I love babysitting.
(I'm not kidding.)
I always feel so much better about my 'single and childless' life afterwards.
No matter how great the kids are (and they were) somebody absolutely refuses to brush their teeth, put on their pajamas, or get up off the floor and into bed. Fortunately, by 10:30 it's no longer my concern!
And I had to laugh to realize that I've 'graduated' from babysitting for money (which the family accurately assumed I would not accept) to babysitting for American junk food (which the family correctly perceived I would be too weak to turn down).
Would anybody like a Brown-Sugar-and-Cinnamon Pop Tart?
June 30, 2011
June 22, 2011
Dramaturgical Mindset
I'm planning to get a blog set up for my dramaturgy work - the journal stuff that I learn or would like to note that isn't necessarily about a specific production - as it's tough to link videos and such to the notebook I use as a journal. In the meantime, I'm going to keep linking things here!
This article talks about how the Mormon Tabernacle Choir was used as a 'flash mob', which I think is AWESOME. I was watching the video of the event, and it occurred to me that I was analyzing the dramaturgy of the scene that was playing out in the reenactment - wondering about the research, how the writer laid everything out, the balance of the lines and the actions... and that I was starting to think about most things this way. Movies, books, TV shows, commercials (ack! the commercials!), everything is starting to be evaluated for its dramaturgy.
I'm pretty excited about this new habit, actually.
* Here's the video link (no embed, bleh) - the singing starts about 3:28.
- I've been such a sap lately, even this was getting me a little emotional!
This article talks about how the Mormon Tabernacle Choir was used as a 'flash mob', which I think is AWESOME. I was watching the video of the event, and it occurred to me that I was analyzing the dramaturgy of the scene that was playing out in the reenactment - wondering about the research, how the writer laid everything out, the balance of the lines and the actions... and that I was starting to think about most things this way. Movies, books, TV shows, commercials (ack! the commercials!), everything is starting to be evaluated for its dramaturgy.
I'm pretty excited about this new habit, actually.
* Here's the video link (no embed, bleh) - the singing starts about 3:28.
- I've been such a sap lately, even this was getting me a little emotional!
June 19, 2011
Politics and Religion and the Arts (Y'know, the Little Things)
It's linky time!
* * * * *
I used to have at least a grudging admiration for Sarah Palin. I thought she was occasionally interesting, and might have some worthwhile things to say. Not anymore.
Sarah Palin trashes the National Endowment for the Arts - stating that NPR, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, etc... are all 'frivolous', shouldn't be funded by the government, and, if she has her way, will be headed for the chopping block. Sarah Palin, you are dead to me (in a metaphorical sense, since I have never met her and now hope I never will). In the words of a PhD student at my school: " We are entering an conceptual age that will be dependent on adaptability and innovation to remain a dominant force of industry. How are the next Apple or the next Google going to thrive without an understanding of design, storytelling or empathy? Art is not a luxury but an essential part of life and the human experience." (Dierdre McLaughlin, FB)
* * * * *
If you have much interaction with the Arts (thanks to the NEA, *phplggbt*), you're probably aware that the Tony Awards, the ones that deal with 'excellence' in American theatre, were broadcast a week ago. If you're reading this blog, you're probably also aware that I'm Mormon. It was a matter of some interest, therefore, when "The Book of Mormon" musical won all kinds of awards last week. Best musical, Best Score, Best Book, among others - and lots and lots of my friends from back home have been raving about how funny and terrific it is. Here's the thing:
When did it become OK to mock a mainstream religious organization, particularly when most of your "research" and "documentation" turns out to be completely false? Cheap jokes are still cheap, even when they're cleverly written or set to a catchy tune. Here's a collection of responses from a range of writers and University educators. This article talks about the potential cultural embarrassment the musical could provide, likening it to the bigoted minstrel shows of the previous century (and the article was written by a non-Mormon). Here is one of the the full columns briefly referred to in the Deseret News piece, and it deals with how to respond when being egregiously ('gently') mocked and condescended to. (Excellent advice.)
