Best. Catalog. Ever.

So, today in the mail, I got a whole bunch of catalogs--ones that were specifically addressed to me, not just "Resident."

Here's the list: Smith and Noble Windoware
Sur la Table
The Source Perrier Collection
The Pyramid Collection

Of these 4 catalogs, two of them are companies I have ordered from. I requested window treatment samples from Smith and Noble about 2 years ago, and last year, I ordered a bunch of pie birds from Sur la Table.

What about the other two? Source Perrier looks a lot like a company like Pottery Barn or Crate and Barrel, and I get the Pottery Barn catalog, so somehow making it onto the Source Perrier list isn't a huge surprise.

The Pyramid Collection catalog was by far the funniest thing I got in the mail today. Here's a link to their website--it looks like a company that sells new age jewelry, along with a pretty cool collection of dresses and cloaks that are straight out of a fantasy novel or fairy tale. I'm pretty sure that I got onto this list because last Christmas, I ordered my dad a Lord of the Rings letter opener from The Noble Collection--you know, that company that sells Harry Potter wands, LOTR jewelry, and swords from Pirates of the Caribbean.

I flipped through the Pyramid Collection catalog, and it was awesome. Not that I really want anything from the catalog, but it's hilarious to see what they sell.

Perhaps most impressive was the number of full-length cloaks with hoods that are available. The reversible purple/green velvet one to the right is just one example; black and red are also available.

The catalog is also clearly marketed toward women, or at least, people who are buying gifts for women. One of the things that made me laugh a lot were the numerous corset/thong sets, like the one picture on the left. Apparently the desire to be a sexy wood nymph is more common than one would have thought. Then again, maybe that's not such a surprising fantasy, after all.

Two other things that looked pretty cool: the wench dress and the nymph dress. I'm not really sure where I would wear either, except to a Halloween party, but they both look like they would be a lot of fun to wear. What's perhaps most humorous is that the catalog doesn't pretend that these can be worn in real life. Anything that claims to be "irresistible to elves" clearly isn't meant to be worn to work. The question then remains, where do you wear these things?

There was one thing in the catalog that I would like, and would actually wear in real life. It's a lace, long-sleeved turtleneck top, colored in pewter and silver:
Of course, since it's $80, I probably won't get it any time soon, but it's still a cool top. And it's a fun catalog to get, especially on a day with no actual personal mail. :)

I Am the Law-Giver!

I'm not a truck person. I don't like SUVs, I will never buy a minivan, and to be quite honest, I think most suburban Americans need to get over themselves and stop thinking they "need" a 19 mpg, 6 passenger vehicle to commute 1 person 5 miles to work.

I also hate most commercials for SUVs and trucks. I'm tired of hearing about towing capacity, and nothing pisses me off more than seeing one of these stupid vehicles driving off-road, destroying some natural habitat for the sake of a pleasure drive. The commercials that equate patriotism with driving a truck or SUV are almost as bad, and make me actively plan to not buy a truck. Ever.

That said, I saw a commercial for a Toyota Tacoma while watching the Tampa Bay/Jacksonville game on Sunday that almost made me want to buy a truck. It's a completely ridiculous ad, but so unexpected and different from anything that's out there, that it's totally awesome. Here it is:



Honestly, while it's a little irritating that Blizzard sold out to Toyota like that, the way that the commercial plays on the inside jokes of the game (guys who play night elf female characters, the whole Leeroy Jenkins meme, etc.) is pretty clever. It caught me completely off-guard, and as a result, I've paid more attention to this ad than any other car ad for a long time. Of course, I'm in the correct demographic, as I play the game, but still, advertisers should take this ad to heart: unexpected ads get attention.

How Transparent Can You Be?

I grew up in the great state of Wisconsin, home of the Green Bay Packers, cheese curds, and unbelievably lenient liquor laws. Did you know that in Wisconsin, you can order alcohol in a restaurant at any age, as long as a parent or guardian is with you? When I worked as a waitress, the bartenders told me about this father and his 12 year old daughter who would come in on Sunday mornings and drink Bloody Marys. Slightly disturbing, but legal.

I was also used to liquor stores being open after noon on Sunday, and most grocery stores having a liquor annex, where you could buy any sort of alcohol you wanted, from tequila to Zima to a nice Cabernet.

So when I moved to Minnesota, I was in for a bit of a shock. No alcohol in restaurants for anyone under 21, period. No liquor stores open on Sundays. And, perhaps most inconvenient, the only alcohol sold in grocery stores has an alcohol content of 3.2% or lower.

These days, certain groups are pushing to pass legislation that would legalize the sale of wine in Minnesota grocery stores. A group named Minnesota Smart opposes this legislation; every time I go to the liquor store, I see the Minnesota Smart poster that says the following:

9 out of 10 Minnesotans agree that increased exposure of children to alcohol is a bad idea.

Now, let's set aside for a minute the fact that I would like to see wine in grocery stores, and that I'm not necessarily sure that treating alcohol as some sort of forbidden thing only for adults is the best way to teach children about alcohol. I honestly haven't looked at both sides of the Minnesota-wine-in-grocery-stores debate, and so I'm not really in a good position to judge the validity of Minnesota Smart's overall position.

What I AM in a position to judge is the ridiculous transparency of this ad. Who do they think they're kidding? If this sign were at a school, or a community center, it would be believable. But you put it up at a liquor store and expect me to believe that the real reason you oppose this legislation is for the sake of the children? C'mon folks, I'm not that dumb.

It's clear that the real reason that liquor stores are concerned about this proposed legislation is that they don't want their profits to fall. And that could be a perfectly reasonable argument in and of itself--"Don't vote for this because it will put a lot of small stores out of business and move the money to the hands of big box grocery stores." But instead, they choose the overly paternalistic, patronizing approach of appealing to our sentimental morality.

And the real kicker is, this liquor store that I frequent is less than 100 yards away from the grocery store. It's in the middle of an outdoor shopping center, and right next to a large condo/apartment complex. Kids walk past it all the time. It's clear that this store plays up the convenience of people doing their grocery and liquor shopping at the same time. And yet, this is the very thing that they choose to play up in their ads against this legislation.

It's such a disingenuous, transparent approach that if the issue shows up on the ballot, I'm tempted to vote for it, just because I'm angry at being taken for such an idiot. And because a glass of wine with dinner does sound like a good thing.

Blog Action Day

Today is Blog Action Day, which is the day where lots of bloggers write on one subject in an attempt to really raise consciousness about a certain issue. This year's issue is the environment, which works out pretty well for me, since I was thinking of writing a post like this anyways.

On Friday, Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Reading comments about this award are interesting. About half the articles/posts/etc. that I've read discuss the implications of this for Gore's political career: will he run for President? if not, which Democratic candidate will he endorse? Is Hillary Clinton "green" enough for Gore to support?

The other half of the comments I've read are Gore-bashing comments, suggesting that, for any number of reasons, Gore doesn't deserve the award. Among the most-cited reason is that global warming isn't a problem, and that this is all a liberal European, anti-American conspiracy to try to influence American politics.

Honestly, I have a hard time understanding the reasoning behind rejecting global warming as valid. And I'm not just saying this to make a rhetorical point, or to criticize those who think this way--it's just that I legitimately do not understand why so many people are so invested in rejecting the idea of global warming.

For me, my reasons for not understanding go something like this:

It seems that there are two possibilities--either global warming is a problem, or it's not. If global warming isn't a problem, and we work to change it, nothing enormously bad will happen. If global warming is a problem, and we don't work to change, the consequences will be devastating. In other words, the cost of being wrong about global warming is much more significant if you don't act to fix global warming. It's sort of like Pascal's Wager, but about the environment, rather than God.

