Memento Mori on a Summer's Day

This picture has been sitting on my desktop for weeks now as I try to process a coherent thought on memory and totems. I'm using the less specific definition of totem, "anything serving as a distinctive, often venerated, emblem or symbol." In an article about Neil Gaiman's Stardust, V.E. Schwab uses the term tokens: "In most stories, but always in fairy tales, an object bestowed [or token] is guaranteed to have importance (think of [Chekov's Gun])." 

Everyone has had a moment when a smell or a picture or piece of music has sent them back to another time and place.  For many, if not most, those memories are happy and nostalgic, because we tend to hold on to the good and forget the bad.

Our culture is not one for memento mori.  And I'm not sure that more paintings with skulls would have any meaningful impact without a cultural context. But not all reminders of death are dead, and not all totems are happy.

I was 'reading' one of the several hundred of those slideshow lists about the nineties— this one about discontinued products. Yes, I remember that. That was so gross. Those commercials were the best. Then one so hazy in my memory, I thought perhaps I had made it up. Something I hadn't seen... possibly since that day so long ago. Sticky, like any popsicle, but better because cartoon characters made everything better. Good on a warm spring day when you've been playing outside. Good for sharing with friends.  I want to keep playing, could you bring out more? No adults to supervise. Nothing to keep kids from playing where they shouldn't.  Kids who don't know why the unsecured manhole cover is dangerous. Who expects a first grader to know how boiler heating systems work? And then—

It's strange to look at something you once liked, that even now you have nothing bad to say about, except that now it holds a greater significance.  For you, it is the opening shot of a movie only you have seen.  Somethings we don't enjoy, some we dislike because their aesthetics don't please us (what's so bad about moist anyway?), and some are totems of from a time when we were reminded of our own mortality.  Sometimes those totems are feared, bad memories from a bad time. And sometimes they merely take us back, reminding us who we once were, who we are now, and how far we've traveled to get here.

Two years ago, while driving back to grad school from summer stock, my dad and I drove through our old neighborhood in Princeton. Our building was still there, but out in front were the bulldozers that would help clear the debris once it was demolished. A picture taken from a car, of a place filled with such mixed memories about to be torn down.

How far we've come from where we once were to where we are now.

The More Complicated Response: Then Who Are All of Them?

Scene: A comic book shop. Enter Sheldon, Leonard, Penny, Raj, and Howard. Penny says she's uncomfortable. One of the guys responds, "You're the only woman here." Penny looks around at the other patrons of the shop skeptically. Howard (usually), "Well, the only real woman."

Sometimes, it's the only "doable" woman. In this context they mean the same thing.  The above is a paraphrase of the several scenes that bother in The Big Bang Theory.  The heroes may be nerds, but they're better than the other weirdos, who in turn are better than the female extras who aren't women anyway.

A lot of people have written about the problem with the unattainable female being the one to shoot for but here is a concise-ish look at it.  If tl;dr, basically the idea is "You're so beautiful, why won't you have sex with me?"

In my previous post, I talked about the conversation about women happening right now.  The bulk of that online conversation revolves around how men are not entitled to women's bodies.  And if you read the hashtag #YesAllWomen you see a large sample of stories of everyday (or casual) sexism.  But, in the few hours I devoted to reading the feed when it was peaking, I felt there was still more that wasn't being said.

As should be obvious from the above example, there's a split in how these men (#NotAllMen—beat you too it) see women.  There are women who are relentlessly pursued for relationships, regardless of their desires and needs and there are these other creatures who take up space.  They are the "fat" friend, the "butter face," the "fugly," and honestly I'm running out of derogatives because who even says stuff like that? I knew a guy who referred to a woman as a "swamp donkey" but slept with her anyway.  One thing these malformed creatures are not is "women."

Obviously, we are doing a terrible job at fostering healthy relationships in this society culture country world.  But it doesn't help that every Ugly Duckling in the movies becomes a beautiful swan BEFORE she is date-able.  Not only is ugly not-hot girl not a viable girlfriend, but since that's all women are good for, she is worthless.  Being worthless, however, does not preclude her from sexual harassment.  You see, since she is worthless, she should be that much more grateful for the male attention and that much more willing to receive it.

Let me let you in on a secret. 99% of humans (approximately) are what you would call normal-looking.  Not drop dead gorgeous, not hideously malformed.  100% of humans (more or less) want to have relationship bonds with other humans.

