For a long time, conversation was punctuated with the word "like" - an annoying verbal tic. Now there's a new one, and it's driving me crazy: "sort of," and its variant, "kind of." I first noticed this regularly spouted from Chris Hayes on MSNBC, who has even used "sort of" more than once in the same sentence! Rachel Maddow falls back on it too, but not as often. Please, Rachel, not you, too???
Then last night I watched 2 fairly recent episodes of Close-Up with the Hollywood Reporter, the Director Roundtable and the Documentary Roundtable (I'd taped them a few weeks ago). The prevalence of these two phrases was unbelievable! I started jotting down just some of the instances:
First up was Damien Chazelle, LaLa Land director:
"kind of make sure. . ."
"sort of challenge. . ."
"kind of thing. . ."
"sort of key sequences. . ."
"kind of sky. . ."
I moved on to the Documentary Directors. By far, the worst offender was Ezra Edelman, the director of OJ: Made in America. I could barely write fast enough:
"sort of living with it. . ."
"sort of what is truth?"
"sort of relative to. . ."
"sort of developed. . ."
"sort of guidance. . ."
". . . their own sort of world. . ."
"sort of the victims themselves. . ."
"sort of infinite wisdom. . ."
"sort of got into the process. . ."
"sort of use these images. . ."
"kind of for me. . ."
Next up was Life: Animated's Director Roger Ross Williams:
"sort of move out of my way. . ."
"sort of created. . ."
"sort of spearheaded. . ."
Then we had Kristen Johnson, director of Cameraperson, with:
"sort of questions of representation. . ."
"sort of who is choosing to tell it. . ."
"sort of connect to. . ."
"sort of the way that there is. . ."
"sort of points to. . ."
and Josh Kriegman, director of Weiner. He was a definite improvement, but the phrase "kind of" still crept in as he spoke:
"kind of an emotional remove. . ."
"kind of a distance. . ."
The feebleness of these phrases is what I find most irritating. Take ownership of your opinion! If you believe in what you're saying, the "sort of" qualifier isn't necessary. The speaker would sound much more confident and assured without it. You either "got into the process" or you didn't. They were either "questions of representation" or something else, and if something else, then describe it. It was either "an emotional remove" or it wasn't. They were either "key sequences" or they weren't. Etc., etc., etc.
I found it interesting that neither Raul Peck (director of I Am Not Your Negro) nor Werner Herzog (director of Into the Inferno) were guilty of using "sort of" or "kind of." To me, their words sounded much wiser and more deliberate than those of the other speakers. I'm not sure if that's because they're more mature or simply that they hold firm opinions. In any case, it was a joy and relief to hear them speak.
As Rachel Maddow would say, "take a listen." It's sort of all you'll notice once you notice it.
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Saturday, April 18, 2015
"From One Mind to Another Mind" - after reading Tom Piazza
(Available at Powells.com and elsewhere)
I add books to my "Books Wanted" list and sometimes don't read them until years later. Of course, I could easily solve this by using my library card. I haven't done that yet here in Seattle, despite my lack of space and the wonderful Central Branch that's not far from me.
Devil Sent the Rain: Music and Writing in Desperate America came out in 2011 and I bought it used from Powell's a few weeks ago. I'm glad I did, because if I'd gotten it from the library, I'd have had to repeatedly restrain myself from scribbling in the margins and underlining passages (my copy is defaced beyond reselling now, even if I didn't plan to keep it forever).
Tom Piazza's writing is the kind that moves me the most - passionate, well-reasoned yet unapologetically feisty, full of wondrous passages - the kind of book I know I'll revisit, if not use as reference. My blog title is taken from the intro, in which Piazza briefly addresses the argument as to whether or not the written word is "doomed." Piazza says it's not and never will be: "In the private space shared by the writer and the reader, one individual soul encounters another and a spell is cast, created by both of them." The spell worked powerfully in this case.
