Quote of the day

“The problem, often not discovered until late in life, is that when you look for things in life like love, meaning, motivation, it implies they are sitting behind a tree or under a rock. The most successful people in life recognize, that in life they create their own love, they manufacture their own meaning, they generate their own motivation. For me, I am driven by two main philosophies, know more today about the world than I knew yesterday. And lessen the suffering of others. You’d be surprised how far that gets you.”

—	Neil deGrasse Tyson

My Review On the Reviews On HBO's "Girls"

HBO’s Girls debuted on April 15^th. It stars Lena Dunham (director/writer/star of "Tiny Furniture"). Director/writer/producer Judd Apatow took notice of Dunham and worked with her to create Girls. Shortly thereafter, writers/critics/bloggers went bananas.

The show’s homepage says Girls is: “a comic look at the assorted humiliations and rare triumphs of a group of girls in their early 20s.” Very succinct. The first episode follows Hannah (Dunham) who recently graduated college and has just been cut off financially by her parents.

At this point, only two shows have aired. Is that enough to form an opinion on the whole season?

YES!

I would love to have a divisive and incendiary opinion on the show- but, alas, I don't have HBO.

That is okay, because the reviews on Girls are insanely entertaining. 

Everyone has an opinion on the new HBO show Girls. Most of the reviews were written before the second show aired.

Those opinions seem to be that it is either "a staggering work of genius" or "offensive fail of a show." There is very little middle ground.

(**Also- you are required to use the word “zeitgeist” at least once in your review.)

In order to enter this arena, you need only have an opinion (based on one episode) that you defend to the death.

It Doesn't Represent Me

Ugh. I don't want television shows to represent me. That would be the worst show ever. I don’t even know how you would dramatize marathon naps, epic tumblr sessions, and doing stand-up about muffins. I need escapism.

But I get it. There are so few women in TV (and even fewer female leads) that a lot of hopes and ideas are riding on the few that make it to leading lady status. When the L-Word came out, so many people complained that it was an inaccurate portrayal of lesbians and unless you were a hot (white) lady who was rich and had her shit together, it was. BUT since it was, you know, the ONLY SHOW EVER to be about lesbians, I think it would be fair to say that there was a lot of ground to cover.

Women have always been under-represented in TV. For years, television's portrayal of women have typically either been insipid or just grossly inaccurate (I’m looking at you “Flying Nun.”) If only Twitter existed earlier, then people would have had a forum to voice their outrage ("I am not a nun NOR do I have the powers of flight. How could I possibly be expected to relate to this! #OFFENSIVE")

Some argued (vehemently) that the ideas and beliefs espoused in the show aren't representative of women/the times. People seem to acknowledge that women are varied and nuanced but (IN THE SAME ARTICLE) complain that one female character doesn't represent all women everywhere.

Like when the internet lashed out at my girl Liz Lemon (and Tina Fey herself) for not being a good/accurate representation of women. (*those are 8 different links)

An article in GOOD points out "This is only a problem because there are so few shows starring complicated, authentic young female characters. Girls ends up having to stand in for everybody. Dunham is painfully aware of this pressure. "I was given a role I never said I could handle" she told Salon." Poor girl.

She is one lady. She isn’t going to represent womankind.

Clearly we have cast Beyonce in that role. 

"Girls" and "Sex in the City"

People were quick to wonder how "Girls" would compare to that other show about women. 

Is it "Sex in the City" for a new generation? Is is the anti-"Sex in the City"? Is it "Sex in the City" with poor people?

I doubt any of the massive generalizations above would accurately describe the show. At least I hope not (but I do hope they go to Dubai in the second season).

Girls Can Be Shitheads Too!

After Bridesmaids, people seem to concede (most of them) that woman can be funny. So now the new frontier woman have to conquer is “the female slacker.” These battles are becoming more and more aggravating. 

Can women be slackers? Some say “yes” and this is apparently BLOWING PEOPLE’S MINDS!!

The slacker dude is a pretty established archetype: Kenny Powers, Jeff Winger, and every stoner comedy ever. They are can range from morally neutral to completely amoral but we always end up finding them charming.

People aren't finding slacker ladies so charming. It doesn't look good on them. Their lack of direction in life is irritating and their life of privilege is offensive. 

Keep reaching for that star, ladies.


