I walked into our bathroom the other day and noticed a bottle on the counter with its label facing away from me. I knew instantly that it was a bottle of Listerine due to the shape of the container. Even if it had not been full of green (burning, delicious) liquid, I would have known what it was because the packaging is fairly iconic. This prompted me to think about other iconic packages that you can identify without text or contents.
An old glass Coca-Cola bottle, a Smuckers' jelly jar (thanks to the checkered cap), a CD jewel case, a Tiffany's box (again, because of the color). These are all things that simply by seeing the exterior, you know what the contents will likely be. It seems to go against the axiom of never judging a book by its cover.
It dawns on me, though, that all of these products have iconic packaging because they are associated with their contents. We know that something in a pretty aqua-marine blue box will be beautiful, sparkly, and of high quality because Tiffany's & Co. have established themselves as such. We know that Smucker's will be consistently good (maybe not great, but good). The insides make the outside recognizable; the contents create icons of the exterior.
I want to leave this post fairly succinct, but I also don't want to pass up an opportunity to leave some advice for my godchildren. J, PC, R, T, and V: I know you, I know where you come from, and I know the things that make you the amazing, unbelievable people you are. The attributes and traits that constitute you are of the highest quality. There's no need for any of you to worry about your "packaging"; be yourself. Be the best you that you can, and I promise that you will be known for the content of your character regardless of how it is packaged.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
Twirrible.
So as promised, I read the first book in the Twilight series. Let me begin by saying that I genuinely tried to come at this with an open mind, and leave any bias behind. I wanted to read critically for plot, style, and character development, but also to see how enjoyable the book actually was. I tried my best to be impartial and objective.
This book is terrible. It is boring, lacks any real development of its central characters, and was written in an overly simplistic style.
First, the boredom factor. So much fat could have been trimmed from this book. This is clearly the work of a lazy editor. For instance, rather than using the reaction of characters to allow the reader to understand the supernatural beauty of the vampire characters, the author (Stephanie Meyer) relies heavily on descriptors. This is fine in moderation, but at some point you have to wonder if there should be a special permit for a thesaurus. I too have the ability to look up the word "pretty" in Roget's, but you don't see me showing off.
Next, the characters. They are so painfully flat, that they made an already lengthy and slow novel drag all the more. The main female protagonist (named Bella...ugh, we get it, she's pretty) falls in love with a vampire kids named Edward. She pays attention to him despite his warnings that he is dangerous (he is a contentious vampire). Why? Mostly, it would seem, because he's pretty. Or because he uses vampire magic. Not because of shared interests, or history, or having anything in common. He's pretty and magic. Edward, Bella's main squeeze, is not much better. He seems to only like Bella because he cannot read her mind (so in case you were wondering if inscrutability was a factor in love, you now have the answer). He stalks her (not like prey, but like...you know, a stalker) and warns her that he is dangerous. Neither seem to care, and fall "in love". They never really move past this puppy love stage, and seem content to be pretty together. As far as the message these characters send to readers (especially girls) goes, it is pretty much this: "Being pretty is the most important thing in life, besides having a boyfriend." Look at Harry Potter, with its cadre of strong female characters, or The Hunger Games, with perhaps the most well written teenage girl in recent memory. They all have great lessons to teach; not Twilight.
Finally, there's a lot of "telling", and not enough "showing". The characters all speak (or think) any descriptions or expositions. They literally question each other (\incessantly) about everything on their minds, so rather than reading about someone reacting to something, they just come out and say it. It is rather boring.
Seriously, if you're looking for a good book with a strong female lead, read A Wrinkle in Time, or either of the alternatives mentioned above. Twilight will not teach anyone anything, other than how to write best-selling dreck.
This book is terrible. It is boring, lacks any real development of its central characters, and was written in an overly simplistic style.
