Yeah, I know, this isn't about my writing philosophy.
Yet again I'm struggling at my little part-time job. I can't keep my statistics consistent and when I try to talk about my frustration I just get told to stop whining and just do something about it. On top of that, my manager - who is one of my best friends - has a bad habit of interrupting me constantly whenever I'm talking. I've asked her to stop doing it, but she tries to make an excuse that because she has ADHD she doesn't know she's doing it and besides, she just doesn't want to forget her question, comment, opinion. I get visibly frustrated when she has yet again made me lose my train of thought.
Two days ago, I decided I wasn't going to take it anymore. Everytime she interrupted me I would interrupt her right back with whatever my last words were before she interrupted. Then I would keep going. It made her quite angry.
Then yesterday morning when I came in to work, I found three articles she had printed from our intranet. One was about rudeness in the workplace. Let me just say right now - it better freakin' be for her to read. She conveniently left them right in my eyesight when I walked up to the desk, so there's a feeling in my gut that these articles are for me (one was about mediocre performers and one was about respectfully disagreeing - discussions we've also had in the past few days). I don't know what I'll do if she tries to tell me I'm going to be reprimanded for my rudeness when I've asked her to stop her behavior over and over again.
She keeps saying she doesn't want to forget what she's thinking and just wants to make sure she asks a question or makes a comment before she forgets. But why is it less important if I forget what I was saying or thinking because she interrupts those thoughts? When do I get to hold her accountable for a behavior I've asked her to stop for years? It just reminds me of my post about the other coworker, turning my feelings around on me to make my feelings less important than hers.
We had another disagreement about the coworker who requests off a lot of days because she's used to a job where she can request those days off. This coworker only works one or two shifts a week, the majority being one shift. I don't understand why it's a problem if she requests off but gives plenty of leeway for that one shift to be scheduled each week. My manager knew how I felt about this, and yet again pursued me when I "respectfully disagreed" with her and wouldn't drop the subject. She wouldn't LET me just disagree. She hounded me until finally I more firmly said that I didn't agree and didn't have to. She asked me what I would do if everyone started requesting off all the time and I said we hadn't ever had that problem and so I didn't forsee it as a real problem and so I would cross that bridge when I get there (which I never will). One of the points in the article she left out one the desk yesterday was basically that lazy people make the excuse "we'll cross the bridge when we get there." I "respectfully" disagree. I think it's silly to be constantly worried about how people COULD take advantage of you.
The thing about it is that yesterday, yet again, I came home and cried for about three hours because of a stupid part-time retail job. Here are the reasons:
1) They have yet again forced me to pretend I want to advance up through the company because not wanting that means I'm content, and being content is bad
2) A behavior that upsets me is okay because I'm just trying to show off how smart I am by expecting other people to be able to think like me, or you know, just have common patience
3) If I ever disagree with business proceedures I'm either lazy or stubborn
4) A coworker made a comment about another employee being given special treatment when she didn't really deserve a promotion, but when I lamented about an employee who didn't deserve an extra bonus my coworker admonished me
5) I asked my manager what to do about a situation the other day and instead of helping me find a solution she just complained about how she's having that same problem but didn't say whether she was going to do ANYTHING about it
6) I'm the filler, so she schedules me for all of the shifts no one else can work, which means they're usually the crap shifts like a Tuesday morning, and what can I do with my stats when two people walk in the door in a four-hour period?
7) I'm afraid I won't find employment elsewhere, as two really good friends with college degrees and lots of experience are having trouble finding work right now and I'm scared to death to just leave
8) I don't have a nice quiet place to go home to and so I'm stressed out everywhere I go, all day, everyday
We only have one car between seven people. It's about to fall apart because no one will help me fix it. I can't just leave because I don't have enough money to get my own apartment and a car. I don't have enough money to get my own apartment, period. The college I worked for just laid off most of its part-time instructors and is forcing the tenured professors to teach lower-level classes. I've applied elsewhere but no one seems interested. I just don't know what to do anymore. I haven't read or written in the last few days because I just want to cry under my covers. Why can't the stupid little job just let me be happy? Maybe I'd perform if I didn't feel stressed out about every single thing in my life. Why can't my job just take that stress off for a little while?
I'm telling you, that damn article better not be for me.
