These Are A Few of My Scariest Things (The Handmaid's Tale Edition)

My top 5 scariest things from The Handmaid's Tale:

1. May the Lord open
2. Mutilated bodies
3. Hanging bodies
4. The Ceremony
5. Power chandeliers

Special mentions:

• Aunt Lydia
• Wing hats (though they actually provide good sun protection)
• Janine/Ofwarren/Ofdaniel

Internal Structure

Would it be wiser to remain with this solitude status quo? Or does it need to change? Would I be a better person if I were 'involved' with someone? Do I need to be a better person? Maybe I'm already the right amount of better? Perhaps there is no way that a human being could possibly be more better than I am right now! Would I be happier? Would non-solitude fill my internal empty places? Doesn't everyone have varying degrees of internal empty places, solitude or non? My internal empty places seem to be getting smaller, less porous, more manageable, as I get older (though my bones and cartilage are getting more porous and less manageable - external structure is letting me down, as I get older).

What drives the impetus to pursue 'involved' interaction with another person? Is it

• desire for connection
• to alleviate loneliness (existential or everyday)
• to follow social convention/expectation
• to make babies
• lust
• intrigue
• a manifestation of narcissism
• security
• solace
• madness

Do we really need these things? Aren't food/water/shelter/oxygen/dvds enough for us?? (Or should that be: isn't food/water/shelter/oxygen/dvds enough for us??).

But what if it's just one another person, in particular, challenging the solitude status quo; someone who seems to emanate solace, seduces with their intrigue, inspires lust. What if it's someone who was encountered unexpectedly, via ordinary daily happenings; not someone found through semi-random, though deliberate, driftnet fishing, but someone who appeared, unbidden, and now you keep thinking about them and want to know all about them and want to interact with them but can't find an appropriate means to do this and are worried that they won't want to interact with you anyway! (And they're probably married, even though they don't wear a wedding ring). And then it gets so bad that you have to write a semi-stream-of-consciousness blog post about it to stop yourself from getting into a desperate state of mind and doing something, well, desperate, and just making everything worse. (And it's been going on for awhile; exhibit A).

It might be time for another Buffy-a-thon, even though I just finished a Buffy-a-thon.

Gruelling Television Watching Schedule (aka Too Many Shows)

Weekly TV watching:
Sunday night, 7:40; Dr Who
Monday night, 7:30; Dr Who (repeat)
Monday night, 9:30; American Horror Story - Hotel
Wednesday Night, 9:30; Fargo
Ongoing; repeats of Star Wars films (I-VI) - in preparation for Star Wars VII (in December)
Ongoing; News
Ongoing; documentaries of interest (ABC or SBS)
Ongoing; MovieMayhem films of interest (SBS)

Also, I am currently crocheting a blanket, sewing a pair of 'peggings' (pants + leggings), watching a stack of dvds, reading some books, and, in honour of the new release Tomb Raider game (Rise of the Tomb Raider), I'm replaying Tomb Raider 4: The Last Revelation.

These 'activities' require a lot of time sitting on my couch. Ms Willow Pussycat is very happy about my extended couch time, which equates to much lap time for her, however, my circulation and overall fitness is less enthusiastic. Also, American Horror Story and Fargo are really quite batshit crazy/psychotically disturbing - I worry that maybe watching both at the same time isn't the best thing for my delicate psyche. Or maybe it's just what my psyche needs...

And The Mark of The Library Catalogue Code Shall Be Upon Her Forehead

The librarians from my local library have been very cunning in their placement of the item catalogue code on this dvd:

And it's very fitting, given that the markings are on the forehead of the governess from Henry James' The Turn of The Screw; a character who is either subject to an evil haunting or is suffering from evil insanity (there are probably other interpretations but these are the two most common/obvious ones).

NB: Of course, there aren't many other options for placing the item code, as most of the dvd is dark. Perhaps across the children (who are wearing light coloured clothing) or across the governess' face (though this seems a little disrespectful, even if she may be a bit of a psychopath).

TARDIS as TEAPOT

The TARDIS (as seen in Dr Who) possesses many extraordinary capabilities - time travel, space travel, sentience, telepathy, babel fish like language translation, wacky dimensional manipulations and distortions. But one of its lesser known (though tremendously important) capabilities, is its capacity to manifest as a teapot:

I wonder if the TARDIS teapot brews vastly greater quantities of tea than its exterior size would suggest.

