Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Jukebox by Ani DiFranco
Once upon a time in uni we got into a debate about whether this song is about masturbation. I can see that interpretation, but it doesn't seem consistent with what Ani was writing at that stage of her career. My iTunes just served up Jukebox for the first time in a while, and I remember that debate and went agoogling to see if anyone on the internet thinks it's about masturbation, but I didn't find anything fruitful.
So this post is really just a ploy to see if anyone else is googling for whether Jukebox by Ani DiFranco is about masturbation.
Monday, September 08, 2008
John Fluevog broke my heart
See these babies?
They're on sale for like 65% off.
They had them in stock.
They had them in a size 11.
And they were too narrow.
That was the first time in my entire life that a pair of shoes has been too narrow.
I have freakshow skinny feet. All my shoes need to be horizontally adjustable, or they fall right off. I can't wear regular pumps without straps because they fall right off. I can't wear flipflops because they fall right off. And yet these awesome purple shoes were too narrow.
Dear Mr. Fluevog:
I do see that you are incredibly epically cool, and therefore might not want to make shoes that just anyone can wear because that seems to be what the cool people do. But even if you don't want them to fit commoners with normal-width feet, perhaps you could consider making them at least fit people with freakshow skinny feet? Or is this all some conspiracy to torment the proles, teasing us with promises of awesome purple in large sizes at justifiable prices only to tear it all away?
They're on sale for like 65% off.
They had them in stock.
They had them in a size 11.
And they were too narrow.
That was the first time in my entire life that a pair of shoes has been too narrow.
I have freakshow skinny feet. All my shoes need to be horizontally adjustable, or they fall right off. I can't wear regular pumps without straps because they fall right off. I can't wear flipflops because they fall right off. And yet these awesome purple shoes were too narrow.
Dear Mr. Fluevog:
I do see that you are incredibly epically cool, and therefore might not want to make shoes that just anyone can wear because that seems to be what the cool people do. But even if you don't want them to fit commoners with normal-width feet, perhaps you could consider making them at least fit people with freakshow skinny feet? Or is this all some conspiracy to torment the proles, teasing us with promises of awesome purple in large sizes at justifiable prices only to tear it all away?
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Upspeak and security
Language Log on upspeak (they call it uptalk, I call it upspeak).
They've covered it more thoroughly than I ever could and I've already thrown hundreds of words at the subject, so I'm not going to reiterate everything. I just wanted to talk about one thing the original LW said that piqued my interest:
I find it so bizarre that they'd perceive seeking approval or affirmation from the listener as a sign of psychological insecurity. I always thought it was a sign of, oh, I don't know, dialogue? In conversation, you check that your interlocutor is with you so far rather than barrelling ahead without a moment's thought to whether they're following you. In a presentation, you gauge your audience's response and give more clarification as needed rather than just reading the script at them.
Actually, to me, if the speaker is seeking affirmation it gives an impression of greater security than if they just talk at you without allowing you to react. If they welcome or even seek affirmation, it means they really know their stuff, they'll explain it to you in different ways until you get it, they've thoroughly thought out their argument and can address any questions you might have in an intelligent and civilized manner. If they don't seek affirmation or even check that I'm following, it can seem a bit ego.
I once had a prof who deliberately suppressed her natural upspeak (it was a linguistics class so she did mention that she was doing this). To me it didn't sound particularly authoritative, it just sounded like she was deliberately suppressing her natural upspeak. I've had other profs who retained their own natural upspeak, and (speaking as a user of upspeak myself) it didn't sound at all inautoritative. It just sounded less formal. Instead of a great big "Now I shall lecture you!" situation, it was just "Okay, here's some information I have that you need. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask."
I've also noticed that when I'm feeling secure, I use my own natural speech patterns. When I first started my job and was overwhelmed with imposter syndrome, I overcompensated by suppressing my natural speech patterns, wearing my hair in a bun, speaking in the most formal French I could muster at all times, wearing only the most subtle of nail colour, writing emails all business-like even when it was just brief and internal. Now that I've been there for over five years and gotten used to it and feel like I belong there, I use my natural speech patterns, I wear long hairstyles, I code-switch back to English for humour and sarcasm, I email jokes to co-workers, I listen to my ipod, I paint my nails fun colours, and all the while I do my job somewhere between perfectly competently and astoundingly well. I know I'm good, I know I deserve to be there, I know my work speaks for itself, so I'm secure enough to be myself, upspeak and all, instead of putting on an act.
