It's time to take a breather.
Totally not your fault - I just need some time and space to figure things out... y'know, like formatting and content and what I actually want to say.
It's been a fun few years, blogging, but I think I'd better take myself 'off the market' for a while. Just to see. I might be back - probably will be. I'll let you know.
In the meantime, I'll leave my stuff and keep posting videos and other things that I want to keep track of... We're absolutely still friends, and you can come browse my e-bookshelf anytime. I'll also be trying a little harder to be consistent with my 'update' emails to friends and family - let me know if you want in on that list!
It's been great, really.
And there are plenty more blogs in the sea!
Watch out for falling turtles,
Cyd
*
April 23, 2012
April 18, 2012
Happy Birthday
It's someone's birthday... and this is an unashamed fangirly tribute to that someone.
 |
| Would you trust this man to lead you through time and space? Oh, ME TOO. |
 |
| Doctor Who specs in a library YES PLZ |
 |
| Hamlet played by David Tenannt and Yorik played by Tchaikowsky |
 |
| David Tennant, Doctor Who, and a kitten. And no, it's not MY birthday until January. |
 |
| I just... have no words. |
*
April 10, 2012
Puffy Face
In which we shall see: I get somewhat rant-y. And with good reason.
* * * * *
After a public spate of fairly vicious commentary about Ashley Judd's looks, particularly regarding the above photo, she posted a response - and it is fantastic. (Please, read the whole thing.)
When will we finally have had enough? When will we stop judging people for how they look RIGHT THIS MINUTE and start remembering who they actually ARE? We are damaging women, relationships, children, men, teenagers, our perception of ourselves, our view of the past and our view of the future, the very fabric of our society by our refusal to stop allowing the media to tell us what is attractive and what is not; to reject the overwhelmingly common belief that people are worth no more than what they look like. How is it that we continue to be so FOOLISH?
We must stop. We simply have to.
I've never thought much about Ashley Judd - I thought she was pretty, a good actress, interesting family, but that was about it. Now, after reading her letter, I respect and admire her so much - she's smart, clear-eyed, and responding in an articulate, appropriate, confident manner to a personal attack and serious issue. A friend and fellow blogger recently posted a very funny, satirical (or is she serious? You decide) write-up on our collective tendency towards jealousy, and I'm starting to see that she has a point. Is there any reason for malicious gossip and irresponsible 'journalism' other than jealousy? I don't think so - it's not like calling out someone's age or a perceived 'flaw' is in any way news.
It's interesting how often lately I've heard people reminding me that we must not judge others, and all the thinking I've been doing about the importance of not making assumptions. How can anyone look at the picture above and not see a beautiful woman? And if she looks different than she did a month (or a decade) ago, why doesn't anyone ask if there's a reason? (Have any of us NOT seen that illness can change a person's appearance?) And why isn't it OK/normal/accepted/appreciated that we change as we get older? The gleeful disregard for facts, healthy discussion, and common courtesy tells me that yes, these commenters and interviewers and 'reporters' are jealous - jealous, and invested in the false trope that we have allowed the media (and each other) to impose on our world that 'image is everything.'
IT'S NOT TRUE. We are all worth so much more than what we look like. Ashley Judd's measured response proves to me, for example, that she is much, much, more than just a pretty (puffy) face - and she shouldn't have needed to write about it for anyone to believe it.
"The insanity has to stop, because as focused on me as it appears to have been, it is about all girls and women. In fact, it’s about boys and men, too, who are equally objectified and ridiculed, according to heteronormative definitions of masculinity that deny the full and dynamic range of their personhood. It affects each and every one of us, in multiple and nefarious ways: our self-image, how we show up in our relationships and at work, our sense of our worth, value, and potential as human beings. Join in—and help change—the Conversation." - Ashley Judd (If you haven't, read the article.)
*
* * * * *
After a public spate of fairly vicious commentary about Ashley Judd's looks, particularly regarding the above photo, she posted a response - and it is fantastic. (Please, read the whole thing.)
When will we finally have had enough? When will we stop judging people for how they look RIGHT THIS MINUTE and start remembering who they actually ARE? We are damaging women, relationships, children, men, teenagers, our perception of ourselves, our view of the past and our view of the future, the very fabric of our society by our refusal to stop allowing the media to tell us what is attractive and what is not; to reject the overwhelmingly common belief that people are worth no more than what they look like. How is it that we continue to be so FOOLISH?
