On Pork Chops and Eleanor Roosevelt

There's an anti-bullying video going around lately. (Here) Totally for that, and all. I don't approve of bullying in any form, and I definitely think that we need to improve ourselves as humans. I was picked on in school, too, and it sucked. There's no reason in the world that people should hurt other people.

I would just like to say that up front, so no one misunderstands me. (Intentionally or otherwise.)

So this is not a post about how people "just need to get over it" or "it's not as bad as people are saying." Don't even start with me.

I just want to add something that this guy didn't seem to grasp. Something that can help, even when all of the bullying doesn't stop. Because let's face it, humans are stupid. We do dumb things. Some more than others. And as long as we're imperfect, people will hurt other people.

But human beings are also strong. We are resilient. We have the power to change worlds. We have the power to be great. We have the power to not shrink.

That power is called choice. 

The guy who made this video treated everyone's stories very much from the "victim of fate" point of view. People made fun of me, and therefore I am scarred. Damaged goods forever. My life is ruined because of the cruelty of others. I have been destroyed.

Well, I don't believe in victim of fate. 

Yes, I was picked on in school all the time. And yeah, it hurt. Not saying it doesn't. It's hard to accept yourself when no one else does.

But as I've learned more about life, and how it REALLY works, I mentally kicked those jerks in the face and decided to stop giving them all the power.

When you believe what they say about you, you're handing over the remote control. Here, I'm gonna let you be in charge of how I feel now. Go ahead. Push all my buttons.

It's easier said than done. Human beings are tricky that way. Because we can't reach perfection, we decide that we're worthless. Nothing could be farther from the truth. No one realizes how strong they really are.

But you are strong. Believe it. 

You have the unbelievably momentous power of choice.

"Weak" is not a disease you can catch. "Weak" is not a genetic disorder, or an inflicted wound.

Weak is when you let the bad guys dictate your life. When you believe the worthless things they say about you. When you hand the remote off to someone else and stop taking an interest in your own fate.

Weak is an action.

You don't have control over whether someone bullies you. You can't make someone else's choices. But you absolutely can control how you react to it.

You are not weak.

Don't believe me?

How about I tell you a story. A true story about someone I knew. Everything in it is true, but the name. 

I will call him Fred. 

Fred's mom died too young. And he had a lousy dad. A really lousy dad. The sort of dad who made his teenage son hold down three jobs to pay the bills, because he was too lazy to get his butt off the couch. 

Fred was considered something of a strange one in school. 

Fred had no extended family to step in and help. 

Most of his community didn't even know what was going on. 

By the time high school was half done, Fred left his dad. He had a hefty bag full of clothes. He slept in his car every night, parked behind the grocery store. He washed up in the gym locker rooms

Most kids in these situations end up on paths that are all sorts of the wrong kind. And if any kid in the world had an excuse to crumble under the pressure, Fred did. 

Want to know what happened to him?

Fred made the national honor society.

Fred graduated third in the class. 

Fred got a full ride scholarship to a prestigious college. 

Fred made something of himself. Of course, I haven't seen him in a good long while. But from what I gather, he became some kind of uber successful engineer. 

Bullying hurts. Family drama hurts. Loneliness hurts. And yeah, like the guy said, sometimes words hurt more than sticks and stones. 

That stuff scars. 

That stuff changes you forever. 

But how does it change you? That's up to you. 

Happiness and success are not inversely related to the amount of pain. Pain exists in all walks of life, for all people. What matters are the choices you make. Take those scars and turn them into something. No one can stop you from doing, seeing, or becoming anything you want. No one but you.

The Pixy Stix Files

Know those ginormous pixy stix? The ones that were like ultimate magical awesomness when we were kids?

And know how some people are a lot more susceptible to sugars and caffeines than others?






Ever wonder what happens when one such sugar susceptible being takes said giant pixy stix and chugs the whole thing in one shot? While at work? In a library?

Stay tuned to find out. I only wish that I could show you videos of what happened. Text just doesn't quite convey the hilarity in its full measure.

It all started slowly. After all, sugar doesn't hit immediately. The very first sign that my dear, insane friend was not entirely sober came about ten minutes after the pixy stix chug.

We were putting away kids non-fiction and started making stupid jokes. That part was normal. This was not.

Crazy Friend: My mouth tastes like pink.
Me: Sorry. I'm not familiar with what pink tastes like.
CF: It's like when you eat candy that's sour and sweet at the same time and there's that point right in between when it turns from sour to sweet, and it's all weird and stuff and it makes your mouth kind of fuzzy.
Me: That's pink?
CF: Yes. That's what pink tastes like.

I laughed pretty hard. But I still wasn't completely aware of the true insanity until:

Me: Hey, look at this.

Crazy friend: What?

Me: I found a book about you! 

I expected her to laugh. I did not expect her to cackle. For five minutes. With tears and gasping for air. It was so funny that I cracked up too, and neither of us said anything coherent for a good ten minutes. We just laughed at everything. Especially the worried looks on our coworkers' faces. 

After a little while, we split into different sections. As I had not yet consumed any sugar, it didn't take too long to chillax a little and get rid of my laughing headache. I had a stack of N's. While I put them away, this little baby, who was just learning how to pull himself into a standing position, saw me and got all excited. I guess he thought I came over to play with him while his mom was reading. He was super cute.

When my stack of books was gone, I went back to the cart for more, and told my friend about the little guy.  

Crazy Friend: I don't like kids. 

Me: But they're so cute.

