A Man of Few Words by Katherine Woodbury (editor, Eugene Woodbury) can now be found on Amazon as a Kindle book. A Man of Few Words is my novella based on Pride & Prejudice. The inspiration to write this novella occurred when I read, or rather tried to read, a "from Darcy's viewpoint" novel. I wrote about that experience here. The result was A Man of Few Words.
My editor, Eugene, was highly instrumental in making this happen! The opening letter was written at his suggestion and with his input. He edited and proofed the document and encouraged me to add transitional material, smoothing out the chapters (for any of you who have read the Smashwords or previous PDF version, the updated PDF and Kindle versions have additional material, mostly at the beginnings of the chapters).
In honor of the occasion, I have begun a version of Pamela from Mr. B's point of view.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Cats and Death
My cat, Max, died this morning at about 10:30 a.m. (July 26, 2010). I had him put down.
I'm writing this partly because writing helps me work things out but also because I want this post out there for anyone who ever feels as overwhelmed and anxious as I did about this decision. There's a lot of different opinions on the web about cat care; over the past week, I think I've read and synthesized most of it.
Although this was not the first time I'd seen a pet die, it was the first time that (1) the decision lay on my shoulders; (2) the cat's condition wasn't something I'd encountered before. Max had been failing for several months (rapidly over the course of the last week), but he wasn't actually paralyzed and occasionally looked alert.
What happened first?
First, I got Max in October 1996. I was living with my parents at the time, and I got him on Peaks Island. He was the friendliest of a group of kittens I went to look
at. My older cat, Aurora, demonstrated some maternal instincts when he first showed up after which she promptly decided he was nuts. They more or less got along over the past 14 years.
Max continued to be the friendlier of the two cats although Aurora has livened up as she has gotten older! But Max always had to be where people were, investigating them and their stuff. He also wanted affection on a pretty constant basis: my high-maintenance cat. He was the kind of cat who would beg you for food, eat a couple of bites, and then rush back into the room to climb all over you. There were times when I thought he was going to climb inside my skin, he wanted affection so bad.
The first sign of trouble was this May when Max had labored breathing. The emergency animal clinic put him on prednisone which seemed to help; however, about the middle of June, he stopped eating. I switched from dry to wet food and got him to eat a few times a day. He began to get very weak in his back legs. He was no longer grooming himself, so I did that; he would still visit the litter box.
This past week, he stopped eating entirely unless I forced him though he would drink. He also began to search out hiding places. This, of course, was a radical personality change from the Max I was used to.
This weekend, he began to wheeze while laying on his side. He seemed to be in a catatonic state rather than asleep.
He did not cry although picking him up in certain ways obviously hurt him. Animals do not always show when they are in pain (they certainly don't have signs, saying, "Excuse me, I'm in pain"), but I formed the conclusion that he was.
Late Saturday night, I questioned whether I should take him to the emergency clinic to be euthanized even though I had just had his records moved to a regular veterinarian and wanted to take him there. After doing some research on the web, I formed the conclusion that he might die at home (which might be best) and that if he didn't, waiting until Monday to be absolutely sure he wasn't going to improve was the best option.
This morning, Monday, his condition was the same except he was slightly perkier (the weather is cooler). I made the appointment and took him in.
From my perspective, Max was very unhappy. However, based on the stuff I had read on the Internet, he certainly didn't look like a desiccated, hair-matted, eyes-filmed-over, at-death's-door cat. A part of me thought, Maybe, it is just asthma. We'll be going home with medication in two ticks.
However, I kept reiterating to the staff that I didn't want him to be put through lots of complicated and anxiety-producing tests. I would be doing it for me—and I was perfectly capable of doing it for me: What's VISA for?—not for him.
The extremely experienced vet (The Cat Doctor in Portland, Maine) was wonderful. She was practical and sympathetic without being maudlin or feeding me any "this is what you should have done" or "this is what GOOD owners do" stuff. It was clear within a few minutes that to her, Max's quality of life was so diminished that keeping him alive would be more for me than for Max. We took him into a room where she did a cursory exam (to make me happy, I think), and she was able to state that his problems were likely lung and/or heart-related and not the types of problems that could be cured or even managed without causing the cat a great deal of distress.
That wasn't what I wanted, so I gave the go ahead for him to be euthanized.
The Internet made it sound like he would be hooked up to some crazy machine, but she actually did it right there, right then. She pulled out a needle, already prepared (over the phone, I had put forward the possibility that Max would need to be put down, and she actually had two needles with her), and inserted it. She told me that there might be a brief struggle as the animal felt himself falling to sleep. But actually, Max didn't struggle at all. He was gone in less than two minutes without a complaint.
By the way, The Cat Doctor has tissue boxes ALL OVER THE CLINIC.
My options were to take the body with me, have a private cremation, or have a group cremation.
My parents offered to bury Max on the island which would have been appropriate, but I really didn't want to carry my dead cat around Portland. The idea of keeping an urn of my animal's ashes is thoroughly creepy. I opted for the group cremation and to have a mold made of Max's paw print.
The whole visit cost $100. I feel this is very reasonable although I realize other people may want cheaper options. Based on my Internet research, some shelters will euthanize for free. However, most vets charge around $50 for euthanasia and $50 for cremation (more, for personal cremation).
So what about my older cat, Aurora?
She's extremely healthy physically (she's two years older than Max, being 16). In terms of her mental? instinctual? state, I'm not sure. She has ignored Max over the last two months. Animals can tell when other animals are dying; Aurora was actually, probably, the best indicator I had for how far gone he was, I just didn't see it.
She loves that I now serve wet food (mixed with dry).
Whether she will miss him or not, I have no idea. When she wanders around the house, it is hard to know if she is looking for Max or hoping I left some food out somewhere.
People say pets grieved, but I'm very wary of believing what people say about their pets: so often, it seems that the wish precedes the evidence. They want to see their own grief reflected in the remaining animal. The animal may actually be reacting more to the owner's emotional/instinct-based aura than to anything else.
In which case, Aurora is just going to have to suffer. Sorry. But I miss Max like crazy; I can't just switch it off.
How about another pet?
It is very tempting to go out TODAY and get a little kitten. But I'm opposed to that course of action for three reasons. The first is that I wouldn't be replacing Max; I would be trying to soothe my feelings. And the new kitten wouldn't BE Max. (This would be true even if I cloned Max; the new kitten would be itself; I've never understood why people think that two things are the same just because they share the same DNA. This isn't a nature or nurture thing. It's just a reality thing.)
Second, according to Cesar Millan, when an animal comes into a grieving household, it doesn't say, "Oh, I am so sorry for you all. How sad!"
It says, "These creatures are weak. Weak creatures are bad. I must control them!"
Or, rather, it doesn't think at all. It just does it.
I don't want a new kitten running my house. In any case, it deserves more equilibrium.
Finally, I have a more steady paycheck in the fall. New kittens cost!
Still, the new vet is all lined up!
Conclusion
To conclude, if you have an ill/dying/unhappy cat, and you are really worried about what direction to go . . . I can't really tell you except you should trust your observations. One of the websites I read said, "My vet told me I would know when it was time." In retrospect, this is totally correct.
It is retrospect. However, when I told the vet, "I've been expecting him to be dead every morning over the last few days," she replied that when an owner feels this, it is likely time for the pet to go. I think this is close to what I read: the owner knows better than anyone what quality of life the animal is used to.
If you are worried that the vet will berate you for choosing euthanasia, the good ones won't. They will give you multiple options. If I had walked in there and said, "I want the full work-up! Save his life at all costs!!" they would have done it (as much as they could, at least). But it would have been the wrong decision, and the vet was very clear about where Max stood health-wise.
If you are worried that the process is ultra-expensive, it isn't although you can make it ultra-expensive! I feel that I gave Max dignity without sacrificing my checkbook to some ridiculous extravaganza that would make me feel . . . well, just as bad actually since it wouldn't bring him back. (If I were more solvent, I would have gone with the private cremation and sprinkled his ashes on Peaks Island; I don't think Mom's tulips would have minded. But I will never keep an urn of anyone's ashes in my house. I understand bones; bones are cool. Dirt is just dirt. And, in truth, I kind of like the idea of my cat being cremated with lots of other animals: it's a circle of life thing.)
And finally, if you are worried that it is painful for the animal, from what I witnessed, it wasn't at all. My vet did let me stay with Max which I'm not sure I would have been able to do if I'd taken him to the emergency clinic. He was calm when he got the injection, and I pet him until he passed. They also did all the administrative business in the room, so I didn't have to go bawl in the waiting area which made me very grateful.
Max was a really good cat, and he had a really good life. R.I.P.
I'm writing this partly because writing helps me work things out but also because I want this post out there for anyone who ever feels as overwhelmed and anxious as I did about this decision. There's a lot of different opinions on the web about cat care; over the past week, I think I've read and synthesized most of it.
Although this was not the first time I'd seen a pet die, it was the first time that (1) the decision lay on my shoulders; (2) the cat's condition wasn't something I'd encountered before. Max had been failing for several months (rapidly over the course of the last week), but he wasn't actually paralyzed and occasionally looked alert.
What happened first?