And with at least a small nod to my previous post, I say: as the show is also being noted as the 'filthiest' in Broadway history (I believe I read there were at least 49 major obscenities just in the script) I wouldn't see the show even if it weren't about my religion. I don't care how 'clever' it is - if you can't find a more interesting way to be funny than to resort to crass 'humor' repeatedly, how clever can you really be?
* * * * *
I respect people's right to create Art. "The Book of Mormon" Musical is not art: it's a flashy minstrel show with catchy tunes and lucky timing. I doubt that it will have any legs. That's not important, though - what is important is that we keep telling stories and talking about the stories and about the telling and about finding new ways to do the telling and the talking. The BofM Musical's time is limited - Art is here to stay. And anyone aiming for high public office who cannot acknowledge that fact is an idiot.
As a bonus article, here's one about an experience with material-free live art. It's very interesting, full of intriguing ideas - and I'm not a person who's usually intrigued by experiential live art!
* * * * *
I will now go back to learning how to be a 'blessing to society' through my choice of profession. (I can take advice.)
* * * * *
I used to have at least a grudging admiration for Sarah Palin. I thought she was occasionally interesting, and might have some worthwhile things to say. Not anymore.
Sarah Palin trashes the National Endowment for the Arts - stating that NPR, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, etc... are all 'frivolous', shouldn't be funded by the government, and, if she has her way, will be headed for the chopping block. Sarah Palin, you are dead to me (in a metaphorical sense, since I have never met her and now hope I never will). In the words of a PhD student at my school: " We are entering an conceptual age that will be dependent on adaptability and innovation to remain a dominant force of industry. How are the next Apple or the next Google going to thrive without an understanding of design, storytelling or empathy? Art is not a luxury but an essential part of life and the human experience." (Dierdre McLaughlin, FB)
* * * * *
If you have much interaction with the Arts (thanks to the NEA, *phplggbt*), you're probably aware that the Tony Awards, the ones that deal with 'excellence' in American theatre, were broadcast a week ago. If you're reading this blog, you're probably also aware that I'm Mormon. It was a matter of some interest, therefore, when "The Book of Mormon" musical won all kinds of awards last week. Best musical, Best Score, Best Book, among others - and lots and lots of my friends from back home have been raving about how funny and terrific it is. Here's the thing:
When did it become OK to mock a mainstream religious organization, particularly when most of your "research" and "documentation" turns out to be completely false? Cheap jokes are still cheap, even when they're cleverly written or set to a catchy tune. Here's a collection of responses from a range of writers and University educators. This article talks about the potential cultural embarrassment the musical could provide, likening it to the bigoted minstrel shows of the previous century (and the article was written by a non-Mormon). Here is one of the the full columns briefly referred to in the Deseret News piece, and it deals with how to respond when being egregiously ('gently') mocked and condescended to. (Excellent advice.)
And with at least a small nod to my previous post, I say: as the show is also being noted as the 'filthiest' in Broadway history (I believe I read there were at least 49 major obscenities just in the script) I wouldn't see the show even if it weren't about my religion. I don't care how 'clever' it is - if you can't find a more interesting way to be funny than to resort to crass 'humor' repeatedly, how clever can you really be?
* * * * *
I respect people's right to create Art. "The Book of Mormon" Musical is not art: it's a flashy minstrel show with catchy tunes and lucky timing. I doubt that it will have any legs. That's not important, though - what is important is that we keep telling stories and talking about the stories and about the telling and about finding new ways to do the telling and the talking. The BofM Musical's time is limited - Art is here to stay. And anyone aiming for high public office who cannot acknowledge that fact is an idiot.
As a bonus article, here's one about an experience with material-free live art. It's very interesting, full of intriguing ideas - and I'm not a person who's usually intrigued by experiential live art!
* * * * *
I will now go back to learning how to be a 'blessing to society' through my choice of profession. (I can take advice.)
(Civilized) Ranting About Rating
I had an interesting movie experience last night - I saw how a PG-13 film is made.
