I was going to start this post with a nice quote by Neil Gaiman, but I can't remember the quote and I am unsure where to start looking for it (Smoke & Mirrors, Fragile Things, or his weblog) and as I don't have a lot of time to write this, I will just dive in.
I think storytelling is one of the most important things we humans do. It is so fundamentally human (we probably started developing language and telling stories because we needed something to do by the fire at night, which was the beginning of culture) and so important (people have survived the most horrible conditions; war, concentration camps, being stranded in remote places, through storytelling) that I think most people could never do without. I tell a lot of stories, talking to people about things I have done or seen or heard, sharing pieces of information or news, or just recounting things that I am reading or have read. I don't think I could survive a day without telling at least one story, because even on those rare days that I talk to no other person I still have my cats to make up some story ("Soooo, you thought you were going to jump inside my bag and travel with me, didn't you? Well I'm sorry, but I'm not going out today, so you're going to have to find another way to have an adventure..." etc).
The thing is, with so much energy going into these stories, and a lot of my energy going into other people's stories (not only things friends tell me, but also the plays I'm reading for my Modern Theatre course and the book I'm translating for another course), and then some energy going into writing or thinking up things for classes, I don't have any energy left to write down my own stories. I tell stories, but I don't write them. Maybe it was good I had such a quiet period as a teenager, because I did write a lot then.
I now understand why some writers (e.g. the aforementioned Neil Gaiman) like to hide in some quiet cabin in the woods for a couple of months each year so they can write their novels. You need the quiet, you need to be able to gather all the little strands of the stories and thoughts whirling around in your head and make them into something consistent and beautiful, and you need to be able to put that down in words without being distracted by other things. You need to focus on just your own stories, and nobody else's. You need to be able to tell the story to your paper first, because if you've already told it to 5 other people, it will feel less original and unique and fresh when you finally get to write it down (btw, "writing manuals" don't agree on this, because some say it is good to share your story with as many people as possible to flesh it out... But I don't believe in writing manuals anyway). I had one of these "quiet" periods just before classes started again, and I started writing on a story, but then I became busy again and the thoughts flew away. Let's hope I'll have a really quiet summer holiday (strange thing to hope for).
On the other hand, I think I couldn't really write without having contact with other people. I need to hear about their stories or things that are going in the world, not only to remember myself what life is really like, what people are really like, what kinds of things are really happening, but also just for inspiration. The most random news item or comment or story can suddenly pull open a box full of literary wonders. Also, I'd just go plain nuts being on my own the whole time, with no one to talk (see?) to.
So there would have to be some happy middle between complete isolation and contact. I guess I could do with a little house in the garden, if I (we) ever have a big house, and a garden, and enough time on my hands.
Wednesday 29 February 2012
Tuesday 28 February 2012
The Zoo
Sunday I went to the zoo, together with my boyfriend. As I grew up in Emmen, which has the only zoo in the northern part of the Netherlands, I've been in zoos quite a lot. Whenever I go abroad, I also try to visit at least one zoo, and I've been to Berlin Zoo, Budapest Zoo, London Zoo, the Highland Wildlife Park near Aviemore, and La Barben zoo near Avignon in the past few years.
Now as I am a vegetarian, anti-fur, and anti-factory-farming, you might think that I am against zoos as well. A lot of people have difficulties with locking animals up in cages for "our amusement". This is one argument that I never fully understood, because these are often the same people that do have pets (and sometimes even dress them up) or watch those "funniest animals" shows on tv or whatever. If you're against using animals for our amusement, then don't do those things either. And as I have pets myself, and do not live under the illusion that they're here for any other reason than that I want them to be here, this argument isn't really valid.
But I did have some difficulties with zoos when I was a teenager and rebelling against everything. I mean, it is using animals for our purposes, right? Wouldn't it be better to just let them go free, into the wild? I did have to admit that there wasn't a lot of "the wild" left, and that we were mainly responsible for that, so that we may keep these animals to sort of "safeguard" them when they become extinct in the wild. And a lot of zoos do have ecological and exchange programmes to enhance their species and keep them healthy and stable. But still, those animals can't like being locked up very much, can they? Even if it is for the greater good of their species, the individual animal surely suffers? So I still wasn't sure.
But then I read Life of Pi by Yann Martel, which is all about animals and animal psychology. The protagonist's father has run a zoo in India for several years, and somewhere along the story he finds himself on a lifeboat together with a big tiger. I won't go into the details, but I will tell you there is a lot about zoo animals and animal psychology in the book. One of the things Martel argues is that zoo animals do not want to escape. They often can, but they just don't. Why leave a place where you're safe, comfortable, healthy, and a lot of food is offered to you, for a place that is dangerous and unknown? You can see the same thing in people; most of us don't really go out of our way to make our lives uncomfortable. Why go camping in Norway if for the same amount of money you can book a hotel in Turkey and spend your days lounging on the beach? And for the animal, who is still in the survival-mode we have long left behind, this is even more of an issue. Why go away from the place that has sustained you for so long? Added to that, do animals really have a concept of what it is to be "free"? For us, with our history of fighting against repression and Enlightenment, this is an important value, but for some aristocratic slaves or household workers of the past (the latter still sometimes exist in the same conditions today) it was less of an issue. They were not free, but they were taken care of. Being unfree but alive is often preferred above being free but dead.
I know there was a lot of controversy surrounding Life of Pi, and a lot of people didn't believe that animals really could escape but just don't (I think most people would be surprised how fast those little springboks would be out of there if you put a lion in their exhibit). I myself had some doubts. But then Bokito came along. For those of you who have missed this; Bokito is a gorilla living in the zoo in Rotterdam, who in 2007 jumped across the large ditch separating his enclosure and the public when he was enraged by a woman acting stupidly (I won't go into what she did, but really, some people just don't understand animals). There was a big shock; how could he have jumped that ditch? The zoo was supposed to be safe, right? So it must have been a really special circumstance that made him do it. Interestingly, no news programme went into the question; so he could have jumped that ditch all along? Why didn't he? I think a lot of people would be scared to go to the zoo again if they realised this. But as he was really enraged in this case, he thought the occassion warranted going into unknown country. And when nothing bad happened to him, and he had taught his subordinate woman a lesson, he went to investigate his new surroundings, not agressively, but just curious. This is when he was tranquilized, but we may well assume that he would have jumped back into his cage if he hadn't found any food and feeding time was approaching. Also, we shouldn't have been that surprised about Bokito, he had already climbed the 3 meter high wall surrounding his enclosure in Berlin in 2004, and on that occasion he was put back quietly.
So there probably is some truth in what Martel is saying; most (not all, of course, for some it is technically impossible, although you would be surprised to see what an animal (or human) will go through to stay alive) animals are able to escape their enclosures but decide to stay. You can also see this from for example Baghdad Zoo, where animals did escape when they were not provided with food anymore because of the American invasion. As long are conditions are good, they just stay put. And who can blame them, really?
So to get back where I started; no, I am not against animals in zoos. Provided that no animals are taken from the wild and put into captivity (but why would we need to do that, there's already a surplus of zoo animals as it is), they are taken care of properly, and are given the chance to exhibit some of their natural behaviour, of course. Although that latter condition is slightly ironic, as so many humans today do not exhibit any of the natural behaviour of our species. I think most animals aren't against being in a zoo either, if they were given the choice. They are healthier, have more offspring, and live longer than many of their wild counterparts.
Just like us humans, really.
Now as I am a vegetarian, anti-fur, and anti-factory-farming, you might think that I am against zoos as well. A lot of people have difficulties with locking animals up in cages for "our amusement". This is one argument that I never fully understood, because these are often the same people that do have pets (and sometimes even dress them up) or watch those "funniest animals" shows on tv or whatever. If you're against using animals for our amusement, then don't do those things either. And as I have pets myself, and do not live under the illusion that they're here for any other reason than that I want them to be here, this argument isn't really valid.
But I did have some difficulties with zoos when I was a teenager and rebelling against everything. I mean, it is using animals for our purposes, right? Wouldn't it be better to just let them go free, into the wild? I did have to admit that there wasn't a lot of "the wild" left, and that we were mainly responsible for that, so that we may keep these animals to sort of "safeguard" them when they become extinct in the wild. And a lot of zoos do have ecological and exchange programmes to enhance their species and keep them healthy and stable. But still, those animals can't like being locked up very much, can they? Even if it is for the greater good of their species, the individual animal surely suffers? So I still wasn't sure.
But then I read Life of Pi by Yann Martel, which is all about animals and animal psychology. The protagonist's father has run a zoo in India for several years, and somewhere along the story he finds himself on a lifeboat together with a big tiger. I won't go into the details, but I will tell you there is a lot about zoo animals and animal psychology in the book. One of the things Martel argues is that zoo animals do not want to escape. They often can, but they just don't. Why leave a place where you're safe, comfortable, healthy, and a lot of food is offered to you, for a place that is dangerous and unknown? You can see the same thing in people; most of us don't really go out of our way to make our lives uncomfortable. Why go camping in Norway if for the same amount of money you can book a hotel in Turkey and spend your days lounging on the beach? And for the animal, who is still in the survival-mode we have long left behind, this is even more of an issue. Why go away from the place that has sustained you for so long? Added to that, do animals really have a concept of what it is to be "free"? For us, with our history of fighting against repression and Enlightenment, this is an important value, but for some aristocratic slaves or household workers of the past (the latter still sometimes exist in the same conditions today) it was less of an issue. They were not free, but they were taken care of. Being unfree but alive is often preferred above being free but dead.
I know there was a lot of controversy surrounding Life of Pi, and a lot of people didn't believe that animals really could escape but just don't (I think most people would be surprised how fast those little springboks would be out of there if you put a lion in their exhibit). I myself had some doubts. But then Bokito came along. For those of you who have missed this; Bokito is a gorilla living in the zoo in Rotterdam, who in 2007 jumped across the large ditch separating his enclosure and the public when he was enraged by a woman acting stupidly (I won't go into what she did, but really, some people just don't understand animals). There was a big shock; how could he have jumped that ditch? The zoo was supposed to be safe, right? So it must have been a really special circumstance that made him do it. Interestingly, no news programme went into the question; so he could have jumped that ditch all along? Why didn't he? I think a lot of people would be scared to go to the zoo again if they realised this. But as he was really enraged in this case, he thought the occassion warranted going into unknown country. And when nothing bad happened to him, and he had taught his subordinate woman a lesson, he went to investigate his new surroundings, not agressively, but just curious. This is when he was tranquilized, but we may well assume that he would have jumped back into his cage if he hadn't found any food and feeding time was approaching. Also, we shouldn't have been that surprised about Bokito, he had already climbed the 3 meter high wall surrounding his enclosure in Berlin in 2004, and on that occasion he was put back quietly.
So there probably is some truth in what Martel is saying; most (not all, of course, for some it is technically impossible, although you would be surprised to see what an animal (or human) will go through to stay alive) animals are able to escape their enclosures but decide to stay. You can also see this from for example Baghdad Zoo, where animals did escape when they were not provided with food anymore because of the American invasion. As long are conditions are good, they just stay put. And who can blame them, really?
So to get back where I started; no, I am not against animals in zoos. Provided that no animals are taken from the wild and put into captivity (but why would we need to do that, there's already a surplus of zoo animals as it is), they are taken care of properly, and are given the chance to exhibit some of their natural behaviour, of course. Although that latter condition is slightly ironic, as so many humans today do not exhibit any of the natural behaviour of our species. I think most animals aren't against being in a zoo either, if they were given the choice. They are healthier, have more offspring, and live longer than many of their wild counterparts.
Just like us humans, really.
