Good news delivered in the worst, most awkward way possible.

Either last Thursday or Friday I got some good news that I didn't want to share.

Eventually.

See, I did, then I didn't. It was such a quick flip that that moment of wanting to share, you almost couldn't tell that it existed. I did notice it though, and I've been thinking about it for the past few days.

When you reveal something about yourself, anything about yourself, you will have invariably given away more than you planned.

Illustrating this good news gives a barometer for how good or bad things usually go. Say my good news is "I found a dollar!!!!!!", then you may sit back and think "uh, dude, it's a dollar, chill out."

Or, maybe you'll see it the other way: "Lucky!!!!"

The night I was thinking about all this I was lying in bed failing to sleep. I was excited, and then kind of down on myself because I realized I wasn't going to go out with a buddy the next day and talk about what was going on with me.

Sharing the good and the bad? That's crazy!

I talked about this phenomenon with a stranger last year, opening up more than normal because she was a stranger. Now that we're friends I treat her the same as my other friends.

Along these lines, a few posts back I got a comment about the honesty of my post. It was a lovely hello from a friend I respect a lot (I know it's silly to not name names when you can just look it up for yourself- but that's me) but I couldn't help but infer the idea that most of my other posts are by default not very honest.

I sincerely doubt that was in her mind, she liked my post, simple as that- but obviously I'm self conscious about my degree of honesty here and in my general dealings with people, otherwise I wouldn't have thought of that. I believe I've made similar observations along these lines here before. ("Boy, I sure do hate how charming I have the ability to be in various social settings" being my classic example. Though really- making a pretty girl smile is one of the best things in the world.)

Is it surprising that I have a public and a private persona? I should think not. Everyone does, with varying degrees of differences between their separate masks.

Uh, heh, I guess that's just a long way of saying, things are going well right now. I'm starting to move in the direction I want to move in. Kind of a month behind schedule(at the least)- but I'll take it!

***

The other reason I was thinking about personas and motivations and everything is because of "Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane"- the comic I mentioned I put a hold on at the library a little bit ago? Turns out, this was a hard cover collection of the entire series! Pretty sweet.

Mary Jane is the star of this little romance book, and there's a lot of drama, but not especially from her. She spends the bulk of the title depressed- unless she's with her friends, then she puts on a great show of being a silly happy party girl.

There's this great storyline where Mary Jane got the lead in the school play, a position that another actress works to sabotage out of jealousy. Once Peter Parker finds out (aka spectacular ol Spidey) he gets help from Liz Allen (Mary Janes most of the time best friend in this story) to set things right without alerting Mary Jane to the fact that anyone was trying to sabotage her in the first place.

Liz wanted to tell Mary Jane what was up, because at the moment Liz was kinda in the dog house, and wanted this to get back to best friend status. Peter's reasoning behind the subterfuge was that if Mary Jane knew about the other actress' strong feelings about the part in the play, Mary Jane was liable to drop out entirely, giving up the part.

Ultimately, Liz kept the information to herself, and it was pretty awesome. It's one thing for someone who's totally, automatically selfless to "do the right thing"- but Liz has a strong selfish streak, so this was not only a great movement forward for her character, but it also served as a testimonial to how much she really cared for her friend.

I liked it, is, again, what I'm trying to say.

Well, it's just past eight, so I think I'll turn back on the ol' tv. Or something, I don't know- I'm a loose cannon, I can't plan these things so far in advance!

Izzygonnarock is my band name. The trick to getting high scores is to only share with people that play poorly.

Found a copy of Guitar Hero 2 (not my copy, but the games the same) so I plugged in my old controller and had some fun. I forgot how much of a workout it actually was for my left arm, veins bulging along my forearm as my fingers cramp up. It's all pretty awesome. And even though it's been a LONG time since I've played, I don't seem to be too much worse at it. I still can't beat Free Bird though. Which is, of course, the dream.

A while back I was complaining about writing 'just' a lot, lately its been 'of course'. I wonder what next bit of phrasing I'll fall into using too much.

I just checked out some comic reviews over at Newsarama.com and I wasn't impressed with the grammar. Not that I'm a grammar nazi (is, is that still okay to say? even in potential reference to myself?)- I think I've made that clear with my over abundance of parentheses and dash marks- but you've gotta make the prose clear and understandable.

I know I've made a mistake or two in my own work, but is Newsarama not the big time? Have I been misinformed?

You know what? I think I'm going to call it a day here. Good night.

That book that is now done. I'm going to skip out on my usual editing process tonight.

So around 1am last night I set out to do some reading. After fifty pages I thought I'd go for a hundred. And after a hundred, I thought I may as well keep going- two hundred and thirty pages later and at 6am and I finished the book.