July 22, 2011
July 13, 2011
To Be Continued...
In the morning, when I've had some sleep...and...when I might not sound so crazy as I did in my last post. But I did come to a conclusion.
July 12, 2011
They're Comin'
So says Johnny Vegas.
So, I think something, as far as writing, broke in me today. Could you tell? I think my writing philosophy is forming. I think I'll probably be up until 5:00 a.m. sorting out what the hell my problem is here.
I was just getting ready for work and it occurred to me how I took extreme offense at Goodreads to the person who made assumptions about me because of a book I didn't like. Like what I'm doing to this poor recapper. Food for thought to distract me from the next five hours of mundanity.
I'll also probably jump between this blog and my writing blog. I have a lot to catch up on. This is actually me just "thinking out loud" so it may be boring. It may be angry. It may be irrational, ugly, and frustrating. See you later!
So, I think something, as far as writing, broke in me today. Could you tell? I think my writing philosophy is forming. I think I'll probably be up until 5:00 a.m. sorting out what the hell my problem is here.
I was just getting ready for work and it occurred to me how I took extreme offense at Goodreads to the person who made assumptions about me because of a book I didn't like. Like what I'm doing to this poor recapper. Food for thought to distract me from the next five hours of mundanity.
I'll also probably jump between this blog and my writing blog. I have a lot to catch up on. This is actually me just "thinking out loud" so it may be boring. It may be angry. It may be irrational, ugly, and frustrating. See you later!
And Fucking Furthermore...
Read the previous post first - if you dare to be so bored by my anger - and then if you feel like it, read this one.
I decided to conduct an experiment where I would watch a scene of Doctor Who and then read the recap of the scene. (No, I have no life at this juncture in time, thanks.) In the very next scene of the show, there is more over-the-top humor to the tune of some good, old-fashioned English-Welsh ethnic stereotyping and for reasons beyond me, the recapper finds this funny. Then there are cheesy facial expressions and the like and he's fine with those kinds of sight gags. Finds them hilarious. So do I.
The thing is it FEELS like he is trying to justify finding something funny that maybe he shouldn't because it isn't really different from what he just said was beneath him. I understand that perhaps the two scenes have a scooch of difference in subtlety, but come on. I know I'm an idiot for even giving Fuck #1, but I think it plays into my overall outrage at people who feel they must deconstruct something they don't understand in order to relegate it to some kind of lower form. It's the opposite of when people don't understand something so they mock it as being "too hoity-toity intellectual." And the thing is, why can't they just get along? Why can't it just be what it is and some people like it and some people don't?
I know there has to be a standard on art or else anyone can be published for slapping five words on a piece of paper. But, maybe, that's okay? Maybe it's taken me a long time to get to this thinking. In my previous post, I just mocked something for being "too hoity-toity intellectual." I just did it. I haven't crawled out from under being taught about standards. But maybe I'm evolving. That Book did it (I've decided to stop naming it, in case someone were to ever [implausibly] get angry about this). It was the catalyst.
Because I think that book does this thing - the thing where they have a checklist of standards so if they publish something or don't publish something they don't really have to internalize why. I KNOW they read a lot of manuscripts and so can't be bothered worrying about every single one of them. I KNOW. But I think that having a checklist you can wave at someone is a way of establishing a class system. Either you fit in with our standards or you sit in the corner. The recapper wrote about outsiders to the "cool group" whining about being a victim when really they could be part of the group if they weren't so weak. Wow. There's no such thing as cliques, apparently. Just change yourself if you want to be accepted, because it's never about other people's flaws it's always about your own. Only your flaws are keeping you from being part of the elite. It's never their flaws or their invented system.
Jesus Christ, /soapbox already. And I mean myself. Sort of. Wait, no.
I decided to conduct an experiment where I would watch a scene of Doctor Who and then read the recap of the scene. (No, I have no life at this juncture in time, thanks.) In the very next scene of the show, there is more over-the-top humor to the tune of some good, old-fashioned English-Welsh ethnic stereotyping and for reasons beyond me, the recapper finds this funny. Then there are cheesy facial expressions and the like and he's fine with those kinds of sight gags. Finds them hilarious. So do I.