Back in 2006 (sheesh, that long ago?) a sweet, quirky movie came out called "Penelope". It is about a girl who is the victim of a family curse and comes equipped with smarts, charm, great hair (extensions), and the nose of a pig. It also features a scruffy, greasy-haired, emo-enabled James McAvoy (still swoon-worthy, though - and ironically playing an American while most of the movie was shot in London. Great accent). In the States, at least, the movie was rated PG, which meant I was guilt-free when taking my niece to a showing while on a girls' day out.
Yesterday, I pulled up what is evidently a British version of the movie - it's longer by at least a few minutes, since there were scenes I'd never seen before. One of those scenes involved a rude gesture, one with the aftermath of a family member's infidelity. Others were sprinkled with a few more (relatively mild, but still) swear words. There was nothing there that was massively offensive (especially if you watch prime-time TV) and some of the additions were interesting expansions on the characters, which I liked. The thing that really stood out to me was that I could absolutely see how the cuts from yesterday's version to get it to the in-the-American-theaters (and on DVD) version made it so distinctly a PG movie instead of PG-13. (Now, versus almost 5 years ago, the longer version would probably actually rate a PG, but it's very clear how things were thematically cut.)
So, swear words, rude gestures, thematic issues that had no bearing whatsoever on the story being told were all the things that were cut out to make a good, clean movie. The movie didn't suffer from not being "real" - it's a movie. It wasn't ever real anyway. In the end the editing focused on the plot and not on interesting distractions. This certainly can't be the only movie that would benefit from that kind of focus - and I mean 'benefit' in a literal sense.
There was an article in the Deseret News recently that talked about the dearth of PG and G-rated movies. The author writes that in the years from 1995 to 2011, there were "...more than 4,300 PG-13 and R-rated movies making an average of $29 million compared with almost 1,200 PG and G flicks that make an average of $38.4 million per show." Granted, there were far fewer of them made, but they're averaging almost 10 million more per movie than those with darker ratings! I might be crazy, but I would think that clean, family-friendly shows that cost less to make (since you don't tend to be blowing things up and such) and have a higher average return would be a good investment. At a guess, I figure you'd need at least another thousand PG or G movies before you started skewing the average... and it's going to take another several years in which we'll see many, many more PG-13 and R before we hit that thousand. Just think - spend the money you would have used to make one crappy, formulaic blood-and-guts action movie to make two or three smarter, funnier (or sadder) movies that parents and kids can see and talk about together, and you're practically guaranteed an extra 20-30 million before you've even started.
Surely I'm not the only person to have figured this out - come on, Hollywood, we don't need sex and violence and bad language. (We've got the news for that.) We need good storytelling and new ways to see ourselves and the ones we love, interesting ways to talk about people and ideas. Yes, you can do all this with the 'reality' of sensuality and obscenity and violent behavior - but Ima gonna call you out, Hollywood, and tell you to lay off the trash. I'm better than that, smarter than that, and so is most of the rest of your audience. We don't NEED any of that junk.
So stop trying to sell it to us!
Thank you.
Back in 2006 (sheesh, that long ago?) a sweet, quirky movie came out called "Penelope". It is about a girl who is the victim of a family curse and comes equipped with smarts, charm, great hair (extensions), and the nose of a pig. It also features a scruffy, greasy-haired, emo-enabled James McAvoy (still swoon-worthy, though - and ironically playing an American while most of the movie was shot in London. Great accent). In the States, at least, the movie was rated PG, which meant I was guilt-free when taking my niece to a showing while on a girls' day out.
Yesterday, I pulled up what is evidently a British version of the movie - it's longer by at least a few minutes, since there were scenes I'd never seen before. One of those scenes involved a rude gesture, one with the aftermath of a family member's infidelity. Others were sprinkled with a few more (relatively mild, but still) swear words. There was nothing there that was massively offensive (especially if you watch prime-time TV) and some of the additions were interesting expansions on the characters, which I liked. The thing that really stood out to me was that I could absolutely see how the cuts from yesterday's version to get it to the in-the-American-theaters (and on DVD) version made it so distinctly a PG movie instead of PG-13. (Now, versus almost 5 years ago, the longer version would probably actually rate a PG, but it's very clear how things were thematically cut.)So, swear words, rude gestures, thematic issues that had no bearing whatsoever on the story being told were all the things that were cut out to make a good, clean movie. The movie didn't suffer from not being "real" - it's a movie. It wasn't ever real anyway. In the end the editing focused on the plot and not on interesting distractions. This certainly can't be the only movie that would benefit from that kind of focus - and I mean 'benefit' in a literal sense.