Part One consists of essays on music, quite a few of which first appeared in the Oxford American (no surprise that it's my favorite magazine). "True Adventures with the King of Bluegrass" details a crazy few days spent with Jimmy Martin. I was so captivated by these escapades (and awed by Piazza's patience) that reading this was like watching a piqaresque film. My ignorance of Martin's music didn't affect my enjoyment of the essay, and he's now first on the list of musicians whose music I want to hear.
Carl Perkins is next. It's reprehensible that I'm not familiar with his music and only know it from Beatles covers - he was one of their idols, and I knew that. One of the reasons I bought the book was to learn, and learn I did. (After reading the essay, I pulled up a few U-Tube videos where Perkins plays with George Harrison and others - great voice and presence.) I'm sure Piazza would forgive my ignorance knowing he's incited enough interest for me to want to discover these musicians. He's a fellow explorer - one of his essays is an absorbing one about visiting a flea market. After hours of fruitlessly perusing boxes of 78s, he hits the jackpot. The literal blues he felt earlier in the day disappears and he excitedly returns to his ever-patient wife, who's been sitting outside reading the newspaper for hours. (The love and understanding between the two of them is a quiet melody underlying this essay).
I have many books on Dylan, many albums and CD's, have seen him perform several times (most memorably, with Patti Smith), love his music and have long considered him a genius. Did I gain new insights from Piazza? Yes, and a strong desire to get my hands on the DVD The Other Side of the Mirror: Bob Dylan Live at the Newport Folk Festival, 1963-1965 (the booklet notes were written by Piazza and are reprinted in this volume).
Piazza is a resident of New Orleans. Many of the pieces in Part Two deal with issues and feelings raised by Hurricane Katrina and the political and psychological havoc during and after the storm. His love for the city's music, culture, and people pervade each of these essays. These pieces are the author's way of questioning "whether there was an opposing magic to counteract the enormous undertow of all that imagery, all that appeal to easy, comforting answers" that appeared in the national dialogue post-9/11. As a resident, Piazza has an insider's view and understanding of the city (he was also a writer on HBO's Treme) and knows the vital importance of giving evacuees the choice of returning and rebuilding their lives in ways that will work for them and aren't dictated by politicians and duplicitous outsiders. Reprinted here is a telling exchange between the author and an affluent evacuee who wrote in response to Piazza's book on New Orleans (book info below). Priceless. Amazing how Piazza remained respectful as he bit back.
One of the joys of my life is discovering an author, new to me, that connects so strongly that I immediately want to read more of his/her work. Why New Orleans Matters is now at the top of my Books Wanted list. I admire Piazza's knowledge, his courage, his writing talent, his empathy, his honesty and his insight. Again, from Piazza's intro: "words, direct from one mind to another mind, will be there to stretch the strings taut between the private consciousness and the public drama and play a tune, or a symphony. " Meeting Tom Piazza's work was tune and symphony both.
In 1997, shortly after Dylan released Time Out of Mind, he was chosen to be a Kennedy Center honoree, along with Lauren Bacall and others. Each honoree invites someone of their choice to write an encomium for inclusion in the program. Dylan chose Piazza. Need I say more?
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
Bernadette Holds Up the Sky
One of my favorite books read in 2014 was Where'd You Go, Bernadette.
I read it again yesterday, needing something light-hearted after two extremely depressing books:
and 
Both these books were on my "Books Wanted" list, and I requested and received them for Christmas. Although I was somewhat prepared for the heaviness of Half the Sky, I had completely forgotten that We Are Not Ourselves deals with a father's early-onset Alzheimer's and the effects of that terrible disease not only on him, but on his family and friends. If I'd remembered that, I probably wouldn't have read the two books back-to-back (and then watched the Roger Ebert documentary. . .)
After that, I returned to Bernadette and enjoyed it just as much as when I first read it. That's not to say that I wanted to blow off what I'd learned from the two heavier books. On the contrary - after finishing Half the Sky, I went online to see what I could do, and am researching women-focused nonprofits here in Seattle for job openings. In my job search over the past several months, I've applied at nonprofits, but was not focusing solely on them.