First, the boredom factor. So much fat could have been trimmed from this book. This is clearly the work of a lazy editor. For instance, rather than using the reaction of characters to allow the reader to understand the supernatural beauty of the vampire characters, the author (Stephanie Meyer) relies heavily on descriptors. This is fine in moderation, but at some point you have to wonder if there should be a special permit for a thesaurus. I too have the ability to look up the word "pretty" in Roget's, but you don't see me showing off.
Next, the characters. They are so painfully flat, that they made an already lengthy and slow novel drag all the more. The main female protagonist (named Bella...ugh, we get it, she's pretty) falls in love with a vampire kids named Edward. She pays attention to him despite his warnings that he is dangerous (he is a contentious vampire). Why? Mostly, it would seem, because he's pretty. Or because he uses vampire magic. Not because of shared interests, or history, or having anything in common. He's pretty and magic. Edward, Bella's main squeeze, is not much better. He seems to only like Bella because he cannot read her mind (so in case you were wondering if inscrutability was a factor in love, you now have the answer). He stalks her (not like prey, but like...you know, a stalker) and warns her that he is dangerous. Neither seem to care, and fall "in love". They never really move past this puppy love stage, and seem content to be pretty together. As far as the message these characters send to readers (especially girls) goes, it is pretty much this: "Being pretty is the most important thing in life, besides having a boyfriend." Look at Harry Potter, with its cadre of strong female characters, or The Hunger Games, with perhaps the most well written teenage girl in recent memory. They all have great lessons to teach; not Twilight.
Finally, there's a lot of "telling", and not enough "showing". The characters all speak (or think) any descriptions or expositions. They literally question each other (\incessantly) about everything on their minds, so rather than reading about someone reacting to something, they just come out and say it. It is rather boring.
Seriously, if you're looking for a good book with a strong female lead, read A Wrinkle in Time, or either of the alternatives mentioned above. Twilight will not teach anyone anything, other than how to write best-selling dreck.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Retconning.
"Retcon" is a term that some may know, and others may not. It is a portmanteau of the phrase "retroactive continuity", and gained prominence in the world of comic books. Essentially, it involved altering the back-story story of a given character. For example, George Lucas retconned the original Star Wars to make Greedo shoot at Han first in the Mos Eisley Cantina on Tatooine, thereby making Han’s originally cavalier act one of self defense, and altering his nature. (TRIPLE NERD SCORE!!)
This happens often in comics, soap operas (He was a robot the whole time!! Dun dun duuuuunnn), and movies, and is usually done to allow for different or enhanced storytelling. It is usually a good thing, but not always (see the above case). I think people retcon their own lives more often than they realize.
Because my best friends and I have known each other since high school, conversations return to that topic with some frequency. Our assessment of our standing in high school society is that we were not really popular, but not really unpopular. Our wives find this hard to believe (which I in turn find adorable), but I think our assessment is correct, mainly because it was not made in a vacuum. We can give each other some outside perspective. I’ve known a few people who have done the opposite and come to (from my perspective) surprising conclusions.
A very dear friend of mine once made an off-hand comment that high school was terrible for him. I was stunned by this, because my outside assessment was that he was well-liked by most, popular with many, and simply had a deep interior life, thus choosing to not participate in a lot of social-type activities. His view was totally the opposite. It was one of inner tumult, outer scorn, and deep wells of sorrow. To hear him relate in very few terms his memories of high school made me very sad for him because I could only imagine that much of this perception was driven by his inward view of himself. Moreover, his view of his younger years motivated many of his present day actions. My external view was that he retconned his life to make it fit who he was at the time. (side-note; he’s a very happy and well adjusted former teenager now, just like the rest of us).
My dear friend is not the only person I’ve known to do this. In fact, I’d wager that many of us frequently retcon our lives, sometimes unknowingly. It reminds me of a quote from George Orwell: “Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past.” Orwell was discussing revisionist histories being used to motivate control of a population in 1984. If we apply this bit of Ingsoc to ourselves, it means that since we control our present and have plans for our future, we have the ability (and frequent desire) to make our past fit nicely into that present and those plans. So why do we do it?
