Rants and Things

[bessiemae]

So, I'm jumping on the personal curriculum bandwagon. But, I'm doing it in the spirit of the originator, Elizabeth Jean aka @parmesanprincessx, intended. It's going to be done for fun. By that, I mean, I don't care what someone else says about how I should do it. Someone might think I'm doing it totally wrong, but I don't answer to them. And I figure any time spent, especially if it's something I want to do, will benefit me. I also plan for these subjects to be studied through the end of the year.

Anyway, first, lets talk about my subjects. First, I'm studying the Constitution. My knowledge of it is very limited. I used to have the preamble memorized and can still jumble it up. I know the popular amendments (but not necessarily which number goes to which one, except the first and second). So, I found a website that has it written out with a "translation" into simpler language. And I have a book on the writing of it and how we're still dealing with some of the flaws in the document.

Second, I'm watching Dreaming Spanish videos. That's my Spanish practice.

Third, I'm reading up on boredom and why it's necessary and why it's good for us.

And, last, I have a book of creative writing prompts that I have been writing in every morning.

I don't plan to be an expert on any of this, but even a little more knowledge and understanding is better than I was before.

I'm not buying a ton of notebooks or books. When I want to take notes the piles of half filled notebooks I already have work fine. Also, all my books are from the library. I have no end of the term projects (not sure what they'd be with these subjects anyway). I'm just reading the books or looking at the websites or watching the videos as I go along. I don't want any pressure on myself.

[bessiemae]

So, I've been watching reaction videos to The Truman Show, and I've come up with a realization. It might be totally made up or maybe it's so obvious that everyone else has already figured it out right from the start.

Cut, because maybe someone hasn't seen it.

People say it's a good ending because we don't see what happens after Truman leaves the set. That he's no longer on camera. And, that's true. But, one thing I see with multiple reaction videos is people complaining that we don't see him after he escapes. And, I realize, we're not just watching the movie. We're the audience of The Truman Show. We're exactly the same as the audience in the movie. Or, at least, I think we're meant to be. That's really where my epiphany, if you can call it that, comes from. We're supposed to be invested, to want him to escape, to cheer and be genuinely happy when he does - and to still want to see what happens next. We know the show has spent the entirety of a man's life gaslighting and traumatizing him, but we're still a little disappointed when it ends. Not The Truman Show quirky feel good show, but The Truman Show as in Truman Burbank himself.

I see a lot of commenters telling the reactors that us not seeing what happens next is the whole point. And that's true on one level. But, I also think that the reactors being disappointed is also the point and what was the goal the whole time.

[bessiemae]

I finished my re-read of the Anne series. I liked Anne of Avonlea and Anne of the Island more than I used to. Anne's House of Dreams is still one of my favorites. I can't decide between it and Rilla of Ingleside. Leslie is one of the best characters. I was sad that the "red roses" speech in Anne's House of Dreams didn't thrill me as much as it used to, but I still love Rilla's keep faith speech.

Confession. I like Rainbow Valley more than Anne of Ingleside. And, I think the Meredith kids were more interesting than the Blythe kids. I'm going to be ruthless, but they could have gotten rid of Shirley and Di. I know they wanted the whole twin thing, but except for having bad tastes in friends, Di had no personality. We're told acts like Gilbert, and that she was closest to Walter, but we didn't see that. We see more of Rilla's relationship with Walter (since it was her book, but we could have seen more in Anne of Ingleside).

As a whole, the series was still enjoyable and I'm glad I visited it again.

[bessiemae]

So, I finished Anne of Windy Poplars. I did not discover any great love for it. I think it's partly that Anne is so separated by anyone we know from the other books and I didn't get invested in any of the new characters to care about them. No, not even Rebecca Dew. I think partly the description of her looking like a tomato distracted me. Every time she came on the page my mind kept trying to picture her. Also, I felt all the characters appeared too sporadically to really get a hold of them.