We must stop. We simply have to.
I've never thought much about Ashley Judd - I thought she was pretty, a good actress, interesting family, but that was about it. Now, after reading her letter, I respect and admire her so much - she's smart, clear-eyed, and responding in an articulate, appropriate, confident manner to a personal attack and serious issue. A friend and fellow blogger recently posted a very funny, satirical (or is she serious? You decide) write-up on our collective tendency towards jealousy, and I'm starting to see that she has a point. Is there any reason for malicious gossip and irresponsible 'journalism' other than jealousy? I don't think so - it's not like calling out someone's age or a perceived 'flaw' is in any way news.
It's interesting how often lately I've heard people reminding me that we must not judge others, and all the thinking I've been doing about the importance of not making assumptions. How can anyone look at the picture above and not see a beautiful woman? And if she looks different than she did a month (or a decade) ago, why doesn't anyone ask if there's a reason? (Have any of us NOT seen that illness can change a person's appearance?) And why isn't it OK/normal/accepted/appreciated that we change as we get older? The gleeful disregard for facts, healthy discussion, and common courtesy tells me that yes, these commenters and interviewers and 'reporters' are jealous - jealous, and invested in the false trope that we have allowed the media (and each other) to impose on our world that 'image is everything.'
IT'S NOT TRUE. We are all worth so much more than what we look like. Ashley Judd's measured response proves to me, for example, that she is much, much, more than just a pretty (puffy) face - and she shouldn't have needed to write about it for anyone to believe it.
"The insanity has to stop, because as focused on me as it appears to have been, it is about all girls and women. In fact, it’s about boys and men, too, who are equally objectified and ridiculed, according to heteronormative definitions of masculinity that deny the full and dynamic range of their personhood. It affects each and every one of us, in multiple and nefarious ways: our self-image, how we show up in our relationships and at work, our sense of our worth, value, and potential as human beings. Join in—and help change—the Conversation." - Ashley Judd (If you haven't, read the article.)
*
April 07, 2012
Things I've Learned About Exercise
1 - A high school reunion is an excellent motivator.
2 - Oddly, Lady Antebellum has a better walking/running rhythm than Daughtry.
Glee is good for interval training, though.
3 - The sillier you look doing a particular muscle group sequence, the more effective it is.
I hope.
4 - Lunges will never be fun, or even bearable for more than a few steps. (My lower back and pelvic tilt testify to this one loudly.)
5 - Alternating side squats work fairly well as a replacement for lunges, and fortunately they look even sillier.
6 - Other joggers will look at you, smile, exchange a greeting; people who are 'exercising' by walking their dog refuse to make eye contact on the off-chance that 'running' is as contagious as 'the plague'.
7 - My body has decided that exercise is a good thing. (Traitor.) My brain still disagrees, but goes along with my body grudgingly.
8 - Not much is worse than discovering you've forgotten your keys and locked yourself out of the house with no phone, no wallet, no open windows, and no access to your largely (and currently) absent housemate. Not much is better than realizing the keys were in your jacket pocket the whole time and were, in fact, the thing that was banging against your leg earlier when you were running.
* * * * *
Got any tips, additional lessons learned, or playlist recommendations?
*
2 - Oddly, Lady Antebellum has a better walking/running rhythm than Daughtry.
Glee is good for interval training, though.
3 - The sillier you look doing a particular muscle group sequence, the more effective it is.
I hope.
4 - Lunges will never be fun, or even bearable for more than a few steps. (My lower back and pelvic tilt testify to this one loudly.)
5 - Alternating side squats work fairly well as a replacement for lunges, and fortunately they look even sillier.
6 - Other joggers will look at you, smile, exchange a greeting; people who are 'exercising' by walking their dog refuse to make eye contact on the off-chance that 'running' is as contagious as 'the plague'.
7 - My body has decided that exercise is a good thing. (Traitor.) My brain still disagrees, but goes along with my body grudgingly.
