Im currently knee deep into The X-Files season 3, and I have thoughts.
So far, this one has been an absolute joy to watch. It feels like a lot of thought is being put into the characters this season, more than the other two (which were a bit more plot heavy.)
I kind of want to focus in on three episodes that really made me go "wow, that was a good chunk of character development" or at least were good glimpse into how Mulder and Scully think, as individuals. Specifically, episodes: 11, 12, and 13.
In episode 11, we see Mulder and Scullys roles actually flip, with Scully being the one believing in the 'supernatural' explanation, and Mulder denying everything- or trying to explain it away. This episode really makes the both of them seem hypocritical. Scully only believes in what she's seeing because of her religious background, and Mulder is only denying it because it IS religious, and not paranormal. He even goes as far as *belittling* her for actually believing this time. The episode ends with Scully going to a priest to talk to him about all this stuff, and she downright says it's because she "doesn't feel like she can bring this up with her partner." It let's us see into their flaws. The two of them really only see what they want to see... not what's actually true.
Epsiode 12 was a doozy. I had to pause multiple times due to extreme "kicking my feet and giggling" syndrome. I think this one has to go on record as my favorite episode so far. That aside, it was interesting from a character development standpoint because it really let us see into Mulder's thought process when Scully isn't there to keep him in line. Several times during this season, its felt like the writers want us to believe that Mulder is a bit of a womanizer... calling attention to his sexuality in various ways, like letting us know he has a porn collection and isn't afraid to hide it, and giving him one-liners that insinuate things. This episode, though, Scully isn't immediately beside him the whole time. She's at home, and to stay in contact, they communicate via phone calls. This is when he meets a very pretty Etymologist, who he clearly has the hots for. The main thing I took from this, was Mulder's clear separation from this woman (Bambi) and Scully. Mulder downright lies to Bambi about his interests, saying he "finds bugs fascinating." He then calls Scully to tell her he HATES bugs, and gives her a whole childhood story to back it up. It enforces this idea that to him, Scully is different. She's someone he respects, and feels he can confide in, rather than just a pretty girl. We also get some insite into how Scully feels about this. She obviously knows what Mudler is thinking, and has this 'i dont really care. Do whatever.' Attitude about it.... but you can tell she's thinking about it. The whole time. Once she learns about Bambi, she keeps trying to go over there and help Mulder. When she finally does, and she meets Bambi, she treats her like a child... telling her to wait in the car. She's very.... dismissive. it felt like an "im better than you, anyway." attitude, Which is very out of character for her, because she's usually over the moon about fellow women in STEM. I can only assume it's because of how Mulder felt about Bambi.
Episode 13 enforced even more of those same ideas. It painted Mulder- at least in Scullys eyes- as 'sex first, case later'. We see him tiptoing around another female agent, who seems to be almost the exact opposite of Scully. (Again, enforcing this idea that Mulder *doesnt see scully the way he sees other women*). This time, Scully is very obviously either jealous of the attention she's getting from Mulder, or downright disgusted with how he's behaving. (I dont blame her for either). The whole episode has them at eachothers throats, and at one point, the two of them are in their separate hotel rooms absolutely fuming. Mulder is drinking, and Scully smoking. They're clearly torn up about being so angry at each other.... and then it gets worse. Scully walks in on the female agent literally ON TOP of Mulder in his hotel room. (Which, I'll give him credit, he didn't instigate.... and was actively saying no to.) Mulder gets upset at her for not believing him, and she.... well, she's just upset. The whole ordeal ends up being because of some sort of astrological shift, and everything's sort of ok in the end... except for the two of them still bickering. It gave the impression that maybe, they dont trust one another as much as they did before.
TLDR: So far, this season has let us know that- when it comes to women- Mulder's a bit of a player. And Scully, she's downright got anger issues. Also, the two of them are very hypocritical about their beliefs.
For all of this to be resolved beautifully, there needs to be a moment between the two of them that makes them fully trust each other again. There needs to be a moment where Scully analyzes her feelings toward Mulder's other "partners", and Mulder needs to figure out *why exactly* he doesn't think of Scully in the way he thinks of other women.
