of 'stati'- I got some jerk on the facebooks pointing out to me that that isn't grammatically correct. Which is the first time in adulthood I think that I've ever been grammar nazied. That actually happened months ago now, but it clearly still burns me up.
More importantly, I've returned from the Cream of Comedy 2012 show, five acts, one prize: $5000 from the Tim Sims Encouragement Fund (for comedy). All the performers were really strong, but when the time came to announce the winner I was curled up in a ball of tenseness, breath appropriately baited (I'm.. not sure I've warped that phrase the correct way. Oh, there's no doubt I've warped the phrase.), would it be my buddy who wins out???
Ah- Jimmy didn't win. It's really tough, but so was the competition. There were no losers this night, just people that didn't get an hilariously large cheque.
I stayed out much too late with everyone afterwards. I shared my thoughts on ironically loving Marmaduke despite the obvious dangers of hipsterfication through irony, and apparently my presentation of those thoughts was funny and enjoyable. Huzzah.
(I would have said it 'killed', but for tonight that terminology should be held in reserve for my buddy's performance tonight for Cream of Comedy. Uh, also, for Staples signs. Whoops..)
I'm fading fast, and yet still have that laundry to fold. All right, there are worse things than continuing this in the morning. While still also posting what I have now, thereby adding to my count.
I'm a rotten cheater I am. Oh, nostalgic song just came up on the radio. Never actually learned the name of the song.
***
Ah, it's a Chili Peppers song (I should have been able to figure that out). "Scar Tissue".
And, according to this, the only bit of lyric that I "knew" was totally wrong.
I thought it was "what the brothers shared was a lonely view".
Nope. "With the birds I'll share this lonely view".
Then again, this commenter is questioning the lyric himself. He thought it was "burden shared" instead of "birds I'll share". SO WHO KNOWS.
I still like my version.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Gone With the Wind, the first 500 pages
I have now officially passed the halfway mark in Gone With the Wind.
Wait.
Okay, yes I have.
As a thousand page book, I think it's pretty fair to give some impressions at the halfway mark. After all, there are plenty of books out there that would be two books by now.
Things start off in the south, Georgia unless I'm remembering it wrong. Georgia is definitely among the places where action takes place. Yes, I'm sure it's Georgia. We meet Scarlett O'Hara, and she kinda sucks. As a protagonist she is selfish and stupid, two things that'll definitely turn me off of liking you.
Ah, but it turns out this is one of them bildungsroman books. Where I am now, 4+ years have passed, the Civil War has started and ended, she's gained and lost a husband (not that she cared about the dude, she just wanted to hurt some other guy), has a kid that she barely cares about, been to plenty of social functions with Mr. Han Solo-of-the-19th-century Rhett Butler (despite hating him... him and his swarthy good looks and muscles upon muscles. Hey, it's what's in the book, don't blame me!).
It's been over the last hundred some-odd pages that the biggest changes have occured to Scarlett. She's become the head of the household, now that her mother has died, and her father has kind of lost it, and she is working crazy hard to keep everyone's stomach at bay.
Bonus points for blowing away a yankee thief with her dead husbands gun. Whoa, when did Scarlett O'Hara get so tough?
As it's important, the dude she was trying to hurt by marrying someone else was Ashley Wilkes. He's a gentleman, and a big time dreamer, and philosopher. He immediately recognizes the futility of war, but heads out into it anyways. Bravery? Perhaps. He calls it cowardice. Scarlett called him a coward back before the war even started, when he decided to marry the quiet and nice (but still pretty awesome, actually) Melanie, instead of marrying Scarlett. He was afraid of being tethered to someone who was so very much of the world- she didn't realize that was what she was saying, because she isn't aware like that, but it was how he took it I guess. And it was the truth.
I've got this bit marked from Ashley that I wanted to record:
"It isn't that I mind splitting logs here in the mud, but I do mind what it stands for. I do mind, very much, the loss of the beauty of the old life I loved."
I had a mini freak out, some years ago, that sounded very much like this. Except it had to do with spending all my time in a parking booth. And these days I'd say it about standing guard in a women's clothing store.
Ah, while I'm here, what does "termagant" mean? (It was in the book of course)
Termagant
Wait.
Okay, yes I have.
As a thousand page book, I think it's pretty fair to give some impressions at the halfway mark. After all, there are plenty of books out there that would be two books by now.
Things start off in the south, Georgia unless I'm remembering it wrong. Georgia is definitely among the places where action takes place. Yes, I'm sure it's Georgia. We meet Scarlett O'Hara, and she kinda sucks. As a protagonist she is selfish and stupid, two things that'll definitely turn me off of liking you.