A strange, feline induced, time-space-teapot-TARDIS paradox occurred:

Mountain of Video Tape

As The Age of the Video Tape Cassette is increasingly consigned to the annals of history, I find myself burdened with, well, video tape cassettes. And with the perplexing issue of what to do with my old video tape cassettes, and especially with the ones that I recorded my favourite shows/movies onto as I now, mostly, have these on dvd. They're not readily recyclable, nor are they overly biodegradable. And second hand shops are not so interested in video tapes anymore, particularly ones with shows/movies recorded from the television.

It's a challenge that must be tackled, and one that is ripe for intelligent and innovative problem solving. But as it is me who is in charge, the solving will happen not only in defiance of intelligence or innovation but with some measure of bumbling.

After hardly any consideration, I decided to go with blithely pulling apart the video tape cassettes, discarding the plastic casings into the recycle bin (hopefully they are recyclable), and unwinding the magnetic tape and dumping it onto my coffee table - and thus creating a majestic (and mysterious) video tape mountain.

Behold the mountain (side view):

from above:

closer and more blob-like (using creepifying special effects):

The video tape mountain is really quite awesome and adds a unique ambiance to my flat. At times, I wonder if there is a hidden message contained within the mountain; perhaps someone/something is trying to communicate with me via my subconscious and has guided me to create the mountain (like in that movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind). At other times, I worry that the mountain is actually sentient and possibly mobile (like in that movie The Blob), and then I don't sleep so well. And then there are times when I don't know where to put down my cup of coffee (like in that movie I Don't Know Where to Put Down My Cup of Coffee*).

*I cannot provide a link since this is a made up movie

Psychoanalysis of my Lust

[Warning: The word "subtext" will be used]

My lust, wanton and untamed as it is, takes many forms and is inspired by myriad sources. One such (frequent) source is that of a character from a fiction story, either a novel or film or TV series. And, if such lust is inspired by a screen-character, this lust usually extends to the actor playing the role. So, as a result of recently watching season 1 of political medieval fantasy Game of Thrones - a show replete with sources of lust - I am currently experiencing pants for actor Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, and for his Game of Thrones alter-ego, Jaime Lannister (a seemingly morally bereft bad guy whose apparent badness is informed (as should be the case with any self-respecting bad guy) by his deeply conflicted and complex character - at least that's what I'm telling myself).

As a consequence of this newfound lust, I have been compelled to search for, and gaze upon, images of Nikolaj and Jaime. And my gaze has become besotted by these two pictures (photo 1 is of Nikolaj modelling, photo 2 is Nikolaj as Jaime Lannister):

Why these two images, I asked myself. Why, why, WHY??

I suspect that there is subtext going on in these photos and that it is the same subtext in both photos. And that it is this subversive subtext to which I am attracted.

The first photo* hints at nudity, which can often be more interesting and erotic than explicit nudity, and the gentle way Nikolaj's body and face are posed is suggestive of emotional reflection, and possibly some body shyness. Mysterious nudity and broody emotion and, uh, modesty(?) are qualities attractive to my lust. But what the hell with the second photo; I'm lusting after the image of a man beaten bloody and chained? Does this make me a perverted monster? Perhaps - though this would not be the sole reason for such an accusation - but maybe my lust isn't specifically about the blood and chains. I think what appeals to me about this image is that Jaime Lannister is not only restrained, but calmly restrained - both physically and emotionally. He almost seems to exude a zen-like composure, despite the iron neck-shackle. (Or is he serene because of the neck-shackle - is it the case that Jaime Lannister requires nothing less than an iron neck-shackle in order to attain nirvana; ordinary meditation just won't quell his internal raging beast!).

So, what then exactly is the subtext contained in these photos?

Both photos display an image of a physically strong man who appears to be either unwilling, or unable, or unwilling and unable, to use his physical advantage - an advantage that could be used against a 'weaker' person to manipulate or intimidate or coerce. (I certainly wouldn't be going anywhere near the handsome evilness of Jaime Lannister unless he were securely immobilized and wielding zen-calm).

What these photos show, or suggest, is a kind of male passivity. Or, at least, a male non-aggression or a male non-assertiveness (which is not to imply that I am attracted to, or advocate, fragile submission in men - or, indeed, in anyone). In a world which often encourages and glorifies male violence - to much destructive ends - a passivity which manifests as an inaction to violence can be an obvious attraction (to me, at least). But 'passivity' isn't just about not being physically (or verbally) violent. I think it is also about not trying to dominate people and situations, and being empathic, and striving for equality. And peace, love and mung beans!