Why You Shouldn't Let An English Teacher See Movies: a reaction post of IT:Chapter 2
Okay, so I finally saw IT Chapter 2, and I have some thoughts. Some of these thoughts might rub people the wrong way, which is okay, but be warned that I'm not going to hold back here.
As a whole, let me preface by saying that I loved this movie. I will go to see it 3 more times, and I will enjoy every moment. However, objectively… this is not a film that I can recommend to people as a “great film” artistically speaking. Is it fun and Good™? Yes. Did I enjoy it immensely? Yes. Were there some very odd and disruptive writing/direction choices? Yeah. This isn’t a masterpiece, as fantastic as I personally felt it was, and honestly I do not think it topped Chapter 1 in terms of flow, total presentation, or scriptwriting.
I’m going to break down my thoughts by category:
1. Story elements
2. Visuals & Horror
3. Tone
Starting with Story Elements:
I am incredibly torn on this. I LOVED aspects of this film, and was wildly confused by others. As a whole, I think the film began strong.
The re-introductions to the characters were fantastic, though taking the “historian” thing from Mike in Chapter 1 definitely made Chapter 2 weak in regards to his characterization. He’s a hard character to get right, but it honestly feels a little like they didn’t try, and just used him to progress the story. I could continue, but that is a whole separate Mike Essay. Bev, Ben, Richie, and Eddie were all fantastic. Eddie in particular was taken in a slightly more aggressive angle than traditional for his character, but it worked very well with the way he was established in Chapter 1, thanks to Jack’s interpretation. Bill was a little bit weaker in some ways, but still at his core Bill Denbrough. I unapologetically LOVE adult Stan, and only regret that due to the story, we don’t get to experience him as much as he deserves in the film.
The return to Derry was great, and I still think that the group dynamics are what make this story shine. 90% of what I loved so much in Chapter 1 was the group dynamics, and they are here in SPADES. The group makes sense together, and the cast did a great job, though Eddie’s constant repetition of the word “fuck” seemed a little unnecessary after the second time in the restaurant scene. However, one thing I think the miniseries did better is establish them as “the lucky seven” - they’re not just the Losers Club; they’re held together by fate, and there’s definitely some supernatural elements to that which are not present in the films, weakening their group connection. This is shown most strongly in their moments of conflict in Chapter 2, especially when they want to leave, because their draw to each other doesn’t seem to be present, at least not in the same capacity. It seems weird to feel let down by this considering my next point, but it is what it is.
Some may disagree here, but… I really dislike the decision to include the ritual of Chud in the movie. I disliked it in the book as well, as I think that it unnecessarily complicates things and turns this horror story into a surreal sci-fi story in a way that doesn’t always mesh well. King does both sci-fi and horror well, but I’ve always felt the crossover in IT was off somehow. Also, the lack of connection with this to the first film makes the ritual of Chud seem even weirder in Chapter 2. Mike’s characterization with this gets… odd… and its inclusion is very confusing. I actually said “what the hell are they doing” in theaters when Mike introduces this with Bill. That’s how weird it was for me. My biggest problem was that it makes Chapter 2 a sharp departure from Chapter 1, and failing to achieve the cohesion that the miniseries had is a huge downer for me, considering that the IT reboot is an improvement to the miniseries in so many other ways.
In comparison to the book and miniseries, I think that it was a bad choice to leave out Audra, as it was good closure for the Billverly plotline. Bill and Bev even kiss in Chapter 2 - and then it is promptly forgotten. I’m not necessarily looking for conflict, but Audra was a huge motivator for Bill, and it was much less significant to have his driving force be this random kid that reminds him of Georgie. I get it, but Audra helps show how Bill has grown more strongly and pushes him forward after the final battle. I also wanted a cinematic parallel between Audra and Bev in the sewers and was really disappointed that I didn't get it. I have similar feelings about Tom - yes, Bev obviously leaves him for Ben, but Tom had a huge impact on Bev and her growth. Leaving him out weakens her personal story.
I’m not going to say much about Henry, but the scene where he pops out of the sewers is FANTASTIC. I absolutely did not expect to get that scene (I figured we’d just pop in on him in the hospital), but was glad we did. However, this lost its impact the longer we went on; he was relevant for all of one (1) stabbing of one (1) Edward Kaspbrak, and then died without even putting Mike in the hospital like he was supposed to. A waste of his character.
