Many people look at my feet, see my strange shoes, my Vibram Fivefingers, and ask "are those comfortable?"
I assume this is rhetorical, as I rarely wear uncomfortable things just for the sake of fashion. Though perhaps I am alone in this. Out of kindness, or social pressure, I answer them truthfully and simply: "Yes, I find them very comfortable!"
I'm thinking of adopting a new approach:
Actually, they are horrendous! Each toe is screaming in discomfort, and my feet hurt constantly the second I put them on. But I find the constant discomfort and pain helps keep my masochistic tendencies happy. If I wear normal, comfortable shoes, I end up hacking at myself with such self-destruction that I get admitted to psych wards. And I don't like that.
A this point I would lean in and add in a conspiratorial whisper: there are crazy people there!
Leaning back, an assuring nod and slightly raised eyebrows should assure them of my sincerity and the truth of that revelation.
And so, I would conclude, I wear these profoundly uncomfortable shoes.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Friday, August 31, 2012
Movie: The Amazing Spiderman
We are behind on our summer blockbuster viewing, and so only just caught The Amazing Spiderman at our local cheap/second-run theater. The verdict: I liked it! It had all the elements I like to see in a comic-book movie: fun, entertaining, good action scenes, good special effects, and generally holding to the feel of the comic characters (at least as far as I am familiar with them). There was all the youthful sarcasm and quips of Spiderman, plus a decent amount of romance. At first I had not been looking forward to seeing the movie, partly I think because the other trilogy is barely cold and already they are remaking Spiderman! Really! But this was a good version, with a different take on the characters than the other trilogy.
My primary annoyance with the movie is not the movie itself, but rather how it interacts with the trailer. The movie could be "The Amazing Spiderman: Don't Trust the Trailer." I'm aware that scenes from the theater version doesn't always make it to DVD, but I am always annoyed when there are scenes and lines in the trailers that don't make it to the theater! I can forgive the voice-over in the trailer that doesn't show up in the movie, but that's it. There are clearly lines that I don't recall ever seeing, and even a scene that is significantly different: the shadowy man who appears at the end questioning what Peter Parker knows about his dad is shown in more detail in the trailer than in the movie. In the trailer, we can actually see his face. In the movie, we barely see him at all, as he is hidden in shadows. The football field scene in the trailer also doesn't appear: we never see the coach talk to Peter at all.
The trailer also makes the movie very focused on Peter's parents, and the mystery surrounding it. The trailer would have us believe that everything Peter is doing, his entire conflict with the villain, involves getting information about his parents. This is not really true, however. Peter does meet the villain due to searching the past, and the past is a factor, but he seems more motivated by revenge for his uncle's death, and later by his need to protect innocent people, than by learning about his parents.
The movie was great, but it wasn't the film that the trailer advertised. This is something that happens from time to time, and it always irritates me. To me, a trailer should motivate me to watch the movie, but not by cheating and selling me a movie that doesn't exist.
My primary annoyance with the movie is not the movie itself, but rather how it interacts with the trailer. The movie could be "The Amazing Spiderman: Don't Trust the Trailer." I'm aware that scenes from the theater version doesn't always make it to DVD, but I am always annoyed when there are scenes and lines in the trailers that don't make it to the theater! I can forgive the voice-over in the trailer that doesn't show up in the movie, but that's it. There are clearly lines that I don't recall ever seeing, and even a scene that is significantly different: the shadowy man who appears at the end questioning what Peter Parker knows about his dad is shown in more detail in the trailer than in the movie. In the trailer, we can actually see his face. In the movie, we barely see him at all, as he is hidden in shadows. The football field scene in the trailer also doesn't appear: we never see the coach talk to Peter at all.
The trailer also makes the movie very focused on Peter's parents, and the mystery surrounding it. The trailer would have us believe that everything Peter is doing, his entire conflict with the villain, involves getting information about his parents. This is not really true, however. Peter does meet the villain due to searching the past, and the past is a factor, but he seems more motivated by revenge for his uncle's death, and later by his need to protect innocent people, than by learning about his parents.
The movie was great, but it wasn't the film that the trailer advertised. This is something that happens from time to time, and it always irritates me. To me, a trailer should motivate me to watch the movie, but not by cheating and selling me a movie that doesn't exist.
For Charcoal
The other day my parents had to put our last cat, Charcoal (she was black, and liked to hide up the chimney when we practiced our instruments), to sleep. Her brother, Custard (he was orange and white) died a couple years ago of natural causes in the house, but she was lingering, and starting to suffer. She was the last cat that we owned from my childhood. I didn't fly home for the funeral (in fact there was no funeral), so instead I have written her this prayer/eulogy.