Friday 24 February 2012
It's all relative
Now this may have gone straight over the head of any non-Dutch person reading this blog (and some Dutchmen as well), but for the past week, our country has been in the grips of an avalanche that hit Prince Friso, the brother of our crown prince, last Friday. He has been comatose since. Today, the news was brought out that he has severe brain damage and may never become conscious again. In the media, it is said that everybody's hearts go out to the Royal Family, that we are all thinking of them and supporting them in our minds. On the other hand, there are lots of people saying that there is too much attention being paid to this story (there were news updates every hour, in which they mainly said that the situation hadn't changed and that there was no news), and that people are being hypocrites because there are people dying every day, most notably in Syria, doing far more dangerous things than skiing, without receiving any attention at all.
Now today on a popular talk show, someone said that she was horrified by the second type of reaction. "Is it too much to ask to show some sympathy for another person? Have we become this cold-hearted that we just do not care about another man's suffering anymore?" she asked. As I was one of those who thought that this story was spread out way too thick, I was very surprised by this response. Of course, there must be some for whom it is very difficult to imagine what Friso's family is going through now, or who think "ah, he's rich, they'll put him in a nice hospital whereas I wouldn't get anything in the same situation". There may even be those who are secretly jealous of all the attention this comatose man is getting. But for me, the main problem with all this attention is that it is stuff I do not need to know, stuff I do not want to know, and quite frankly, stuff I am embarrassed to know. This is the personal affair of the patient, his family, and his doctors. Why do we need to see images on the news every day of his mother, our Queen, going to visit him? Why can't she do that in private? Why do we need to know exactly how much brain damage there is, and how big the chance is that he will remain a vegetable for the rest of his life? Why do we need to know which rehabilitation centre is most likely to "get him"? These are all things that do not concern us in the least, but are the private concerns of his immediate family.
So there, it is not that I have become that cold-hearted not to care anymore, on the contrary, I cannot even begin to comprehend how terrible this situation must be for his wife, mother, brothers, and children. But I do not need to know any more. He may be a Famous Person, he is still a person, and I think he has the right to suffer in silence.
Strangely enough, at the same time there was a big debate about a "reality" hospital tv series that had been filming people in the ER without asking for their permission (or having that permission asked by a person in a white coat, implying that it was a doctor. I mean, if you've just had an accident, and you're completely disoriented, and a doctor-like person asks you if you agree to something, you damn well will, or you'll be afraid they won't help you), which is a breach of privacy laws. The hospital was shocked by the bad publicity this has caused, and pulled the program, to the disappointment of the makers. Applause all around, see how "the public" has shown "the greedy voyeuristic programme makers" how it's done.
Now really, if we put those two things side by side, aren't we all being a bit hypocritical here? It's okay to show and tell every last bit of brain tissue damage on one person, but it's a big deal if on another channel you can see a man who has broken his leg while falling from the stairs flirting with one of the nurses? To me, it feels as if everybody is trying to be as politically correct about both events as they possibly can, sometimes going a bit too far in this. Really, it's all relative, and to me, the less I have to see, know, or hear about other people's private concerns, the better.
Now today on a popular talk show, someone said that she was horrified by the second type of reaction. "Is it too much to ask to show some sympathy for another person? Have we become this cold-hearted that we just do not care about another man's suffering anymore?" she asked. As I was one of those who thought that this story was spread out way too thick, I was very surprised by this response. Of course, there must be some for whom it is very difficult to imagine what Friso's family is going through now, or who think "ah, he's rich, they'll put him in a nice hospital whereas I wouldn't get anything in the same situation". There may even be those who are secretly jealous of all the attention this comatose man is getting. But for me, the main problem with all this attention is that it is stuff I do not need to know, stuff I do not want to know, and quite frankly, stuff I am embarrassed to know. This is the personal affair of the patient, his family, and his doctors. Why do we need to see images on the news every day of his mother, our Queen, going to visit him? Why can't she do that in private? Why do we need to know exactly how much brain damage there is, and how big the chance is that he will remain a vegetable for the rest of his life? Why do we need to know which rehabilitation centre is most likely to "get him"? These are all things that do not concern us in the least, but are the private concerns of his immediate family.
So there, it is not that I have become that cold-hearted not to care anymore, on the contrary, I cannot even begin to comprehend how terrible this situation must be for his wife, mother, brothers, and children. But I do not need to know any more. He may be a Famous Person, he is still a person, and I think he has the right to suffer in silence.
Strangely enough, at the same time there was a big debate about a "reality" hospital tv series that had been filming people in the ER without asking for their permission (or having that permission asked by a person in a white coat, implying that it was a doctor. I mean, if you've just had an accident, and you're completely disoriented, and a doctor-like person asks you if you agree to something, you damn well will, or you'll be afraid they won't help you), which is a breach of privacy laws. The hospital was shocked by the bad publicity this has caused, and pulled the program, to the disappointment of the makers. Applause all around, see how "the public" has shown "the greedy voyeuristic programme makers" how it's done.
Now really, if we put those two things side by side, aren't we all being a bit hypocritical here? It's okay to show and tell every last bit of brain tissue damage on one person, but it's a big deal if on another channel you can see a man who has broken his leg while falling from the stairs flirting with one of the nurses? To me, it feels as if everybody is trying to be as politically correct about both events as they possibly can, sometimes going a bit too far in this. Really, it's all relative, and to me, the less I have to see, know, or hear about other people's private concerns, the better.
Tuesday 21 February 2012
Hearts and Stripes
As announced, I have knitted another mobile-phone cover, and this time it was a blue one with a purple heart. I did some measuring and tinkering with the instructions, and arrived at exactly the right measurements for my phone (a HTC Desire Z, in case anyone is interested). Which was good. Unfortunately, due to my new design some small holes appeared in the thing, exactly at the point where it was the narrowest, and every time I put my phone inside it snagged and the small holes became bigger holes. This must be the reason they suggested you line it with another fabric. Hmmm.
It did not work.
So I decided to make a Third and Ultimate phone-cover-pouch-thing, this time dispensing with any hearts or girlyness, but just making a nice stripey one. I prefer stripes anyway, and there was no chance of pulling any holes in this one. So here we are then...
You can see how big the first one is by comparison, that would really never have worked with my phone. You can also see how much the second heart is still pulling in the middle, and how the third one has loose ends all over the place. Ah well, I didn't even sew one side together properly, but who cares, it's something I'm going to use, not something I (or anyone else) will put up on a pedestal to admire.
Anyway, in case anyone is interested in how I made the last one; cast on 15 stitches, then alternately knit and purl until you have 76 rows. If you want the stripy thing I did, change colour every 4 rows. Then you knit the first and last stitch of every knit-row together until you are left with 9 stitches (still purling another row after every knit row). End by casting off and sewing the sides together (with more patience than I did). Done!
I dispensed with ironing or pressing this time, because the curly sides go on the inside anyway, and although it makes sewing them together a bit more of a challenge, it is more of a hassle to get your ironing board out than to pay a little attention to what you're doing, I think. And then my final discovery of the day; after doing 3 of these, you get kinda fed up with them!
It did not work.
So I decided to make a Third and Ultimate phone-cover-pouch-thing, this time dispensing with any hearts or girlyness, but just making a nice stripey one. I prefer stripes anyway, and there was no chance of pulling any holes in this one. So here we are then...
 |
| Three little phone-cover piglets. |
Anyway, in case anyone is interested in how I made the last one; cast on 15 stitches, then alternately knit and purl until you have 76 rows. If you want the stripy thing I did, change colour every 4 rows. Then you knit the first and last stitch of every knit-row together until you are left with 9 stitches (still purling another row after every knit row). End by casting off and sewing the sides together (with more patience than I did). Done!
I dispensed with ironing or pressing this time, because the curly sides go on the inside anyway, and although it makes sewing them together a bit more of a challenge, it is more of a hassle to get your ironing board out than to pay a little attention to what you're doing, I think. And then my final discovery of the day; after doing 3 of these, you get kinda fed up with them!
Monday 20 February 2012
Digital World III
I have some more additions to my discussion of or search for the value of our digital world. Since I have started posting about this people have been coming up to me to talk about the subject, and I have been noticing things that are connected to it more, so it is likely that most of the things that I have heard or discussed concerning this topic would not have come out if I hadn't started writing about it. Which doesn't really matter, but it's interesting to think about.
Anyway, one of the things someone said to me was "it doesn't really matter, because it isn't going to last". Meaning that we still have the pyramids of the ancient Egyptians, and the Rosetta stone, and the ruins of Greek and Roman temples, and Beowulf, and that whatever we are producing online does not really count, because it will be lost anyway. It's just data, it isn't anything real you can touch or that can survive. So the things of our society that will last are the buildings and the images and the art we produce, probably, and most of the everyday items and websites and data that we use will be lost. I think this is a difficult one. Firstly, we now measure societies by what they have left behind, but that clearly isn't all they ever were, for everything that we still have hundreds or thousands of things were lost. So if from our time only Dan Brown's novels and some Bollywood movies survive, future generations will think that we were all constantly breaking out in song and dance, wearing colourful clothing, while everyone was suppressed by the Catholic church and murders happened everywhere, or something, and they would probably generate some sort of society or world-view around this that has nothing to do with what our society is really about (although I honestly have no idea what "our society is really about", but that goes for most societies, I'd say). So whatever it is that "will last" will never be the full picture, it will always be a selection, and probably a random selection. Some people are creating beautiful art on their computers, which is only ever seen digitally, while some of the art that is produced "in the real world" will survive but will not represent any craft or anything about our time (I'm sticking to art here because it is one of those things you think will survive, although we can never be sure). Is the one more real than the other? Has one more "right" to survive than the other, because it is more "real"? Also, things are getting more and more digitalised (downloading your music instead of buying a cd, or e-books), so they then won't "last" as "real" things, but I am not sure whether that makes them less real.
As you can see, I'm struggling with this one, because it touches upon what is "real", but also upon what will last, and those are two different things, I think. Also, it has to do with the representation and value of things, which is not something you can objectively assign. Difficult subject.
So there's that, and there's also the fact that digital things probably will last, because society is becoming more computerised with every day, and it won't be long before we will all be walking around with a chip in our arms or electronics in our brains to control our computer or connect to the Internet. This idea was brought forth by a geneticist who was giving an introduction to a book we are going to translate for a course (I have decided I won't spend too much time talking about my studies on this blog, so if you want to know more about this you'll have to ask me personally), and he was saying how he couldn't wait until he would have a brain implant that would let him connect to the Internet so that he didn't need his phone or his tablet or whatever external machinery anymore. He was dreaming of the day that he could just project images into his brain and didn't need his eyes anymore, so he could just close his eyes and watch a movie inside his head while cuddling up with his wife in bed. Now I think most of us in the class were genuinely appalled by this idea, but he really loved it. So in this vision of the future, we are all becoming part-robots, living in our own brains without using most of our external senses, but at the same time being connected to everyone else via the Internet (or whatever system will be in place by then). So in this scenario (and I don't know how realistic it is, to be honest, but let's stick to it), it doesn't matter anymore whether something is real or digital, because the digital things will all be inside our minds anyway, so they will be just as "real" as a table you can actually see or feel. Perhaps they would be even more real, because that table is something you don't experience anymore, because you live inside your head all the time.
To me, this is a really scary idea, not only because it makes me think of The Matrix-like situations in which computers can just take over, but also because to me, being human means interacting with other humans in a society that has some sort of cultural framework, which I do not see happening when we are all living inside our heads. This may be an out-dated idea of what it means to function as a human being, and the whole instant-gratification thing clearly appeals to some people, but to me it only brings to mind those fat floating people in Wall-E, and I don't want to end up like that. But on the other hand, it's not something you can stop. If "everyone is doing it", and you won't be able to get a job or insurance or even an identity anymore without having a brain implant, you won't be able to function in society anymore anyway. The only upside I can see to this is the more we start living in our own worlds, the less likely we will be to start conflicts or wars, because you literally wouldn't have to see what other people are doing.