Ah, but it turns out this is one of them bildungsroman books. Where I am now, 4+ years have passed, the Civil War has started and ended, she's gained and lost a husband (not that she cared about the dude, she just wanted to hurt some other guy), has a kid that she barely cares about, been to plenty of social functions with Mr. Han Solo-of-the-19th-century Rhett Butler (despite hating him... him and his swarthy good looks and muscles upon muscles. Hey, it's what's in the book, don't blame me!).
It's been over the last hundred some-odd pages that the biggest changes have occured to Scarlett. She's become the head of the household, now that her mother has died, and her father has kind of lost it, and she is working crazy hard to keep everyone's stomach at bay.
Bonus points for blowing away a yankee thief with her dead husbands gun. Whoa, when did Scarlett O'Hara get so tough?
As it's important, the dude she was trying to hurt by marrying someone else was Ashley Wilkes. He's a gentleman, and a big time dreamer, and philosopher. He immediately recognizes the futility of war, but heads out into it anyways. Bravery? Perhaps. He calls it cowardice. Scarlett called him a coward back before the war even started, when he decided to marry the quiet and nice (but still pretty awesome, actually) Melanie, instead of marrying Scarlett. He was afraid of being tethered to someone who was so very much of the world- she didn't realize that was what she was saying, because she isn't aware like that, but it was how he took it I guess. And it was the truth.
I've got this bit marked from Ashley that I wanted to record:
"It isn't that I mind splitting logs here in the mud, but I do mind what it stands for. I do mind, very much, the loss of the beauty of the old life I loved."
I had a mini freak out, some years ago, that sounded very much like this. Except it had to do with spending all my time in a parking booth. And these days I'd say it about standing guard in a women's clothing store.
Ah, while I'm here, what does "termagant" mean? (It was in the book of course)
Termagant
1. a violent, turbulent, or brawling woman.
2. ( initial capital letter ) a mythical deity popularly believed in the Middle Ages to be worshiped by the Muslims and introduced into the morality play as a violent, overbearing personage in long robes.
All right, now I know.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Dirk Gently's Holisitc Detective Agency
As I keep likening my writing style to that of Douglas Adams (at least, when I haven't been temporarily brainwashed to write like a victorian novelist, or a rough and tumble cowpoke, or a just the facts ma'am detective, or a swingin' 60's Stan Lee from Amazing Spider-Man- now THAT was a fun week!) I decided to give some more of his work a read. Thus, "Dirk Gently's Holisitic Detective Agency".
Of course this wasn't the only reason I looked it up, nay! I figure I first came upon the title during any of a number of Doctor Who binges on tvtropes.org. Apparently Douglas Adams was commissioned to write a Doctor Who, well, either novel or episode or movie or whatever. But it was never made! Spoooky! The story was called "Shada" for some reason that I don't know. But it turns out that story was turned into this Dirk Gently book, and certainly goes to explaining the presence of the time travelling professor that figures into the plot.
Figuring less into the plot, unfortunately, was Dirk Gently himself! If memory serves he was only vaguely mentioned until appearing around the hundred page mark. Or else he only gets mentioned at the hundred page mark and doesn't even then appear. It's one of those. Again, it's been a while since I read the thing.
Gently is a character that proposes the "interconnectedness of all things", at least that's how he explains charging his client for a trip to Bermuda when he's looking for her lost cat. He's a con man and a lout, who get's played up like a modern day Sherlock Holmes- especially when he deduces the answer to one particularly unsolvable riddle is the existence of a time machine. And of course he's bang on correct.
The Watson of the story is an eccentric genius in his own right, working with those newfangled "computer programs" and whatnot (written in the 80's). He's a likable enough guy, it's just frustrating to have him as the central character for most of the novel only to get railroaded by Gently, who is never explored enough to make me care about him. So it's like the story stops but the novel keeps going.
Worst of all, the ending ramps up to a ghost getting taken back to prehistory to end all of human life, and is essentially stopped off page. End of novel. I found it hugely anticlimactic.
Reading the reviews for the book on tvtropes, it's all raves. I like the one guy that was like "I just got it- and this was brilliant mind you- but the electric monk was actually from an alien planet, and was made in such a way that it happened to look entirely human!"
And I'm just sitting here going "duh, yes, that was indeed what was described in the book."
Shee-eesh.
Of course this wasn't the only reason I looked it up, nay! I figure I first came upon the title during any of a number of Doctor Who binges on tvtropes.org. Apparently Douglas Adams was commissioned to write a Doctor Who, well, either novel or episode or movie or whatever. But it was never made! Spoooky! The story was called "Shada" for some reason that I don't know. But it turns out that story was turned into this Dirk Gently book, and certainly goes to explaining the presence of the time travelling professor that figures into the plot.
Figuring less into the plot, unfortunately, was Dirk Gently himself! If memory serves he was only vaguely mentioned until appearing around the hundred page mark. Or else he only gets mentioned at the hundred page mark and doesn't even then appear. It's one of those. Again, it's been a while since I read the thing.