CF: They poop. They get poop all over you! Are you okay with that!?

Me: *shrug* It happens.

CF: Yeah. Everyone poops. *giggles*

(a minute later)

CF: Everything poops, yeah?

Me: uh...

CF: Does that mean even bacteria poops?

Me: I guess in a way.

CF: And we're all covered in bacteria. Does that mean we're all covered in poop? Does that mean our food has poop on it!? *Serious face* Does that mean... our POOP has poop on it!!?? 

At this point I had dissolved into fits of giggling that drew a concerned glance from the reference librarians.

CF: This is, like, mind-blowing. Do you understand? Our poop has poop on it!

The next several incidents have blurred together into a delirious fit of hysterical giggles. I can no longer recall them with much more clarity than this.

"Have you ever thought about... how things are in color?! I mean, who invented that? Like this book. These colors are awful and this cover looks terrible, but HOW DO I KNOW THAT?!"

"Trying speak languages... words... not working."

"It's a good thing I don't do drugs. I'd probably kill people and laugh over their bodies."

"I would eat ALL THE MANGOES!"

"Your taste buds are obviously dead."

"You know, it would make me really sad to get a letter from a dead fish's mother."

"I'm telling you, that poop thing is so deep. Think about it."

There was so much more that I wish I could remember. Also, quite a lot of incoherent jabbering that made us crack up even more because we couldn't even understand the words.

And then came the texts. A whole slew of them, while she was on her break. I was just getting rid of my laughter headache again when I saw them. (Oh, and yes, she is listed as "The Harbinger" in my phone. Perhaps that explains a few things.)

 "I really wish my nickname was mango"

"I'm trying not to laugh out loud and like This must be what bubbles feel like Just full of wiggling air"

"Do you think one day pop stars will do concerts in SPACE"

"I'm trying not to laugh out loud and like This must be what bubbles feel like Just full of wiggling air"

"Something."

"Then when we're dead and bearded stars we could watch pop stars performing IN SPACE"

"MY HANDS SMELL LIKE TIKKA MISALA I'M GONNA CRY BECAUSE GOOD FOOD"

"I'm going to stay down here and sort awhile because my whole brain is trying to punch my face right now"

"I to be a side ponytail"

"My ponytail was a regular pony tail but its now a side ponytail and i don't know how that happened. Like what evolutionary process is there for a ponytai"

"X seems like it should be the last letter of the alphabet"

"There are some messed up seeming stuff about k"




Print can not express everything I wish it could. If only you were there. But 'it does not do to dwell on dreams, and forget to live'. Peace out.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

Today I got into a debate. A long and kind of boring debate that involved some spectacularly long blocks of solid text that, I admit, I couldn't finish reading, due to hemorrhaging of the eyeballs.

But here's the end of it, which I did find somewhat interesting. (Mostly because the guy tried to use Tolkien against me.)

The original text is in white. The additions I've made for the purpose of this post are in red.

His statement:

 I'm not saying that criminals will not have guns with the implementation of tougher gun laws, all I'm pointing to are the stats and the general trend of, tougher laws + less guns= less gun crime. (His stats came from wikipedia and some Australian newspaper I've never heard of.)

I vote more sonic screwdrivers and less guns, Sara, surely you can get behind that?  (That, I can indeed.)

And if you ever get over here to middle earth (He's from New Zealand, apparently.) I can take you on a Lord of the rings tour. And show you how peaceful the shire is without mass produced weaponry. 

And that's something J.R.R. Tolkien I'm sure would have been a big fan of.

My reply, which is the point of this post:


Hmmm. Yes. The Shire was a pretty sword-free zone. Now, recall with me how absurdly easy it was for Saruman to swoop in and enslave the entire country without a fight.

(I honestly can't help but think that Tolkien was making a point here, and it wasn't that living without guns is safer.) (I also can't help but believe that most people don't remember this for the sole reason that  it wasn't in the movie. No one reads anymore. I understand all the reasons for not putting it in, but I still do feel some sadness at the fact. It's such a powerful statement about how evil affects everything, even the innocent, unless people are willing to stand up and fight it.)

But joking aside, I guess this is the point:

No, I don't approve of the need for all this mess. I don't approve of shooting people up or waving guns around to get what you want. I don't approve of murder or breaking the law.

But I believe in my right to defend my family against people who do. (Add some exponents to this. I really ^10 believe in my right to defend myself from bad guys.)

See, the entire world is getting more and more dangerous, and it isn't because of laws, good or bad. (What it is from is a whole nother basket of fish that I won't address at this present time.) Laws don't stop criminals from doing anything. If they did, they wouldn't be criminals. (Irrefutable and undeniable logic. Even if nothing else in this entire post were relevant, this would still be the clincher.) 

In this ever more dangerous world, I believe in my right to be prepared. The whole life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness thing? I have an inalienable right to life and liberty. I have a right to keep myself and my loved ones alive when someone tries to alienate that right.

When the nearest cop station is a half-hour drive away, and the neighbors are half a mile down the road, and there's not but one street light on the whole 2 mile stretch, I have to fend for myself when bad stuff happens. (Our house in Va. Luckily, that one street light is at the foot of our driveway. But still...) And no government should be allowed to tell me that I don't have the right to fend for myself. No government should be able to tell me that I just have to sit down and die because the cops can't get to me in time.

(Because that isn't the point of government. Let's review our John Locke, shall we? Humankind's original state was anarchy. In anarchy, people do whatever they want. They take your goats and kill your wife and ravage your daughter, and they're perfectly within their rights to do so (legally).