Clearly, unrealistic beauty standards are an issue, as is respect for women, all of them.  And women need realistic role models in media.  And media also gets "normal" guys wrong.

But a guy went on a killing spree, targeting a sorority, because he'd never had sex.  And I can't help but think of all the girls who would have given him a chance, if he'd tried.  Who have also never been in a relationship.  Who are made to feel worthless.  Who are actually normal. Who are just as awkward when it comes to relationships as any guy can be.  The introverts.  The modest dressers.  The makeup free.  Who are every bit as unhappy as the lonely guys.

I feel I can speak with authority on this because I was 25 before my first kiss.  I've never dated much.  I only put effort into my appearance when the situation requires it.  One of the reasons I stopped acting is that I would never be able to go into an audition and not feel deceptive for wearing pants (which hide my scars from 2nd and 3rd degree burns received when I was five).  No matter how faded, my identity includes my scars, and actors are judged on their appearance.  (I also really hate auditioning, and am much better suited to backstage work; no bitterness there.)  So I can't buy into the nonsense that my self-worth should be wrapped up in romantic attachment, because if I did, I'd be in a very dark place.  Here's another post where I go into detail about geek-guys and -girls coming from the same place, emotionally.  The difference here is that lonely, geeky guys get syndicated TV shows, and  geeky, non-glamourous girls get Mayim Bialik (who is wonderful and intelligent, but one of a kind on TV).

Yes, The Big Bang Theory added Mayim, but the single best thing they did to retain my viewership was the episode where Howard has to decide to commit to a relationship with Bernadette.  He imagines Katee Sackhoff, Starbuck from BSG, as his perfect, fantasy woman.  Ultimately, he has to accept that his fantasy is standing in the way of him having a real relationship.  That's an important message.

Simple Response to What Happened on Twitter and Why It Was Important

In case you missed it, here is the order of events in the wake of the Santa Barbara shooting:

-Shooter (also, knifer and car-rammer) identified his actions aligned with various misogynist groups.
-People got kinda upset about that.
-Other people Guys responded by saying "Not all men."

-One Twitter user rephrased the conversation: Not all men perpetrate sexual harassment, but Yes, All   Women are harassed. 

-#YesAllWomen trended on Twitter for an entire day is still trending, becoming a platform for women to speak out about their encounters with sexual harassment and sexual violence.
-People Guys complained the conversation took attention away from the tragedy. Also, that men had also been killed.
-Other people Presumably men, again, came up with #YesAllPeople to be inclusionary.
-Guys Men started tweeting support for women.  And People started reading and discussing the Twitter feed with their sons.

-Media started covering the hullaballoo, in which they basically take #YesAllWomen and Made it #YesAllFeminists.

Let's talk a minute. 

Firstly, #YesAllWomen was a response to the male backlash to talking about misogyny being a significant factor in this horrible event.  It is a blatant fallacy that the women using #YesAllWomen, particularly those who are victims of sexual assault, were trying to make this tragedy about them. They were continuing the conversation that started with #NotAllMen. (Dear Men, we already knew that, and we assume you mean Bill Cosby, Tim Allen, James Avery, Bob Saget, and  Reginald VelJohnson.) Also, if #YesAllWomen brings the attention needed to pervasive sexual violence, who are you to shout it down?

Secondly, while I am big on inclusion (although not big on labels, if you're human, you're in), I think #YesAllPeople does more harm than good, in this case.  #YesAllWomen is not downplaying the violence towards non-women.  It is an attempt to show people men who don't understand, what it's like to live in a world where you are told to be independent, provided you do so in well-lit, well trafficked areas after taking self-defense courses. #YesAllPeople, on the other hand, taken in the best light, is about getting along and setting aside our differences.  Which #YesAllWomen would be all about, if unprocessed rape kits weren't a common thing. I'm not saying get your own hashtag, but if you want to stand in solidarity with someone, at least for this week, make that someone a woman. 

Thirdly, a non-zero number of media outlets have referred to those involved with #YesAllWomen as feminists. While likely true in a dictionary-definition sort of way, feminist is a loaded term.  It carries historical and political implications.  It is used by men to dismiss the things it labels. "AllWomen" means what it says.  This is beyond politics, race, or creed. To say feminist in this context dehumanizes those involved. This isn't equal pay, or even beauty standards.  This is basic right to life.  (If you disagree with that, why do you think pepper spray was invented?)

I'm not going to address the stupider arguments, due to my policy of ignoring anything that exceeds a stupidity level of 7. 