I'm certainly doing my part to make the female slacker more visible.

SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX

Every single article mentions sex.

Every.

Single. 

One.

It shouldn't be that sensational. It isn't as if this show is airing on a cable network. It is on HBO. There is sex on EVERY SINGLE SHOW but Girls is the one to drawing the most criticism/attention. It seems kind of crazy that people are going bananas over the sex in Girls when there is rape and insect on the show after it.

Boring and awkward sex is apparently more controversial.

When people offer up critiques, it isn’t that the scenes are bawdy, rather, it is that it’s boring or (my favorite) not funny (you know, because if I see a woman having sex, I better be fully aroused or shaking with laughter!).

My favorite is one writer (seemingly horrified) wondering “is sex always as unfun or awkward as it is on the show?” Does "real sex" equate to "bad sex"??! (she only has awesome sex so she wouldn't know),

The article is from (my favorite) Slate and titled "Why is the sex on the HBO show Girls such a drag?" They claims that “the show’s skittishness about sex is just old-fashioned moralism."  Because sex in Girls is strange and uncomfortable (and makes her feel sad feels) that it is the show's way of saying, "promiscuity is punished by HPV, abortions, and sad sex."


But the show doesn't seem that “skittish” about sex. It isn't pushed to the side. There is a lot of it and people talk a lot about it.


"It" meaning sex (didn't want to appear skittish).

Also, sadly even if you are having awesome sex, you can still get HPV and babies.

Oh My GOD! Did We Mention She Isn't Pretty??

People are tripping over themselves to mention Dunham's appearance.

Even though Dunham herself talks about how she deliberately chose for her character not to be glamorous, when other people comment, it just doesn’t feel nice.

Some people mention it and then "defend"/"praise" her for being "so real."

Which seems like it should be a compliment but it reads like "you are so brave for showing your horribly plain face on television."

THIS IS WHAT PROGRESS FOR WOMEN LOOKS LIKE!

Enough About "Girls." Ima Talk About Me For A While.

There were some articles where the writers just started talking about themselves.

Fascinating.

My favorite article was basically a journal entry complaining that he doesn't have a show. After he remarks that Dunham's sucess can be attributed soley to nepotism, he spends two paragraphs claiming how he is more deserving of a show.

WHO ARE YOU??!

In what other article would that be appropriate?

Op-Ed = Gospel Truth.

Again, I haven't seen the show. I'm not trying to defend the show or attack people who don't like the show. My issue is when huge generalizations are made about a show based on one episode.


Sure there hasn't been any character development  but that critique would hold a lot more weight after you watched the entire season. Most characters don't experience much character development after one episode. Maybe there is a story arc that reveals complexities and insights. Perhaps people's views change. WHO KNOWS!


Also, pundits and bloggers have really worked to blur the line between opinion and reporting. Opinions aren't facts. 


A lot of negative articles could be summarized thusly: "I did not like it- therefore it has failed as a show."

I don't like Entourage or Grey's Anatomy.

My solution?

Not to watch them. 

I could construct arguments about specific ideas and constructs within the show (The actions of "character" are misogynistic because of A, B, and C). But I can't just insist that it is bad (or good) because of my feelings. You can't argue that your opinion is correct.

De gustibus non est disputandum: you can’t dispute matters of taste.

BAM!

Latin.

Latin automatically makes everything in this article is authoritative and scholarly.

(also... zeitgeist)

Commercial artist and self-proclaimed "Painter of Light", Thomas Kinkade, died recently. He apparently led a rich life that included heckling Siegried & Roy and urinating on Winnie the Pooh at Disney World. Awesome stuff. The saga continues, however... 

Lindy West at Jezebel:

"At the time when he became suddenly and mysteriously dead (of Light), Kinkade, 54, was separated from his wife and living with another woman. Weirdly, those two ladies are not getting along...."

READ THE REST HERE!

*Picture from somethingawful.com. There is a whole archive of pictures like this.

WHAT DID TAYLOR SWIFT EVER DO TO YOU?

There is a movie coming out based on Sheila Weller’s book “Girls Like Us.” It is the story of Joni Mitchell, Carly Simon, and Carol King and the kickass stuff they did.

Taylor Swift is rumored to play Joni Mitchell and some people are FURIOUS.