Government is what happens when a group of people get together to protect themselves from said ravagers. They give up a certain few lesser rights (Like, I dunno, the right to not have to stop the car when a hanging light turns from green to red) in order to gain more important ones. Ie. protection and security from said ravagers. THEREFORE: Protection from crazies is the whole point of organizing a system in the first place. So taking away our personal right to defend against crazies is entirely counterproductive.)

Disarming the innocent is doing exactly that. It's taking away our freedom to protect life and liberty. Ban-the-guns laws don't make me feel safe and protected, because they're telling me I'm not allowed to prepare myself for hard times ahead. And that does not make me feel safe and protected. (Truth. I do, in fact, feel much less safe when someone says that we have to get rid of all defense mechanisms. Tell you what, though, no matter what happens, my Louisville slugger stays next to my bed, come rain, or snow, or dark of night.)

On that note, most people I've talked to from outside the USA (and quite a few inside, oddly enough,) seem to have this idea that we can just pop down to the corner 7-11 and pick up a glock on our way home from work. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are already an enormous number of gun-safety laws on the books. Including some that don't even do anything, but got voted in because it made the politicians feel good about 'doing something'. 

(These largely include "assault weapon" laws. The definitions spelled out in those laws don't actually ban a kind of gun. They ban guns with certain features which, incidentally, aren't applicable to the function of said gun. Therefore a person may legally own this top one but not the bottom...)

(Yeah. It's a little silly. But like I said, there are quite a few sensible laws too.)

And I don't mind that. I'm okay with people having to pass a test before they can concealed carry. I'm okay that not just any ex-felon can walk into a gas station and grab a few 45's. (In fact, I'm glad that they can't. Gun safety laws have a place. But A) they should be enacted by people who know something anything about guns, and B) should be safety laws, not banning-all-citizens-from-everything laws.)

So yeah, it's sad that guns have to be a thing we use for more than sportsman-like target shooting. (I almost said "It's sad that guns have to be a thing." But I corrected myself because it is a perfectly acceptable and rather enjoyable past time to have aiming and shooting competitions. Bowling is also an aiming and throwing competition. And you could kill someone as easily with a bowling ball as with a gun. However, I do agree that it's sad that the gun developed as a result of war, not sports.) But just because it's sad, doesn't mean it isn't true.

I could never live with myself if someone I know got mowed down by a crazy, and I just stood by and did nothing. It would haunt me to the end of my days. (Not even kidding here. I'm a fixer. It's an integral part of my nature. And if me taking a bullet kept someone else from taking one, so be it. If me delivering a bullet kept someone else from taking one, all the better.) And I believe in my right to not be haunted by that image for the rest of my life. No president should be allowed to sit back behind his line of (armed) security guards and tell me that I no longer have the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but he still does.

Ps. Why yes, I do indeed approve of sonic screwdrivers. ;)

Anyway, so that's that. Hope I made sense. I'm now off to actually become a productive citizen at my government job. (Please, don't destroy the government too quickly. I need my job. And we all need libraries.)

6 Benefits of Fairy Tales

Dear Mandy,

In your last blog post, you said this:

"Some would say that living in fantasy worlds as a child doesn't prepare one for the real world. Maybe that's true, but considering that I am now an adult nerd, I don't see how that's such a bad thing."

While I agree with pretty much everything else you said, I should like to take a moment to delve into this particular subject a little more deeply. Especially since I've been wanting to for quite some time.

Enjoy,

Sra, Supreme Chancellor of the World and Jupiter



Is Fantasy Escapist?


I think I'll let Mr. Tolkien answer that one for us.

Tolkien points to the resolution of fairy stories in happy endings, in the return at the end to a normal world. These aspects of fantasy, says Tolkien, are not escapist. They embrace that which we most yearn for- an acute awareness of the beauty of the real world- by leaving it, imagining richly, and then returning.
- Phillip Martin (paraphrasing Tolkien)

The well-intentioned mothers who don't want their children polluted with fairy tales would not only deny them their childhood, with its high creativity, but they would have them conform to the secular world, with its dirty devices.
- Madeleine L'Engle

Does fantasy destroy our ability to see the real world for what it is?

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time...
- T. S. Eliot

Once we believe..... we begin to see the forms of good and evil. First as children, later as adults, we come to believe that even creatures as small as ourselves can play a role, that the world is affected by the actions we take.
-Phillip Martin

And, of course, no discussion on fantasy is complete without the incomparable Mr. Lewis.

In answer to the question of whether fantasy will warp a child's mind to confuse fantasy with reality: "It would be much truer to say that fairy land arouses a longing for he knows not what. It stirs and troubles him (to his lifelong enrichment) with the dim sense of something beyond his reach and, far from dulling or emptying the actual world, gives it a new dimension of depth."
- C. S. Lewis

So What?


Poets are all fine and good. But let's leave off with the words of famous geniuses for a moment, and talk about it in layman's terms. Down to earth, plain old english. What does all of that mean?

As a certified non-genius, I've taken the liberty of breaking it down into six distinct categories. Six benefits of fantasy literature that show, without a doubt, that it is beneficial to the human mind and character.

1) Reading Makes You Smarter

What gets you ahead, when you're vying against 12 other people for that vice president's job? What makes the difference between you and the equally matched other guy, when you're playing chess, or football, or halo?

Creativity.

Outwitting someone in a game, or coming up with better ideas in an office, requires a little imagination. And reading fantasy not only helps, but forces you to develop said imagination.

