Monday 27 September 2010

The Face in the Mushroom Cloud

This picture was taken during the first full scale testing of a hydrogen bomb. The bomb was codenamed "Ivy Mike" - I think "Humanity is Fucked" would've been a more apt title. The testing took place in 1952 on the small Pacific Island, Elugelab, part of the Enewetak Atoll. The bomb yielded approximately 10 megatons of nuclear energy and destroyed Elugelab. A 1.9 km wide by 50 m deep crater is all that was left.

It's a breathtaking photograph. The swirling cloud formation created by the explosion is beautiful and eerie and terrifying. Emerging from the wispy, radioactive cloud, is a human-ish looking face. The face is in profile, looking to its left. Its mouth is held in a tight, painful grimace, and its brain appears swollen, as though it is infected. The eyes are masked: Is the creature too frightened to look at what it has created or has it strategically covered its eyes so as not to give away its true purpose? Whatever the case, the eyes, the "windows to the soul", cannot be seen, and, therefore, neither can its soul. However, there does appear to be, very faintly, a pair of eyes hovering just next to, or possibly just above, the creature. The eyes are located on either side of the creature's brain and appear to be looking directly at the camera, even as they seem to hide behind the creature - are these the eyes of the satanic puppet-master?

Wednesday 22 September 2010

Song lyrics that have, over the years, persistently inhabited my brain (mostly while my brain is in the shower)

[I don't know what it all means]

"Wanting you the way I do/ I only want to be with you/ And I would go to the ends of the earth/ 'Cause, darling, to me that's what your worth..."
Where You Lead by Carole King

"You were so young/ And I was so free/ I may have been young but baby/ That's not what I wanted to be..."
Stumbling In by Chris Norman & Susie Quatro

"We had joy, we had fun, we had seasons in the sun/ But the stars we could reach/ Were just starfish on the beach..."
Seasons in the Sun by Terry Jacks

"And it don't matter to me/ If you take up with someone/ Who's better than me/ 'Cause your happiness is all I want..."
It don't matter to me by Bread

"Give me a head with hair, long beautiful hair/ Shining, gleaming, steaming, flaxen, waxen..." Hair from Hair, the Musical

"You are the sun/ You are the rain/ That makes my life this foolish game..."
You are the Sun, You are the Rain by Lionel Ritchie

"Run, run, as fast as you can/ You can't catch me I'm the gingerbread man..."
The Gingerbread Man - Nursery Rhyme

Tuesday 14 September 2010

Impressions of Twilight

That's "Twilight" the brooding vampire novel by Stephenie Meyer, not "Twilight" the brooding transition into nighttime, just before the sun goes to sleep. (Not sure where"Dusk" fits into all of this - is it before or after Twilight? - ponderous).

I decided it was time I investigated the Twilight Phenomenon. I've just finished reading the first book in the series. And I now believe the Twilight Phenomenon requires no further investigation from myself. (Although I may watch the films).


I approached this important assignment from a few different angles:

1) through a "teenage filter", ie I tried to imagine how I would've reacted to the novel had I read it when I was a teenager

2) through a "sensible-adult-feminist filter", ie do I think the novel is harmful to teenagers, and especially, to girl teenagers

3) through no filter, ie what do I think of the novel as a piece of writing, no strings attached


Here are my conclusions:

1) Given that my favourite "young adult" novel when I was a teenager was Carrie by Stephen King and my second favourite "young adult" novel was The Shinning by Stephen King, I think it's quite likely that Twilight would've been a little tame for my teenaged reading tastes. However, I suspect I would've at least read, and probably found some enjoyment in, the first book. And I probably would've watched the films (peer pressure would have made watching the films mandatory). I'm not sure I would have been besotted with Edward - Edward-besottedness seems to be a large contributor to the Twilight Phenomenon. Edward's kinda bossy for my liking, and possibly a little too pretty. And I wouldn't have identified with Bella, she's a bit too perfect (bizarre clumsiness notwithstanding); she's too academically gifted and self sufficient and fragile beautied - not a pimple in sight.