Okay, maybe it all got a bit too hippy there at the end of the previous paragraph. To bring things back into balance, here is a picture of mung beans:

*Note about One Soul - bottom left-hand of photo 1: after lusting upon this photo for awhile I eventually looked up One Soul and discovered it is a charity which helps premature babies and their families, and raises funds through selling bracelets made from Tibetan prayer beads - as featured on Nikolaj's wrist; clearly, he is a HIPPY. Weirdo.

"THERE'S NOBODY LEFT! I'M ALL ALONE!"

The song 29/31 (see clip below) - which contrasts the experiences of the same woman at two different ages, 29 & 31 - by legendary musical duo, Garfunkel and Oates, speaks to my inner hysterical childless spinster. And she, in turn, is hysterically amused.

Certainly, at times, in my murky clucky younger days (somewhere under 40), I would fret about my 'shrinking ovaries' and lack of partner, and wonder if, maybe, I should, like, do something about it. Until, suddenly, or more correctly, eventually, I turned 40 and any pre-existing cluckiness quickly dissipated. But there were definitely moments of screaming anguish, especially as those around me continued to partner up and fall pregnant. And in recent times, despite being a mostly comfortably solitary person, I have had yearnings for companionship. So, occasionally, much like Garfunkel (31), I have felt an almost overwhelming urge to yowl into the existential void: THERE'S NOBODY LEFT! I'M ALL ALONE!

Horror Movie Stupid #458

When the intended victim walks into a room and the killer is waiting for her/him, quiet and still, and probably in a shadowy corner. But the killer doesn't attack until the victim has looked around the room and spotted the killer, and thus the victim has time to run away - or, at least, has time to defend herself. So, the element of surprise is lost AND the killer then has to expend extra (potential killing) energy chasing the quick-footed victim - usually through a darkened building. As a result of this stupid, the victim sometimes gets away! And lives long enough to be in the sequel! Madness!

The International Film Festival is Happening in My Loungeroom

The films chosen for my latest batch of 5 weekly dvds for $10 (it used to be 6 weekly dvds - economic hardship must have caused the rental store to make some drastic changes) are from all over the globe:

Korea - Princess Aurora
Iran - My Tehran For Sale
Pakistan - Son of a Lion

and, well, 2 from the US

The Runaways
Heathers ("dear diary, my teen angst bullshit has a body count")

Had I realized, prior to leaving the rental store, how close I was to choosing 5 films from 5 different countries, I would've chosen more wisely - or, more globally. In fact, I WAS considering a Japanese film until I saw that Heathers had shifted itself from 3-day hire to weekly, and I've been waiting (and waiting) for that dark classic of seething high school society to go weekly. My life is very complex.

The Cheese

The cheese is giving me some trouble these days (see cheese mission statement at the top of this blog, which is courtesy of The Cheeseman - from Buffy the Vampire Slayer; Restless). I think the cheese is beginning to wear me. I know I am stronger than curdled milk but sometimes those cheese slices can weigh heavy upon brittle bones. Perhaps I need more calcium in my diet, which can be obtained from eating...cheese! Well, there's a revelation; should I try eating the cheese instead of wearing it?? I'll have to ponder on this, not least to ascertain what eating the cheese entails (I suspect it will partly require me to leave my flat more often and interact with the world - sorry, world). In the meantime, I think it would be helpful to revisit The Cheeseman and his wise aphorisms:

"I've made a little space for the cheese slices." (Willow's dream)

"These will not protect you." (Xander's dream)

"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me." (Giles' dream)

*Shakes the cheese slices* (Buffy's dream)

The Perils of Womb Ownership

[Warning: Blog post mentions Menstruation, Masturbation and Twilight (the Stephanie Meyer vampire series). Also, blog post is long.]

Don’t get me wrong, there are also joys of womb ownership – though, really, apart from the making of the (wanted) babies and the being a conduit for supernatural powers (re: Buffy), the having of a womb is a mostly fraught experience. It can be especially fraught for the younger owners, and even more so for those aged around 11 to 15 – the age when their wombs are ‘activated’ (ie the onset of puberty, and its partner in crime, menstruation). What this activation means is that the (very) young woman is now in possession of a human-making body. As my mother said to me, on the day I first began to menstruate, “You can become a mother, now”. Obviously, I ran screaming from the room, but I knew what she meant. She wasn’t telling me to go out and get pregnant (I must have grandchildren!). She was making sure I understood that my body had transformed into something very powerful, and, as the wisdom of Spiderman teaches, “With great power comes great responsibility”. Which is a whole lotta scary for a nearly 13 year old. (There is similar scary for boy-teenagers – “You can become a father, now” – but, since human-making doesn’t occur inside men’s bodies, I think the level of jeopardy is greater for women than for men).