What would be an ideal response to what happened?  

 Men's Rights groups are already getting bad press, so refocusing on stuff like male rape victims (and other legitimate victims) would be nice to see. 

How about we fix how we prosecute rapists?

While we're at it, let's destigmatize sexual assault.

I vote we stop using the word feminism altogether or limit its definition to men who are feminists only.

How about equal pay and not objectifying women, though?

Other groups/minorities, please speak out against the casual discrimination you face. 

And let's redefine masculine and raise our sons to respect all people. 

What can you do, now?  Continue the conversation.  Help those in distress. Treat everyone with respect.  Look at life from someone else's perspective. 

A Beginners Guide to Wine

If you choose to drink, I urge you to be classy.  There is a selection of classy drinks, but perhaps the most stereotypically classy drink is wine.  Sadly, many still see wine as inaccessible, coming with a how-to manual in the form of sommeliers and wine snobs.  But enjoying wine actually requires very little instruction.

1. Drink what you like, however you like it. My dad likes red wine chilled, which is not what you're supposed to do, but who cares? Carpe Vino.

2. If wine gives you headaches, drink less. If that doesn't work, switch to white wine, which doesn't contain the same compounds as reds.  Low-sulfite wine is the most headache friendly.

3. For many people, Moscato is the gateway wine. It's very sweet, cheap, and has less of a quality variation across brands.  Knowing nothing else about you, I'd start here.

4. Wine selection can be tricky if you don't have a lot of experience with wine, and there is a lot of advice out there.  I believe that the best way to know what you like is to try a variety.  The most cost effective way to accomplish that is to go to a winery, wine bar, or restaurant that offers a flight (selection) of tastes. You should know what you don't like before you buy a bottle.

5. Boxes and jugs may be good for crowded events, but should not be considered representative of all wine.

6. Price and quality have a complicated relationship, but trying a truly good bottle will permanently affect your opinion of wine…

7. …by making cheaper (bad) wine unpalatable. One way to compensate for increased quality (and price) is by drinking less.  The other is by asking for wine for Christmas.

8. Enjoying wine, like enjoying good food, is about savoring the whole experience, especially good company.

These tips boil down to 2 principles: find out what you enjoy and drink it.

Let's Get Real

This is a post where I tell you why it's not my fault and the issue is more complex than is being presented. But, really.

More and more, people are speaking up in defense of families. Not in the traditional vs. equality way, but in the "first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes a baby" kind of way. Delayed adolescence and dropping birth rates are becoming things to be feared, apparently. (How are fewer pregnancies something to be feared in our overpopulated world?)

Everyone wants to discuss why young professionals are hooking up and partying into their thirties rather than settling down like their parents did.

Except.

Except people still generally get married around the same age their parents did (although, nowadays those marriages have a higher fail rate).

Except my generation didn't invent the hook up culture. I invite you to remember the sixties, since you were there and I wasn't.

Except college graduates with overwhelming student loans and rent to pay aren't partying as much as you think they are, because they can't afford it.  Also, the older they get, the less their bodies can tolerate the excesses of their college days.

But that's not what really bothers me about the crusade for me to find a mate before I turn thirty.  What really bothers me is how implicitly and, often, explicitly sexist it is.  Because it seems that the real complaint is that women want to work rather than have a husband and kids.

ARE YOU INSANE? No one WANTS to work, that's why it's called WORK. Women enjoy the freedom to make their own choices.  One popular choice is to wait for the whole family thing until you have a mate you can love and trust. No one talks about the qualities of mates when bemoaning the state of marriage. By following the apparent advice of those worried about my singleness, I would have been married several times over, because it's just the marriage that matters, not the person you're married to, right?

But the online dating scene tells a different story.  Yes, there are a lot of people hooking up. Newsflash, premarital sex has been around as long as marriage, for good or ill.  But there are a lot of people online trying to find a mate. What makes it hard is this culture we live in. This culture we inherited. Our values are the ones we were raised to have, either by our parents or by our society in general.  So, feel free to accept your share of the blame.

It's not like I don't want to get married. I grew up watching Disney, I'm fairly indoctrinated in the happily-ever-after tradition.  I'd have been cool with begin married by now.  But I've always been missing one thing: a groom.  Is it because women are seen as more family oriented and men as more career oriented that we don't see more articles about single men settling down?  I guess it's up to the women to tame the men and lead them to the altar. Except marrying someone who doesn't really want to get married is a TERRIBLE idea.