There was an article in the Deseret News recently that talked about the dearth of PG and G-rated movies. The author writes that in the years from 1995 to 2011, there were "...more than 4,300 PG-13 and R-rated movies making an average of $29 million compared with almost 1,200 PG and G flicks that make an average of $38.4 million per show." Granted, there were far fewer of them made, but they're averaging almost 10 million more per movie than those with darker ratings! I might be crazy, but I would think that clean, family-friendly shows that cost less to make (since you don't tend to be blowing things up and such) and have a higher average return would be a good investment. At a guess, I figure you'd need at least another thousand PG or G movies before you started skewing the average... and it's going to take another several years in which we'll see many, many more PG-13 and R before we hit that thousand. Just think - spend the money you would have used to make one crappy, formulaic blood-and-guts action movie to make two or three smarter, funnier (or sadder) movies that parents and kids can see and talk about together, and you're practically guaranteed an extra 20-30 million before you've even started.
Surely I'm not the only person to have figured this out - come on, Hollywood, we don't need sex and violence and bad language. (We've got the news for that.) We need good storytelling and new ways to see ourselves and the ones we love, interesting ways to talk about people and ideas. Yes, you can do all this with the 'reality' of sensuality and obscenity and violent behavior - but Ima gonna call you out, Hollywood, and tell you to lay off the trash. I'm better than that, smarter than that, and so is most of the rest of your audience. We don't NEED any of that junk.
So stop trying to sell it to us!
Thank you.
June 17, 2011
Hats On
I was walking through the Waterloo train station (early!) Thursday morning, and was struck* by 1) the number of people milling around, and 2) the disproportionate amount of top hats/tails and fascinators/heels I was seeing. I couldn't imagine what was happening - was there ANOTHER Royal Wedding I didn't know about? Was it a dress-up flash mob? Surely it couldn't be some horse-racing thing... it was pouring rain out, and didn't people who dressed like this have Rolls-Royces to take them to things like that?
Apparently people who dress like this are also environmentally conscious (or cannot afford the car-in-the-city fees after paying for the hats) - or perhaps they just really like to flock to their horse races.
Hooray for the Royal Ascot!
*Not LITERALLY struck. Between the crazy hats and the heels, eyes and/or toes could have been lost.
Apparently people who dress like this are also environmentally conscious (or cannot afford the car-in-the-city fees after paying for the hats) - or perhaps they just really like to flock to their horse races.
Hooray for the Royal Ascot!
 |
| Just, y'know... WOW. |
 |
| Maybe my favorite hat EVER. |
*Not LITERALLY struck. Between the crazy hats and the heels, eyes and/or toes could have been lost.
Just a Minute, Hair
Dear Hairstylists of the World:
When I walk into your salon, it is with the expectation that I will walk out looking different. Not "suddenly supermodel" different, because if I didn't have a grasp on reality I would be cutting my own hair with garden shears, but a new look that is other than the one I am sporting. I suppose there are some who go in for a "trim" meaning "maintenance" in the sense of "keep my hair looking like it did three weeks ago", but that is not me. It's just hair. It grows (or you buy more). I'm not precious about it, and I expect that you will believe and listen to me when I tell you things like "layers", "texture", "movement", and "I've had it all different lengths, so I'm not worried about going shorter or looking a little funky. In fact, that would be great". These seem to me to be words that fit into your vocabularies. Also, when you ask me questions it would be helpful if you would listen to the answers, as that would save me quite a bit of frustration later when you've "styled" my hair in ways that don't suit. If I say one side seems/looks a little longer than the other side, please do something about it - you can pull on it all you like, but I'm the one who lives with it and looks at it every day, and if I say it looks longer than it does. A little obnoxious, perhaps - but I'm the one who's an expert on my hair. You've known me for five minutes and will forget my face and head as soon as I leave, so kindly pay attention in the meantime.