First, I got Max in October 1996. I was living with my parents at the time, and I got him on Peaks Island. He was the friendliest of a group of kittens I went to look
at. My older cat, Aurora, demonstrated some maternal instincts when he first showed up after which she promptly decided he was nuts. They more or less got along over the past 14 years.Max continued to be the friendlier of the two cats although Aurora has livened up as she has gotten older! But Max always had to be where people were, investigating them and their stuff. He also wanted affection on a pretty constant basis: my high-maintenance cat. He was the kind of cat who would beg you for food, eat a couple of bites, and then rush back into the room to climb all over you. There were times when I thought he was going to climb inside my skin, he wanted affection so bad.
The first sign of trouble was this May when Max had labored breathing. The emergency animal clinic put him on prednisone which seemed to help; however, about the middle of June, he stopped eating. I switched from dry to wet food and got him to eat a few times a day. He began to get very weak in his back legs. He was no longer grooming himself, so I did that; he would still visit the litter box.
This past week, he stopped eating entirely unless I forced him though he would drink. He also began to search out hiding places. This, of course, was a radical personality change from the Max I was used to.
This weekend, he began to wheeze while laying on his side. He seemed to be in a catatonic state rather than asleep.
He did not cry although picking him up in certain ways obviously hurt him. Animals do not always show when they are in pain (they certainly don't have signs, saying, "Excuse me, I'm in pain"), but I formed the conclusion that he was.
Late Saturday night, I questioned whether I should take him to the emergency clinic to be euthanized even though I had just had his records moved to a regular veterinarian and wanted to take him there. After doing some research on the web, I formed the conclusion that he might die at home (which might be best) and that if he didn't, waiting until Monday to be absolutely sure he wasn't going to improve was the best option.
This morning, Monday, his condition was the same except he was slightly perkier (the weather is cooler). I made the appointment and took him in.
From my perspective, Max was very unhappy. However, based on the stuff I had read on the Internet, he certainly didn't look like a desiccated, hair-matted, eyes-filmed-over, at-death's-door cat. A part of me thought, Maybe, it is just asthma. We'll be going home with medication in two ticks.
However, I kept reiterating to the staff that I didn't want him to be put through lots of complicated and anxiety-producing tests. I would be doing it for me—and I was perfectly capable of doing it for me: What's VISA for?—not for him.
The extremely experienced vet (The Cat Doctor in Portland, Maine) was wonderful. She was practical and sympathetic without being maudlin or feeding me any "this is what you should have done" or "this is what GOOD owners do" stuff. It was clear within a few minutes that to her, Max's quality of life was so diminished that keeping him alive would be more for me than for Max. We took him into a room where she did a cursory exam (to make me happy, I think), and she was able to state that his problems were likely lung and/or heart-related and not the types of problems that could be cured or even managed without causing the cat a great deal of distress.
That wasn't what I wanted, so I gave the go ahead for him to be euthanized.
The Internet made it sound like he would be hooked up to some crazy machine, but she actually did it right there, right then. She pulled out a needle, already prepared (over the phone, I had put forward the possibility that Max would need to be put down, and she actually had two needles with her), and inserted it. She told me that there might be a brief struggle as the animal felt himself falling to sleep. But actually, Max didn't struggle at all. He was gone in less than two minutes without a complaint.
By the way, The Cat Doctor has tissue boxes ALL OVER THE CLINIC.
My options were to take the body with me, have a private cremation, or have a group cremation.
My parents offered to bury Max on the island which would have been appropriate, but I really didn't want to carry my dead cat around Portland. The idea of keeping an urn of my animal's ashes is thoroughly creepy. I opted for the group cremation and to have a mold made of Max's paw print.
The whole visit cost $100. I feel this is very reasonable although I realize other people may want cheaper options. Based on my Internet research, some shelters will euthanize for free. However, most vets charge around $50 for euthanasia and $50 for cremation (more, for personal cremation).
So what about my older cat, Aurora?
She's extremely healthy physically (she's two years older than Max, being 16). In terms of her mental? instinctual? state, I'm not sure. She has ignored Max over the last two months. Animals can tell when other animals are dying; Aurora was actually, probably, the best indicator I had for how far gone he was, I just didn't see it.
She loves that I now serve wet food (mixed with dry).
Whether she will miss him or not, I have no idea. When she wanders around the house, it is hard to know if she is looking for Max or hoping I left some food out somewhere.
People say pets grieved, but I'm very wary of believing what people say about their pets: so often, it seems that the wish precedes the evidence. They want to see their own grief reflected in the remaining animal. The animal may actually be reacting more to the owner's emotional/instinct-based aura than to anything else.
In which case, Aurora is just going to have to suffer. Sorry. But I miss Max like crazy; I can't just switch it off.
How about another pet?
It is very tempting to go out TODAY and get a little kitten. But I'm opposed to that course of action for three reasons. The first is that I wouldn't be replacing Max; I would be trying to soothe my feelings. And the new kitten wouldn't BE Max. (This would be true even if I cloned Max; the new kitten would be itself; I've never understood why people think that two things are the same just because they share the same DNA. This isn't a nature or nurture thing. It's just a reality thing.)
Second, according to Cesar Millan, when an animal comes into a grieving household, it doesn't say, "Oh, I am so sorry for you all. How sad!"
It says, "These creatures are weak. Weak creatures are bad. I must control them!"
Or, rather, it doesn't think at all. It just does it.
I don't want a new kitten running my house. In any case, it deserves more equilibrium.
Finally, I have a more steady paycheck in the fall. New kittens cost!
Still, the new vet is all lined up!
Conclusion
To conclude, if you have an ill/dying/unhappy cat, and you are really worried about what direction to go . . . I can't really tell you except you should trust your observations. One of the websites I read said, "My vet told me I would know when it was time." In retrospect, this is totally correct.
It is retrospect. However, when I told the vet, "I've been expecting him to be dead every morning over the last few days," she replied that when an owner feels this, it is likely time for the pet to go. I think this is close to what I read: the owner knows better than anyone what quality of life the animal is used to.
If you are worried that the vet will berate you for choosing euthanasia, the good ones won't. They will give you multiple options. If I had walked in there and said, "I want the full work-up! Save his life at all costs!!" they would have done it (as much as they could, at least). But it would have been the wrong decision, and the vet was very clear about where Max stood health-wise.
If you are worried that the process is ultra-expensive, it isn't although you can make it ultra-expensive! I feel that I gave Max dignity without sacrificing my checkbook to some ridiculous extravaganza that would make me feel . . . well, just as bad actually since it wouldn't bring him back. (If I were more solvent, I would have gone with the private cremation and sprinkled his ashes on Peaks Island; I don't think Mom's tulips would have minded. But I will never keep an urn of anyone's ashes in my house. I understand bones; bones are cool. Dirt is just dirt. And, in truth, I kind of like the idea of my cat being cremated with lots of other animals: it's a circle of life thing.)
And finally, if you are worried that it is painful for the animal, from what I witnessed, it wasn't at all. My vet did let me stay with Max which I'm not sure I would have been able to do if I'd taken him to the emergency clinic. He was calm when he got the injection, and I pet him until he passed. They also did all the administrative business in the room, so I didn't have to go bawl in the waiting area which made me very grateful.
Max was a really good cat, and he had a really good life. R.I.P.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Real Introversion versus Hollywood Introversion--Part II
One of the sadder aspects of Hollywood is how many writers/ actors/ directors/ producers (but not all) assume that the whole world is like Hollywood.
This leads them to create characters that they claim are "normal, everyday people" reflecting normal, everyday levels of, say, introversion and extroversion . . . when in fact, their normal, everyday people are Hollywood normal, everyday people.
Which means, they aren't.
Below, I have listed some ways in which Hollywood (often) misreads introversion and extroversion.
1. They (this is the ubiquitous "they" as in "those silly people") assume that anyone who doesn't go clubbing is an introvert.
Many extroverts go clubbing. Many do not. Lots of people think clubbing is boring. Granted, introverts may be less willing to go clubbing than extroverts, but not going clubbing in and of itself means nothing.
The corollary to "anyone who doesn't go clubbing is an introvert" is . . .
2. Anyone who plays computer games and/or writes is an introvert.
Again, this is a logic problem. That many introverts play computer games and write does not mean, ipso facto, that all people who play computer games and write are introverts.
The mistake is assuming that interests are the same as introversion and extroversion. They aren't.
One of my favorite examples of this is from the book About a Boy by Nick Hornby. In the book, not the movie, one of the characters comments that the main character--who is an extrovert--is the best person to extol the virtues of being alive, NOT because he has some grand theory about the importance of life but because he enjoys the little things of life: watching Countdown, getting his hair cut.
Granted, Hornby is partly implying that the guy's life is a bit shallow. But I think enjoying the little things of life (being able to fall back on one's own resources) is a personality trait. Some people can be satisfied with a new DVD. I get excited when I unpack my books from the library (it's like Christmas!).
Some people need an event (I went to the beach this weekend!) or a party (we went clubbing) or a 3-ring circus to keep themselves occupied. I've always felt vaguely sorry for the last types. 3-ring circuses on a continual basis are hard to come by. Much better to be able to fall back on one's resources.