Now, some people say that working to stop global warming will hurt the economy, because we will be stunting the growth of big businesses, and that limiting the use of fossil fuels will really slow the economy down. Oh, and individual households will be hurt because they'll be spending more on things like eco-friendly cars, appliances, and food. I can understand this objection in the short term, I guess, but honestly, in the long term, going green seems like it's a huge economic benefit.

To start on the individual level...

Yes, replacing appliances with more energy efficient ones will have a large initial start-up cost, but once you do, you'll save lots of money monthly. Turning down the furnace or air conditioner will again use less energy, and in the winter, a slightly cooler house will give you a good excuse to snuggle up to your significant other! My husband and I ride the bus, instead of driving and parking when we go to work, so we're able to own one car and avoid the ridiculous gas prices and parking rates. The compact fluorescent light bulbs are more expensive than incandescent, but they use less energy and last longer, again saving money (plus, a lot of stores offer pretty hefty rebates for those things). Buying local produce that's in season is more energy-efficient than buying imported fruits or vegetables, and it's usually fresher, better-tasting, and cheaper. I could keep going, but from my experience, there are a lot of things that you can do to "go green" that are not only relatively easy to do, but will save you pretty significant money in the long run.

For corporations, the initial cost of going green is perhaps more significant, but the potential for future innovation and cost-savings is endless. There is forever the complaint that so many American jobs are getting outsourced, that the US can't compete against powers like China, and that the US economy is becoming too service-based, rather than production-based. Well, here's our big chance! There is seemingly endless potential for US companies to develop greener products and processes--energy sources, cars, air filters, etc. Not only could developing these products and processes lead to overall lowered energy consumption, but it could give the economy the kick-start it needs by making the US a cutting-edge innovator in the area of clean technology.

I guess to me, the fight against global warming is also a fight against unnecessary consumption and waste. Releasing less crap into the air and water will always seem better to me, even if it has nothing to do with global warming. Clean air, clean water, and a stable climate seem like things that should be desirable to everyone, which is why I have such a big problem understanding why so many people are so resistant to even considering the fact that people like Al Gore might be right.

I, for one, do think that he's right. I think that his consistent stance on the environment for the last several decades shows that this is not some political agenda, but rather, a deep, impassioned belief in working to make the world a better place. So, congratulations Mr. Gore. And thank you for making the environment a key issue in this next presidential election, even without your participation.

You Won't Catch My Kid Wearing That!

In church this weekend, there was a little girl, about 6 months old, 2 rows behind us. Of all the kids in church, she was the only one who was consistently fussy, and at several points during the service, she had to be taken out of the sanctuary because she was disrupting things. She was also wearing a shirt that said, "This is my princess shirt." Coincidence? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.

I'm sure you've all seen kids wearing shirts like this. For girls, they are shirts that imply that they're princesses or angels. For boys, they suggest that if there's trouble, the boy has caused it but it's not his fault. And there are a lot of shirts like this out there. These two examples come from CafePress.com, where all you have to do is type "princess" or "spoiled" into the search box, and dozens, if not hundreds of results pop up.




Let me be blunt. I hate shirts like this. If my children ever get shirts like this as gifts, they will be donated to Goodwill. I hate the idea of some spoiled kid running the household, and parents just thinking it's cute. And so instead of disciplining the child, the parents celebrate the fact that they are raising a spoiled brat. There's something really wrong with that mindset to me. I know that many people probably just think the shirts are cute, and for them, they're not really indicative of their parenting styles. But honestly, I don't understand what is cute about suggesting that your child is so spoiled that he or she can't take "no" for an answer.

My husband tells me that I'm overreacting about this, and I really need to get a life. Probably so. But I've been watching for proof for my theory, and every time I've seen a kid wearing a shirt like this, he or she has been causing some sort of trouble, whether it's crying in church or running like a hooligan around the mall. Maybe it's a coincidence, but I'm not going to take that chance on my kids.

Silly Students

So, since I should be grading papers instead of writing this, I thought I'd use my students as fodder for today's post. Here are the top three things my students have done recently that have irritated me:

3. A guy came to me at the beginning of class and said, "I have to leave for a meeting in 20 minutes. Is that ok?" Here's what I wanted to tell him: "Well, you can see the attendance policy. You get to miss 2 classes without consequences. After that, it starts to count against you. And why are you scheduling things during class and then telling me about it? Do you really want to make it clear to your instructor that you put her class at the bottom of your priority list? So, no. It's not ok that you leave, but if you want to, go for it. You're an adult, and you're in college. I certainly won't stop you."

2. On Thursday, a student handed in his most recent assignment, which was to write a letter to the editor of a publication of his choice. One of the assignment requirements is that he try to persuade his reader that his point of view was right. That's right. Being persuasive was a key part of the assignment. So, this student hands in his letter and says, "Just so you know, I wrote this letter to be more informational than persuasive." How am I supposed to respond to that? This guy tells me that he just ignored one of the assignment requirements, and I'm supposed to take his letter and say, "Oh, thank you! I'm so glad that you decided, on your own, that the assignment wasn't what you wanted to do. It's great to see that sort of initiative. This will serve you really well in the real world, when you decide to change the specifications on a bridge that you're building, or a house that you're designing, because you decided you didn't like the original plan." Needless to say, I had an inappropriate amount of fun grading that letter :)

and the number 1. most irritating thing one of my students did this past week....

My students are writing blogs, which for the most part is working out great. This past week, one of my students writes that he doesn't think that professors should share their political/religious/social/etc. opinions in class, because students deserve to get an unbiased education. This student isn't alone in thinking this. There was a movement at the university a few years ago where students didn't want professors talking politics in the classroom, because if the students didn't agree with the professor, they were worried it would affect their grades. What bullshit. First of all, it pisses me off that just because I'm the instructor, students think I'm not supposed to have opinions. Everyone has opinions. How can I lead a meaningful class discussion if I'm not allowed to use my thoughts and opinions on a subject as a basis for that discussion?

But even more problematic to me is the underlying assumption behind this sort of statement, the assumption that if a professor doesn't clearly express his/her opinions, that means that the material is being presented in an unbiased way. Honestly, I would rather have a professor who was completely opposite of me politically, but in an open way, so that it was easier to identify the bias. I think it's even more insidious of a professor to hide their political or religious bias and present materials as neutral, even when they're not.

And finally, this suggests a laziness on the part of students I'm teaching, an unwillingness or inability to think for themselves and examine issues critically. And to me, that's sort of scary. The sort of people who don't want their own views challenged are the people who are most defensive when it comes to those views, and most unwilling to think openly about other possibilities. The fact that this attitude toward professors expressing their own opinions seems to be becoming more and more common suggests that this closed-mindedness is spreading, which is something I see as detrimental to our society as a whole.

Anyways, hopefully tomorrow I'll be done with grading, and I can post about something more fun and exciting :)

Why women invented answering machines

Favre is the best!

Normally I don't take Terry Bradshaw all that seriously, but when he writes in this article that Brett Favre is the best quarterback the game has ever seen, I'm tempted to agree with him. Since I'm a die-hard Packer fan to begin with, perhaps my endorsement of Favre doesn't carry much weight, but I think that honestly, what he has accomplished should convince even the most skeptical.

Why?

Well, to begin with, look at his formal accomplishments. He's won the Super Bowl, he's been voted MVP 3 times--more than anyone else, he has the record for most consecutive regular season starts, and he has the record for most touchdown passes, now at 422. He's the complete package. He has great leadership skills, he's a standout athlete who motivates other (often mediocre) players to perform well, he's dedicated to the sport, and he excels at what he does. When you look at other quarterbacks the game has had, they don't have all of these traits. Sure, many of them were pretty fantastic, but they were working within a team of immense talent.