Again, this is the book Rebel Sell, which I believe I've talked about twice already here. Now that I'm done, this'll be my, you know, final thoughts.

The principal* idea is that counter culturalism is a myth. If you are against the "mainstream", then instead of buying cheerios you go find joy-os. But all you've done by your disavowal of what was popular (and, very often, popular for a reason) is allow for a new market to grow. Not only that, but once enough people decide that joy-os is cool, it becomes the new mainstream, and the cycle goes on. So mainstream versus counter-culturalism is a false distinction.

*MAN it took forever for me to decide on principal instead of principle. I think arguments could be made for either one. Or, another possibility, I'm an idiot. Or tired, let's go with that.

The problem I have is how little effort is taken to explain what the authors mean by counter-culturalism. What they describe as counter-cultural is to me just another side of the mainstream, so with every point they try to make there's a huge degree of dissonance. If they'd come up with a new term for the phenomenon they're describing, say the "trend-stream", I'd very often be agreeing with the authors comments.
Of course that degree of niche discussion, belaboring what is to many an obvious point, wouldn't sell as well.

Similar to that difficulty with describing their terms, the authors would introduce a number of philosophers before pronouncing them short sighted and wrong "for obvious reasons".

Er, actually, what are the reasons? These renowned dudes you're citing actually sound pretty good.

By not taking the time to address those philosophies you only end up sounding arrogant.

Special notice goes to the "Voluntary Simplicity" movement mentioned towards the end of the book, apparently the origin point for the phrase "Think Globally, Act Locally". Everything mentioned about them sounded great- but the authors dressed them down because of their idealism (a lack of tangible movement towards their impossible goals) and also because (for whatever reason this was emphasized) of the lack of traditional western religious values amongst their members ranks.

In fact when it came to any "counter-cultural" political movement, if they resisted ANY type of helpful legislation because as a counter-culture group they are against all rules and government- then the authors summarily disregarded them as useless.

Thinking the group is altogether useless and unworkable, despite some (at the very least) good ideas that could really just use the tempering of compromise- the authors are treating the counter-cultural groups in exactly the same way they accuse the counter-cultural groups of treating the government. That's pretty lame.

At the beginning of chapter 7 "From Status-Seeking to Cool Hunting" they tell a story about going to school one day with what they thought was a cool pair of shoes, only to realize they were "so yesterday".

"Everyone has a story of this type." they say. They're really barking up the wrong tree with that one, I can't remember ever getting made fun of for a purchase of mine, or clothing. Not everyone is interested in status games, and that, I think, is where the real counter culture lies.

...

Okay, moving on- from the library today I've got "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Story" by Robert McKee. Should be good stuff.

My head hurts, I'm bouncing on out.

My throat hurts from talking all that time.

Before my lunch break I was busy convincing myself that the previous hour and a half of reality was actually happening. It wasn't- I dreamt I'd gotten up, but that's as far as that went. The only clear indicator I had that it wasn't real was that I was thoroughly confused, but not alltogether worried much about it.

I was kept pretty busy yesterday, tired today.

Ah, right, but I also didn't get that much sleep in preparation for yesterday. I thought I saw a blinding flash of light, and I don't for sure know that I was asleep. Well, I was definitely awake after that, too freaked out to get back to sleep.

Fortunately, Drake and Josh was on the tv, and I do love that show. (It's sweet, get off my back!)

I ran out of my cereal so I made pasta for breakfast.

Then instead of getting ready to leave by 1pm I got distracted by ANOTHER episode of Drake and Josh (kids seriously don't have much variety of Saturday morning show these days). So instead of waiting for me for ten minutes my bros got a ride and I ended up going for a run.

It's been a while since I've done any real exercising lately, which I'm none too happy about. I still ran for a good 11-12 minutes (which I'd estimate at being a mile, maybe about a mile and a half) which is better than most people, but I'm not happy with it. It left my legs pretty gelatinous for the remainder of the day. At least they get to be gloriously sore today. (to be clear, I'm not being sarcastic with that statement, as long as I'm not in a great deal of pain and my movements aren't restricted, I like being sore after a workout. Feels like, you know, a workout.)

Got to hang out with a lot of people yesterday that I haven't seen in years. No one I talked to seemed to be really drunk, I heard about a buddy's ex throwing up at some point, but she must have been part of another crowd entirely. There were a lot of groups in attendance.

I noticed a friend of mine smiling in conversation with someone else, and it was an altogether genuine, sweet smile. It made me happy, so I scanned the room for others, and found some.

On the bus ride home I got to tell a guy about why I dislike Olivia Munn (not neccesarily personally, just in everything she does professionally. Modelling work is fine.
I did that a lot last night, forgetting a name of something, only to have it come to me around two conversations in the future.