Perhaps it is to alleviate cognitive dissonance. Maybe to help justify our actions. Maybe it is to make ourselves feel better about our current station in life. For whatever reason, we’ve all been there. I would imagine that finding the motivating force behind your own personal retconning would be a momentous and enlightening achievement. So…you know…get to it.
We all have pasts that are at once hazy and veiled by memory, yet as clear as a mountain stream. They inform who we are, shape our present, and guide our future. Some are more difficult to navigate than others, but they all have value and meaning. Look through yours, and get to know yourself better. If you play it right, you might discover that you are, in fact, a long lost princess from another world, sent as an envoy to the backwards human race. (dun dun duuuuuunnn!!!)
This happens often in comics, soap operas (He was a robot the whole time!! Dun dun duuuuunnn), and movies, and is usually done to allow for different or enhanced storytelling. It is usually a good thing, but not always (see the above case). I think people retcon their own lives more often than they realize.
Because my best friends and I have known each other since high school, conversations return to that topic with some frequency. Our assessment of our standing in high school society is that we were not really popular, but not really unpopular. Our wives find this hard to believe (which I in turn find adorable), but I think our assessment is correct, mainly because it was not made in a vacuum. We can give each other some outside perspective. I’ve known a few people who have done the opposite and come to (from my perspective) surprising conclusions.
A very dear friend of mine once made an off-hand comment that high school was terrible for him. I was stunned by this, because my outside assessment was that he was well-liked by most, popular with many, and simply had a deep interior life, thus choosing to not participate in a lot of social-type activities. His view was totally the opposite. It was one of inner tumult, outer scorn, and deep wells of sorrow. To hear him relate in very few terms his memories of high school made me very sad for him because I could only imagine that much of this perception was driven by his inward view of himself. Moreover, his view of his younger years motivated many of his present day actions. My external view was that he retconned his life to make it fit who he was at the time. (side-note; he’s a very happy and well adjusted former teenager now, just like the rest of us).
My dear friend is not the only person I’ve known to do this. In fact, I’d wager that many of us frequently retcon our lives, sometimes unknowingly. It reminds me of a quote from George Orwell: “Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past.” Orwell was discussing revisionist histories being used to motivate control of a population in 1984. If we apply this bit of Ingsoc to ourselves, it means that since we control our present and have plans for our future, we have the ability (and frequent desire) to make our past fit nicely into that present and those plans. So why do we do it?
Perhaps it is to alleviate cognitive dissonance. Maybe to help justify our actions. Maybe it is to make ourselves feel better about our current station in life. For whatever reason, we’ve all been there. I would imagine that finding the motivating force behind your own personal retconning would be a momentous and enlightening achievement. So…you know…get to it.
We all have pasts that are at once hazy and veiled by memory, yet as clear as a mountain stream. They inform who we are, shape our present, and guide our future. Some are more difficult to navigate than others, but they all have value and meaning. Look through yours, and get to know yourself better. If you play it right, you might discover that you are, in fact, a long lost princess from another world, sent as an envoy to the backwards human race. (dun dun duuuuuunnn!!!)
Monday, January 16, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
Twi not?
I usually do a good job of forming opinions that are based on some sort of direct knowledge of a given subject. I try to not go with the popular opinion just because it's popular, but because it's something I truly believe (or not, as the case may be). KB has one more than one occasion pointed out the notable exception to this point of personal pride: my opinion of the Twilight books.
I've read about them, but never actually read the source material. I've read lots of other opinions, and over time just assimilated those. (FYI, my opinion currently is that they are terrible). But, as usual, KB is right. I have not done my usual due diligence in having an opinion about Twilight.
Therefore, in the interest of good taste, philosophy, and opinionology, I will be reading the first book in the Twilight series next week (the friends I'm staying with have the books) in order to draw my own conclusions about the writing, character development, etc. I will go into the book with an open mind and no higher expectations than I would for any other book. After what I'm assuming will be some sort of Vonnegut/Chabon/Rowling detox, I'll write a full report and post it here (OK, that was my last snarky comment).