The thing that really impresses me about Favre, though, is that he loves the game, and lets it show. People who watch him know that he's having fun, that this is where he wants to be, and that for him, it's about winning as much as he can. He says that he's not staying in the game for the records, and while part of me is quite skeptical, when I watch him play, it's easy to see that he loves to play and that he loves to win.

Even more than that, he knows how to have fun out there. The other record he was close to breaking on Sunday was the record for most interceptions thrown by a quarterback--a record both he and the Vikings receivers were well aware of. There was one play where one of the Vikings nearly picked off a pass that Favre threw--the camera showed that player grinning at Favre, and Favre was grinning right back at him. Favre knew what that guy had wanted, and was able to laugh at both himself (for being close to the record) and the player (for not quite breaking it yet).

Here's hoping that Favre and the Pack continue to do well this season, and that Favre gets that one last Super Bowl ring he's been looking for (hey, I'm an optimist). Because honestly, when he leaves, it's going to be a long time until Green Bay, or anyone, for that matter, sees a quarterback of Favre's caliber.

Half-hearted squeeing

According to urbandictionary.com: Squee is A noise primarily made by an over-excited fangirl, however it has spread rapidly and is now widely spread among the web community.

What does this have to do with anything? Well, "squee" is a word often used by the recappers at Television Without Pity, one of the best television sites on the tubes.

I'll give you a practical example from the recap of last night's episode of The Office:

But then the camera car slows way down, and we watch Pam ducking her head over the steering wheel, and then Jim getting in the passenger seat, and Pam and Jim kissing. And if there's any more dialogue before the commercial, I can't hear it over the sound of North America squeeing.

What's that, you say? Pam and Jim are together? Well, yes. Teranu, why aren't you more excited about this?, you ask. Aren't you a huge Pam/Jim fan? Don't you want them to end up happily ever after?

Yes, that's the thing. I want them to end up happily ever after. I don't want them to break up, get back together, break up, get back together, etc. for the next 3 seasons. Them getting together now means that something awful is going to have to happen to them, otherwise their relationship will no longer be an interesting part of the show. So, although I did squee when I saw Pam and Jim together, it was a half-hearted squee. Honestly, I was kind of excited to think that perhaps Pam and Jim were just friends for now; and then, after we found out that they were together, I thought it would have been good if Pam and Jim had been able to keep their relationship a secret from everyone--the camera crew, the viewers, and the rest of the office--for at least half of a season. Then, when we did find out that they were actually together, we could have the retroactive happiness of knowing that they'd been together since August.

Other than this development with Pam and Jim, the rest of the episode was great. Dwight killing Angela's cat was hilarious; I'm glad Karen is gone; Kevin cracks me up; and I'd like to see more of Kelly and Ryan--it will be fun to see them each post-break up. Part of why I was excited to think that Pam and Jim weren't quite together was that it would bring the office dynamic closer to the way it was at the beginning of the American series. And things were closer to that dynamic last night than most of last season--the proof was that my husband laughed out loud at least 5 times, after getting irritated with the show and mocking it most of last season.

I'd like to leave you with this thought about Pam and Jim from the recap at Television Without Pity:

Oh, man, I just cannot conceive what kind of horrible apocalypse the writers are cooking up to get these two apart eventually. I mean, if either cheats on the other, the fans are going to be burning TV producers in effigy. Seriously, the only way this ends is with Pam and Jim married, or one of them dead. You read it here first!

Oh, and I'd like to apologize for not posting much recently...School has started, and it turns out that I actually have work that needs to be done. Who would have figured?

Thought-provoking memorials

While I was in Berlin, I visited the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, which is just south of the Brandenburg Gate. It's the size of several city blocks--4.7 acres--and it's simply covered by enormous concrete slabs. The slabs are all the same width and length, but their height varies from about 6 inches to over 7 feet tall. There are no words. There is no plaque, explaining the meaning of the stone slabs. There isn't even a sign in on corner, explaining what the memorial is for. It's just there.


I was really impressed by this memorial. The size, color, and material of the concrete slabs gives the memorial a weight, a gravitas, if you will, that makes the place quite solemn and even sacred. The design allows visitors to walk in between the slabs, letting them feel as if they are a part of the memorial. And often, this participation can be quite unsettling--the slabs are tall enough that you can lose sight of the edges of the memorial, or lose contact with those you came to the memorial with. It's disconcerting.

Perhaps even more importantly, it allows visitors to figure out for themselves what they think the memorial means. The lack of direct labels on anything allow people to openly interpret what they think something stands for, yet the scale and solemnity of the memorial steer their thoughts in certain directions. It's a memorial that will stay with you, keeping you wondering, for weeks to come.

This is a similar to how I felt when I visited the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C. It's so different from all the other memorials, and so subtle about being a memorial, that it really made me think. And I felt greater reverence there than I did at any of the other nearby memorials.

In his slide essay about the Spire of Dublin, Witold Rybczynski argues much the same thing, saying that since the Spire is open to interpretation, it is more meaningful to those who see it. He also points to the memorial for the World Trade Center disasters as a memorial that doesn't live up to its potential--it is too literal of a representation to really affect people and challenge them to think. I think this is really unfortunate--the disaster of September 11th affected so many people in so many different ways, that creating a memorial with a fixed, definite meaning denies the reality of that day for many. I would like to see more open meanings in national memorials--the chance for the viewer to become an active participant in the event, where the memorial provides a set of questions and the viewer is forced to figure out for him or herself what to think about these questions. Simple tributes are a fitting and nice way to memorialize something, but memorials such as these discussed above are the ones that truly stay with you, that even have the power to change you.

The problem with Britney

I admit it. I used to be a big Britney Spears fan. I own her first three albums--and this when I was listening to her right when downloading stuff from Napster wouldn't get you in trouble. I even watched Crossroads (albeit on an airplane where that was the only thing to watch).

The last few years, I've realized that her music is crap (and quite possibly has always been crap, although I'm not quite ready to admit that yet) and that the craziness of her personal life is simply too distracting to take her seriously as a musician. I really don't care about who she's sleeping with, who's going to get custody of her kids, or what her hair actually looks like. I think the things that she wears are absolutely hideous, but if she wants to, again, who really cares?

And so even though she headlined the VMAs on Sunday, I didn't even take the time to tune in, because I didn't care. I was surprised, however, on Monday to read how simply awful she was. This was her big chance. She was onstage at a major awards show, poised to show the music world that yes, she was back and better than ever. Anyone with half a brain would realize that if you mess this up, you're done. But according to anyone who covered the event, she just tanked.

So I had to watch the video for myself. Here it is:



There were two big complaints about Britney's performance:
1. She was woefully out of shape and it really showed.
2. She was lazy, not matching her lip-synching to the music and not putting any energy into her dance moves.

I'm not going to say a whole lot about the first. For someone who has had two kids, she looked great. I can honestly say that if I have that figure after I've had any children, I will be quite happy. However, I have no plans now or ever in the future to prance around on a stage in boy shorts and a bra. Especially when 19 years olds who have never even considered having kids are writhing around on stage next to me. Not a good frame of reference.