Another thing that kills me is the FACT that being negative towards singleness is both generally and specifically unchristian.  Obviously, it's just not nice.  And plenty of Bible character were single.  But both Jesus and Paul explicitly say that staying single, while tough, is not only a valid choice, but a good and holy one. So who are you exactly to find fault with my marital status?

Should we promote healthy relationships, the dangers of excess, financial management, and all the other things we associate with stable married life and not with the partying lifestyle?  Sure. Absolutely.  I am for those things. I also think promoting positive values will bring about more change than telling me to get married.

When am I going to get married? When somebody asks me and I decide to say yes.  Until then, I am going to work to eat. Probably after the fact, too.  Let's get real.

Cooking: How to Start

There is more advice than ever out there for the home cook that it can be overwhelming for anyone just looking to transition from frozen dinners to something they could serve a friend without shame. If you are NOT a cook, I am going to break down, step by step, what you will need to start.

First, you need a recipe. Not food. Not equipment. If you have an empty fridge and kitchen, start with a recipe. Actually, find 7 recipes, so you can have dinner for a week.  When selecting a recipe, look at the ingredients list. Will you eat everything on that list? No? Then find a different recipe. Especially if you are only starting to learn to cook, you need to cook what you like and with ingredients that you know how they should taste.  That way you're more likely to know if something is wrong. Only buy ingredients you have plans for. ONLY BUY INGREDIENTS YOU HAVE PLANS FOR. This goes for everyone. Indiscriminate buying leads to food waste and is a waste of money.

But before you go shopping, finish reading the recipes. Do you know how to do every step? Google unfamiliar terms and watch videos of specific techniques on YouTube. Until you get comfortable with your skill level, look for recipes with 6 or fewer steps.

Next, buy the equipment. Hopefully, the recipes you picked out make use of standard cookware. If a recipe calls for something specific, like crepe pan, maybe rethink that choice. Using recipes to guide your purchases may keep you from buying items that, while still "standard," you may never use. Like cooling rack, or steamer. Buy equipment the way you buy food: have a plan for how to use it first.

Hint: Some things you will need, like measuring cups and mixing bowls, will only be implied by the recipe.  So think through how you will do each step.

Once you have recipes and equipment, buy food. Make your dishes. Follow the recipe exactly the first time, then tweak for your personal taste. Find more recipes to use left over ingredients you may have.

Repeat.

The Ocean at the End of the Lane -Review

If you have heard of The Ocean at the End of the Lane at all, you have probably reached the conclusion that every reviewer has reverted to Romanticism by way of describing the book's emotional pull rather than what the book is actually about. Nostalgia, myth, melancholy, memory, terror, childhood: all vague terms that don't really tell you what this book is, only that everyone has instantly declared it art.

Usually I want to know what a book is about before I read it.

I was also concerned that Neil Gaiman had finally crossed out of genre fiction into popular fiction; in other words, the book would feel magical without actually having magic.

It turns out I needn't have worried.

But having read the book, now I understand what the reviewers were up against. Ocean defies summary.

On the one hand, it's too short to give much plot summary without spoiling the entire book. On the other, the plot can't be boiled down to a single sentence.

The narrative is reminiscent of both Bridge to Terabithia by to Katherine Paterson and Dandelion Wine by Ray Bradbury.  But what it's really like is a Studio Ghibli film.  The plot is no more complex than a longish Grimm's fairy tale.  Truly, for most of the book it is the tone that elevates the story, bringing the magic of both the extraordinary and the mundane to life.

Until you realize what the book's about.

The Ocean at the End of the Lane is the story of a boy as remembered by a man, told by an author (Gaiman) to his wife in an attempt to explain where his art comes from and what drives him to create.

The setting and a few characters are autobiographical.  As is the emotional story. Myths are not labelled thus because they are untrue, but rather they are attempts at describing truths that exist beyond mere facts. And by that definition, The Ocean at the End of the Lane is far from fiction.

To the Gate-Keepers of the Kingdom of Fan

I've been increasingly puzzled by continuing news stories and articles about sexism in fandoms.  I know it's there. I know it's dumb. But we hear a lot more about it on the internet (for obvious reasons) than sexism elsewhere. Actually, we don't hear a lot of people speaking out against sexism elsewhere, so go internet, points for that.

What I've noticed, though, is the tone of the responses to sexism in the nerd world. They fall into two camps: women writing to empower women and men writing to take men to task. And neither of those stances is wrong. But I'd like to take a moment to look at the issue from a different angle and speak to the guys directly and from a place of common ground. Not we-like-the-same-stuff common ground, but  we-have-been-dealt-the-same-hand.