There were a few funny stories, but overall, I just plodded through until I could get to Anne's House of Dreams. I'm about 5 chapters in and this is a book I love. And characters I did connect with. Leslie is one of my favorites in the entire series.

[bessiemae]

I always feel weird when librarians and library workers online go on and on about how they NEVER read at work. That if they do, they aren't doing their job. Because I constantly read at work. And, I work. My evaluations always talk about how the amount of work I do exceeds expectations. (If that's bragging, well, so be it). But, I manage to find reading time. First, if you're covering the desk and can't leave because a patron might come to check in or out or ask a question, well, there are computers that you can read ebooks on. If I'm shelving, it's nothing to have an ebook on my phone on the cart or even a physical book open that I can read as I'm pushing the cart (always looking up to see where I'm going or if any patrons might be in my path). Making sure books are in order on the shelf? It's not a race, so if I alternate between organizing a row of books and reading a paragraph of another book, the work still gets done. Even if I'm making spine labels to replace faded one, I can stop for a second to read and then go right back to the task.

And, some of my other coworkers who are just as hard working also manage to find pockets of time when they can sneak in reading - or just scrolling on their phone if they're not the reading type.

I remember when I first started working in the library system, I went to help out at a different branch. And I was under the impression that if I wasn't working every minute, I'd get in trouble. So, I did everything I could think of. And when I couldn't think of any more work, I asked the manager for more. he said that yes, I was there to work, but doing busy work just for the sake of being busy doesn't help anyone. It's the opposite of the "if you can lean, you can clean" mentality. Work, sure. But, I've never been at a library where there's non stop work. if you complete a task, and a supervisor doesn't have another ready task on hand, no one is going to say something if you stop for 5 minutes before doing something else. As long as they can see you do work and don't spend the majority of your time goofing off, they don't bring the hammer down or accuse you of laziness if you take advantage of a lull to step over to a new book display and read a paragraph of a book.

But, maybe when people say if they read on the job they're not doing their job, maybe they mean sitting for an hour and reading. Maybe they don't mean they don't ever even glance at a book (or an ebook) while at work.

[bessiemae]

I'm re-reading the whole Anne of Green Gables series. Haven't read them in years so I decided to just do the whole series. Just finished Anne of Avonlea. It's nice and a relief that I still enjoyed the first two books. I'm always scared that if I go back to something after a long time, some of the magic will be gone. So far, not a problem. We'll see how I feel about Anne of Windy Poplars. That was always my least favorite. Maybe a hiatus will improve it.

[bessiemae]

I may go into a long detailed rant (already did, but deleted it) later. But, can people just try to be kind? Unless given a real reason to not be. And, lets be clear. Harming others or being okay with the harm of others is a reason to be unkind to someone. Being used to a 12 hour clock instead of a 24 hour clock and calling the second military time is not.

[bessiemae]

So, I reread Jane Eyre recently. Haven't read it in awhile, but since I got through the terrible Wuthering Heights, I decided to go back to an old favorite to see if I still liked it. The answer is yes.

Unpopular (or certainly minority) opinion, but I actually enjoy Jane's time with the River's more than the time she spends in Thornfield with Mr. Rochester, even though that's seen as what the book is about. I mean, I don't like St. John. But, Mary and Diana were wonderful people. Reading about Jane taking German lessons and then turning around and giving drawing lessons and enjoying both and all three of them being cozy together sounds so, well, cozy. And, as someone who works with people who think the phrase "comfortable silence" is an oxymoron, Jane's time as a school teacher also sounds heavenly. The students like her as well as the parents and she gets invited to dinner sometimes and she's well liked in town and people are friendly. But, she gets to go home alone to her little cottage It's just the right amount of socializing without it becoming overwhelming.

I've already read both of Anne Bronte's novels. Didn't care for Agnes Grey (it's better than Wuthering Heights, but that's not hard) but loved The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. I plan one day to read Charlotte's other novels.