But I don't think it's fair to blame this all on Britney. There are plenty of female musicians who have kids and dress sexily on stage, even if they aren't quite as thin as they used to be. I would look to her costumer, and her publicist, and her agent, and ask them, "Why didn't you guys catch this? Why didn't you dress her in something that is provocative, yet doesn't accentuate her unflattering aspects? And can't someone find her a wig or extensions or something that doesn't look like it's been dragged through the dirt by a cat?" Come on. This is the headline act for the VMAs, and no one watched this performance in advance and had the authority to make some constructive suggestions about costuming? I don't believe that for a minute.

But what I will hold Britney responsible for is her complete lack of energy throughout the performance. One of the things that I like about her as a performer was her crisp dancing, as well as her ability to make simple motions dramatic. She's also been very good at pushing the envelope during live performances--stripping, large snakes, kissing Madonna--she always was doing something to get her audience's attention. And her performance on Sunday had none of that. She looked lethargic, her movements were sloppy, and her performance was just the same thing she's always done.

For comparison, check out this video from the 2000 VMAs, where she covered the Stones' "Satisfaction" and performed "Oops! I Did It Again." Here, she's full of energy, her dancing is crisp, and she really shocks her audience when she pulls off that suit. I can still remember watching it in my dorm room at college with my friends--all of us were sitting there saying, "Is she seriously doing this?"



Now, we're asking the same question--"Is she seriously doing this?"--but for all of the wrong reasons. Britney, either care about what you're doing, or get off the stage, and let us watch someone who does.

Tote bags and more

So recently, I've gotten on this kick where I'm trying to use cloth tote bags to take home groceries instead of using new paper or plastic bags every time I go to the store. I'm kind of picky, though. I don't just want any tote bag--I want cool tote bags. So that one that you got from the security data management seminar at work is completely out. Don't try to give it to me. I'll give it back.

Here is my collection of bags thus far:

I have two bags that I got from my sister-in-law in Germany. Germans are big on using cloth bags for groceries, often making you pay for paper or plastic if you don't bring your own bag. The two I got are identical, and both have a frog kissing a turtle, surrounded by a rainbow, with the words "Schuetzen unsere Umwelt"--which means, "Protect our environment." It's cute, it's classic, and it has words in a foreign language on it. Definitely cool.

My favorite one, though, is a cream-colored bag that just says [Onyxia Hide Backpack] on both sides in green letters. It's simple, it's understated, and very few people will know what it's talking about. Very nerdy. Very cool.

And so that's it, for now. It's enough to get me about $50 worth of groceries, give or take. I'm keeping my eye out for a few more, though. The one that I currently want is this one:
Yes, that's right. "Republicans for Voldemort." It makes me giggle every time I see it (no offense, Jack :) ). And what makes me laugh even harder is that you can get it as a onesie for babies as well.
Let's just say that I'm really tempted.

Vacation pics!

Ok, here are a few of my favorite pictures from our recent trip to England and Germany:

In Penzance (England), we visited St. Michael's Mount, a castle/monastery built on an island. The island is really close to shore, and you can walk to it when the tide is out. So we did.
Perhaps our favorite part of the trip was our visit to Tintagel (also in England), where we stayed at this tiny youth hostel right on the edge of the cliffs. Kids under 3 weren't allowed to stay there, because they might fall off the edge. Honestly. There were picnic tables, then 2 feet, then cliff. It was awesome.

After we went to England, we spent 6 days with my brother and his wife in Berlin, which was quite different from hiking in the British countryside, but also very cool. One of the things I enjoyed the most was how much variety there was in the city. New buildings were right next to old, different architectural styles were sprinkled throughout the different neighborhoods--and it worked. The city doesn't seem jumbled or a hodge-podge, but instead a living, evolving organism. The Fernsehturm (TV tower) that is in the former East Berlin is one of the architectural icons of the city that I was most impressed by.It was an amazing two weeks, but it's nice to be home, too...even if it means I have to go back to work.

World's. Best. Video.

I know that I may have posted this as "Video of the Week" at some point in the past, but I really think that it deserves its own post. I've been a fan of this song/video for quite some time, and it's been out long enough for there to be parodies of it (like this one).

Before I say anymore, you need to watch the video for yourself:



Why is this video so great? I'm not sure the video on its own is a classic, but with the song, it definitely is. I think it's primarily for two reasons:

First, the song is awesome. It's catchy, it's singable, and it's funny. My brother actually played it at his wedding reception, and some of his wife's aunts and uncles--who didn't even know the song--thought it was a great song and got up to dance. Now that's a good song.

Second, it references pop culture icons that are slightly nostalgic for those of us who are in our 20s-30s. Transformers. Star Wars. Chuck Norris. It's the same reason that those clip videos of 80s cartoon theme songs are so popular--it's fun to revisit the popular culture that was around when you were younger.

Anyways, watch the video. Learn the song. Share it with your friends. And love it.

The Aristocats

I'm currently in the process of uploading all my vacation pictures to my computer, so hopefully, I'll have them for you in the next day or two. In the meantime, I thought I'd briefly post about the movies that I saw on the flights to and from Europe.

First of all, I have to say that movie technology on airplanes has really improved. Instead of just one movie showing on common screens, now, you have a small screen in front of you where you can select from 30 different choices. Not only that, but you can play them whenever you want, and even pause and rewind. No more wondering what happens to Britney Spears at the end of Crossroads just because you fell asleep!

I watched 4 movies total in between my two transatlantic flights: Shrek the Third, Ocean's 13, Someone Like You, and The Aristocats.

Shrek the Third was ok, but not as good as either of the first two. The introduction of the Arthurian story for new material was fun, but part of me is starting to think that maybe Shrek needs to pull his act together, stop scratching his ass in public, and be slightly more dignified every once in a while. He doesn't have to change who he is, but he could learn to adapt to different social situations more readily.

Ocean's 13 was a lot of fun--much better than Ocean's 12, I think. The return to the big-scale casino heist worked really well, and there were quite a few good laughs. I'm planning on renting this one again to watch it on a slightly bigger screen.

Someone Like You was a pretty typical chick flick. Ashley Judd, Greg Kinnear, and Hugh Jackman all star in it, and it was enjoyable, except for the ending kiss, which looked as if the two stars were trying to bite each other, rather than kiss. C'mon folks. Make me believe that you're in love.

I watched The Aristocats because I saw it as a kid, but hadn't seen it for maybe 20 years. I was curious. And of the movies that I saw, this was the one that made me stop and think the most.

For those of you who haven't seen it in a while, it's the story of Duchess and her three kittens, who live with a wealthy noblewoman in Paris. The noblewoman is going to leave her entire fortune to her cats, and once the cats are gone, to the butler. The butler gets greedy and tries to get rid of the cats, so that he can get the money first. Duchess and her kittens end up in the French countryside, far away from home. Thomas O'Malley, the alley cat, helps them return to Paris, where they thwart the evil butler. Thomas and Duchess fall in love and live happily ever after.

As with many older Disney movies, some of the animal characters are noticeably supposed to be a particular nationality. There are British geese, a Chinese cat, and, of course, Thomas O'Malley. He's clearly supposed to be Irish, which is an interesting juxtaposition to the high-class, French Duchess. It's scary that a seemingly innocuous, classic kids' movie about animals is actually teaching children to think about different nationalities in terms of wealth and class.

The other really interesting thing that struck me about the movie was where the kittens came from. Duchess is this genteel, high-class, cultured cat, yet she's clearly a single mother. I'm definitely not saying that single-mothers can't be high-class--far from it. But the movie was made in 1970, and it's set in 1910, and there is NO mention of a father for the kittens. Ever. Not even that there once was a "Duke" cat, but he got hit by a carriage or something like that.