The thing is it FEELS like he is trying to justify finding something funny that maybe he shouldn't because it isn't really different from what he just said was beneath him. I understand that perhaps the two scenes have a scooch of difference in subtlety, but come on. I know I'm an idiot for even giving Fuck #1, but I think it plays into my overall outrage at people who feel they must deconstruct something they don't understand in order to relegate it to some kind of lower form. It's the opposite of when people don't understand something so they mock it as being "too hoity-toity intellectual." And the thing is, why can't they just get along? Why can't it just be what it is and some people like it and some people don't?
I know there has to be a standard on art or else anyone can be published for slapping five words on a piece of paper. But, maybe, that's okay? Maybe it's taken me a long time to get to this thinking. In my previous post, I just mocked something for being "too hoity-toity intellectual." I just did it. I haven't crawled out from under being taught about standards. But maybe I'm evolving. That Book did it (I've decided to stop naming it, in case someone were to ever [implausibly] get angry about this). It was the catalyst.
Because I think that book does this thing - the thing where they have a checklist of standards so if they publish something or don't publish something they don't really have to internalize why. I KNOW they read a lot of manuscripts and so can't be bothered worrying about every single one of them. I KNOW. But I think that having a checklist you can wave at someone is a way of establishing a class system. Either you fit in with our standards or you sit in the corner. The recapper wrote about outsiders to the "cool group" whining about being a victim when really they could be part of the group if they weren't so weak. Wow. There's no such thing as cliques, apparently. Just change yourself if you want to be accepted, because it's never about other people's flaws it's always about your own. Only your flaws are keeping you from being part of the elite. It's never their flaws or their invented system.
Jesus Christ, /soapbox already. And I mean myself. Sort of. Wait, no.
Doctor Who?
So, like every doomed relationship in the history of the world, I've gone back to a website that occasionally makes me angry to give other shows another shot - because not only are the recappers different and therefore deserve a chance, I at times encounter a whole new community of posters. For the most part, I've enjoyed the Glee fandom because it's usually more carefree, being a comedy show, and at least one of the recappers - it's split between two who alternate weeks - isn't a whining, venom-spitting asshole. The other is. But I can deal.
My other new obsession is Doctor Who. I haven't ventured into the forum because I'm catching up on the episodes via Netflix, but I've been reading the recaps after watching each episode. Why do I need a recap, you might ask? Because sometimes the recappers, who are all fairly smart, catch something I didn't. And vice versa, but I won't get into that here. The point of this post is really to talk about levels of intelligence.
The guy who recaps Doctor Who is quite obviously a super genius. Vast knowledge of religious literature, literary theory, linguistics, etc. Great, I love all of those things. The problem? His knowledge is overwhelming. He doesn't know how to hold back. There are three - five refereneces or allusions or angry tangents on every single page of the recap. What spurred me into this post was his complete inability to laugh at common physical humor. I'm the first person to roll my eyes at The Three Stooges and whatnot, but sometimes, sometimes, it's funny. I love Benny Hill. Ridiculously familiar sight gags are often funny, and I think it's because we don't feel any need to explain what we're supposed to be getting out of the gag. Mr. Bean doesn't do anything for me, but I don't use my "superiority" to humiliate others for laughing at "lowbrow," "common," "lazy" writing. Actually, sometimes "lowbrow" is far superior to "intellectual" writing.
My friend NGS bought me a book a few years ago because I had it on my wish list at Amazon. It was called The Origin of Stories and was vastly interesting. However, I struggled incredibly trying to read it. Why? The author couldn't just say what he needed to say. I would never shy away from three-dollar words with more than seven letters, but I also don't feel some kind of alpha-male-pissing-contest need to shove an "academic" word into every single sentence. It was a hard day's work weeding through the bullshit to get the heart of the story.
The Doctor Who recapper is intent on this phenomenon called "subtlety." Great - I love to connect the dots and consider it one of my strengths in life. I, like the recapper, hate to be hit over the head with explanation of what I'm supposed to be seeing/feeling/doing. Unlike the recapper, I don't see that happening in the show. If I did, I wouldn't be able to watch it. What I do see is intelligent writers who know how to marry every level of cognitive ability into an organically told story. I don't like to use the word intelligence here - again, the reason is a whole other entirely therapeutic post - but the fact is some people aren't able to see or interested in seeing the symbolism behind certain images/themes/repetitions. Should the authors care? Are they sacrificing artistic integrity by descending into the "lowbrow?" Are they perpetuating the dumbing-down of society by not making the audience work to understand allegory?
