Hosanna Heysanna Sanna Sanna Ho

Do you have the album that you don't listen to for years, but when you pull out and give it a listen, you just are blown away at how awesome it is? Today I am listening to "Jesus Christ Superstar" and it is blowing. me. away.

This is not a post about criticism of "JSS" -- it's far from perfect. There are the clunkers, it's firmly in the seventies. It's a bit (a bit?!) melodramatic, but I adore it anyway. This post is not about who's the cooler Jesus (hint: not the "Godspell" one.) This is also not about what Andrew Lloyd Webber became (hint: bleh!) This is about stumbling upon things you love.

I love this album like one loves an old friend who stops by after being away for a few years. Admittedly, it's one of those friends who, after a while, you remember why it's been a few years. I'm sure I'll listen to this album for a day or two and then put it away for another couple of years. But when I listen to "JSS", I am pulled into it completely. Do I want to sing along at the top of my lungs, complete with diva poses, in the middle of this coffeehouse? Maybe. (hint: yes. Totally.)

I am listening to this on headphones and I am picking up little things I never heard listening to it on my parents' old victrola. Today I am hearing the sadness in Jesus' voice. He knows he's doomed, but he's not telling anyone. He's marching into town, pushing himself to sing "Hosanna" with a forced joy that isn't there, but he's got to keep the crowd into it. He's tired, everyone is telling him how to do his job, he's literally begging for his life. It's not a good week for the guy. You almost get the feeling that he hands himself over to Pilate to just end all this craziness. He just wants it over.

When I listen to albums I've ignored, I realize I need to dig deeper in my music collection. Tomorrow I'll pull out another album that I've forgotten about. But today, it's back to "What's the buzz..."

P.S. Dear stoned guy singing back-up -- I kind of love you!

Shut up, Phil Collins

A few days ago, Phil Collins announced his retirement from music. To which I say: really? I am not here to bash Phil Collins (as I have done this previously) (although I probably will), nor to question his music choices/"artistic" direction, but I do have to wonder the purpose of this announcement, because I have a few question for Mr. Collins.

What, exactly does he mean by "retiring" from music? I get that the drumming thing is not a good idea these days, but he's probably as well known for being a singer. He is a songwriter. (Now, now, we're not here to bash his work. Please save your comments for the end.) Does this mean he won't sing or write? At all? No tribute concerts for the Queen, no reunion tours? Where is the line? How do you retire from art except not do it anymore? Does this mean no "Happy Birthday" at his kid's parties?

I call bullshit on this statement. If he's any sort of artist, it'll pull him back. If he can walk away from music completely, well, then it's just a job for him, and he needs to get over people bashing him for selling out. Because if he feels nothing grabbing him and getting him to create, even if it's just in his basement, then he did sell out. He did it for the money. There's nothing wrong with that. He made buckets of money, so he knows what we want (or what we wanted in the eighties.) But don't tell me you did it for the love of the music, then just put it on the shelf one day.

Here's another question: didn't he just release an album? (He did: late September this year.) That's less than six months ago. He was that drawn to music less than a year ago that he made a whole album and now he's done? That smells funny. Could this, just possibly, be a grab at publicity/bump in sales or even a bit of a pity party? This just feels like a "if you don't start paying attention to me, I'm taking my ball and going home!" sort of thing. Like he put it out there so that all these newspapers, radio stations, artists, whatever, would be all,"No Phil, no! We can't lose you! You're too important and super relevant with your note-by-note covers of Motown songs!" I'll bet he was a bit shocked when people actually started bashing him. (Note: I just read that this retirement is a "false alarm." I'm sure that he and his publicist are so very happy that they've gotten a few more days of media coverage.)

I really do hate what Phil Collins has become. In the eighties, sure, I was a big fan. Yeah, I always do the drum solo from "In the Air Tonight" -- I'm only human! I have a weird love of pop music. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing it for money. Really. If you have the magic for a few years, take what you can. But you have to understand that this run rarely lasts, so just sit on your stack of cash and enjoy yourself. Do things you love, but don't get all upset when the rest of us don't appreciate it. It's okay. But you need to accept that your career peaked over 20 years ago, and you won't be getting the spotlight as much. Just do what you love and count your blessings that you have the money to have this freedom. And, seriously, shut up!

Breaking up with Starbucks

Dear Starbucks,

I know we've been seeing each other for a couple of years, but it’s official: today I’m breaking up with you. I’ve tried to be patient, I thought we could work out our issues, but, frankly, there are other fish in the sea.

There are so many little reasons. I hate to point to the physical, but the truth is that you’re a bit too old. You don’t have outlets for my computer and your set-up is so open, noise just bounces around. I can live with the coffee shop-type noises, but when you have to run the vacuum cleaner for a half hour when I was hoping to get some writing done, I get a bit cranky.

Your slow customer service just confuses me. I see five people running around behind the counter, but there’s only one person who seems to actually be taking orders and serving coffee. Perhaps that long line feeds your ego of being needed but it works my last nerve. 

I’ve had it with the internet that doesn’t seem to work. And when it does, it’s so slow, it takes me back to the days of dial-up. Yes, I like reminiscing about old times as much as the next girl, but there are things I don’t mind moving past. And then to add insult to injury, you’re kicking me off after an hour? That just hurts!

I see so many other beauties around: the local coffee shop, Panera, even Dunkin Donuts. Better food, better service, a dependable internet connection. I'm a simple girl with simple needs. Why should I let you continue to hurt me? No, I will seek out a new place to squat for a few hours and nurse a cup of coffee.

I'll admit that there will most likely be moments of weakness when I come back to you or visit an attractive cousin of yours. I may try to revisit the old times, but I do want to make it clear that it really will never be the same between us. I am seeing other places and I may not come back at all.

Yes, Starbucks, it is time to move on. I will miss your overly hot coffee but we need our space.

Sadly,
Angie

Girl in the Bubble

Maybe I've been lucky. Maybe I've managed to dodge bullets. But it seems as if my friends and family have managed to not have serious problems in their lives. Sure, there have been the blips along the road, but no serious addictions or depressions or anything like that.

At least none that I know about.

I suppose this shows how lucky I've been, at least that's what I always used to tell myself. As I get older,  I'm beginning to believe that I don't hear these stories because people are afraid that I can't handle it or that I won't help. I hate to think that I have that barrier around me. Or that I wasn't strong enough to help you handle some of your burden.

I am seeing, more and more, how much so many people go through. I like to pretend I don't know anyone who has been raped or has serious suicidal thoughts or a secret so deep and awful they can barely say it out loud, but I know that simply can't be true. My problems tend to be of the "I really wanted the black ipod but all they had was the silver, so should I wait until they get the black ones or is the silver one really going to be alright" variety. I'm sure that's a part of it. How could I possibly understand a real problem when mine are so vanilla?

I hope that if someone comes to me, I can be strong for them. I know I can. Maybe I haven't felt what they have or gone through the fires they have, but I will be here for them. I don't want the people I care about to hold me at arms length or protect me. You can show me your flaws or your scars, and I will still love you.

I suppose this is a letter to all of those I haven't been there for. Maybe neither one of us was aware that this was happening. I am so sorry.

To my friends: I am here for you. Absolutely. Without judgment. And I am sorry if you ever felt I couldn't be.

Demanding less

The other day it snowed again up north and, once again, school was closed. Apparently, most of the school systems are out of snow days, so the kids might have to go into the summer. On facebook, moms start writing in, saying they hope the governor swoops in and changes the law. In other words, they actually want their kids to have less school then what they are supposed to have.

This confuses me. Look, I get kids not loving the school year being extended, but when the parents are writing things like "If they make my kids go, I'll keep them home sick," I just don't get it. If the governor was going to cut the music program or one of the sports, I'm sure the parents would be going crazy, but the idea of keeping the mandated number of school days intact is somehow unacceptable. I actually asked some of them to explain and I got the usual "stop and smell the roses" responses. To which, I roll my eyes.