However, the fallacy "doing stuff at home=introversion" leads Hollywood ("them") to create characters like McGee on NCIS who is described as an introvert because he doesn't go clubbing but stays home and plays computer games and writes.
The snag is that McGee is as people-oriented as everybody else on NCIS. Personally, I'm convinced that Bellasario wouldn't know an introvert if one walked up and reprogrammed his I-Pod.
I say this because the most introverted character on the show, Gibbs, is rarely perceived this way.
Why? Because of fallacy #3:
3. Introverts are bad with people.
People who are bad with people can be introverts. They can also be extroverts. Being bad with people and/or not being charming is about individuals, not introversion or extroversion.
Gibbs, for example, is very charming and attracts women. The automatic assumption is that he is therefore not an introvert.
But Darcy and Spock demonstrate that introverts are considered quite attractive (even Data was pursued by at least two women although Data is an extrovert: yes, he is). Introverted men and women run the risk of being unfairly called "stuck-up," but that in no way impedes their ability to attract members of the opposite sex (or the same sex for that matter). And it doesn't follow that extroverts are automatically better at the task.
House, I would argue, is an extrovert, and he's terrible with people.
Actually, House is a difficult personality to pin down. House may live alone; he may claim to dislike/distrust human beings, but he is actually quite enamored of social interactions. He wants to understand them and spends a lot of time testing them out. He would start a conversation in a railway carriage.
Still, House is difficult to pin down. So, to play fair, I give you Ray from Due South, a total extrovert who is perfectly capable of annoying and misreading people.
However, House brings up an important fallacy:
4. Introverts are quiet.
This one is more likely to be true, especially in social situations. But introverts often like to talk. On the show Big Bang Theory (which pegs both introversion and nerdom most excellently), Sheldon is perfectly willing to chatter about his pet peeves, etc. to people who will listen. Sheldon IS an introvert; he may or may not have Aspergers (which is not an introvert or extrovert characteristic: see So Odd an Mixture by Phyllis Ferguson Bottomer), but he is definitely an introvert (remember, it's a mindset).
When arguing with Leonard or even Penny over whether or not to keep the Time Machine, Sheldon is extremely vocal. When stuck with Leonard at Penny's Halloween party, Sheldon complains to Leonard but to no one else and makes no effort to connect socially or to move about the party. When Leonard confronts Penny's ex-boyfriend, Sheldon makes zero effort to aid Leonard--despite his height (if he didn't slouch, he would be taller than the ex-boyfriend). He doesn't help not because he doesn't want Leonard to win. It simply doesn't occur to him that he could make the situation any better. He slouches behind Leonard and applauds his witticisms.
Raj, on the other hand, says nothing and gets a girl who claims he is SO easy to talk to! See #3 above.
Raj is a truly shy introvert.
5. Introverts are lonely.
This is probably the biggest fallacy. It is perpetuated because (as stated in my post below), extroverts misunderstand introverts. They conflate introversion with shyness, and they conflate shyness with a personality flaw.
Hence, 20 billion Hollywood movies and episodes which focus on getting a character to come out of his/her shell by going to a party. She went to a party--she's happy--problem solved!
To be fair: dealing with people is an important part of being alive. And making connections (however it is done: in person, by phone, over the Internet, etc.) can help people find purpose and enhance their emotional, mental, and physical survival. Sheldon is better off because of Leonard. Evolution alone demands that we be social creatures.
But being a social creature does not mean going to parties. Going to a party is not a cure-all. The assumption seems to be that the poor introvert really wishes that he/she was the center of a bubbling cauldron of social interaction; only shyness or a lack of opportunities keeps him/her from that Nirvana.
I have a number of acquaintances and a few close friends. I'm also part of a work, family, and church network. I teach, go out to dinner or lunch with a friend about once every two weeks, email my family and friends more often, see family members now and again, and go to church. And that's about as much as I can handle. In fact, if the teaching, going out to lunch, seeing family members, and church attending happen all in the same week, I consider I was busy!
And, if you parse my life on a spectrum, for some people, I was!
For some people, I didn't do anything at all.
There's nothing wrong with doing more or less; the mistake is Hollywood assuming that everyone wants "to have a life" in the sense that everyone secretly wants to be a Hollywood actor being chased by reporters and attending all-night parties. "They" think people who say, "I'd rather be home with a good book" are faking it.
For this reason, characters who would be introverts on television are rarely allowed to stay introverts (again, Big Bang Theory is the exception here because Leonard & Co. are so much more interesting when they are playing Halo and trying to engineer stuff than when they are trying to "be like everyone else"). In many ways, Hollywood is just like high school--these are people who honestly believe that all people are just dying to go to their 10th high school reunions and network on Facebook.
Consequently, there are few real introverts on television or in the movies. Just extroverts pretending to be introverts. For this reason, it was extremely difficult for me to come up with decent examples.
What I can prove is that Hollywood extroversion is not exactly what it purports to be either.
For example, take DiNozzo from NCIS. I'm going to show why, despite his ultra-extroverted behavior, he shares many introverted characteristics.
Why DiNozzo could actually be an introvert:
1. He does much of his work in off-hours when people aren't around.
2. He creates strong personal relationships with a few people and finds it difficult (I would argue, emotionally impossible) to build new relationships; if you pay close attention to the script, this actually makes sense. DiNozzo is not Riker, who could easily go off and start a new life on another starship. DiNozzo found a boss/father-figure who tolerated him and is going to hang onto that relationship at all costs. It is one of the few alpha-alpha male relationships I completely believe in.
3. He demonstrates an awesome knowledge of film minutiae that could only be acquired by someone spending far more time alone than DiNozzo is willing to admit to.
Okay, why he isn't:
1. He gets distracted by personal interactions in the office because he always wants to be involved.
2. He spends his vacations around people.
3. He dislikes staying on his own.
4. He would start a freaking disco in the railway carriage.
The point is: DiNozzo is typical of the Hollywood fear of introversion. He will do just about anything to prevent anyone perceiving him as introverted. Except for the movie references, DiNozzo carefully hides his less extroverted qualities. This is in keeping with the character, but I also think it is pure Hollywood. If introversion can be cured, Hollywood is going to do it!
But, I say to them, that isn't what introverts want.
This leads them to create characters that they claim are "normal, everyday people" reflecting normal, everyday levels of, say, introversion and extroversion . . . when in fact, their normal, everyday people are Hollywood normal, everyday people.
Which means, they aren't.
Below, I have listed some ways in which Hollywood (often) misreads introversion and extroversion.
1. They (this is the ubiquitous "they" as in "those silly people") assume that anyone who doesn't go clubbing is an introvert.
Many extroverts go clubbing. Many do not. Lots of people think clubbing is boring. Granted, introverts may be less willing to go clubbing than extroverts, but not going clubbing in and of itself means nothing.
The corollary to "anyone who doesn't go clubbing is an introvert" is . . .
2. Anyone who plays computer games and/or writes is an introvert.
Again, this is a logic problem. That many introverts play computer games and write does not mean, ipso facto, that all people who play computer games and write are introverts.
The mistake is assuming that interests are the same as introversion and extroversion. They aren't.
One of my favorite examples of this is from the book About a Boy by Nick Hornby. In the book, not the movie, one of the characters comments that the main character--who is an extrovert--is the best person to extol the virtues of being alive, NOT because he has some grand theory about the importance of life but because he enjoys the little things of life: watching Countdown, getting his hair cut.
Granted, Hornby is partly implying that the guy's life is a bit shallow. But I think enjoying the little things of life (being able to fall back on one's own resources) is a personality trait. Some people can be satisfied with a new DVD. I get excited when I unpack my books from the library (it's like Christmas!).
Some people need an event (I went to the beach this weekend!) or a party (we went clubbing) or a 3-ring circus to keep themselves occupied. I've always felt vaguely sorry for the last types. 3-ring circuses on a continual basis are hard to come by. Much better to be able to fall back on one's resources.
However, the fallacy "doing stuff at home=introversion" leads Hollywood ("them") to create characters like McGee on NCIS who is described as an introvert because he doesn't go clubbing but stays home and plays computer games and writes.
The snag is that McGee is as people-oriented as everybody else on NCIS. Personally, I'm convinced that Bellasario wouldn't know an introvert if one walked up and reprogrammed his I-Pod.
I say this because the most introverted character on the show, Gibbs, is rarely perceived this way.
Why? Because of fallacy #3:
3. Introverts are bad with people.
People who are bad with people can be introverts. They can also be extroverts. Being bad with people and/or not being charming is about individuals, not introversion or extroversion.
Gibbs, for example, is very charming and attracts women. The automatic assumption is that he is therefore not an introvert.
But Darcy and Spock demonstrate that introverts are considered quite attractive (even Data was pursued by at least two women although Data is an extrovert: yes, he is). Introverted men and women run the risk of being unfairly called "stuck-up," but that in no way impedes their ability to attract members of the opposite sex (or the same sex for that matter). And it doesn't follow that extroverts are automatically better at the task.
House, I would argue, is an extrovert, and he's terrible with people.
Actually, House is a difficult personality to pin down. House may live alone; he may claim to dislike/distrust human beings, but he is actually quite enamored of social interactions. He wants to understand them and spends a lot of time testing them out. He would start a conversation in a railway carriage.