Your tip and my return business rely on it.
Think about it -
Me
P.S. I wonder if there are YouTube tutorials on how to cut your own hair... I bet there are. You can find anything on YouTube. And I could use the tip.
When I walk into your salon, it is with the expectation that I will walk out looking different. Not "suddenly supermodel" different, because if I didn't have a grasp on reality I would be cutting my own hair with garden shears, but a new look that is other than the one I am sporting. I suppose there are some who go in for a "trim" meaning "maintenance" in the sense of "keep my hair looking like it did three weeks ago", but that is not me. It's just hair. It grows (or you buy more). I'm not precious about it, and I expect that you will believe and listen to me when I tell you things like "layers", "texture", "movement", and "I've had it all different lengths, so I'm not worried about going shorter or looking a little funky. In fact, that would be great". These seem to me to be words that fit into your vocabularies. Also, when you ask me questions it would be helpful if you would listen to the answers, as that would save me quite a bit of frustration later when you've "styled" my hair in ways that don't suit. If I say one side seems/looks a little longer than the other side, please do something about it - you can pull on it all you like, but I'm the one who lives with it and looks at it every day, and if I say it looks longer than it does. A little obnoxious, perhaps - but I'm the one who's an expert on my hair. You've known me for five minutes and will forget my face and head as soon as I leave, so kindly pay attention in the meantime.
Your tip and my return business rely on it.
Think about it -
Me
 |
| HAHAHAHAHA.... but true. |
P.S. I wonder if there are YouTube tutorials on how to cut your own hair... I bet there are. You can find anything on YouTube. And I could use the tip.
June 15, 2011
Email's Not for Skimming
Communication is a funny thing.
Some say that this electronic era makes it difficult to connect with people, because things like texts and emails don't allow for tone-of-voice or body language. It's a compelling argument.
I think, though, that people make it hard to connect with people.
Case in point:
I emailed the Associated Press to ask for information about licensing an image we wanted to use for a show, and I sent it from my school account to make sure it was official (it's a .uk address). After I signed my name I also listed out the full name of the school, and added a comma London. The response I got (in a fairly timely manner, so the AP has that going for it) stated that they couldn't give out information until they knew the location of the licensee, when they would forward the email to the correct office.
I was a little befuddled. I looked back through my email - and yes, I included both the facts that the show was through my school and the name of the school comma London. As I scrolled down further I discovered that emails sent from my school have footers attached to them, which include terms like "London", "England", and "Wales", just in case you were unsure which side of the globe to point at.
It seems to me that, particularly in a business setting, it's a good idea to ACTUALLY READ THE EMAIL all the way through before asking a question that is answered in that original email. It could be just me, though.
Case 2:
In setting up a meeting with a tutor we went back and forth on days and times, and finally settled on Wednesday at 4:30. I responded again with "Where? In the school? Or at the Hampstead?" (a next-door theatre where the lobby is a cafe where people often meet.) His answer - "In the lobby."
Now see, that's a tricky one, answering a question where the 'conclusion' applies to both suggestions... Keeps things exciting, I suppose.
* * * * *
Apropos of nothing, I'd like us all to pull out our best American Redneck voices and chorus along:
Some say that this electronic era makes it difficult to connect with people, because things like texts and emails don't allow for tone-of-voice or body language. It's a compelling argument.
I think, though, that people make it hard to connect with people.
Case in point:
I emailed the Associated Press to ask for information about licensing an image we wanted to use for a show, and I sent it from my school account to make sure it was official (it's a .uk address). After I signed my name I also listed out the full name of the school, and added a comma London. The response I got (in a fairly timely manner, so the AP has that going for it) stated that they couldn't give out information until they knew the location of the licensee, when they would forward the email to the correct office.
I was a little befuddled. I looked back through my email - and yes, I included both the facts that the show was through my school and the name of the school comma London. As I scrolled down further I discovered that emails sent from my school have footers attached to them, which include terms like "London", "England", and "Wales", just in case you were unsure which side of the globe to point at.
It seems to me that, particularly in a business setting, it's a good idea to ACTUALLY READ THE EMAIL all the way through before asking a question that is answered in that original email. It could be just me, though.