Gently is a character that proposes the "interconnectedness of all things", at least that's how he explains charging his client for a trip to Bermuda when he's looking for her lost cat. He's a con man and a lout, who get's played up like a modern day Sherlock Holmes- especially when he deduces the answer to one particularly unsolvable riddle is the existence of a time machine. And of course he's bang on correct.
The Watson of the story is an eccentric genius in his own right, working with those newfangled "computer programs" and whatnot (written in the 80's). He's a likable enough guy, it's just frustrating to have him as the central character for most of the novel only to get railroaded by Gently, who is never explored enough to make me care about him. So it's like the story stops but the novel keeps going.
Worst of all, the ending ramps up to a ghost getting taken back to prehistory to end all of human life, and is essentially stopped off page. End of novel. I found it hugely anticlimactic.
Reading the reviews for the book on tvtropes, it's all raves. I like the one guy that was like "I just got it- and this was brilliant mind you- but the electric monk was actually from an alien planet, and was made in such a way that it happened to look entirely human!"
And I'm just sitting here going "duh, yes, that was indeed what was described in the book."
Shee-eesh.
Court Date- no names of course
Monday morning I travelled out to Markham road to deal with my friend's two traffic tickets as he is out of the country. I expected to be in and out in ten minutes, good deed done, let's get some cheap ham and eggs at the open 24 hours "Markham Station" (wait, is it open 24 hours, or does it have all day breakfast? Doesn't matter.) before bussing it down to work.
I arrived fashionably early, twenty minutes to the required 9am. I hopped into the bathroom so I wouldn't have any distracting urges to pee later. I find my door, where I have to pass through a metal detector, leaving all my belongings (backpack with book, wallet, cell phone and... the two buttons that has come off my jacket) in the plastic bin as I walked through and had the wand waved around me, it's various theremin like sound effects completely undecipherable (okay, it WISHES it sounded like a theremin. Ah, the theremin- the electronic device all other electronic devices wish they sounded like.). Cleared, I begin to walk away, until the officer points out I'd forgotten to take back my two buttons from the bin.
"Thanks. They're important!" I say, fully convinced of my own status as a charming, absent minded professor type. Rather, this hits later as a harsh foreshadowing of things to come. A clue revealing my own foolishness for whatever audience may have been following along at home. (you say my life isn't a boring tv show? I need to call my agent..)
I'm waiting outside the door labelled E-1. A cluster of people gathered around, some clutching their own tickets. I didn't particularly stop to consider them. I was far too pleased with myself for finding my friends name up on the, what, docket sheet? The sheet of paper posted to the wall.
The doors are opened by a cute young woman with wavy hair held back by a... um. Not an elastic, not a scrunchie, not quite the semi-circle thing girls wear (although that's pretty close!). Dare I say headband? Is that an option? Alright, let's go with headband. Except she didn't look that young, thanks entirely to her tired eyes and pallid skin. She announced the judge coming in when that happened. What's the job again? She clearly wasn't the bailiff, they off the "... take that man into custody!" cliche holder. Court reporter? Was she the stenographer? Man, I don't know a lot.
Taking charge was a short, white haired woman with a slight accent, sort of a british/australian thing going on. She was the prosecutor, and we all lined up before her to quickly say what we wanted to happen. Most just plead guilty, getting reduced fines. Some ancillary tickets were then waved after the fact. I don't think I actually saw anyone there say "I want to fight this." There were people that wanted to explain things away- I was one of them- but nothing as straightforward as "innocent."
My secret hope, secret in that I didn't want to mention it aloud to the Madame Prosecutor, was that I wanted the officer that issued the tickets to not show up, and therefore to have the tickets thrown out, or waved or whatever you'd call it. I kept my ears pricked for any indication about this. I finally got it when someone at the front was asking about whether the officers had arrived and the Prosecutor said to everyone "okay, I don't want to hear from anyone about whether the officers are here. One is here, the other isn't."
A fifty-fifty chance then? Okay, okay, fifty-fifty. I needn't worry about things until there's something to worry about. Then the other shoe dropped. "Okay, both officers are here now."
Unprecedented! Here I'd been told the cops rarely show up for these things, the courts counting on people paying up front, well I'll tell you right now, going to court my experience is that they show up!
It was at this point that I began mentally cursing a blue streak. What was I asked to do? I was told if he ended up having to pay the tickets, well that's how it goes sometimes. But the officer, as I was told, even said to fight the second ticket, with a single sheet of what had carried the insurance permit sticker... thing (I clearly do NOT have the vocabulary to be telling this story. However if I did, then I'd have the experience necessary to keep this story from existing altogether.). When it's my turn with the prosecutor, I try to say that the first ticket is one thing, but this other one I've got this thing *shows insurance permit sticker thing* and...