They've covered it more thoroughly than I ever could and I've already thrown hundreds of words at the subject, so I'm not going to reiterate everything. I just wanted to talk about one thing the original LW said that piqued my interest:
It appears that it is a psychological insecurity requesting some sort of approval or affirmation from the listener that what the talker says is correct, approved by the listener or adequately explained to the listener.
I find it so bizarre that they'd perceive seeking approval or affirmation from the listener as a sign of psychological insecurity. I always thought it was a sign of, oh, I don't know, dialogue? In conversation, you check that your interlocutor is with you so far rather than barrelling ahead without a moment's thought to whether they're following you. In a presentation, you gauge your audience's response and give more clarification as needed rather than just reading the script at them.
Actually, to me, if the speaker is seeking affirmation it gives an impression of greater security than if they just talk at you without allowing you to react. If they welcome or even seek affirmation, it means they really know their stuff, they'll explain it to you in different ways until you get it, they've thoroughly thought out their argument and can address any questions you might have in an intelligent and civilized manner. If they don't seek affirmation or even check that I'm following, it can seem a bit ego.
I once had a prof who deliberately suppressed her natural upspeak (it was a linguistics class so she did mention that she was doing this). To me it didn't sound particularly authoritative, it just sounded like she was deliberately suppressing her natural upspeak. I've had other profs who retained their own natural upspeak, and (speaking as a user of upspeak myself) it didn't sound at all inautoritative. It just sounded less formal. Instead of a great big "Now I shall lecture you!" situation, it was just "Okay, here's some information I have that you need. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask."
I've also noticed that when I'm feeling secure, I use my own natural speech patterns. When I first started my job and was overwhelmed with imposter syndrome, I overcompensated by suppressing my natural speech patterns, wearing my hair in a bun, speaking in the most formal French I could muster at all times, wearing only the most subtle of nail colour, writing emails all business-like even when it was just brief and internal. Now that I've been there for over five years and gotten used to it and feel like I belong there, I use my natural speech patterns, I wear long hairstyles, I code-switch back to English for humour and sarcasm, I email jokes to co-workers, I listen to my ipod, I paint my nails fun colours, and all the while I do my job somewhere between perfectly competently and astoundingly well. I know I'm good, I know I deserve to be there, I know my work speaks for itself, so I'm secure enough to be myself, upspeak and all, instead of putting on an act.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Does the age at which you learn to read affect your accent?
Where there is room for variation in pronunciation, I tend to pronounce words very literally, very close to how they are written. I pronounce the T instead of using a glottal stop in words like button (I have both pronunciations around me, I haven't done enough observation to work out which one I'm supposed to have ended up with). I pronounce Tuesday as "toooosday" instead of "chewsday" (I've heard "chewsday" from people with similar background and education who should have developed the exact same pronunciation as I have, but again I haven't done enough observation because I just thought of this). I know there are others because I've noticed them, both IRL and when we were doing Canadian dialects in my linguistics classes, but I can't think of examples offhand.
I'm wondering if this might be because I learned to read using phonics at a very early age - I think I started learning at the age of 2, and by the age of 4 I could fluently read age-appropriate books. I spent less time during my formative years having an auditory-only relationship with my rightful accent, and more time with the internalized concept of one-to-one correlation between letters and pronunciation. (I know it isn't actually one-to-one, but you can't exactly explain the subtleties to a two-year-old).
In support of this hypothesis is my very literal pronunciation, and the fact that I tend to mispronounce words because I've only seen them written more than other people do. (I was 25 before I realized that the written word and verbal pronunciation of annihilated are in fact one word.) I also tend to fudge my vowels a bit when the spelling is different - I don't pronounce buoy and boy exactly the same, even though I remember learning the word as a child and I thought it was "boy", but I still pronounce buoy with one syllable instead of "booo-ey" which is the accepted alternate pronunciation. And I do caught and cot, and collar and caller, like half a phoneme different - not as much as in accents where it's a proper accent feature, but not identically the same even though I think I pronounce them identically the same. (Can I has a few linguistics cred points for knowing that I pronounce something differently but think I pronounce it the same?)