I'd always admired Nicholas Kristof's column in The New York Times. He's frank and brave and makes the problems he discusses real by focusing on the personal. He always has sincere empathy for the people he visits, writes about, and tries to help. The book, co-written with his wife Sheryl WuDunn, held the same matter-of-fact intensity as his column.
The title comes from the Chinese proverb "Women hold up half the sky." There are several areas of focus in the book, all concerning female oppression: trafficking/prostitution, rape, and maternal mortality/disease. These problem areas exist due to cultural devaluation of women, and the way out of these horrors is education. Some of the statistics are horrifying, as are some of the individual stories. The resilience of these women, though, is amazing.
Kristof/WuDunn do not just list stats and tell stories, but also offer solutions. This is one book that, although you may not want to read it, you should read it and then figure out what you can do to help. One thing we should all be doing is pressuring our government to ratify CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination. It is unbelievable and appalling that the United States, which regards itself as an enlightened nation, refuses to ratify this "because of Republicans' concerns that CEDAW could nibble away at American sovereignty by surrendering authority to an international convention. These concerns are absurd." (p. 246). CEDAW was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979 and 185 countries have approved it - but not the U.S. The solutions Kristof/DuWunn discuss, including education of girls, family planning, micro-finance, and female empowerment, would be fostered by our ratification of CEDAW.
I love the George Bernard Shaw quote that opens Chapter 3: "Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people."
I heartily agree with the authors that improving the lives of others improves our own at the same time. I know from personal experience that the times I felt best about my life were when I was actively helping others.
My one disagreement with the book is the lack of dismay over the Pentecostal boom in the U.S.: "We thus regard the Pentecostal boom with some suspicion, but without doubt it also has a positive impact on the role of women." (p. 143). I say, "Huh?" In the next paragraph they say, "On Sundays, women come together and exchange advice on how to apply community pressure to bring wayward husbands back into line." I wrote in the margin here: "Wow - ain't that somethin'?"
We Are Not Ourselves was hard for me to read not only because I read it immediately after finishing Half the Sky, but because there were so many reminders of what my dad experienced when he had dementia. The wife is walking her husband upstairs when he stops and can't move another step. She struggles to help him raise his leg and move forward. A similar episode happens when he's in the shower, and she can't get him out. His struggle with numbers echoed Dad, who had been so facile with math before his illness, as did his difficulties driving, and the danger he became behind the wheel, his intense stares. It was heart-rending to read how the father/husband, who had always been internal to begin with, tried to keep his illness from his family until he couldn't any longer. I did find it unbelievable that the wife, who had been a nurse for many years, wouldn't have wondered about Alzheimer's sooner than she did, based upon the problems her husband was having.
So yesterday I returned to Bernadette and was immediately enraptured with her spot-on picture of life in Seattle (example: "Hovering over me was the Chihuly chandelier. Chihulys are the pigeons of Seattle.") and her clever, warm-hearted depiction of a smart, quirky family. Bee and her mom (Bernadette) are huge Beatles fans, and the Abbey Road singalong in the car (Bee surprised that her mom knows not only all the words, but the instrumental parts as well) further endeared them to me.
The many blurbs in the front of the book say "laugh-out-loud funny" and this is one of the very few books that made me literally guffaw. I absolutely love it! We need to teach women and girls all over the world to become as self-confident as Bernadette, Bee and the devil/angel neighbor Audrey. They could hold up the sky by themselves.
I read it again yesterday, needing something light-hearted after two extremely depressing books:
and Both these books were on my "Books Wanted" list, and I requested and received them for Christmas. Although I was somewhat prepared for the heaviness of Half the Sky, I had completely forgotten that We Are Not Ourselves deals with a father's early-onset Alzheimer's and the effects of that terrible disease not only on him, but on his family and friends. If I'd remembered that, I probably wouldn't have read the two books back-to-back (and then watched the Roger Ebert documentary. . .)
After that, I returned to Bernadette and enjoyed it just as much as when I first read it. That's not to say that I wanted to blow off what I'd learned from the two heavier books. On the contrary - after finishing Half the Sky, I went online to see what I could do, and am researching women-focused nonprofits here in Seattle for job openings. In my job search over the past several months, I've applied at nonprofits, but was not focusing solely on them.