I'm not saying one day makes a difference, but kids interpret things in weird ways. You make a big fuss over a day of school (which is not an *extra* day, but the proper number of days) and the kid might start thinking that there's something acceptable about cutting corners. Or not doing what you're told. Why should they take out the garbage; mommy doesn't follow the rules either! Okay, that's a bit melodramatic and probably too far, but I think it's a bit far to ask the governor to change the law so that your kid gets to stay home an extra day.

When I was teaching, the chair of my department used to say that education was the only service where the consumer demands less. Kids want less homework, easier tests, but they're kids. I like to think that they don't really know better. I'd like to think that if we had it to do again we'd push ourselves more and appreciate the opportunities to learn. But I can see, it's probably not true. And that kind of makes me a bit sad.

You are misplacing your John Hughes love (here's why)

Let me start out by saying this is not about dissing John Hughes. I was a teenager in the '80s; these movies are right up my alley. I remember seeing "Sixteen Candles" with my whole family and we all loved it. To this day, it's one of my favorite John Hughes movies (although not my favorite: I'll tell you in a bit.) There are moments in many of his movies that we all can related to or that just simply make us laugh out loud. But seeing his tribute at the Oscars, I realize I have some issues with the whole "John-Hughes-is-a-god" thing.

Most of my issues with John Hughes come out of "The Breakfast Club" and "Ferris Bueller's Day Off." I liked both of these movies when they came out, but I have big problems with both of them.

First, "Ferris Bueller." Yes, it's charming (but you have to put most of that with Matthew Broderick's performance rather than the story itself). Yes, it's funny (but, be honest, there are places in the movie that kind of drag.) It's really just an okay movie. It's got great moments but, overall: meh. Step back and really look at the movie as a whole. Don't give me a scene or a moment or a funny quote; look at the whole thing. For me, it's a pleasant little movie good for some laughs. And the 40-somethings who are still wanting to be Ferris: please stop. No, seriously. IBecause Ferris, he's a bit self-centered and spoiled. And sure he's fun for one day off on a beautiful spring day in high school, but he'd probably work your last nerve as a coworker.

And now "The Breakfast Club." Look, I know you love it. To you, this is the ultimate teen film; this was your high school. But hear me out for a few minutes. The big idea behind this movie is that we're classified in these boxes and everyone around us (especially the adults) has expectations/sterotypes based on the box we've been put in. And there's this feeling that at the end of the day, these kids learn to see past this. They are above it. And I could almost buy it. Well, except they have "The Brain" write the assigned composition for all of them. And they sell that idea by having the popular, pretty girl bat her eyes at him to do it. "The Criminal" gets "The Princess" to go out with him by convincing her it'll piss of her parents, not because he has something inside of him worth knowing. (And please don't get me started on how he abuses her throughout the film, and she is still somehow attracted to him.) Yes, "The Athlete" will date "The Headcase", but only after she converts herself to be like "The Princess." To me, that's not a very enlightened group of kids. It's not a group of kids I even really want to know.

And then there's the whole "Adults are Stoopid" storyline. This is, of course, in contrast to the enlightened teenagers. Sure, when I was a teenager, I was all "Parents just don't understand!" I get that. And the adults in this movie, as described by the kids, they really do suck. Vernon's awful, and the parents range from self-absorbed to abusive. We don't actually see much of any adult besides Vernon and the janitor (the one "cool" adult in the film), so are the teenagers any better at seeing beyond the surface than the adults are? "When you grow up, your heart dies." Do we really believe that? Do we really look at these kids and think that they are really living while adults are not? I don't see these kids having dreams or desires that they're not able to accomplish because the adults are holding them back.

I just don't like the kids in "The Breakfast Club." Brian and Allison are okay (although I kind of like her more when she's acting all crazy: stealing wallets and making up lies about her affair with her psychiatrist), but Claire and Andrew are jerks (although at least Claire is honest about being a jerk. She's given grief for it, but I always admired her for saying that, come Monday morning, she will probably be ignoring the kids that weren't in her circle.) And Bender is just an abusive asshole.

To me "The Breakfast Club" is a waste because John Hughes steps away from the thing he does the best: family dynamics. Let's go back to "Sixteen Candles." It's got all the stuff to make a great teen comedy: the geek, the good-looking guy who has a good heart as well, the pretty, shallow people, the kid with a vaguely dirty name, the "average" girl who gets the guy in the end: all good stuff. But what elevates it beyond a teen comedy is the family element of the movie. The bratty brother, the crazy grandparents, the self-centered older sister, these are the things that give the movie that added dimension. My favorite scene in "Sixteen Candles" comes near the end when Samantha's father comes to her as she is trying to sleep on the couch. He has realized that they have forgotten her birthday and he wants to apologize. But he also wants to tell her that he knows she's got a good head on her shoulders and how much he loves her. More than anything else he could have bought, this is the best gift she could get on her birthday. Even at the end, when she gets the guy, as she's walking off, she gets her dad's attention so he knows, yes, this is the guy.

Which brings me to my favorite John Hughes movie: "Uncle Buck." No, really. This is the movie that nails that family dynamic thing I love so much. John Candy is Uncle Buck who is called on to babysit for his two neices (16 and 6) and nephew (8, played by a pre-"Home Alone" Macaulay Culkin) when the parents are called away on a medical emergency. They've just moved and they know no one else, so they have to turn to Uncle Buck, despite their misgivings about him. John Candy plays that typical John Candy character: kind of a slob, kind of irresponsible, but, at the core, lovable and trying his hardest. He's not the babysitter that his sister-in-law wants, but she doesn't have any other choice.

The family is the story: a mom and a teenage daughter who are so angry at each other, they don't even remember all of the reasons, two younger siblings who are just trying to keep out of the way, a brother-in-law/uncle who knows that he's not really in anyone's favorite but he'll be trying his best, a father just trying to pull it together.

What elevates this movie above "oh-that-wacky-Uncle-Buck" is that every character has more going on then the surface. Uncle Buck may be the black sheep of the family, but he's trying to be a better guy. He's got a decent job and he's trying to decide what to do about his long-time girlfriend who is waiting for hi to grow up. Tia's not just an angry teenager but also an older sister, Maizy is the cute 6-year-old but she's struggling in school. There's a wonderful scene where the two younger kids wake up to find their parents gone and a strange, large man making something for breakfast. "He's cooking our garbage!" Macauley Caulkin gasps in horror. And Tia, instead of simply pouting and resenting her parents, resenting that they left her with this strange guy and two little kids, reaches for the cereal bowls and just starts to make them breakfast, the kind they know and want. Sure, she's pissed off but she knows how to take care of her siblings and she knows she had to be some sort of stabilizing force. Because that's how families are. We may be annoyed at each other, you might be pissing me off, but I know that you want ketchup with your eggs and you shouldn't be wearing that sweater but borrowing my red one instead.

Buck also sees things that someone in the middle of the family drama might ignore. He sees that Tia is about to make a Very Big Mistake with a boy (named Bug. No, really.) He defends Maizy's behavior at school, with this lovely little speech: "I don't think I want to know a six-year-old who isn't a dreamer, or a sillyheart. And I sure don't want to know one who takes their student career seriously. I don't have a college degree. I don't even have a job. But I know a good kid when I see one. Because they're ALL good kids, until dried-out, brain-dead skags like you drag them down and convince them they're no good. You so much as scowl at my niece, or any other kid in this school, and I hear about it, and I'm coming looking for you!"