8 - Not much is worse than discovering you've forgotten your keys and locked yourself out of the house with no phone, no wallet, no open windows, and no access to your largely (and currently) absent housemate. Not much is better than realizing the keys were in your jacket pocket the whole time and were, in fact, the thing that was banging against your leg earlier when you were running.
* * * * *
Got any tips, additional lessons learned, or playlist recommendations?
*
April 06, 2012
New and Old
I got a haircut this week (I know: 'What hair?!?' you're saying. 'She has NO HAIR to cut!') but I don't have any pictures - just trust me when I say it's now more 80's punk than PTA Mom, which is a huge relief. (Also, no matter how much - or little - hair I have, it always amazes me how much is on the floor at the end of the appointment. I think my hair may be coming in thicker now since it was all cut off. No complaints.)
What I do have pictures of is spring in the UK, which in Canterbury and London looks something like this (these are from the London Temple grounds):
The weather was gorgeous (if a little chilly) for Conference weekend, and since I was staying at the Temple accommodations I was able to go out and walk in the sunshine between sessions. It was the perfect cap to a fantastic Conference! (If you're not sure what I'm talking about - 'LDS General Conference' - or you missed a session or want to find that talk everyone's raving about, check it out here.)
Monday morning I headed in to London to get that haircut (LOVE!); and then to kill time until the show I was seeing that evening headed over to the British Museum. I'll be back. The place was mobbed with both school groups and half-term vacationers - this place is so cool that students come even when it's NOT a field trip.
I definitely plan to spend more time at the British Museum (and in the British Museum gift shops - I could bring home my own Rosetta Stone!!!). Still so much to see! London, you and I are friends again!
*
What I do have pictures of is spring in the UK, which in Canterbury and London looks something like this (these are from the London Temple grounds):
 |
| You can see even more beds of white and yellow daffodils in the background... |
There are beds of daffodils EVERYWHERE. In parks, along streets, growing right up to Roman walls... it seems like once they've bloomed, the plants are just mowed down and incorporated into the lawns, and the bulbs reproduce or something to create even more flowers next year. It's pretty amazing, actually.
 |
| Ev. Ry. Where. |
The weather was gorgeous (if a little chilly) for Conference weekend, and since I was staying at the Temple accommodations I was able to go out and walk in the sunshine between sessions. It was the perfect cap to a fantastic Conference! (If you're not sure what I'm talking about - 'LDS General Conference' - or you missed a session or want to find that talk everyone's raving about, check it out here.)
Monday morning I headed in to London to get that haircut (LOVE!); and then to kill time until the show I was seeing that evening headed over to the British Museum. I'll be back. The place was mobbed with both school groups and half-term vacationers - this place is so cool that students come even when it's NOT a field trip.
 |
| Imposing. Impressive. The British know how to do 'Epic' correctly. |
 |
| First stop - the Assyrians. I'm a sucker for winged, human-headed hatted-and-bearded beasties. (Didn't you know?) |
 |
| I actually took this picture for my neice - she's got a thing for horses and apparently, so did the ancient Assyrians. The detail is just gorgeous. |
 |
| Okay, so I sort of did get a picture of my new haircut - but I didn't MEAN for it to look like I was also wearing a stone turban. That was just lucky. |
 |
| I really wanted to round up four strangers to see if I could get them to imitate the poses... |
 |
| Awww... an ancient Egyptian valentine. Sweet. |
 |
| This is the fake Rosetta Stone, the one you can (as the sign below it encourages) touch. The real one is sealed behind glass and a mob of tourists. I'm actually nerdy enough to be a little star-struck that I was in the same building as the Rosetta Stone. Yep. |
 |
| Someday this shot will look exactly like a corner of MY library. I FEEL IT. |
 |
| The inner court is pretty amazing - under the curving glass ceiling near the entrance there's an installation of 49 steel cubes covered with Islamic prayers. |
 |
| I hear you, Lord Alfred. Preach. |
 |
| They've put the Canadian totem poles in one corner near the food court. As you do. |
 |
| Seriously. Just amazing. |
 |
| Also amazing? The banoffee gelato sundae I had at Rendezvous in Leceister Square before heading to the Royal Haymarket Theatre to see 'One Man, Two Guvnors'. (Notes: 'Banoffee' = bananas and toffee, normally on a cookie-crumb - biscuit - crust and with a cream filling. Oh, yeah. Also, how much do you love that there was actually a 'Royal' haymarket?) |
I definitely plan to spend more time at the British Museum (and in the British Museum gift shops - I could bring home my own Rosetta Stone!!!). Still so much to see! London, you and I are friends again!