You can't read about a dragon attack, and not come up with some kind of idea in your mind of what that was like. And the more you do it, the better your ideas become. The imagination is a muscle too. It needs frequent exercise, and reading fantasy is just the way to do it.

2) Deepens Beauty

This one is very closely related to the last. As Tolkien, Lewis, and Eliot all said up there, fantasy allows us to see things in our own reality that we never would have noticed, otherwise.

When we stretch our imaginations in a fantasy land, we are able to stretch them in real life, too. Okay, I'm going to cheat a little and use another C. S. Lewis quote here:

"No man would find an abiding strangeness on the Moon unless he were the sort of man who could find it in his own back garden."

Finding the magic in the world isn't about being able to travel to strange and distant places. It's about being able to see the beauty of the ordinary.

Reading does not dull the ordinary by introducing us to the fantastic. It teaches us, line upon line, how to see the fantastic. And once we can see it, we can find it in everything. Even our own back yard.

(Our own world is pretty fantastic without any help. => )


3) Gives Us Perspective

We can't appreciate what we have until we know what it's like to not have it. We forget how fantastic it is to be able to breathe through our noses until we have a cold that keeps us up all night from stuffy sinuses.

We don't taste the sour part of the orange juice until we take a bite of a donut first. We can leave our own world for a little while. Then when we finally come back, we see it in a new light.

See here for a post on how I learned to appreciate my place in life because of reading the Hunger Games.

One part of that new light is, just as Lewis said, "a new dimension of depth." We realize that there is so much more out there in the world than our tiny little sphere of experience. That we are capable of stretching and reaching and discovering. That if we only put out our hand, we can reach the stars.

We are no longer satisfied with mediocrity. We've glimpsed the wider world of possibility, and we now need to raise ourselves up to bigger and better things.

4) Is a Kind of Reality

"Of course it is happening inside your head, but why should that mean that it is not real?" -Albus Dumbledore

A football nut isn't actually playing football. All he's doing is sitting on a bleacher bench, wearing horrible fan-paint, and screaming at people. None of the action is happening to him. Often, it's not even happening near him. So, therefore, the intense emotions he feels must be fake, right? Unless he personally and physically experiences something, it's not real.

If you're shouting that I'm dead wrong here, you'd be right. But remember that truths don't only apply to actions of the popular majority. Truth is a universal thing.

Fantasy books are almost exactly like watching a football game. And personally, I'd rather second-hand-experience a dragon flight, than an overpaid beefcake in tights jumping on top of another overpaid beefcake in tights. Just saying.

In fantasy we love, we hate, we win, we lose, we live, we die. Those emotions are completely real, and become a part of our life experience, even if they came from words instead of actions. Just because we experience something in a non-physical way doesn't mean that the experience is somehow false.

As J. K. Rowling so brilliantly said here, (Watch the whole thing. It's worth it,) "Imagination is not only the uniquely human capacity to envision that which is not, and therefore the fount of all invention and innovation. In its arguably most transformative and revelatory capacity, it is the power that enables us to empathize with humans whose experiences we have never shared."

5) Teaches Us Compassion

And on that note...

Humanity, by nature, is imperfect. Every human being has flaws, and every human being has a backstory that explains those flaws (though it may or may not excuse them.)

When we become judgmental, which we all do at some point, it is nearly always because we forget that people have a past. We know we have flaws, but we also know why we have them, so we can excuse ourselves as not-quite-so-bad. But we don't see that deeply into others. We don't see their thoughts, intentions, and motivations, and so we forget.

But books remind us.

What is the difference between a book we read once, and a book we read five times in the same year? Good writing helps, but it's not essential. Many poorly written books have been national bestsellers. Plot? Certainly not. Even the best plots only work once. (The movie Signs, for example.) After we know what happens, the shock and surprise are gone.

Or are they? We return to the same books again and again, and we're scared and excited and devastated every time, even though we know what happens. Why? Because we're so in love with the characters. We can't bear to see them in pain, even when we know it will turn out right in the end.

And yet, all of the best characters are just as flawed and stupid as the people we meet in every day life, but we love them anyway. In our favorite books, we learn to love people despite their mistakes. We're reminded of those backstories, and the fact that we're only human.

The more we read and the more we remember our flawed humanity, the more we are able to forgive others in real life. The more we are able to find sympathy and compassion for those around us.

6) Moral Lessons

Most authors don't purposefully put lessons and symbolism into their novels. And the ones that do have to be truly masterful about it to avoid preachiness, which everyone hates. But even the most un-preachy of novels teach us a great deal.

In every great fantasy novel ever written, good defeats evil. The hero stands up for right, even when it would be easier not to. The characters are brave in the face of adversity and trial. (And that doesn't always mean battle.)

Oh, yes, there are evil characters too. But we know which is which. And we return again and again to those characters that uphold honor, virtue, and integrity.

Whether intentional or not, we learn to be better people from those heroes. They teach us, as Phillip Martin said, "that even creatures as small as ourselves can play a role, that the world is affected by the actions we take."

Fantasy reminds us that we can make choices, and stand strong when trials come. That we can be brave and kind and good, no matter who we are, or what we've done in the past.

Tell me that's not something worth keeping around.

Meh on the New Superman

This isn't just about superman, though. It's also my attempt at explaining why I, a dyed in the wool nerdbox, have not gotten googly-eyed over the past few years' veritable slew of supposedly epic movies, like everyone else has been.

Watch this trailer.