[bessiemae]

So, I finally read Wuthering Heights. I tried years and years ago, and gave up because of the Yorkshire phonetic speech. But, recently, I just decided to give it a shot and was glad to find out that most of the book is not written like that. I still had to skip most of it, but I don't think I missed anything that would significantly change the story. Anyway.

I don't know if this is a controversial opinion or not, but I hate Heathcliff. I can sympathize with the child, but not the man. Heck, I don't think it would be strictly right, but certainly understandable if he had focused all his tormenting on Hindley. But, to torment the children of people you feel wronged you? Even after the parents are no longer around to feel anything about it? No. He just seemed so over the top. And the great love he had for Cathy? I read people say that yes, he was a monster but his love was so passionate and wouldn't it be nice to have someone love so much? Um, no. That's not love. That's not passion. That's psychotic. (I know we're not supposed to use terms in a descriptive way, but I don't know of any other way to put it). Stay away from me with that kind of "love".

And everything just seemed so over the top just to make people suffer.

I could say more about other characters, but honestly, I'm just so overwhelmed by the vileness of Heathcliff. I would say the story moved quickly once I got past the funetik accent. So it wasn't throw it across the room horrible. But, I've read books from every Bronte sister now, and this is certainly my least favorite.

[bessiemae]

Long rant about Black media and the lack of positive stories and also about people's attitudes towards that.

So, I periodically go on the look out for cozy, comforting books about Black people. Because I like those books and I think Black people should have those just like anyone else. Inevitably, I come across someone on Reddit asking for similar books. Usually, they ask for books that aren't about pain and suffering. And, EVERY time, you get some of the same responses. First, multiple people will haul out books that are filled with pain and suffering. That are about pain and suffering. But, they are about Black people. They bring up all the classics whether they fit the request or not. Imagine if someone just said they wanted a feel good book without specifying race. If they said they wanted something without tragedy. No one would suggest something Anna Karenina and then say it's the opposite of what was asked for, but it's such a good book they had to recommend it. So, why do they do that for books about Black people? Is it to prove that they have read books by Black people? Kindred was an amazing book. I sped through it because I couldn't wait to see what happened next. I would totally recommend it. Unless someone specifically asked for a book that wasn't about Black trauma. Then, I would never recommend it.

Second, someone will say that stories need conflict. As if asking for a book without Black trauma means you don't understand how stories work. Yes, fiction does need conflict. Conflict does not equal trauma. Or, it's not the only definition. Anne of Green Gables is full of conflicts. Anne is not 100% happy through the entire book and everything doesn't go right on every page. But, it's a feel good book. She's not happy all of the time, but she's happy throughout the book. There's moments of joy sprinkled throughout the difficult moments. And while a tragedy does happen, it's not about the tragedy. You don't come away from the book thinking the primary story is about loss and pain. Conflict can be funny. Or, even a book with a serious subject can be about someone overcoming troubles and finding joy. And, again, if you ask just for a general feel good or comforting book, you will get a bunch of suggestions without someone arguing that books need conflict.

Third, people will argue that books about Black pain and suffering are realistic. And some will get sarcastic and angry that you don't want to deal with it. Except, it's not the only reality. I don't wake up every day in a cloud of misery bombarded by suffering and trauma whenever I step out of my house. People need to listen to Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's TED talk about the danger of a single story. Pain and suffering and racism is not the only story for Black people and to say that people who want one of the other stories of Black people is not wanting reality is annoying.

It's like some people feel we don't have the right to light hearted stories. That we have a duty to immerse ourselves in suffering. Look at Abbott Elementary. A really good comedy show set in a struggling, primarily Black school. It has serious subjects presented in a funny way. It's a feel good show. People started to suggest that the show should do a school shooting episode. You can find the humor in difficulty of getting school supplies. You can focus on the ways teachers make do. You can't make school shooting funny. Remember, Abbott Elementary is a comedy. And no one was hoping for some kind of dark humor twisted comedy. They wanted a hard hitting somber episode. Even though it's not the style of the show at all.