Still, House is difficult to pin down. So, to play fair, I give you Ray from Due South, a total extrovert who is perfectly capable of annoying and misreading people.
However, House brings up an important fallacy:
4. Introverts are quiet.
This one is more likely to be true, especially in social situations. But introverts often like to talk. On the show Big Bang Theory (which pegs both introversion and nerdom most excellently), Sheldon is perfectly willing to chatter about his pet peeves, etc. to people who will listen. Sheldon IS an introvert; he may or may not have Aspergers (which is not an introvert or extrovert characteristic: see So Odd an Mixture by Phyllis Ferguson Bottomer), but he is definitely an introvert (remember, it's a mindset).
When arguing with Leonard or even Penny over whether or not to keep the Time Machine, Sheldon is extremely vocal. When stuck with Leonard at Penny's Halloween party, Sheldon complains to Leonard but to no one else and makes no effort to connect socially or to move about the party. When Leonard confronts Penny's ex-boyfriend, Sheldon makes zero effort to aid Leonard--despite his height (if he didn't slouch, he would be taller than the ex-boyfriend). He doesn't help not because he doesn't want Leonard to win. It simply doesn't occur to him that he could make the situation any better. He slouches behind Leonard and applauds his witticisms.
Raj, on the other hand, says nothing and gets a girl who claims he is SO easy to talk to! See #3 above.
Raj is a truly shy introvert.
5. Introverts are lonely.
This is probably the biggest fallacy. It is perpetuated because (as stated in my post below), extroverts misunderstand introverts. They conflate introversion with shyness, and they conflate shyness with a personality flaw.
Hence, 20 billion Hollywood movies and episodes which focus on getting a character to come out of his/her shell by going to a party. She went to a party--she's happy--problem solved!
To be fair: dealing with people is an important part of being alive. And making connections (however it is done: in person, by phone, over the Internet, etc.) can help people find purpose and enhance their emotional, mental, and physical survival. Sheldon is better off because of Leonard. Evolution alone demands that we be social creatures.
But being a social creature does not mean going to parties. Going to a party is not a cure-all. The assumption seems to be that the poor introvert really wishes that he/she was the center of a bubbling cauldron of social interaction; only shyness or a lack of opportunities keeps him/her from that Nirvana.
I have a number of acquaintances and a few close friends. I'm also part of a work, family, and church network. I teach, go out to dinner or lunch with a friend about once every two weeks, email my family and friends more often, see family members now and again, and go to church. And that's about as much as I can handle. In fact, if the teaching, going out to lunch, seeing family members, and church attending happen all in the same week, I consider I was busy!
And, if you parse my life on a spectrum, for some people, I was!
For some people, I didn't do anything at all.
There's nothing wrong with doing more or less; the mistake is Hollywood assuming that everyone wants "to have a life" in the sense that everyone secretly wants to be a Hollywood actor being chased by reporters and attending all-night parties. "They" think people who say, "I'd rather be home with a good book" are faking it.
For this reason, characters who would be introverts on television are rarely allowed to stay introverts (again, Big Bang Theory is the exception here because Leonard & Co. are so much more interesting when they are playing Halo and trying to engineer stuff than when they are trying to "be like everyone else"). In many ways, Hollywood is just like high school--these are people who honestly believe that all people are just dying to go to their 10th high school reunions and network on Facebook.
Consequently, there are few real introverts on television or in the movies. Just extroverts pretending to be introverts. For this reason, it was extremely difficult for me to come up with decent examples.
What I can prove is that Hollywood extroversion is not exactly what it purports to be either.
For example, take DiNozzo from NCIS. I'm going to show why, despite his ultra-extroverted behavior, he shares many introverted characteristics.
Why DiNozzo could actually be an introvert:
1. He does much of his work in off-hours when people aren't around.
2. He creates strong personal relationships with a few people and finds it difficult (I would argue, emotionally impossible) to build new relationships; if you pay close attention to the script, this actually makes sense. DiNozzo is not Riker, who could easily go off and start a new life on another starship. DiNozzo found a boss/father-figure who tolerated him and is going to hang onto that relationship at all costs. It is one of the few alpha-alpha male relationships I completely believe in.
3. He demonstrates an awesome knowledge of film minutiae that could only be acquired by someone spending far more time alone than DiNozzo is willing to admit to.
Okay, why he isn't:
1. He gets distracted by personal interactions in the office because he always wants to be involved.
2. He spends his vacations around people.
3. He dislikes staying on his own.
4. He would start a freaking disco in the railway carriage.
The point is: DiNozzo is typical of the Hollywood fear of introversion. He will do just about anything to prevent anyone perceiving him as introverted. Except for the movie references, DiNozzo carefully hides his less extroverted qualities. This is in keeping with the character, but I also think it is pure Hollywood. If introversion can be cured, Hollywood is going to do it!
But, I say to them, that isn't what introverts want.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Real Introversion versus Hollywood Introversion--Part I: What IS Introversion?
Part 1 because not everyone agrees, and there are many, many different definitions.
I happen to straddle the fence which I think gives me some insight on this topic. People in my family tend to be reserved ("This is MY space") which I think is a facet of introversion. However, people in my family also range from "I enjoy social activities and meeting people and making new friends" to "Email was invented for a reason, folks." I fall, as I stated earlier, directly in the center of this range. (Keep in mind, I am a woman, and women by training are more likely to exert themselves socially whatever they may feel like inside. And, yes, it is still expected that women will do this although that may change as the 21st century adapts to the power/nature of the introvert.)
However, being an introvert isn't just or only a desire to avoid crowds and/or strangers. In fact, many introverts, especially women introverts, like to be in crowds. I have heard introversion described as the obligation a person feels ("I think I should talk to others, ergo, I must be an extrovert."). However, your average woman has been trained (like the introverted Darcy in Pride & Prejudice and children of the 1940's/50's) to accept certain social obligations. My father, a decided introvert, will practice said obligations in certain situations (and can be quite charming when he does so).
In his novel Path of Dreams, my brother, Eugene astutely pinpoints that what introverts like, when it comes to social obligations, is a ROLE. I am a teacher. This may not seem surprising since I straddle the fence, but actually teaching often frightens me deeply. What keeps me going is that teaching is a ROLE. Roles can give a person a lot of freedom (my father did a lot of acting in church plays when he was younger). However, when the ROLE conflates with non-role expectations, the ROLE stops being fun (that is, when my students stop acting like students and start acting either like friends or enemies, I become either uncomfortable or miserable).
Even within a role, introvert behavior can be surprisingly difficult to pin down. From my straddling position, I think I can define what introversion is by explaining what annoys me about introversion and what annoys me about extroversion.
What annoys me about contemporary introversion is the absence of social noblesse oblige.
I have a very 19th century/Jane Austen view of social obligations. The world does depend on a smooth-running society ("smooth-running" to me means people give me correct change at the register and don't crush my donuts). The people with hearts can't always take care of the people with heads. I need to be functional.
And it annoys me when I don't get any help fulfilling those functions. For example, like most people in my family, I can talk away like nobody's business; consequently, I once got invited on a blind date with the expectation that I was going to chatter away and entertain everyone, including THE GUY. But I didn't know THE GUY, and I can't carry a conversation all by myself. I need some feedback. It was an excruciating day. Hint to introverts: NEVER go on a whole-day trip for a first date.
The expectation in this experience was that as an perceived extrovert, I should want to do all the talking. And there are some extroverts like that, but even many extroverts don't like the burden of communication to be placed entirely on their shoulders. It is wearisome.
On the other hand . . .
What annoys me about extroversion is the expectation that "EVERYBODY LOVES A GOOD PARTY!"
My idea of hell is a non-ending cocktail party where people stand around with little cheez things and sweating glasses of punch, talking about their cars and raises in answer to tedious questions regarding "how things have been going for them lately?"
I suspect:
And then one day, I realized that there ARE people who actually do this stuff ON PURPOSE. They would rather go to a party than stay home. They would rather be in a group of 25 than in a luncheon date of me & you. They would rather see how many friends they can meet as quickly as possible. This was a huge relief, by the way. My reaction was "Oh my gosh! They WANT to do this stuff. I can go home!"
Narrowing it down: I now return to one of my earlier points: introversion is not automatically interchangeable with shyness. Shyness can be a product of introversion; however, shyness can also be a product of context.
C.S. Lewis and Tolkien are a case in point.
Both men were reserved Britishers (Lewis was Irish; Tolkien was English). Both men would appear shy to Americans. (Just like Easterners often appear snobby and reserved to Westerners.)
BUT C.S. Lewis was an extrovert, and Tolkien was an introvert.
Lewis liked to meet people. He honestly liked to network. He also liked to argue about ideas. He came off as loud, boisterous, and even obnoxious. Except when he came off as completely diffident and reserved.
Tolkien liked to have one good friend who was his one good friend. Other people were okay as long as they didn't intrude too much.
The rift between Tolkien and Lewis can be easily explained by understanding that Tolkien wanted Lewis to be his one good friend, and Lewis wanted Tolkien to be one of a crowd. And although this kind of thing can be overcome, the intensity of Tolkien's personality kind of precluded that. I tend to read Lewis biographies whose authors tend to side with Lewis, and I do agree that Tolkien took umbrage when there was none to be taken (Tolkien wasn't all that introspective; Lewis was: go figure).