The music is spectacular.
His re-vamped suit looks pretty cool.
The guy who plays him is pretty awesome.
The graphics look good.
The trailer is REALLY well made.
The character conflict is actually real, as opposed to most of the older superhero movies.


So, what's wrong with it, you may ask?

Nothing, per se. Except for the fact that we've seen this exact same movie about 42 times already this year.

I'm just really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really,

REALLY

tired of superhero movies. Really. Tired.

I wouldn't be, if there were a couple of little tweaks. Nothing major. I really don't ask for much. But as it is, I'm so done.

Let's break it down, shall we?

1) The darkening of the character was a really good idea...the first time it was done.

It made sense with Batman. The whole police not trusting him thing. The warrants for his arrest. The misunderstanding. In Gotham City, it's only to be expected. That's the way the world works in those stories. And aside from all that, Batman is one of the darker heroes anyway. He always was.

But these days it's like slouchy leg-warmers in the 80's. Everyone's wearing them around, and there's no good reason for them.

Take the Amazing Spiderman. There's a giant dinosaur man rampaging through town, facing down machine gun bullets, killing people for no good reason, and hatching a plot to turn everyone into creatures like him. But where are the cops? Oh, just busy setting up traps for some kid who likes running around in spandex. Because he's OBVIOUSLY the important threat to New York.

Tell me, how does that make any sense, except as a plot device for keeping Peter Parker away from saving the world until the last possible moment?

No really, if there's an actually good answer to this, do elaborate.

2) But that brings me nicely to my second point, which is infinitely more important, and which I shall also begin to elaborate on by using the Amazing Spiderman. I could forgive stupid mistakes like trying to copy someone else's style so they can be as cool as other people. I really could, if I actually cared about anyone in the movie.

But seriously, the main character is an idiot. And I don't mean that in the intellectual way. He's got a high IQ, and he's dating a girl who somehow knows the way to cook genetic mutation antidotes, although they're both still in high school. Whatevs. But I mean that in an an eye-rolling, "start thinking with your brain, please." way.

He crawls over the roofs of half of New York with one hand, trying to stop the bleeding in his bullet wound, and nearly falls to his death several times. But as soon as those cranes start moving, THEN he uses his webbing as a bandage, which miraculously allows him to run at a full sprint with no difficulties. Why didn't you do that like an hour ago?

We won't even start on that idiotic closing line he used to win his girlfriend back. Or the way that she's trying to clean this ginormous gash across his chest, to keep him from dying, and all he can think about is making out with her. *Puke*

Picky, picky, blah blah blah. I know. Those things aren't fatal flaws. Good characters should be flawed. But good characters also should have something really great going for them, that makes us like them anyway.

Harry Potter is an angsty whiny-baby sometimes. But he's got the courage of a lion, and the goodness of his mother, which make us root for him anyway.

Peregrine Took is a complete moron. He makes a lot of stupid choices, and isn't the brightest crayon in the box. But he's funny, and charming, and optimistic, and when he's called out to fight against orcs who are twice his size, he does it without a question. And therefore, we love him anyway.

Aladdin is a thief. So is Flynn Rider. Prince Adam (Beast) is an enormous monster with the patience of a nuclear bomb. Emperor Cuzco is a selfish, whiny brat. Aurora spends 3/4 of the movie asleep. Woody seethes with jealousy. Hercules is naive to a fault. Simba doesn't care about anything that he should care about until the movie is 9/10 over.

And yet, every single one of them has something about them that we love anyway. We care about them anyway. When bad stuff happens to them, we cry. And when good stuff happens, we cheer. And even if we've seen the movie a hundred times, the scary parts are still scary, because we love them so much that we're afraid for them.

THAT is what a good character should be. And that is what none of the main people in any of the latest superhero movies do.

Transformers movies? Ack! Please, just scour them from my brain. Please.

That part in Avengers where they thought Iron Man was dead? I gotta be honest, I was not all that bothered. If he had died, I would have felt exactly the same about the movie as I do now. *shrug*

I was a little, tiny bit almost sad when he shed one tear because he couldn't call Pepper before he sacrificed himself. But that was the first time Tony Stark ever did anything that made me feel like he deserved my sympathy. In general, he is not a likable person. He has no redeeming qualities. And therefore, I didn't care about his movies.

Same with the Hulk. Or Captain America. (He was kind of angsty. Which seems like NOT what Captain America is supposed to be.) Or Spiderman. Or Green Lantern. Hancock? One of the only Will Smith movies ever made that was plain old dumb. And that Catwoman one? Ooh. Oh, add that to the Transformers list. Just make it go away.

Am I too picky? Do you want a good example from the past few years? Alright. Here we go. Two days ago.

*SPOILER ALERT* If you haven't seen the Hobbit yet, skip this paragraph. Unless you don't care about me telling you something that happened.

There's a part where wargs are chasing the company, and they have to climb up trees to get clear of them. Then they're all stuck in trees, which subsequently catch on fire and trap the good guys with no escape.

This part is pretty much directly from the book. And if you've read it, you know they eventually escape by means of a flock of giant eagles swooping in to the rescue.

I knew this. I knew it well. I've read the Hobbit more times than all the other LOTR books put together. I knew that no one was going to die. I knew the eagles were coming. There was no question in my mind about it.

But, owing to the excellence of the movie making, I knew these characters better than I had done from the book. I was more attached to them than ever before. And though I knew it would end alright, I was Stressing. Out. The eagles did not come nearly soon enough for me. I needed them to be safe, and I needed it immediately.