*
April 03, 2012
The Hunger Games is Watching YOU
In which we shall see: First, a movie review. Second, some socio-political commentary (more on the socio, less on the political) with a healthy dose of self-flagellation. Seriously. (You never see a good flagellation these days.)
* * * * *
I'm not a huge fan of The Hunger Games trilogy - which is to say, I read and appreciated the books, but did not get particularly invested or Twilight-y about them. I think they've got some fascinating ideas and pertinent warnings, and that Suzanne Collins did an excellent job with the storytelling. They're also such a MASSIVE presence in the States that it was a bit of a surprise when the movie came out and I found that most of the people I know hadn't read and were even barely aware of the books, let alone the movie. (Most of my friends, to be realistic, probably fall into that 'between' zone that comes in the middle of 'teens'/'YA target audience' and 'older readers who've rediscovered/jumped on the YA bandwagon'.) After all the buzz and the generally good reviews that came with the opening weekend of the film, I decided to check it out. I wasn't really sure what to expect, as the books had been plenty disturbing on their own.* I headed over to a matinee with a friend who'd heard of but not read the books, and who asked (in his customary way) if I would 'sum up (the backstory) in a Tweet'. Surprisingly, I found that I could. This is one series that you don't need to have much context for (dystopian, autocratic government, yearly subjugation of population with fight-to-the-death reality TV) in order to follow along.
And I thought it was an excellent movie. (Although I thoroughly enjoyed this contrary review by someone who's opinion - and writing skills - I very much respect.) I liked the look of the majority of the movie, I thought several of the performances were excellent (although, Gale? Oh, dear. I hope Liam Hemsworth got at least some of the same acting genes and not just the 'bulk' genes that his brother got... fingers are crossed for the next movie). Even the shaky-cam didn't bother me after the first few minutes - I think I may have been desensitized by the Bourne films. Yes, it felt very true to the book, but in a way that acknowleged skillfully that a good movie adaptation is going to have to move and squeeze and cut some things in order to get the highly detailed world of the book onto the less-detailed (odd as that may sound) world on the big screen. No, it wasn't art, but there were some beautiful, effective shots; in part I think I appreciated the experience more because it was better than your typical summer popcorn flick. (I also think the music is pretty great.)
No, I didn't 'like' the movie, I wouldn't say I 'enjoyed' it - I was far too aware of the actual nature of the action and themes and content to enjoy it, and I am glad that I was engrossed in the experience without forgetting to be disturbed by it. I'm also glad that the movie wasn't more graphic - I read the books, after all, and I'm much 'happier' (if that's the right word) with my mental perception of the killings than I would be with seeing them acted out. Again, I was plenty disturbed already. Any more, and I would have shut off from all of it completely. I like that it wasn't glossy enough to lump me with the Romans cheering for the gladiators, and not 'gritty' or realistic enough to try to convince me it was reality TV or a documentary. For me, the balance was good, and I appreciated that.
However...
* * * * *
You ever have one of those moments when you realize you've been completely, stupidly naive? The older I get, the more they seem to happen - which in a way is a good thing, because it means you're really THINKING about things. I was shocked to hear, in a few different articles, about people who have been Tweeting their disappointment over the casting for a few of the parts in The Hunger Games; specifically, using black actors for the parts of Rue, Thresh, and Cinna. Bottom line, of course, is that these Tweeters are stupid. They're not complaining about lack of talent, they're complaining about skin color - and a few of them go on to sniffily try to justify their complaints by wondering if the movie production team actually read the book. The book, The Hunger Games, in which Rue and Thresh are described BY THE AUTHOR as having 'dark brown skin.' (Cinna, incidentally, is not given a biological - racial? Skin-based? description, so anyone complaining about the movie casting messing with the book is, again, just plain stupid.)