There are other positives. The connection Adrian and Richie’s stories are great, and I think Richie’s moments of reveal are very well handled. I just wish the Adrian/Eddie parallels had been highlighted as well. Richie and Eddie are fantastic together, and Bev and Richie are also sweet as hell. Besties for the resties, man. In general, I think Richie’s relationship with the Losers is the strongest writing in terms of group dynamics. Putting aside his feelings for Eddie - which do a fantastic job of fleshing him out and showing how multifaceted his character is - he is the one Loser who has strong ties to every other character. Bev’s relationships with Mike and Eddie are weak, Ben’s most relevant relationship is to Beverly, Bill’s most relevant relationship is Mike - you see where I’m going with this. Only Richie’s writing showed the importance of all his group relationships, though some were stronger than others.
Almost every individual scene with the Losers and Pennywise are very enjoyable. The moments where their personal motivations and fears shine are truly the best in the film. While there were some design issues that disappointed me in terms of IT terrorizing them, their stories are great - the apartment scene with Beverly is still poignant, and Bill’s revelation about the day of Georgie’s death made me a little emotional. I’ve already mentioned this in general terms, but the arcade scene with Richie is fantastic.
As a whole, there is a lot of love here, and so much to enjoy. The script writers and the director worked hard on this film, and they tried to do a lot with it - just maybe too much, which caused problems with flow and tone as a whole.
Visuals & Horror
I love horror - I could go on all day about how it’s the best genre. As such, I have a lot of feelings about the horror elements in this film.
I already mentioned how the ritual of Chud/Sci-Fi elements weaken the horror - in truth, the horror elements were already weak. As a result, sci-fi elements distract from what already has flaws. There are two major categories for this discussion: subtlety and design.
In terms of subtlety, a majority of Chapter 2 was basically hitting you over the head with a Pennywise-shaped hammer. There were jumpscares everywhere, and they were rarely impactful ones. How many times did we get a “Pennywise chomps down on somebody” moment? I was totally engrossed in Adrian’s scene at the beginning, but when Pennywise just takes a bite out of him and it ends, I was honestly disappointed. I do realize this is book canon, but there is something about the presentation in the book - the precise moving of Adrian’s arm, the bite, the smile, the cracking of his ribs - that is dulled in the movie for a lack of a better term. There is just something about this death that fails to hit home. Maybe it’s because Pennywise is more or less out in the open, or maybe because in the book, the bullies see It, too, making it a surreal moment that no one believed except those who were there.
As a whole, the movie has plenty of gore but little suspense. I think I had more interest the less I knew about how exactly people died. Eventually you get sick of the chomping - the unknown is more frightening than a monster with a predictable attack pattern. The missing kids. Betty Ripsom’s shoe and lack of explanation. Patrick’s fade to black. These things made Chapter 1 unsettling, but scenes like Victoria’s death had no other elements other than being bitten to death by Penywise, and that was predictable.
For an example of what could have been in terms of subtlety, I can honestly say that I was more creeped out by “Mrs. Kersh” slinking around in the background of Beverly’s old apartment than I was by the old woman monster. For what it's worth, the way these monsters move is INCREDIBLE, especially so the more humanoid they are. I love the body language and movements. The earliest example is the headless boy in Chapter 1; the jerking limbs really emphasize their inhumanity, and it still works in this film (Mrs. Kersh at the end of the hall, Betty Ripsom’s legs, etc). This, with the use of humans and their subtle shift to the unnatural in the films, was much stronger than the larger monsters in Chapter 2.
Another strength is the background details that you might miss. The librarian staring at Ben as he reads about the Ironworks explosion in Chapter 1 is a great example of this, as is Mrs. Kersh peeking her head out of the kitchen in Chapter 2. I would have rather had more small scares like this, rather than the reliance on jumpscares. The pomeranian monster behind the “Not Scary At All” door is essentially just that, and I was WILDLY unimpressed by it.