Almighty God, Creator of Heaven, and Earth,
Creator of all that is, including cats,
Thank you for Charcoal and her life.
Thank you for the joy she gave us, for the memories, for all the stories we have to share of her hairbrained escapades and her bizarre ditzy behavior, of her meowing constantly whenever we pet her, of her opening doors for her brother, and of her getting so involved in being pet that she fell over.
Thank you for being such a loving and creative God, and having so much creativity and power, that you bothered to make creatures that seem to exist largely just to keep us company and give us joy. Charcoal certainly did that, even if we did get frustrated with her fetish for dipping her paws in water glasses that were left on the table, and then knocking them over.
Thank you for her life, which was good and long and full of love. Forgive us (at least my brother and I) for tormenting her when we were young, but I hope she knew that we loved her. After all, I might have toyed with her by handing her empty cans of beans when she thought I was opening Tuna, but most of the time it was tuna, and seriously, what other cats ever got to lick tuna cans? Who drains tuna cans into bowls just so their cats can drink the juice? I mean, if she didn't know we loved her, I'm not sure what else we could do.
So thank you, God, for Charcoal, and for the memories, and all the joy and fun and love that she helped us share. May she rest in peace.
Amen.
Almighty God, Creator of Heaven, and Earth,
Creator of all that is, including cats,
Thank you for Charcoal and her life.
Thank you for the joy she gave us, for the memories, for all the stories we have to share of her hairbrained escapades and her bizarre ditzy behavior, of her meowing constantly whenever we pet her, of her opening doors for her brother, and of her getting so involved in being pet that she fell over.
Thank you for being such a loving and creative God, and having so much creativity and power, that you bothered to make creatures that seem to exist largely just to keep us company and give us joy. Charcoal certainly did that, even if we did get frustrated with her fetish for dipping her paws in water glasses that were left on the table, and then knocking them over.
Thank you for her life, which was good and long and full of love. Forgive us (at least my brother and I) for tormenting her when we were young, but I hope she knew that we loved her. After all, I might have toyed with her by handing her empty cans of beans when she thought I was opening Tuna, but most of the time it was tuna, and seriously, what other cats ever got to lick tuna cans? Who drains tuna cans into bowls just so their cats can drink the juice? I mean, if she didn't know we loved her, I'm not sure what else we could do.
So thank you, God, for Charcoal, and for the memories, and all the joy and fun and love that she helped us share. May she rest in peace.
Amen.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Playing Alone Together
A concept I picked up from reading Jean Piaget is "playing alone together." The idea comes from child development, that at some point in their play, kids start playing together. They want to socialize. Early on, however, they still are making up their own rules, don't really get the idea of other people making rules, and so are playing alone. Piaget observed kids moving near each other to play together, but each still very clearly playing his or her own game, without including the other. Hence, playing alone, together.
Luta and I tease each other about this some times. There was one video game in particular that we would both play, at the same time, in the same room, but not together. Kind of like two people playing solitaire on their own computer, and talking to each other about it while doing it, but not playing the same game.
I've been going to a game store in Lexington that has open board game play on Saturdays. The last two games I've tried, Glen More and Trajan, have used concepts that were somewhat new to me. Both games involve collecting tiles, in various ways, to score points. Points are scored throughout game play and at the end of scoring rounds, and at the end of the game the player with the most points wins. Both games were fun. Both games at first sounded fairly complicated, then turned out to be fairly easy to pick up, and then I realized that the strategy of them would take some time to figure out (though I didn't come in last!).
And both games seem to be versions of "playing alone, together." My goal was to build up points. There were numerous ways to do this. And for the most part, other players only casually interfered with that. In Trajan especially I could almost not notice the other players were there, except cards would vanish from play limiting my choices. It reminded me more of a race than a directly competitive sport. In swimming, I'm mostly just trying to be fastest, and the other swimmers have little impact on me. Sure, there's some drag in the pool, and motivation seeing them nearby, but they don't reach over and grab at me to try and slow me down. On the other hand, in tennis I am directly competing with another opponent. Everything they do directly impacts me, and vice versa, and the only way to win is to "conquer" them, so to speak. These new games seem to be more of the "swimming" variety: I could beat my own time, even without other people there. The fact that other players are playing the game almost seems like a casual fact, and could easily be forgotten.
While the games were both fun, and I want to play them again, my initial reaction is that I would prefer to play a directly strategic game. Of course if one finds themselves being overly competitive and mean, perhaps this sort of game is better at keeping the emotions in check.