That is what a good character should do to you. It doesn't matter how many times you've read/watched something. It doesn't matter how well you know the sequence of events. When it comes down to the danger, it's still scary every time, because you still love the people every time.

None of these superhero movies have done that yet. And since all of them are emotionless, and all of them are the same, I am SO BORED.

Now we'll return to Man of Steel. 


(I think they got the same guy to re-design his spandex, as did the spiderman getup.)

2) Superman is cool. I have no inherent problem with him, and he is a likable dude by nature. So I should be able to survive this movie without being annoyed.

1) But that's just the thing, though. Turning superman all dark and angsty takes away most of those things that make him superman in the first place.

It was never about the muscles and the powers. It was about his motto. Truth, Justice, and the American way. He was supposed to be the embodiment of good. Of helpfulness, and charm, and right. Make him angsty, and all of that is gone. Then what's the point?

1-B) The trailer goes on about "Oh, you have to hide, because they'll never accept you" and blah blah blah. And that's the whole basis for the angst. Sure, it's hard to not fit in. I would know. But the dude is basically immortal. He only has one weakness, and that's some mineral from a far-off planet. What are the people gonna do to him if they decide they don't like his powers? Shoot him? Imprison him? Big whoopdee-twee.

<= Seriously, what is this? Like handcuffs would ever stop superman anyway.

Now I could be wrong. Coming at it from that angle could work really, really well. It could be a fabulous learning-to-be-the-right-kind-of-man story. You know the type. Even though the world would have a hard time accepting him, he helps them anyway, because that's the kind of man he wants to be. And in the end, he finally overcomes his angst in coming to this conclusion.

In that case, it would be the only useful superhero movie of the past years.

But I have lost my faith in the superhero franchises. And in humanity in general. People don't like stories of learning to be good even when its hard. Not anymore. They just want to see things blow up. (I cite the Avengers as the poster child for this. They added just enough of the learning to be good to make people feel okay about life, but they didn't take it far enough to matter. People are scared of that these days.)

(And dang. They really do massacre these cities in every movie. Who pays for them to become un-demolished, I'd like to know. Not the superheroes, obviously.)

Because of that, I don't trust that they'd actually dare to take the movie in that direction. Or, like in Avengers, not far enough to matter. Although I really hope they do. 2) I'd like to have a superhero movie that actually means something, and that doesn't star some selfish, obnoxious dude who happens to have powers and condescends to save the world because no one else can.

I guess we'll come back to this post in 2013 and see what really happens. It has the potential to be excellent. But will they allow it to be? Probably not. Sadly.

PS. However bad the movie, though, I will buy that soundtrack. It's so good. Hans Zimmer. One of the best.

Brave

I just got into another argument about Brave. Probably the third or fourth one so far. Kind of ridiculous, but I just needed to write a post about it, describing my opinion on the matter. 

I guess the thing that bothers me is that I feel like people judge it over-harshly just because it's pixar. It's not any worse than a lot of other movies. I felt the same way about Kung Fu Panda, but everyone else loved it to death. And if I were to dare say "plot holes", "cardboard characters", and "avengers" in the same sentence, I'd be lynched on the nearest tree. 

(Don't get me wrong. I liked Avengers well enough. But only as much as I generally like a random movie that I saw because I was bored.)

I went into Brave expecting it to be terrible, because everyone had said it was, and I ended up really liking it. So I kind of feel this need to remind people about all the good things. 

To start with, the soundtrack was amazing. The graphics were amazing. And one of the things I loved about it was the Scottish feel of the whole thing. The environment and the aura of the movie was very well crafted. 

The feel and mood of something is just as important as the stuff that happens in it. I don't read Dracula over and over because I've forgotten what happens, and I want the action again. I read it over and over because I'm in the mood for a gothic, creepy, dark world for a little while. 

I won't watch Brave again because I forgot what happened. I'll watch it again because I want to be Scottish and magical for a little while.

A perfect example of that Scottish feel. =>

Here is the first part of the current argument against Brave. 

"Brave sucked! It has so much potential to have a real coming of age story with a strong female lead and they turned it into lolololol bears. Brave is just a mix of brother bear and Mulan. Easily the laziest pixar movie story wise of them all."

First of all, "anything sounds bad when you say it with that attitude." (Awesome points if you name the movie.)

Saying something with a snobby air doesn't actually change facts. 

Second, I would definitely say that Cars was the laziest of the pixars. With my own attitude thing, I say, a deusch-bag car that gets lost on his way to a big race, and has to learn how to not be a deusch so that he can get to his fans in time to get paid? Why should I care?

In that line, cars is just a mix of every male macho movie ever made. Thor, anyone? Dude who's a jerk. Loses his limelight. Has to learn to not be a jerk so he can get his powers back.

(Again, don't get me wrong. I liked Thor too. But seriously, if we're trying to talk about plot line originality, Brave doesn't fall nearly as short as some of the other pixars.)

Merida is a character that a lot of people can relate to. A rich and famous car is... what exactly? I root for Merida to get what she wants. I don't care one way or the other if the jock car makes it to his stupid race or not.

BUT

Putting personal preference aside, yes there was room for improvement on this count. There ALWAYS is. In every movie. The perfect movie has yet to be created. Not even by pixar.

