Today is ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent, and I have been inspired by my inability to control myself heretofore to give up sweet tea for forty days. In honor of my resolution, I began celebrating Mardi Gras last weekend gorging myself to the conception of several food babies by consuming gallons of sweet tea and other gras things. I indulged in brownies and ice cream, cookies and burgers, and one kickass salad with losts of bacon with the knowledge that, beginning today, I would have to restrain myself. My first concrete recognition of Mardi Gras in many years has opened my eyes to two realities: first, that few people who choose to play on Mardi Gras follow through with Ash Wednesday and 2) Eating crap for four days does not feel good.
The logic of Mardi Gras was first supported by the notion that observers of Lent would have to do without certain pleasures for forty days and should get them in while they still could. Eat all of the meat before it spoils. Drink all the beer before it separates. Have all the sex before the chastity belts get fastened. The gorging was motivated by an imperative to indulge. Eventually, however, one is motivated to take part in the holy time by an imperative to stop. I realized by the time the actual day of fat came that I was a bit over it. I didn't want any more sweet tea, any more sweet anything, really, and only continued out of a sense of obligation and a resolve that I would discipline myself on the morrow. By the time I got home to partake of my last indulgence, I had to force myself to consume my yummy brownie and cup of ice cream. Now that time is over and, although my bladder full of sweet tea was the only real motivation I had for getting up this morning, I'm glad of it. The Mardi Gras tactic is much like the parent's decision to make a child smpke a pack of cigarettes after trying one. At some point, you realize that gorging is disgusting and you don't want to do it anymore. After that last piece of cake, you prefer restraint to immoderation. That's where I am right now. I hope it lasts.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
It's Not That You're Not Good Enough
. It's frustrating to find that, despite my having what I believe to be justifiable reasons for thinking the way I do, there are people unwilling to allow that my perspective may be viable. Sometimes I don't feel good. Telling me I don't have a good reason to feel that way isn't going to make me feel any better. Expressing how I feel without being shot down does. So here goes.
I recently recieved an invite via facebook to attend the upcoming production of Into the Woods, the same production that I had been so looking forward to being a part of and was not able to because...well, because they didn't choose me. It really just boils down to that. It wasn't that I didn't have the time or couldn't get there or had any conflicts with the production schedule. Those might have been obstacles, but not deal breakers. The only thing that ultimately kept me from being in the show was that the production team decided not to put me in the show. I accept this. I acknowledge this and understand that to be the nature of the beast with whom I've fallen in love...None of that makes it any less hurtful though.
The fact is, there's no composer who identifies whatever aspect of the human experience he deigns to comment on through his lyrics the way that Stephen Sondheim does. (In my perfect universe, he's my grandpa and I call him Papa) Among his works (that I know so far), there's no show that resonates with me as strongly as Into the Woods and, though I know this is only one show and one company and one cast with a specific balance, I can't ignore the implication that this is not a show in which I would be invited to take part. I was first taught about casting that "there are two reasons you don't get cast in a role: you're not good enough or you don't fit the requirements for the role you're trying for". Let's say, to protect my ego, that I wasn't looked over because I wasn't good enough. Do I not "fit" the requirements for a part in this show? Could I not conceivably play a petulant child who placed too much trust in strangers? Do I not sound like I would be in a position to sing "I Know Things Now"? Am I too old? Too young? Too serious? Not to be taken seriously? Is there something about me entirely beyond my control that kept me from being deemed worthy of this journey? The possibility that I wasn't looked over based on the notion that I wasn't good enough, it turns out, isn't good enough to appease me.
I recently recieved an invite via facebook to attend the upcoming production of Into the Woods, the same production that I had been so looking forward to being a part of and was not able to because...well, because they didn't choose me. It really just boils down to that. It wasn't that I didn't have the time or couldn't get there or had any conflicts with the production schedule. Those might have been obstacles, but not deal breakers. The only thing that ultimately kept me from being in the show was that the production team decided not to put me in the show. I accept this. I acknowledge this and understand that to be the nature of the beast with whom I've fallen in love...None of that makes it any less hurtful though.