And, I'm not saying on these threads people never try to actually answer the question (although it seems like it's only a handful of stories), but the things I mention inevitably come up that don't come up when someone doesn't specify that they are focusing on Black people.

[bessiemae]

So, record snow in Louisiana starting on Tuesday. There's good and bad about it. Just speaking from my personal experience.

The Good: It was beautiful! Also, it gave me an unexpected vacation from work. Since we're not used to snow down here, when it happens, we shut down. I've been off since Monday (MLK Day) and I don't go back until tomorrow! Also, this wasn't good because of the snow, but in spite of it - we never lost power. So, while it was cold outside, it was nice and warm inside.

The bad: I didn't get to make a snowman! Oh, I went outside all bundled up and everything. And there was definitely enough snow. But, I could not manage to form it into balls. Not even tiny ones for a mini snowman. I don't know how other people around here were able to do it. And now, the snow has melted (not completely) so my chance is gone.

And, PSA for everyone. On the chance this happens again and the weather people give you a heads up days in advance - go to the store early and stock up on FOOD. Even if it's just canned food.

[bessiemae]

Random thought in my head. The word family should mean just that. It should not mean "only intended for little kids." It should mean it's safe for little kids and they will find interest in it, but also adults and older kids can enjoy it too. Families come in all ages and combinations. And while I've never had children, I will assume that parents can enjoy some time in the company of their kids.

Around the holidays, there was an event advertised as a family cookie decorating activity. I assumed that, yes, there would be a lot of kids. But, it didn't seem to be something that would be solely for kids. Adults eat cookies. And decorating is fun! Why shouldn't an adult want to participate? I found that it was mainly for kids and for adults to hang back and chat and watch the kids because they were too young to attend on their own.

Hey, if you have something going on where you intend for the primary audience/participants to be little kids, say that.

Maybe I just never grew up. Now, if I see something listed as "family friendly" and it seems interesting, I have to do research. Has it happened before? Are their photos? Do I see adults actually participating or are they merely chaperones?

[bessiemae]

When they inevitably make another Little Women movie (and I hope they do at some point, because I didn't care for the Greta Gerwig one) I think they should cast younger actresses for the part. I mean, for all of them. If I'm thinking right, Meg and Jo are in their mid 20's by the end of the book. Cast actresses who are 18-20, and they can do both the early years and the later ones. Also, an 18 year old playing Jo would look more realistic fighting with Amy. And, it would be interesting to see someone who actually looks 15 (even if she's a little older) at the start.

They would probably still have to do two actresses for Amy. I think the change from 12 to 22 is too big. (I'm guessing at her age at the end) A 16 year old would be fine for Beth. Claire Danes was the right age.

I just think that none of the movies really do a good job of showing just how young the sisters are at the beginning of the book. Yes, Meg and Jo work, but they're also kids and in some ways see themselves like that.

[bessiemae]

So more of me coming here to talk about Reddit. (Although I did actually comment on the post there) And, more Gilmore Girls stuff. But, why do people keep thinking that Rory would not have been able to work if she married Logan? For the most part I'm not discussing AYITL, because we can either see it as an alternate universe or season 7. We can't reconcile both. But, contradicting that, I will say he offered her a place to write her book. So, even with the crappy cheating and Odette and going back to work for his dad (or never leaving, because AU) he still respected Rory's writing and goals.

But, back to ignoring all that. People keep acting like the fact that Logan's mother and grandfather said that Rory wasn't suitable because she had a career meant that she had no choice but to give it up if she was married to him. And they act like Logan was perfectly willing to go along with it. That he ever said he wanted a trophy wife. Also, at the end of the series, Logan was going to be living on a completely different coast from his family. He was no longer working for his dad. I don't get the impression that the job he was going to was going to require a lot of society wives helping to schmooze clients. I'm sure if there were any parties that needed planning, the company would hire people.