On the other hand, I did manage to acquire Canadian raising, which is acquired strictly through aural assimilation and contradicts strict phonetics. And I Canadian raise in exactly the right places despite the fact that I devoice all my final consonants, which is an inherited accent feature aurally assimilated from the ESL side of my family and also contradicts phonetics.
I haven't talked to any other early readers about this or made proper observations of my family's pronunciations, but if other early readers have the same thing it would be an interesting thing to research.
I'm wondering if this might be because I learned to read using phonics at a very early age - I think I started learning at the age of 2, and by the age of 4 I could fluently read age-appropriate books. I spent less time during my formative years having an auditory-only relationship with my rightful accent, and more time with the internalized concept of one-to-one correlation between letters and pronunciation. (I know it isn't actually one-to-one, but you can't exactly explain the subtleties to a two-year-old).
In support of this hypothesis is my very literal pronunciation, and the fact that I tend to mispronounce words because I've only seen them written more than other people do. (I was 25 before I realized that the written word and verbal pronunciation of annihilated are in fact one word.) I also tend to fudge my vowels a bit when the spelling is different - I don't pronounce buoy and boy exactly the same, even though I remember learning the word as a child and I thought it was "boy", but I still pronounce buoy with one syllable instead of "booo-ey" which is the accepted alternate pronunciation. And I do caught and cot, and collar and caller, like half a phoneme different - not as much as in accents where it's a proper accent feature, but not identically the same even though I think I pronounce them identically the same. (Can I has a few linguistics cred points for knowing that I pronounce something differently but think I pronounce it the same?)
On the other hand, I did manage to acquire Canadian raising, which is acquired strictly through aural assimilation and contradicts strict phonetics. And I Canadian raise in exactly the right places despite the fact that I devoice all my final consonants, which is an inherited accent feature aurally assimilated from the ESL side of my family and also contradicts phonetics.
I haven't talked to any other early readers about this or made proper observations of my family's pronunciations, but if other early readers have the same thing it would be an interesting thing to research.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Victoria's Secret has excellent shipping
A week ago, I ordered some stuff from Victoria's Secret and picked the cheapest shipping method. It shipped from the States yesterday and arrived today! That's really good considering how the official ETA was Sept. 22.
Their prices are very reasonable too. Shipping costs to Canada are a bit high, but it's worth it if you're buying several items. The problems inherent in buying lingerie over the internet are obvious, but if you're certain about your size or the item is returnable or you can swallow the cost of a non-returnable item possibly being suboptimal, it's certainly worth a look.
Their prices are very reasonable too. Shipping costs to Canada are a bit high, but it's worth it if you're buying several items. The problems inherent in buying lingerie over the internet are obvious, but if you're certain about your size or the item is returnable or you can swallow the cost of a non-returnable item possibly being suboptimal, it's certainly worth a look.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Do people actually use Facebook as a substitute for the Internet as a whole?
Mentioned in passing in a text I'm translating (yes, right now, blah) is the idea that Kids Today don't use websites, instead if they're looking for something they look for it on Facebook.
Is that true? If you're looking for a person, I can totally see going to Facebook first. But do people actually head for Facebook first instead of Google when looking for information about an organization or a topic?
Is that true? If you're looking for a person, I can totally see going to Facebook first. But do people actually head for Facebook first instead of Google when looking for information about an organization or a topic?
Most inadvertently hilarious thing ever of the day
Scroll down to 4.2.2.8
Apparently, as long as you follow packaging guidelines, you can send the following in the mail:
- Live day-old chicks (but only day-old?)
- Live small cold-blooded animals (except snakes, turtles, baby alligators, caimans, or anything that emits "obnoxious odours"
- Parasites, leeches, insects, and bees (as long as they are free of disease, which raises the question of how to tell if an insect has a disease). And queen bees are allowed to travel with a maximum of eight attendants.
Apparently, as long as you follow packaging guidelines, you can send the following in the mail:
- Live day-old chicks (but only day-old?)