Now I don't know how realistic the whole brain implant image is, and I am sure that (again) it will at first only influence the 10% in the west that have the money and connections and power, but it is something to keep in mind. If everything is going digital, even us, then what is "real"? What will "last" for future generations? Does it even matter anymore? Difficult questions.
I hope this will spark off some new discussions about the subject, because I feel like there is still a lot I haven't covered, but I also think I am getting a better overview and more to the point, if there even is a point.
Anyway, one of the things someone said to me was "it doesn't really matter, because it isn't going to last". Meaning that we still have the pyramids of the ancient Egyptians, and the Rosetta stone, and the ruins of Greek and Roman temples, and Beowulf, and that whatever we are producing online does not really count, because it will be lost anyway. It's just data, it isn't anything real you can touch or that can survive. So the things of our society that will last are the buildings and the images and the art we produce, probably, and most of the everyday items and websites and data that we use will be lost. I think this is a difficult one. Firstly, we now measure societies by what they have left behind, but that clearly isn't all they ever were, for everything that we still have hundreds or thousands of things were lost. So if from our time only Dan Brown's novels and some Bollywood movies survive, future generations will think that we were all constantly breaking out in song and dance, wearing colourful clothing, while everyone was suppressed by the Catholic church and murders happened everywhere, or something, and they would probably generate some sort of society or world-view around this that has nothing to do with what our society is really about (although I honestly have no idea what "our society is really about", but that goes for most societies, I'd say). So whatever it is that "will last" will never be the full picture, it will always be a selection, and probably a random selection. Some people are creating beautiful art on their computers, which is only ever seen digitally, while some of the art that is produced "in the real world" will survive but will not represent any craft or anything about our time (I'm sticking to art here because it is one of those things you think will survive, although we can never be sure). Is the one more real than the other? Has one more "right" to survive than the other, because it is more "real"? Also, things are getting more and more digitalised (downloading your music instead of buying a cd, or e-books), so they then won't "last" as "real" things, but I am not sure whether that makes them less real.
As you can see, I'm struggling with this one, because it touches upon what is "real", but also upon what will last, and those are two different things, I think. Also, it has to do with the representation and value of things, which is not something you can objectively assign. Difficult subject.
So there's that, and there's also the fact that digital things probably will last, because society is becoming more computerised with every day, and it won't be long before we will all be walking around with a chip in our arms or electronics in our brains to control our computer or connect to the Internet. This idea was brought forth by a geneticist who was giving an introduction to a book we are going to translate for a course (I have decided I won't spend too much time talking about my studies on this blog, so if you want to know more about this you'll have to ask me personally), and he was saying how he couldn't wait until he would have a brain implant that would let him connect to the Internet so that he didn't need his phone or his tablet or whatever external machinery anymore. He was dreaming of the day that he could just project images into his brain and didn't need his eyes anymore, so he could just close his eyes and watch a movie inside his head while cuddling up with his wife in bed. Now I think most of us in the class were genuinely appalled by this idea, but he really loved it. So in this vision of the future, we are all becoming part-robots, living in our own brains without using most of our external senses, but at the same time being connected to everyone else via the Internet (or whatever system will be in place by then). So in this scenario (and I don't know how realistic it is, to be honest, but let's stick to it), it doesn't matter anymore whether something is real or digital, because the digital things will all be inside our minds anyway, so they will be just as "real" as a table you can actually see or feel. Perhaps they would be even more real, because that table is something you don't experience anymore, because you live inside your head all the time.
To me, this is a really scary idea, not only because it makes me think of The Matrix-like situations in which computers can just take over, but also because to me, being human means interacting with other humans in a society that has some sort of cultural framework, which I do not see happening when we are all living inside our heads. This may be an out-dated idea of what it means to function as a human being, and the whole instant-gratification thing clearly appeals to some people, but to me it only brings to mind those fat floating people in Wall-E, and I don't want to end up like that. But on the other hand, it's not something you can stop. If "everyone is doing it", and you won't be able to get a job or insurance or even an identity anymore without having a brain implant, you won't be able to function in society anymore anyway. The only upside I can see to this is the more we start living in our own worlds, the less likely we will be to start conflicts or wars, because you literally wouldn't have to see what other people are doing.
Now I don't know how realistic the whole brain implant image is, and I am sure that (again) it will at first only influence the 10% in the west that have the money and connections and power, but it is something to keep in mind. If everything is going digital, even us, then what is "real"? What will "last" for future generations? Does it even matter anymore? Difficult questions.
I hope this will spark off some new discussions about the subject, because I feel like there is still a lot I haven't covered, but I also think I am getting a better overview and more to the point, if there even is a point.
Thursday 16 February 2012
Paintings
So in one of my first posts I mentioned that I occasionally paint, and I don't think I've ever said anything about that afterwards, apart from the fact that I am often unsure whether a painting is "done" or not. That is, as you will see, one of the main problems I have when painting.
But first, a short history.
My mother took a arts class when I was still very young, and I was very jealous of her, because she could draw an apple and it would look like a real apple, while mine would look like circles coloured in red and yellow with a brown line sticking out. I was never any good at drawing, but I did do it a lot, I even had my own comic book "series" (inspired on the Donald Duck magazine), which involved all the cats in the neighbourhood. This drawing-craze died out when I came into my teens, but when I went away for my studies I took my mother's (who had stopped doing anything years before) big box of painting-things with me and started doing watercolours, mainly because they're cheap (once you have the paint) and easy and it dries fast. I mostly made some fantastical children's-book-illustration-like images, some of which I quite like. I was really never any good, though, and soon I didn't have the time/energy/inspiration anymore (see The Creative Side), so I quit.
And then about a year ago my mother started taking art classes again, and she has become really good. I mean really good. She knows composition, and colours, and she paints a painting that would take you and me days in about 4 hours and then sits back and enjoys it. At first she also did some watercolours, but she quickly moved on to acrylics and oil paint. She does figurative things, and abstract, and blends, and everything! So every time I got home there would be another painting to see and like and discuss, and I got more and more restless again. I wanted to paint too! And in acrylics!
So I bought a lot of paint and some brushes and some cheap canvasses (it always starts with spending loads of money) and started to paint. Now I have always been very figurative in my paintings, I cannot do abstract and much as I love them, I could never do impressionistic paintings because they require you to paint something up close that does not really make sense until you are 3 meters away from it, and I need to see what I am doing. So I painted things. My first paintings were really childlike, looking like neatly coloured-in images, and so far removed from what I wanted it to be that I became frustrated and stopped doing it.
The first thing I painted you can see to the right (I am putting up quite bad quality photos from weird angles, with flash marks and bits of background showing on purpose, because I have seen stuff stolen on the Internet just a bit too many times. I could scan them and give you a high quality nice image, but I'm not gonna). It is not very happy, clearly, but it kinda looks like I wanted. But it isn't finished. I know it isn't because something is missing, and I think that something is colour, but I'm not sure, it may also be the fact that the statue seems to be floating and the bushes in the background look unrealistic, but I don't know how to fix that. I am really happy with the statue though, and with the tree, so that is good, although I am unsure whether I will ever finish this one. I would need some good advice or tips on how to do that without destroying the things I already have and am proud of, so I may write this off as my first "real acrylics" painting.
And then this morning I painted something else. I wanted to do something colourful, if only to contrast with the sad dreary painting, and something simple with a bird and a tree (birds and trees are my thing, don't ask me why). I painted this in about half an hour, which seems oddly short but felt quite right. The problem is, I don't know if it's finished. As you can see, I didn't paint the tree, which was going to be on the left, running out of frame, and I am not sure whether it needs the tree. I was going to add some blue or purple colour in the bottom, but I'm not sure whether it needs that either. I am really happy with what I have, the bird looks like it is falling over at first, but when you look at it longer you realise it isn't, and the background came out just like I wanted it. But is it finished? I don't know! With the first one I'm sure it isn't finished but I don't know what to add, while with this one I do know what I want to add, but I don't know whether I need to!
But if any of you have any good ideas or tips please please leave them in the comments. You don't have to do art or know about art, because neither do I, and really, I could use all the help I need!
But first, a short history.
My mother took a arts class when I was still very young, and I was very jealous of her, because she could draw an apple and it would look like a real apple, while mine would look like circles coloured in red and yellow with a brown line sticking out. I was never any good at drawing, but I did do it a lot, I even had my own comic book "series" (inspired on the Donald Duck magazine), which involved all the cats in the neighbourhood. This drawing-craze died out when I came into my teens, but when I went away for my studies I took my mother's (who had stopped doing anything years before) big box of painting-things with me and started doing watercolours, mainly because they're cheap (once you have the paint) and easy and it dries fast. I mostly made some fantastical children's-book-illustration-like images, some of which I quite like. I was really never any good, though, and soon I didn't have the time/energy/inspiration anymore (see The Creative Side), so I quit.
And then about a year ago my mother started taking art classes again, and she has become really good. I mean really good. She knows composition, and colours, and she paints a painting that would take you and me days in about 4 hours and then sits back and enjoys it. At first she also did some watercolours, but she quickly moved on to acrylics and oil paint. She does figurative things, and abstract, and blends, and everything! So every time I got home there would be another painting to see and like and discuss, and I got more and more restless again. I wanted to paint too! And in acrylics!
So I bought a lot of paint and some brushes and some cheap canvasses (it always starts with spending loads of money) and started to paint. Now I have always been very figurative in my paintings, I cannot do abstract and much as I love them, I could never do impressionistic paintings because they require you to paint something up close that does not really make sense until you are 3 meters away from it, and I need to see what I am doing. So I painted things. My first paintings were really childlike, looking like neatly coloured-in images, and so far removed from what I wanted it to be that I became frustrated and stopped doing it.
But then one day I was looking at one of the arty cards I got, and I realised I had been doing it all wrong. You see, in watercolours, if you don't want the colours to run into each other, you have to wait for the first layer to dry before you add the second, and you can have colours run into each other, but you can't really mix them, because then you end up with a big brown-greyish mash. But in acrylics, you don't wait for the bottom colours to dry, because then you get those bordered-off areas that seem to float on top of each other but do not relate to each other. You paint the first colour, let it dry a bit, and then you paint the second colour, and it's no problem if they mix a bit, because they will keep their colours or become a nice blend, but they won't turn all greyish. And then I got a big load of very nice small brushes for the Postcrossing-Sinterklaas thing I did, so I could paint smaller things, and then I started painting again.
The first thing I painted you can see to the right (I am putting up quite bad quality photos from weird angles, with flash marks and bits of background showing on purpose, because I have seen stuff stolen on the Internet just a bit too many times. I could scan them and give you a high quality nice image, but I'm not gonna). It is not very happy, clearly, but it kinda looks like I wanted. But it isn't finished. I know it isn't because something is missing, and I think that something is colour, but I'm not sure, it may also be the fact that the statue seems to be floating and the bushes in the background look unrealistic, but I don't know how to fix that. I am really happy with the statue though, and with the tree, so that is good, although I am unsure whether I will ever finish this one. I would need some good advice or tips on how to do that without destroying the things I already have and am proud of, so I may write this off as my first "real acrylics" painting.
And then this morning I painted something else. I wanted to do something colourful, if only to contrast with the sad dreary painting, and something simple with a bird and a tree (birds and trees are my thing, don't ask me why). I painted this in about half an hour, which seems oddly short but felt quite right. The problem is, I don't know if it's finished. As you can see, I didn't paint the tree, which was going to be on the left, running out of frame, and I am not sure whether it needs the tree. I was going to add some blue or purple colour in the bottom, but I'm not sure whether it needs that either. I am really happy with what I have, the bird looks like it is falling over at first, but when you look at it longer you realise it isn't, and the background came out just like I wanted it. But is it finished? I don't know! With the first one I'm sure it isn't finished but I don't know what to add, while with this one I do know what I want to add, but I don't know whether I need to!