[bessiemae]

Self improvement attempts

My attention span has deteriorated dreadfully. Sometimes I watch a one minute clip and I'm fast forwarding (sorry, I'm an old fogey) to the end. So, now if I watch something like a Youtube short or something on Twitter and I know I want to see the end, I am making myself sit through it. I know it's not reading for an hour, but baby steps. And, speaking of reading, I'm also making myself finish a chapter of anything before I move on to something else.

Health. I do need to lose weight. Also, while I've been very fortunate, I don't want to become pre or even just diabetic. But, carbs are my weak spots. And, I don't plan to give them up completely. So, I already try to do half rice, half cauliflower rice sometimes to cut back. But, I also plan to have one meal a day that is no carbs. And get a good amount of protein. And vegetables. I figure even without the weight consideration, I'll be getting health benefits. Plus, it's not a drastic change. Having a veggie omelet and fruit for breakfast doesn't mean I can't have pasta for lunch or dinner.

[bessiemae]

So, I've wrote a post about Gilmore Girls and Dean. Adding to it here.

So, In Rory's Dance, Dean tells Tristan that he'll "kill" him. People keep bringing this up. He's so violent! He threatened to kill Tristan! First, he said it because he was telling Tristan that he wouldn't fight him. And he was letting Tristan know that he (Tristan) wouldn't want Dean to fight him. Because if he did, he'd kill him. Second, he clearly wasn't being literal. The show is Gilmore Girls, not Breaking Bad. (Can't think of an equivalent family dramedy to make my point) Also, people do speak figuratively in real life.

But, I wonder. Are people viewing this the way they'd view it if it happened in real life? That threats should be taken seriously? While ignoring the type of show they're watching? And, has society gotten to the point that hyperbole doesn't exist? That everything should be taken at face value? This will be hard to say. I think we should be careful of how we speak and not hurt others with our words. I also think that language that isn't allowed to be figurative and exaggerate a little is colorless and dull. And that being able to understand when someone is saying something for effect is a social skill people should have.

Also the thing I will say every time someone brings this scene up. Dean repeatedly refuses to fight Tristan. He walks away more than once. Even the "Because I'll kill you" is followed by Dean walking away from Tristan. And Tristan comes at him again. And Dean tells him to stay away from Rory, and walks away. He spends this whole scene showing restraint over and over, but because he doesn't say "If you insist on fighting, I'm bigger than you and stronger than you, so a fight between us won't come out in your favor" but instead sums it up with "because I'll kill you" people see him as an aggressive bully.

[bessiemae]

Okay, I'm years behind talking about this, but Youtube recommended me a video about Glass Onion. It was a critique of a critique. So, I'll put my pet peeve behind a cut, just in case anyone hasn't seen the movie and plans to.

The movie makes no sense if the Mona Lisa was fake!! Now, some people argue that the Mona Lisa in the movie that got destroyed actually was wood, like the real Mona Lisa. I don't know, and it doesn't matter. Even if the Mona Lisa of the movie was canvas, unlike the real painting, in the universe of the movie it's meant to be real. That's the only thing that makes sense. Why? Because Miles' reputation would not have been so completely destroyed unless he destroyed the actual painting. Maybe temporarily people would have been shocked, but I think they would have forgotten once the real Mona Lisa was shown to be safe and sound. And as dumb as Miles was, I think once he knew he didn't destroy it, he would have pretended that he knew it was fake all along.

Now, again, some people have argued that the replica (replica in our universe, not the movie's) was wood, but it's not important what this was made of. First, because I'm guessing many people had no idea what the Mona Lisa was painted on. I didn't. And even if you did, think of the movie. The Mona Lisa and its destruction played too big of a role for the comeuppance to be that Miles was fooled by a fake.

The movie ended on Helen's triumph. But, it would be a poor triumph if his fuel just took down a fake. And if the argument was that none of them knew it was fake, well, that still adds an unnecessary complication and plot point.