The second part of the argument:

"So the fact that the first part of the movie had NOTHING to do with the rest of the movie doesn't bother you? Scottish games? Wedding suitors? Who cares, the movie was about magic bears! It was all just a set up to get to the bear parts, and then provide comedic relief. Pixar was lazy in that they have two separate story lines going and no way of tying the two together. The girl didn't change her mothers mind, being a bear did. I fail to see how she's even a strong character honestly, her role was terribly cliched and just when you think she's going to really start developing (after the arrow tournament thingy) nope, magic bears, because why not? Every thing from that point on was just downhill development wise for Merida.

I get that she's supposed to be a strong female lead, and I really wanted her to be because that would have been awesome and unique and something that Pixar of all movie studios could have pulled off wonderfully. Brave is ultimately a movie that didn't know what direction it wanted to go so it tried to go both and missed the mark on both ends. Forgettable characters and major plot flaws, the only redeeming thing about Brave was the fact the main character was a "strong female", if that wasn't the case the movie would be laughably forgettable."

Answer:

Firstly, Why not? Is there a really good reason that bears aren't allowed as magical accessories in a magical story? Because if not, what's the problem?

Secondly, it's not actually about bears anyway.
I don't think the two parts of the movie were nearly as disconnected as all that. 

Mother and daughter clash over a really big life choice. Their relationship is smashed to pieces. The only way they can repair it is by actually listening to each other and trying to be a mother and daughter again. Trying to see the good in the other person. But they're both so dang stubborn that it only happens when they're forced into it by drastically bad choices. IE. through "your basic spirit guide transformation magic." (10 more awesome points if you can name that movie.)

In other words, it's not a movie about magic bears. It's a movie about the relationship between a mom and her kid, and them learning how to not be too stupidly stubborn, and remembering what's really important in life. It just happens to involve bears. If it had been crocodiles instead of bears, the movie would have been exactly the same. (Though much less Scottish.) 

If it were a movie where the action was important (like in the avengers) I would understand the point and agree with it. What the heck? But it isn't. If the intelligence of all animals was judged based on its ability to climb a tree, dolphins would be royally screwed over. You just can't judge it with the same filter. A feel-good, warm fuzzies, relationship movie will never accomplish what a smash-em, bash-em, blow-em-all-up movie does. But neither one is inherently better or worse than the other. They just reach different audiences. 

As the audience for Brave was clearly a warm-fuzzies, generally female, focus on the characters type, I posit that it accomplished exactly what it was trying to accomplish. 

Thirdly, I think "forgettable characters" probably depends on the personal taste. That isn't something that's empirically measurable. I mean, I'll remember Merida significantly longer than I'll remember lighting McQueen and his girfriend...um...

Dang. I honestly don't remember what her name was. Or even what color she was. I only remember that scene about the pinstriping tattoo.

Huh. Well, case closed on that account.

Fourthly, major plot flaws....

Hmm. I feel like the definition of "major plot flaws" would be something to the effect of things that are so jarring that you can't get over them in order to enjoy the rest of the movie. The poster child for Major Plot Flaws would be Snow White and the Huntsman, sadly a movie that even Chris Hemsworth couldn't save. Worst case of arbitrary convenient occurrences ever. I even started counting how many times the queen could have offed Snow White right then and there, and had done with her, but monologued instead. I lost count halfway through the movie. 

<= Chris Hemsworth. The only good part of that movie, and even he sucked in it. Pretty badly. 

A good movie that still has a few plot holes would be more accurately housed in the "minor plot flaws" section. Like how the Hulk conveniently learns how to control his power while falling to his death. And how Iron man conveniently falls back through the portal just in time to not be nuked to death. And how the alien forces conveniently all die when their mother ship gets blown up. And how Iron man says "This thing is gonna blow in less than a minute", and yet it takes over two minutes to fly it up into space and let it actually blow up. And how Odin conveniently finds a way to send Thor back to earth in order to get Loki, although he can't seem to do it so that Thor can be with his girlfriend. Or how Hawkeye can shoot his bow backward without looking and still hit stuff? Seriously?

Need I go on?

The point is, a movie can still be very good and very enjoyable to the masses, even when it has some random stupid little conveniences. Brave does not have any Huntsman level plot fissures. Even though I can't think of anything off the top of my head as I type this, I'm sure it does have some holes on the "minor plot flaws" scale. But they obviously weren't jarring enough to rip me out of the movie. Therefore they are forgivable. Just as those Avengers conveniences are forgivable. 

And now for the end:

"If you're a company that has built it's self up a reputation of being as close to perfection as Pixar has and leveraged that to make billions of dollars, yes, it is fair to hold them to a much much higher standard. Pixar is where they are now because they've demanded perfection in every aspect of their business model and it's worked with very very few exceptions. Cars/2 was a let down but it was creative enough to still be unique. 

 I agree on your about the relationship between the mom and daughter and I like that it was focused around that, I just feel that there are better ways to go from A to C with our having to resort to the magic as B. The visuals and soundtrack were both amazing I'm not arguing that at all.

Pixar are master story tellers, that's their "thing". Brave as a regular movie was just ok, a feel good movie and aimed largely at a much younger audience. As a Pixar movie, it was a let down, Brave could have been so much more, and frankly deserved much more than it was given."

 Firstly, of course that is true. Pixar has built up a reputation. It needs to uphold it. But that is not at all what I mean by my argument about how people judge it too harshly. This is what I do mean:


When I was a kid, I proudly told everyone in Virginia that I was from Utah where they had "real mountains". I was so excited to get back here where the mountains were so epic, and then... I did. And those everest-ine peaks were just piddly little brown chunks of dusty rock. 


This is what I expected. 

This blip is what I got.