This marked lack of any mention of a father really makes you wonder who he is. Did the Duchess have a one-night stand somewhere along the line? Because if she did, that would be a pretty radical thing for both the class/time period of the setting, as well as when the movie was made. Or was she bred with a neighbors cat? If that's the case, why not have them marry? My most interesting speculation is that there is perhaps past history between Thomas and Duchess, which would explain one of the kitten's intense desire to be an alley cat, as well as the fact that he looks a lot like Thomas (the rest of the plot of the movie doesn't really back up this theory, though).

More about my actual trip later this week!

Teranu takes a vacation!

Hello faithful readers!

Just want to let you know I'm taking a brief hiatus from posting here, as I'm going on vacation to Europe! I know you'll all be lost without my daily insights into movies, literature, and life in general, but hang in there--I'll be back on September 2nd, with tons of pictures and witty commentary on European life.

In the meantime, I hope you all have a pleasant 2 weeks, and I'll talk to you when I get back!

--Teranu

Secondhand Lions

I was at my brother-and-sister-in-law's house two weekends ago, and as we were all sitting around playing video games, someone suggested that we watch a movie. A number of suggestions were made, all of which got shot down, and then my brother-in-law said, "Well, we did just get Secondhand Lions from Netflix. I don't remember putting it in the queue though..."

None of us had seen it, and the more cynical in the room thought it would be crap. It's the story of a young boy--Walter--who gets dumped on his two bachelor uncles, who allegedly have millions of dollars hidden away somewhere. Haley Joel Osment plays the kid, with Robert Duvall and Michael Caine as the eccentric uncles.

Surprisingly enough, we all liked it. It's a pretty simple story, but it's heartwarming and makes you wish that you got to grow up like this kid does--on a farm, with two crazy uncles who buy a lion.

It's also reasonably thought-provoking, which was a pleasant surprise as well. One of the biggest themes in the movie is that of lying versus telling the truth. At the beginning of the movie, Walter's mother tells him she's going to court reporter school, and she'll only be gone for a few months. Shortly thereafter, Walter tries to call the school to reach his mother, only to find out that they have never heard of her. On the other hand, he asks his one uncle why the other uncle stands looking at the pond every night, and the first uncle starts to tell him this fantastic story of wars, Africa, and sheiks in the Middle East. These backstory parts are filmed very much like The Princess Bride, where they look more like a fairy tale than an actual historical event. At a key moment in the film, Walter is asked to decide whether he thinks these stories are real or made-up, and it's quite poignant. Overall, the themes and issues at stake here reminded me a lot of Big Fish.

In short, I really enjoyed the movie, and I think it would be a good one for families to enjoy together. There's some mild violence, no sex, and everyone seems to like it. I'm still not sure about the ending--I think it might make Walter's choice seem less important in the long run, but hey, I'm never going to complain too much when Josh Lucas shows up on screen.

Rating: 4 stars out of 5

Holding Reservations, aka, why U--Haul sucks

Remember that Seinfeld episode where Jerry goes to pick up his rental car reservation, and the woman tells him that there are no mid-size cars available? Here's the clip, in case you've never seen it:



U-Haul has the same problem as this rental car agency. A few weeks ago, my husband and I, along with his brother and sister-in-law, bought some new furniture. We got a pretty sweet leather couch; they got a coffee table, a bedroom set, and a new mattress. Since we all got the furniture from the same outlet store, and since we live 5 doors down from each other, we thought we'd rent a U-Haul, use it to bring all our stuff back from the store, and split the cost of renting it, instead of trying to get things home separately.

We went to the U-Haul website to reserve a 10' truck for the next day. We weren't sure what would be available, since it was only one day's notice, but the website gave us all these choices: how long do you want it? where do you want to pick it up? what size truck do you want? We were able to select the size truck that we wanted with the impression that we could have it at 10AM the next day. It looked like everything was going smoothly, and those of us making the reservation were impressed with how easy the whole thing was.

The next day, my sister-in-law gets a call from U-Haul. "I'm sorry, but we don't have anything available for you." "But we made a reservation!" "Well, our website doesn't guarantee any actual rental." "What's the point of a reservation, then?" "We might be able to make something available after 4 pm." "No, thanks."

As Jerry Seinfeld might have said: "The reservation makes sure that there's a truck here. That's why you have reservations." "I know why we have reservations." "I don't think you do."

U-Haul is correct in that their website doesn't guarantee anything. The small print on one of the first pages says, "The number of hours you request is noted as your preference. Because many families have already made reservations, the number of hours that can be scheduled for your rental is subject to availability. When a reservation is made, our regional office will handle your scheduling."

Ok, fine. You put small print on your webpage. But that does nothing to counteract the effect of all the slick drop-down menus, multiple options, and ease of choosing what kind of truck you want--all which suggest that any of U-Haul's trucks will be available for your disposal. Yes, you can point people to the small print (which none of them will read), OR you can change your system. Here are a few of my suggestions:

First, you could change what you call this form. Rather than a reservation form, it's a request form. That would certainly clear up the possibility that it's guaranteeing someone an actual truck when they want it. It makes the statement, "I'm sorry, we have nothing available" a lot less stupid sounding.

Or, the option I would prefer seeing, is to change the was reservations are made, so that some database actually keeps track of which trucks are reserved for which times, and then when a request is made, a computer system searches the database to see what's available. Especially since so much is done on computers already, how hard can that be? (Thousands of computer programmers now hate me, I'm sure, and I don't mean that writing the program would be easy. But I'm sure it could be done, and I think it would be easy to integrate into U-Haul's existing rental system). At any rate, then when someone went online to make a reservation, it would work like Travelocity, or some such site, where it gives you a list of trucks that are available at the times you want near where you want to pick it up. And if nothing is available, then you would get, "I'm sorry, but no results matched your search."

Honestly, would either of these options be so hard? It would deceive a lot fewer customers, and especially with the second option, make life easier for U-Haul employees in the long run. And it would do wonders for customer relations. Because when this happened to us, we heard 2 other stories about why U-Haul is so awful, and we've now resolved not to try to rent from U-Haul again. Sooner or later, the word's going to spread far enough that this policy is going to seriously hurt their business--why not change things before it does?

Battlestar Galatica

As should be painfully clear from this blog by now, I'm a big nerd. I play video games, I read fantasy literature, and, oh yeah, I watch Battlestar Galactica.

Which all makes me totally awesome, of course.

My brother got me started watching BG over Christmas break, when we had a marathon session for 3 days where it seemed that we did nothing but watch the entire first season. I thought it was a lot of fun, with interesting characters in addition to being set in space.

I didn't have time to catch up on all the back episodes, though, and when I briefly watched one episode after Christmas, I realized I was woefully behind and wouldn't enjoy it as much without understanding what was going on. So I gave up until I had time to watch season 2. Which I'm doing right now, in preparation for season 4 this winter. And yes, I cheated. I read the summary of the last episode of season 3, so I know all about the Cylon speculation around the major characters.

At any rate, I just finished season 2.0, and am now cursing myself for not seeing ahead and making sure I had the first disk of season 2.5 on hand, because I really want to know what happens in this confrontation between Adama and Cain.

Adama is the commander of the fleet, whom everyone loves and who's this wonderful father figure; Cain is the admiral of the recently found Pegasus who outranks Adama and is proving herself to be a real, well, you know.

This pause between seasons 2.0 and 2.5 is giving me time to think about what makes Admiral Cain so effective as a "bad guy."

My initial thought was that it had something to do with gender. Cain is female; Adama is male. Perhaps we don't like/aren't comfortable with the leader of the military operations not being an older, experienced man. Although Cain has the rank and the title, because she's female, when she (rightfully) expects to be treated with the respect and obedience her title deserves, she comes across as power-hungry and "evil." It's the Hillary Clinton syndrome.