A few weeks ago I had a conversation with a friend of mine about an interview with Morgan Freeman that was making the rounds in which he says the key to ending racism is to 'stop talking about it'.** I agreed with him, and told my friend that I didn't think racism was such a problem anymore because the younger generation had grown up knowing better - or at least not knowing that it was an issue; that it WASN'T an issue because kids today didn't know to talk about it as if it were something that needed to be solved. People are people now, I argued - skin color is just a fact and not a point of concern. She disagreed with me. I was surprised then, but I'm not now. Now, I'm horrified and appalled and more than a little disgusted with those who think the movie was 'ruined' because the 'producer[s made] all the good characters black.'
First, I'm honestly disgusted that people would feel this way, regardless of how the characters were described in the book. (None of the Tweeters seem to be upset that blue-eyed English rose Jennifer Lawrence, described in the book with straight black hair and olive skin, which generally brings to mind Hispanic, Mediterranean, or Native American genotypes, was cast as Katniss - I'm not particularly upset, as I think she did a fine job with the part.) I don't understand how anyone can think that skin color affects talent or story-telling ability, I really don't. (In fact, I thought the main scene with Rue was the most emotionally effective - I cried - in the entire film. That little girl was fantastic.) Really, movie or book or job or guy sitting next to you on the bus - I don't understand how people can feel this way. I've understood that racism has to be taught; I'm shocked, but have to acknowledge that somehow, people are still teaching it. How is this possible?!?
Second, I am truly mystified as to WHY anyone who does have that particular belief would blog, Tweet, or publicly talk about it. I understand and accept that people are entitled to their own beliefs, repugnant as they may be to the general population, but you have to be a complete moron to express a bigoted perception in the Internet age and not know that others are going to pick it up, pass it on, and flail you alive. How can you NOT know that you are being racist, a bigot? And if you do know, why would you SAY it?!? I just don't get it. Seriously. You are as foolish and self-deceptive as those in Suzanne Collins' books who watch The Hunger Games for fun and entertainment. Of course the world is watching you. That is what the Internet IS.
So - I recommend the movie. I recommend the books. I'm going to go read them again, and think a little harder about what we don't want the world to turn out to be. I don't know what the answer is, the way to stop people teaching others to be racist - but at least now I'm more aware, now I will think about what I can do (since I've become a little less naive) - like blog, maybe - to try to make sure the world doesn't get stupider. Not on my watch.
Falling turtles ahoy! Pay attention.
Cyd
* It really is a credit to an author to have written a series of books that are socially and politcally relevant, full of unlikeable and completely disturbing content, and still totally compelling. (The Twilight books, for example, are two out of three, AND Collins is a better writer. Sorry, Stephenie.)
** The link is essentially a summary of the interview - there are other, more complete, versions.
*
* * * * *
 |
| Picture from The Hollywood News |
I'm not a huge fan of The Hunger Games trilogy - which is to say, I read and appreciated the books, but did not get particularly invested or Twilight-y about them. I think they've got some fascinating ideas and pertinent warnings, and that Suzanne Collins did an excellent job with the storytelling. They're also such a MASSIVE presence in the States that it was a bit of a surprise when the movie came out and I found that most of the people I know hadn't read and were even barely aware of the books, let alone the movie. (Most of my friends, to be realistic, probably fall into that 'between' zone that comes in the middle of 'teens'/'YA target audience' and 'older readers who've rediscovered/jumped on the YA bandwagon'.) After all the buzz and the generally good reviews that came with the opening weekend of the film, I decided to check it out. I wasn't really sure what to expect, as the books had been plenty disturbing on their own.* I headed over to a matinee with a friend who'd heard of but not read the books, and who asked (in his customary way) if I would 'sum up (the backstory) in a Tweet'. Surprisingly, I found that I could. This is one series that you don't need to have much context for (dystopian, autocratic government, yearly subjugation of population with fight-to-the-death reality TV) in order to follow along.