At the end of the movie, Buck's grown up a bit. He looks at the family he's been thrown into and starts to think, "hey, maybe I should get one of these for myself." The rest of the family has learned that despite their differences and conflicts, they're a family (including Buck) and that's enough. I realize that it's not much of a plot, but it doesn't matter. You've gotten to know this family, seen it change, and that's all you need. And these characters are real, as are the relationships between them.

John Hughes was a great story-teller, but I get frustrated when people point to his high school movies as evidence of his talent because his best stuff was about families. And that's where my John Hughes love is hanging.

Saturday morning

This morning. It is not as quiet as you would expect: the weather is changing and the wind is blowing back. Maybe the wind doesn't want the weather to go back to winter, but the spring we had the past few days, it's too early. The spring needs to go back to where it belongs: a month or two from now. But the wind blows, causing the house to creak, occasionally hard enough that the kitty and I look at the windows in alarm. "It's not coming in here?" Murray asks. I reassure him and he goes back to sleep.

I am catching up on email, facebook, the sort of thing you do on a Saturday morning. I am typing an email and I keep making the same typo, three, four times. "'of' not 'if'!" I hiss to the keyboard, as if it's his fault. He looks at me smugly. I'm sure it's thinking, "Learn how to type and stop hitting me so hard."

I drink my coffee, I flit between websites. I have three windows open -- I lack the patience to type in each site and wait for it to load. Flit, flit, write, flit. I suppose you've just learn a bit about how my mind works: it jumps around, looking for something to grab its attention, but then on to the next sparkly thing. I am trying to clean out my inbox: catching up on Writer's Almanac, placing orders before the emailed promotion codes expire (although there's always another one, isn't there?)

The sky is so blue this morning. The wind keeps setting off the light with the motion detector. There are two fat doves on my deck, cleaning each other, but the kitty doesn't have the energy to disturb them. He has his eyes on them, but he's too comfortable to go to the window and greet them.

Perfect Saturday.

Dorking out in DC

When I drive to the airport (Reagan National), I pass the Washington Monument and the Jefferson Memorial. And every single time, I catch my breath and go, "Wow!" Every single time. I have to fight the impulse to stop the car and take a picture, like some crazy tourist. "Look, it's the Washington Monument, kids! Take in all that history!" You're probably cooler than me, but I love that I live in a place where stuff like this is all around.

About 20 years ago, shortly after I moved to the Philadelphia area, I went with a friend to a movie downtown. He had grown up in the Philadelphia area, and he drove. We parked on the street, and it turned out we had parked right in front of Independence Hall! Independence Hall! I started completely dorking out, and he just didn't get it. "Independence Hall!" I declared, pointing. He was still confused. I explained further. "Independence Hall!" He shrugged, so I just whispered to myself. "Independence Hall! Wow!"

I thought this excitement would go away. I thought I'd get used to seeing places that some people travel to visit, but it's never gone away. I've lived in the DC area for over 2 years (not to mention the many visits I had before I moved down), and I still want to take a picture every time I see the White House or one of the monuments. Because, you know, they change a lot. And nothing says "I will torture you with pictures" than having the same shot 371 times. ("That's the Washington Monument in, let's see, oh, yes, October 2010. Or maybe June 1998.") So, I fight that impulse, but inside, I am am swooning. Because, guys, it's the Washington Monument!

Note to readers: I've posted twice today, so please scroll down. It's a crazy day!

How to report story on NPR

I used to listen to NPR all the time when I had to drive to work, but now, with walking to work and no commute in the car, I only catch it now and again. Is it me, or does every non-US-based NPR story sound the same? Maybe because I've been away, I'm noticing this more, but it's really bothering me.

Here's a the story on NPR:

• Brief introduction by host of show. 
• Taped story begins with an introduction by feature reporter: usually a sentence about someone specifically affected by events. Pause in the talking.
• Some "atmospheric" sound: gates clanking shut, people at the market, etc. (An aside: when I'm listening in the car and they have those traffic sounds with sirens, it really freaks me out. Does it occur to anyway at NPR that some of us are listening while driving and when we hear a siren, our first reaction is not "wow, that is really adding a lot to this segment on strife in India!"?)
• Reporter starts discussing the actual story.
• Reporter introduces someone actually affected by story.
• The affected person starts talking. This person rarely speaks English. I'm not being an ugly American here. I get that not everyone speaks English. But, really, do I need to hear this guy go on for a while before the translator kicks in? And can't we just have the translator? 
• Reporter continues the story. Unfortunately, as so much time has been spent with "atmosphere", the story is often incomplete. 
• Story ends with no resolution.

I love NPR, I really do. It would be a shame if it went away or if the funding was significantly cut. And maybe it's just me. Maybe other people like when they hear horns honking and a guy going on and on in Egyptian. Maybe they feel it adds flavor. But I just wish they didn't all follow this pattern. I feel like they are spending too much time with style and not enough with the actual news. If you're reporting from the farmer's market in a small town in Africa, I can imagine the sounds and it's a pretty safe bet that anyone being interviewed is talking through a translator. Let's get to the story. And maybe then we'll have time for more information.

Bear with me here

I get that advertising is supposed to get your attention and make you want to act, whether you buy a new car or try a different brand of toothpaste. And, although I never want a webpage plastered with a bunch of ads, I know they need to pay the bills, and the box on the side where yahoo puts an ad when I go to my.yahoo is just about right. Big enough that I don't miss it but, generally, not in the way or bothersome. It often taps into what I've been up to (I get the ebags ads for a few days after I've been on that site trying to find that perfect purse; I get the DC Living Social ads which always feature cupcakes and spa treatments -- smart moves.) However, the other day one popped up that just really got me upset.

I'm at my.yahoo, and up pops this picture of a bear. With a hook in its lip. A hook in its lip! It was not pretty. In fact, it turned my stomach (it didn't help I was reading over lunch). No surprise, it was an ad for an animal rights group (WSPA, to be specific.) Now this is not to say we shouldn't protect our furry friends, but this is not the way to do it. I felt assaulted. It was too far. It was "if you don't buy Girl Scout cookies, you must hate all children!" Which, no, I just don't need to see a gross-out picture of a bear with a hook when I go to check my news and email.

On a purely esthetic point of view, it just was gross. Obviously, yahoo knows a bit about me as the ads are specific on some level, so they know I am an adult, but what if I was letting my nephew use my computer for a bit? This was not appropriate for kids (I know if I had seen this image when I was 7, well, you'd be looking at a week of nightmares.) My.yahoo is my homepage, so I see it all the time. I don't want the bear!

The thing is, that ad kept popping up. I finally wrote in and said that I thought this ad was offensive and that I would never send this group (WSPA, just to remind you) a dime. (I do believe in supporting animal causes: see the bottom of this post for details.) It still pops up and I write in every time. I'm sure I'm on some "Hater of Animals" list, but, for now, this is the battle I'm fighting. No more bear!

I have to say, I'm not sure the bears are helping. I get using puppies and kittens. I actually cry over those commercials with Sarah McLachlan singing. (I know, you're wondering how this is different? In some ways it's not, but maybe I except a certain amount of assault on my senses when I watch tv, and I can always close my eyes until Sarah is done singing.) But bears? Apparently, the WSPA is known for bears (something called bear baiting? Yeah, it's a thing. Henry the Eighth was into it, so right there, you already know it's a bit off.) I'm not saying we shouldn't protect the bears, but I am saying that there's animals closer to home that need our help.

I'm not sure my point in all this. How's this: if you have a few bucks for animals, don't support WSPA but rather, support your local animal shelter. If you don't want to throw the money locally, I have it from a good source that this place does good work: http://monmouthcountyspca.org/support/donate/.