- Live small cold-blooded animals (except snakes, turtles, baby alligators, caimans, or anything that emits "obnoxious odours"
- Parasites, leeches, insects, and bees (as long as they are free of disease, which raises the question of how to tell if an insect has a disease). And queen bees are allowed to travel with a maximum of eight attendants.
Blah
I wish that knowing intellectually that my worries are unfounded was enough to make me be able to stop worrying. Usually being a pessimist works well for me, but sometimes I wish I could turn it off on demand.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
How to revolutionize US politics right this minute with no effort whatsoever
So apparently there's a US politician whose teenage daughter is pregnant. And most people don't want a big deal made of this (because it's politically inconvenient to them and/or because they want to be better than that). Some people do want to make a big deal of it, either because it's good gossip or because a big deal would be made if the roles were reversed or out of misfired schadenfreude, but it sounds like the major players don't want to make a big deal.
So here's all everyone has to do: don't make a big deal of it. Leave the kid alone. Everyone wins! All the politicians and pundits etc. will be taking the high road and come out looking like better people for it. Because of the precedent this will set, it will move all politicians' families a bit further out of the campaign spotlight and the state a bit further out of the bedrooms of the nation, which will make some room for discussion of actual issues (I understand y'all are having a spot of economic trouble? And there's a sort of messy war-related thing going on?) to the benefit of all USians. Then after the rest of the campaign continues on this higher note, people will be hesitant to take cheap shots at people's private lives because you don't want to be single-handedly responsible for lowering the tenor of your entire country's political discourse.
And the best thing about this technique is you don't have to do a damn thing. All you have to do is not pay any attention to this one person, which I'll be you've been doing the vast majority of your life anyway.
So here's all everyone has to do: don't make a big deal of it. Leave the kid alone. Everyone wins! All the politicians and pundits etc. will be taking the high road and come out looking like better people for it. Because of the precedent this will set, it will move all politicians' families a bit further out of the campaign spotlight and the state a bit further out of the bedrooms of the nation, which will make some room for discussion of actual issues (I understand y'all are having a spot of economic trouble? And there's a sort of messy war-related thing going on?) to the benefit of all USians. Then after the rest of the campaign continues on this higher note, people will be hesitant to take cheap shots at people's private lives because you don't want to be single-handedly responsible for lowering the tenor of your entire country's political discourse.
And the best thing about this technique is you don't have to do a damn thing. All you have to do is not pay any attention to this one person, which I'll be you've been doing the vast majority of your life anyway.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Things They Should Invent (if they haven't already): you can text any phone you can see
I have the idea that this exists already, but I haven't been able to google up confirmation. (Of course, I don't know what it's called if it does exist.)
You should be able to send a text message to any cellphone that you can see. Just kind of beam the message through the air, like how a remote control works.
Why not just go over and talk to the person? Maybe they're busy. Maybe they're too far away to get their attention (walking down the other side of a busy street, for example). Maybe they're a stranger and their zipper's undone and you can't figure out how to say that in person tactfully. Maybe you want a really smooth way to hit on them by just sending them your phone number. Maybe you're exchanging phone numbers anyway and it would be easier to just beam it straight into each other's phone instead of you dictating your number to them and then they dictate your number to you.
At any rate, it's an option that should exist.
You should be able to send a text message to any cellphone that you can see. Just kind of beam the message through the air, like how a remote control works.
Why not just go over and talk to the person? Maybe they're busy. Maybe they're too far away to get their attention (walking down the other side of a busy street, for example). Maybe they're a stranger and their zipper's undone and you can't figure out how to say that in person tactfully. Maybe you want a really smooth way to hit on them by just sending them your phone number. Maybe you're exchanging phone numbers anyway and it would be easier to just beam it straight into each other's phone instead of you dictating your number to them and then they dictate your number to you.
At any rate, it's an option that should exist.
Recurring elements in my dreams
Two things have been recurring in my dreams every night for the past couple of weeks.
1. A woman who wants an arranged marriage to two men. In the dreams, she's a close acquaintance/casual friend, but it isn't anyone I know IRL. She wants to be married to two men and is putting out personal ads and using matchmaking services to find appropriate candidates. Just to make things more interesting, she doesn't want two men who know each other already - she wants to meet and court them both separately - and she wants to marry them both at the same time in a single wedding ceremony. This all has nothing whatsoever to do with the plot of my dreams. She's just someone who's around and I happen to know these few details about her personal life. It's like how on Corner Gas, Wanda has a child but the vast majority of the time that's irrelevant. Or on Dexter, that guy with the hat (what's his name?) is having marriage troubles, but most episodes it doesn't show up and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the plot.