"There is no discussion about individual tickets. What do you want to do?" (I'm, once again, super paraphrasing.)
"Ah, well, I'm not entirely..."
"Then you should call your friend and see what he wants to do."
My friend not being in the country, and entirely lacking any phone I could reach him at, this was a quandary. Not having any ready answers, my face burned red with embarrassment.
I resumed my seat on the hard wooden benches. I can't help but think now how much like a church it was- hard pews, robed uniforms for the girl and judge, codified rules of conduct. Very strict. Not pentecostal. May have spelled that wrong.
I waited for my time to be called up, soaking up the appropriate procedure so I could avoid the mistakes of others. I can make my own mistakes, thank you very much. Right then I thought- I get it. I get why people are so fearful of the police and the courts and the system of law we have here. We've propped up this system that leaves us at the mercy of the good or bad days of a man in a dress. It's a whole separate language needed to navigate this small world. I like to kid around, poke fun at whatever seems pokefunable. Like the concept of calling someone "Your honour". That seems ridiculous to me. Or the people that feel the need to remind you that they've spent X number of years too many, that it's DOCTOR not MISTER thankyewverymuch. But I'm aware that contempt of court is a thing, and that this is a world where any unfortunate thing can happen, so I'm yelling at my tongue to please mind your manners.
When the judge comes out, for whom we all stand, he seems like a nice guy. He's serious, he's straightforward, but softspoken and considerate. I'm still terrified of what he can do, and certainly still terrified of the Madame Prosecutor. One proxy comes up, explaining that his father doesn't drive much anymore, and is living off his savings, both of which because he's dealing with cancer. I don't know the original infraction, or the original cost of the ticket, but the judge first ruled the fine be $100, then the proxy (the man's step-son I think) talked about the living off of his saving, and the judge reduced it to $50.
I guess it all depends on what the original ticket was, but I certainly got a good impression of the judge from how quick he was to help this person out.
Meanwhile, I was still wrestling with my dilema. Is my only option to plead guilty? Pleading guilty on behalf of another man? When I have no idea whether he's guilty or not? For the other proxys, the judge always asks after they say "guilty" whether the person understands the repurcussions of pleading guilty. I certainly didn't understand the repurcussions in my case, did my friend? Is it just the cost on the ticket, or were there demerit points involved, and insurance brackets to get pushed into? Is this a one time cost, or something that'd follow my friend around for years? From both a metaphysical and a practical perspective, this was a surprisingly heavy burden.
The time had finally come for me to step forward. I (finally) got to explain the fact that my friend was out of the country to the prosecutor, and so she started in on the idea of a separate court date. I stated my name to the court, spelled it out quick and clear. Well, at least I hadn't forgotten my own name! Then I immediately set to work contradicting myself with the prosecutor. I can't even quite remember what I said, all I know is that there was certainly a confused look on peoples faces. The judge explained that you can't fight the ticket without a person who was present there. I certainly don't begrudge the explanation, though by this time I'd figured that much out. The Madame Prosecutor suggests a May 22, 2013 court date, in room E-2 at 10:30am (that's a reminder for me- there will be no notices mailed!!) and I'm asked if that's an appropriate amount of time, six months, right? Having lost the ability to do simple math, I half heartedly nodded and said "sure".
The judge once again asked what I wanted to do, what my friend wanted to do, and I said (this part I remember quite clearly): "Well, I know he'd want this matter resolved!" and the judge has this understanding half-smile and says "but you don't quite know for sure".
Told to write down that new court date, which I hastily did.. I PROBABLY said thank you, but I can't honestly remember.
I sit back down on the bench for a few seconds before I think "oh, uh, I just leave, I guess?" Even though I watched bunches of people leave immediately after speaking before the court, watched SPECIFICALLY so I would know what to do before, during, and after.
I left, not quite sure whether I did the right thing at all or not. E-2? Is that just another random room, or is it specifically for cases that have been delayed, or... I don't know! Is there any significance to that room?!?
I walked into the Markham Station restuarant. I got a seat, ordered the breakfast special, with special emphasis on having my eggs "SUNNY SIDE up!" in a moment of absurd positive energy. I may be a character from Annie. I definitely was one in that moment. I got a glass of water, and some new, cleaner cutlery. My server was really nice, and she seemed charmed well enough by my manners, my smile, my ability to use the instant credit-machine thing, and my two dollar tip on a five dollar breakast.
"You know, I hardly ever actually use my credit card. I actually just used the wrong pin- I got it the second time though."
"Oh, well, good for you not using the credit card. And oh, I know about forgetting your pin, I do that all the time with my mastercard, because I hardly ever use the thing!"
Okay, this was a world I was equipped to deal with. I was glad to be back in it.