Argh, the frustration!
Now I have ruined paintings in the past by doing or adding too much to them (something my mum is also suffering from), so I am just going to leave this one for the time being. It is kinda funny, because my class got cancelled today and I have the whole day to paint, but now I will stop doing it after an hour. That's just the way it goes. Inspiration is a fickle thing.But if any of you have any good ideas or tips please please leave them in the comments. You don't have to do art or know about art, because neither do I, and really, I could use all the help I need!
Friends
For my birthday last year I got the wonderful new complete Friends dvd box, which has all the seasons and more importantly, extras. As I am one of the few people in this world (I know only one other who does this) who watches and likes audio commentary with movies or series, this must be the biggest benefit of the thing. So I have steadily been working my way through the seasons, going very slow (I'm at the middle of s03 now, and my birthday was in October) and realising that even though Friends has been on tv here for at least 10 years, there are still some episodes I have never seen. Amazing.
Now I know Friends is a generational thing, because most of the people in their late 30s and 40s that I talked to never watched it or never liked it, while most teens nowadays will hardly appreciate it, because it's not nearly as fast and dirty and disturbing as popular series today (True Blood, Glee, to name a few examples). So it's roughly people who are between 20 and 35 that like it and love it. Which is interesting, because they were between 10 and 25 when the series came out, and in the first season, most of the characters are 25 (this seriously troubled me, because most of them already have a job and a house and some sort of mature living situation, whereas most people I know at 25 are still adolescent students. Then again, it is (was?) still possible to just go to uni here in the Netherlands, whereas in the US, you need to have a big trust fund or give them your first-born to be allowed in), so they were watching people their same age or older. Slowly but steadily, the younger watchers are starting to reach the same age as the charcters, and when I started watching this dvd box, I actually was the same age as the characters were. The actors in question were naturally all at least 5 years older then the part they play, but we're talking the 90s here, so no problem there.
What you always do when watching friends is discuss who resembles which person you know in real life, something that already started in secondary school, when some friends thought I was a Monica, others that I was a Phoebe, and others again that I was a Ross. Having met a true Monica, Phoebe, and Ross since then (seriously, it does not matter what these characters do, there are 3 people in the world who are exactly like them) I can now say for sure that there is no character in Friends that I am exactly like, but I do have some parts of most of them. Interestingly, I also know a Chandler (who was called a Chandler in secondary school and never lost the label), but no true Joeys or Rachels. Many people have parts of them, but most of them are more intelligent, or less self-absorbed.
Having done that for years, there is a thing I noticed that has changed; the character I like best. When I was younger, I used to like Rachel, Phoebe, and Ross, because they were kinda smart and interesting. Joey I thought was an arrogant sleazeball, Chandler was just annoying, and Monica obsessively annoying. But now, after years of watching, my opinion is reversed. Rachel has become self-absorbed and shallow, Phoebe you sometimes just want to slap when she refuses to respond normally, and Ross is really manipulative and mean. While Joey, Chandler, and Monica have a depth of character that I never realised was there, and most of their actions are founded on their insecurity (about their intelligence, success, looks, attractiveness to the other sex, etc), which the others don't seem to have.
I thought about that, because it was strange, and then I realised that what I partly have come to appreciate more is not the character, but the actor playing that character. This idea mainly came to me when Matt LeBlanc was on Top Gear a few weeks back, and I realised that I never would have watched that a couple of years ago, because he must be this self-absorbed arrogant guy, but now that I like Joey more I did watch and Matt was really nice and sweet and smart. It must be interesting to play someone so shallow, slow, and stupid when you are a pretty smart guy yourself. Same goes for Courtney Cox, it must be weird playing someone who is fat (in the flashback episodes), insecure, and compulsive when you are reckoned to be one of the most popular women of the time. And Matthew Perry, really, he must have had the hardest time, being the youngest and also being addicted to so many things and going through rehab during filming. It's sad how the funny people are often those who suffer the most. Anyway, playing Rachel or Phoebe or Ross, by contrast, seems really easy, because they somehow miss a huge depth of character, and are basically stereotypes. The others are stereotypes too, but have a more realistic psychological foundation, which to me makes them more interesting, but also a bigger achievement for the actors. Lastly, of course, Jennifer Aniston has been one of the most popular women of all time, while Lisa Kudrow and David Schwimmer got by perfectly fine without Friends, so they somehow seem to "need" it less than the others.
Now it seems as if my liking the characters is based on some sort of sympathy vote, but that's really not true; the liking came first, and the motivation simply followed. I like Chandler because he is a funny guy, not because I'm constantly thinking "gee, I wonder if Matthew was already addicted to Vicodin at this point". Still, it's interesting to look back on the series you watched in your teens, and see how your opinions about them changed, and thus see how you have changed, and in what different way you now watch them. I wonder what I will think about Friends in 10 years time, when I will actually have lived the same "agespan" the characters have.
Now I know Friends is a generational thing, because most of the people in their late 30s and 40s that I talked to never watched it or never liked it, while most teens nowadays will hardly appreciate it, because it's not nearly as fast and dirty and disturbing as popular series today (True Blood, Glee, to name a few examples). So it's roughly people who are between 20 and 35 that like it and love it. Which is interesting, because they were between 10 and 25 when the series came out, and in the first season, most of the characters are 25 (this seriously troubled me, because most of them already have a job and a house and some sort of mature living situation, whereas most people I know at 25 are still adolescent students. Then again, it is (was?) still possible to just go to uni here in the Netherlands, whereas in the US, you need to have a big trust fund or give them your first-born to be allowed in), so they were watching people their same age or older. Slowly but steadily, the younger watchers are starting to reach the same age as the charcters, and when I started watching this dvd box, I actually was the same age as the characters were. The actors in question were naturally all at least 5 years older then the part they play, but we're talking the 90s here, so no problem there.
What you always do when watching friends is discuss who resembles which person you know in real life, something that already started in secondary school, when some friends thought I was a Monica, others that I was a Phoebe, and others again that I was a Ross. Having met a true Monica, Phoebe, and Ross since then (seriously, it does not matter what these characters do, there are 3 people in the world who are exactly like them) I can now say for sure that there is no character in Friends that I am exactly like, but I do have some parts of most of them. Interestingly, I also know a Chandler (who was called a Chandler in secondary school and never lost the label), but no true Joeys or Rachels. Many people have parts of them, but most of them are more intelligent, or less self-absorbed.
Having done that for years, there is a thing I noticed that has changed; the character I like best. When I was younger, I used to like Rachel, Phoebe, and Ross, because they were kinda smart and interesting. Joey I thought was an arrogant sleazeball, Chandler was just annoying, and Monica obsessively annoying. But now, after years of watching, my opinion is reversed. Rachel has become self-absorbed and shallow, Phoebe you sometimes just want to slap when she refuses to respond normally, and Ross is really manipulative and mean. While Joey, Chandler, and Monica have a depth of character that I never realised was there, and most of their actions are founded on their insecurity (about their intelligence, success, looks, attractiveness to the other sex, etc), which the others don't seem to have.
I thought about that, because it was strange, and then I realised that what I partly have come to appreciate more is not the character, but the actor playing that character. This idea mainly came to me when Matt LeBlanc was on Top Gear a few weeks back, and I realised that I never would have watched that a couple of years ago, because he must be this self-absorbed arrogant guy, but now that I like Joey more I did watch and Matt was really nice and sweet and smart. It must be interesting to play someone so shallow, slow, and stupid when you are a pretty smart guy yourself. Same goes for Courtney Cox, it must be weird playing someone who is fat (in the flashback episodes), insecure, and compulsive when you are reckoned to be one of the most popular women of the time. And Matthew Perry, really, he must have had the hardest time, being the youngest and also being addicted to so many things and going through rehab during filming. It's sad how the funny people are often those who suffer the most. Anyway, playing Rachel or Phoebe or Ross, by contrast, seems really easy, because they somehow miss a huge depth of character, and are basically stereotypes. The others are stereotypes too, but have a more realistic psychological foundation, which to me makes them more interesting, but also a bigger achievement for the actors. Lastly, of course, Jennifer Aniston has been one of the most popular women of all time, while Lisa Kudrow and David Schwimmer got by perfectly fine without Friends, so they somehow seem to "need" it less than the others.
Now it seems as if my liking the characters is based on some sort of sympathy vote, but that's really not true; the liking came first, and the motivation simply followed. I like Chandler because he is a funny guy, not because I'm constantly thinking "gee, I wonder if Matthew was already addicted to Vicodin at this point". Still, it's interesting to look back on the series you watched in your teens, and see how your opinions about them changed, and thus see how you have changed, and in what different way you now watch them. I wonder what I will think about Friends in 10 years time, when I will actually have lived the same "agespan" the characters have.
Tuesday 14 February 2012
Sherlock Holmes
My "other book" (I usually read a small fiction novel which I put in my bag and read in bed, and have a second novel or non-fiction book that is too big to read in bed but which I keep in the living room for spare moments) for the last few weeks has been Sherlock Holmes, or more precisely the beautiful The Penguin Complete Sherlock Holmes, which has all the stories in chronological order.
Now I had never read any Sherlock Holmes before this, so my only references were The Great Mouse Detective (which was, to be honest, my least favourite Disney movie) and the new Sherlock Holmes films with Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law (the second of which is so much better than the first), which an avid Sherlock-reader told me were no good. As I liked the movies, I expected not to like the book, also because I generally don't read detective stories. Most of them are too show-offy, with the author trying to let us know how very clever and ingenious they are, generally with bad writing, flat characters, and cliffhangers at the end of each chapter to keep you reading. If you need cliffhangers to keep people reading (I'm looking at you, Dan Brown) then your story is probably not very good. I have to say I do like the writing in 19th century novels, because in general there is a lot of attention paid to good language and good descriptions, but I usually don't like the stories (really, generally nothing happens, until everything happens, the story ends, and you're left confused and annoyed).
So I really wasn't expecting that much.
But I was pleasantly surprised. The writing is really very good, some of the descriptions are almost poetical ("Even the rafters above our heads were lined by solemn fowls, who lazily shifted their weight from one leg to the other as our voices disturbed their slumbers"), the chase scenes are very lively and pull you into the story (who knew that you can still be drawn in by two steamboats chasing each other on the Thames, after seeing Die Hard, the Bourne films, etc), the characters have depth and motivations and realism, Holmes is a little conceited but seems truly surprised that not everyone can reason their way through a murder case with the ease he can, and the whole "out smarting the official police force" is a nice anarchistic touch. Usually you can figure out what is going on just before Watson does, although in some cases the circumstances or words are just too archaic to make sense of (as when they follow a trail of creosote through the streets... I looked up what creosote is, but it still didn't help me very much), but there always is an elegant solution and reason. There are some continuity errors between works (Watson keeps shifting from having a pistol or a revolver, and he marries twice, seemingly having forgotten about his first wife), but there were several years between the publication of the works, and at some point Arthur Conan Doyle was quite annoyed that his main character was more popular than he was, because he did not think his Holmes-stories were true literary works and wanted to devote his time to his "proper" historical novels, so it may well be that he did not pay that much attention to the details (of continuity, he clearly did pay a lot of attention to the details of his muder mysteries).
Anyway, they're great reads, the short stories you can finish in about 20 minutes and feel smug about yourself over because they are "easier" than the longer stories, but the longer stories usually involve exoctic locations in for example India or America, so they are rewarding in their own way. And of course, it's a great way to get a glimpse of the world-views, attitudes, behaviours, and everyday life of people at the eind of the 19th century. So if you have any time to spare and would like to start on detective novels, Sherlock Holmes is your man!