Returning to the focus of the film, Pennywise the clown is a great villain, but a lot of Its appeal is that It shifts into whatever scares you most. In the first film, this is done well - the painting lady, the leper, the headless boy, and even the way it shifts in the battle at the end. The strength in these forms is that you never know what to expect - and neither do the Losers. Each new nightmare looks and behaves differently. The flute dropping from the painting lady’s hands to announce her presence, the dropped eggs in the library scene… everything about the leper. Even the miniseries did this variety well (the werewolf, the shower scene with Eddie, Mrs. Kersh, etc)
Yet, in part 2, we get… two extra monsters. Which is fair - we already have plenty of material - but they both have the same style of warped features and aesthetic. I think creepy naked old Mrs. Kersh would have been a more disturbing visual than old lady monster turned out to be. Sometimes less is more. Clowns are creepy because they have almost-not-quite-human features… the same can be said of effective monsters (look at the leper, for example, or the painting lady).
Pennywise in general and Its overreliance on Its clown persona weakens the effect. Eventually, Its presence becomes “oh, there’s the clown again,” especially considering that Its attack pattern has become so predictable. Is It going to drag me into the darkness? Is It going to manipulate me into hurting my friends? Is It going to do some other scary thing to me? No, he’s going to take a bite out of me. Not awesome, but certainly not the Pennywise of the novel or even of the miniseries, whose horror came from the fact that no one knew what happened when you disappeared - or when parts of you reappeared.
There were too many instances where the horror was all about jumpscares and theatrics. Pennywise is all about theatrics, I know, but It went from eldritch horror to dramatic murder clown in this film. In the book, Pennywise is extra as hell, so I wouldn’t be angry if that was the angle taken for the films - however, that is not what was established in Chapter 1, and isn’t actually what is achieved in Chapter 2. If we are going for a more serious, darker tone for Pennywise, I would prefer the eldritch horror we saw more strongly in Chapter 1.
Tone
This is the hardest category to explain well, because a lot of this is my personal impression of the film, but I’ll do my best. As a whole, the movie does not flow well, especially connected to Chapter 1, and this is largely because of tone. Some scenes shift too abruptly or push too hard, and I feel as though the writers were trying to capture the same charm and attitude that Chapter 1 achieved with the kids, but struggled because they aren’t kids anymore. The balance between gritty horror and charm is harder with adults, but this is something the miniseries excelled at compared to Chapter 2. In the miniseries, you never feel like you’re watching a new film when it switches to the present day with the adults. In IT Chapter 2, though the movie and story are meant to be a continuation, it feels more distant, like a sequel that doesn’t quite achieve the same mood.
I’ve said that the group dynamics of the Losers really shines in these films - however, it’s also a major problem in Chapter 2, because there are several times where the writers sacrificed the integrity and tone of a scene to fit in some banter. I love the banter, okay. I’m all about it. The banter in the IT movies is my favorite banter that I’ve seen in a fictional friend group, and yes, I’m including Stranger Things and classics like The Breakfast Club or the Goonies. However, when it’s ruining an otherwise impactful scene, it feels wasteful and disruptive.
A good example is the scene with Richie and Eddie at the doors in the caves. This scene is fantastic - it’s funny without being a gag, and it showcases the brilliance of RichieandEddie. However - and this is a big however - every other Loser’s individual scene is dramatic and dark - tonally appropriate. Richie and Eddie, however, have their moment melding humor with some jumpscares, and though the scene is great on paper, it makes no damn sense compared to the tone of the rest of the damn sequence. There is no logical room for comedic relief here, and it was jarring, no matter how much I enjoyed the scene itself. Tonally, Richie’s one-liners in Chapter 1 made more sense, and the script of Chapter 1 did a much better job ensuring that those tiny breaks in tension do not disrupt the scene or atmosphere. I cannot say that about certain elements in Chapter 2.
The Losers work very well together, but they also have a tendency to get chaotic enough to break the atmosphere. In the book, there is a lot of quiet horror amongst the Losers Club that is disrupted in Chapter 2 by the multiple scenes where they just scream over each other during crucial moments (such as the scene in Jade of the Orient). The quiet fear and understanding amongst the Lucky Seven that made them such a dynamic group of protagonists just doesn't exist here. Every quiet moment is a moment for arguing or freaking out here, and it got tiring, especially when we went right back to individual reflection and exploration after. I use the term “quiet” here quite a bit, but I’m not sure how else to express the atmosphere I’m talking about. Hopefully the point gets across.