But I completely and totally understand where Tolkien was coming from! When you start thinking you are #56 REALLY GOOD FRIEND, you start going, "Are you kidding me? Go hang out with the other 55."
Having said that, there are many extroverts who enjoy having one or two best friends with everyone else being acquaintances. The trick, with extroverts, is to figure out which you are towards them and just stick to that.
An extrovert and introvert are in a railway carriage.
The extrovert will think the introvert is being selfish not to show interest in the extrovert's polite questions, and the extrovert is right. The introvert will think the extrovert is being selfish for demanding the introvert's attention, and the introvert is right.
The straddler will pinpoint both when she gets into the carriage, wait for the extrovert to start bugging the introvert and then read her own book while listening to the conversation.
I happen to straddle the fence which I think gives me some insight on this topic. People in my family tend to be reserved ("This is MY space") which I think is a facet of introversion. However, people in my family also range from "I enjoy social activities and meeting people and making new friends" to "Email was invented for a reason, folks." I fall, as I stated earlier, directly in the center of this range. (Keep in mind, I am a woman, and women by training are more likely to exert themselves socially whatever they may feel like inside. And, yes, it is still expected that women will do this although that may change as the 21st century adapts to the power/nature of the introvert.)
However, being an introvert isn't just or only a desire to avoid crowds and/or strangers. In fact, many introverts, especially women introverts, like to be in crowds. I have heard introversion described as the obligation a person feels ("I think I should talk to others, ergo, I must be an extrovert."). However, your average woman has been trained (like the introverted Darcy in Pride & Prejudice and children of the 1940's/50's) to accept certain social obligations. My father, a decided introvert, will practice said obligations in certain situations (and can be quite charming when he does so).
In his novel Path of Dreams, my brother, Eugene astutely pinpoints that what introverts like, when it comes to social obligations, is a ROLE. I am a teacher. This may not seem surprising since I straddle the fence, but actually teaching often frightens me deeply. What keeps me going is that teaching is a ROLE. Roles can give a person a lot of freedom (my father did a lot of acting in church plays when he was younger). However, when the ROLE conflates with non-role expectations, the ROLE stops being fun (that is, when my students stop acting like students and start acting either like friends or enemies, I become either uncomfortable or miserable).
Even within a role, introvert behavior can be surprisingly difficult to pin down. From my straddling position, I think I can define what introversion is by explaining what annoys me about introversion and what annoys me about extroversion.
What annoys me about contemporary introversion is the absence of social noblesse oblige.
I have a very 19th century/Jane Austen view of social obligations. The world does depend on a smooth-running society ("smooth-running" to me means people give me correct change at the register and don't crush my donuts). The people with hearts can't always take care of the people with heads. I need to be functional.
And it annoys me when I don't get any help fulfilling those functions. For example, like most people in my family, I can talk away like nobody's business; consequently, I once got invited on a blind date with the expectation that I was going to chatter away and entertain everyone, including THE GUY. But I didn't know THE GUY, and I can't carry a conversation all by myself. I need some feedback. It was an excruciating day. Hint to introverts: NEVER go on a whole-day trip for a first date.
The expectation in this experience was that as an perceived extrovert, I should want to do all the talking. And there are some extroverts like that, but even many extroverts don't like the burden of communication to be placed entirely on their shoulders. It is wearisome.
On the other hand . . .
What annoys me about extroversion is the expectation that "EVERYBODY LOVES A GOOD PARTY!"
My idea of hell is a non-ending cocktail party where people stand around with little cheez things and sweating glasses of punch, talking about their cars and raises in answer to tedious questions regarding "how things have been going for them lately?"
I suspect:
- That a real introvert never expects to be asked tedious questions (although, again, things are different for women; strong, silent men get away with A LOT).
- And I suspect that people who like huge groups really do have fun.
And then one day, I realized that there ARE people who actually do this stuff ON PURPOSE. They would rather go to a party than stay home. They would rather be in a group of 25 than in a luncheon date of me & you. They would rather see how many friends they can meet as quickly as possible. This was a huge relief, by the way. My reaction was "Oh my gosh! They WANT to do this stuff. I can go home!"
Narrowing it down: I now return to one of my earlier points: introversion is not automatically interchangeable with shyness. Shyness can be a product of introversion; however, shyness can also be a product of context.
C.S. Lewis and Tolkien are a case in point.
Both men were reserved Britishers (Lewis was Irish; Tolkien was English). Both men would appear shy to Americans. (Just like Easterners often appear snobby and reserved to Westerners.)
BUT C.S. Lewis was an extrovert, and Tolkien was an introvert.
Lewis liked to meet people. He honestly liked to network. He also liked to argue about ideas. He came off as loud, boisterous, and even obnoxious. Except when he came off as completely diffident and reserved.
Tolkien liked to have one good friend who was his one good friend. Other people were okay as long as they didn't intrude too much.
The rift between Tolkien and Lewis can be easily explained by understanding that Tolkien wanted Lewis to be his one good friend, and Lewis wanted Tolkien to be one of a crowd. And although this kind of thing can be overcome, the intensity of Tolkien's personality kind of precluded that. I tend to read Lewis biographies whose authors tend to side with Lewis, and I do agree that Tolkien took umbrage when there was none to be taken (Tolkien wasn't all that introspective; Lewis was: go figure).
But I completely and totally understand where Tolkien was coming from! When you start thinking you are #56 REALLY GOOD FRIEND, you start going, "Are you kidding me? Go hang out with the other 55."
Having said that, there are many extroverts who enjoy having one or two best friends with everyone else being acquaintances. The trick, with extroverts, is to figure out which you are towards them and just stick to that.
TO SUM UP
- Introversion can involve social noblesse oblige (a sense of social obligations) although contemporary introversion often doesn't (although women still usually do). And, pipes up my Jane Austen side, a lot of tension here for both introverts and extroverts is largely due to a changing culture that does not deliver firm social guidelines/roles. I'm not saying this is wrong or right, mind you, just that firm social guidelines/roles enable both extroverts and introverts to fulfill social obligations without feeling put upon ("Why do I have to do everything?!") or pressured ("I didn't invite these people here!"). My parents, for example, both have far more social training than I do although I would argue that I am more conscious than they are of social intricacies. But they grew up in the 40's and 50's. They were trained to be social. No Internet dating back then.
- Introversion is NOT automatically a distaste for crowds. Rather introversion is a distaste for crowds of people all expecting constant social interaction.
- However, introversion is more a state of mind than the social interactions one sees.
- Introverts do understand extroverts better than extroverts understand introverts. Extroverts will often misinterpret introversion as shyness (which can be cured!) rather than a way of looking at/handling social interactions.
An extrovert and introvert are in a railway carriage.
The extrovert will think the introvert is being selfish not to show interest in the extrovert's polite questions, and the extrovert is right. The introvert will think the extrovert is being selfish for demanding the introvert's attention, and the introvert is right.
The straddler will pinpoint both when she gets into the carriage, wait for the extrovert to start bugging the introvert and then read her own book while listening to the conversation.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
X is for Xeric-Like (Xenophon)
What I read: The Expedition of Cyrus by Xenophon
"Xeric" means "of or adapted to a dry environment." Ha ha ha, I'm so witty!
There just aren't that many "X" adjectives!
I'm never going to be a classicist because I like more dialog in my exposition. Book 1 of The Expedition is straight exposition. It's kind of like reading Numbers in the Bible. Historians of the past just hadn't grasped the concept of the interesting anecdote. So instead, you get lists of generals and the numbers of their troops. It's like watching a Risk game. Shoot, it's like playing Risk. (Most boring board game ever invented.)
However, about half-way through Book 1, Cyrus dies, and Xenophon (who was there, but refers to himself in the third person) goes into this long panegyric about what a great guy Cyrus was and how he would have been a WAY better king than his brother, thank you very much, and this is actually pretty interesting stuff as well as being great argument/persuasion (I intend to copy it for my students). Here's a guy who knows how to argue his point (and is totally direct about it).
And there are some interesting nuggets. One is the description of the battle. You know those fantasy/ancient legend types of movies where the two sides line up in a really, really, really long line and rush each other. Well, the ancient Mediterranean people really did that, and it sounds pretty exciting!
Another is Xenophon's historical persona. It isn't like he footnotes or anything. But he doesn't jump to conclusions. At one point, Cyrus is "betrayed" by one of his Persian backers, Orontas. Orontas goes to trial and then "was taken into the tent of Artapatas, the most loyal of Cyrus' staff-bearers, and no one ever again saw Orontas alive or dead, nor could anyone say with certainty how he died, although people came up with various conjectures. No one ever saw his grave either." It isn't clear whether Xenophon is trying a little too hard to NOT make Cyrus seem like a butchering murderer or whether Xenophon is actually doubtful whether the whole thing wasn't just an elaborate show, and Cyrus really let the guy live. In any case, it's good historical writing!