2. Your sense of self is fully formed at the age of 32. This is frequently presented in my dreams as an indisputable fact. You know how there's that recent meme that your fertility starts declining at age 26? This idea is everywhere in a similar fashion in my dream universe. It's quoted in magazines and people make life decisions based on it. Last night in my dream, there was an ad in a newspaper for a famous hairdresser who was about to retire, and the ad was encouraging everyone to book an appointment with her today because you want to have good hair before the age of 32 so your sense of self includes good hair.
1. A woman who wants an arranged marriage to two men. In the dreams, she's a close acquaintance/casual friend, but it isn't anyone I know IRL. She wants to be married to two men and is putting out personal ads and using matchmaking services to find appropriate candidates. Just to make things more interesting, she doesn't want two men who know each other already - she wants to meet and court them both separately - and she wants to marry them both at the same time in a single wedding ceremony. This all has nothing whatsoever to do with the plot of my dreams. She's just someone who's around and I happen to know these few details about her personal life. It's like how on Corner Gas, Wanda has a child but the vast majority of the time that's irrelevant. Or on Dexter, that guy with the hat (what's his name?) is having marriage troubles, but most episodes it doesn't show up and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the plot.
2. Your sense of self is fully formed at the age of 32. This is frequently presented in my dreams as an indisputable fact. You know how there's that recent meme that your fertility starts declining at age 26? This idea is everywhere in a similar fashion in my dream universe. It's quoted in magazines and people make life decisions based on it. Last night in my dream, there was an ad in a newspaper for a famous hairdresser who was about to retire, and the ad was encouraging everyone to book an appointment with her today because you want to have good hair before the age of 32 so your sense of self includes good hair.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Things They Should Invent: custom-made porn
This idea was inspired by this Savage Love column (most obvious content warning ever: it's a Savage Love column about porn - proceed accordingly) where the guy is looking for het femdom porn with werewolves and vampire themes targeting a female audience (with a laundry list of sex acts he doesn't want to see in said porn) and Dan Savage is all yeah, good luck buddy.
There's a business opportunity here! Customers send in requests for porn that meets their exacting specifications. The pornographers calculate how much this porn would cost to make and how much of a return on investment they can expect to get. Then they give the customer a price that constitutes part (but not all) of the cost of making the porn. The better the projected ROI, the less they charge the customer.
So if the customer agrees, they make the porn and give it to the customer. But THEN, they also sell the porn through their website, and split the profits with the customer by the same proportions that they initially invested. So while the porn is significantly more expensive to the customer to start with, they can make money back and maybe even turn a profit. So if woman-centric het femdom vampire porn has a larger audience than the marketing department expected, the dude who wrote into Savage Love could get rich. If not, he can still get his niche porn for the right price even if he's the only person in the world who wants it.
Other possibilities that would make it more interesting but I'm not sure if they'd wreck the business model:
1. If the customer can't afford to have their porn made, the pornographers can still keep the idea. If they use it sometime, the customer who submitted the idea gets the porn for free but doesn't get a cut of the profits.
2. If the pornographers think an idea is commercially viable so they don't charge the customer very much, the customer can choose to invest a greater amount and thus get a greater share of the profits.
There's a business opportunity here! Customers send in requests for porn that meets their exacting specifications. The pornographers calculate how much this porn would cost to make and how much of a return on investment they can expect to get. Then they give the customer a price that constitutes part (but not all) of the cost of making the porn. The better the projected ROI, the less they charge the customer.
So if the customer agrees, they make the porn and give it to the customer. But THEN, they also sell the porn through their website, and split the profits with the customer by the same proportions that they initially invested. So while the porn is significantly more expensive to the customer to start with, they can make money back and maybe even turn a profit. So if woman-centric het femdom vampire porn has a larger audience than the marketing department expected, the dude who wrote into Savage Love could get rich. If not, he can still get his niche porn for the right price even if he's the only person in the world who wants it.