2) Harmful? I found this difficult to assess. I probably wouldn't recommend Twilight to teenagers. It's not well written, it's quite bland at times, and I found the characterizations of Bella and Edward a little ridiculous. But are these things harmful? Maybe.

It's true that the Twilight Phenomenon has gotten teenagers to read (at least girl teenagers) and this is a good thing. But if it's the only book a teenager reads, then it could be harmful. Especially in regard to the Bella/Edward interaction. I don't like that Edward is given so much ownership of, and control over, Bella's lust (or 'love', as Bella thinks, fool that she is...what? Me, cynical? Never). And I think there is some danger in a romanticised portrayal of such skewed desire in young adult fiction: Being that they are people with limited life experience in the world of lust/love, they might not read it sceptically, like I did! I also think it's unrealistic that, at age 17, Bella hasn't previously experienced lust (I'd guess most people - boys and girls - would have had some dealings with lust from about age 13...ie about when puberty begins). If Bella had been familiar with the sensation of lust, she might not have been so much in Edward's thrall - she would've still been hot for him but not so ludicrously hot.

There is also something creepy about a 17-year-old getting romantically involved with a 100-year-old. That's right, Edward is just over 100 years old, but was turned into a vampire at 17, so he still looks 17. (This vast age difference thing was something I also found creepy in Buffy, ie Buffy with Angel, although Buffy did have the advantage of being able to throw Angel across the room if he threatened her). Certainly the older lover theme has it's romantic appeal to an inexperienced young person (I had a huge crush on my 35-year-old guitar teacher when I was 17). The notion that the older person will show you what it's all about, and you won't have to fumble around and work it out for yourself - a process that could take years and years! (Hint: maybe it should take years and years). But there's also a gaping power imbalance going on, one that could be easily exploited by a less-than-scrupulous operator. And I think Edward fits this description. He doesn't give Bella room to get to know herself, to become an adult, before he starts using her rampant desire for him to control her (she gets all swoony whenever he gets too close to her - Vomit!). He's incredibly selfish. And having been alive/undead for 100 years should give him some wisdom and restraint, right? Apparently not. This guy stalks Bella, listens in on her conversations, has a violent temper, will possibly kill Bella if he "loses control" around her (read: has sex with her), is very possessive of Bella AND (and this bit made me especially cranky) he instructs Bella not to go into the (dangerous) forest alone (she's only allowed "into the forest" if she's accompanied/led by Edward). Forest rant continues in next paragraph.

[Warning: Gratuitous and tenuous metaphor ensues]. Let me say, right here, right now, on this very blog, that a forest is a wondrous place, and a woman should explore "her" forest whenever, and however, she sees fit. If Bella would like to explore the forest with Edward, that's fine, but it's Bella's decision. I think it would be fantastic if Bella explored the forest by herself for awhile, so she has a thorough understanding of it - its flora and fauna, its various paths, the myriad emotions she experiences within the forest. And then, maybe, she'll have a better understanding of who she might like to accompany her into the forest - if, indeed, she even wants company.

My final rant concerns Bella's father:
Dear Bella's father,
Bella is your school-age daughter. She is NOT your domestic servant. Do your own damn dishes. Clean your own damn house. Learn to cook. AND spend some goddamn time with your daughter. Don't leave her home alone all weekend while you're out fishing. Pretty soon Bella will be off to college and you can do as much fishing as you like, but right now: BELLA NEEDS YOU. And maybe, just maybe, if you spent more time with her, she might not be hanging out with a violently-possessive, self-involved, sexually-sadistic, 100-year-old vampire.
Love, Nicole.

3) I wanna know more about vampire-Alice. Why wasn't this book about vampire-Alice? I will not be reading anymore Stephenie Meyer books unless vampire-Alice is the main character.