The desperation in the back of the pantry

Sometimes you just want something sweet. I try to keep the sweets I have in the house to a minimum because, yes, I will eat them. Is a stack of graham crackers the healthiest dinner? No, of course, not, but sometimes it's what a body wants. I have found that only one thing will trump the sugar craving: laziness. I generally will not leave the house, even for a sugary treat, which leads to the following pattern:
Tummy: Sugar, please!
Brain: No.
Tummy: Please pleaseplease please
Brain: I said, no.
Tummy: Sugar sugar sugar sugar sugarsugar
Brain (disgusted): Fine, go get some sugar!
After a few moments of searching: Tummy (whining): No sugar in the house!
Brain harrumphs in triumph.

Then I remembered: I had some Poptarts. At least I was pretty sure I did. I'd have to check. Yes! in the back of the cupboard. It wasn't perfection: these were whole grain and not a chocolate variety, but they would do. Into the toaster and time to snack! Tummy says, I win!

The Poptart was oddly unsatisfying. Yes, I do understand that it's just a Poptart, therefore the bar is already pretty low. Even by this standard, the Poptart was not pleasing me. But at least Tummy has stopped shouting for sugar, and now Brain has the extra argument that, clearly, Tummy doesn't really know what it wants. But it still bothered me. Poptart, why did you let me down? There had to be more to this lack of snack satisfaction. Tummy couldn't stand to have Brain win so easily. Let's check the box.

I see the expiration date: "Better by Dec 04 09." No that's not a typo. 09! I didn't think they'd be near that old. For a moment I panicked: I thought that the date was later then when I had moved. Had I actually moved out-of-date Poptarts? No, I moved in August 2009; these were still good when I moved. No, they were "better." I wondered about the use of "better'? Were they really any better a year and a half ago? I doubt it. There's a reason they've lasted this long with Tummy in the house. Nonetheless, we're not going back in time to have that taste test.

I suppose the lesson in all of this is this: if you're getting Poptarts, you should always get the chocolate ones.

There's no suck in success

Are you successful? Do you ever think about it? Do you even have a definition? Do you need a definition? Is it like porn, you'll know it when you see it? I've been discussing this with a friend these past few days, and it's making me ponder.

Obviously, how happy you are with your life is related to how successful you view yourself. But does happiness = success? I don't think it's that simple. There are people I would say are happy but aren't terribly successful and there are some very successful folks who probably could be happier but are choosing to go after a form of success, whether it be money or power. I can't say why I feel that way. It may have to due with my personal definition of success. We can all agree that money alone doesn't equal success but it sure as hell helps one feel more successful.

I think there is an external component to success. I think that might be the difference for me: happiness is more internal and personal, whereas success is partially a reflection from others. The good news is that you get to choose your audience. Maybe you only really care what your friends and family think, maybe you want to be the best in your chosen field, maybe you want to be world-famous! I know writers who would rather have a small, loyal audience who truly gets their work rather than write a "Twilight." This is why a pat on the back at work makes me feel successful while eating a hot fudge sundae makes me happy. Both of these things are good things and I wouldn't take one over the other, but they are different.

There is a certain amount of who-cares to this question. Should you put your life up against some unknown yardstick? Is there a list where you have to check off all those tasks? How much do you need "success" if you feel you are happy? Maybe the minute you start thinking success doesn't matter is when you actually are successful? When you give back the everlasting gobstopper, you get the keys to the whole factory.

Shut up, Ryan Murphy

I suppose you've heard about the whole Kings of Leon/Glee/Ryan Murphy thing. If you haven't, the quick story is that Ryan Murphy wanted to use a Kings of Leon song on "Glee," they said no, and Ryan Murphy went off. Ryan Murphy made it all about his needs. Somehow wanting to control your art became about hating on arts education. Because apparently, watching "Glee" is the only way kids would learn about music and want to pick up an instrument or join a glee club (which may be a bit of a shock all those musicians who existed before May of 2009). And Kings of Leon are "assholes" (classy, Ryan, real classy.)


I understand why Kings of Leon aren't just handing over their songs. Isn't this the point of copyright, to give the artist some control, at least for a while? I'm not sure about the actual contract "Glee" puts out there for songs and how much control the artist has once they've signed them over, but I'm guessing that the song comes before the script is completed, before they know who's singing and in what part of the story. I'm also guessing that the amount of control an artist has is proportional to their fame; in other words, if Madonna demands that Rachel sings a certain song, they agree, but Kings of Leon don't have that sort of power. So if "Glee" decides he wants to use the song for Will to sing about his latest trip to the potty, I'm thinking Kings of Leon would just have to suck it up. And maybe they didn't want to take that risk.


Maybe Kings of Leon have a vision for their songs that does not include an arrangement with four-part harmony and a solo by Artie. Maybe the song has some special meaning and they want to hold it tight to them. Maybe they (gasp!) don't like "Glee" (I certainly have had issues with the show.) The bottom line is that Kings of Leon can do whatever they darn well please with their music and their songs. If they want to just play them in the basement with a few friends listening in, guess what, Ryan? They don't need your blessing. And it doesn't make them "assholes" or haters of music education.


(An aside to Ryan: if you're looking to reach out to that 7-year-old kid, lighten up on some of the sex in the show. I'm not a prude but, seriously, if you're going for the early-grade-school audience, a little less pep-rally masturbation might be in order.)


It's not always about how many people hear the song. Most of us can sing the State Farm jingle: it doesn't mean that it's good music. I'm also guessing that the State Farm jingle hasn't inspired a lot of kids to become musicians. Sometimes exposure does not equal inspiration. As Brian Eno once said, "the first Velvet Underground album only sold 10,000 copies, but everyone who bought it formed a band."

Kings of Leon are not telling Ryan Murphy how to run his show. They're just not letting Ryan use a song, that they created and they care about. Ryan needs to shut about about how Kings of Leon run their band. It's not for him to judge.

I gotta stop pretending who we are

Last night we watched "Speak" which was an interesting movie based on the book of the same name. You can look up the details, but, briefly, it's a story of a girl who is date-raped shortly before starting high school and how she deals (or doesn't) with it. What it stirred in me actually surprised me.

Now, before you worry, nothing like date-rape happened to me. I had a fairly ordinary high school experience, no major traumas there. Last night, I dreamt about high school. I dreamt about being a freshman again. It was one of those dreams that felt so real you wake up confused for a moment, wondering whether you are in "real life" now, or did you just wake up from the real real life. In my dream, I was a freshman again, walking through the halls, watching my fellow students. Those feelings from back then, they were in that dream, as real as they were back then. The upper classmen seemed so much older than me, so mature, so together. I was still a kid, trying to figure things out. They wore their make-up with confidence, they dressed liked they knew what they were doing, not like their moms had picked their clothes. I know now that this wasn't the case, that they probably weren't as together as they looked to me, but back then, I was in awe of them. They were like rockstars to me. They were more important than celebrities. They had their friends, their cliques, their private jokes. I wondered if I'd ever be like that.

Last night, I was there again. It wasn't any specific incident or real memory, but the feel of that first year of high school, it was there, so pure and real. I felt that electric buzz of tension running through me, a constant, like a buzzing you hardly notice until it stops and you notice the quiet, the void it's left. this tension wasn't a bad thing, but it wasn't exactly pleasant. I suppose back then I thought of it as excitement, but the reality was I was afraid. I was afraid that I would be found out. I was trying to reinvent myself,  I was trying to grow up, most of all, I was trying to shred what I was when I was in seventh grade, and I was afraid that someone would see the truth. That someone would pull me back.

I tell myself we all felt that way, but that can't be true. There had to be some who just knew, who were the real cool kids. The kids who had figured out who they were and where they wanted to be and just accepted it. And I got there, on some level. Yeah, I still get those moments where I'm afraid of being exposed, but don't we all? It's just no longer always there. It's just moments, and I can handle those. And I'm glad I'm awake.

This. Is. American. Idol!