Case 2:
In setting up a meeting with a tutor we went back and forth on days and times, and finally settled on Wednesday at 4:30. I responded again with "Where? In the school? Or at the Hampstead?" (a next-door theatre where the lobby is a cafe where people often meet.) His answer - "In the lobby."
Now see, that's a tricky one, answering a question where the 'conclusion' applies to both suggestions... Keeps things exciting, I suppose.
* * * * *
Apropos of nothing, I'd like us all to pull out our best American Redneck voices and chorus along:
June 14, 2011
One of These Things...
It's finally happened.
The day I knew would come has arrived. (And in all reality, it's not in any way about me.)
Still -
Every last one of my siblings now has a child.
My youngest brother's wife gave birth right around one A.M., and the baby's a very pretty (if slightly overcooked*) little girl. I'll get to see her in about a month.
So, congratulations!
(That makes 6, 4, 3, 2, and 1 - the 6 and the 4 are finished, but the last three are still potentially 'and counting'. I'm going to be trying for 2 Masters' degrees - maybe I should go for five to fill out the sequence!)
Also, I'd better start bringing in some big bucks - how else am I going to be able to afford to spoil all 16 of my brothers' and sister's kids?
I shall now have a celebratory chocolate milkshake in baby Bostyn's honor. She is a Baxter, after all.
(And I have a bottle of real Hershey's syrup. How providential!)
* By which I mean, she was nearly a week late - and this after her parents were told the initial due date was probably inaccurate and the baby would most likely arrive sometime in May. That kid really hunkered down!
The day I knew would come has arrived. (And in all reality, it's not in any way about me.)
Still -
Every last one of my siblings now has a child.
My youngest brother's wife gave birth right around one A.M., and the baby's a very pretty (if slightly overcooked*) little girl. I'll get to see her in about a month.
So, congratulations!
(That makes 6, 4, 3, 2, and 1 - the 6 and the 4 are finished, but the last three are still potentially 'and counting'. I'm going to be trying for 2 Masters' degrees - maybe I should go for five to fill out the sequence!)
Also, I'd better start bringing in some big bucks - how else am I going to be able to afford to spoil all 16 of my brothers' and sister's kids?
I shall now have a celebratory chocolate milkshake in baby Bostyn's honor. She is a Baxter, after all.
(And I have a bottle of real Hershey's syrup. How providential!)
* By which I mean, she was nearly a week late - and this after her parents were told the initial due date was probably inaccurate and the baby would most likely arrive sometime in May. That kid really hunkered down!
June 05, 2011
Sibling Revelry
In which we shall see: bragging about incredible people, that I happen to be related to.
* * * * *
I've actually been thinking about this post for a while now, and it's a little bit tricky to know how to approach the topic. How does one go about saying "Hey, guess what? Those people that spent most of our respective early lives tormenting me grew up to be pretty amazing, all across the board!"?
Oh. I guess that's how.
(I suppose "tormenting me" is probably overstating a little. And, to be honest, I may have done a little tormenting myself. I don't really count the psychological conditioning as 'torment', as it's in everyone's best interest to do what I say, but my siblings might have the very small, odd, not-normal story of me occasionally picking on them. Maybe.)
Seriously, though, my siblings turned out to be fantastic people. Who knew? Here in the UK you get an even bigger "WHA?!?" response than in the States when you say you're one of six kids, but I do appreciate the fact that I've got plenty to brag about with each of them. My sister, for example, is fabulously organized and productively creative - everything she does not only IS good but also looks good, and she's always figuring out ways to sell her hobbies. I think I got her interested in jewelry design (or we got going about the same time, anyway) and she has completely outstripped me (it's a good thing). Her pieces are beautiful and trendy and so well done - we all love wearing anything she's made. She commits herself completely to whatever needs doing - her church callings happen 100%, she backs her husband and kids in everything they do; currently, she's becoming a total expert on Scouting as her oldest son (at 12 and-a-half) has decided to accomplish every. single. merit badge. (I won't even get started on how awesome all of her kids are.) She doesn't back down from her goals, and doesn't let other people's insecurities and hesitations slow her down (which I love). She KILLED in the family weight-loss competition (won!), and has maintained ever since... just last month she (and her husband) produced their third-annual Half-Marathon event, with double the number of participants from the year before (and they do it for fun and tradition, not for profit). Plus, she is an amazing friend and can always be counted on to help and serve whenever needed. AND she knows how to have fun! Can I be my sister when I grow up, please?