Of course, some parents are loathe to scare the crap out of their children, and some want to protect their children from the realities of the adult world. But their children are on an inexorable trajectory into a precarious and hormonal adulthood. A candid (and caring) conversation/s between parent and child goes a long way towards arming a teenager against the negative external (and internal) forces which they will encounter.

So, what does any of this have to do with the Twilight phenomenon? Well, I’m glad you asked. While there are many criticisms levelled at Twilight – its insipid female lead, its insipid prose, its insipid (conservative) gender politics, the ludicrousness of vampires that sparkle in the sunlight – the books and movies are very popular. And the main demographic for this popularity is young women, especially women teenagers. Why, why, why? Of course, the main character, Bella, is also a teenager (17 years old), but there are other stories with young female protagonists. Why are so many drawn to Twilight? What is the nature of this attractive energy, which seethes between the pages/celluloid of Twilight, and lures the unsuspecting girl/woman into its lair? (Hint: the perils of womb ownership).

Here are my (probably overreaching) theories:

Theory 1: Fear of sexual desire.
[Not that sexual desire is a bad thing, or inherently frightening.]
What I mean is that sexual desire can be a powerful and consuming experience. And, for newly hormonal teenagers, sexual desire is a new (and possibly scary) experience. It can take time to acclimatize to the new sensations, and to acquire some authority over them – to feel in control. For women - who, in many cultures and societies, are indoctrinated to believe that sexual desire in women is evil or that it isn’t real - the onset of lust can be incredibly confusing, if not terrifying. In the Twilight series, vampire Edward won’t have sex with human Bella, lest his passion gets out of control and he accidentally kills her. I wonder if Edward’s fear of uncontrollable, and possibly violent, passion mirrors a fear that women (especially younger women, who are newer to lust) may have about the power of their own sexual desire - what terror may ensue if the beast is unleashed (mwahahaha). Which leads to my next theory…

Theory 2: Vampire Edward as ‘safe’ boyfriend.
Whilst it’s all very thrilling being stalked, with fierce broodiness, by a tall-pale-undead-100-year-old man, such seemingly innocent blood pumping excitement can lead a person (eg Bella) to barely restrained lust. And if the person isn’t completely sure about getting wild with their lust, but still enjoys experiencing lust, having a partner who doesn’t ‘push’ for sexual contact can be a practical and unthreatening solution. Which leads to…masturbation! Masturbation – which is often considered normal for men but an aberration for women (bite me!) - is another way in which a person can experience blood pumping lust (and bonus orgasm) without having to negotiate with a partner. So, really, vampire Edward is a metaphor for (female) masturbation…

Theory 3: SEX can lead to PREGNANCY which can lead to DEATH.
[Twilight Spoiler: In the 4th instalment of the series, titled Breaking Dawn – although it should have been titled Breaking Bella – Bella and Edward do have sex, which leads to Bella’s pregnancy, which leads to Bella’s ‘death’ (she nearly dies giving birth to a human/vampire but Edward saves her by turning her into a vampire). Lordy!]
This theory follows on from the first paragraph of this blog post – the fear of unwanted pregnancy. Sure, people can use contraception, but it’s not always 100% effective, and contraceptive choices can be limited – eg some women will develop (potentially life-threatening) blood clots if they take the contraceptive pill. Contraception isn’t always made readily available (unhelpful!). Or, sometimes, contraception is ignored in the heat of passion. So, a young woman may find herself with an unwanted pregnancy, and suddenly faced with having to make a massive and inescapable decision. None of the choices are easy: termination, adoption, young (possibly single) motherhood, or, in some circumstances, suicide. There is also the possibility of things going wrong (even fatally – for the mother or baby) during pregnancy or childbirth. It can be pretty fucking dire! Once a girl hits puberty, the possibility of pregnancy is ever present (at least until menopause), and in the early years of womanhood this can be a little overwhelming. So, I wonder if the heightened intensity of Bella and Edward’s relationship - enhanced by his vampiric thrall and the looming fear that he may get crazy and cause Bella’s death - provides an oddly comforting emotional catharsis to over-burdened (and a little freaked-out) young shoulders.