I arrived fashionably early, twenty minutes to the required 9am. I hopped into the bathroom so I wouldn't have any distracting urges to pee later. I find my door, where I have to pass through a metal detector, leaving all my belongings (backpack with book, wallet, cell phone and... the two buttons that has come off my jacket) in the plastic bin as I walked through and had the wand waved around me, it's various theremin like sound effects completely undecipherable (okay, it WISHES it sounded like a theremin. Ah, the theremin- the electronic device all other electronic devices wish they sounded like.). Cleared, I begin to walk away, until the officer points out I'd forgotten to take back my two buttons from the bin.
"Thanks. They're important!" I say, fully convinced of my own status as a charming, absent minded professor type. Rather, this hits later as a harsh foreshadowing of things to come. A clue revealing my own foolishness for whatever audience may have been following along at home. (you say my life isn't a boring tv show? I need to call my agent..)
I'm waiting outside the door labelled E-1. A cluster of people gathered around, some clutching their own tickets. I didn't particularly stop to consider them. I was far too pleased with myself for finding my friends name up on the, what, docket sheet? The sheet of paper posted to the wall.
The doors are opened by a cute young woman with wavy hair held back by a... um. Not an elastic, not a scrunchie, not quite the semi-circle thing girls wear (although that's pretty close!). Dare I say headband? Is that an option? Alright, let's go with headband. Except she didn't look that young, thanks entirely to her tired eyes and pallid skin. She announced the judge coming in when that happened. What's the job again? She clearly wasn't the bailiff, they off the "... take that man into custody!" cliche holder. Court reporter? Was she the stenographer? Man, I don't know a lot.
Taking charge was a short, white haired woman with a slight accent, sort of a british/australian thing going on. She was the prosecutor, and we all lined up before her to quickly say what we wanted to happen. Most just plead guilty, getting reduced fines. Some ancillary tickets were then waved after the fact. I don't think I actually saw anyone there say "I want to fight this." There were people that wanted to explain things away- I was one of them- but nothing as straightforward as "innocent."
My secret hope, secret in that I didn't want to mention it aloud to the Madame Prosecutor, was that I wanted the officer that issued the tickets to not show up, and therefore to have the tickets thrown out, or waved or whatever you'd call it. I kept my ears pricked for any indication about this. I finally got it when someone at the front was asking about whether the officers had arrived and the Prosecutor said to everyone "okay, I don't want to hear from anyone about whether the officers are here. One is here, the other isn't."
A fifty-fifty chance then? Okay, okay, fifty-fifty. I needn't worry about things until there's something to worry about. Then the other shoe dropped. "Okay, both officers are here now."
Unprecedented! Here I'd been told the cops rarely show up for these things, the courts counting on people paying up front, well I'll tell you right now, going to court my experience is that they show up!
It was at this point that I began mentally cursing a blue streak. What was I asked to do? I was told if he ended up having to pay the tickets, well that's how it goes sometimes. But the officer, as I was told, even said to fight the second ticket, with a single sheet of what had carried the insurance permit sticker... thing (I clearly do NOT have the vocabulary to be telling this story. However if I did, then I'd have the experience necessary to keep this story from existing altogether.). When it's my turn with the prosecutor, I try to say that the first ticket is one thing, but this other one I've got this thing *shows insurance permit sticker thing* and...
"There is no discussion about individual tickets. What do you want to do?" (I'm, once again, super paraphrasing.)
"Ah, well, I'm not entirely..."
"Then you should call your friend and see what he wants to do."
My friend not being in the country, and entirely lacking any phone I could reach him at, this was a quandary. Not having any ready answers, my face burned red with embarrassment.
I resumed my seat on the hard wooden benches. I can't help but think now how much like a church it was- hard pews, robed uniforms for the girl and judge, codified rules of conduct. Very strict. Not pentecostal. May have spelled that wrong.
I waited for my time to be called up, soaking up the appropriate procedure so I could avoid the mistakes of others. I can make my own mistakes, thank you very much. Right then I thought- I get it. I get why people are so fearful of the police and the courts and the system of law we have here. We've propped up this system that leaves us at the mercy of the good or bad days of a man in a dress. It's a whole separate language needed to navigate this small world. I like to kid around, poke fun at whatever seems pokefunable. Like the concept of calling someone "Your honour". That seems ridiculous to me. Or the people that feel the need to remind you that they've spent X number of years too many, that it's DOCTOR not MISTER thankyewverymuch. But I'm aware that contempt of court is a thing, and that this is a world where any unfortunate thing can happen, so I'm yelling at my tongue to please mind your manners.
When the judge comes out, for whom we all stand, he seems like a nice guy. He's serious, he's straightforward, but softspoken and considerate. I'm still terrified of what he can do, and certainly still terrified of the Madame Prosecutor. One proxy comes up, explaining that his father doesn't drive much anymore, and is living off his savings, both of which because he's dealing with cancer. I don't know the original infraction, or the original cost of the ticket, but the judge first ruled the fine be $100, then the proxy (the man's step-son I think) talked about the living off of his saving, and the judge reduced it to $50.