The fact is, there's no composer who identifies whatever aspect of the human experience he deigns to comment on through his lyrics the way that Stephen Sondheim does. (In my perfect universe, he's my grandpa and I call him Papa) Among his works (that I know so far), there's no show that resonates with me as strongly as Into the Woods and, though I know this is only one show and one company and one cast with a specific balance, I can't ignore the implication that this is not a show in which I would be invited to take part. I was first taught about casting that "there are two reasons you don't get cast in a role: you're not good enough or you don't fit the requirements for the role you're trying for". Let's say, to protect my ego, that I wasn't looked over because I wasn't good enough. Do I not "fit" the requirements for a part in this show? Could I not conceivably play a petulant child who placed too much trust in strangers? Do I not sound like I would be in a position to sing "I Know Things Now"? Am I too old? Too young? Too serious? Not to be taken seriously? Is there something about me entirely beyond my control that kept me from being deemed worthy of this journey? The possibility that I wasn't looked over based on the notion that I wasn't good enough, it turns out, isn't good enough to appease me.
No more Kardashians!
So there's this huge new grassroots campaign to out the Kardashian "empire" from the E! network. According to some chick in Colorado who has seen three episodes, the show promotes vulgarity, sexual promiscuity, vanity and...other bad things. She says that the girls (let's call the unit KKK) portray an unrealistic image which is a negative image for impressionable young girls and should be taken off the air. She says that the public have the right to better quality programming. I say...really?
If I took this woman at her word, I wouldn't be surprised to find that young children had no choice but to watch Keeping Up With the Kardashians (and all its offspring), smell like Unbreakable (Khloe's perfume), wear their clothes and jewelry, and most importantly, care about these girls. All of these things are demonstrably untrue. Prior to the inclusion of the Kardashian Kollection on HLN, the barrage of K-themed shows was limited to E!, a network that made Hugh Heffner's string of concubines into household names and considers the tragedy of Jon Ben`et Ramsey a Hollywood Story. The only original shows that this network comes up with are unscripted, shallow, and usually uncreative. Even if this lady's charges against the Kardashian Klan are true, I could not imagine a more appropriate home for the family's escapades than E!. In any case, their being limited to one (occasionally two) channels ensures that the lives of these vapid, ignorant little princesses can be blocked out with a click of the remote. It would be harder to take back a remote from a couchmate than to press the button that will get rid of them. As for her protests that the Kardashians appear too often in magazines and now in stores to simply ignore, their frequent appearances on covers is only a reflection of their popularity and their new clothing line is no more an imposition to the masses than Abercrombie and Fitch is (though their ads make it difficult to remember that they're selling clothes). The truth is, KKK are only as important as we make them and this outcry for censorship sounds too much like a cry for help.
We had a client come into the Writing Center today who took up the majority of a blank page airing her grievances against the center, the staff, and our policies. So vehement were her complaints that anyone reading them would have thought that this was the last straw and we would never see her again. Alas, that person would be wrong. We know that she will come again because she already decided that she could not find any value in the writing center. A few days back, she went so far as to have herself deleted from the system, so final was her resolve to never again utilize the resources the center made available to her. I wondered when I heard this why it was so important for her to be deleted from the system. Our one newsletter had already been sent out, nor do we send out mass emails except to say when we'll be closed on special occasions. The only way her inclusion into the writing center's system would have affected her would be if she chose to make an appointment, which she did, only days later. The fact is, there was something about this place that drew her to come, the same way that there is something about the Kardashians that draws people to watch.
I am not ashamed to say that I have seen every Kardashian show, from the original one about the whole family to the spin-offs about taking various cities. I have picked a favorite, rooted against less favorites, and passed judgement on each of the family members at one time or another. I have done the same with the Kardashian family that I have with the cast of the Big Bang Theory and in both cases, it was my choice. I decided to watch these shows the same way that our patron decided to come back to the Center and these moms decided to have this station on. We have all been guilty of allowing the media to impact us at some time, but there does come a point when personal responsibility trumps all else. For some people, nothing wraps up a lazy Sunday like watching a group of relatively useless people worry about miniscule problems in their overprivileged lives. As unsettling as it is for you, it gives many reason to smile. You shouldn't try to take that away from us.