This may just be personal preference - I really enjoy subtle horror, as I’ve said. The moments where the Losers watch and take in the terror as it unfolds are important moments and are lacking in Chapter 2. I can’t empathize with the screaming and freaking out, but the dawning horror and realization of what’s happening puts me right in their shoes. Beverly’s slow realization when she’s staring at the picture of “Mrs. Kersh” and her “father” is a moment like this, to put it in context.
Even more so than the Losers’ attitudes is the lack of the “dawning horror” vibe in the film at large. It is not meant to be an action film, and yet Chapter 2 is constantly go-going. The action is in places more akin to a slasher than the slower supernatural horror this story is meant to be. Chapter 1, with its slow reveals and strengthening group dynamics, hit the intended mood better, and seems further separated from Chapter 2 as a result.
Chapter 1 did a great job with balance - it knew when it was appropriate for the funnies, and how to shift that into the horror elements seamlessly. It also did a great job throwing in Richie’s one liners without ruining the balance of the scene, but Chapter 2 had several instances where it took those quick Richie moments and turns the focus entirely on him, breaking up scenes in a jarring way. An even more disruptive example is the “Richie said it best last time” bit before they entered Neibolt. The entire scene shut down for Richie’s moment, and it ruined the suspense of what could have been a really nice parallel to Chapter 1. We didn’t need the tension broken in many of these instances, and it was difficult to go back and forth. The focus on Richie is because of the positive fan response to his character, which is well deserved in my opinion. However, this could have been done better.
Tonally, Pennywise’s script also came on too strong. The Pennywise we know and love is a lurker, manipulating humans and taking other forms rather than doing all the dirty work directly. Chapter 2 has moments of this, but more often has Pennywise as an aggressively taunting antagonist. It becomes loud and exaggerated. Part of this can be attributed to rising tension as the Losers return to finish It off, but Its dialogue is hammier than I expected. It’s become almost petty - and not to needle at the Losers, but more because It’s bitter and childish. I don’t know if it’s too much to use the term “eldritch horror” again, but I don’t know how else to describe what we were set up for with Chapter 1 and let down on in Chapter 2.
As a whole, I felt like the film was stitched together in places. After Chapter 1, I felt that I had just had an experience, but after Chapter 2, I actually looked at my best friend and said “I liked it, but I’m not sure what just happened.”
Let it be clear that I love Chapter 2, and will happily rewatch it many times in the future, but I do think that compared to Chapter 1, it is a far weaker film overall. You can watch them together for a similar experience to the miniseries, but it will be less cohesive and will feel like it fell apart a bit the longer it went on. I don’t fault the writers for this entirely, as the second half of this story is a daunting undertaking, but I think removing the sci-fi elements with the ritual of Chud and tightening down the horror aspects/tone would have made this a stronger continuation of Chapter 1.
Aw man UM…………..Is sometimes not always a hot mess? Titled after the most precious gay bean on Australian television, actual love of my life, unproblematic fave Bianca Grieve. So Many Tag Feelings about Bernie and Serena being actual girlfriends in love. Hasn’t had a nervous breakdown in three years of law school (yet)?
MBA Essay Length: We Can't Go Over It. We Can't Go Under It. Or Can We?
MBA Essay Length: We Can’t Go Over It. We Can’t Go Under It. Or Can We?
“How strictly do I have to stick to the essay word limit? How much can I go over? Does it matter if I’m under?” are questions I get a lot. Here’s an piece from the files: To answer this, it is essential, as always, to think about any process or task in admissions from the MBA admissions committee’s point of view. Put yourself in their shoes. Why do they ask for it? What are they trying to…
i never know how to define friendships properly.... like i know i have a bestie and that is as far as i can get. I have a couple of friendships that are very flirty and about attraction, but i wouldn’t say ‘with benefits’ bc that cheapens it, i have admiration based ones, i have a coupla of friends i would go to the end of the earth for, i have my friends i am attracted to but it is more just kinda a chill attraction, and i have mates who i practically never see/communicate with but still trust them and ones i see a lot and don’t/ Then i have friends i rely on and desperately need, but rarely talk to bc anxiety.
actually i rarely talk to any of them, especially if i am not in school or near them , because i can’t contact anyone myself.