My favorite article was titled “Taylor Swift to Potentially Ruin Another Thing.”

Strong words.

It is just a blurb but a paragraph is sufficient enough for this man to vent his horror and rage. 

The title of this article suggests that Swift has ruined other things. I don’t know what other things Taylor Swift has destroyed in her quest to ruin this man’s life. Her cover of "Lose Yourself?" Whatever it is, he has been profoundly affected by the actions of TSwift.

Joni Mitchell played a huge role in this man’s life. When he first heard the amazingness that is Joni he says it was “like some astral stranger crawling out of the speakers and wrapping you in a bittersweet embrace.”

That is a pretty intense reaction to have to something playing on the overhead speakers at Starbucks.

That kind of experience probably ranks up there with that time he was rocked by the genius of Maya Angelou. Sure it was just a quote on a coffee cup (but spiritual awakenings can happen anywhere!).

I'm not saying he is wrong to not like T Swizzle. 

It is okay to not like Taylor Swift.

While I cannot conceive of a reason you would hate this adorable angel child, you do have every right to hate her. 

That is your opinion and I can never take that away from you.

It is hilarious to me, however, that a 22 year old girl child can ruin your life (and all that you love) so easily. That her pretending to be Joni Mitchell would negate those powerful "emotional experiences" you had. 

If this is the case, biopics are probably destroying this man's life! ("Gandhi? Yeah, I used to be a fan-- until that jerk, Ben Kingsley, went and messed everything up. He ruined non-violence for me.")

He begrudgingly admits that Swift “writes fun pop songs and seems like a nice enough young lady” which is nice concession on his part. He stands his ground, though: “but Joni Mitchell she is not nor will ever be.” (*italics added to emphasize vehemence!)

To clarify, she will be pretending to be Joni Mitchell. It is not as if she will BECOME Joni Mitchell (the key is to eat her albums. Its how you gain her power!)

He then goes on to call her a “deer fetus” which, despite my affection for Taylor Swift, is pretty funny. 

I like it because it is so insanely absurd and because it doesn't quite work as an insult.

I understand how Taylor Swift could be thought of as a fragile adorable faun AND that she is young (ergo fetus). But for some reason the combination of these two insults doesn’t really make sense. What is he really insulting? The power of insults lay in their remarkable specificity. "Deer fetus" is more like a weird nickname your friend gives you.

He calls her an "1820s deer ghost" (hysterical!) in an earlier article, which is a slightly more effective insult.

You would think he could muster up something more scathing, though, for someone who is destroying everything he loves. 

He goes on: “Who is going to play Carly Simon, Selena Gomez?”

God, I hope so. 

Actually, no. I hope Taylor Swift plays ALL the parts (that would make him furious!).

Writer-man suggests Mia Wasikowska for the roll of Joni Mitchell because she is a good actress who looks like Joni Mitchell and MORE IMPORTANTLY she hasn’t ever released awesome songs about boyfriends and dreams! 

“Plus, (Mia Wasikowska) already played a character named Joni.”

How… is this a point?

If this were a standard by which we cast people in movies then, yes, Selena Gomez really would be a horrible choice for Carly Simon because clearly, that role would be destined for Miranda Cosgrove (that other Disney Channel superstar. She plays Carly on iCarly). 

(NOTE: No one age-appropriate has played a character named Carol- but I want them to cast Amandla Stenberg from “Hunger Games” because she is ADORABLE.)

Basically he is upset that Taylor Swift is popular and therefore couldn’t possibly portray the amazing genius of Joni Mitchell and everyone knows that all profound and meaningful music is locked away in the past where it is protected by nostalgia and fairies.

That isn’t to say Joni Mitchell’s music isn’t profound and meaningful. She was (and is) amazing. She was a voice of her generation.

You realize, though, if she debuted today, people would DESTROY her.

That same amazing music (that so affected everyone) would be picked apart by hordes of faceless critics who peddle their opinions as incontrovertible truths. 

When she sold her album in Starbucks, she would be crucified! Anything profound she had ever sung about would suddenly be derided as hypocritical and meaningless (because Starbucks is a huge fan of paving paradise and putting up parking lots).

And, if somehow, she overcame all those haters and became successful she would obviously be a sell-out because she had the gall to achieve mass appeal (and everyone knows that anything popular is garbage!).