In conclusion (to this somewhat unwieldy blog post), if societies and cultures over this blue and green planet could just stop being so anally retentive and judgemental about women’s sexuality, and instead be open and nurturing, then the story of Bella and Edward wouldn’t need to be so damn popular. Or something like that.

Wild Weekend

The clip below is a montage of the weekend activities of Olive Penderghast from the movie Easy A.

I can relate.  

Nerd Interlude: Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock

From the mind of Dr Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang Theory:

Scissors cuts paper
Paper covers rock
Rock crushes lizard
Lizard poisons Spock
Spock smashes scissors
Scissors decapitates lizard
Lizard eats paper
Paper disproves Spock
Spock vapourizes rock
Rock crushes scissors

Here it is in action:

I Need a Hug, Goddamit!

Yesterday I watched 2 films (I did other things as well - my life is very full). The films were: The Killer Inside Me and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. Both films contain strong sexual violence. Just watching one of these films would be pretty disturbing, so perhaps watching one after the other wasn't the smartest move.

In both films the sexual violence is perpetrated against women. It all felt a little misogynistic to me. I don't jump to accusations of misogyny or sexism based on the inclusion of violence (especially sexual violence) against women in a film or a novel. If the narrative allows a context for such violence then it should be included - eg showing how rape is used as a tool of war. But I had issues with the portrayals of violence in these two films.

In The Killer Inside Me, the main (male) character is a violently sadistic psychopath, so certainly his violence is not out of place. What bothered and annoyed me was the portrayal of the women he abuses. There was very little development of their characters - which is annoying in of itself (so often female characters are poorly drawn) - but more information about the women could have given some insight into their disturbing (in my opinion) reactions to the violence perpetrated against them. Without a context for their apparent acceptance of the violence, it's difficult not to see the (quite graphic) scenes in which they are beaten as an expression of hatred (against women).

In The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, the main female character (Lisbeth Salander) is violently raped. I don't believe this needed to happen. The events which lead to her violation are very contrived. It almost seemed as though the writer (the film is based on a novel, as is The Killer Inside Me) wanted to include a graphic rape - it felt exploitative. In my opinion, Lisbeth, who is fiercely intelligent and wildly brave, would've found a way around her circumstances to prevent herself being raped. Interestingly, the English translation of the novel's Swedish title is: Men Who Hate Women.


Thankfully, tonight I'll be watching Dr Who.

The Tradition of (fictionalised) Tweenaged Girl Killers has gone Apoplectic

(Tweenaged girl killers = girls aged 9 to 12 who kill)

I am, of course, referring to the epic, ballistic (literally) and inimitable, 11 year old murderess, Mindy Macready, aka Hit Girl (from the extremely violent and slightly surreal, comic/film Kick-Ass).

Mindy Macready/Hit Girl (film version, played by Chloe Moretz):
 
I can’t help but to be in awe of such ruthless and accomplished murder in one so adorable. It’s wrong, I know, very, very wrong. Murder, and the glorification of it, is wrong. And it’s even wronger when the glorified murder is committed by a ponytailed waif. So why am I so besotted? A few possibilities come to mind:

- I like to see portrayals of strong female characters in fiction; and this pre-pubescent, gun-toting, ninja assassin, is certainly that.

- Watching Hit Girl’s ultra-violent takedown of the bad guys gives me a kind of catharsis, tinged with vengeance, for remembered childhood feelings of disempowerment and fear.

- I’m psychotic.


Other tweenaged girl killers I admire:

12 year old Mathilda Lando (from the film Leon: The Professional).
M.O: Firearms.
Admittedly, Mathilda didn’t actually kill anyone, but she had murderous intent, and she knew how to clean a gun! I suspect that it was only an unnaturally instilled abhorrence to murder (I blame society) which kept her from becoming a successful “cleaner”.

13 year old Rynn Jacobs (from the novel/film The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane).
M.O: Poison.
Admittedly, Rynn is one year too old to be a tween, but…bite me, she’s still very young!

12 year old Regan MacNeil (from the novel/film The Exorcist).
M.O: Inducing heart failure in priests/throwing people (preferably priests) down long flights of stairs.
Admittedly, Regan is portrayed as being possessed by a demon, but I think the whole “demon” thing is just an allegory for Regan’s (and all girls') natural transformation into homicidal puberty.