Then I thought that perhaps I was looking to pick a gender-based fight with the producers of BG, and maybe I should give it a rest. And so I started to think about other reasons she's so awful, and it became clear that her presence challenges everything that we like about Battlestar Galatica and its crew. We like that the crew is like family--she thinks that's wrong and breaks up the teams that have come to mean so much to us. We like that Laura Roslin has proven herself to be a very effective leader; Cain turns up her nose at the Secretary of Education. We are starting to become quite uncomfortable with the idea of Cylons as mere machines, and the word "toaster" is starting to sound racist; Cain has no problem torturing and condoning the rape of female Cylon prisoners. On every front, she challenges some aspect of the show that the viewer has come to enjoy or appreciate, and I think that regardless of whether or not her character were male or female, we would still intensely dislike her.

That said, I think the directors knew what they were doing when they cast a younger woman as Admiral to Bill Adama's Commander. In the original Battlestar Galactica series, the same character in a similar episode is played by Lloyd Bridges, a man. I think that the change in casting really is effective; we dislike Admiral Cain for how she treats the crew of Battlestar Galactica, but that dislike is heightened by the discomfort we feel in a younger female bossing our beloved Adama around. Although they're not the primary reasons for our dislike, age and gender make us come to this conclusion a lot faster.

At any rate, it was something to keep me busy until the next disk gets here. Hurry, Netflix, hurry!

Gold Farmers in the World of Warcraft

Slate.com today features a moderately interesting article by Luke O'Brien about cheating in video games, and how it has evolved from the classic "left, left, right, right, up, down, up, down, B, A" to things with real-world implications, such as gold farming in the World of Warcraft.

For those of you unfamiliar with this term, gold farming is when players spend hours working to earn as much gold as quickly as possible--rather than being interested in getting really good armor or leveling up. They then sell this gold to other players for real world money (such as U.S. dollars) so that these other players can buy super-expensive items in-game. Often, these "gold farmers" are workers from China, working in sweatshops to earn as much gold as possible as quickly as possible.

And yet, when people talk about the cheaters in World of Warcraft, they don't talk about those who buy the gold, or even the companies that profit from gold farming--they complain about the "Chinese farmers." This has led to a disturbing trend of racism in the game, where those who don't speak perfect English (on US servers, at least) are accused of being farmers and then shunned from groups.

This can be seen in O'Brien's Slate.com article:

Compare Contra with World of Warcraft, the 9-million member online game, where a hue and cry has ensued over the practice of gold farming, in which players, many of them Chinese, earn virtual gold through drudging labor (by killing the same monster over and over again, for example). The farmers then sell their gold to lazy players, many of them American, who use it to acquire coveted weapons and armor they don't have the time or dedication to earn the hard way.

Most gold farmers haven't hacked the game. They're only doing what any player could do, given the time and inclination. But their efforts foul up the game's economy, and Blizzard Entertainment, the company behind World of Warcraft, has banned tens of thousands of them.

What makes me really angry about this whole situation is that it's the farmers who are portrayed as the "evil cheaters" in the World of Warcraft, rather than those who buy the gold. If you read the rest of O'Brien's article, he talks about "Easter eggs" and hidden levels put in by developers as things that are kind of cool; the player is the one who has to decide whether or not to use them and cheat. This completely reverses the logic of his arguments about WoW, where it seems that those buying gold have little or no choice about buying gold--it's completely the fault of the farmer. It's "their efforts" that "foul up the game's economy," rather than the choices that players make to buy the gold.

Pardon my French, but what bullshit. If this were any other situation, there would be an outcry about the working conditions or wages of the gold farmers, or a rally against the company, or even, a call for people who use the product to boycott it until the working conditions are fixed. For products like clothes, coffee, and soft drinks, working to improve the working conditions of those who make the product or challenging the customer to use some other product seems to be the SOP, rather than vilifying the workers for making such cheap products.

I think the language of O'Brien's article is particularly telling, as well. Americans are described as lazy, and the Chinese farmers are "just doing what any player could do." Yet the farmers are the ones who are in the wrong.

Yes, I know there's the terms of the EULA, but that works against both the farmer and the player who buys gold. I have a really hard time coming down hard on someone who's just trying to do his job, put food on the table for his family, and have a place to live. I think that more of the focus of the discussion on gold-farming needs to be put on the "lazy American" who chooses to disobey the EULA and buy gold. These are the people who are the ones who are really destroying the in-game economy; if they stopped buying gold, there would be no market for the companies who farm gold.

If we're going to call someone in the World of Warcraft a cheater, let's make sure that we think it through, and place the blame where it belongs--with the consumer who chooses to buy gold, or the company that makes money off of sweatshop labor, not with the individual farmer who's just trying to earn a living.

Harry Potter, Part II

Sorry for the delay! Here's the (hopefully) long-awaited follow-up to my original post about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
This post is going to address more thematic issues in the novel, and one that really gets developed in Deathly Hallows is the issue of parental love. In books 1-6, we hear over and over how it was Lily's love that saves Harry, almost to the point where you want to say, "Ok, we get it," but Rowling really expands the theme nicely in this novel. It's no longer only Harry's mom who loves him--Draco's mother, Mrs. Weasley, and Luna's dad all put themselves in extreme danger to save their children. This has the additional benefit of adding some gray to the novel--Luna's dad, who we would normally consider a "good" guy, tries to sell out Harry, Ron, and Hermione to save Luna. And Narcissa Malfoy risks her life and her standing with Voldemort to find out if Draco is still alive, making her a much more sympathetic character.

But the theme that really interests me the most in Deathly Hallows is the blatant Christian imagery, particularly at the ending. I've had little patience throughout the series for those who say it's "Satanic" or try to get it banned because of the elements of witchcraft in the novels. The themes of love and sacrifice have always been key to understanding Harry Potter, and although these are not themes exclusive to Christianity, they certainly can be read along with it, rather than against it.

But Deathly Hallows takes the Christian elements to a whole new level. In Chapter 16, where Harry visits his parents' grave, the inscription on their tombstone is "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death," which is a quote from 1 Corinthians 15:26. And then, of course, chapter 35, which is entitled "King's Cross," essentially describes Harry's death and resurrection. Harry as a Christ figure who willingly and selflessly gives his life to save his friends is accompanied by Dumbledore as a sort of "God the Father." The added complexity of Dumbledore in Deathly Hallows makes thinking of him as the Father particularly interesting, since he is no longer the omnipotent, unquestionably good headmaster that we've known from the first 6 books of the series.

What interests me the most about this is that no one seems to really be talking about these themes. Reviews I've read talk about parental love, friendship, and how everything gets wrapped up nicely, but very few seem to bring up the Christian elements or the complex way in which they're developed. Newsweek had a brief blurb about it, but it in no way addressed the theme in any depth. It seems to me that this is a theme with a lot of potential, and I really hope that scholarship on Deathly Hallows in the future takes advantage of this.

Megabus=Mega-awesome?

Hey folks! Sorry about the brief hiatus. Last week was crazy, I was too lazy to think up amusing things to post, and then I got stuck in Chicago for two days. Luckily for all of us, the "stuck in Chicago" story should provide excellent fodder for today's blog post.

So, on Friday, my husband and I took the Megabus from Minneapolis to Chicago. If you're not familiar with the Megabus, it's a budget express bus service that runs between major US cities. It operates mostly in the Midwest at this point, although it's slowly expanding to the West Coast. The hook for this company is that they sell tickets on a sliding scale based on when you buy them, with the first tickets for any trip selling for only $1. Only $1 to ride from Minneapolis to Chicago? No way! Of course, the prices go up after that, but they still level out at a max 1-way price of $25.