I have four brothers, and at some point each of my sisters-in-law has told me how lucky they are to have gotten a Baxter guy. It's true. They are all terrific husbands and fathers (the youngest brother is THISCLOSE to getting started on that 'fatherhood' thing. MINUTES away). They are all smart, hardworking, funny, musical, dedicated to their families and to the Gospel, and they all (obviously) have fantastic taste in women. (Well, one woman each - they'd all probably say no other women exist.) They all served missions - two learned Spanish, and the other two might also say that they served in foreign-language areas (California and England), and they're all Eagle Scouts. Three of the four play with the Army (National Guard) Band, and the other keeps all of our computers running and current (I don't know if you realize just how much money he saves all of us. And yes, he takes outside-the-family jobs, too, if you're looking for a computer guy!). They are educated, positive, forward-thinking men who work to better not only their families' lives, but also to better their neighborhoods and communities. They have smart, funny, happy children who know that no matter their challenges (and there are challenges, too) they can always count on their dad. There's an engineer, corporate head of I.T., accountant, and phone rep (who just got promoted to his own store and has totally hooked up the family) - we've got all the necessaries covered - as well as a family band (they may not play together often, but they will for Mom!). And play they do - nobody plays harder than my brothers. We get a little competitive, but it's definitely in good fun. These are good men...
... and I've got embarrassing stories about each of them. Heh. Hehehehhhhhh.
Recently, it's been coming back to me over and over - I'm very lucky to belong to this particular group of people. I've said for most of my life that we are 'abnormally normal', and it's true - my parents and siblings are the best friends and neighbors you could ever have, the kind of people you want living next door and working for you and being your boss and teaching your kids. You want your kids to be friends with their kids. These are the people that you want to spend time with, because you know from the start that your life will be better for the association.
And let me assure you, there's no need to worry - I promise (as the picture shows) I'm the only one who bites.
* * * * *
I've actually been thinking about this post for a while now, and it's a little bit tricky to know how to approach the topic. How does one go about saying "Hey, guess what? Those people that spent most of our respective early lives tormenting me grew up to be pretty amazing, all across the board!"?
Oh. I guess that's how.
(I suppose "tormenting me" is probably overstating a little. And, to be honest, I may have done a little tormenting myself. I don't really count the psychological conditioning as 'torment', as it's in everyone's best interest to do what I say, but my siblings might have the very small, odd, not-normal story of me occasionally picking on them. Maybe.)
 |
| I made her a 'cartoon doll' ages ago. It really does look just like her. |
Seriously, though, my siblings turned out to be fantastic people. Who knew? Here in the UK you get an even bigger "WHA?!?" response than in the States when you say you're one of six kids, but I do appreciate the fact that I've got plenty to brag about with each of them. My sister, for example, is fabulously organized and productively creative - everything she does not only IS good but also looks good, and she's always figuring out ways to sell her hobbies. I think I got her interested in jewelry design (or we got going about the same time, anyway) and she has completely outstripped me (it's a good thing). Her pieces are beautiful and trendy and so well done - we all love wearing anything she's made. She commits herself completely to whatever needs doing - her church callings happen 100%, she backs her husband and kids in everything they do; currently, she's becoming a total expert on Scouting as her oldest son (at 12 and-a-half) has decided to accomplish every. single. merit badge. (I won't even get started on how awesome all of her kids are.) She doesn't back down from her goals, and doesn't let other people's insecurities and hesitations slow her down (which I love). She KILLED in the family weight-loss competition (won!), and has maintained ever since... just last month she (and her husband) produced their third-annual Half-Marathon event, with double the number of participants from the year before (and they do it for fun and tradition, not for profit). Plus, she is an amazing friend and can always be counted on to help and serve whenever needed. AND she knows how to have fun! Can I be my sister when I grow up, please?