You see, I know how you feel. You grew up in a world where athleticism and looks trumped grades and creativity. Where being yourself meant getting bullied. Where you couldn't find others who shared your interests and your interests weren't supported in the society you were in (high school).

So, it was really great to find an outlet, a community, a guild, a con, a game shop where you could interact with people who get you. You promote the stuff that makes you happy and the makers that provide that content.  Good for you.

BUT. I am you. I walk into a con and get bombarded by female figures I can't identify with. I get excluded by the cool guys. They bully me. They resent my existence and do everything they can to make their community closed to me. But this time we share interests, experiences, social preferences, etc.  What we don't share is gender.

I understand the idea of fake geek girl and at one point, perhaps, the concept had validity. When cons had to hire booth babes for any kind of female presence, for instance.  But the fact is, geekdom is not a small community any longer. It's not weird anymore. One of the most popular show on television has dragons in it. So it's time to give up the gate-keeping because the floodgates have opened and geek is mainstream. It's not just girls you have to worry about; it's everyone. The jocks are here now. The preppy girls. Everyone you hate is here, and all they really want is to fund that thing you love and not get anonymous internet threats in the process. Did you like Avengers? It never would have been made without mass appeal.

Yes, more money isn't the only thing that changes when you go mainstream. There are a few things that  are going to change. Most reasonable people understand why (overt) racism is bad in media. Well, sexism is bad too.  Our fictional heroes should behave by an ethical code that includes respect for all human life. So should our internet posters, con attenders, comic book buyers.

So, all we females really want is no threats and fully clothed role models. Is that really too much to ask?

Besides, do you really want to go back to only seeing guys at cons? 

Things I learned in the Holy Land

This is very behind the times, but some lessons from my trip keep turning up, and I thought I would catalog them.  Not a lot of great spiritual epiphanies here. I pretty much knew where I stood spiritually before I went over.

1. If the desert is hot enough the taps switch temperature. This is from overland pipes exposed to the sun and the water heater being insulated enough to keep water cool.

2. If you sweat enough, restroom breaks become unnecessary. Gross, yes. And scary. But true.

3. Long sleeves are the way to go in unbearable heat.

4. Germs matter less when you are running out of water.

5. When you are low on electrolytes from doing lots of hot, outdoor, manual labor, you will crave fruit.

6. It is possible to sleep through motion sickness.

7. If your country is new and going thru a certain amount of turmoil, an independent culture will take longer to develop. It is amazing how popular American oldies are in Israel.

8. Official signage in a foreign country is always hilarious.

9. Regardless of politics, a country that puts a humongous amount of effort into cultural and environmental development has a better concept of what it means to be a country than a lot of the rest of us (and, yes, that definitely breaks down when looking at how they treat their neighbors). Israel has one of the largest reforestation projects in the world.

10. Visiting countries that are not friends with each other while using the same passport makes for difficult travel.

11. Primitive construction is more similar to Minecraft than you'd expect.

12. I don't believe in a single, all-encompassing biblical proof, but it is amazing how many forts, wells, towns, tombs, encampments, etc. are uncovered right where you'd expect them to be.

13. How important a biblical town is in scripture has little relevance on how quickly it gets excavated/how important it is archeologically. Beth Shemesh is a mound on the side of the road. Gezer has a single sign and a gravel parking lot.

14. Archeology is limited by funds and human resources. Paleontologists analyze every find. Archeologists have warehouses of finds no one is analyzing, mounds no one is digging.

15. Archeology is more like Indiana Jones than anyone would believe. Mostly the shooting is done by armed escorts, though. From what I gathered, many top archeologists who dig in disputed areas have stories of being shot at. The stories get crazier the farther back in history you go. And would make for good movies.

16. Frozen lemonade and mint. You will just have to trust me on this one.

17. Israeli cats have pointier faces than cats in the US. Less inbred?

18. The most important travel plans involve eating during times the entire country shuts down, which covers four meals a week in Israel.

19. Paper maps beat GPS when it comes to pure navigating. (Driving while navigating is, of course, different.)

20. Nothing makes you want bacon more than being told you can't have it.

21.Germany, or at least the airport I was in, has an unreasonably high percentage of attractive people (and yes, I am aware of how racist that sounds). 