Saturday 4 September 2010

Imaginary Boyfriend

I have a crush on an actual person. Let us all join hands and rejoice. I'm quite excited and positive about this recent development despite the unlikeliness of he and I ever having a thing - I don't know him very well and my interaction with him is limited. But these are minor details, especially when considering my previous crushes - Eric Northman, a 1000 year old vampire invented by Charlene Harris for her Sookie Stackhouse (Trueblood) novels, and James Hetfield, lead singer of heavy metal group Metallica. My new crush not only exists but lives in the same city as me! He is also not married and is about the same age as me (42). I mention his age because I've noticed, with my keen observational skills, that as people get older they tend to become attached - hence, there are less unattached peoples of my epoch. There is, I guess, the option of seeking out a younger person - I imagine the under 25's have a reasonable number of unattacheds - but, as I'm now old enough to have given birth to an under 25, I don't consider this age group to be a viable option.

So, why have I called this blog entry "Imaginary Boyfriend"? Well, because sometimes I find myself imagining that my crush is my boyfriend, and imagining how he would be as my boyfriend. It's a behaviour I've previously indulged in (see here for a bizarre example). Wiser people than myself (there were 3 of them, at last count) would probably say that putting favourable characteristics onto a person for whom I have hotpants, before I've gotten to know them, is a foolish endeavour. In fact it could be argued, wisely, that even just having hotpants for someone before getting to know them (let alone making up personality traits) is also not the wisest of endeavours. Whatever the case, it's something that I've done and continue to do. (And I suspect I'm not the only one.)

But is this person-imagining really a bad thing? Is my devotion to wayward winsome wanderings upon matters of the heart such a blight to wisdom? Will Wally weep when Wendy walks westward? Is it time to end this wacky W alliteration? YES!

I'm not entirely convinced that there is only badness in my imaginings - although caution is very much advised. I've noticed, over the years, that the characteristics which I've imbued upon my various crushes are mostly unchanged, and have been refined over time (and, I guess, as I've gotten to know myself better). I'm not referring to physical characteristics, eg height, hair/eye colour, shoulder width etc. And I haven't made any cheesy lists, eg:
1) must be ambitious
2) must have good sense of humour
3) must love kittens
4) must wash regularly
5) must have penis
- what defines a "good" sense of humour (point 2) anyway? It's subjective. I, for example, have a depraved sense of humour (see point 5); some would classify this as "good", others as "please leave the table and go to your room, Nicole".

My imaginings are more about how a person interacts with me and the world, and their life philosophy. For example, it would be ludicrous for me to be involved with someone who is materialistic or homophobic or racist or narrow-minded. And yet, many years ago, I had a crush on (and subsequent semi-relationship with) a person who was materialistic and homophobic and racist and narrow-minded. And I was terribly broken hearted when he ended it (whereas I should've been jumping for joy). On the plus side, however, it was the beginning of a revelation, inside my brain, that maybe I wasn't being very discerning in my choice of men - my strategy was pretty much "he's kinda cute, let's have a thing". I know, I know; it's hard to believe this could happen in these enlightened times. I should also point out, in the case of the above mentioned person, that at the time I was a little blinded by cluckiness - my estrogen wanted me to get pregnant, and estrogen can be quite Machiavellian when it has a task to complete. Evil estrogen. I have to say that now I'm very thankful I didn't procreate with this person.

My point, in all this rambling, is that, maybe, if I pay a bit more attention to the traits of my Imaginary Boyfriend, I might find myself attracted to someone with these actual traits. I know, I know; radical. (For those long-suffering readers who have made it this far: Welcome to Nicole's Dominion of Dumb). Maybe part of the reason I'm without a real boyfriend - other than that I really quite enjoy being a weird loner - is that I've been having trouble extracting, from my foggy consciousness, whatever the hell it is that I'm actually attracted to.

None of this is meant as a slur against my ex-boyfriends. Or against the many and varied and (mostly) inappropriate crushes I've had over the years (bless their miscellaneous hearts). It's about assessing and understanding the choices I've made in regards to Lurv. I know, I know; icky. But, despite the ickiness, I think it's been a positive exercise.