Now I had never read any Sherlock Holmes before this, so my only references were The Great Mouse Detective (which was, to be honest, my least favourite Disney movie) and the new Sherlock Holmes films with Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law (the second of which is so much better than the first), which an avid Sherlock-reader told me were no good. As I liked the movies, I expected not to like the book, also because I generally don't read detective stories. Most of them are too show-offy, with the author trying to let us know how very clever and ingenious they are, generally with bad writing, flat characters, and cliffhangers at the end of each chapter to keep you reading. If you need cliffhangers to keep people reading (I'm looking at you, Dan Brown) then your story is probably not very good. I have to say I do like the writing in 19th century novels, because in general there is a lot of attention paid to good language and good descriptions, but I usually don't like the stories (really, generally nothing happens, until everything happens, the story ends, and you're left confused and annoyed).
So I really wasn't expecting that much.
But I was pleasantly surprised. The writing is really very good, some of the descriptions are almost poetical ("Even the rafters above our heads were lined by solemn fowls, who lazily shifted their weight from one leg to the other as our voices disturbed their slumbers"), the chase scenes are very lively and pull you into the story (who knew that you can still be drawn in by two steamboats chasing each other on the Thames, after seeing Die Hard, the Bourne films, etc), the characters have depth and motivations and realism, Holmes is a little conceited but seems truly surprised that not everyone can reason their way through a murder case with the ease he can, and the whole "out smarting the official police force" is a nice anarchistic touch. Usually you can figure out what is going on just before Watson does, although in some cases the circumstances or words are just too archaic to make sense of (as when they follow a trail of creosote through the streets... I looked up what creosote is, but it still didn't help me very much), but there always is an elegant solution and reason. There are some continuity errors between works (Watson keeps shifting from having a pistol or a revolver, and he marries twice, seemingly having forgotten about his first wife), but there were several years between the publication of the works, and at some point Arthur Conan Doyle was quite annoyed that his main character was more popular than he was, because he did not think his Holmes-stories were true literary works and wanted to devote his time to his "proper" historical novels, so it may well be that he did not pay that much attention to the details (of continuity, he clearly did pay a lot of attention to the details of his muder mysteries).
Anyway, they're great reads, the short stories you can finish in about 20 minutes and feel smug about yourself over because they are "easier" than the longer stories, but the longer stories usually involve exoctic locations in for example India or America, so they are rewarding in their own way. And of course, it's a great way to get a glimpse of the world-views, attitudes, behaviours, and everyday life of people at the eind of the 19th century. So if you have any time to spare and would like to start on detective novels, Sherlock Holmes is your man!
Monday 13 February 2012
BAFTAs
So yesterday evening it was time for the BAFTA awards ceremony, and as that is a combination of all that is British, telling me about great films, and reminding me of which actors and movies I love, I had to watch. (Do you know the feeling, when they show the clip of all the great movies that came out last year, and you're thinking "Wow, did that come out last year? Feels like it's been around forever!" and "I wanted to go and see that! Why didn't I?" and "Yes, I love that actor, I should see more of his films!" repeated about 100 times so that you should actually be keeping a list of all the things you still want to watch.)
Now this year, it was kind of a disappointment, to be honest.
This had nothing to do with the great host, which was a pleasant surprise, because I was expecting Jonathan Ross but then they announced Stephen Fry and my evening became just a little bit better. It also had nothing to do with the fact that nos.nl published the results at about 22:45, when there was still more than an hour to go, and I knew that Meryl Streep had won Best Actress around the same time she did (the BAFTAs are never shown live, they have to squeeze everything into two hours and with actors giving tearful speeches you can be sure they will never stick to the 30 second time window they have). It also had nothing to do with the people presenting the awards, because most of them were funny, kind, and responded to Stephen's announcement joke (the ones who didn't were either nervous young stars whose eyes were glued to the autocue and who couldn't relax until they had gotten "and the nominees are..." out, or Penelope Cruz, who probably did not even hear Fry's "they've named a beach, a water vehicle, and a leisure activity after her" joke (which most people, herself included, probably did not understand anyway), but just stroooode to the microphone thinking "how hot do I look!"and suddenly found the Spanish accent she hasn't had for the last 10 years back), and to have Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe act out that funny Aussie bit was just brilliant.
No, the disappointment was in the winners. Or even the nominees.
Now I am sure The Artist must be a brilliant, wonderful film, being very innovative and original, but that does not mean it should win almost every award it was nominated for. The audience just stopped applauding whenever it was nominated, because then you would know it would win (Best Actress was a nice exception to this). The winner of Best Adapted Screenplay even thanked The Artist for "not being based on a novel", which was funny but also sad. The director of The Artist at some point didn't even bother to speech, but just thanked some people and walked off again, eager to hurry back to his seat to win the next award.
So who should have won?
Now I haven't seen all the films that were nominated, so I can't give a very objective opinion (yes, I know, oxymoron), but I will try.
Drive: I love this film. Stephen Fry mentioned that it is one of the best additions to the "car chase" genre ever, showing that there are always new angles and new things to work with, even in a genre where everyone thinks "been there, seen that". Carey Mulligan was at least nominated, but poor Ryan Gosling was put aside by true "been there, seen that" types like Brad Pitt and George Clooney who would never have won an award but it was nice to have them in the room (it was funny how embarrased Brad Pitt got when Stephen asked him to blow a kiss to the camera though) and show everyone how great the BAFTAs are. So Ryan should have been nominated. And he should have won. (Now is probably a good time to tell you that Sean was my all-time favourite character in Breaker High (eeeeverybody loved Scott or Alex, but not me) and that I thought that Ryan had disappeared into the black hole where all teen high-school actors, including the entire cast of Sweet Valley High, Heartbreak High, and Saved by the Bell somehow get sucked into, and I was thrilled to see that he somehow got out of there and was doing Drive, and The Ides of March, which I still have to see. Go Ryan!) Anyway, that's Best Film, Best Actor, and Best Supporting Actress taken care of. (As Ryan was not actually nominated for Best Actor I should probably add my choice of those who were nominated, and in that case I think I would prefer Michael Fassbender or Gary Oldman, the first because he is up-and-coming and famous but still doing nice arthousy films like Jane Eyre and A Dangerous Method, the second because he has been working for so long to get some recognition and people are finally beginning to see that he is a good actor, so either one would have been great.)
For Best Actress I like that Meryl Streep won (and that she lost her shoe on the way to the podium, which Colin Firth obligingly put back on her foot), but I would rather have seen a new face, and although I haven't seen one of their films, I think Michelle Williams, Tilda Swinton, or Viola Davis would have been happier, that it would have a greater impact on them, and that it would have shown young actresses that it is still possible to break into the closed world of Hollywood (I realise Swinton already has won both a BAFTA and an Oscar, but Williams has only been nominated, and Davis has nothing, apart from some "break-through performer" awards).
Best Supporting Actor is difficult, because I haven't seen any of the films, so lets stick with what they have. Same goes for most of the other categories, although I would have loved to see Ralph Fiennes director's debut win the Outstanding Debut award, not because I have seen the film but because I like Ralph Fiennes.
The Fellowship was awarded to Martin Scorsese and as I can honestly say I have never seen even one of the films he directed, I have no opinion about this. However, when you compare this award to the heart-breaking, deeply moving award to Sir Chirstopher Lee last year, I was wondering whether Scorsese was maybe (dare I say it?) a bit too young to win the award. Generally people have stopped making movies and are resting in their old age (or rather dying in their old age) when they receive the award, and Scorsese had actually made a film and a documentary last year which were both nominated. I mean, I don't know, he may be a great contributer to film, but I would rather have seen someone else win. I was going to say Judi Dench, but I just looked it up and she already became a fellow in 2001, so maybe I just don't know what I am talking about!
So the true message here is that I still have to see a lot of films! The Ides of March, The Iron Lady, The Help, Hugo, Shame, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, (I put those in alphabetical order without realising it, sometimes my head is creepily organized) and maybe even Moneyball. Why do I always find out about these great films the year after they have been made? Ah well, the same happened last year, and then I still had True Grit and Black Swan and The King's Speech to look forward to! So, onwards and cinemawards! And let's hope the Oscars do not throw everything on The Artist, because three (Golden Globes, BAFTAs, and Oscars) in a row would be just a little bit too much!
Now this year, it was kind of a disappointment, to be honest.
This had nothing to do with the great host, which was a pleasant surprise, because I was expecting Jonathan Ross but then they announced Stephen Fry and my evening became just a little bit better. It also had nothing to do with the fact that nos.nl published the results at about 22:45, when there was still more than an hour to go, and I knew that Meryl Streep had won Best Actress around the same time she did (the BAFTAs are never shown live, they have to squeeze everything into two hours and with actors giving tearful speeches you can be sure they will never stick to the 30 second time window they have). It also had nothing to do with the people presenting the awards, because most of them were funny, kind, and responded to Stephen's announcement joke (the ones who didn't were either nervous young stars whose eyes were glued to the autocue and who couldn't relax until they had gotten "and the nominees are..." out, or Penelope Cruz, who probably did not even hear Fry's "they've named a beach, a water vehicle, and a leisure activity after her" joke (which most people, herself included, probably did not understand anyway), but just stroooode to the microphone thinking "how hot do I look!"and suddenly found the Spanish accent she hasn't had for the last 10 years back), and to have Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe act out that funny Aussie bit was just brilliant.
No, the disappointment was in the winners. Or even the nominees.
Now I am sure The Artist must be a brilliant, wonderful film, being very innovative and original, but that does not mean it should win almost every award it was nominated for. The audience just stopped applauding whenever it was nominated, because then you would know it would win (Best Actress was a nice exception to this). The winner of Best Adapted Screenplay even thanked The Artist for "not being based on a novel", which was funny but also sad. The director of The Artist at some point didn't even bother to speech, but just thanked some people and walked off again, eager to hurry back to his seat to win the next award.
So who should have won?
Now I haven't seen all the films that were nominated, so I can't give a very objective opinion (yes, I know, oxymoron), but I will try.
Drive: I love this film. Stephen Fry mentioned that it is one of the best additions to the "car chase" genre ever, showing that there are always new angles and new things to work with, even in a genre where everyone thinks "been there, seen that". Carey Mulligan was at least nominated, but poor Ryan Gosling was put aside by true "been there, seen that" types like Brad Pitt and George Clooney who would never have won an award but it was nice to have them in the room (it was funny how embarrased Brad Pitt got when Stephen asked him to blow a kiss to the camera though) and show everyone how great the BAFTAs are. So Ryan should have been nominated. And he should have won. (Now is probably a good time to tell you that Sean was my all-time favourite character in Breaker High (eeeeverybody loved Scott or Alex, but not me) and that I thought that Ryan had disappeared into the black hole where all teen high-school actors, including the entire cast of Sweet Valley High, Heartbreak High, and Saved by the Bell somehow get sucked into, and I was thrilled to see that he somehow got out of there and was doing Drive, and The Ides of March, which I still have to see. Go Ryan!) Anyway, that's Best Film, Best Actor, and Best Supporting Actress taken care of. (As Ryan was not actually nominated for Best Actor I should probably add my choice of those who were nominated, and in that case I think I would prefer Michael Fassbender or Gary Oldman, the first because he is up-and-coming and famous but still doing nice arthousy films like Jane Eyre and A Dangerous Method, the second because he has been working for so long to get some recognition and people are finally beginning to see that he is a good actor, so either one would have been great.)
For Best Actress I like that Meryl Streep won (and that she lost her shoe on the way to the podium, which Colin Firth obligingly put back on her foot), but I would rather have seen a new face, and although I haven't seen one of their films, I think Michelle Williams, Tilda Swinton, or Viola Davis would have been happier, that it would have a greater impact on them, and that it would have shown young actresses that it is still possible to break into the closed world of Hollywood (I realise Swinton already has won both a BAFTA and an Oscar, but Williams has only been nominated, and Davis has nothing, apart from some "break-through performer" awards).