I guess it all depends on what the original ticket was, but I certainly got a good impression of the judge from how quick he was to help this person out.
Meanwhile, I was still wrestling with my dilema. Is my only option to plead guilty? Pleading guilty on behalf of another man? When I have no idea whether he's guilty or not? For the other proxys, the judge always asks after they say "guilty" whether the person understands the repurcussions of pleading guilty. I certainly didn't understand the repurcussions in my case, did my friend? Is it just the cost on the ticket, or were there demerit points involved, and insurance brackets to get pushed into? Is this a one time cost, or something that'd follow my friend around for years? From both a metaphysical and a practical perspective, this was a surprisingly heavy burden.
The time had finally come for me to step forward. I (finally) got to explain the fact that my friend was out of the country to the prosecutor, and so she started in on the idea of a separate court date. I stated my name to the court, spelled it out quick and clear. Well, at least I hadn't forgotten my own name! Then I immediately set to work contradicting myself with the prosecutor. I can't even quite remember what I said, all I know is that there was certainly a confused look on peoples faces. The judge explained that you can't fight the ticket without a person who was present there. I certainly don't begrudge the explanation, though by this time I'd figured that much out. The Madame Prosecutor suggests a May 22, 2013 court date, in room E-2 at 10:30am (that's a reminder for me- there will be no notices mailed!!) and I'm asked if that's an appropriate amount of time, six months, right? Having lost the ability to do simple math, I half heartedly nodded and said "sure".
The judge once again asked what I wanted to do, what my friend wanted to do, and I said (this part I remember quite clearly): "Well, I know he'd want this matter resolved!" and the judge has this understanding half-smile and says "but you don't quite know for sure".
Told to write down that new court date, which I hastily did.. I PROBABLY said thank you, but I can't honestly remember.
I sit back down on the bench for a few seconds before I think "oh, uh, I just leave, I guess?" Even though I watched bunches of people leave immediately after speaking before the court, watched SPECIFICALLY so I would know what to do before, during, and after.
I left, not quite sure whether I did the right thing at all or not. E-2? Is that just another random room, or is it specifically for cases that have been delayed, or... I don't know! Is there any significance to that room?!?
I walked into the Markham Station restuarant. I got a seat, ordered the breakfast special, with special emphasis on having my eggs "SUNNY SIDE up!" in a moment of absurd positive energy. I may be a character from Annie. I definitely was one in that moment. I got a glass of water, and some new, cleaner cutlery. My server was really nice, and she seemed charmed well enough by my manners, my smile, my ability to use the instant credit-machine thing, and my two dollar tip on a five dollar breakast.
"You know, I hardly ever actually use my credit card. I actually just used the wrong pin- I got it the second time though."
"Oh, well, good for you not using the credit card. And oh, I know about forgetting your pin, I do that all the time with my mastercard, because I hardly ever use the thing!"
Okay, this was a world I was equipped to deal with. I was glad to be back in it.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Very likely it isn't cool of me to post this. Fortunately, it's long, so maybe no one will read it. (Go for it Cool Geoff!!)
Okay, this has gotten me steamed, and I'm afraid that the guy whose wall this is all posted on on the facebook will delete it for the sake of ending the argument. I hate when that happens. Anyway, I'm going to copy everything down here (names removed of course, I'm not a giant jerk). And the advantage of doing it now is that it'll appear to you like I have the last word. Nice!
It started with this pic from facebook user "A":
B: When did that happen? I thought he shot a guy in the butt in a hunting accident...
A: nope, it was in the face... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident#Whittington_injury
B: Umm... yeah... Not really though. It was a shot that had over 200 small (tiny) pellets, and some went on his face, neck and torso. When you say someone shot someone else in the face, that has a very, very different connotation.
C: Umm, cause the latter was an accident and Biden just came off as a condescending douchebag? (Liked by B)
D: I know that my face, when being shot, is often much angrier when it doesn't come from tiny pellets. It's totally different. (Person D is cool)
Me: do you guys work for Dick Cheney or something?
C: I'm just saying I think it's kind of silly to compare an accident with being mean on purpose. That's it. (again, B likes this)
Me again: Look, I didn't see any of the vice presidential debate... but this is REALLY apples to oranges. You're saying he was "mean" in a debate? Does that mean he was insulting or something? If so, I imagine it's the debate moderators job to cut that off. Additionally, the man that was shot in the face with buckshot, released a public satement soon after the event APOLOGIZING to Cheney for what happened... despite the fact that this man did nothing wrong besides go hunting with Dick Cheney. There's absolutely no question that this is a hilarious situation, ripe for national lampoonery.