If I took this woman at her word, I wouldn't be surprised to find that young children had no choice but to watch Keeping Up With the Kardashians (and all its offspring), smell like Unbreakable (Khloe's perfume), wear their clothes and jewelry, and most importantly, care about these girls. All of these things are demonstrably untrue. Prior to the inclusion of the Kardashian Kollection on HLN, the barrage of K-themed shows was limited to E!, a network that made Hugh Heffner's string of concubines into household names and considers the tragedy of Jon Ben`et Ramsey a Hollywood Story. The only original shows that this network comes up with are unscripted, shallow, and usually uncreative. Even if this lady's charges against the Kardashian Klan are true, I could not imagine a more appropriate home for the family's escapades than E!. In any case, their being limited to one (occasionally two) channels ensures that the lives of these vapid, ignorant little princesses can be blocked out with a click of the remote. It would be harder to take back a remote from a couchmate than to press the button that will get rid of them. As for her protests that the Kardashians appear too often in magazines and now in stores to simply ignore, their frequent appearances on covers is only a reflection of their popularity and their new clothing line is no more an imposition to the masses than Abercrombie and Fitch is (though their ads make it difficult to remember that they're selling clothes). The truth is, KKK are only as important as we make them and this outcry for censorship sounds too much like a cry for help.
We had a client come into the Writing Center today who took up the majority of a blank page airing her grievances against the center, the staff, and our policies. So vehement were her complaints that anyone reading them would have thought that this was the last straw and we would never see her again. Alas, that person would be wrong. We know that she will come again because she already decided that she could not find any value in the writing center. A few days back, she went so far as to have herself deleted from the system, so final was her resolve to never again utilize the resources the center made available to her. I wondered when I heard this why it was so important for her to be deleted from the system. Our one newsletter had already been sent out, nor do we send out mass emails except to say when we'll be closed on special occasions. The only way her inclusion into the writing center's system would have affected her would be if she chose to make an appointment, which she did, only days later. The fact is, there was something about this place that drew her to come, the same way that there is something about the Kardashians that draws people to watch.
I am not ashamed to say that I have seen every Kardashian show, from the original one about the whole family to the spin-offs about taking various cities. I have picked a favorite, rooted against less favorites, and passed judgement on each of the family members at one time or another. I have done the same with the Kardashian family that I have with the cast of the Big Bang Theory and in both cases, it was my choice. I decided to watch these shows the same way that our patron decided to come back to the Center and these moms decided to have this station on. We have all been guilty of allowing the media to impact us at some time, but there does come a point when personal responsibility trumps all else. For some people, nothing wraps up a lazy Sunday like watching a group of relatively useless people worry about miniscule problems in their overprivileged lives. As unsettling as it is for you, it gives many reason to smile. You shouldn't try to take that away from us.
Without Emily
I was very excited to find after a year-long hiatus that Make It or Break It would be returning to television this spring. As disappointed as I was in the direction they had chosen to take the show in since one of the actors got pregnant, I held out hope that they would be able to turn things around somehow, given a second chance. Emily, because of her underdog status and determination to be strong on her own, is my favorite character and I was deeply hurt that the show's writers responded to the pregnancy of the actress playing her by, in turn, making her character pregnant. As upsetting as it was to see the one known to defy her critics' expectations fall into the most obvious stereotypical mistake of a stupid teenaged girl, I at least comforted myself with the opinion that, if she comes back from this failure, there's surely nothing Emily can't do. Fool that I am, I assured myself that there was no way they could just drop her. Fool that I am.
The actress who played Emily Kmetko has given birth to a beautiful boy, lost her baby weight, and returned to work. She will not, however, return to the Rock. She confirmed herself that she would not be returning to the show and every promotional shot for this season has been of the remaining trio. It's official. Emily is gone. We're back at the status quo.
I can't express enough my disappointment in the writers for taking this path. Although they had to deal with the absence of one gymnast for a significant time period somehow, making Emily get pregnant and run away was a complete cop-out. For one thing, it completely disregards the ever present reality that she is a gymnast and constantly at risk for serious injury. She could have fractured her spine doing the vault, had to be sent to special rehab center in the Himalayas, and been ready to train again by the time baby Hobbs popped out. It wouldn't be the most creative solution, but neither would it be so ridiculously shameful. Emily, a girl who never had a boyfriend before, was born to a teenaged mother and dreams of going to the Olympics, decides, pretty much out of the blue, that she'll give her love interest her virginity to hold him over for the next two years. Aside from the fact that it's a completely shallow take on what the network is trying to pass for true love, it completely contradicts Emily's assertion that she's spending her life trying not to become her mother. How does she think her mother got that way? Did she not realize sex was involved?
I was irritated, but difficult as it was, I bravely swallowed the pregnancy addition to the storyline and watched the season unwind without one of its principles because I knew they couldn't just throw her away. And yet they continued with the season giving her less than five minutes of attention in the episode following her departure and pulling in another key player to fill out the foursome. Although they tried to revamp the focus of the drama, one can hardly fail to notice that they've essentially tried to fool the viewers into thinking the show is simply going on in a reasonable direction. It's ridiculous to think that the show will thrive without Emily. Cat fights and boyfriend drama aside, she was the reason the show happened in the first place. For five years, Payon, Kaylie, and Lauren were best friends making up the top tier at the rock. They worked hard, they struggled in training, but none of their struggles affected their equilibrium until Emily came along. Emily broke the status quo. Emily changed the paths of their lives. Emily is the reason that they are where they are today, and to go back to being the three top Rock girls with every expectation on making a splash in the Olympics after all that is to pretend that Emily was never there at all, that the "1, 2, 3" that Lauren said was the way it always had been in the pilot episode really is the way that it should be to the end. That they not only succeeded without her at World Championships, but are now heading to the Olympics without so much as a glance back, is a complete disregard of the impact that Emily's presence made on their lives. Lauren was always a good gymnast, but she never would've pushed herself to get gold against her two best friends if she hadn't felt her position in the top tier challenged. Neither would Kaylie have been pushed to choose her gymnastics over everything else and deal with the fallout from her mother's affair if her defense of Emily at the qualifiers hadn't led her to jeopardize her relationship with her boyfriend. As determined as Payson was to win and beat her longtime rival, her deference and trust for her coach would have kept her from endangering her body in the weeks leading up to nationals were it not for having to prove to the coach that abandoned her that she was still a winner. Everything about where the girls stood at the end of Worlds was reflective of the impact that Emily had made on their lives, and yet the choice to exclude her from the climax of the season sends the message that she was never really a part of the team. All because she got knocked up.
Even though I was angry when I first found out that Emily was pregnant, I didn't see it as a career-ender even though the coach insisted in a discussion with Emily's mother over her condition that she couldn't return to gymnastics, that her body couldn't recover from a baby. After all, Payson had come back from a supposed career-ender to win medal at Worlds in less than a year after proclaiming that a gymnast has between 14 and 20 years old to accomplish anything. There has been among them from the start of the show the idea that they will only be able to survive one Olympic cycle before having to figure out what else they can do with their lives. Up until now, I have forgiven the writers the occasional liberties taken with reality, but I cannot reconcile their determination to build giants in the field of gymnastics with their determination to place such limits on them. While most gymnasts peak in their late teens, one need only look at the record of multiple-time medalist Oksana Chusovitina to see that age doesn't determine winability, nor does a major hormonal change. She's still winning medals in international events despite having a child and at least ten years on all of her competitors. Granted, her situation is not typical, but what about the sport is typical? The very nature of gymnastics dictates smashing through the glass ceiling of human potential, defying every dogma and transcending every obstacle that appears. If the people that competed adhered to the same restraints as regular folks, they'd never be able to throw themselves in the air or pull themselves over those bars. Herein lies the heart of my disappointment, my anger. Emily has had everything against her from the time she was conceived and still excelled beyond expectations for the simple fact that she wanted it and she fought for it. The show now tells us that she's stopped fighting. She can't fight anymore. Every step she's taken towards success has just been a means to the same end. It didn't matter how hard she fought, ABCFamily tells us. She wasn't strong enough. She didn't have the athlete father to push her. She didn't have the rich single parent to devote all his time to her. She didn't have the loving nuclear family to support her. She fell because she had nothing to stand on but her own two feet.
The show without Emily is about three girls who are very different, but very much the same. Their situations are far-fetched not because of what they do, but what happens around them. They all work hard with the guidance of the coach who was acquired for them by one of the parents. They all hit bumps in the road, but end up coming out on top with people who love them to see that they do. They all present a pretty, but distorted view of what it is to fight for your dreams. The show without Emily is not a drama. It's a fairytale. Fairytales are not to be believed.
The actress who played Emily Kmetko has given birth to a beautiful boy, lost her baby weight, and returned to work. She will not, however, return to the Rock. She confirmed herself that she would not be returning to the show and every promotional shot for this season has been of the remaining trio. It's official. Emily is gone. We're back at the status quo.
I can't express enough my disappointment in the writers for taking this path. Although they had to deal with the absence of one gymnast for a significant time period somehow, making Emily get pregnant and run away was a complete cop-out. For one thing, it completely disregards the ever present reality that she is a gymnast and constantly at risk for serious injury. She could have fractured her spine doing the vault, had to be sent to special rehab center in the Himalayas, and been ready to train again by the time baby Hobbs popped out. It wouldn't be the most creative solution, but neither would it be so ridiculously shameful. Emily, a girl who never had a boyfriend before, was born to a teenaged mother and dreams of going to the Olympics, decides, pretty much out of the blue, that she'll give her love interest her virginity to hold him over for the next two years. Aside from the fact that it's a completely shallow take on what the network is trying to pass for true love, it completely contradicts Emily's assertion that she's spending her life trying not to become her mother. How does she think her mother got that way? Did she not realize sex was involved?
I was irritated, but difficult as it was, I bravely swallowed the pregnancy addition to the storyline and watched the season unwind without one of its principles because I knew they couldn't just throw her away. And yet they continued with the season giving her less than five minutes of attention in the episode following her departure and pulling in another key player to fill out the foursome. Although they tried to revamp the focus of the drama, one can hardly fail to notice that they've essentially tried to fool the viewers into thinking the show is simply going on in a reasonable direction. It's ridiculous to think that the show will thrive without Emily. Cat fights and boyfriend drama aside, she was the reason the show happened in the first place. For five years, Payon, Kaylie, and Lauren were best friends making up the top tier at the rock. They worked hard, they struggled in training, but none of their struggles affected their equilibrium until Emily came along. Emily broke the status quo. Emily changed the paths of their lives. Emily is the reason that they are where they are today, and to go back to being the three top Rock girls with every expectation on making a splash in the Olympics after all that is to pretend that Emily was never there at all, that the "1, 2, 3" that Lauren said was the way it always had been in the pilot episode really is the way that it should be to the end. That they not only succeeded without her at World Championships, but are now heading to the Olympics without so much as a glance back, is a complete disregard of the impact that Emily's presence made on their lives. Lauren was always a good gymnast, but she never would've pushed herself to get gold against her two best friends if she hadn't felt her position in the top tier challenged. Neither would Kaylie have been pushed to choose her gymnastics over everything else and deal with the fallout from her mother's affair if her defense of Emily at the qualifiers hadn't led her to jeopardize her relationship with her boyfriend. As determined as Payson was to win and beat her longtime rival, her deference and trust for her coach would have kept her from endangering her body in the weeks leading up to nationals were it not for having to prove to the coach that abandoned her that she was still a winner. Everything about where the girls stood at the end of Worlds was reflective of the impact that Emily had made on their lives, and yet the choice to exclude her from the climax of the season sends the message that she was never really a part of the team. All because she got knocked up.
Even though I was angry when I first found out that Emily was pregnant, I didn't see it as a career-ender even though the coach insisted in a discussion with Emily's mother over her condition that she couldn't return to gymnastics, that her body couldn't recover from a baby. After all, Payson had come back from a supposed career-ender to win medal at Worlds in less than a year after proclaiming that a gymnast has between 14 and 20 years old to accomplish anything. There has been among them from the start of the show the idea that they will only be able to survive one Olympic cycle before having to figure out what else they can do with their lives. Up until now, I have forgiven the writers the occasional liberties taken with reality, but I cannot reconcile their determination to build giants in the field of gymnastics with their determination to place such limits on them. While most gymnasts peak in their late teens, one need only look at the record of multiple-time medalist Oksana Chusovitina to see that age doesn't determine winability, nor does a major hormonal change. She's still winning medals in international events despite having a child and at least ten years on all of her competitors. Granted, her situation is not typical, but what about the sport is typical? The very nature of gymnastics dictates smashing through the glass ceiling of human potential, defying every dogma and transcending every obstacle that appears. If the people that competed adhered to the same restraints as regular folks, they'd never be able to throw themselves in the air or pull themselves over those bars. Herein lies the heart of my disappointment, my anger. Emily has had everything against her from the time she was conceived and still excelled beyond expectations for the simple fact that she wanted it and she fought for it. The show now tells us that she's stopped fighting. She can't fight anymore. Every step she's taken towards success has just been a means to the same end. It didn't matter how hard she fought, ABCFamily tells us. She wasn't strong enough. She didn't have the athlete father to push her. She didn't have the rich single parent to devote all his time to her. She didn't have the loving nuclear family to support her. She fell because she had nothing to stand on but her own two feet.
The show without Emily is about three girls who are very different, but very much the same. Their situations are far-fetched not because of what they do, but what happens around them. They all work hard with the guidance of the coach who was acquired for them by one of the parents. They all hit bumps in the road, but end up coming out on top with people who love them to see that they do. They all present a pretty, but distorted view of what it is to fight for your dreams. The show without Emily is not a drama. It's a fairytale. Fairytales are not to be believed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)