Best Supporting Actor is difficult, because I haven't seen any of the films, so lets stick with what they have. Same goes for most of the other categories, although I would have loved to see Ralph Fiennes director's debut win the Outstanding Debut award, not because I have seen the film but because I like Ralph Fiennes.
The Fellowship was awarded to Martin Scorsese and as I can honestly say I have never seen even one of the films he directed, I have no opinion about this. However, when you compare this award to the heart-breaking, deeply moving award to Sir Chirstopher Lee last year, I was wondering whether Scorsese was maybe (dare I say it?) a bit too young to win the award. Generally people have stopped making movies and are resting in their old age (or rather dying in their old age) when they receive the award, and Scorsese had actually made a film and a documentary last year which were both nominated. I mean, I don't know, he may be a great contributer to film, but I would rather have seen someone else win. I was going to say Judi Dench, but I just looked it up and she already became a fellow in 2001, so maybe I just don't know what I am talking about!
So the true message here is that I still have to see a lot of films! The Ides of March, The Iron Lady, The Help, Hugo, Shame, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, (I put those in alphabetical order without realising it, sometimes my head is creepily organized) and maybe even Moneyball. Why do I always find out about these great films the year after they have been made? Ah well, the same happened last year, and then I still had True Grit and Black Swan and The King's Speech to look forward to! So, onwards and cinemawards! And let's hope the Oscars do not throw everything on The Artist, because three (Golden Globes, BAFTAs, and Oscars) in a row would be just a little bit too much!
Thursday 9 February 2012
The other side
Now there are many reasons to participate in Postcrossing. Some people like to collect cards, and they would rather have cards sent to them "blank and in an envelope" so that they can have a pristine, perfect card to add to their themed collections. These are often the kind of people that threaten not to register your card if it does not meet their strict requirements, which is really kind of sad.
Then there are of course the stamp collectors. These usually do not bother mentioning specific types of cards, but ask for special stamps and also like their cards in an envelope because then they can easily cut the stamp off. Often these people are very disappointed about cards from the Netherlands, because we have ugly "sticker stamps" that you cannot iron off, and the designs change every 5 years, so they get a lot of the same from us.
Lastly, there are many people like me, who love to get mail, love to see a great picture or a nice stamp, but for whom the back of the postcard, the writing, is the most important part. I love to see a long, personal story on my cards; it is a way of connecting to people and getting a glimpse of what life is like in other countries far away. I love it when people have read my profile and respond to something I mentioned, or write something that they know suits my interests (and I try to do the same, of course, the worst thing you can have is an empty profile, but even then I try to write something, and generally I write a lot). Yesterday I got the most perfect card in this regard;
I'm showing you the front because I am not allowed to show you the back, and because this illustration of Smaug is also pretty great. However, on the back the sender had written one of the riddles from the Exeter Book, in Old English, and challenged me to solve it, with the card as a clue (it was this riddle, in case anyone is interested). This must be the first time in a looooong time that anyone wrote Old English on a postcard, I think. He then explained that he had also studied English and was now a historian on literature and philosophy of the Middle Ages in north-western Europe, which is one of the subjects I took a lot of courses on. So we clicked. Separated by the Atlantic Ocean and a week of time, we clicked through a postcard. He added a lot of beautiful stamps and an airmail sticker from Uganda airlines, which were also pretty great, but the feeling you have when you turn over a card and it is scribbled full with fine black handwriting and you just know someone took the time and effort to write just what they will know you will love is the best thing about Postcrossing. No, I take that back, the absolute best feeling is when you draw a new address and you read their profile and you know you have the perfect card with the perfect message for that person, and you know that they will be so happy to receive it and read it and click back with you, that is even better. It works both ways, like all good things.
(Now I have some friends (you know who you are!) who have been wanting to sign up for Postcrossing for a long time and still have not done so. Are you still able to resist?)
Then there are of course the stamp collectors. These usually do not bother mentioning specific types of cards, but ask for special stamps and also like their cards in an envelope because then they can easily cut the stamp off. Often these people are very disappointed about cards from the Netherlands, because we have ugly "sticker stamps" that you cannot iron off, and the designs change every 5 years, so they get a lot of the same from us.
Lastly, there are many people like me, who love to get mail, love to see a great picture or a nice stamp, but for whom the back of the postcard, the writing, is the most important part. I love to see a long, personal story on my cards; it is a way of connecting to people and getting a glimpse of what life is like in other countries far away. I love it when people have read my profile and respond to something I mentioned, or write something that they know suits my interests (and I try to do the same, of course, the worst thing you can have is an empty profile, but even then I try to write something, and generally I write a lot). Yesterday I got the most perfect card in this regard;
 |
| US-1518732 received 8 February 2012 |
(Now I have some friends (you know who you are!) who have been wanting to sign up for Postcrossing for a long time and still have not done so. Are you still able to resist?)
Tuesday 7 February 2012
Lemon and poppy seed cake
So today I made a lemon-and-poppy seed-cake and nearly destroyed my mixer.
Some friends were coming over, and one of them suggested I make this cake because of my superfluous poppy seeds (which I still have moooooore than enough of even after making this cake) and as I had one of those cake-making packets laying around (given to me by the other friend) I decided to use that. It is basically just flour and sugar, mixed with some raising agents, so I decided to treat it as that.
This did not work.
Since I was about 7, I have made cakes according to the 200-200-200-2 principle; 200 g butter, 200 g sugar, 200 g flour, 2 eggs. The recipe on the carton (consisting of 450 g flour & sugar mixture) called for 200 g butter, 3 eggs, and 50 ml milk. Now I have never used milk in any cake recipe, and I wasn't going to start today, I thought.
How wrong I was.
After not adding the milk, the mixture (I'd call it a "dough" at this point) was veeerrry clingy and needy and sticky and did not want to let go of the mixer or the bowl, and after about 10 seconds of attempted mixing the mixer made a whirring noise and stopped mixing. So I immediately turned it off, added the 50 ml of milk, turned it on again, and it worked. Well, the mixture was still very tough and sticky, but at least now it would go out of the bowl into the cake tin.
Anyway, I baked the cake at 160 C for an hour, praying that it would not overflow out of the tin, as the one my mother made did a couple of weeks ago. Mine didn't, thankfully.
I then decided to make some icing, because icings is great and I still had a packet of cream cheese laying around that we didn't use for anything (if you're baking long enough, you do get those things, which are just "laying around". I never believed them when they said it on cooking shows, but it's really true). So I mixed the 200 g of cream cheese with 50 g butter (does anyone know why you put butter in iciting? It's in all the recipes, but with me it just makes it lumpy, which makes the butter seem pointless), some lemon zest, and an x amount of icing sugar, as I was adding sugar while tasting it until it was sweet enough. I dolloped the icing on the cake, put the whole thing in the fridge so the icing could harden a bit, and tada; iced lemon-poppy seed cake!
(The whole baking-paper trick works very well by the way, I stole it off Lorraine, and it makes your cake come out of the tin easy-breezy!)
Okay, so maybe I put a bit too much icing on it, but it is a waste to throw it away once you've made it, right? And I'm sure my audience will not mind!
It tasted very good; moist cake, looooots of icing, and the great poppy seed flavour in between. Next time I make this, I won't be using one of those cake-making packets again, but just make it from scratch myself. It's easier, more fun, and you'll have a better grip on the eventual outcome, or so I make myself believe!
Some friends were coming over, and one of them suggested I make this cake because of my superfluous poppy seeds (which I still have moooooore than enough of even after making this cake) and as I had one of those cake-making packets laying around (given to me by the other friend) I decided to use that. It is basically just flour and sugar, mixed with some raising agents, so I decided to treat it as that.
This did not work.
Since I was about 7, I have made cakes according to the 200-200-200-2 principle; 200 g butter, 200 g sugar, 200 g flour, 2 eggs. The recipe on the carton (consisting of 450 g flour & sugar mixture) called for 200 g butter, 3 eggs, and 50 ml milk. Now I have never used milk in any cake recipe, and I wasn't going to start today, I thought.
How wrong I was.
After not adding the milk, the mixture (I'd call it a "dough" at this point) was veeerrry clingy and needy and sticky and did not want to let go of the mixer or the bowl, and after about 10 seconds of attempted mixing the mixer made a whirring noise and stopped mixing. So I immediately turned it off, added the 50 ml of milk, turned it on again, and it worked. Well, the mixture was still very tough and sticky, but at least now it would go out of the bowl into the cake tin.
Anyway, I baked the cake at 160 C for an hour, praying that it would not overflow out of the tin, as the one my mother made did a couple of weeks ago. Mine didn't, thankfully.
 |
| Cake! |
 |
| It's dark in here... |
Okay, so maybe I put a bit too much icing on it, but it is a waste to throw it away once you've made it, right? And I'm sure my audience will not mind!
It tasted very good; moist cake, looooots of icing, and the great poppy seed flavour in between. Next time I make this, I won't be using one of those cake-making packets again, but just make it from scratch myself. It's easier, more fun, and you'll have a better grip on the eventual outcome, or so I make myself believe!
Digital world II
So my previous post on this topic, Digital world, generated some responses, but all of those were in-person discussions. Some people said they wanted to comment, but just couldn't find the time to do so. Here's a second chance for you all, because two things in the media yesterday made me think some more about the topic.
The first was an article in the newspaper saying that schoolchildren and students are having difficulties writing their exams. This time it's not because they cannot concentrate on the same thing for more than 20 seconds, but because they don't write anymore. Ever. One of the researchers that was interviewed said that the only thing he ever wrote anymore were his grocery lists. I found this kinda scary when I read it, because writing is one of those things that you come to think of as Big and Important when you study a language and its history. Without writing, we're lost, right? However, when I thought about that some more, I realised that there really is no problem if people can't write stuff down anymore, as long as they can type it. It is just another part of the progress we're all going through, we went from Cuneiform script (I had to look that up, btw, I don't know it by heart) to pen and ink to the printing press to ballpoint pens to this. The only problem arises when those machines that we now need to communicate (which is the main purpose of writing, I think) do not work anymore. It is rather a dark doom scenario, but what if in 20 years time nobody knows how to write anymore, having learnt it in primary school and then never done it anymore, and there is a war or major hacker attack or something. Can people still communicate in writing? I sure hope they can.
Another thing that was said in the article was that it is so difficult to write an essay or speech by hand, because you cannot simply move sentences around. I have heard this complaint more often, mainly from fellow students during essay-exams (in which you have to write 3 essays of about 750-1000 words). I do think it is a bit worrying that people find it impossible to gather their thoughts, order them, put them in a good linear fashion, and then start to write. Apparently, they just write down the first thing that pops into their heads, and then move the sentences around until they have some sort of a structure. If this is true, I find this amazing, because for me it would be impossible to write in a non-linear manner; you first think about what you want to write about, and in what order, and then you start writing. But maybe that is not fast enough anymore? Not sure what to think of that, I mean, it may very well be that lots of people work that way and that I am the odd one out, but "think before you act" has always been solid advise.
The second thing that made me think about the topic again was a documentary on BBC1 about cyberbullying. Apparently, some children drive other children to suicide by posting hateful messages on gossip-websites, which other classmates then like and comment on, usually anonymously, so that the victim has no idea who they can trust and who are talking behind their backs. Only it isn't behind their backs anymore, it is out there on the Internet. I find it really sad that the victim is named, but that those doing the bullying hide behind anonymity. I have had some trouble in secondary school, but at least I knew who those girls were, and I could have pointed them out if things got really bad. I'm tempted to say that "bullying is a thing of all ages" and people will grow out of it, but if children are driven to suicide about this, then maybe the anonymity of the internet is less of a good thing than we always thought.