12 year old (kind of) Eli (from the novel/film Let the Right One In).
M.O: Persuading others to kill people for her/doing it herself using her (very strong) hands and her (very pointy) teeth.
Admittedly, Eli is actually a centuries old vampire, as well as being a castrated male, but since she ‘lives’ as a 12 year old girl (albeit one who drinks human blood and shuns daylight), I’m including Eli in the list.

The Appeal of Unrestrained Id in Grown-up Fictional Characters

[I'm using the qualifier 'grown-up' instead of 'adult' so as not to give the impression this blog entry is about porn - that discussion is for another day]

[Also, "id" as in id, ego and superego, from Freud's model of the psyche]

And when I say, fictional characters, I'm only referring to 2: Dr Sheldon Cooper from TV show The Big Bang Theory and Ignatius Reilly from the novel A Confederacy of Dunces. (I'm sure there are many other such id unrestrained characters in fiction - indeed in real life - but these are the 2 I've encountered most recently, so they're what I'm going with). I haven't studied psychology, or specifically, Freudian psychology, so I'm probably being a little free (unrestrained?) with my interpretation of unrestrained id. I'm defining the id as being that part of the brain/mind that wants what it wants - now! - and won't be told, especially by any other part of the brain/mind, to modify its wants and the behaviours which result from these wants. It's a perfectly acceptable condition in a baby, not so much in a 30-year-old.

The behaviours manifested by the unrestrained ids of Sheldon Cooper and Ignatius Reilly, and the reactions to these behaviours by their friends and family, are both disturbing and amusing. For Sheldon, the epitome of his behaviour is his overwhelming "need" to have his own spot on the couch:

“In the winter, that seat is close enough to the radiator to remain warm yet not so close as to cause perspiration. In the summer, it’s directly in the path of a cross breeze created by opening windows there and there. It faces the television at an angle that is neither direct, thus discouraging conversation, nor so far wide as to create a parallax distortion.”

For Ignatius, it's his compulsive eating, especially of the hot dogs he's meant to be selling in his capacity as a hot dog vendor. Another pivotal, and disturbing and amusing, trait of both characters is their narcissistic enjoyment of their intelligence. Sheldon's IQ is at genius level, and Ignatius believes himself to be a genius, though he does most likely have a high IQ (as well as some culinary skills):

"I am at the moment writing a lengthy indictment against our century. When my brain begins to reel from my literary labours, I make an occasional cheese dip."

A possible explanation of the unrestrained ids of these characters could include an analysis of their 'arrested development'. In Sheldon's case, his accelerated intellectual development and scholastic achievements were acquired in the absence of normal childhood developments, with the reult that he's experiencing his childhood in his late 20's. With Ignatius it's harder to pin down, perhaps an over-pandering mother and an absent father - at some point someone really needed to give him a firm kick in the ass.

While I enjoy watching/reading these characters I wouldn't want to spend much time with them in real life. They're both verbose, egotistical, elitist snobs, and Ignatius is constantly belching and farting. So why are they popular fiction archetypes. I think, partly, it's a case of living vicariously through them. Inside all of us is a self-absorbed baby, wanting its own spot on the couch and to eat as much junk food as it can shovel into its mouth. But we wouldn't last long in the real world behaving in this way; people wouldn't want to share a couch with us and our arteries would eventually clog up and we'd die.

Did Kyle Reese really have to come across time for Sarah Connor?

YES!

And thus ends this blog entry.

No, wait, there’s more…(a lot more)…

As a fan of the “time travel” subgenre of Science Fiction (eg Dr Who, Terminator series), I was interested in this Physics research. The article is a little heavy going, but, basically, the scientists are using a wacky quantum mechanics set-up in an attempt to subvert the Grandfather Paradox of time travel – ie that if you travel back in time and kill your grandfather (or your grandmother), you will no longer exist. Such an event would generate a series of convoluted time/existence paradoxes, which is never a good thing. [NB: Somebody who’s mean enough and/or stupid enough to travel back in time and kill a grandparent deserves to be caught in a convoluted time/existence paradox!!].