I don't want my "American Idol" kinder and gentler. No sir, I do not. I want it in your face. I want the judges to tell the kids that they just aren't cutting it. I don't care about the crazies who are dressed up for airtime and go on fake rants against Simon (or whatever judge they will chose this year [probably J-Lo, as Steven might actually kick your ass]), practically winking at the camera. I want the judges to go off on those kids who sing for Mom and are told by their best friend, "oh, you totally have the best voice and should go on 'American Idol' and then we'd be rich and tour Europe and maybe Brad will ask you out." They need to be told the truth. That it's not easy. That there are thousands of kids which talent out there and most of them will have to be satisfied with being the lead in their high school musical and that will be their "glory days." That it's not simply about showing up.

There is a group of kids (a much larger group than we see on tv because they're not as funny as the crazies) who just expect this fame to be handed to them. That will never happen. You have to work. You have to take lessons and sign up for that mediocre group and play that coffee house and do whatever it takes. Last season on "Project Runway" one of the contestants said to the others, "This is not a hobby." and it isn't, if you do it right. Check out every one of the winners of American Idol: they all had some sort of a music background before the show. They took lessons, they toured with smaller acts. They weren't singing in the shower and then decided one day, "hey, I could do this as a career! Thank goodness that 'American Idol' audition is next week!" They were in there already, looking for whatever break they could find.

I hope that J-Lo gives it to them. Sure, it's easy to make fun of "Jenny from the Block" but the reality is she worked it: she saved for singing and dance lessons, she was a Fly Girl, she took whatever break she could find. I want the judges to ask the kids who are clearly unprepared what they do. What lessons do they take, what bands are they in, how many gigs they had last year? The kids at home have to see it as well. They have to see that you can have dreams but you also need to work for them.

It's one of the things I like about "So You Think You Can Dance." The judges will tell the kids that they're not ready. They will grill the kids who have obviously been only dancing for fun in their basement: what lessons have you taken, how many hours do you practice? But they will also tell the kids  with obvious talent that they should study more and come back the next year. And then again the next year if they're still not ready. If you watch the audition part of the show, they always show people who didn't make it one year and now this next  year, they got further. It's actually quite inspiring. There will be a street dancer who only knew his style last year, coming back after a year of lessons and kicking it on a tango. Even the judges get teary-eyed.

You should have dreams. You should have goals. But no one should expect that you wake up one day with those dreams handed to you, like you just won keys to a car. You have to eat the elephant.

Golden slumbers

Awards season is truly kicking off with the Golden Globes tonight. I like the Globes: you get movies and television and you get that slightly-off European sensibility and the stars get to drink. It's a good mix, pretty much guaranteed to be at least somewhat entertaining. That all said, I'm already exhausted by "Awards Season."

(A side note: it's kind of weird that we watch these, right? We certainly don't watch other industries give themselves prizes. But this is, like, news. We have parties around these shows.)

The problem with the awards season is that it just simply goes on way too long. Oscar nominations aren't even out and I'm already a bit tired of the whole thing. I can only imagine how the actual nominees feel. There's a few groups of nominees: the "of-course-they're-nominated", the group that rounds out the nominations but won't win, the surprise nominee group. Some categories are wide open, which at least makes it interesting, but a lot of the categories have the same group and the same winner. Maybe it might go back and forth between a couple of nominees, but the rest have to sit there, politely clapping and smiling, saying that it's an honor to just be nominated, but knowing that next weekend, it's another dress, another walk down that carpet, another interview that will be forgotten.

It's almost worst for the slamdunk winners. Last year, it was Mo'nique and Jeff Bridges and Christoph Waltz, having to go to every show and pretend that they weren't sure if they'd win or not. They had to be grateful and act a bit surprised and come with another speech that had to be more moving or funnier or deeper than the one they gave at the other ceremony. They had to be sure they didn't forget to thank someone and they had to wear things that wouldn't look awful when their picture was in the papers. And I'm sure there was that dreadful moment where they were just hoping that the big awards wouldn't be when that big upset occurred. "...and the Oscar goes to..." Hold your breath.

I will be watching tonight. I'll be hoping for some upsets and I'll be checking out the dresses. I'll hope for good speeches and interesting winners. But I'll be glad when the Oscars are over and the season is done.

Mop and Glower

When I'm upset, I clean. To be clear, it's not the only thing I do when I'm upset, and I don't have to be upset to clean (although, looking around my house, you might think I'm the happiest person in the world.) But I have found that when I'm upset about something, cleaning up is amazing therapy.

I'm not sure how old I was when I discovered this, but I do remember cleaning my closet in my bedroom in Toledo when I got angry as a kid. When I was too frustrated/mad/full of something to do anything productive, but I had to work off some of the adrenaline or whatever I had that was burning inside of me, I could always just start emptying out my closet. It was a pretty good bet that the shoes were in a pile, unmatched; there would be clothes on the floor from poor hanging jobs; my boxes of toys and other paraphernalia, a earlier attempt at organization, had just become a jumble. No matter, I had fury to burn off -- it was all coming OUT of that closet!

It felt great, just pulling things out. No thinking, just doing. When I was most upset, I had the shoes to toss about, which were pretty resistant to any mood, and then I could go from there. I was rarely bothered by my parents during this: what parent is going to stop their kid from cleaning out their closet? This was my time to get it all out, and it seemed like I had so much in there. My closet ran a little ways off to the side behind the wall, so it was alway surprising how much stuff I pulled out. But there it all was, taking over the floorspace in my room.

It always seemed to work out: that burst of angry energy was always just about the right amount to clear that closet out. And then began the task of putting it all back. Putting everything back gave my mind something else to do about rather than ponder the great wrong that had lead to this empty closet. I had shoes to find and match up, boxes to sort, clothes that needed to be re-ironed or handed down to my sister. I had to decide if I wanted an different system of organization. I had to reread all those letters, assess all those treasures.

I can't say that having a clean closet always offset what I was feeling, but it did make me feel better, looking at my latest attempt at organization. I may have been wronged in a way that no other human being in the history of the world has ever known, but, despite it all, my closet was clean. I could face another day.

I suppose it could be worse. That said, don't judge my mood by the amount of clutter on my desk.

Saints be praised!

This year's advent calendar featured saints. Every day we opened one of those little doors and got a piece of artwork that has a picture of a saint. I was surprised but there were a handful I had never heard of. Weird names that belong to no one. I wondered how that happened, how some names disappear.

I grew up Catholic, so I couldn't help but stumble upon the various saints. The local churches and private schools, most of them had saint's names: Saint Francis, Saint Ursula, Saint Pius. (Did you know there are three Saint Adalbert's? How can that be?) In junior high, I went through confirmation when I got to pick my own saint and add another name to my given name. I was given a small book with the stories behind some of the saints (a Catholic Top-10, perhaps?) and I picked Agnes, mostly because her picture was so pretty. (Don't judge me; I know people who picked their saint because their other names fit together so nicely or the saint had a name they would rather have than their given name. We were in junior high; we shouldn't have been trusted to pick saints that had any actual meaning for us.)

The saints are a wacky bunch. They hear voices, they tend to die in awful ways (I read about one that was killed by stones placed one at a time on top of her breaking her back, then, finally, crushing her to death. There's another one who carved "Jesus" into her arm) Some of them just seem to do good deeds, which is admirable, but seems to be much easier that being burnt at the stake for your beliefs.

It seems like certain saints are around more than others; you see a lot of Saint Theresa and Saint Francis. Even non-Catholics will bury a Saint Joseph to try to sell their house. You also know people with names of saints. You might not know what Saint Maraget is about, but you know that there was a Saint Margaret (in fact, there was a bunch of various Saint Margarets). There doesn't seem to be a reason as to why some saints are more popular than others. I get that Joan of Arc was a big deal, but how did Saint Anne get to be so popular? She's a saint for being Mary's mom and for being older when she became a mom, an accident of biology more than a religious devotion.