And I thought it was an excellent movie. (Although I thoroughly enjoyed this contrary review by someone who's opinion - and writing skills - I very much respect.) I liked the look of the majority of the movie, I thought several of the performances were excellent (although, Gale? Oh, dear. I hope Liam Hemsworth got at least some of the same acting genes and not just the 'bulk' genes that his brother got... fingers are crossed for the next movie). Even the shaky-cam didn't bother me after the first few minutes - I think I may have been desensitized by the Bourne films. Yes, it felt very true to the book, but in a way that acknowleged skillfully that a good movie adaptation is going to have to move and squeeze and cut some things in order to get the highly detailed world of the book onto the less-detailed (odd as that may sound) world on the big screen. No, it wasn't art, but there were some beautiful, effective shots; in part I think I appreciated the experience more because it was better than your typical summer popcorn flick. (I also think the music is pretty great.)
No, I didn't 'like' the movie, I wouldn't say I 'enjoyed' it - I was far too aware of the actual nature of the action and themes and content to enjoy it, and I am glad that I was engrossed in the experience without forgetting to be disturbed by it. I'm also glad that the movie wasn't more graphic - I read the books, after all, and I'm much 'happier' (if that's the right word) with my mental perception of the killings than I would be with seeing them acted out. Again, I was plenty disturbed already. Any more, and I would have shut off from all of it completely. I like that it wasn't glossy enough to lump me with the Romans cheering for the gladiators, and not 'gritty' or realistic enough to try to convince me it was reality TV or a documentary. For me, the balance was good, and I appreciated that.
However...
* * * * *
You ever have one of those moments when you realize you've been completely, stupidly naive? The older I get, the more they seem to happen - which in a way is a good thing, because it means you're really THINKING about things. I was shocked to hear, in a few different articles, about people who have been Tweeting their disappointment over the casting for a few of the parts in The Hunger Games; specifically, using black actors for the parts of Rue, Thresh, and Cinna. Bottom line, of course, is that these Tweeters are stupid. They're not complaining about lack of talent, they're complaining about skin color - and a few of them go on to sniffily try to justify their complaints by wondering if the movie production team actually read the book. The book, The Hunger Games, in which Rue and Thresh are described BY THE AUTHOR as having 'dark brown skin.' (Cinna, incidentally, is not given a biological - racial? Skin-based? description, so anyone complaining about the movie casting messing with the book is, again, just plain stupid.)
A few weeks ago I had a conversation with a friend of mine about an interview with Morgan Freeman that was making the rounds in which he says the key to ending racism is to 'stop talking about it'.** I agreed with him, and told my friend that I didn't think racism was such a problem anymore because the younger generation had grown up knowing better - or at least not knowing that it was an issue; that it WASN'T an issue because kids today didn't know to talk about it as if it were something that needed to be solved. People are people now, I argued - skin color is just a fact and not a point of concern. She disagreed with me. I was surprised then, but I'm not now. Now, I'm horrified and appalled and more than a little disgusted with those who think the movie was 'ruined' because the 'producer[s made] all the good characters black.'
First, I'm honestly disgusted that people would feel this way, regardless of how the characters were described in the book. (None of the Tweeters seem to be upset that blue-eyed English rose Jennifer Lawrence, described in the book with straight black hair and olive skin, which generally brings to mind Hispanic, Mediterranean, or Native American genotypes, was cast as Katniss - I'm not particularly upset, as I think she did a fine job with the part.) I don't understand how anyone can think that skin color affects talent or story-telling ability, I really don't. (In fact, I thought the main scene with Rue was the most emotionally effective - I cried - in the entire film. That little girl was fantastic.) Really, movie or book or job or guy sitting next to you on the bus - I don't understand how people can feel this way. I've understood that racism has to be taught; I'm shocked, but have to acknowledge that somehow, people are still teaching it. How is this possible?!?
 |
| A. Dor. A. Ble. |
So - I recommend the movie. I recommend the books. I'm going to go read them again, and think a little harder about what we don't want the world to turn out to be. I don't know what the answer is, the way to stop people teaching others to be racist - but at least now I'm more aware, now I will think about what I can do (since I've become a little less naive) - like blog, maybe - to try to make sure the world doesn't get stupider. Not on my watch.
Falling turtles ahoy! Pay attention.
Cyd
* It really is a credit to an author to have written a series of books that are socially and politcally relevant, full of unlikeable and completely disturbing content, and still totally compelling. (The Twilight books, for example, are two out of three, AND Collins is a better writer. Sorry, Stephenie.)
** The link is essentially a summary of the interview - there are other, more complete, versions.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)