This One Is For The Makers

I want to talk a little bit about possibly the best artistic advice I have ever gotten.  Adam Savage, in a YouTube video posted by Tested.com*, talked about balancing work, his family, and his projects.  The solution for finding more time for projects, it turned out, was more about frequency than duration.  He advocates spending an hour a day in your studio/workspace, even if all you are doing is eating lunch and existing in the same space as your work.

Obviously, committing an hour a day would be difficult for many people.  The house needs to be cleaned; you brought work home with you; you can't leave the kids alone.  But what about a commitment to spending ten minutes a day in the area you have cordoned off for making whatever it is you make? I believe it really is frequency that matters.

I like this approach for several reasons. Instead of committing to finishing projects or spending lots of time in your studio, you commit to thinking about your art, looking at it, and giving yourself the opportunity to do some work if you feel up to it. Giving yourself permission to be in your space without forcing yourself to produce removes the guilt artists feel that they should always be making more.

In this way, you can structure your creative time like a workout regimen. Ten minutes a day comes easy, so you gradually up the time, until you are exceeding Adam Savage's hour goal.

Space is as important as time. Experts say bedrooms should be devoid of things that rob our sleep, like televisions and computers.  Your workspace should be a dedicated space, ideally with walls between it and dirty dishes, laundry, and other major distractions of adult life. There is a time to be responsible; take ten minutes to be creative.

If I told myself I should just organize my art room and get it over with, I would never do it. Cleaning for cleaning's sake as never come easy to me. But organization to solve problems, like "I can't find my sewing kit," seems to just happen naturally as I use a space.

Spending time in my downstairs room/art studio has allowed me to organize it for better productivity. As a result, I have created twice as much in the past few weeks as I have in the previous six months. And I feel good about continuing to use the space, because there is no pressure to create. I go there to be. I create because the tools are at hand, the space is inviting, and because I am, to some extent, an artist.

Now if only I could find a method that increased my writing output…

*I'd link to the video, but I'd never be able to find the right one. Check out Tested on Youtube and you'll see what I mean. 

Love Languages, Singlehood, and John Green

Words, time, gifts, service, touch.  Anybody who has been exposed to any pop-psy-self-help knows that those are the five love languages. Obviously, you figure which way you show love and how your spouse shows love, and voila! you get a better marriage. You don't even need to read the book.

Here's where I get in trouble, because I haven't read the book. However, I looked at the table of contents on Amazon, which like any self-help book is a straight forward outline of the material, so I will presume to comment on that material.

Whenever I see a love language quiz online, or hear people talk about the book, it is always in the context of how that person expresses love.  Simply, I give you gifts; you do the dishes. Now I know that you doing the dishes means you love me, or now you know that since gifts is my love language, you mix up dishes routine with some flowers and candy occasionally.  And like all self-help*, I find these conclusions pat and simplistic.

Complaint the first: My church is doing a love languages series for married couples and parents (those are the 2 versions of the book out there). I am single and childless, and yet I love and could learn to love better.  Aren't Christians commanded to love one another? I am not against classes for parents or couples, but it would be so very, very easy to make a class on love all inclusive. Shouldn't love be inclusive? Apparently, the class is also for people about to be married or planning to get married one day. I planned to have my first kiss before age 25, but life didn't work out that way. I refuse to plan to be married before I am engaged. This is not meant as an indictment against my church, but an illustration of common attitudes about love and singleness.

Complaint the second: Author John Green exhorts his YouTube followers to "imagine others complexly."  Love languages, as best I can guess, are meant to be a tool to help better understand the person you are trying to love.  They are not something taught in Psych 101 textbooks.  I would be interested to see studies of the dispersion of love languages on an introversion/extroversion spectrum or masculine/feminine values or stereotypes. Because our non-verbal communication is as every bit as complex as our psychological selves.

Take me for example.  I gift. Bringing joy to others through a well-thought gift is better than getting gifts.  So much so, that gifts I receive have to have a certain element of aptness and demonstrate the giver's knowledge of myself before I feel much in response. Does that make gifts my love language?

Recently, I realized that by showing love through gifts, carefully selected and wrapped, that I am holding others at arms length and passing my love over through objects. Those gifts may be appreciated, but I am holding back. One of the first things friends learn about me is that I don't touch new people. It takes an average of three months of contact with a new person before they can receive a hug. Allowing hugs is a rite of initiation into a closer circle of friendship. Does that mean touch is not my love language?