B: In terms of the debate many people commented on how rude Biden was. Check out any clips. He smirked and chuckled 81 (or close to that) times in an 88 minute debate. Yes, this can seem like a cheap chuckle but I just found it very misleading.
Me again again: Most likely it was an automatic stalling tactic done to give him a moment to think about what to say, people do it all the time. Plus, hey, I never said he was a good vice president, whatever that means.
B: Correction: Bidden interrupted Paul Ryan 80 times. That's not a debate it's just rude.
B: And laughed while throwing up his hands and pointing throughout the debate.
Me: all of those things are perfectly natural responses to Paul Ryan.
E: Of course its a perfectly reasonable response because Ryan supports China's one child policy which includes sterylizing women and murdering "illegitimate" children. Oh wait that's actually Biden I'm thinking about; “Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family.” (Joe Biden August 2011)
D (and this is the part where I was like, "oh, yeah, okay, we seem to be on the same side, therefore he's cool): It's what I, and every single one of my friends, was doing when Ryan spoke. It was enormously heartening to see Biden having the same reactions we were.
He wasn't trying to win swing voters, in my opinion. His was trying to re-energize the base. And it worked. I'm super energized.
Also, Politifact already called that a lie. Biden never endorsed forced abortions. http://www.politifact.com/
And, I may suggest looking further into claims that originate from the right. They've turned lying into an extreme sport this past election. And I'm not saying that my side doesn't do it either... But, I'd hope you apply the same rigor to investigating claims that originate from conservatives as I do from liberals. (for the sake of solidarity, I did "like" this comment)
D: Also... The picture was a joke. An appeal to humor. (again, I liked this. Why WERE we talking about a quick meme Wonka pic again?)
E: For those in doubt here is a video of Joe Biden's remark where he states that he "fully understand[s]" and he doesn't "second guess" China's one-child policy.
E: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogcvQ8fjIFc (it's short, so feel free to click and watch)
E: As for his attitude and the way he acted in the debate, one political observer who has critiqued debates over more than 30 years called it the rudest debate he has ever seen. Biden came across are arrogant and disrespectful to anyone who doesn't agree with him. He interrupted a total of 80 times throughout the debate. I believe that America can have an open and serious debate on the issues, and Biden did not want to be a part of such a debate.
Me in response: Listen, without seeing anymore of that speech (a 36 second clip is HIGHLY suspect), but without seeing anymore of that speech, what I heard just now? That was someone saying he understood why China has the policies that it has. And I understand WHY they have their policies too. Understanding is not the same as approval. The use of the phrase "I'm not second guessing (those policies)" is unfortunate, in that it can certainly sound, especially within the confines of a 36 second clip mind you, like he agrees with those policies, instead of what he probably meant in that he wasn't going to go into China and give a speech denouncing China. Everyone is scared of China! I'm scared of China! I don't fault Joe Biden for being scared of China, especially when he has to try to be careful with everything he says, since what he says can actually have an impact on the world (uh, maybe. Vice president after all). Now I'm starting to wonder about who said this was the rudest debate in 30 years, who counted these physical tics of disdain, and most especially I wonder what it was Ryan was saying (or, fine, attempting to say) that got these remarks. If the answers to those questions are Fox news, Fox news, and some good ol' objectivist/murkily described call to 50's era Americana, then I'm out!
Me addressing what is I think the ACTUAL concern (finally): Plus, not to say it's okay for Biden to be a poor debater, but the art of the debate on these higher levels has disappeared, because of the "race to the bottom" effect of the loudest, most commonly heard voice being declared "the winner". The fact that Biden is attempting to co-opt that strategy, while not laudable, is, again, understandable.
***
Okay, wait, there's just now a little bit more.
E: You can put that 36 second clip into any context you want the Vice President of US stated he understands and doesn't second guess China's one child policy. Either he's incompetent or he really does believe their policy is defensible. If you are really concerned about the context of a conversation, than maybe you should take the time to watch a debate before making a statement that such behavour is acceptable, without an understanding of the context. (This will most likely be my last comment on this post.)
Me: I have never said such behaviour was acceptable. I said it was understandable.
E: You wrote " all of those things are perfectly natural responses to Paul Ryan."
Me: that was a joke man
E: ah
It started with this pic from facebook user "A":
B: When did that happen? I thought he shot a guy in the butt in a hunting accident...
A: nope, it was in the face... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident#Whittington_injury
B: Umm... yeah... Not really though. It was a shot that had over 200 small (tiny) pellets, and some went on his face, neck and torso. When you say someone shot someone else in the face, that has a very, very different connotation.
C: Umm, cause the latter was an accident and Biden just came off as a condescending douchebag? (Liked by B)
D: I know that my face, when being shot, is often much angrier when it doesn't come from tiny pellets. It's totally different. (Person D is cool)
Me: do you guys work for Dick Cheney or something?
C: I'm just saying I think it's kind of silly to compare an accident with being mean on purpose. That's it. (again, B likes this)
Me again: Look, I didn't see any of the vice presidential debate... but this is REALLY apples to oranges. You're saying he was "mean" in a debate? Does that mean he was insulting or something? If so, I imagine it's the debate moderators job to cut that off. Additionally, the man that was shot in the face with buckshot, released a public satement soon after the event APOLOGIZING to Cheney for what happened... despite the fact that this man did nothing wrong besides go hunting with Dick Cheney. There's absolutely no question that this is a hilarious situation, ripe for national lampoonery.
B: In terms of the debate many people commented on how rude Biden was. Check out any clips. He smirked and chuckled 81 (or close to that) times in an 88 minute debate. Yes, this can seem like a cheap chuckle but I just found it very misleading.
Me again again: Most likely it was an automatic stalling tactic done to give him a moment to think about what to say, people do it all the time. Plus, hey, I never said he was a good vice president, whatever that means.
B: Correction: Bidden interrupted Paul Ryan 80 times. That's not a debate it's just rude.
B: And laughed while throwing up his hands and pointing throughout the debate.
Me: all of those things are perfectly natural responses to Paul Ryan.
E: Of course its a perfectly reasonable response because Ryan supports China's one child policy which includes sterylizing women and murdering "illegitimate" children. Oh wait that's actually Biden I'm thinking about; “Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family.” (Joe Biden August 2011)
D (and this is the part where I was like, "oh, yeah, okay, we seem to be on the same side, therefore he's cool): It's what I, and every single one of my friends, was doing when Ryan spoke. It was enormously heartening to see Biden having the same reactions we were.
He wasn't trying to win swing voters, in my opinion. His was trying to re-energize the base. And it worked. I'm super energized.
Also, Politifact already called that a lie. Biden never endorsed forced abortions. http://www.politifact.com/
And, I may suggest looking further into claims that originate from the right. They've turned lying into an extreme sport this past election. And I'm not saying that my side doesn't do it either... But, I'd hope you apply the same rigor to investigating claims that originate from conservatives as I do from liberals. (for the sake of solidarity, I did "like" this comment)
D: Also... The picture was a joke. An appeal to humor. (again, I liked this. Why WERE we talking about a quick meme Wonka pic again?)
E: For those in doubt here is a video of Joe Biden's remark where he states that he "fully understand[s]" and he doesn't "second guess" China's one-child policy.
E: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogcvQ8fjIFc (it's short, so feel free to click and watch)
E: As for his attitude and the way he acted in the debate, one political observer who has critiqued debates over more than 30 years called it the rudest debate he has ever seen. Biden came across are arrogant and disrespectful to anyone who doesn't agree with him. He interrupted a total of 80 times throughout the debate. I believe that America can have an open and serious debate on the issues, and Biden did not want to be a part of such a debate.
Me in response: Listen, without seeing anymore of that speech (a 36 second clip is HIGHLY suspect), but without seeing anymore of that speech, what I heard just now? That was someone saying he understood why China has the policies that it has. And I understand WHY they have their policies too. Understanding is not the same as approval. The use of the phrase "I'm not second guessing (those policies)" is unfortunate, in that it can certainly sound, especially within the confines of a 36 second clip mind you, like he agrees with those policies, instead of what he probably meant in that he wasn't going to go into China and give a speech denouncing China. Everyone is scared of China! I'm scared of China! I don't fault Joe Biden for being scared of China, especially when he has to try to be careful with everything he says, since what he says can actually have an impact on the world (uh, maybe. Vice president after all). Now I'm starting to wonder about who said this was the rudest debate in 30 years, who counted these physical tics of disdain, and most especially I wonder what it was Ryan was saying (or, fine, attempting to say) that got these remarks. If the answers to those questions are Fox news, Fox news, and some good ol' objectivist/murkily described call to 50's era Americana, then I'm out!
Me addressing what is I think the ACTUAL concern (finally): Plus, not to say it's okay for Biden to be a poor debater, but the art of the debate on these higher levels has disappeared, because of the "race to the bottom" effect of the loudest, most commonly heard voice being declared "the winner". The fact that Biden is attempting to co-opt that strategy, while not laudable, is, again, understandable.
***
Okay, wait, there's just now a little bit more.
E: You can put that 36 second clip into any context you want the Vice President of US stated he understands and doesn't second guess China's one child policy. Either he's incompetent or he really does believe their policy is defensible. If you are really concerned about the context of a conversation, than maybe you should take the time to watch a debate before making a statement that such behavour is acceptable, without an understanding of the context. (This will most likely be my last comment on this post.)
Me: I have never said such behaviour was acceptable. I said it was understandable.
E: You wrote " all of those things are perfectly natural responses to Paul Ryan."
Me: that was a joke man
E: ah
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