I've read about them, but never actually read the source material. I've read lots of other opinions, and over time just assimilated those. (FYI, my opinion currently is that they are terrible). But, as usual, KB is right. I have not done my usual due diligence in having an opinion about Twilight.
Therefore, in the interest of good taste, philosophy, and opinionology, I will be reading the first book in the Twilight series next week (the friends I'm staying with have the books) in order to draw my own conclusions about the writing, character development, etc. I will go into the book with an open mind and no higher expectations than I would for any other book. After what I'm assuming will be some sort of Vonnegut/Chabon/Rowling detox, I'll write a full report and post it here (OK, that was my last snarky comment).
Monday, January 2, 2012
On brunching.
As I may have mentioned before, KB and I love to entertain. Yesterday marked our fourth annual New Year's Day Brunch. We've pretty much got this one down to a science. We've had other successful parties, mind you (a Guy Fawkes Night party was especially memorable), but this one seems to have become our signature party. I like to think of it as daring anyone to top this party for the rest of the year. But, as we all know, I have a mean, ugly, competitive streak.
This year was the first party in Austin, and we really missed our Houston friends that have been at all the other brunches. [Sidebar/direct message to Houston friends: get yourselves to Austin for brunch next year. That's an order.] We had a lot of seminary folks, a few other Austin friends, and had a great time. We decided to go with a north/south theme for the food (okay, it was accidental, but it was still cool). Corn Pudding was back on the menu, and as delicious as ever, along with Pigs in Blankets. The Williams-named Plunder Buns were back and devoured (nay, plundered) as expected. New additions this year were Hoppin' John (black-eyed peas with bacon and greens over rice) and a cranberry/maple bread pudding. So northern for the sweet pastries, and decidedly southern for the savory dishes. Drinks, as usual, were mimosas and milk punch. (Clearly, we prefer to save our hangovers for January 2nd).
I think the reason any party works is because you have not only good food (which we darn sure do), but great guests and company (which we are honored to have). I am always impressed by our friends and their efforts (conscious or not) to make our parties memorable. We could not do it without you. In a related and repeated request (and you know who you are), if our dear, dear friends from around the country and southeast Texas could somehow make it here for NYB, it would be the party of the century. We have a guest room now, so you have a place to stay (fair warning, we may put you to work, but it would be totally fun).
In other news, there's a new salon across from a Central New York bagel shop at which we often eat lunch. It's name? The Lonsale Salon.
This year was the first party in Austin, and we really missed our Houston friends that have been at all the other brunches. [Sidebar/direct message to Houston friends: get yourselves to Austin for brunch next year. That's an order.] We had a lot of seminary folks, a few other Austin friends, and had a great time. We decided to go with a north/south theme for the food (okay, it was accidental, but it was still cool). Corn Pudding was back on the menu, and as delicious as ever, along with Pigs in Blankets. The Williams-named Plunder Buns were back and devoured (nay, plundered) as expected. New additions this year were Hoppin' John (black-eyed peas with bacon and greens over rice) and a cranberry/maple bread pudding. So northern for the sweet pastries, and decidedly southern for the savory dishes. Drinks, as usual, were mimosas and milk punch. (Clearly, we prefer to save our hangovers for January 2nd).
I think the reason any party works is because you have not only good food (which we darn sure do), but great guests and company (which we are honored to have). I am always impressed by our friends and their efforts (conscious or not) to make our parties memorable. We could not do it without you. In a related and repeated request (and you know who you are), if our dear, dear friends from around the country and southeast Texas could somehow make it here for NYB, it would be the party of the century. We have a guest room now, so you have a place to stay (fair warning, we may put you to work, but it would be totally fun).
In other news, there's a new salon across from a Central New York bagel shop at which we often eat lunch. It's name? The Lonsale Salon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)