Added to that was an even worse thing; the trolling of the memorial websites that were put up for these victims. Now I always thought that "trolls" were just random annoying people having a bad they and because of that posting annoying messages, but from the documentary (they interviewed several trolls) it appears that to them, the only goal in life is to "get a reaction", and if they have to post hateful pictures or racist messages on memorial sites for children, they will do so. Again, these are anonymous people, hiding behind a screen name, although one of them seemed really upset when the presenter of the program pushed a microphone under his nose and asked whether he was the troll posting those horrid things. He admitted it easily though, saying that he "wasn't breaking the law". Probably not, no, but it is really sad if the only way you are able to interact with other people is by posting such hateful and distressing things that people react by getting upset or logging off. The problem is not so much that people think it is okay to post these things (they obviously don't think so, because they know they will get a reaction), but that they get some sort of joy or satisfaction out of this way of communicating. I think such people need help, because they must not be receiving enough love or attention from their nearest of kin (if they even have those) if they are crying out for attention in such a manner. You can get angry at these people all you like, but it is no use, and I think they need help more than anything. I do wonder if such people without the Internet would just disappear into the cracks of society, or make an effort to connect with others in a "real" way.
So several things that made me think some more about the benefits of the digital world; are we able to communicate when it disappears, are we still able to organise our thoughts in writing, is anonymity such a good thing, and are some people unable to create meaningful, positive relationships with others through it? Food for thought, I'd say.
Now this has mainly focused on the negative aspects, because of the stuff that made me write it, and I know it is not all bad and horrid and terrible, but it is making me think about the more negative side of things. I personally have no experience with either one of these aspects (although I might have drawn some trolls over here by writing the word too many times, who knows?), but some people are clearly negatively affected by it, and maybe it is time to do something about that.
The first was an article in the newspaper saying that schoolchildren and students are having difficulties writing their exams. This time it's not because they cannot concentrate on the same thing for more than 20 seconds, but because they don't write anymore. Ever. One of the researchers that was interviewed said that the only thing he ever wrote anymore were his grocery lists. I found this kinda scary when I read it, because writing is one of those things that you come to think of as Big and Important when you study a language and its history. Without writing, we're lost, right? However, when I thought about that some more, I realised that there really is no problem if people can't write stuff down anymore, as long as they can type it. It is just another part of the progress we're all going through, we went from Cuneiform script (I had to look that up, btw, I don't know it by heart) to pen and ink to the printing press to ballpoint pens to this. The only problem arises when those machines that we now need to communicate (which is the main purpose of writing, I think) do not work anymore. It is rather a dark doom scenario, but what if in 20 years time nobody knows how to write anymore, having learnt it in primary school and then never done it anymore, and there is a war or major hacker attack or something. Can people still communicate in writing? I sure hope they can.
Another thing that was said in the article was that it is so difficult to write an essay or speech by hand, because you cannot simply move sentences around. I have heard this complaint more often, mainly from fellow students during essay-exams (in which you have to write 3 essays of about 750-1000 words). I do think it is a bit worrying that people find it impossible to gather their thoughts, order them, put them in a good linear fashion, and then start to write. Apparently, they just write down the first thing that pops into their heads, and then move the sentences around until they have some sort of a structure. If this is true, I find this amazing, because for me it would be impossible to write in a non-linear manner; you first think about what you want to write about, and in what order, and then you start writing. But maybe that is not fast enough anymore? Not sure what to think of that, I mean, it may very well be that lots of people work that way and that I am the odd one out, but "think before you act" has always been solid advise.
The second thing that made me think about the topic again was a documentary on BBC1 about cyberbullying. Apparently, some children drive other children to suicide by posting hateful messages on gossip-websites, which other classmates then like and comment on, usually anonymously, so that the victim has no idea who they can trust and who are talking behind their backs. Only it isn't behind their backs anymore, it is out there on the Internet. I find it really sad that the victim is named, but that those doing the bullying hide behind anonymity. I have had some trouble in secondary school, but at least I knew who those girls were, and I could have pointed them out if things got really bad. I'm tempted to say that "bullying is a thing of all ages" and people will grow out of it, but if children are driven to suicide about this, then maybe the anonymity of the internet is less of a good thing than we always thought.
Added to that was an even worse thing; the trolling of the memorial websites that were put up for these victims. Now I always thought that "trolls" were just random annoying people having a bad they and because of that posting annoying messages, but from the documentary (they interviewed several trolls) it appears that to them, the only goal in life is to "get a reaction", and if they have to post hateful pictures or racist messages on memorial sites for children, they will do so. Again, these are anonymous people, hiding behind a screen name, although one of them seemed really upset when the presenter of the program pushed a microphone under his nose and asked whether he was the troll posting those horrid things. He admitted it easily though, saying that he "wasn't breaking the law". Probably not, no, but it is really sad if the only way you are able to interact with other people is by posting such hateful and distressing things that people react by getting upset or logging off. The problem is not so much that people think it is okay to post these things (they obviously don't think so, because they know they will get a reaction), but that they get some sort of joy or satisfaction out of this way of communicating. I think such people need help, because they must not be receiving enough love or attention from their nearest of kin (if they even have those) if they are crying out for attention in such a manner. You can get angry at these people all you like, but it is no use, and I think they need help more than anything. I do wonder if such people without the Internet would just disappear into the cracks of society, or make an effort to connect with others in a "real" way.
So several things that made me think some more about the benefits of the digital world; are we able to communicate when it disappears, are we still able to organise our thoughts in writing, is anonymity such a good thing, and are some people unable to create meaningful, positive relationships with others through it? Food for thought, I'd say.
Now this has mainly focused on the negative aspects, because of the stuff that made me write it, and I know it is not all bad and horrid and terrible, but it is making me think about the more negative side of things. I personally have no experience with either one of these aspects (although I might have drawn some trolls over here by writing the word too many times, who knows?), but some people are clearly negatively affected by it, and maybe it is time to do something about that.
Monday 6 February 2012
Mobile love
So you may all have thought that I had forgotten about my knitting craze, but I can assure you that that is not true. I was veeery busy with an important school assignment, which took more energy and life out of me than I would have thought, and left me without any for colourful pursuits. But that is handed in now, and I have some time on my hand, while my newest project was laying ready to be put together.
Now there are a lot of fashionable things in the "Knitting for cool girls" book that I will never attempt to make or even see the point of (a cardigan for your dog, to name the most obvious example) but there was one thing in there that I had been looking for for ages; a mobile phone case. I keep my phone in an old sunglasses-protection-bag (refusing to pay 25 Euros for the ugly fashionable one that fits my phone), but that doesn't work very well and in the book there was a great example of one. Now it does have a heart on it, which will immediately take 10 points off my IQ and condemn me as a girly-girl in many eyes, but I tried looking for a star-pattern (which I would really like) and couldn't find one. So, green case with purple heart it was.
The knitting went great, apart from the fact that I didn't leave enough thread on the back when doing the hearts, so that they look kinda squashed together. I may have to do another one just to satisfy my ego on this point. Here is what it looked like post-knitting:
So obviously it needed to be pressed (which basically means ironing it with a moist cloth between iron and wool), and there were instructions for that in both knitting books (I bought another one!) I have, although the one said to put the good side facing up and the other to put it facing down. Knitting really is just like baking a cake; you get a load of conflicting instructions and just try to make sense of it. You can see which option I chose;
Now this may be the very first time in my life that I actually used pins for what they were meant to be used for. I have two small boxes of them, but I only used them to tack posters of boy bands on my wallpaper when I was a teenager (my mother despaired of having no pins left, which is I have to boxes full).
Anyway, the case was pressed, dried, pins removed (although one book suggested first removing the pins and then letting it dry), and then I sewed it together to form (still not following any method, I mean, the stitches will be on the inside anyway);
Done! Okay, it is way too big for my phone (which you can't see in this picture, because the picture was taken by my phone, but take my word for it). But it's the effort that counts, right?
Oh yes, according to the book I was supposed to sew an inner pocket first, as a lining, and then sew the two together using some weird form of dark magic (or at least a very incomprehensible set of instructions). Not going to happen. I do not have the patience to sew one thing together, let alone two. Also, I am supposed to put a little heart-shaped button on top, but if you think that I happen to have heart-shaped buttons laying around you clearly do not know me. So I guess it is done. Whether I will actually use it will be another question.
My next project will depend on whether I can get the right wool and needles I need. The little wool shop in the city centre is very expensive and the woman working there does not understand what I'm talking about, so I may have to resort to online-ordering, which is annoying because then I can't feel the texture of the wool or see whether colours work together properly. I may just do another phone case first, because this one is too big and the hearts are clearly pulling on the threads in the middle and I am getting less satisfied with it the more I look at it. Which is good, because as I said, frustration breeds creativity! There are some neat patterns in my new knitting book which I can try, and in this day and age, one can never have too many phone accessories!
Now there are a lot of fashionable things in the "Knitting for cool girls" book that I will never attempt to make or even see the point of (a cardigan for your dog, to name the most obvious example) but there was one thing in there that I had been looking for for ages; a mobile phone case. I keep my phone in an old sunglasses-protection-bag (refusing to pay 25 Euros for the ugly fashionable one that fits my phone), but that doesn't work very well and in the book there was a great example of one. Now it does have a heart on it, which will immediately take 10 points off my IQ and condemn me as a girly-girl in many eyes, but I tried looking for a star-pattern (which I would really like) and couldn't find one. So, green case with purple heart it was.
The knitting went great, apart from the fact that I didn't leave enough thread on the back when doing the hearts, so that they look kinda squashed together. I may have to do another one just to satisfy my ego on this point. Here is what it looked like post-knitting:
 |
| A phone-case sausage. |
So obviously it needed to be pressed (which basically means ironing it with a moist cloth between iron and wool), and there were instructions for that in both knitting books (I bought another one!) I have, although the one said to put the good side facing up and the other to put it facing down. Knitting really is just like baking a cake; you get a load of conflicting instructions and just try to make sense of it. You can see which option I chose;
 |
| Hideous background, aka our iron board cover! |
Now this may be the very first time in my life that I actually used pins for what they were meant to be used for. I have two small boxes of them, but I only used them to tack posters of boy bands on my wallpaper when I was a teenager (my mother despaired of having no pins left, which is I have to boxes full).
Anyway, the case was pressed, dried, pins removed (although one book suggested first removing the pins and then letting it dry), and then I sewed it together to form (still not following any method, I mean, the stitches will be on the inside anyway);
 |
| Mobile love, baby! |
Done! Okay, it is way too big for my phone (which you can't see in this picture, because the picture was taken by my phone, but take my word for it). But it's the effort that counts, right?
Oh yes, according to the book I was supposed to sew an inner pocket first, as a lining, and then sew the two together using some weird form of dark magic (or at least a very incomprehensible set of instructions). Not going to happen. I do not have the patience to sew one thing together, let alone two. Also, I am supposed to put a little heart-shaped button on top, but if you think that I happen to have heart-shaped buttons laying around you clearly do not know me. So I guess it is done. Whether I will actually use it will be another question.
My next project will depend on whether I can get the right wool and needles I need. The little wool shop in the city centre is very expensive and the woman working there does not understand what I'm talking about, so I may have to resort to online-ordering, which is annoying because then I can't feel the texture of the wool or see whether colours work together properly. I may just do another phone case first, because this one is too big and the hearts are clearly pulling on the threads in the middle and I am getting less satisfied with it the more I look at it. Which is good, because as I said, frustration breeds creativity! There are some neat patterns in my new knitting book which I can try, and in this day and age, one can never have too many phone accessories!