I have four brothers, and at some point each of my sisters-in-law has told me how lucky they are to have gotten a Baxter guy. It's true. They are all terrific husbands and fathers (the youngest brother is THISCLOSE to getting started on that 'fatherhood' thing. MINUTES away). They are all smart, hardworking, funny, musical, dedicated to their families and to the Gospel, and they all (obviously) have fantastic taste in women. (Well, one woman each - they'd all probably say no other women exist.) They all served missions - two learned Spanish, and the other two might also say that they served in foreign-language areas (California and England), and they're all Eagle Scouts. Three of the four play with the Army (National Guard) Band, and the other keeps all of our computers running and current (I don't know if you realize just how much money he saves all of us. And yes, he takes outside-the-family jobs, too, if you're looking for a computer guy!). They are educated, positive, forward-thinking men who work to better not only their families' lives, but also to better their neighborhoods and communities. They have smart, funny, happy children who know that no matter their challenges (and there are challenges, too) they can always count on their dad. There's an engineer, corporate head of I.T., accountant, and phone rep (who just got promoted to his own store and has totally hooked up the family) - we've got all the necessaries covered - as well as a family band (they may not play together often, but they will for Mom!). And play they do - nobody plays harder than my brothers. We get a little competitive, but it's definitely in good fun. These are good men...
... and I've got embarrassing stories about each of them. Heh. Hehehehhhhhh.
 |
| That's right, Mom and Dad - you're responsible for all this. (Good job.) |
And let me assure you, there's no need to worry - I promise (as the picture shows) I'm the only one who bites.
June 04, 2011
Stuff
I'm not sure how much more evidence I can take.
I just saw a funny, beautifully acted, incredibly well-crafted show that had been devised by marvelously talented, creative performers, and... nothing. I just didn't get it. I got the jokes, appreciated the clever twists, marveled at the ingenious staging, and I have no idea why they were doing what they were doing. I understood the basic story. I can't see why they produced it the way they did. I can't get my head around even possible interpretations for some of the movement patterns and music. Other people on my course saw the same show and loved it ("best bit of theatre I've seen in London!" "worth every penny!" etc...) but I didn't. I enjoyed it. Because I could make no real sense out of it, however, I did not love it.
I still have no desire to make experimental theatre, and it looks like that's not changing anytime soon.
* * * * *
This week, it's 6:40. No joke.
* * * * *
Walking down the street just now, I saw a well-dressed middle-aged Asian man coming up the (ugh, fine!) footpath with his coral-orange Polo shirt pulled out of his slacks and folded up around his pecs so that his stomach was bare. Just strolling up the street in dress shoes in Hampstead (not Soho!) sunning his midsection. People are so weird.
* * * * *
I AM excited about charting out a way to do Sophocles' Antigone with only three actors (since that's all the Greeks would have used, plus the Chorus). Apparently, when I say I'm more interested in 'traditional' theatre, I mean HARDCORE 'tradtional' theatre.
* * * * *
I'm going to go build a website, apply for another MA program, prepare to teach a new song to the Primary, give myself a pedicure, and (soonishly) watch Doctor Who. Yep, it's Saturday!
 |
| Seriously, though, the Angel Gabriel with the accordion was my favorite. |
I still have no desire to make experimental theatre, and it looks like that's not changing anytime soon.
* * * * *
This week, it's 6:40. No joke.
* * * * *
Walking down the street just now, I saw a well-dressed middle-aged Asian man coming up the (ugh, fine!) footpath with his coral-orange Polo shirt pulled out of his slacks and folded up around his pecs so that his stomach was bare. Just strolling up the street in dress shoes in Hampstead (not Soho!) sunning his midsection. People are so weird.
* * * * *
I AM excited about charting out a way to do Sophocles' Antigone with only three actors (since that's all the Greeks would have used, plus the Chorus). Apparently, when I say I'm more interested in 'traditional' theatre, I mean HARDCORE 'tradtional' theatre.
* * * * *
 |
| I, too, am looking for sense in the BBC's programming. No luck. |
June 03, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)