This feels less like a blog post, and more like something I should have e-mailed to someone. Ah well, add one more to the tally.

What kept me up last night

Well, it was already pretty late when I went to bed last night/morning, but I just wanted to read twenty pages of my book, get on up to that nice P.125.

So I stayed up even later, because I kept going "what? that... that doesn't necessarily follow... hold on, I've gotta write this down so I can mention it later..."

I'm kind of thinking that I should accept that I feel pretty much the opposite of what these guys are saying.

Rebel Sell P.108

"There is only one problem: (the theory that the consumer can disrupt the system simply by refusing to shop where she has been told to) is based upon an elementary fallacy. There is no such thing as generalized overproduction. Never was, never has been.
No modern economist, left or right, endorses Marx's claim that capitalism is subject to rises of underproduction... theories like Baudrillard's and Ewen's continue to circulate and are taken seriously, even though they are based upon the academic equivalent of an urban myth."

Well that was rude. The author's proof that generalized overproduction is impossible is on the following page:

"Although we sell goods in return for money, the money itself is not consumed; we simply use it in order to purchase other goods from other people. As a result, the supply of goods constitutes the demand for other goods. Total supply and total demand always add up to the same amount, simply because they are the same thing, seen from two different perspectives."

This strikes me as an incredibly simplistic and inaccurate argument (and when I say it's too simplistic an argument, that's saying something, as someone who appreciates a straightforward argument)

They use the example of a barter system world to try and avoid the complications that money creates, with a man that makes shoes. "If I am to sustain my shoe operation, I will need to exchange the finished product for food, shelter, clothing, and all of the other necessities of life."

But see, if this were an analogy resembling anything like real life, there would be some consideration for when the man gets goods on the promise of shoes yet to be made.

And then say he can't make those future shoes.

Not a straight exchange, therefore an imbalance.

And how about if we re-enter the complicated world of money: a product gets marked up, and someone far removed from the common man will reap the rewards, earning far more than could reasonably get spent. How does one spend upwards of $30 million? You can't. It ends up translated to a higher society, where you buy exclusive, prohibitively expensive clothes and homes and vacations. Where you pay for the item itself, and then the priviledge of buying that particular kind of item.

How is that supposed to trickle down?

Ah, I'm getting off topic a bit... man, I'm tired, I don't want to put down any more quotations right now. Maybe tomorrow or something.

I was e-mailing a friend of mine and was going to mention that I drank a ton of water last night and today (resulting in many a bathroom trip) in an effort to help my winter dry skin.
I stopped myself: is this gross? Is this something unacceptable to talk about?

How should I know? I figured lets be safe and erase it.

It's bright out this morning. Good.

This one blog I've taken to reading lately posted an entry on the comic series "Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane"- he made such a convincing argument that I immediately hopped onto the library site and put a hold on it.

Even though it's kind of a romance comic. (Shock!)

And I read most of it before. (Confused!)

I actually really liked it then, too- it's by Sean McKeever, who went from Spider-Man loves Mary Jane to a disasterous run on Teen Titans that I don't really blame on him. Plus, when you compare his run with what was soon to come then his stuff was Shakespeare regardless of any considerations (like editorial interference).

Hm. I just got the e-mail last night letting me know that I didn't get the job I was hoping to. Pretty disappointing. I'd rather not end up working at a coffee place- I don't like coffee, I don't know anything about the stuff. It's like the "Wine" and "African Geography" questions on Jeopardy.

To say nothing of South America, Asia and Europe. You know what? I'm bad at geography.

I should avoid any map making jobs.

Actually, I like making maps- to direct me when I'm driving places. I'm much more comfortable with that than the GPS.

GPS: "Take the exit right, then keep on the left side."
GPS: "In one hundred meters, veer right."

Me: "Wait, what? Veer?"
*Passes exit*

GPS: "When you get a chance, turn around."

The Green Hornet Strikes!

I had three papers in my room over the weekend, all of them had reviews on the Green Hornet, and for all of them I averted my gaze until this evening- AFTER I saw the film.

Ordinarily I wouldn't care about spoilers for movies, but I did for this one. It feels like I've been waiting on Green Hornet for a long time, eagerly anticipating a movie that I really had no clue about.

Did you know the director was the same guy who did "Be Kind Rewind"- Michel Gondry (as well as, apparently, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but I still haven't seen that one yet).

You know 'Be Kind Rewind' had a ton of heart to it, but not a lot of people seemed to dig it.

The reviewers don't seem keen on Green Hornet either.

For me? I LOVED IT.

I wonder if people(reviewers I guess) expected this to be a funny movie. It isn't. And it is. It's a superhero movie spliced with an action film, with characters that are flawed enough to be funny.