(I also don’t have that many friends, there is a lot of crossover in the stated categories)
see i know i shouldn’t try to label them, and the line between friendship and relationship can be very thin, and as long as it is fun it is okay....... but idk i find the dynamics interesting and strange a lot. Also i don’t have a group of friends, so i don’t hang out with any of them that much?? and the main one i hang out with at the mo likes me romantically a lot and i am scared he will get hurt.... but that is a different thought trail. and this all confuses me and makes me stressed, because they don’t seem like the dynamics a lot of people have, as i am both separate and clingy and don’t really define limits on what friends can do with each other... it is about the vibe, and i get paranoid and scared that they don’t like me too much and i feel like this odd web of friends is gonna one day fall apart, bc it is not the norm (also gfs don’t like me, even though i respect the boundaries people set and will never try to get in the middle of an exclusive thing). also this may be more normal than i think- but nobody ever mentions things like this?? (WHY CAN’T WE TALK PROPERLY PEOPLE GEEZ)
and eurgh this has been a difficult thing for me recently
Prefacing this entire thing with "first world problem" because... Well, golly gee, these thoughts are all internally generated and therefore not an immediate danger to my health and well being, yet remain my biggest current concern.
So after staying up and watching Paprika because I have nothing to do with my life over the summer beyond existing, particularly during the queerest hours only which immortals dare to tread, I had a bit of a quandary over my life. An existential crisis one could even say. This resulted in me blindly prattling on Twitter, because that's what Twitter is for right? This "free writing", if you will, resulted in the following:
"Maybe this is a bit self-indulgent to say in due to my current position and not in reflection but the transition to adulthood is so blurred.
People my age are starting careers and families, while I sit around mooching off of my family and attending university.
Maybe this is the epitome of privilege and opportunity, but to be frank it conveys deep senses of failure.
While I do work hard at school and try to live as independently as possible, ultimately it does nothing to make me not feel like an adult.
It makes me wonder if those aforementioned people feel success and as if they have begun their first steps into the independent adult world.
Most of all though, I think it makes me realize how uncertain my future is and how much it scares me.
I always wanted to hold prestige and be successful ever since being a small child. To be respected, not revered, and make a difference.
But for most people what's the probability of such things? At this point the most I hope for is to get my PharmD and live a healthy life.
What if that falls through? Such things are sadly not set in stone. Having taken no real steps, all paths are open, and choice is scary.
An article from AoM seems to condense my thoughts by saying people now live in age where it's safe and possible to do nothing."
Needless to say that after 10 consecutive tweets I realized the followers of my Twitter would not be pleased as punch to review my thoughts, especially not in such an atrocious and limiting format, as such, I have reverted to using my Tumblr and tucking it away into a read more (theoretically, I've never actually bothered doing this prior).
It's hard to look at what I had written and think about what I wish to add that I did not, however. I suppose I should start with an apology of how inevitably arrogant I will sound in the following paragraph. Which is to say, that I am, preemptively apologetic for the following background. Growing up as the product of a single mother and feeling as though my existence. in many formats, tarnished her own, I have always tried to hold myself to a bit of a higher standard. Even since I had an inkling of thought for the future, I often times pictured myself in a suit, much taller than I wound up being, with a very posh and important demeanor, and this is probably a heavy factor in what I have wound up being. Ultimately, I wanted to be perfect in all aspects except physicality, something which I still subconsciously look down on as "primitive", and probably why I could never get into sports and, as a result, stifling any affection for formal or instigated competition, which I also loathe. I wanted to be well read, intelligent, confident, and prestigious. As a child I would wager this wound up with me trying to be more mature than my peers as well as trying to outdo them in anything pertaining to ones mental capacity.
As most children are taught, being smart is the key to success, and success was what I wanted, and still want. It is important to note that success is not vast wealth (though I dream of wandering the halls of a home, which may or may not belong to me, lined with suits of armor, hidden libraries, and bookcase doors) or astounding popularity (which also never appealed to me due to my trouble and frustrations with social interaction). Success was leading a life worth living, and later determined to be (after a particularly long bout of depression), happiness as well.