This advent calendar has saints I have never heard of: Saint Walburga, Saint Casilda, Saint Palatias. Not only have I never heard of any of these saints but I don't know anyone (or any church) with these names. It made me wonder why there are some saints that get so much and others that are forgotten. What did these saints do to fall out of favor? Why do people pick up on some names but not others? Of course, I would have a hard time giving a baby girl the name Walburga.

Poor Saint Cunegund, forgotten except on the advent calendar.

D'ya want fries with that?

Oh, central PA, you make the whole fast food experience not so fast. Here we are again, doing the trip to Ohio for the holidays and making another disappointing stop for fast food.

I need to remind myself that stopping for food on the Pennsylvania turnpike is always a tactical error. The reststops on the turnpike are populated by third- or fourth-tier fast food places. Sbarro, Famiglia. I finally settled on Roy Rogers. ("They still exist?" My dad was surprised.) Roy Rogers seems to have taken the marketing strategy of doing a little bit of everything and none of it very well. You can get your hamburger, you can get your roast beef, you can get your fried chicken. You have your choice of about five different sides, mostly potato-based. It all looks a bit sad and washed out.

I decide on the grilled chicken. If you get the "combo", you get a side and a drink. I go to order. There's at least three girls doing something behind the counter but no one is actually at a register and no one comes up to take my order. I wait. Still none of the girls come up to a register. Another person walks up in line behind me. Still no one steps to a register. I look at the guy behind me, maybe he can figure it out. He just shrugs.

Finally, a girl comes to a register. "Can I take your order?"

"I'd like the combination of the grilled chicken and mashed potatoes."

"If you want to add a drink, then you can make it a 'combo,'" she tells me, very happy to be saving me some money. I stop for a moment, wanting to explain that "combo" is actually short for "combination," then realize that it probably would just confuse her, so I nod and agree that that's what I want. She takes my money and hands me a soda cup.

I go to the soda machine which proudly declares that with a touch of a button, I could have one of four types of soda from the same spicket. Although they are different varieties of Coke (diet, sugar-filled, caffeine: yes or no), they are all brown varieties and I am suspicious. I go to the one that is dedicated to Diet Coke, knowing that all the sodas could be the exact same brown variety, but, for some reason, I am trusting this spicket a bit more.

When I get my chicken, I see that it is simply a hunk of chicken on a bun. Nothing more. There is a "Fixin's Bar" for anything else. I shake my head a bit. Roy Rogers can't even give me a bit of lettuce and some mayo. Instead they take the naked route, unwilling to commit to any toppings for your sandwich. I don't think this is the best strategy. McDonald's proudly lists what's on a Big Mac; Burger King may say that special orders won't upset them, but they have a bunch of stuff already slathered on and you have to "hold the pickles." I "fix" my chicken.

I suppose you're not tempted to dawdle with a meal like this. You eat and you get on the road. I had my book but barely read three pages. I look around and sigh. Time to get back to driving.

Do you want to know a secret?

Did you ever think we'd be cheering Joe Leiberman? But the guy came through (with Susan Collins, to give full credit.) "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is now gone, and, maybe, we'll all be a touch more tolerant.

John McCain: Shut up. Seriously, you do not get it. "...we are doing great damage." Really? Please explain. Oh, yes, that study. The one where a majority of military members and their spouses would be absolutely fine with serving alongside openly gay members. But John McCain would rather troll down to the numbers that support his opinion. That certain subgroups don't like the idea of repealing DADT. And maybe that is true, but perhaps McCain would better serve unity in the troops if he, as a war hero, would step forward and make a plea for acceptance. Maybe if he put it out there that it won't make a difference if someone is gay or not, maybe the combat troops would think, "you know, he's right."

Here's what McCain has to say about the conclusions, "I think they're mature enough to make a judgment on who they want to serve with and the impact on their battle effectiveness." You know, I wish I could take a survey about who I want to work alongside, because I'd pick "no intolerant jerks."

"A sad day in history." Oh, John McCain, grow up.

I'm so sick of words!

I am editing an entry for a writing competition. At this point, the entry is mostly written, but I am approximately 100 words over (I get 3000 for the entire entry.) It is time to trim away the unnecessary words, the extra phrases that aren't helping the cause.

The "a's" and "the's" are smug; they know that although they don't really add anything, they're more or less mandatory for proper grammar. The adverbs are nervous. The adjectives are weighing themselves against each other: is the day both "sunny" and "perfect"? Maybe one of them will have to go.

There are whole sentences that think they're safe, but with one swoop, they're nothing but a memory. The surrounding sentences are shocked. They were just next to that sentence and now it's gone! Then they relax for a bit; they're safe for now. But the panic comes back: what if the entire paragraph goes? They check the word count: it's very close. It's doubtful a whole paragraph will go. But, wait, are there words being added? That can't be good.

The nouns try to be confident, but they know that the focus could shift. Those damn pronouns might take over. The verbs know they're needed to keep things going but are there too many? They eye each other; they are the most aggressive of words after all, always itching for a fight.

I am down to 36 to go. I curse the electronic submission process, as it doesn't allow me to cheat. Some of the words are getting annoyed. "You've seen us a hundred times. Just move on. You clearly want us around. Why don't you go after Page 4 for a while?" I skip to the next section and the words on that page breathe a sigh of relief.

I'm a bit sad at the thought of getting rid of any words. Words are valuable. Something made me put them to the page and now: poof! As I edit, I hope the words understand. Someday I might go back to them. Someday I might need them again.

I close my eyes for a moment, thinking of those stray words. I am dreaming that they are still there: forming their own story for later.

D'oh

Don't get me wrong; I love the show, but I have to wonder: does anyone watch "The Simpsons" anymore? It's still on, right? There are new episodes coming out and I'm sure they're brilliant and funny as always, but is anyone watching them? Are there folks out there who are catching that latest episode on Sunday so they can chat about it at work on Monday?

It seems like the Simpsons have been around forever. In fact, "The Simpsons" have been on the air since 1989 as a half-hour show. Before that, they lived as shorts on "The Tracey Ullman Show" for a couple of years. Think about that for a minute. You have college graduates that have never lived in a world without Homer choking Bart.

Even before that, I was a big fan of Matt Groening's brilliant "Life in Hell" comics. The first time I caught a Simpson short, I shouted, "Matt Groening!" and, I admit, I thought I was pretty cool, being ahead of the trend there. (This does not happen often, so I have to really hold onto these moments.)

Remember when "The Simpsons" was must-see television? Maybe it still is but I'm no longer the demographic. It's not because of any quality issue, but I haven't watched "The Simpsons" in years. This makes me sort of sad, but I have the feeling I'd watch and think, "It's not as funny as it used to be."

I've been scrolling through an episode list of those first seasons when I used to watch religiously and they're all so chock-full of great stuff. Maybe "The Simpsons" is like SNL in that you watch when you're "that age" and you love those episodes/cast from that era, but then you insist that it'll never be as good as when you watched. I'm still quoting from "Treehouse of Horror III" when I figure something out ("There's your problem -- this doll's set to evil.")

I am amazed at the world that was created by The Simpsons. Is there a show that ever existed that has so many characters, so much history? You know Springfield. You know who lives there and their backstories. Crazy Cat Lady! Disco Stu! I don't know the name of the character Joe Mantegna plays on "Criminal Minds" but I do know he's Fat Tony on "The Simpsons." I love that "The Simpsons" has given us that world.

And, in case you were wondering, my favorite episode of all time: "Last Exit to Springfield."

Go to sleep

When you really think about it, sleep is a very weird thing. Who thought this would be a good idea? If you believe in God, why was sleep created? Why not have Your creatures be awake for all the hours of the day and night to see as much of the world as possible? If you are an evolution fan, how was this a trait that was even selected? How is being unconscious for about a third of the day making you more likely to survive? We must have been competing against the creatures who were sleeping 12 hours a day or something. Although somehow cats made it.