I'd always admired Nicholas Kristof's column in The New York Times. He's frank and brave and makes the problems he discusses real by focusing on the personal. He always has sincere empathy for the people he visits, writes about, and tries to help. The book, co-written with his wife Sheryl WuDunn, held the same matter-of-fact intensity as his column.
The title comes from the Chinese proverb "Women hold up half the sky." There are several areas of focus in the book, all concerning female oppression: trafficking/prostitution, rape, and maternal mortality/disease. These problem areas exist due to cultural devaluation of women, and the way out of these horrors is education. Some of the statistics are horrifying, as are some of the individual stories. The resilience of these women, though, is amazing.
Kristof/WuDunn do not just list stats and tell stories, but also offer solutions. This is one book that, although you may not want to read it, you should read it and then figure out what you can do to help. One thing we should all be doing is pressuring our government to ratify CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination. It is unbelievable and appalling that the United States, which regards itself as an enlightened nation, refuses to ratify this "because of Republicans' concerns that CEDAW could nibble away at American sovereignty by surrendering authority to an international convention. These concerns are absurd." (p. 246). CEDAW was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979 and 185 countries have approved it - but not the U.S. The solutions Kristof/DuWunn discuss, including education of girls, family planning, micro-finance, and female empowerment, would be fostered by our ratification of CEDAW.
I love the George Bernard Shaw quote that opens Chapter 3: "Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people."
I heartily agree with the authors that improving the lives of others improves our own at the same time. I know from personal experience that the times I felt best about my life were when I was actively helping others.
My one disagreement with the book is the lack of dismay over the Pentecostal boom in the U.S.: "We thus regard the Pentecostal boom with some suspicion, but without doubt it also has a positive impact on the role of women." (p. 143). I say, "Huh?" In the next paragraph they say, "On Sundays, women come together and exchange advice on how to apply community pressure to bring wayward husbands back into line." I wrote in the margin here: "Wow - ain't that somethin'?"
We Are Not Ourselves was hard for me to read not only because I read it immediately after finishing Half the Sky, but because there were so many reminders of what my dad experienced when he had dementia. The wife is walking her husband upstairs when he stops and can't move another step. She struggles to help him raise his leg and move forward. A similar episode happens when he's in the shower, and she can't get him out. His struggle with numbers echoed Dad, who had been so facile with math before his illness, as did his difficulties driving, and the danger he became behind the wheel, his intense stares. It was heart-rending to read how the father/husband, who had always been internal to begin with, tried to keep his illness from his family until he couldn't any longer. I did find it unbelievable that the wife, who had been a nurse for many years, wouldn't have wondered about Alzheimer's sooner than she did, based upon the problems her husband was having.
So yesterday I returned to Bernadette and was immediately enraptured with her spot-on picture of life in Seattle (example: "Hovering over me was the Chihuly chandelier. Chihulys are the pigeons of Seattle.") and her clever, warm-hearted depiction of a smart, quirky family. Bee and her mom (Bernadette) are huge Beatles fans, and the Abbey Road singalong in the car (Bee surprised that her mom knows not only all the words, but the instrumental parts as well) further endeared them to me.
The many blurbs in the front of the book say "laugh-out-loud funny" and this is one of the very few books that made me literally guffaw. I absolutely love it! We need to teach women and girls all over the world to become as self-confident as Bernadette, Bee and the devil/angel neighbor Audrey. They could hold up the sky by themselves.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
A Once-Peaceful Nation
On Mother's Day 2012, my friend Karen gave me this book. As she handed it to me, she reminded me that the present-day Mother's Day in the U.S. was initiated by Julia Ward Howe, who, after the Civil War's terrible carnage, wanted to unite mothers to protest the senselessness of their sons' deaths. She wanted to celebrate peace.
Karen has since passed away, having retained her rebelliousness until her battle against cancer ended. I can't help but wonder what she'd think of our country standing again, today, on the brink of another war in the Middle East.