This desperate strive to be the best ultimately lead to me burning out and those who were better workers than I to surpass me, frustrating me further at the time. This was, in part, what spurred my depressed episode. The other part was relationship based, and in retrospect a poor thing to get caught up in, particularly considering my experience and age.
Back on point however, I wound up not being the best. The things I had set out to be were never truly achieved, either from setting my standards too high or from internal and external turmoil, I'll never know, though I like to blame events such as bullying for the destruction of any shred of confidence, forced readings in school for what destroyed my voracious reading habits, emotions for causing me to burn out and never be the most intelligent, and my age for my lack of prestige.
In terms of skills I'm fairly average too. I would, however arrogant it may sound, claim to be a jack of all trades type person, in that I can do nearly anything, but there is very little I can do well or master. The one thing I seem to be able to do with relentless precision and efficiency is organize things. My work in the library as a page was one of the best experiences of my life. It made me feel like I was truly great at something and that was fulfilling. Aside from the fact that the library was apt at being too quiet to the point where I would explore the recesses of my mind and become so engrossed in thought that I would be become slightly depressed (similar to my current state) and that the pay and hours were nowhere near adequate to live off of as an actual career, I really loved it. This skill set mixed with my love of science and desires lead me to conclude that pharmacy was the path for me.
However, after arriving at university, I have been greeted with a troubling time. While my social life and overall mood have flourished, my intellectual pursuits remain inadequate. I have had a difficult time with classes, not necessarily to the point of failure, but enough that I am struggling, something which has never occurred for me outside of AP physics, which was, quite frankly, a nightmare from hell I am glad I will never experience again. My grades were not satisfactory to remain in the pharmacy early assurance program, which has poked a small hole in my confidence and made me nervous. I'm going to continue with the path (pharmacy in general, that is) despite this, but should it fail I'm relatively screwed. My other two go to professions would be environmental scientist and librarian, neither of which my college offers in full or adequately. Most likely, I would wind up majoring in some science, and trying to go to a different school for a masters in informational science (library stuff, for those also mislead by the name). This would likely allow me to catalog for a private or medical library (I.E. not the kind that people check out books from for their own pleasure) in an ideal world.
This brings us back to my key personal issue, which is to say, the blurring of the "adult line" for me.
As I had previously explained in my tweets, the line as to what constitutes an adult and where I should fall on this scale has become blurred. There are people my age working careers. Somebody who used to be one of my best friends is now a manager of a wildly successful drug store. This is both surprising and frustrating. I can't even get a summer job, yet he can work his way up the corporate ladder in a year enough to be payed, likely, as much as my parents? The way societal norms are ingrained tells me that people my age without college degrees should either be training in a trade skill or working a minimum wage job.
Not only that, but still others have children. Children! Other little fleshbags which they are responsible for caring for as a unit in an age bracket where relationships are fickle and money is generally short and spent on luxury goods when even mildly excessive. This boggles the mind. I know that this is generally abnormal, and personally I have no desire to be the father of children, particularly at this point in my life, but even so. These are huge responsibilities.
On the flip side of this coin, I completely and totally mooch off of my family for practically all worldly items. I failed at getting a summer job and as such have no income. My parents pay for my college tuition in full (this is privilege to the hundred millionth, I understand) after financial aid and the ilk. My entire existence is dependent on them and I could realistically sit around doing nothing and would still have not a whole lot to worry about.
While I know that college is an investment and is therefore justified, it just makes me feel like a lame duck of sorts. It's as if I'm not successful or as progressed as my peers, which is technically not the case.
The point is, it raises a question of age and what marks adulthood for me. I used to think that being able to do things like drive or being 18 would mark adulthood. Obviously that's not true as driving did very little for my feelings of age, nor did turning 18. I still feel like a child in nearly aspect, yet it seems like others in my age bracket are basically adults. It's a bizarre little thing, the perception of age, what marks success, and the uncertainty of life.
Life is just a big Escher painting, and there's no telling where the staircase you choose will take you. You could wind up ahead, above, below, or behind where you had started. The stairs could even take you nowhere and you wind up back on the same platform.