And God help her if she had the audacity to consider a lead role in the “Taylor Swift” story.

Ugh, she would be such a deer fetus.

*PS: if you didn't click on that T Swizzle link... do it. It's not too late. 

A Call To Action!

Citizens of the world!! / the four people that read this blog.

I am calling for a temporary ban on portmanteaus!

(I know. This blog is so edgy!)

A portmanteau is a combination of two words to create a new word (ex. smog is a portmanteau of smoke and fog).

Portmanteaus can be awesome.

It has produced some ace words: brunch, cyborg, camcorder, and bootylicious.

Do you remember that dark time before 2001 when you would struggle to find the words to describe a ladies ass? We owe Destiny's Child so much.

Did you know Sony is actually a portmanteau? It is a combination between the latin "sonus" (meaning sound) and "sonny" which is slang for 'youngster.'

See, that is interesting!

Lately, however, this most wondrous literary device has been grossly overused. In order to preserve the noble legacy of the portmanteau, I think it needs to be temporarily retired.

Brangelina

I think it began with this.

At some point, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie merged to become this super-entity that would henceforth dominate tabloids and haunt Jennifer Aniston's career forever.

For some reason, even though everyone knew who Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were, this union so captured the public eye that someone decided that it needed its own name. The two individuals were absorbed into a much more powerful megabeing and "Brangelina" was spawned.

This insipid naming trend eventually lead to "Tomkat" (Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes) which just sounds stupid. "Tomkat" sounds like the name of a lesser known Thundercat. More than that, the name fails to capture the swirling crazy of this relationship.

The fad got better for a second when "Hunger Games" fans decided that Katniss and Peeta's couple name was Peeniss...

Ha ha.

Penis.

Bromance

Can this word die in a fire?

Dramedy

I think this word is misleading. Inevitably, it isn't a comedy at all. It is sad and there are some funny lines of dialogue.

There needs to be a new name for it.

Like, "Wes Anderson films."

Recession Slang

The amount of words that news outlets have invented (for no reason) is dizzying.

I know that when a huge snow storm is coming, throwing up "SNOWPOCALYPSE" on the screen is provocative (and more fun for the graphics department)- but is it necessary? Not really.

And whatever your opinion on economics right now, I feel like we can all agree it is a mess. There is a LOT going on. Global issues, gender inequality, racial tensions, and workers rights are ALL issues that are tied up with what is going on with the economy.

So, when you shorthand a massively complicated issues to something like "mancession", I can't help but think you might be leaving some things out. Follow it up with a "he-covery" (or "she-covery", depending on who you talk to) and I just want to push you off a cliff.

Remember "staycation?" If you can't afford a vacation this year, you could always take a "staycation!" So even if you are having to scrimp a little you can take a local trip! Or if you don't have a job-- just stay home!!

Ease the humiliation of unemployment with a "staycation." See- these troubling times aren't as bad as you think! With all these crazy perks, you hardly notice the widening gap between rich and poor.

And lastly, "funemployment" which is when you are unemployed and aren't trying to find a job. Not having a job isn't humiliating or degrading or depressing-- IT'S A PERMANENT WEEKEND! In some cases your amazing hedonistic lifestyle is being funded by government handouts and unemployment checks.

I can't fathom how creating a word that is a sideways way of calling people freeloading bums could lead to anger and resentment.

And I'm NOT saying that people who take advantage of the system don't exist.

Using that word to describe individual people (like your dead-beat roommate or any of the Kardashians) would be appropriate and descriptive.

When you use it in a news-cast or an article- it becomes a generalization. It blurs the lines and it makes it seem like a trend.

And sure- people who cheat the system and freeload are jerks.

But there are a LOT of unemployed people who are demoralized by not having a job and might resent you lumping them in with those freeloading jerks.

The portmanteau has become reductive.

I know portmanteaus are catchy and awesome and with so much information everywhere all the time- buzzwords make certain stories stand-out. In the long run, however, it isn't helpful. Taking incredibly emotional and complex issues and cramming them into one word is not only unnecessarily reductive, it can be misleading.

The english language is insanely massive (and awesome). There are enough words to talk about what is going on in a more frank and honest way.

So stop devaluing the portmanteau!

That is all.

(I think this movement is really going to catch on. What do you think?)