Other possibilities that would make it more interesting but I'm not sure if they'd wreck the business model:
1. If the customer can't afford to have their porn made, the pornographers can still keep the idea. If they use it sometime, the customer who submitted the idea gets the porn for free but doesn't get a cut of the profits.
2. If the pornographers think an idea is commercially viable so they don't charge the customer very much, the customer can choose to invest a greater amount and thus get a greater share of the profits.
How Elizabeth and Anthony's relationship could have been made convincing without changing the overall plot
1. After Anthony rescues Liz from Howard, they get chatting and he hints at the fact that his marriage is having trouble, but waves off Liz's concern because her ordeal is much more important.
2. Liz is subpoenaed for Howard's trial just before the end of the school year and has to head south early. Susan is called in to replace her. The trial takes up the better part of the summer. Grampa has his stroke while Liz is still in Millborough, and after much soul-searching she realizes she can't leave at this time, finds some kind of contract teaching position, and subsequently gets turkey-dumped by Paul. This gives Liz a perfect excuse to stay with her parents for however long the plot requires (was it actually necessary to the plot? I don't remember it being but I might be forgetting something), and sets the precedent of her changing major life decisions out of consideration for Grampa's health, which makes moving the wedding earlier a less WTF decision.
3. During the trial, we see Anthony quietly being perfectly supportive of Liz. This isn't a plot point, it's just regularly going on in the background while the plot goes on over top. He pats her on the hand and gives her a sympathetic look, he hands her a timely cup of tea unbidden, and in at least one instance he is able to comfort her when her parents' attempts at comfort misfire in that tragicomic way attempts to parent adult children often do. I'll even allow once instance where Liz bursts into tears and Anthony holds her she cries herself out, and, in keeping with general FBOFW practices, I'll even allow him to thought-bubble something schmaltzy about how it feels good or right to hold her or protect her or help make things better for her or that he'll always be there for her or some other such thing that's swoony if you approve entirely of the relationship and the context and nauseating if you don't.
4. After the trial, we see Liz and Anthony socializing a few times truly as just friends before they even begin to consider a romance. It isn't a plot in itself, it's just going on in the background. They're having coffee together in a plotless wordplay strip. They're walking down the street together when Liz's cell rings with a message from the main plot.
5. At some point, any time after Liz returns to Millborough, Anthony confides in her about a parenting issue and she has some insight (since I assume she does have child psych training.) It would read just like other parenting strips (e.g. where Robin wouldn't sleep through the night or toddler April jams a banana in a typerwriter) and could be either a single strip or a week-long plot, depending on what works. The focus is Françoise, not the Liz/Anthony relationship.
6. At some point, Liz and Anthony are shown totally geeking out over something together. Reciting Monty Python or singing musicals or playing Wii together or, since this is FBOFW, having a pun war.
7. At some point, we see them being just completely silly, like snowball-fight silly, and collapsing into giggles afterwards. The giggles can segue into foreplay (or what passes for it in a comic strip) if their relationship has reached that point yet. Or, if it can be executed properly, this can be when and how their relationship reaches that level.
8. At some point, they're seen working together on a projectish thingy - preparing dinner, wallpapering Liz's new apartment (does anyone wallpaper any more? It makes a fictional good project, but I don't know if it's even in style any more), putting together a very complicated toy for Françoise. This can be the plot or the background action (background is better, I think). They can be talking exposition or trading wordplay or talking about The Relationship if The Relationship has started already, it doesn't really matter. The point is that they be seen working well together and taking for granted that they're working on a project together (we don't see any "Thank you ever so much for helping me with this!" "No problem, that's what friends are for.")
9. Once the relationship starts, we see at least two instances of snogging, at least one lustful look with thought-bubble, and handholding whenever realistic. They don't have to be the plot of that day's strip, they just need to be happening.
10. We see at least once instance of snogging interrupted by parenting needs.
11. At their wedding, when Liz finds out that Grampa is in the hospital, Anthony is right there with a protective arm around her or hand on her back, a look of concern on his face.