I would say that everyone has the capacity to understand how each of the love languages is an expression of love. I also believe that everyone shows love differently to different people.  My problem is expressing and receiving love in such a way that the other person can feel the exchange.

Because I'm not good at emotional shorthand. I make very bad first impressions. Ask people who have interviewed me for jobs. I get total strangers telling me to smile more.  I may have been completely content or having a horrible day, they can't tell the difference and want me to greet society in a more acceptable way no matter how I feel.  Friends still getting to know me have a hard time knowing whether I am enjoying myself at an event.

So, in the interest of imaging other more complexly, allow me to imagine myself more complexly for you.

I withdrew into myself a lot after splitting 7 weeks between ICU and a burn ward at the age of five. And I was predisposed by nature and nurture to be an introvert before that event. With whatever accompanying psychological issues from my injury, I didn't manage any kind of social competency until college.  Navigating my teen years with a sense of isolation (albeit largely of my own making) resulted in the arms-length love expressions and circles of trust that require years to enter.  This isolation  also developed a self-reliance I might not otherwise have.

My lack of trust ranks how I express love; the more I trust you the closer I allow you to come.  Gifts are farthest out,  then time and service.  Words are second only to touch because verbal expression of intimacy is only less difficult than a physical expression.

My sense of self-worth, however, ranks how much I value expressions of love that I receive.  Gifts are last again, because it is easier to give money than time.  Touch from others is valuable, but I recognize that if it is not as difficult for you as it is for me then touch becomes less precious. Words I value but have a hard time trusting from the experience of person after person telling me want to build a relationship (usually a friendship) then utterly disappearing almost immediately.  Time ranks highly because inclusion is so important to me. The idea of someone doing something to help me out is so rare that it remains an ever elusive prize.  But in any case, just being thought of is immensely gratifying.

All of which makes me sound incredibly high maintenance, but I would argue most people could create similar hierarchies. Doing so allows me to realize and accept how I relate to people and to challenge myself to find more effective modes of expression.

So, you tell me. What's my love language?

*He's Just Not That Into You is the sole exception and the best relationship book in existence.

The Slow Art Movement

There's a trend I've been noticing in the past few years, but only recently linked the isolated incidents together in my mind.  I've named it the Slow Art Movement.  It starts with Alton Brown.

I love Alton Brown. I love that he is an educated southerner; that he got a culinary degree in order to make a better cooking show; that he writes, directs, and acts in the shows he creates; that after 14 seasons of Good Eats, he decided to stop in order to have time for other projects; that his first degree was in theatre.  I really love that his first degree was in theatre.

As I've written before about Steve Franks, I admire the independent spirit that allows a single person to take on multiple roles in a successful cable TV show.  And I also admire the actors, directors, and crew people who produce short series for the internet. A lot of these people participate in the Slow Art Movement. Alton Brown falls into both categories.

The Slow Art Movement is one end of the spectrum that has CGI at the other end.  It's the Rube Goldberg machine of entertainment. And while you can extend the Movement to include a lot of makers and even Makers, the most obvious influence in entertainment is theatre.

For decades, theatre has been co-opting film techniques, to varying success. However, recently I've been noticing entertainers outside of theatre have been adapting theatrical techniques.  Actors have always "gone back" to theatre in order to develop their skill (or prove it), so it is very gratifying to see technicians doing the same.

On Good Eats, all effects were practical (baring limited use of green screen) and very low budget. The conceit of the show was to have everything (puppets and props, etc) look homemade, which worked because they were. Rapid set changes (like in the Old Spice commercials) were shot in real time, with set pieces tracking in and out of camera shots. Sounds like summerstock.

Alton Brown and Mythbusters' Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman have developed themed variety shows that they tour around the country.  Other shows, like w00tstock, combine musicians, comedians, storytellers, and other entertainers for more generalized variety shows.  Storytelling has replaced poetry slams as avant grade entertainment.

This is a entertainment specific detailing of a return to old practices that can be found almost everywhere you look.  The same college students up all night playing MMOs can be found knitting in dorm lobbies during the day.  I have long said that Americans need to be intentional about the culture, traditions, and heritage we choose to cultivate as a society.  I think that Slow Art is the perfect place to start. 

The Lego Movie: Two Readings

Yeah, thematic discussion, therefore: SPOILERS, SPOILERS, SPOILERS!

The Conflict of Interest Reading

The Lego Movie is a fun, quick-paced romp with an uncertain moral. The movie is bogged down by the conflict between wanting to tell a story about an evil corporation taken down by the little guy when the storytellers are in fact on the side of the villain.  Pitting teamwork and rule-following against individual achievement is a problematic theme to present to children, unless you want them to see their teachers and parents as the bad guys.  The convention switch 2/3 of the way in is too abrupt and makes the search for a moral even more muddied.  The climax of the movie attempts to solve the thematic problems with a sort of "work together to do whatever you want" attitude.  The conclusion of the moral "Everyone is the Special" is no better or more revealing than "Everything is awesome." The movie boils down to being a nostalgia vehicle for the viewers old enough to carry credit cards.


The Unreliable Narrator Reading

To understand The Lego Movie, you have to look at it from the perspective of Finn as storyteller.  Apparently conflicting themes, derivative story arcs mashed together, and a general sense of naiveté about societal structures pervade the film because the story is the product of the mind of a young boy.  Children's logic, only a step away from dream logic is the ideal framework for a movie about legos. And the prevailing themes are surprisingly sophisticated. The real world presents a fully-fleshed struggle of a father who must discover that the best way to recapture his childhood is by connecting with his son.  The implicit theme of the lego world by the climax of the movie is one of teamwork through creativity and flexible thinking.  The idea that you make your own destiny was perhaps underdeveloped when reduced to the trite "Everyone is the Special," but an overly elegant moral would contradict the convention that the story is being told by a child.


Which is the better interpretation? I probably fall somewhere in-between the two (and need to re-watch to see if I missed anything thematically).

A Love Letter to Psych

USA announced that Psych will be cancelled in its 8th season. During, mind you, not after. And with no real advance notice to the producers and writers. I greeted this information with sadness but not shock.

For the first 3 seasons or so, I was the only person I knew who watched Psych. I loved it enough to buy seasons as they came out, rather than my traditional wait-six-months-and-pay-half-price route.  I watched all the commentaries. I looked for pineapples. I have the Psych refrigerator poetry set. So I never quite understood why it took people so long to catch on to how amazing this series is. 

Psych has only been nominated for 1 Emmy (for original score, 2010) and has only won 1 People's Choice Award (Favorite Cable TV Comedy, 2014!).  So, except for—apparently—this year, neither critics nor viewers thought much of this plucky show. 

In a television age of overstated pathos and passion, Psych is an ode to the music, movies and television shows that brought joy and fun to our lives. From episode themes (See: Dual Spires) to guest stars (Ally Sheedy, Cary Elwes, and William Shatner) to character names (a character named Jason in the Friday the 13th ep. "Tuesday the 17th"), Psych was devoted to reminding its viewers that it's ok to acknowledge those who came before and to build on them.  

I don't understand why Psych occasionally gets billed as a drama. Psych was always intended to be a comedy along the lines of Moonlighting and Remington Steele. Like Moonlighting, Psych is more romantic comedy than crime-solving drama, however, the central relationship is a friendship of the highest order.  Having sexual tension play a secondary role to fun-loving characters who constantly get in over their heads (wow, just realized the similarities to Scooby-doo) means that no character's dating life is allowed to high-jack the show.  

Psych stays true to its message: the joys and consequences of irresponsibility and making light of the serious.  Beyond the characters, the independent and silly nature of the show can be found from the top down.  Steve Franks is the creator, producer, director, writer, and composer AND performer of the show's theme song.  This is a guy that my generation would expect to find making a web series, not 8 seasons of cable TV (because nobody does everything in the corporate world). 

Everyone talks about the amount of improv in shows featuring former SNL stars.  No one talks about how Psych scripts include lines like "/angry whisper fight/" or that every button of a scene with James Roday is the funniest take of him talking until the cameras stop rolling.  What other show would resurrect an outtake of an improved line at the end of a scene (thus cutting something else) and turn it into the icon of the entire series?  

What other show would quote movies so obscure that they feel compelled to explain what was quoted in the commentaries? (But only the truly obscure ones.)

What show would reference popular products regardless of sponsorship? (Then end up getting sponsorship in a burst of serendipity.)

What show could get away with openly mocking another show on a different network as being a blatant rip off? "'If I were a fake psychic, it would be eerily similar. ' 'Exactly the same' 'A virtual carbon copy.'"

And of course, what other show would have a pregnant interim police chief, a feline witness, a tap-dancing detective, an apartment in a dry cleaning store, a falsely accused polar bear, a lovable-yet-creepy mortician, even more lovable criminals, and of course a fake psychic detective?

No other show. Psych stands alone.