Most of the humour derives from Seth Rogens take on the Green Hornet as an everyman. When he partners up with his "sidekick" Kato, an accomplished martial artist/inventor/engineer/artist, he's understandably blown away. Kato is a Superman taking orders from Jimmy Olsen. That's actually a pretty funny premise right there when you stop to think about it.

All Britt Reid/Green Hornet has is a desire to "be a hero", whatever that means (and it changes at times throughout the movie), as well as the kind of charm you expect from a millionaire playboy. Well, faux charm anyways- the suave charm of the 60's Green Hornet has given way to the modern sensibility of the awkward funnyman AS charm.

This is particularly effective because without the kind of egocentric self-UNawareness of the modern Hornet, the character of Britt Reid could never believably start as the Green Hornet.

I already alluded to this when I said that "how to be a hero" changes throughout the movie. At the start, Green Hornet wants to be a superhero- goes out to the streets, busts criminals heads; classic four-colour print material. But once reality sets in and the bad guys kill a bunch of innocent people trying to get at Green Hornet, you can see (or rather, I saw- maybe I'm adding depth to the film, but I doubt it) that Seth Rogen's character has grown, he understands that his actions for the most part have done more damage than good, and sets about trying to make things right while also effecting POSITIVE change using his newly inherited newspaper/media empire.

In fact, at this point in the movie this Britt Reid never goes out to "bust heads" again- he gets pulled into action while trying to do some no-mask, no-pseudonym investigative journalism, and only pulls on the costume while he's got a moment in the car when EVERYONE who's driving after him has already figured out who he is. Clothes make the man, after all, so I can readily forgive his putting on some war paint for the final battle.

Not only that, but at this point "the system" stands revealed as corrupted, as the only kind of environment where you have to take the law into your own hands- when there is no other law. The Green Hornet becomes now the justified vigilante (as most fictional vigilantes are) finally armed with the knowledge that he SHOULD be the guy in a costume.

See, Britt Reid was wrong to become the Green Hornet, but after character and plot development, the only way to make things right IS to be the Green Hornet. It BECOMES the right thing to do.

Now if we compare to the 60's Hornet- an upstanding citizen of the city, philanthropist, good head on his shoulders (by which I also mean ego-less... he'd have to be, working in the shadow of BRUCE LEE's Kato) I have to ask- how did THAT guy become the Green Hornet? Are we just not privy to his hero's journey? Maybe.

One particularly interesting scene was the fight between Green Hornet and Kato. A friend of mine pointed it out as the one major problem to the movie, running a little long. I can certainly see where he's coming from with that.

For my part, the fight was funny with the first taps and then with each new inventive weapon and kick that demands you take notice of how cool it is, but then develops into the uncomfortable stage of neither side REALLY wanting to escalate things, and then it becomes sad when it's no longer funny but the fight keeps on going.

Funny, uncomfortable, sad.

Incorporating that sadness into this movie, making it clear that having the two heroes fight each other isn't something to be played for laughs but is actually damaging to both characters, characters who relied on each other more than either one realized.

You may have seen this in the trailer, but at one point Kato says about Britt Reid's recently deceased dad "He was a complex man."

I think that line pretty much covers it- despite our expectations of a Seth Rogen movie/Seth Rogen character, his Britt was complex. Britt's father was complex, even to the characters who thought they knew him best. That hero/sidekick fight wasn't simply a goofy fight played for laughs that ran too long, it was more complex than that.

I almost said the villain was an exception to that, but that's a disservice to that character, he was an evil guy that was also really self conscious about his image, certainly going through some kind of mid life crisis- he introduced humourous elements by being a step beyond an action villain pastiche. He wanted to go kill his friend who betrayed him himself because "he's my friend!"
It's not entirely logical, but it is pretty human, and it is pretty funny.

It's a shame that Cameron Diaz didn't have a larger role in the movie, it wasn't until the very end that she got to really play a part- and when she did she had an excited spark to her face that made me really glad to have her on the team.

But then again, I appreciate the development of the relationship between Reid and Kato, and that would've been sacrificed with more Diaz stuff.

Oh, I said this to my friend in the theatre, but I didn't say it loud enough and so totally ruined the way-too-thought-out-joke-that-wasn't-even-funny-in-the-first-place where I said "heh- those dummies brought guns to a car fight!"

Eh, you kind of have to see any of the major fight scenes for that to be meaningful in any way, but remember it, and when you see the movie go "OH, I get it."

"That wasn't very funny, Isaac."

"At all."

Yeah yeah, I get it.

Anyways, great movie, I had a ton of fun, I was basically smiling throughout all of it. It's pretty violent in that a lot of mooks die, but once I remembered that, you know, realistically, all of the characters are involved in some pretty dangerous activities- all things considered, the body count is actually pretty conservative. Hm, maybe I'm just crazy.