2. Liz is subpoenaed for Howard's trial just before the end of the school year and has to head south early. Susan is called in to replace her. The trial takes up the better part of the summer. Grampa has his stroke while Liz is still in Millborough, and after much soul-searching she realizes she can't leave at this time, finds some kind of contract teaching position, and subsequently gets turkey-dumped by Paul. This gives Liz a perfect excuse to stay with her parents for however long the plot requires (was it actually necessary to the plot? I don't remember it being but I might be forgetting something), and sets the precedent of her changing major life decisions out of consideration for Grampa's health, which makes moving the wedding earlier a less WTF decision.
3. During the trial, we see Anthony quietly being perfectly supportive of Liz. This isn't a plot point, it's just regularly going on in the background while the plot goes on over top. He pats her on the hand and gives her a sympathetic look, he hands her a timely cup of tea unbidden, and in at least one instance he is able to comfort her when her parents' attempts at comfort misfire in that tragicomic way attempts to parent adult children often do. I'll even allow once instance where Liz bursts into tears and Anthony holds her she cries herself out, and, in keeping with general FBOFW practices, I'll even allow him to thought-bubble something schmaltzy about how it feels good or right to hold her or protect her or help make things better for her or that he'll always be there for her or some other such thing that's swoony if you approve entirely of the relationship and the context and nauseating if you don't.
4. After the trial, we see Liz and Anthony socializing a few times truly as just friends before they even begin to consider a romance. It isn't a plot in itself, it's just going on in the background. They're having coffee together in a plotless wordplay strip. They're walking down the street together when Liz's cell rings with a message from the main plot.
5. At some point, any time after Liz returns to Millborough, Anthony confides in her about a parenting issue and she has some insight (since I assume she does have child psych training.) It would read just like other parenting strips (e.g. where Robin wouldn't sleep through the night or toddler April jams a banana in a typerwriter) and could be either a single strip or a week-long plot, depending on what works. The focus is Françoise, not the Liz/Anthony relationship.
6. At some point, Liz and Anthony are shown totally geeking out over something together. Reciting Monty Python or singing musicals or playing Wii together or, since this is FBOFW, having a pun war.
7. At some point, we see them being just completely silly, like snowball-fight silly, and collapsing into giggles afterwards. The giggles can segue into foreplay (or what passes for it in a comic strip) if their relationship has reached that point yet. Or, if it can be executed properly, this can be when and how their relationship reaches that level.
8. At some point, they're seen working together on a projectish thingy - preparing dinner, wallpapering Liz's new apartment (does anyone wallpaper any more? It makes a fictional good project, but I don't know if it's even in style any more), putting together a very complicated toy for Françoise. This can be the plot or the background action (background is better, I think). They can be talking exposition or trading wordplay or talking about The Relationship if The Relationship has started already, it doesn't really matter. The point is that they be seen working well together and taking for granted that they're working on a project together (we don't see any "Thank you ever so much for helping me with this!" "No problem, that's what friends are for.")
9. Once the relationship starts, we see at least two instances of snogging, at least one lustful look with thought-bubble, and handholding whenever realistic. They don't have to be the plot of that day's strip, they just need to be happening.
10. We see at least once instance of snogging interrupted by parenting needs.
11. At their wedding, when Liz finds out that Grampa is in the hospital, Anthony is right there with a protective arm around her or hand on her back, a look of concern on his face.
Things They Should Study: how does vocal register change when speaking another language?
When I'm speaking another language, I tend to speak at a lower pitch. In French (my second language and the one I use most often) it drops a little bit, not very noticeable. I lose access to the higher pitch that I use in English for casual-young-female and customer-service-perky, but I'm mostly within a natural range. But by the time we get to Polish (my fifth language, the one I speak worst of the language I can even remotely claim to speak, and also the one that's least similar to English) my entire register drops a whole octave and I can't even reach my normal pitch. (I am physically capable of speaking Polish at a higher pitch, but I'd have to make a very deliberate effort. In the course of normal conversation, trying to think of what to say and how to say it in the other language and how to pronounce it properly, my pitch drops.)
I didn't think much of this until I saw some stand-up comedian on TV talking about how he has a Francophone wife/girlfriend/whatever, and how her pitch drops when speaking English. This has me wondering if it's a common phenomenon. Does pitch always drop in the other language, or does it rise sometimes? Do certain target languages (or target languages in combination with certain mother tongues) consistently cause pitch to raise or lower? Is the phenomenon the same for both men and women? Is it related to how similar the target language is to the speaker's mother tongue?