Now, the rockies are not piddly at all. (Except maybe directly around provo. :P ) But I built them up so much in my little kid imagination that the real ones will never again hold any magic for me. 

Therefore, in regards to Brave, I don't mean that it didn't deserve to be as good a movie as Pixar could make, or that Pixar made it flawlessly. I just mean that when expectations get to a certain point, they are unattainable, even when the result is still awesome and great.

When we all imagine perfection, near perfection will always be a disappointment. 

Secondly, I just read an essay on this exact thing, and I refer to the words of C. S. Lewis and his abundant wisdom when I say this.The use of magic is not inherently "resorted to", and I take exception to the inference that it is. 

A person can create magic in their world because they want it to be magical. Not everyone who does so is only doing it because they can't think of a better plot device to get their point across. To assume so is to be exceptionally close-minded and judgmental. My novel My rules. Fire-breathing princess, if I freaking want it. 

Yes, there are other ways to get from A to C without B being magic. But that doesn't make them inherently better. Nor does it make magic the wrong choice. 

An author (or screenwriter) makes that choice based on the feel of the story he wants to present. As I said before, it could have been crocodiles instead of bears. But it would have made the story feel completely different. Perhaps egyptian instead of scottish. Wrong? No. Different? Yes.

They could have encountered something besides magic to get to their ending. Would that be wrong? No. Different? Yes. And in this case, different is not what they wanted. They went for mystical, magical-ness. That's what they got. 

Thirdly, are not all pixars aimed at younger audiences? The great thing about both pixar and disney is that they are masters of making a movie for children that adults not only tolerate, but love as well. I don't agree that Brave is the exception. (Hunchback might be, though. Good movie, but too dark for kids to really understand.) 

Ask anyone in the world, and they'll say that disney makes kids movies. All disney and all pixar are geared toward kids. But all of them make the movie good enough that not only to the children love it, and get exposed to quality media. But the parents and babysitters love it too, and are not driven to distraction by it. 

Lastly, yes, I agree to an extent. There are loads of things that Brave could have been given. But I don't know if I agree that they should have been added. As I've said about twelve million times already, the aura of the movie, and the type of story they wanted to tell were achieved successfully. Changing it into a different movie by adding more explosions, or less bears, or more handsome men, (blah blah blah) wouldn't make it better or worse. Just different. Sometimes different is good. Sometimes it isn't. 

So, in conclusion, I'm sorry that you were not part of the target audience for this particular installment of Pixar.  But Brave wasn't bad just because it wasn't for you. Tune in next time, and maybe cars 3 will suit your need for manly things.

Toodles. 

PS. I don't actually believe this, but here's some food for thought. What if the reason that girls loved Brave and guys didn't is because the guys are offended at seeing an accurate example of how men really act?

ABC's of not spouting false election information

People! People! *facepalm*

Let's get some facts straight, before you go off looking like complete idiots. Again.

"The mormon church is" alphabet:

A) Just a nickname for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. (Yes, long, I know. But note the names involved.)

B) Does, in fact, worship Jesus.

C) The guy named Mormon was a historian. Like Herodotus or Plutarch. Just not greek. (Hence "The Book of Mormon". As in "The book of Matthew" or "The book of Mark" Not "A book that worships some random dude instead of Jesus.")

D) Does NOT believe that black people should still be slaves. (Seriously, where did that even come from?)

E) Does NOT believe that black people are an inferior race.

F) Does, in fact, have members who are *gasp* black. Quite a few, point of fact.

G) Actually does MORE for humanitarian relief than quite a few big-time organizations. ( http://mormon.org/humanitarian-aid ).

H) And no, I don't mean just money and blankets. Take a good look at all the work hours put in by non-paid volunteers.

I) Does NOT believe that women are inferior.

J) Does NOT believe that women shouldn't vote or have jobs.

K) Does NOT believe that women who have been raped "deserved it" or were somehow at fault.

L) DOES believe that families are of utmost importance.

M) Does NOT believe in tearing families apart.

N) DOES believe in love and tolerance.

O) Not to be confused with supporting bad habits or becoming enablers. But one can love a person and treat them with respect without agreeing with that person's opinions or choices.

P) Does NOT support bullying, hate-crimes, or persecution, no matter what the relevant issue is.

Q) Does, unfortunately, have members that don't always act in accordance with the above.

R) Does believe in the right of every human being to exercise freedom of choice.

S) Does NOT believe in using force or coersion to "convert" unwilling members.

T) Does want to share their beliefs with others. (When you taste a food that makes your tastebuds throw a happy-dance party, do you hide it away, or do you tell every one of your friends how delicious it was and that they should go out and taste it too?)

U) Does NOT have political affiliations. The official stance is: Go out and vote. Participate in the civic processes. Use your own freedom of choice to decide who you vote for.

V) No, that is not code for "You know how we want you to vote, but make it look like we're not controlling your lives". (Believe it or not, there are leaders at the head of the church from both major political parties.)

W) Is not a rich-white-people-only church. There are 14 1/2 million members, and over 8 million of them live outside of the United States.

X) Does NOT still endorse polygamy. That would be the Flds church. (A radical splinter group that broke off about 100 years ago, and became an official religion itself in 1932.)

Y) That Warren Jeffs guy? Yeah, Flds. (See above).

Z) Is NOT against science, knowledge, and informed rational thinking. Quite the opposite. The church strongly believes in getting a good education, and also believes that science does not contradict religion, but enhances it. God created the world. Science is the exploration and appreciation of that world.