Something Old
I like stupid reddit posts like this one, because it keeps me on my toes. Well, first, because it gets me listening to the Smiths again (haven't in a while, autumn seems like a good time for it). Contrary to popular belief, I like this band's music. It's good enough to forget about the questionable politics that its leader would later adopt, in any case.
And then second, it keeps me on my toes. Clearly this is a Smiths fan being sarcastic, and the sarcasm is funny, but it also makes me wonder: Do I ever actually come across like that? I really could see myself making an argument that goes a little something like "I like the Smiths but we don't agree with the idea of pain being mistaken for pleasure, and it can be depressing to wallow in the sardonic joy that Morrissey seems to take on regarding every depressing subject" and yadda yadda yadda. There's a time and a place for all that. Maybe crushing another repeat of "This Charming Man" ain't that time.
I realize this argument is reductive, but I refuse to be turned into a meme.
Something New
Another good autumnal band, but this one literal—Teenage Halloween is back, and just in time for the actually Halloween. I don't know if I'll be playing Till You Return at Sophie's birthday gathering tomorrow night, since I'll probably be the only one who thinks Luke Henderiks' lawnmower of a voice kicks ass and transcends stupid one-year-old birthday music playlist expectations, but whatever.
This is their second LP, and the first since I went through two years of grad school to get a master's degree (in a subject and at a school that will both go unnamed here but could easily be pieced together if you're keeping up with the blog), and I gotta say, Teenage Halloween seems to be speaking the language that I heard for those four semester, to a frighteningly accurate degree. Some I heard a lot (like a hook that includes "intergenerational trauma!"), and some would fit right in (like a hook that goes "You're a proper noun!!").
I like it. Makes me kinda sad that I'm back to working full time. And it also makes me think that if Teenage Halloween was teaching my classes, I would have felt a little more comfortable participating in the use of such language. Punk music that fucking rips but also wears wokeness on its sleeve? Count me in.
This is their second LP, and the first since I went through two years of grad school to get a master's degree (in a subject and at a school that will both go unnamed here but could easily be pieced together if you're keeping up with the blog), and I gotta say, Teenage Halloween seems to be speaking the language that I heard for those four semester, to a frighteningly accurate degree. Some I heard a lot (like a hook that includes "intergenerational trauma!"), and some would fit right in (like a hook that goes "You're a proper noun!!").
I like it. Makes me kinda sad that I'm back to working full time. And it also makes me think that if Teenage Halloween was teaching my classes, I would have felt a little more comfortable participating in the use of such language. Punk music that fucking rips but also wears wokeness on its sleeve? Count me in.
Something Borrowed
I don't know who David Sedaris is. An author or a comedian or something? That's what this article on Slate made it seem like. He was on tour, telling silly stories on stage. So whatever you call someone who does that. But that's not why I was interested in the article. Instead, I found the point of view fascinating. The author of the article had told Sedaris an embarrassing childhood story, and Sedaris ended up "using" that story in a subsequent routine. And the author here brings up some really good points about the responsibilities of an author when they are writing about real events and, more importantly, real people.
Read the whole thing HERE. As someone who spends a lot of his time writing non-fiction—though a much smaller scale and for a far smaller audience—it was a humbling read. I can see where Sedaris might be coming from: "life is absurd and I have a talent for making that known." But at the same time, there are indeed ethical obligations when you deem yourself a "keeper of the human tale." If your message is one of joy, then you want to make sure the subjects hold a piece of that story. If your message is one of despair, then you want to protect the subjects and make sure that the original despair is not magnified.
And this also relieves some of the burden your typical author might feel to be "humble" and not speak about themselves so often. No—keeping yourself in the spotlight is a great way to take the brunt of the story and its consequences. Embarrassing yourself is a great way to refrain from embarrassing others.
"The kind of writer that Sedaris embodies seems motivated by a compulsive, self-righteous duty to act as a one-man literary extraction industry, indivisible, to serve one's own greater glory. If he doesn't repeat these stories, then they'll be lost forever or not exist at all, like how some metaphysicists perceive a tree falling in a forest with nobody around to hear it."
Read the whole thing HERE. As someone who spends a lot of his time writing non-fiction—though a much smaller scale and for a far smaller audience—it was a humbling read. I can see where Sedaris might be coming from: "life is absurd and I have a talent for making that known." But at the same time, there are indeed ethical obligations when you deem yourself a "keeper of the human tale." If your message is one of joy, then you want to make sure the subjects hold a piece of that story. If your message is one of despair, then you want to protect the subjects and make sure that the original despair is not magnified.
And this also relieves some of the burden your typical author might feel to be "humble" and not speak about themselves so often. No—keeping yourself in the spotlight is a great way to take the brunt of the story and its consequences. Embarrassing yourself is a great way to refrain from embarrassing others.
Something Blue
I cannot say anything bad about the Netflix reality dating show Love Is Blind, because I haven't sat down to watch it and I reject my right to critique it when I choose to ignore it. My beautiful wife spent a few hours over the past couple weeks indulging on the new season, though, and so I sustained some of the collateral damage from that particular attack, just by nature of residing in the same home as her.
And so, despite this being the "Something Blue" section, with all that entails, I'll stick to the one positive thing I have to say about it. I appreciate, on a sociological level, that it seems to be testing a romance theory that I've described on this blog before. That theory being that there are certain truths that you need your partner to know eventually, and that there is a window for that truth about one's self to be revealed. You can speak that truth too early, and you can wait too long and risk speaking it too late.
I appreciate how Love Is Blind, or at least its contestants, seem to acknowledge that this theory is true, but due to circumstances of the structure of the game show in which they are participating, they are forced to tighten the size of that truth window significantly. Shit that you wouldn't normally about until date #20 are being asked after engagement. Things that you might want to know on date #10 are being revealed only the second time you even hear your potential partner's voice. Concerns that you might voice a couple years into a strong relationship are causing women who are literally already in their wedding gowns and walking down the aisle to stop and run the opposite direction, all on national TV.
Do I think it's a stupid show? Of course. But as long as a sociological experiment is safe for all participants, then I'm down to watch it play out. (I also appreciate the women's attire, typically, but that would go make me "something blue" for a completely different reason.)
And so, despite this being the "Something Blue" section, with all that entails, I'll stick to the one positive thing I have to say about it. I appreciate, on a sociological level, that it seems to be testing a romance theory that I've described on this blog before. That theory being that there are certain truths that you need your partner to know eventually, and that there is a window for that truth about one's self to be revealed. You can speak that truth too early, and you can wait too long and risk speaking it too late.
I appreciate how Love Is Blind, or at least its contestants, seem to acknowledge that this theory is true, but due to circumstances of the structure of the game show in which they are participating, they are forced to tighten the size of that truth window significantly. Shit that you wouldn't normally about until date #20 are being asked after engagement. Things that you might want to know on date #10 are being revealed only the second time you even hear your potential partner's voice. Concerns that you might voice a couple years into a strong relationship are causing women who are literally already in their wedding gowns and walking down the aisle to stop and run the opposite direction, all on national TV.
Do I think it's a stupid show? Of course. But as long as a sociological experiment is safe for all participants, then I'm down to watch it play out. (I also appreciate the women's attire, typically, but that would go make me "something blue" for a completely different reason.)





No comments:
Post a Comment