I wish I could get back that sleeping time. I'm not greedy, I don't need all of it: just give me two hours back every night. I'm pretty sure I'd waste most of that time, but I'd still like the option of having that extra time to still not exercise.

There are nights that I start to overthink sleeping. I lie in bed, close my eyes, and think, okay, how do I do this again? What if I forget how to sleep? I am lying there, trying to remember, how did I fall asleep last night? What was in my head? What was not in my head? It's not like walking or eating -- you can't show someone how to sleep. You can do things that might help you sleep, but there isn't some magical formula.

There are nights where I can't even figure out what to do with my body. It's usually one of my arms. It's just in the way. I can't remember if I sleep on it or do I put my head on it or is it off to the side, and every  way I move just doesn't feel right. It feels like I have this extra thing on my body. Seriously, how have I been sleeping with this all these years?

Of course, there are nights when you get that delicious chunk of sleep. When you just magically drift off and wake up eight hours later, feeling absolutely refreshed. Those are lovely nights, but also frustrating. What did I do to get that great sleep? Can I do it again? Why can't I do it again? But, alas, the next night is never as good.

I hope you are a good sleeper. I am jealous, but happy for you. No matter how you sleep, tonight, I wish you good sleep.

Never been kissed

Clearly, I can't stop talking about "Glee" and how they keep getting it wrong. Take this week's episode. It could have been good. It's timely and relevant, and they dropped the ball. That's why I get so frustrated with this show. If they didn't have good ideas, if they didn't have a talented cast, if they didn't have the ability to pull together something amazing, I could just dismiss the whole thing. But they could get it right and they seem to always pick the wrong direction.

There's a bunch of things wrong with this episode, but I want to focus on the kisses. We'll start with Kurt. The minute I saw that bully pushing Kurt around, I knew they were going to have him be secretly gay with a big-ol' crush on Kurt. Why "Glee," why? Because the reality is that, more often than not, bullies are not people with secret crushes on you but, rather, simply assholes. So instead of addressing a real issue that exists today: that there are bullies out there who will physically assault you because you are different, "Glee" chooses the, "oh, I'll bet they're pulling your hair because they think you're so cute route." That's totally the right choice. That'll help all the bullied kids out there.

But there was a moment that they could have saved it. When Kurt told Blaine that the kiss from the bully was his first kiss, there was a moment that was so sad and deep and true. That was a moment you really felt for a character, where you couldn't help but look back on all those little milestones in your life. I really felt for Kurt, that his first kiss would never be a sweet, little stolen moment but rather this mix of violence and confusion and self-hatred. That his first kiss would never be something special. Which brings me to the Coach Beiste kiss. I know most of the attention has been focused on Kurt's kiss, but, frankly, I find the Coach Beiste storyline much more offensive.

Okay, I get the joke: Coach Beiste isn't a pretty, size 2-shaped lady so we can make fun of her! That is funny! Thanks "Glee" for reminding women that they need to be Hollywood-pretty in order to be kissed.  That's a great message. Just remember that, girls: you can be smart and sweet and career-minded, but if you ain't pretty, you ain't getting kissed. Unless (hope and pray for this, ladies), the fabulous Mr. Shue can feel sorry for you and give you a pity kiss. (And, seriously, is there a woman Mr. Shue won't kiss?) I'm sure that's exactly what Coach Beiste had in mind for her first kiss. At least Kurt's kiss was from someone who was attracted to him.

I'm not expecting "Glee" to solve the problems of the world. But if they choose to take on issues, they should try to do a better job. This could have been an amazing episode. Let me write the second half of the episode. Kurt ends up talking to Coach Beiste about being different in high school. Maybe he thinks she's gay. She tells him that, although she's not gay, yeah, high school did suck for her, but she found she could turn to things she loved to do, a support system (which he's in the process of finding with the glee club and his new friends at the other high school), and a good family. Now she's got this great social life and she was just named "Lima's Hottest Single Gal." She tells Kurt he can come to her, give her the names of the guys on the team who are giving him grief, and she'll make them pay -- it'll be their little secret. The last scene has Coach Beiste getting picked up after school for a date with an extremely hot guy. Kurt catches her eye as the date takes her by the arm, and Coach Beiste smiles and says, "It gets better."

NaNoWriMo (beep beep-pah beep beep)

It's that time of year: not the holidays, but the push to write a novel in a month. November is National Novel Writing Month (a/k/a NaNoWriMo). The idea to to knock out 50,000 words (which amounts to a short novel) in one month. Of course, that's a pretty high word count in a quick period, so it's unlikely that the novel you write will be ready-to-go on December 1. In fact, if you go to their website, they make it quite clear that what you will be write will need revision and this is just a start. The idea is to push yourself to write.

In case the task wasn't intimidating enough, a few days ago, there was a piece in Salon urging people to not do NaNoWriMo. The author of the article argued that there were enough bad books out there and that people should stop writing and start reading. (Her evidence that writers don't read was really just "I was talking to a guy at a party...") She brought up a lot of other reasons to not do it, and, needless to say, the defenders of NaNoWriMo came out in full force. Which made me start to think about why I did it and how it affected me.

You may remember that I took this on last year. As I'd written virtually no fiction in my life, I figured what better way to dip my toe in the pool than to cough up 50,000 words in a month? At the time I thought it was crazy (and it was), but it was really a good thing for me to do. When you have to generate about 2000 words a day, you can't waste time mulling over whether or not the words you are writing are "worthy." You write and write. The edit button has to be off. This freed me up to let go of any inhibitions I was having about writing fiction.

At the end of the month, I'd done it. I was sitting on over 50,000 words, a good start to a novel. But, truly, I needed to not see it anymore. I put it away and, until recently, had done very little with it, and without enthusiasm. This was fine; I had other bits of writing to take care of, and this would be there when I was ready. A couple of months ago, I was finally brave enough to seriously look at what I had written last November, and it wasn't half bad. Since then, I've done some shifts to the story, I've made a lot (a lot) of edits, although surprisingly, not as many (or as deep) as I anticipated. (Although I haven't gotten into the end-of-November writing from last year. Keep your fingers crossed that I wasn't completely insane by that time.)

The point is that without NaNoWriMo, I may have given up on the story or stopped at 10,000 words or flitted to another project. Before last November, I looked at my writing as a hobby, as something I was dabbling in. Sure, I had a blog and a few ideas for stories I might write some day, but this was just spare-time stuff. NaNoWriMo told me to keep pressing on, to not be afraid of that silly idea in my head because, if nothing else, I need the wordcount. Now, I have a book. I wrote a book! Not a long book and (at this point) not a finished book, but it's there. A book. And now I have to say, yes, I am a writer.

Autobiography

My writing assignment for today a short autobiography/personal statement. The reason isn't important, but I want to sum up my story into a paragraph or so. I am not having a lot of success. This is both too long and too short. I am staring at the page, coming up with the occasional phrases here and there, most of which I delete almost as quickly as I write them.

How will I introduce myself? I start to wonder how other people approach this. When you meet someone, what do you tell them about yourself? I know it depends on where you meet them: interview, party, PTA meeting, but let's pretend you've been invited to be on "Oprah" (and for her last season! What an honor!) What is she telling the studio audience before you come onstage?

To add to the frustration of this task, I also made up cards: sort of business cards with my contact information. I figure it would be easier to have a card with my phone number, email address, blog address, that sort of thing, rather than roaming around in my bag, looking for a scrap of paper to write down the information. Some of it was easy: address, phone number, but then: title. Hmm. Title, what would you put as your title? I went back and forth with this for a bit, but decided that the best label was none at all.