I don't care whether the answer to those questions is yes or no. I laughed when an alien was trying to run away from The Doctor, kept teleporting itself out of the situation, but The Doctor just kept teleporting it back because he has the ability to reverse teleportation devices (just go with it). It was just plain a funny sight gag. Now switch to reading the recap. Basically, it made me feel as though I didn't deserve to be considered intelligent because I laughed at something meant for the lower classes. I mean, the recapper was seriously appalled by this so-called "humor." It's the same in every recap whenever there is any kind of toilet humor. I HATE farting jokes, but even I was slightly amused at the episode where aliens who were compressed into suits of human skin kept farting because the gasses used in the compression needed to be released. Did I love it in every scene? No. But I appreciated the ability of the writers to insert as much comedy as they often do into a series which could, without it, be incredibly heavy-handed. I mean, in one episode (a powerful one, I'll give you), atomic-sized bacteria bring a little boy back from the dead and basically "heal" the whole human race in Blitz-torn London. Sorry, but I need humor there. I need dark and at times "lowbrow" humor to make it through something so heavy. Not that I don't hold horrific, true-to-life stories of that time period, like This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen in the highest esteem.
I think I often bristle at this recapper because he just seems so sure that his opinion and his level of intelligence are better than Joe Average's. Is he right? Maybe. But even though I know quite a bit about literary theory I don't sit watching television or reading a novel trying to apply literary theory to every fucking scene. The recapper once noted that he used to just let his story tell itself from the inside out - he used different language, more literary and academic, but he used to let his stories revel in their own cleverness. He's too mature and learned for that anymore. Why? I get the feeling he writes stories that try so hard to do everything literary theory thinks is brilliant. You KNOW how I feel about that.
I mean, the scene he became a permanent pearl-clutcher about went something like this: The Doctor + three go to confront aliens. Each are posted at a door. One of The Doctor's companions is just Bubba Nobody who used to be another main character's boyfriend but who isn't "clever" enough for the adventures in time. He's just an earthling along for this particular mission because he happens to live in that time period and has a connection to the characters. He's a bumbling idiot - at times, I will admit, to a frustrating degree. In this scene he gets his foot caught in a mop bucket and therefore isn't where he needs to be and the alien gets away (sort of). But - BUT - isn't that necessary because later he's going to be exactly where he needs to be and no one is expecting that out of him? Doesn't that make him complex, that he's not completely reliable and therefore not perfect? Do we want everyone to be a Mary Sue with perfect timing and always ready with the right solution? No. Characters need flaws. Writers need flaws. I think, I swear, I've talked about this before.
But anyway, another long, boring, angry post where I sound just like those recappers. Who's critiquing the critics? Infinite mirrors to the face of God.
Why do I keep going back? For the nuggets where I see something I didn't see before. For the tasty nut in the elephant poo. For the chance to bitch about the literati. Should I begin capitalizing that? I guess I feel like they're my Dalek race, genetically bred to kill anything different or inferior. If you don't get that reference, I won't judge you. It's just from a stupid British TV show, anyway.
My other new obsession is Doctor Who. I haven't ventured into the forum because I'm catching up on the episodes via Netflix, but I've been reading the recaps after watching each episode. Why do I need a recap, you might ask? Because sometimes the recappers, who are all fairly smart, catch something I didn't. And vice versa, but I won't get into that here. The point of this post is really to talk about levels of intelligence.
The guy who recaps Doctor Who is quite obviously a super genius. Vast knowledge of religious literature, literary theory, linguistics, etc. Great, I love all of those things. The problem? His knowledge is overwhelming. He doesn't know how to hold back. There are three - five refereneces or allusions or angry tangents on every single page of the recap. What spurred me into this post was his complete inability to laugh at common physical humor. I'm the first person to roll my eyes at The Three Stooges and whatnot, but sometimes, sometimes, it's funny. I love Benny Hill. Ridiculously familiar sight gags are often funny, and I think it's because we don't feel any need to explain what we're supposed to be getting out of the gag. Mr. Bean doesn't do anything for me, but I don't use my "superiority" to humiliate others for laughing at "lowbrow," "common," "lazy" writing. Actually, sometimes "lowbrow" is far superior to "intellectual" writing.
My friend NGS bought me a book a few years ago because I had it on my wish list at Amazon. It was called The Origin of Stories and was vastly interesting. However, I struggled incredibly trying to read it. Why? The author couldn't just say what he needed to say. I would never shy away from three-dollar words with more than seven letters, but I also don't feel some kind of alpha-male-pissing-contest need to shove an "academic" word into every single sentence. It was a hard day's work weeding through the bullshit to get the heart of the story.
The Doctor Who recapper is intent on this phenomenon called "subtlety." Great - I love to connect the dots and consider it one of my strengths in life. I, like the recapper, hate to be hit over the head with explanation of what I'm supposed to be seeing/feeling/doing. Unlike the recapper, I don't see that happening in the show. If I did, I wouldn't be able to watch it. What I do see is intelligent writers who know how to marry every level of cognitive ability into an organically told story. I don't like to use the word intelligence here - again, the reason is a whole other entirely therapeutic post - but the fact is some people aren't able to see or interested in seeing the symbolism behind certain images/themes/repetitions. Should the authors care? Are they sacrificing artistic integrity by descending into the "lowbrow?" Are they perpetuating the dumbing-down of society by not making the audience work to understand allegory?
I don't care whether the answer to those questions is yes or no. I laughed when an alien was trying to run away from The Doctor, kept teleporting itself out of the situation, but The Doctor just kept teleporting it back because he has the ability to reverse teleportation devices (just go with it). It was just plain a funny sight gag. Now switch to reading the recap. Basically, it made me feel as though I didn't deserve to be considered intelligent because I laughed at something meant for the lower classes. I mean, the recapper was seriously appalled by this so-called "humor." It's the same in every recap whenever there is any kind of toilet humor. I HATE farting jokes, but even I was slightly amused at the episode where aliens who were compressed into suits of human skin kept farting because the gasses used in the compression needed to be released. Did I love it in every scene? No. But I appreciated the ability of the writers to insert as much comedy as they often do into a series which could, without it, be incredibly heavy-handed. I mean, in one episode (a powerful one, I'll give you), atomic-sized bacteria bring a little boy back from the dead and basically "heal" the whole human race in Blitz-torn London. Sorry, but I need humor there. I need dark and at times "lowbrow" humor to make it through something so heavy. Not that I don't hold horrific, true-to-life stories of that time period, like This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen in the highest esteem.
I think I often bristle at this recapper because he just seems so sure that his opinion and his level of intelligence are better than Joe Average's. Is he right? Maybe. But even though I know quite a bit about literary theory I don't sit watching television or reading a novel trying to apply literary theory to every fucking scene. The recapper once noted that he used to just let his story tell itself from the inside out - he used different language, more literary and academic, but he used to let his stories revel in their own cleverness. He's too mature and learned for that anymore. Why? I get the feeling he writes stories that try so hard to do everything literary theory thinks is brilliant. You KNOW how I feel about that.
I mean, the scene he became a permanent pearl-clutcher about went something like this: The Doctor + three go to confront aliens. Each are posted at a door. One of The Doctor's companions is just Bubba Nobody who used to be another main character's boyfriend but who isn't "clever" enough for the adventures in time. He's just an earthling along for this particular mission because he happens to live in that time period and has a connection to the characters. He's a bumbling idiot - at times, I will admit, to a frustrating degree. In this scene he gets his foot caught in a mop bucket and therefore isn't where he needs to be and the alien gets away (sort of). But - BUT - isn't that necessary because later he's going to be exactly where he needs to be and no one is expecting that out of him? Doesn't that make him complex, that he's not completely reliable and therefore not perfect? Do we want everyone to be a Mary Sue with perfect timing and always ready with the right solution? No. Characters need flaws. Writers need flaws. I think, I swear, I've talked about this before.
But anyway, another long, boring, angry post where I sound just like those recappers. Who's critiquing the critics? Infinite mirrors to the face of God.
Why do I keep going back? For the nuggets where I see something I didn't see before. For the tasty nut in the elephant poo. For the chance to bitch about the literati. Should I begin capitalizing that? I guess I feel like they're my Dalek race, genetically bred to kill anything different or inferior. If you don't get that reference, I won't judge you. It's just from a stupid British TV show, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