I didn't think much of this until I saw some stand-up comedian on TV talking about how he has a Francophone wife/girlfriend/whatever, and how her pitch drops when speaking English. This has me wondering if it's a common phenomenon. Does pitch always drop in the other language, or does it rise sometimes? Do certain target languages (or target languages in combination with certain mother tongues) consistently cause pitch to raise or lower? Is the phenomenon the same for both men and women? Is it related to how similar the target language is to the speaker's mother tongue?
Things They Should Invent: Kernels in movie theatres
Kernels sells awesome popcorn. Why do they not have locations in movie theatres????
Possible new academic year resolution
My new year's anti-resolution is working well, so I'm considering starting another for September, because after 19 years of my life spent in school it's still the psychological new year.
Potential resolution: when shopping or considering a new purchase or new ongoing spending, I don't have to worry about good value for money, I don't have to worry about whether I'm getting screwed over price-wise. All I have to do is stay in the black. As long as I don't fall into the red, I can spend whatever money I want on whatever I want. If I feel after the fact I didn't get my money's worth, I don't have to buy it next time.
I'm not sure if I'm going to go with this resolution. It feels risky, but I think it would reduce stress.
One thing I love about being a grownup and living alone is that when I do decide to make some kind of change in my day to day life, I can just quietly do it without telling anyone. (Yes, I know I blog some of them. I don't blog all of them.) When I was a kid, I'd usually have to tell my mother if only for logistical reasons, which made me feel like both my idea and my ability to execute my idea are up for scrutiny. I like being able to do things without anyone noticing.
Potential resolution: when shopping or considering a new purchase or new ongoing spending, I don't have to worry about good value for money, I don't have to worry about whether I'm getting screwed over price-wise. All I have to do is stay in the black. As long as I don't fall into the red, I can spend whatever money I want on whatever I want. If I feel after the fact I didn't get my money's worth, I don't have to buy it next time.
I'm not sure if I'm going to go with this resolution. It feels risky, but I think it would reduce stress.
One thing I love about being a grownup and living alone is that when I do decide to make some kind of change in my day to day life, I can just quietly do it without telling anyone. (Yes, I know I blog some of them. I don't blog all of them.) When I was a kid, I'd usually have to tell my mother if only for logistical reasons, which made me feel like both my idea and my ability to execute my idea are up for scrutiny. I like being able to do things without anyone noticing.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Someday?
Elizabeth says "I'd like to have a baby someday."
I know it sounds mad crazy nitpicky, but the use of the word "someday" sounds so wrong to me in this context. I'm Liz's age, and I cannot imagine a woman my age - especially when she's married and her career's established and her husband's career's established - using the word someday there. She'd have a timeline - she'd say "I'd like to have a baby within the next five years" or "I'd like to have a baby sometime after Françoise starts kindergarten." Or if she isn't so into strict family planning, she'd just say "I'd like to have a baby" and let nature take its course. (And actually, now that I think about it, she'd probably say "we" instead of "I".)
"Someday" would be used by teenagers or by people who don't know whom they'd have the baby with or who don't know when they're going to be able to afford to have a baby or for whom there are too many factors still up in the air to allow for long-term family planning. It sounds so wrong coming from a 27-year-old newlywed with a stable career. If this were a translation, I'd cross it out as being unidiomatic.
I know it sounds mad crazy nitpicky, but the use of the word "someday" sounds so wrong to me in this context. I'm Liz's age, and I cannot imagine a woman my age - especially when she's married and her career's established and her husband's career's established - using the word someday there. She'd have a timeline - she'd say "I'd like to have a baby within the next five years" or "I'd like to have a baby sometime after Françoise starts kindergarten." Or if she isn't so into strict family planning, she'd just say "I'd like to have a baby" and let nature take its course. (And actually, now that I think about it, she'd probably say "we" instead of "I".)
"Someday" would be used by teenagers or by people who don't know whom they'd have the baby with or who don't know when they're going to be able to afford to have a baby or for whom there are too many factors still up in the air to allow for long-term family planning. It sounds so wrong coming from a 27-year-old newlywed with a stable career. If this were a translation, I'd cross it out as being unidiomatic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)