Another interesting tid-bit is how xenophobic (another "X"!) those Greeks were. Cyrus has hired a bunch of Greeks to go fight with him against the Persian army controlled by his brother. The Greeks are mercenaries, yet Xenophon continually refers to the Persian army as manned by "barbarians." He's completely unapologetic about it. That's what barbarians do. Yep, the barbarians are at it again.
The lowliest Greek is better than the Persian king: there's something awe-inspiring about this attitude. (I must see 300!)
Books 2-7 about how the mercenary Greek army got home. If the volume wasn't due, I might wade through the exposition. As it is, I'll wait for the movie.
"Xeric" means "of or adapted to a dry environment." Ha ha ha, I'm so witty!
There just aren't that many "X" adjectives!
I'm never going to be a classicist because I like more dialog in my exposition. Book 1 of The Expedition is straight exposition. It's kind of like reading Numbers in the Bible. Historians of the past just hadn't grasped the concept of the interesting anecdote. So instead, you get lists of generals and the numbers of their troops. It's like watching a Risk game. Shoot, it's like playing Risk. (Most boring board game ever invented.)
However, about half-way through Book 1, Cyrus dies, and Xenophon (who was there, but refers to himself in the third person) goes into this long panegyric about what a great guy Cyrus was and how he would have been a WAY better king than his brother, thank you very much, and this is actually pretty interesting stuff as well as being great argument/persuasion (I intend to copy it for my students). Here's a guy who knows how to argue his point (and is totally direct about it).
And there are some interesting nuggets. One is the description of the battle. You know those fantasy/ancient legend types of movies where the two sides line up in a really, really, really long line and rush each other. Well, the ancient Mediterranean people really did that, and it sounds pretty exciting!
Another is Xenophon's historical persona. It isn't like he footnotes or anything. But he doesn't jump to conclusions. At one point, Cyrus is "betrayed" by one of his Persian backers, Orontas. Orontas goes to trial and then "was taken into the tent of Artapatas, the most loyal of Cyrus' staff-bearers, and no one ever again saw Orontas alive or dead, nor could anyone say with certainty how he died, although people came up with various conjectures. No one ever saw his grave either." It isn't clear whether Xenophon is trying a little too hard to NOT make Cyrus seem like a butchering murderer or whether Xenophon is actually doubtful whether the whole thing wasn't just an elaborate show, and Cyrus really let the guy live. In any case, it's good historical writing!
Another interesting tid-bit is how xenophobic (another "X"!) those Greeks were. Cyrus has hired a bunch of Greeks to go fight with him against the Persian army controlled by his brother. The Greeks are mercenaries, yet Xenophon continually refers to the Persian army as manned by "barbarians." He's completely unapologetic about it. That's what barbarians do. Yep, the barbarians are at it again.
The lowliest Greek is better than the Persian king: there's something awe-inspiring about this attitude. (I must see 300!)
Books 2-7 about how the mercenary Greek army got home. If the volume wasn't due, I might wade through the exposition. As it is, I'll wait for the movie.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Guest Review: Mike Cherniske Takes On The Last Airbender
M. Night Shyamalan’s The Last Airbender was so badly made, I find myself sitting here at the computer at 12:15 a.m., a full 3 days after seeing it, in an attempt to bring some sense of closure to what may have been the most disappointing movie experience of my life.
Now, there are some movies adapted from shows or comics that, while poor, are still worth a hoot or two and worth collecting--if only to show to my kids one day, so we can laugh at them together (I’m looking at you, Ghost Rider). Airbender, however, is something best forgotten. It is so bad, in fact, I’m predicting $5 movie bin within one year of this date.
To be honest, I am a fan of the cartoon upon which the movie is based. However, in the past, I also considered myself a fan of Shyamalan’s work (though now, sadly, ONLY in the past). So, while it is possible that my opinion is influenced by my affection for the cartoon, I consider the movie just as much a disappointment for any fan of Shyamalan.
In reality, Airbender failed in four major areas, three of which are crucial in ANY film: acting/direction, writing/dialog, writing/story, plus respect for the source material. Though the source material handling was an issue, the rest of the movie elements (found in every movie) were handled so poorly that nearly any movie viewer would be disappointed.
Acting/Direction--While the delivery of a line is really up to an actor, the director is the one who tells the actor what kind of a performance he wants. While the child actor who played Aang, err, “Ong” (more on this later) was trying his best, his performance was stilted, disjointed, and very wooden. At one point, after a very badly delivered line, I turned to my friend and declared “Wow, sure was lucky he had the script page right there to read off of!”
While I wish this young newcomer was the only example, in truth the entire cast suffered from the same problems. The actor who played Zuko gave what was perhaps the strongest performance. However, the poor boy is so lop-sided and wide-eyed throughout the movie that he looks just plain silly and comes across as just short of ridiculous.
Furthermore, the fights, while occasionally visually impressive, are often slow and labored to the point that Han Solo could wander in, shoot both combatants, and wander out before the first punch is thrown. Consequently, the audience feels no concern, no sense of danger, for the characters. Not only do the characters talk funny, but they fight so slow, they could just lazily dodge the next blow!
Writing/Dialog--While the acting was terrible, especially in line delivery, the truth was that very few actors, if any, could overcome the vast problems with the script. While watching the movie, I was overwhelmed by the sheer amount of words and dialog repeated by numerous characters only minutes from each other. Characters would awkwardly fit in plot summaries, repeat what was just said to them, and recite long factual statements at the most awkward of times. One frightening example follows:
Surely M. Night saw the dialog wasn’t working! Why didn’t he change it!?!?!?!
Writing/Story--The story of Aang is an epic tale that stretches over three seasons. While there is a lot of story there, there are also a lot of stand-alone episodes and mini-arcs that, while they add character development and background to the world, have little impact on the main storyline and outcome of that story. And so, in theory, one could shave off a lot of the “fat” from the series and come up with a much tighter story.
While it seems that M. Night tried to do this to a point, he messed it up something awful. Instead of trying to link key events from the seasons together into a cohesive whole, the director (referred to hereafter as “Sir Stupid Head”) tried his best to summarize the entire season in the first 2/3rds of the movie. And the movie was only 90 minutes long! As a result, some stuff didn’t make it in. The most surprising part was what hit the cutting room floor. Sir Stupid Head has confirmed that the kyoshi warriors were filmed but were cut. It’s heartbreaking to think of what other major things also went missing in order to fit the film into such a short running time. Though one has to wonder if making this movie any longer would have done anyone any good.
Because of the vastness of the material covered, the movie zips along at an absolutely insane pace, taking a break for badly timed flashbacks and monologues. The movie moves so fast, in fact, that major parts of any successful movie, such as character moments, character development, and bonding moments, are completely abandoned. The movie moves so fast, in fact, that no one thinks to wonder why the characters don’t learn each others' names until they have already traveled THOUSANDS of miles together! Seriously, watch the movie. The trio leaves the South Pole, travels to Aang’s home temple (which seems to be in India), waiting till they are there to learn each others' names! Without character building moments, the audience cannot connect with the characters, and thus does not care what their eventual fate is!
While some treasured moments from the show do make it into the movie, like the blue spirit, they are inserted with almost no structure or explanation, so much so that newcomers to the mythology will be completely confused by the events. While fan service is appreciated, you simply cannot portray an event in which a main antagonist behaves against his character without explaining how he did it (How did the prince learn that Aang was captured?!?!) and why he did it (Wait, doesn’t he want him captured?!?!? Why is he helping him escape?).
Respect for the source material--Sir Stupid Head, in several interviews, stated that the movie was an opportunity to correct mistakes in the show and insert “deeper ideas” into a big budget picture. Unfortunately, for an ADAPTATION, correcting the “mistakes” of the source material will not be seen as a favor, only tampering by a self-indulgent, egotistical narcissist. For example, the aforementioned “ONG” as opposed to the show’s “Ayng.” Sir Stupid Head cites that it is impossible for an Asian to pronounce the name AANG as “ayng” with that spelling . . . completely forgetting the fact that the source material is a SHOW, not a novel!!!! As I was sitting in the theater, you could hear a slow groan from every audience member when the narrator first said, “Ong”.
I understand that for the source material to be adapted, some things had to change. I even agree with some of the changes. I felt the way Zuko’s origin story was worked in was very clever, however badly shoe-horned into place. But other changes, such as changes to the rules and mechanics of the world, were just mind-numbingly stupid.
The most blatant of these changes was the bending, which was altered in two major ways. First off, the movie changed the rules of fire bending, so benders needed a source of fire. This is a change that affected some major plot points; if Zuko couldn’t make his own fire, how did he melt the ice that encased him, or the ice covering where he was swimming? While I do understand the thought--to put fire benders on the same playing field as everyone else--by doing so, the movie removed the thing that made the fire benders so powerful and so frightening: they could create their own fire! It burned from within! By removing this characteristic, the movie also removed the one major aspect that allows the viewer to believe that the fire nation has the power to dominate the entire world!
The second big change to bending was the process itself: instead of the elements bending to the will and movements of the characters, the benders had to perform a long series of perfectly executed steps to get the slightest reaction from the element. It reminded me of performing a finishing move on Mortal Kombat! Because of this, the bending never seemed organic, or natural; it also created a labored sense of slowness to the fights. All the fights seemed more like casual demonstrations of power than actual struggles for survival!
The truly sad part about all of this is that I could continue. While I have dealt with four major problems, the truth is that Airbender failed on almost every level a movie can fail on. Even the casting was awful, though not for the reasons that the racial equality people claim. A true tragedy is that the movie did have some good points. But they were so thoroughly overpowered and obscured by the bad that they are easily ignored and forgotten.
What could have been a fun, action-packed epic was instead a dreadful, plodding, hurried mess of a movie that squandered the potential of the source material in order to serve the whims and motives of a man whose career this disastrous movie has most likely ended.
Now, there are some movies adapted from shows or comics that, while poor, are still worth a hoot or two and worth collecting--if only to show to my kids one day, so we can laugh at them together (I’m looking at you, Ghost Rider). Airbender, however, is something best forgotten. It is so bad, in fact, I’m predicting $5 movie bin within one year of this date.
To be honest, I am a fan of the cartoon upon which the movie is based. However, in the past, I also considered myself a fan of Shyamalan’s work (though now, sadly, ONLY in the past). So, while it is possible that my opinion is influenced by my affection for the cartoon, I consider the movie just as much a disappointment for any fan of Shyamalan.
In reality, Airbender failed in four major areas, three of which are crucial in ANY film: acting/direction, writing/dialog, writing/story, plus respect for the source material. Though the source material handling was an issue, the rest of the movie elements (found in every movie) were handled so poorly that nearly any movie viewer would be disappointed.
Acting/Direction--While the delivery of a line is really up to an actor, the director is the one who tells the actor what kind of a performance he wants. While the child actor who played Aang, err, “Ong” (more on this later) was trying his best, his performance was stilted, disjointed, and very wooden. At one point, after a very badly delivered line, I turned to my friend and declared “Wow, sure was lucky he had the script page right there to read off of!”
While I wish this young newcomer was the only example, in truth the entire cast suffered from the same problems. The actor who played Zuko gave what was perhaps the strongest performance. However, the poor boy is so lop-sided and wide-eyed throughout the movie that he looks just plain silly and comes across as just short of ridiculous.
Furthermore, the fights, while occasionally visually impressive, are often slow and labored to the point that Han Solo could wander in, shoot both combatants, and wander out before the first punch is thrown. Consequently, the audience feels no concern, no sense of danger, for the characters. Not only do the characters talk funny, but they fight so slow, they could just lazily dodge the next blow!
Writing/Dialog--While the acting was terrible, especially in line delivery, the truth was that very few actors, if any, could overcome the vast problems with the script. While watching the movie, I was overwhelmed by the sheer amount of words and dialog repeated by numerous characters only minutes from each other. Characters would awkwardly fit in plot summaries, repeat what was just said to them, and recite long factual statements at the most awkward of times. One frightening example follows:
General: “We do not need to worry about the ocean and moon spirits.”Really and truly. How I wish I was exaggerating. I have read a few reviews to see if anyone agrees with me and have been surprised at the sheer number of people who feel the same way. One critic described the dialog in a way I had also considered: it was as though the script had been translated into Japanese and back into English, creating the feel of a badly dubbed Godzilla movie. And he couldn’t be more right; that’s exactly how it feels. The most frightening part of this realization is the thought that perhaps the dialog was not an accident of an inept writer but rather a stylistic choice! [Kate, who hasn't seen the movie but has seen most of Shyamalan's films, thinks this probable. See her comment below.] The mere idea is ludicrous but after watching the movie, one has to wonder if a person could create something so horrifically terrible by mere accident.
Uncle Iroh: “Why do we not need to worry about the ocean and moon spirits?”
General: “I have found a way to neutralize the ocean and moon spirits.”
Surely M. Night saw the dialog wasn’t working! Why didn’t he change it!?!?!?!
Writing/Story--The story of Aang is an epic tale that stretches over three seasons. While there is a lot of story there, there are also a lot of stand-alone episodes and mini-arcs that, while they add character development and background to the world, have little impact on the main storyline and outcome of that story. And so, in theory, one could shave off a lot of the “fat” from the series and come up with a much tighter story.
While it seems that M. Night tried to do this to a point, he messed it up something awful. Instead of trying to link key events from the seasons together into a cohesive whole, the director (referred to hereafter as “Sir Stupid Head”) tried his best to summarize the entire season in the first 2/3rds of the movie. And the movie was only 90 minutes long! As a result, some stuff didn’t make it in. The most surprising part was what hit the cutting room floor. Sir Stupid Head has confirmed that the kyoshi warriors were filmed but were cut. It’s heartbreaking to think of what other major things also went missing in order to fit the film into such a short running time. Though one has to wonder if making this movie any longer would have done anyone any good.
Because of the vastness of the material covered, the movie zips along at an absolutely insane pace, taking a break for badly timed flashbacks and monologues. The movie moves so fast, in fact, that major parts of any successful movie, such as character moments, character development, and bonding moments, are completely abandoned. The movie moves so fast, in fact, that no one thinks to wonder why the characters don’t learn each others' names until they have already traveled THOUSANDS of miles together! Seriously, watch the movie. The trio leaves the South Pole, travels to Aang’s home temple (which seems to be in India), waiting till they are there to learn each others' names! Without character building moments, the audience cannot connect with the characters, and thus does not care what their eventual fate is!
While some treasured moments from the show do make it into the movie, like the blue spirit, they are inserted with almost no structure or explanation, so much so that newcomers to the mythology will be completely confused by the events. While fan service is appreciated, you simply cannot portray an event in which a main antagonist behaves against his character without explaining how he did it (How did the prince learn that Aang was captured?!?!) and why he did it (Wait, doesn’t he want him captured?!?!? Why is he helping him escape?).
Respect for the source material--Sir Stupid Head, in several interviews, stated that the movie was an opportunity to correct mistakes in the show and insert “deeper ideas” into a big budget picture. Unfortunately, for an ADAPTATION, correcting the “mistakes” of the source material will not be seen as a favor, only tampering by a self-indulgent, egotistical narcissist. For example, the aforementioned “ONG” as opposed to the show’s “Ayng.” Sir Stupid Head cites that it is impossible for an Asian to pronounce the name AANG as “ayng” with that spelling . . . completely forgetting the fact that the source material is a SHOW, not a novel!!!! As I was sitting in the theater, you could hear a slow groan from every audience member when the narrator first said, “Ong”.
I understand that for the source material to be adapted, some things had to change. I even agree with some of the changes. I felt the way Zuko’s origin story was worked in was very clever, however badly shoe-horned into place. But other changes, such as changes to the rules and mechanics of the world, were just mind-numbingly stupid.
The most blatant of these changes was the bending, which was altered in two major ways. First off, the movie changed the rules of fire bending, so benders needed a source of fire. This is a change that affected some major plot points; if Zuko couldn’t make his own fire, how did he melt the ice that encased him, or the ice covering where he was swimming? While I do understand the thought--to put fire benders on the same playing field as everyone else--by doing so, the movie removed the thing that made the fire benders so powerful and so frightening: they could create their own fire! It burned from within! By removing this characteristic, the movie also removed the one major aspect that allows the viewer to believe that the fire nation has the power to dominate the entire world!
The second big change to bending was the process itself: instead of the elements bending to the will and movements of the characters, the benders had to perform a long series of perfectly executed steps to get the slightest reaction from the element. It reminded me of performing a finishing move on Mortal Kombat! Because of this, the bending never seemed organic, or natural; it also created a labored sense of slowness to the fights. All the fights seemed more like casual demonstrations of power than actual struggles for survival!
The truly sad part about all of this is that I could continue. While I have dealt with four major problems, the truth is that Airbender failed on almost every level a movie can fail on. Even the casting was awful, though not for the reasons that the racial equality people claim. A true tragedy is that the movie did have some good points. But they were so thoroughly overpowered and obscured by the bad that they are easily ignored and forgotten.
What could have been a fun, action-packed epic was instead a dreadful, plodding, hurried mess of a movie that squandered the potential of the source material in order to serve the whims and motives of a man whose career this disastrous movie has most likely ended.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Sitcoms That Still Make Me Laugh
I enjoy watching sitcoms. I also enjoy buying/renting/borrowing entire seasons of shows. Consequently, I've been delving into older, available sitcoms all the way from Barney Miller to Frasier. Some hold up better than others. (For the purposes of this post, I'm sticking to American sitcoms.)
Barney Miller holds up surprisingly well. The cast is excellent, especially that ham Abe Vigoda. One of the refreshing aspects of the show is how truly tolerant it is (not the pseudo-tolerance that supposedly open-minded people throw around today). Everyone from crazy UFO con artists to nudists is treated kindly and respectfully by Barney. The only show that comes close to this attitude today, in my estimation, is Numb3rs.
M.A.S.H. also holds up although I tend to watch it less than the others. Interestingly enough, it is the most historical of the shows, partly because it is based around the Korean War and mostly because it was written at the time of the Vietnam War. However, it remains extremely viewable. I don't think this is due to the "message." I think it is due to the acting and to the premise. Basically, M.A.S.H. is House with Alan Alda playing House and Mike Farrell playing Wilson. (And Gary Burghoff just being adorable.)
Night Court, oddly enough, does not hold up. It is still funny, and John Larroquette is worth watching in just about anything. But the 80's sentimentality is somewhat off-putting. Barney, at least, locks people up. Night Court talks them to death.
So does Family Ties, but Family Ties has Alex P. Keaton plus some real grist. The family problems are all solved with big hugs, but at least they are solved intelligently. (It is simply more believable that two loving parents will be able to talk their children out of making stupid mistakes than that a judge can talk a stranger out of a lifetime of crime.)
However, in terms of intelligent family sitcoms, Home Improvement has the best longevity. The show is funny and clever, and the family relationships are quite believable. I am on Season 7 of Home Improvement and have been continually impressed by how the show's issues mature around the characters without splitting up the parents or resorting to other distasteful plot arcs.
I'm also a big fan of Coach. The comedy is actually quite different from the above shows. For one thing, Craig T. Nelson is a far more physical actor and Jerry Van Dyke a far more vaudevillian one. Yet, individual Coach episodes are more likely to split my sides than any of the others. (Note to ABC: Will you hurry up and work out whatever the problem is and get the remaining seasons onto DVD? I'm not going to do Watch Instantly on Netflix. If I wanted to do Watch Instantly, I'd get cable.)
Speaking of sitcoms not released onto DVD, only the first season of Dharma & Greg has been released so far. I own that season. It is delightful. I have always preferred romances/movies/television shows where the premise is NOT "Will they get together?" but "Now that they are together, how will they work things out?"
I have watched the first two seasons of News Radio to death. I kind of lost interest in the show after that, but the first two seasons are some of the best comedy ever produced on television. Few people do straight man comedy as well as David Foley. Few people do odd straight man comedy as well as Stephen Root. Maura Tierney and Vicki Lewis have perfect comedic timing. And nobody has ever been as wonderful as Phil Hartman.
I enjoy Frasier although I tend to skip the episodes where Frasier gets completely humiliated (I don't really enjoy those types of sitcoms; I loathe Everybody Loves Raymond). More than any of the others listed so far, Frasier episodes can get positively British in their set-up and pay-off. That is, some minor joke will be set up in the first ten minutes and then paid off with complete precision in the last five. The only other sitcoms I know that do this better are British sitcoms.
Sitcoms I'm interested in: I've had such luck with Barney, I've considered checking out The Jeffersons, All in the Family, and Taxi.
Sitcoms I'm not interested in: Oddly enough, I like Cosby but I have no real interest in the sitcom. I'm not sure why. Partly, it could be that my Cosby is the Cosby from the live recordings he did before he got really famous. I grew up in a more affluent neighborhood than Cosby, but my childhood resembles his real childhood far more closely than the childhood of his sitcom family. (Basically, my childhood was Sandlot.)
I tried to get into Mork & Mindy. Bizarrely enough, I thought it just wasn't funny. I mean, Robin Williams is a funny guy, but there just wasn't anything that made me laugh.
This is also true of Drew Carey. He himself is hilarious. His show isn't. I don't know why.
I like Friends when I watch it directly on television. Renting it deliberately just makes me feel skanky. I don't know why. It isn't any raunchier than anything else I watch. But it's just so . . . cotton candyish. Very funny. Very lite. Very "I actually bothered to rent this"? (But if the T.V. is on, and Friends just happens to be on . . . I have actually seen most of Friends. I used to watch it right after work in the local station's 5:00/5:30 slots.)
I am more likely to rent Becker, but I don't watch it in batches like other shows.
People keep telling me to watch The Office. I'm not sure it is as much my type of thing as people think. They think I like sarcastic stuff, and I do, but I really hate mean stuff. I don't know where The Office falls. Okay, I guess I'll have to watch it!
Cheers is extremely well-written and funny, but it may be too raunchy for me. (There's a distinction between raunchiness and earthiness which is too extensive a conversation to go into here. Let's just say, British comedies generally bother me less than American sitcoms, and Dexter doesn't bother me at all.) Actually, though, I think my main problem is Shelley Long. I don't know if it is she or the character she plays, but watching her in Cheers is like nails on a blackboard to me.
Can't stand Two and a Half Men.
Haven't seen Soap in a million years.
Wow, that's a lot of sitcoms!
Barney Miller holds up surprisingly well. The cast is excellent, especially that ham Abe Vigoda. One of the refreshing aspects of the show is how truly tolerant it is (not the pseudo-tolerance that supposedly open-minded people throw around today). Everyone from crazy UFO con artists to nudists is treated kindly and respectfully by Barney. The only show that comes close to this attitude today, in my estimation, is Numb3rs.
M.A.S.H. also holds up although I tend to watch it less than the others. Interestingly enough, it is the most historical of the shows, partly because it is based around the Korean War and mostly because it was written at the time of the Vietnam War. However, it remains extremely viewable. I don't think this is due to the "message." I think it is due to the acting and to the premise. Basically, M.A.S.H. is House with Alan Alda playing House and Mike Farrell playing Wilson. (And Gary Burghoff just being adorable.)
Night Court, oddly enough, does not hold up. It is still funny, and John Larroquette is worth watching in just about anything. But the 80's sentimentality is somewhat off-putting. Barney, at least, locks people up. Night Court talks them to death.
So does Family Ties, but Family Ties has Alex P. Keaton plus some real grist. The family problems are all solved with big hugs, but at least they are solved intelligently. (It is simply more believable that two loving parents will be able to talk their children out of making stupid mistakes than that a judge can talk a stranger out of a lifetime of crime.)
However, in terms of intelligent family sitcoms, Home Improvement has the best longevity. The show is funny and clever, and the family relationships are quite believable. I am on Season 7 of Home Improvement and have been continually impressed by how the show's issues mature around the characters without splitting up the parents or resorting to other distasteful plot arcs.
I'm also a big fan of Coach. The comedy is actually quite different from the above shows. For one thing, Craig T. Nelson is a far more physical actor and Jerry Van Dyke a far more vaudevillian one. Yet, individual Coach episodes are more likely to split my sides than any of the others. (Note to ABC: Will you hurry up and work out whatever the problem is and get the remaining seasons onto DVD? I'm not going to do Watch Instantly on Netflix. If I wanted to do Watch Instantly, I'd get cable.)
Speaking of sitcoms not released onto DVD, only the first season of Dharma & Greg has been released so far. I own that season. It is delightful. I have always preferred romances/movies/television shows where the premise is NOT "Will they get together?" but "Now that they are together, how will they work things out?"
I have watched the first two seasons of News Radio to death. I kind of lost interest in the show after that, but the first two seasons are some of the best comedy ever produced on television. Few people do straight man comedy as well as David Foley. Few people do odd straight man comedy as well as Stephen Root. Maura Tierney and Vicki Lewis have perfect comedic timing. And nobody has ever been as wonderful as Phil Hartman.
I enjoy Frasier although I tend to skip the episodes where Frasier gets completely humiliated (I don't really enjoy those types of sitcoms; I loathe Everybody Loves Raymond). More than any of the others listed so far, Frasier episodes can get positively British in their set-up and pay-off. That is, some minor joke will be set up in the first ten minutes and then paid off with complete precision in the last five. The only other sitcoms I know that do this better are British sitcoms.
Sitcoms I'm interested in: I've had such luck with Barney, I've considered checking out The Jeffersons, All in the Family, and Taxi.
Sitcoms I'm not interested in: Oddly enough, I like Cosby but I have no real interest in the sitcom. I'm not sure why. Partly, it could be that my Cosby is the Cosby from the live recordings he did before he got really famous. I grew up in a more affluent neighborhood than Cosby, but my childhood resembles his real childhood far more closely than the childhood of his sitcom family. (Basically, my childhood was Sandlot.)
I tried to get into Mork & Mindy. Bizarrely enough, I thought it just wasn't funny. I mean, Robin Williams is a funny guy, but there just wasn't anything that made me laugh.
This is also true of Drew Carey. He himself is hilarious. His show isn't. I don't know why.
I like Friends when I watch it directly on television. Renting it deliberately just makes me feel skanky. I don't know why. It isn't any raunchier than anything else I watch. But it's just so . . . cotton candyish. Very funny. Very lite. Very "I actually bothered to rent this"? (But if the T.V. is on, and Friends just happens to be on . . . I have actually seen most of Friends. I used to watch it right after work in the local station's 5:00/5:30 slots.)
I am more likely to rent Becker, but I don't watch it in batches like other shows.
People keep telling me to watch The Office. I'm not sure it is as much my type of thing as people think. They think I like sarcastic stuff, and I do, but I really hate mean stuff. I don't know where The Office falls. Okay, I guess I'll have to watch it!
Cheers is extremely well-written and funny, but it may be too raunchy for me. (There's a distinction between raunchiness and earthiness which is too extensive a conversation to go into here. Let's just say, British comedies generally bother me less than American sitcoms, and Dexter doesn't bother me at all.) Actually, though, I think my main problem is Shelley Long. I don't know if it is she or the character she plays, but watching her in Cheers is like nails on a blackboard to me.
Can't stand Two and a Half Men.
Haven't seen Soap in a million years.
Wow, that's a lot of sitcoms!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)