This is a book every U.S. citizen should read. When I originally wrote this blog, House Republicans had just passed a bill that would replace $55 billion in defense cuts with reductions in spending on food stamps, Medicaid, and financial regulation. Recently, the Senate approved a bill authorizing targeted attacks on ISIS. The more things change. . .
Maddow opens the book with a long quote from James Madison's "Political Observations" dated April 20, 1795. In part, it reads: "War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. . . and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect of republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes and the opportunities of fraud growing out of a state of war. . . No nation could reserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . .These truths are well established. They are read in every page which records the progression from a less arbitrary to a more arbitrary government, or the transition from a popular government to an aristocracy or a monarchy." This could have been written today.
Maddow then walks us through the expansion of and changes in the military since our country began. Our very wise forefathers, leery of the consolidation of power, restricted standing armies (and they were leery even of those) to times of peace. Can you imagine? Can you imagine Jefferson and Madison's reaction to the state of the DOD today? Debating $55 billion in cuts, let alone allowing the growth to occur in the first place? Can you imagine our founding fathers approving of secret drone strikes or the privatization of the armed forces? The abuses that have occurred and are growing need to be stopped. First step: awareness of these issues.
On Bill Maher the week I wrote this original post, Dan Rather talked about the trivialization of the news, how things have changed with the consolidation of the media into the hands of a few. Power corrupts. Isn't it time we stopped talking about who sleeps with who, whether or not it's OK to eat meat, whether we're damned if we don't attend church, and focus on what's happening in our government, our country?
Unlike many political books that illustrate a downhill slide without providing answers, Maddow ends with 3 pages of solutions. Solutions begin with awareness. Your awareness will be raised when you read this book and pass it on to your friends. Then we can work together, all of us, to get our country back to the original ideals Jefferson, Madison and our other visionaries had in mind when the U.S. began.
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Goodbye, Dexter!
Who would've thought saying goodbye to a serial killer would be so hard? I'll miss you, Dexter.
Here are the thoughts I had while watching the satisfying finale to a great series:
The title was "Remember the Monsters?" Who is the monster -- Ellway? Hannah? Or, obviously, +Dexter
Here are the thoughts I had while watching the satisfying finale to a great series:
The title was "Remember the Monsters?" Who is the monster -- Ellway? Hannah? Or, obviously, +Dexter
Monday, September 3, 2012
The Mantra of 2012
"It is what it is."
Last week I heard these words so many times I wondered: What's going on here? What does this mean? It sounds like a chant, repeated so often and from so many mouths it resembls a mantra, but the end result isn't uplift or enlightenment. The words are often accompanied by a small shrug of the shoulders, or a resigned sigh. It isn't a new saying by any means, but it enters conversation these days much more frequently than before. It's not said in the sense of "what's done is done, move on." It sounds more like "that's the way it is and we can't do anything about it."
What happened to believing you can change things? Why the fatalism, the defeatist attitude? Where did rebellion go? Idealism? Believing in dreams of the future? Setting an example of optimism for our kids and friends and co-workers? Continuing to strive for our dreams despite the difficulties and barriers thrown in our way?
It's as if accepting the status quo has become the status quo. Why? Is it the state of the economy? Are people feeling so defeated they've given up? It's like some weird contagion, some invisible mote floating through the air, sucked in then sucking up all the positive energy, exhaled in this seemingly unrebuttable statement.
Well, I argue that it is indeed arguable. The Resistance during WWII didn't feel this way. 60's protesters, as mellow as they could be at times, didn't feel that way. Years ago, someone said to me, "I decided to settle." That bothered me in my youth like "it is what it is" grates now.
I prefer John Lennon's outlook:
IMAGINE. . .
Last week I heard these words so many times I wondered: What's going on here? What does this mean? It sounds like a chant, repeated so often and from so many mouths it resembls a mantra, but the end result isn't uplift or enlightenment. The words are often accompanied by a small shrug of the shoulders, or a resigned sigh. It isn't a new saying by any means, but it enters conversation these days much more frequently than before. It's not said in the sense of "what's done is done, move on." It sounds more like "that's the way it is and we can't do anything about it."