Considering gas prices and the fact that you get to sleep, read, or even drink beer when you normally would be driving, that's a pretty sweet deal. My husband and I managed to score $20 tickets each way, for a total trip price of around $80 (there are taxes and very nominal reservation fees).

How did the trip go? The pick-up place in Minneapolis isn't the most convenient, so we had to ask my brother-in-law for a ride there. We were told to be there 15 minutes early, but the bus only barely showed up by 11, which is when we were scheduled to leave. This made us 20 minutes late getting out of town--not a big deal in the big scheme of things, but it ended up being a problem at the other end. The people we were visiting don't live in downtown Chicago, but in a suburb--one that is reachable by the Metra (the commuter train). If our bus had been on time, we would have been able to catch the Metra to their house, but because we were late, we missed it and would have had to wait an hour for the next one. So, they came to pick us up. If you live close to the pick-up spots or have reliable public transportation, Megabus works great, but we felt that we inconvenienced a lot of people on both ends of our trip.

The trip back was the biggest pain, and not really the fault of Megabus. Our bus left to return to Minneapolis Sunday at 2, which meant we should be at the pick-up place at 1:45. The Metra left at 1, which should have gotten us to downtown Chicago by 1:25. The Metra, usually so reliable, was 38 minutes late, meaning that if we had taken it, we would have missed the bus. By the time we realized this, it was too late to drive or take a cab, so we decided to not even try and just catch a later Megabus.

Here's where Megabus could have been slightly more accommodating. We called and tried to switch our reservations from the Sunday at 2 bus to a later one, and they said that no, we would have to buy new tickets. We also asked if the Megabus was running on time, thinking that if it was as late as it was in Minneapolis, we could make it no problem. However, we got brushed off with a "of course it's on time" which didn't really give us much information. The soonest replacement tickets we could get were for Tuesday afternoon, which in the end turned out to be fun, since we got to extend our trip by several days. But we had to pay twice for the return trip, which wasn't ideal.

Would I take the Megabus again? Probably, particularly if I did a little more research and found public transportation that we could take on either end that would be more reliable or give us other options if the first didn't work. It was nice to be able to sleep, even if not very comfortably, and I imagine it's a greener way to travel than driving yourself. Plus, it feels like an adventure :)

35W Bridge Collapse

For those of you who didn't hear, a major bridge in Minneapolis that runs over the Mississippi River collapsed yesterday evening at around 6:15 pm, right in the middle of rush hour. Particularly for those of us who live in the Twin Cities, this is an extremely awful event, and not more than a little disconcerting, since I drove over that bridge on a regular basis. Thank you so much to all the family and friends who have called or emailed to make sure we're ok--your concern means so much to us.


Please continue to keep the victims of this accident in your thoughts and prayers.

Harry Potter, Part 1

Well, it's been over a week since Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows came out, so here's my post on it. There's going to be a big picture of the cover, and then I'm going to freely talk about what happened, so if you don't want to read it, come back Wednesday for a rant about UHaul and why it sucks....


Ok, this part of the Harry Potter post is going to be basic things that I did and didn't like about the book. Tomorrow will be slightly more substantive comments on themes and other literary stuff.

Overall, I thought this was an excellent ending to the series. I had almost all my questions answered, all the loose plot ends were tied together, and it was a fun, exciting book to read. If it were to rate it like I do Netflix movies, I'd give it 4.5 stars out of 5. Here's a short list of the few things in the book that I think could have been improved upon:

1. The middle of the book. So much of the series' charm comes from the supporting characters that Rowling has introduced over the course of 6 novels, and in the middle 200 pages of this book, she completely cuts them out. We're stuck with Harry, Ron, and Hermione (and sometimes only Harry and Hermione) getting crabby at each other in the middle of the woods. I felt like this section dragged quite a bit and really didn't take advantage of so many of the strong characters that Rowling had created. That said, it's probably a "realistic" portrayal of what looking for the Horcruxes was like, but that still doesn't make it interesting for the reader.

2. I think Snape got completely cheated. His role in this book is reduced to getting killed by Voldemort and a bunch of scenes in the Pensieve. His character has long been one of the more interesting ones in the series, and the memories in the Pensieve show how important he is to Harry's fate. He deserved more pages in the novel and a more active role.

3. I was disappointed that Harry was a Horcrux. I didn't think there would be a graceful way out of that one, and I'm still not sure there was. I think the prophecy and what Dumbledore says to Harry in the dream-like King's Cross helps his death/coming back to life make more sense, but it's still not 100% clear, and there may even be contradictions. Maybe it's just one of those powerful forms of magic beyond our understanding, but that seems to be a weak cop-out.

4. The epilogue. I liked the idea, but I think it was poor in execution. There were too many kids running around, all named after people we'd already seen, so it was hard to keep them straight. And we didn't get to find out about so many of the people we cared about, particularly Luna. What happens to her? What sorts of careers do Harry and co. have? It always seems that the purpose of the epilogue is to name-drop as much as possible to let the readers know what's happening to the characters, but this one didn't come through on its potential.

5. I still think that Ron or Hermione should have died. Yes, a lot of semi-major characters died, but none of the big three. I would have liked to see Rowling really be daring with her deaths and show her readers the true cost of standing up for what's right. Since the three friends survive completely intact, it's easy to see the ending as unmitigatedly happy, which it isn't. But I'm not sure that comes through, because the reader doesn't have the emotional connection to the 2nd tier characters who died.

That said, that's about all the stuff in the book that I wasn't happy with. Overall, it was great, and I wouldn't be able to pick it apart like this if it weren't. Here are some of the specific things that I really enjoyed:

1. Harry's character. He really steps up to the plate in this novel, and I'm really glad. I was worried that he would be a passive hero, but instead, he really takes charge, and this comes through so much in his ending fight with Voldemort. Now, he's the one who's telling Voldemort what is happening and why, and it makes him seem much more actually heroic than in any other book.

2. Along those same lines, I loved that Harry stuck with Expelliarmus. The scene in the beginning where he tells Lupin he's not going to sink to Voldemort's level, and then how that comes full circle in the end when he disarms Voldemort, which ends up killing up--that was fantastic. I think that was my favorite moment in the entire book, and when I realized what had happened, I started crying. Rowling really did something amazing there.

3. I was thrilled that Ron was the one who got the sword of Gryffindor from the pond. He's lived in Harry's shadow for so long, and it was nice to see that he was given his moment to shine.

4. I was also very excited with how Neville stepped up and became a hero, and how his grandmother recognized that. The almost-casual way that he talked about the horrible things going on at Hogwarts, as well as the way that he bonded with the Room of Requirement, really showed how connected he was with the castle and how brave he really was. And, of course, this comes through perfectly when he pulls the sword from the hat.

5. I liked Mrs. Weasley calling Bellatrix a "bitch" and killing her. That was fantastic.

6. I liked the addition of searching for the Hallows in addition to the Horcruxes in this book. I think it made it a book that has a plot of its own, rather than just following something set out in book 6.

7. I was really excited to see how some of the characters became less good or evil and more gray. Dumbledore, Dudley, and Petunia all became much more interesting because we see a completely new side to them. The explanation of Dumbledore's past, in particular, really added depth to the book.

Ok, I think that's it for now...stay tuned for Part II tomorrow!

Just when you think you have someone figured out...