Luta and I tease each other about this some times. There was one video game in particular that we would both play, at the same time, in the same room, but not together. Kind of like two people playing solitaire on their own computer, and talking to each other about it while doing it, but not playing the same game.
I've been going to a game store in Lexington that has open board game play on Saturdays. The last two games I've tried, Glen More and Trajan, have used concepts that were somewhat new to me. Both games involve collecting tiles, in various ways, to score points. Points are scored throughout game play and at the end of scoring rounds, and at the end of the game the player with the most points wins. Both games were fun. Both games at first sounded fairly complicated, then turned out to be fairly easy to pick up, and then I realized that the strategy of them would take some time to figure out (though I didn't come in last!).
And both games seem to be versions of "playing alone, together." My goal was to build up points. There were numerous ways to do this. And for the most part, other players only casually interfered with that. In Trajan especially I could almost not notice the other players were there, except cards would vanish from play limiting my choices. It reminded me more of a race than a directly competitive sport. In swimming, I'm mostly just trying to be fastest, and the other swimmers have little impact on me. Sure, there's some drag in the pool, and motivation seeing them nearby, but they don't reach over and grab at me to try and slow me down. On the other hand, in tennis I am directly competing with another opponent. Everything they do directly impacts me, and vice versa, and the only way to win is to "conquer" them, so to speak. These new games seem to be more of the "swimming" variety: I could beat my own time, even without other people there. The fact that other players are playing the game almost seems like a casual fact, and could easily be forgotten.
While the games were both fun, and I want to play them again, my initial reaction is that I would prefer to play a directly strategic game. Of course if one finds themselves being overly competitive and mean, perhaps this sort of game is better at keeping the emotions in check.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Valentine's Day
Happy Valentine's Day!
In honor of romance on this V-Day (and being inspired by xkcd.com), I want to offer some possible interpretations of what common gifts might mean today.
Flowers: 1) They are beautiful/smell good like you, and I thought of you, so I bought them for you! 2) You make the room smell, and these smell better, so I got them for you! 3) I don't think you're very pretty OR Your house/room is ugly, these will help brighten up the place.
Chocolate: 1) You're sweet, like chocolate! 2) Our love is sappy and cliche, like chocolate on Valentine's day! 3) I haven't been paying any attention to your complaints about your weight. Hush with it already 4) I think you're anorexic, here, put on some weight.
Home-made dinner: 1) Let's avoid crowds, and be alone. We don't even need to leave the house, if you get my hint. 2) I'm too cheap to buy you dinner, even on Valentine's Day. 3) I'm embarrassed to be seen with you. 4) I forgot about Valentine's Day, and there were no reservations left anywhere by the time I remembered.
Dinner out: 1) Our love is not inspiring at all, all I could come up with is going out to dinner, which we do all the time.
Jewelry: 1) I'm hoping to buy your love with this. Did it work? No? More?
Nothing: 1) I forgot. 2) I don't really care, I'm not a romantic. 3) I'm rebelling against "made up holidays." (never mind that every holiday was made up by someone at some point, I've decided to zero in on this one with psychotic intensity.)
There you go! Hope that helps you (over)think your gifts!
In honor of romance on this V-Day (and being inspired by xkcd.com), I want to offer some possible interpretations of what common gifts might mean today.
Flowers: 1) They are beautiful/smell good like you, and I thought of you, so I bought them for you! 2) You make the room smell, and these smell better, so I got them for you! 3) I don't think you're very pretty OR Your house/room is ugly, these will help brighten up the place.
Chocolate: 1) You're sweet, like chocolate! 2) Our love is sappy and cliche, like chocolate on Valentine's day! 3) I haven't been paying any attention to your complaints about your weight. Hush with it already 4) I think you're anorexic, here, put on some weight.
Home-made dinner: 1) Let's avoid crowds, and be alone. We don't even need to leave the house, if you get my hint. 2) I'm too cheap to buy you dinner, even on Valentine's Day. 3) I'm embarrassed to be seen with you. 4) I forgot about Valentine's Day, and there were no reservations left anywhere by the time I remembered.
Dinner out: 1) Our love is not inspiring at all, all I could come up with is going out to dinner, which we do all the time.
Jewelry: 1) I'm hoping to buy your love with this. Did it work? No? More?
Nothing: 1) I forgot. 2) I don't really care, I'm not a romantic. 3) I'm rebelling against "made up holidays." (never mind that every holiday was made up by someone at some point, I've decided to zero in on this one with psychotic intensity.)
There you go! Hope that helps you (over)think your gifts!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)