Sunday 5 February 2012
Nostalgia
So today I went to a small film festival in the local cinema, featuring 5 films; Albert Nobbs, which was kinda sad but good; A Dangerous Method, which was weird and kinda pointless; Intouchable, during which we chose to walk on the canals (that's no misspelling, the ice was that thick) in the sunshine, so I have no idea; Headhunters, which is Scandinavian, brilliant, funny, grotesque, and features Jaime Lannister (if you have no idea what I'm talking about, you're lost anyway); and Shame, which started about 20 minutes ago and I really wanted to see, but after more than 6 hours in a cinema we really needed to get out, and this was the only movie actually playing in theatres right now, so we will see it another time.
Now the first two films were both set around 1910, the first in a Dublin hotel, where Albert Nobbs works as a butler, the second in Vienna and Zurich with Freud and Jung. I have to say, I really love that period, the post-Victorian pre-war period when life seemed so much simpler and people did not know what would hit them just a few years down the line. I must be nostalgic for a period I never experienced, I thought, just as I am nostalgic for the whole hippie period (although with Occupy, we might just get one ourselves). But then I started thinking; we are all nostalgic for that period of about 100 years ago, aren't we? Downton Abbey, the Sherlock Holmes movies (soon more about these), all those documentaries about the period, they're even re-releasing Titanic! All highly popular, and I'm probably forgetting a few here, as I am not that media-aware (didn't start watching DA until about 4 weeks ago, so that went over my head for about a year). So I am not the only one longing and liking this period, most of us are.
(Or some people high up in the movie/tv industry want us to be, but that's a bit too BigBrothery for me. Do you know the feeling, when you really like something, and you start seeing it everywhere and start liking it more and more until you realise that it's just in fashion, and that's why your liking it? The exact reason why everybody was suddenly wearing tilting bangs. There's a brilliant scene in The Devil Wears Prada where Meryl Streep explains to Anne Hathaway that the colour of the sweater she's wearing has been picked out by some group of high ranking fashion people two years before, or something. Anyway...)
So why this longing? I mean, I do get it, life just seemed simpler, people were either good or bad, rich or poor, lounging in armchairs thinking up psychoanalytics or working from 6 to 10 with hardly any pay. No hobbies, no time for deep thoughts or depressions, no time to get fat or wonder whether there is going to be an Elfstedentocht or what is happening in Syria or whatever, just simply; life. Or maybe we're just longing for a pre-war, pre-crisis period (this might also be the reason for the Titanic re-release, fits in perfectly with the horrid fashion revival; pre-crisis stuff) when you just stuffed your savings under the mattress and dreamt about going off to America, which was then still a welcoming place and a chance to start your life again. But people were still dying from diseases we've long beaten and women didn't have the vote and really, it's no fun working 16 hours a day. Although those are probably not the first things that come to mind, it's more the happy, energetic, positive atmosphere.
Just some thoughts. I realise that labelling so many of my posts as "random thoughts" makes them seem less random, but they really are. I just noticed this fixation, and I want to know why. Anybody have any idea?
Now the first two films were both set around 1910, the first in a Dublin hotel, where Albert Nobbs works as a butler, the second in Vienna and Zurich with Freud and Jung. I have to say, I really love that period, the post-Victorian pre-war period when life seemed so much simpler and people did not know what would hit them just a few years down the line. I must be nostalgic for a period I never experienced, I thought, just as I am nostalgic for the whole hippie period (although with Occupy, we might just get one ourselves). But then I started thinking; we are all nostalgic for that period of about 100 years ago, aren't we? Downton Abbey, the Sherlock Holmes movies (soon more about these), all those documentaries about the period, they're even re-releasing Titanic! All highly popular, and I'm probably forgetting a few here, as I am not that media-aware (didn't start watching DA until about 4 weeks ago, so that went over my head for about a year). So I am not the only one longing and liking this period, most of us are.
(Or some people high up in the movie/tv industry want us to be, but that's a bit too BigBrothery for me. Do you know the feeling, when you really like something, and you start seeing it everywhere and start liking it more and more until you realise that it's just in fashion, and that's why your liking it? The exact reason why everybody was suddenly wearing tilting bangs. There's a brilliant scene in The Devil Wears Prada where Meryl Streep explains to Anne Hathaway that the colour of the sweater she's wearing has been picked out by some group of high ranking fashion people two years before, or something. Anyway...)
So why this longing? I mean, I do get it, life just seemed simpler, people were either good or bad, rich or poor, lounging in armchairs thinking up psychoanalytics or working from 6 to 10 with hardly any pay. No hobbies, no time for deep thoughts or depressions, no time to get fat or wonder whether there is going to be an Elfstedentocht or what is happening in Syria or whatever, just simply; life. Or maybe we're just longing for a pre-war, pre-crisis period (this might also be the reason for the Titanic re-release, fits in perfectly with the horrid fashion revival; pre-crisis stuff) when you just stuffed your savings under the mattress and dreamt about going off to America, which was then still a welcoming place and a chance to start your life again. But people were still dying from diseases we've long beaten and women didn't have the vote and really, it's no fun working 16 hours a day. Although those are probably not the first things that come to mind, it's more the happy, energetic, positive atmosphere.
Just some thoughts. I realise that labelling so many of my posts as "random thoughts" makes them seem less random, but they really are. I just noticed this fixation, and I want to know why. Anybody have any idea?
Thursday 2 February 2012
Contractions
No, rest assured, this post will have nothing to do with pregnancy or birth or "uterine contraction", as the dictionary says. It's about contracting words. See, I did it just there, with writing "it's" instead of "it is".
Now some of you may have noticed, or perhaps I am the only one who looks this critically at texts, that I do not use contractions very often. I'd rather write "do not" or "will not" or "we will" than "don't", "won't", or "we'll". When it is better for the speed of reading, I do use them, as with "I'd" above, but most of the time I don't (see?). Why is this so?
Well firstly, I think it just looks better. Something like "I'll" can be very confusing, especially when you read fast. And as I am a fast reader, I sometimes skip words, and if you skip a combination of letters that is actually two words (and maybe even the subject and verb of the sentence), the sentence immediately makes no sense anymore and you have to go back and re-read, whereas you can usually skip single words without losing the train of thought.
But in this time of fast typing and fast reading, people generally do use them. (And go even further than that, saying "imma b thr @ 4" or whatever. Now I do use that form of shorthand typing, but just in whatsapp message or when I've run out of characters in my text messages. Never in "proper" texts. But enough of this aside.) So a second reason not to do this, is the fact that contractions are not allowed in academic essays. It is just one of those things, like "indent the first line of a new paragraph if it does not immediately follow a heading" or writing in the passive voice, that you just need to know and apply. You get used to it pretty quickly, especially if you get your head into the "essay-writing" mode.
However, for me there is a third reason that I have taught myself not to use contractions; NaNoWriMo. In NaNo, you write 50,000 words in a month. If you type "I'll", it counts as one word. If you type "I will", it counts as two. So naturally, you train yourself to type both words out fully, as it will give you one extra word written and one less word you still have to type (those writing in English have it easier anyhow, as "I" and "a" are also words, and there are not many languages in which a single letter is a word that is also used a lot).
So there you have it, my obsession with contractions, or rather with staying away from contractions. Maybe it would be better if more people do this, as there seems to be some confusion about "its" and "it's" and "your" and "you're", and whether it is "wo'nt" or "won't" or even "wo'n't", but that's an issue for another time. If you don't know how to type it, don't type it, I'd say. Unless you're writing an essay, or NaNo, of course.
Now some of you may have noticed, or perhaps I am the only one who looks this critically at texts, that I do not use contractions very often. I'd rather write "do not" or "will not" or "we will" than "don't", "won't", or "we'll". When it is better for the speed of reading, I do use them, as with "I'd" above, but most of the time I don't (see?). Why is this so?
Well firstly, I think it just looks better. Something like "I'll" can be very confusing, especially when you read fast. And as I am a fast reader, I sometimes skip words, and if you skip a combination of letters that is actually two words (and maybe even the subject and verb of the sentence), the sentence immediately makes no sense anymore and you have to go back and re-read, whereas you can usually skip single words without losing the train of thought.
But in this time of fast typing and fast reading, people generally do use them. (And go even further than that, saying "imma b thr @ 4" or whatever. Now I do use that form of shorthand typing, but just in whatsapp message or when I've run out of characters in my text messages. Never in "proper" texts. But enough of this aside.) So a second reason not to do this, is the fact that contractions are not allowed in academic essays. It is just one of those things, like "indent the first line of a new paragraph if it does not immediately follow a heading" or writing in the passive voice, that you just need to know and apply. You get used to it pretty quickly, especially if you get your head into the "essay-writing" mode.
However, for me there is a third reason that I have taught myself not to use contractions; NaNoWriMo. In NaNo, you write 50,000 words in a month. If you type "I'll", it counts as one word. If you type "I will", it counts as two. So naturally, you train yourself to type both words out fully, as it will give you one extra word written and one less word you still have to type (those writing in English have it easier anyhow, as "I" and "a" are also words, and there are not many languages in which a single letter is a word that is also used a lot).
So there you have it, my obsession with contractions, or rather with staying away from contractions. Maybe it would be better if more people do this, as there seems to be some confusion about "its" and "it's" and "your" and "you're", and whether it is "wo'nt" or "won't" or even "wo'n't", but that's an issue for another time. If you don't know how to type it, don't type it, I'd say. Unless you're writing an essay, or NaNo, of course.
Wednesday 1 February 2012
Street art cards
So yesterday I posted about my arty cards, but I somehow missed one of the most beautiful Van Gogh cards I'd received, this one;
No idea how I could have missed that, I was so happy when it arrived! Anyway, just wanted to give credit where credit is due.
And about six hours after that post on artiness yesterday, the universe decided to tell me that I was being a snob, by sending me my first Banksy card. No, actually, it was a girl from Lithuania, who had read my wishlist and saw that it mentioned both "street art" and "Banksy".
Now if you haven't done so already, please watch Exit Through the Giftshop, which is a documentary about a man making a documentary about Banksy, which turns out to be a documentary by Banksy about a man who makes a documentary about Banksy, or something like that. I know I have just given away the point, but if you have not seen this thing while it has been out there for 2 years, you won't be too bothered about that. And still, some great images of how street artists work, and how crazy things got when people decided that they were art and that they would pay thousands of dollars to have a bit of Banksy or whatever in their house. Now I wouldn't go as far as that, but I did get very happy checking out some of the street art in London and Rome while I was there, and maybe I got even happier when I received this card (couldn't find the artist anywhere, if you do know, please tell me!);
Yes, that is street art. And yes, that is Samuel Beckett (and it was sent by an Irish girl, what more could I want for?). Sadly I received this card about a month after I got back from London, because we were staying in Notting Hill at the time, and I would definitely have looked this one up as well.
And then there is Banksy;
Slightly less enthusiastic about this one, it is not one if his best works in my opinion, but a Banksy nonetheless! I do hope to receive more soon, but they seem to be in short demand!
 |
| CN-507120 received 17 January 2012 |
And about six hours after that post on artiness yesterday, the universe decided to tell me that I was being a snob, by sending me my first Banksy card. No, actually, it was a girl from Lithuania, who had read my wishlist and saw that it mentioned both "street art" and "Banksy".
Now if you haven't done so already, please watch Exit Through the Giftshop, which is a documentary about a man making a documentary about Banksy, which turns out to be a documentary by Banksy about a man who makes a documentary about Banksy, or something like that. I know I have just given away the point, but if you have not seen this thing while it has been out there for 2 years, you won't be too bothered about that. And still, some great images of how street artists work, and how crazy things got when people decided that they were art and that they would pay thousands of dollars to have a bit of Banksy or whatever in their house. Now I wouldn't go as far as that, but I did get very happy checking out some of the street art in London and Rome while I was there, and maybe I got even happier when I received this card (couldn't find the artist anywhere, if you do know, please tell me!);
 |
| IE-22446 received 20 June 2011 |
And then there is Banksy;
 |
| LT-182278 received 31 January 2012 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)