My husband and I live in a townhouse association where many of the residents are of retirement age or older. While we occasionally wish for a younger, hipper crowd to live with, for the most part, we appreciate the quiet and security of the neighborhood. I think it's also given us a new perspective on interacting with our grandparents; we regularly chat with neighbors the same age as our grandparents about things we would never talk about with our grandparents. I think it's helped me think of my grandparents not just as my grandparents, but as 80-somethings who are someone's neighbor.

At any rate, the other day I was at the pool, chatting with one of these neighbors. We were talking about television, and she was describing how she had been watching Letterman and he had done this bit about George Bush's colonoscopy that he had on Saturday:

"Yeah, he said that they removed four polyps, but when they were finished, they put his head back up his ass."

She paused, and looked a little uncomfortable. I expected she was about to start complaining about how she didn't think it was right to talk about the President like this, or even more possibly, that she was mad about what Letterman had implied. (Meanwhile, my husband and I are laughing uproariously.) But then she said,

"Which is true, of course, but he used the word ass on national television."

That's what really surprised me. I don't think of the word ass as particularly offensive at all. Sure, when I have kids, I wouldn't want them using it, but it's one of those "bad" words that I'm comfortable saying in front of my dad. I expected my neighbor to be upset at the political sentiment, but instead, she was upset by the language Letterman used to express it.

I don't know, for some reason I found this whole conversation to be quite eye-opening. I think it showed me that often, I sell people short because of some preconceived idea I have, but in reality, they're thinking something entirely different. And this is probably particularly true of someone several generations removed from me, who's had a very different life from what I've had. Living next to a lot of retired people certainly has its advantages.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm late for my canasta game....

Jane Austen in the 21st century

Would Jane Austen get published in the 21st century? That's the question that David Lassman, director of the Jane Austen Festival in Bath, England, wanted answered. So, he sent out slightly modified excerpts from several of Austen's most well-known works, starting with Northanger Abbey. When none of the publishers accepted or recognized this submission, he turned to a slightly better-known work--Persuasion. Still no luck. So, in a final attempt, he sent off Pride and Prejudice.

With only superficial modifications--changing the Bennets to the Barnetts, and Netherfield manor to Weatherfield--still only one publisher recognized the submission for what it actually was. And that was with the first line of the novel completely unchanged.

For those of you who aren't Austen fans or English majors, this first line is one that if you're in the business of literature, you should know: "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." It ranks right up there with "Call me Ishmael" and "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."

Lassman was pretty appalled at the results of his little experiment, and rightly so. But I think it's even more interesting to think about why these results happened. Three reasons come to mind:

1. Most of the editors/agents didn't even read the submissions. This seems pretty likely, since many of them are frantically backpedaling now that they've been called out as companies that can't even recognize Jane Austen. Several of the companies have even admitted that although their form letter might have said the work seemed "original" or "interesting," they probably didn't even read it. For many authors, this confession is probably even more depressing than the idea that publishers can't identify Austen's work--how are they supposed to get their brilliant novel published if it won't even be read?

2. Another possibility for these results is that the publishers, in fact, did not recognize Jane Austen's work. This is pretty appalling, since publishers are supposed to be able to judge literature with some sort of authority, and without having a solid basis in really great novels from history, how will they be able to do that?

3. Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, is the possibility that Jane Austen would actually not get published if she were alive today. It seems entirely possible that the generations of readers that enjoyed and had time for reading the kind of novels that Austen wrote have passed. I mean, let's face it. These books aren't exactly thrilling adventures. And there's not a lot of actual sex, although it's implied. Austen's novels are more about subtlety, ironic humor, and complicated relationships between human beings. The National Endowment for the Arts has done this study about how reading, specifically reading novels, is on the decline. I don't see this as a necessarily terrible thing. Literature changes. The novel wasn't always in existence, you know. It came to prominence as a literary form only a few hundred years ago. So there's nothing to say that it has to last forever. Particularly with the rise of the cinema and the internet, people are absorbing their stories and doing their reading in ways that aren't traditional, but aren't necessarily bad. What would concern me is if we, as a society, are no longer interested in the types of stories that Austen told. It takes a bit of patience to get into them, but once you do, they're rich, rewarding, and a lot of fun.

Let's hope this isn't the case. Since movies such as Pride and Prejudice and even Becoming Jane, which is a biography of Austen's life, keep getting made, it seems that there's hope that we still love these stories, just in the media of the 21st century.

But on the other hand, if you have time this summer, pick up a copy of Pride and Prejudice--the book--and give it a chance. You won't regret it.

Movies!

Here's a rundown of what I've been watching lately:

Four Last Songs is a movie that I don't remember why I put in my queue. I just did some poking around on Netflix, trying to find out if it was recommended because I liked something else, and I came up with nothing. At any rate, it tells the story of Larry, an American pianist living on an island in the Mediterranean. He's a decent pianist, but longs to do something special with his life, so he works to arrange a concert of music by this genius composer who lived on the island. Most of the movie is him running around, desperately trying to keep the concert from falling apart. The composer's wife and mistress are at odds with each other, Larry's girlfriend thinks he's cheating on her, and the island's self-appointed sycophant keeps getting in Larry's way. I don't really like movies where people continuously feel uncomfortable or on edge, and that's what Larry does for the first half of the movie. And if that weren't enough, lots of clichéd plot devices are thrown in to make the movie extra fun. First, there's the daughter who's come searching for the father she's never known, and then there's the man who's dying of cancer who just wants to live out his last 3 months of life in peace. Not nearly enough attention is paid to either the beautiful island or the music of the composer, both which appear to be beautiful but aren't used to the movie's advantage.

Rating: 2 stars out of 5

World Trade Center. Hoo, boy, I'm not even sure where to really start with this one. I was looking for a movie about 9/11 to use in the class I'm teaching this fall, and this seemed like a good place to start. It's a very straightforward story of 2 policemen who get trapped under the World Trade Center after it collapses on September 11, 2001. The movie shows their families struggling to control their worry, and generally portrays both these men and their families as heroes. But the focus of the movie seemed odd to me--these were two men who didn't have a chance to rescue anyone (although they certainly wanted to). If you're going to show heroes, why not make a movie about those who dug out these two men? They risked life and limb for them, knowing full well that the pile of rubble might collapse on them at any minute, trapping them as well. I also think that if this weren't a movie about 9/11, critics would be a lot harsher about some of the corny images. One of the policemen's wife's floating head, giving him inspiration? The other one, hallucinating that Jesus is bringing him water? But critics don't say anything about this; instead, they talk about how sensitive the movie is and how genuine the feelings are. Even as I'm writing this blurb, I'm feeling slightly guilty about what I'm saying, since I definitely don't want to mock or lessen what anyone went through during this tragedy. Perhaps the most accurate thing to say, then, is that it's too soon for a movie based on real people during 9/11. For better or worse, we are not yet far enough removed from this tragedy to be objective about how it is portrayed in film.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5

As I'm writing these reviews, I'm realizing that this was a pretty lousy batch of movies. Aeon Flux is last on the list, and although it was fun to watch, it certainly wasn't anything to write home about (and yet what am I doing?). I like sci-fi films, for the most part, and so I think that made this movie a lot more accessible for me; if this isn't a genre that you enjoy, you probably won't like the movie. The plot is pretty straight-forward, with good suspense to keep things moving. There are plenty of unanswered questions that drive the plot forward, and for the most part, they are wrapped up neatly at the end. Charlize Theron's action sequences are pretty cool, although her friend who has hands instead of feet is weird and kind of creepy. It's unfortunate, because the film doesn't really take advantage of Theron's acting abilities--most of the time, she just has this very direct, "don't-mess-with-me" sort of look on her face. It would have been nice to see a little more emotional vulnerability or even personality behind this amazing assassin facade.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5