What happened to believing you can change things? Why the fatalism, the defeatist attitude? Where did rebellion go? Idealism? Believing in dreams of the future? Setting an example of optimism for our kids and friends and co-workers? Continuing to strive for our dreams despite the difficulties and barriers thrown in our way?
It's as if accepting the status quo has become the status quo. Why? Is it the state of the economy? Are people feeling so defeated they've given up? It's like some weird contagion, some invisible mote floating through the air, sucked in then sucking up all the positive energy, exhaled in this seemingly unrebuttable statement.
Well, I argue that it is indeed arguable. The Resistance during WWII didn't feel this way. 60's protesters, as mellow as they could be at times, didn't feel that way. Years ago, someone said to me, "I decided to settle." That bothered me in my youth like "it is what it is" grates now.
I prefer John Lennon's outlook:
IMAGINE. . .
Monday, August 27, 2012
Reality TV?
It's a pretty telling comment on the state of affairs in America when a fictional t.v. series brings us closer to the truth than anything we hear on the "real" news. Last night's season finale of HBO's +The Newsroomwas so well-plotted and smart I almost started cheering for the issues it raised -- and would have if the walls and floors in my apartment building didn't carry every sound. I did, however, clap!
By focusing on the story of the near-impossibility of a 95-year-old black woman obtaining a photo I.D. in order to vote, newscaster Will (voicing, I'm sure, his creator Aaron Sorkin's concerns) brought into play many of the crucial issues we'll see as we near the election. Sorkin isn't afraid to let his characters passionately discuss the large issues of the day or their quirky obsessions (like the excellent Dev Patel's fixation on Bigfoot). Nor is he afraid to realistically depict how easily misled we can be in politics, love, friendship, and work.
Last night Will fearlessly called the Tea Party the American Taliban, listing bullet points making that analogy clearly feasible. He tackled religion as well, reminding his listeners that our Founding Fathers took great pains to keep church and state separate.
I was glad to see an EW reader refute the thumbs-down assessment of this show (EW called it a snooze-fest) by saying that it may be so for those viewers who don't want to think about the problems that face our country today. I say let them watch mindless reality shows if they (again, in Sorkin's words) "can't handle the truth." It is too bad, though, that there is no non-premium channel willing to be as brave as HBO on the political issues of the day. Another series that seriously discusses these issues is Bill Maher (again, HBO; again, a polarizing figure).
Sorkin has said, "I don't like riling people up. That's not what I'm going for, but I think that when people are talking this much and this loudly about a TV show, it's good for television."
Note that he said "loudly" - maybe I shouldn't have worried about the neighbors last night after all?
By focusing on the story of the near-impossibility of a 95-year-old black woman obtaining a photo I.D. in order to vote, newscaster Will (voicing, I'm sure, his creator Aaron Sorkin's concerns) brought into play many of the crucial issues we'll see as we near the election. Sorkin isn't afraid to let his characters passionately discuss the large issues of the day or their quirky obsessions (like the excellent Dev Patel's fixation on Bigfoot). Nor is he afraid to realistically depict how easily misled we can be in politics, love, friendship, and work.
Last night Will fearlessly called the Tea Party the American Taliban, listing bullet points making that analogy clearly feasible. He tackled religion as well, reminding his listeners that our Founding Fathers took great pains to keep church and state separate.
I was glad to see an EW reader refute the thumbs-down assessment of this show (EW called it a snooze-fest) by saying that it may be so for those viewers who don't want to think about the problems that face our country today. I say let them watch mindless reality shows if they (again, in Sorkin's words) "can't handle the truth." It is too bad, though, that there is no non-premium channel willing to be as brave as HBO on the political issues of the day. Another series that seriously discusses these issues is Bill Maher (again, HBO; again, a polarizing figure).
Sorkin has said, "I don't like riling people up. That's not what I'm going for, but I think that when people are talking this much and this loudly about a TV show, it's good for television."
Note that he said "loudly" - maybe I shouldn't have worried about the neighbors last night after all?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)