Maybe I'm still sorting things out. Maybe I don't want to be labeled just yet. My story is still coming together. I am a scientist, a writer, a reader, an ex-wife, a sister, an explorer, a sleeper (late note: a snorer), a fan of low-brow television, a friend, a photographer, a stubborn pain-in-the-ass, an aunt, a dreamer, a realist. And the best thing is that there's more to come.

But I still am not sure how I should write my autobiography. A whole paragraph.

Emotionalism

I've been thinking about why I write. I'm sure there's an aspect of selfishness: telling my story, my way, with my point of view. But I wonder, is my story that different from anyone else's? And that, deep down, is the question: how different is my story and, frankly, how different do I want it to be?

I realize that I want people to feel something when they read what I write. I want them to relate or, if nothing else, think about an issue or a time in their lives. But at the same time, I want to own that story. The emotions tied to these stories are mine, and I wonder if I'm giving up something by sharing a story. Am I giving away a part of my self? Even if I am, is this a bad thing?

The answer, of course, is that this is not a bad thing at all. I completely want the reader to take this part of me and pull into into themselves. At the same time, these emotions I have surrounding what I write, they are mine. The reader may have their version of emotions tied into the story, and that's alright. In fact, it's better than just "alright." If I can write something that stirs someone's emotions, I have succeeded. And I can't think of anything better than that.

In the air tonight

I thought I was done with being annoyed at Phil Collins when the '90s were over. Alas, he is back, with an album that is only interesting when you are debating if it is mostly self-indulgent or mostly just lazy?

If you haven't heard about this album (which I find hard to believe -- the guy is everywhere! [Note to self: hire Phil Collins' publicist.]), it's an album of Motown covers. Now I have nothing against a good cover. In fact, a good one can bring a song to a new place. But for this very special album, Phil wanted to recreate the songs note for note, so he worked to get all the music and background to sound exactly the same as the original songs. Let's think about this for just a moment. Say you're flipping around that radio dial and "Heatwave" comes on. Is this what you're thinking: "Man, this is one great song! Well, except I'd much rather have Phil Collins singing it. That Martha Reeves -- her voice is weak. I need the nasal twang of a British drummer!"

It's karaoke, plain and simple. It's lazy and vain. If he didn't have a name (and, really, I thought he was over), there's no way he'd get away with this nonsense. In one interview, he said that this going back to older music speaks to the current state of music. Isn't he supposedly a singer/songwriter/musician type? If you don't like what's going on in music today, do something about it. You have the means to push it a bit. You don't need a big hit. But, no, you'd rather just whine and rerecord something no one needs.

And, seriously, Phil Collins, get your own pop culture. Did you know he has one of the largest collections of Alamo memorabilia? That's weird, right?

I swear, if he touches the Stax catalog...

We beseech thee!

Let's address the Jesus debate here. Not the "did he exist one" -- that's for lightweights and late night talks in college. No, let's hit the hard one: who is the cooler Jesus: "Godspell" Jesus or "Jesus Christ Superstar" Jesus? I am shocked to learn that some of my friends (or, should I say, former friends) are actually saying it's Godspell Jesus! I know! They are wrong.

I am not dissing either musical (although I could). Of course "JCS" lead to the monster that is now Andrew Llyod Webber, but this happened when he was young and hungry and the world wasn't tired of his overblown nonsense. The real-life story of how they got this show into production is actually kind of cool and scrappy. They only had enough money to record the title track single, which, lucky for them, became a top-40 hit. This gave them enough money to record the entire album (fun fact: the whip songs of the 39 lashes were recorded in a bathroom), which also became a hit, which allowed funding of the actual musical.

"JCS" shaped how I viewed religion. These characters were real people. They got angry and scared and unsure of what they were doing and crazy. They made choices about what they were doing. They weren't magical or perfect, and they had to work at what they believed. I loved that Jesus was afraid to die and that Judas wasn't sure if he should sell out Jesus (spoiler: he does). As a kid, when you learn that sometimes adults don't want to do certain things, that's a big deal, but when you learn that Jesus didn't want to do what he was expected to do, well, that blew my mind a little bit.

If you're not familiar with "Godspell", then you haven't been attending folk mass. Growing up Catholic in the '70s as a child of parents who love community theater, I probably saw roughly 216 versions of "Godspell." If "JCS" was the angst-ridden, moody version of religion, "Godspell" gave us the joy of religion. "JCS" was a Production; "Godspell" was a bunch of kids jumping around in make-up and crazy outfits, getting you to sing and clap along. "JCS" is a rock opera; "Godspell" is fly-by-the-seat-of-your-(striped)-pants.

Here's an awesome thing they both have in common: Jesus doesn't rise from the dead. Both shows end after Jesus is crucified. You have to decide what happens next. You get to tell the rest of the story.

But we're not here to debate the shows; we're here to address the Jesus question. The only "JCS" Jesus I accept was the original, and that was Ian Gillan; "Godspell" Jesus is shown below, and if I have to tell you who is cooler, I can't help you.

A quick nerdy story from my past

When I worked at Rohm & Haas, these were the mornings that Chol would come into our lab, look up from his coffee, smile sadly at my boss, and say, "I didn't get the call this morning either." He'd shake his head and go back to his lab.

(I also have a story where I was talking on the phone to a professor at Cornell and we were getting all excited about comparing upright freezer to coffins, and we both realized how nerdy we sounded so we quickly hung up.)

Ah, the memories of a science geek...

Oh, Glee, why can't you do it right?

I want to like "Glee." I really do. I really should. I was not a cool kid. I was in band and the honors classes in high school. And just in case you didn't get the dork memo, I played bassoon. I may have even had a year I was in the show choir. I've had a serious debate with a friend over which was the cool Jesus: Jesus Christ Superstar Jesus or Godspell Jesus. I love the idea that someone wanted to do a show that features talented kids bursting into song and dance. But "Glee" misses the mark.

Before we go any further, I want to point out that I am not a loyal viewer of "Glee." I've seen about a third of the episodes, so I have a pretty good idea as to what's going on, but, no, I don't know all the details. I can't sustain watching it because of the issues I have with the show. First of all, it doesn't know what it wants to be. Are you a serious high school drama? Are you a cartoon? Are you a musical? I don't want to force anything into a box, but it feels like the show doesn't really know what to be, so sometimes there is a real reason to break into song but sometimes they have to come up with fantasy sequences and it just feels forced. Either give into the crazy of the football team breaking into "Single Ladies" or only have the performances when it makes sense.

It's even more forced when they have the "theme" weeks. The Madonna episode, the Britney episode -- just a series of stories twisted in a way to get certain songs in. Maybe everyone else thought Sue Sylvester doing "Vogue" was hilarious, but it just didn't fit with who she is on the show. And I am over just re-doing the videos. What is the point in that? I get that Heather Morris is an amazing singer and dancer, but when I watched the Britney episode, it took me a few minutes to realize that they weren't simply showing the actual videos. The sad thing is that when they take the songs and do something interesting with them, it is incredible to watch. The best thing I've seen on "Glee" was the Cheerios on stilts with Kurt and Mercedes doing "Four Minutes." Stilts! And it's also the kind of thing that a squad would actually perform at a pep rally. That shows me what "Glee" could be but instead they seem to be content with stringing redone videos together and trying to put together a storyline.

There are good characters and obviously talented actors but the show isn't using them right. Most of the characters want to be something, maybe even want a real storyline, but are forced into situations to fit songs. Would Emma, after being a virgin for so long, with all the questions she must have about her relationship with Will, really give in to sleep with him at that point in their relationship, or was it convenient to allow her to croon "Like a Virgin" because they happen to be doing the Madonna episode? There's so much back and forth: "I'm empowered! I'm not!" that seems to be tied to when they get the rights to a song rather than actual character development.

Oh "Glee," I really want to like you. But I'd rather see the original videos for now.