Something I found especially interesting in the article was the idea that slightly altered histories (or timelines) are created each time a person travels back in time (I’m not sure how/if this would work for forward time travel). So, in theory, you could go back in time and kill a grandparent, without disappearing, because another timeline would be created, and the (your) original timeline would still exist. However, this series of time events still posses a conundrum: If the grandfather is killed in the second timeline by his grandchild, the grandchild who doesn’t exist in this timeline, how can the grandchild be there? My guess is that there are “vertexes/intersections" between timelines, where things (people, events) in one timeline can affect another timeline. I suspect these vertexes would be very unstable and potentially catastrophic. I know it sounds a bit wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey but it does make sense. And I’m COMPLETELY serious. Time travel is not to be taken lightly – which is why it’s best left to the professionals, eg Timelords.

In regards to explaining the myriad time travel paradoxes created in the Terminator series, this theory of ‘time travel generated altered timelines’ works well. It’s especially helpful in The Sarah Connor Chronicles, where people and cyborgs are being sent back through time with alarming regularity. During season 2, a time-travelled character asks (with a degree of suspicion) another time-travelled character, “In what year did your apocalypse occur?”. The second character refuses to answer but the question has suggested the possibility of more than one timeline existing. This apparently contradicts the theory in the second Terminator film that only one timeline exists, but that it can be changed. Hence, at the end of the second film, Sarah and John Connor have (seemingly) destroyed every last piece of terminator metal and believe they have prevented the future rise of the machines – which they haven’t, ‘cos those metalfuckers re-appear in the aptly named, third Terminator film, The Rise of the Machines!

And, of course, there is always a kind of reverse Grandfather Paradox hanging over the very existence of John Connor. If the machines don’t rise, they won’t build a time travel thingy, which means Kyle Reese won’t be able to travel back through time and get it on with Sarah, which would result in the non-existence of John Connor. However, this paradox can be fixed if someone else, maybe John Connor himself, is able to build a time machine. In fact, there is probably a timeline where John drives himself to complete mental and physical exhaustion building a time travel thingy so that he can send his father back through time and allow himself to exist. Lordy.

By the time we get to The Sarah Connor Chronicles (when John is about 16-years-old), it’s fairly clear that there will always be “metal”. Sarah and John continue their valiant, and, at times, morally ambiguous, struggle to rid the world of any computers/machines/metal that might evolve into Skynet (or a variation thereof) and thus bring forth the apocalypse. But it’s a matter of constant vigilance rather than any conclusive victory. There’s an unspoken acknowledgement that the machines will never be eliminated; the fight will only ever be about containment. There is also the charged issue of possible alliance with the cyborgs, as the existence of the cyborgs becomes increasingly inevitable. John from the future again sends back a reprogrammed “protector” terminator (as he did in the second film – in which the terminator also acted as a father figure to John). The relationship between John and the terminator of TSCC is extremely complex. The exterior of this terminator (named Cameron) is that of a young female - about John's age. She and future John had a very close and secretive relationship, one which caused some concern to the humans working with John. This strange (and fraught) relationship continues with present day John.

It’s a shame TSCC only lasted for 2 seasons. The first season was cut short due to the scriptwriters strike, and the second season set up a number of interesting and complex themes and storylines (presumably with an eye to future seasons), only to be axed. Argh! Though, the ending of season 2 was BRILLIANT, AMAZING AND BEAUTIFUL. Sigh.

So, in answer to the question posed by the blog title (I know I already answered it but I’m going to re-answer it), perhaps, in the space-time continuum, timelines can be changed, but certain events always need to occur in order for a timeline to exist. For John Connor to exist, Kyle Reese absolutely has to come across time (for Sarah). This also concurs with the laws of time as stated in Dr Who, that there are fixed events in time which are so deeply embedded in history that they cannot be changed.

Bring it on, 2011!!!

Whatever you're going to throw at me, I'm ready. Although, I would take it as a kindness if you only throw nice things at me. And, if possible, not so much throw them at me as gently pass them to me :-).

But, if you insist on being a complete and utter BASTARD, I will rise gallantly to your malevolent whimsy. Or, I will curl up into a fetal position until your whimsy buggers off. Either way, I will be able to seek solace in Lounge Room Disco*. And when it's time for Lounge Room Disco, I put on my fake fur stole, my cowboy hat and get crazy with Alcazar:




*Actual Disco is longer an option as I don't want to frighten the youngsters, and my left knee has a habit of locking when my disco-ing gets too unhinged, which it often does.

"I walk in shadows, searching for light..."

For all of us heart-weary souls feeling "...cold and alone, no comfort in sight", here is Jimmy Ruffin to ease some of the pain: