My blog has always contained a strange and seemingly random mix of topics, I try to keep the personal stuff to a minimum but there are times when I just need to get something out and for some reason publishing that something on this blog seems to help. So tonight I use that venting purpose of my blog for possibly the most serious of any of the posts I've written.
I have depression. Part of me has been worried that something wasn't quite right in my head for a long time now, but recently it just got too much for me. I moved to uni and everything in my life is as good as it has ever been, yet I was so unhappy I could barely bring myself to get out of bed. I realised that I was no longer able to cope on my own and forced myself to see a doctor. I know it's cliché but admitting out loud that I thought I had a problem was genuinely the most difficult thing I've ever had to do. I am now on anti-depressant medication and will be having regular check ups over the next few months.
Until writing this post I had only told a few people, not because I wanted to keep it a secret, but because it wasn't a relevant point to bring up. I refuse to believe there is any reason for any sort of stigma to be attached to depression or any form of mental illness. There is a chemical imbalance in my body that causes some unwanted effects, much in the same way many physical illness work, my imbalance just happens to be in the synapses of my brain that's all. Everyone I have told about it, family, friends, even my lecturers, have been brilliant, offering me as much support as I could ever want. Special thanks has to be given to Katie and Sabrina though, without whom I'd be in a much lonelier and darker place.
I've had my pills for just under a week now, apparently they take 2-4 weeks before they really get to work, so I'm still a little way off being ok. I am however noticing two interesting side effects. One of the better known and often questioned effects of anti-depressants is increased thoughts of suicide. Now I've never had and still have no desire to kill myself I promise you, so maybe this is just a placebo effect, but I've become very aware of the possibility, a car drives past me and I know I could jump under it, I use a knife and know I could open my jugular, I take my medication and wonder if I have enough to overdose. I don't want to do it, but I'm acutely aware of my own ability to end my life. The second side effect is less serious, but certainly more annoying. (People who know me, this might get a little weird depending on how close we are, just saying) Being 19 and single my sex drive was pretty high as it was, but I get to be one of the lucky minority of users who gets theirs sent through the fucking roof by their pills, so for the next few weeks I'll be as horny as a dog in heat but have the self confidence of the average sea cucumber, so that'll be fun (FYI, the ex drive effect is likely to stay as long as the meds do, only the confidence level will change... hopefully it will)
On a serious note though, telling people about this has helped me so much in such a short space of time. If you think even a little bit that you might have depression then tell someone, either see a doctor or tell someone you trust to help you though it. Trust me, I know how terrifying that thought is, but it will be a massive step in helping you overcome it.
Friday 6 December 2013
Tuesday 15 October 2013
You're Not Perfect
I know, I haven't written anything here for a long time now, but I was getting ready to move to university when I wrote that last post so I've been busy, deal with it. Anyway, that's not related in the slightest to this post.
I was having one of those nights last night, the ones where my brain gets really fixated on one very specific random topic. Specifically the emotive meaning of words verses their actual meaning. I've talked about how cunt/pussy/vagina all have the same literal meaning, but obviously you'll get very different reactions if you use one instead of the other. Word to the wise, don't talk about a cunt in reproductive biology. (I don't do that module, just fyi, so that was just a joke, don't panic).
This time however I was thinking about positive, non sweary things (yeah, I was pretty shocked too). I was thinking about being referred to as "perfect" (no I was not called that, we both know that was a stupid question for you to ask). It's not something I say often, or at all really, because to me it feels cheap, meaningless even. No one is perfect, perfect is an absolute, perfect is an omnipotent high of goodness. You are not at that level, no one is, even Helena isn't (She spent new years at David Cameron's house without hitting him). Even if we talk about how physically attractive one person is to one other, the odds of you meeting their preference for every distinguishing feature is going to be billions to one. Certainly more than there are people on the earth, so odds on that there is no one perfect for you out there. Then we move on to everything else, mannerisms, opinions, accents, you really think that one person will have your number one choice for all of them?
And yet, after all this, I leave you with one of my rare positive endings. Who cares that your partner has flaws? We all have a fair few. The myth of perfection perpetuates the myth of the one. There is not one perfect person out there for you, but there are people out there who will make you happy, find one of them. Don't pretend they're perfect, just make sure they're beautiful to you, on every level.
I was having one of those nights last night, the ones where my brain gets really fixated on one very specific random topic. Specifically the emotive meaning of words verses their actual meaning. I've talked about how cunt/pussy/vagina all have the same literal meaning, but obviously you'll get very different reactions if you use one instead of the other. Word to the wise, don't talk about a cunt in reproductive biology. (I don't do that module, just fyi, so that was just a joke, don't panic).
This time however I was thinking about positive, non sweary things (yeah, I was pretty shocked too). I was thinking about being referred to as "perfect" (no I was not called that, we both know that was a stupid question for you to ask). It's not something I say often, or at all really, because to me it feels cheap, meaningless even. No one is perfect, perfect is an absolute, perfect is an omnipotent high of goodness. You are not at that level, no one is, even Helena isn't (She spent new years at David Cameron's house without hitting him). Even if we talk about how physically attractive one person is to one other, the odds of you meeting their preference for every distinguishing feature is going to be billions to one. Certainly more than there are people on the earth, so odds on that there is no one perfect for you out there. Then we move on to everything else, mannerisms, opinions, accents, you really think that one person will have your number one choice for all of them?
And yet, after all this, I leave you with one of my rare positive endings. Who cares that your partner has flaws? We all have a fair few. The myth of perfection perpetuates the myth of the one. There is not one perfect person out there for you, but there are people out there who will make you happy, find one of them. Don't pretend they're perfect, just make sure they're beautiful to you, on every level.
Monday 2 September 2013
Archduke Sarin
I was talking to Heather about Syria and she asked me if I was scared. Unfortunately, it's got to the point where frankly, not be scared is illogical. We are on the brink of the third world war, it sounds like I'm being melodramatic but I honestly believe that.
Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya all had one difference to Syria that makes this so, no powerful countries tried to stop an invasion. Syria is backed by China and Russia, two of the largest and most powerful countries on Earth and both Permanent members of the UN security council.
Despite this fact, Obama drew a line in the sand, he made it very clear that America would not tolerate the use of chemical weapons... Chemical weapons were used. So, like it or not, Obama pretty much needs a war to maintain his credibility. I can tell you exactly what will happen if and when the American troops land in Syria, because it has already happened once before.
On Sunday the 28th of June 1914 a 19 year old Gavrilo Princip shot and killed the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, this is the WW1 equivalent of the sarin, the spark in the powder keg. So Austria invaded Serbia, much as America seems poised to invade Syria. In both the past and all too likely future events, Russia steps in to defend it's smaller ally. Obviously Austria called on its allies and Russia on its, leading to WW1. The same thing will inevitably happen in Syria, America will bring in its European allies and Russia will be joined by China and Iran.
For the third time the world's superpowers will be at war with one another, millions will die and the reason for the war starting will be lost among the fighting, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was not enough to warrant the first world war, just as the use of sarin gas does not justify the third.
Something needs to be done in Syria, but invasion is not it.
Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya all had one difference to Syria that makes this so, no powerful countries tried to stop an invasion. Syria is backed by China and Russia, two of the largest and most powerful countries on Earth and both Permanent members of the UN security council.
Despite this fact, Obama drew a line in the sand, he made it very clear that America would not tolerate the use of chemical weapons... Chemical weapons were used. So, like it or not, Obama pretty much needs a war to maintain his credibility. I can tell you exactly what will happen if and when the American troops land in Syria, because it has already happened once before.
On Sunday the 28th of June 1914 a 19 year old Gavrilo Princip shot and killed the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, this is the WW1 equivalent of the sarin, the spark in the powder keg. So Austria invaded Serbia, much as America seems poised to invade Syria. In both the past and all too likely future events, Russia steps in to defend it's smaller ally. Obviously Austria called on its allies and Russia on its, leading to WW1. The same thing will inevitably happen in Syria, America will bring in its European allies and Russia will be joined by China and Iran.
For the third time the world's superpowers will be at war with one another, millions will die and the reason for the war starting will be lost among the fighting, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was not enough to warrant the first world war, just as the use of sarin gas does not justify the third.
Something needs to be done in Syria, but invasion is not it.
Sunday 28 July 2013
The Russian Regime
My brother did a post on how dangerous it was for David Cameron to use a phrase used to refer to "the bad guy" to talk about Russia. Cameron was right though, not something I'll often say, Putin is clearly an evil and insane excuse for a human being.
For those of you who don't know, Vladimir Putin is openly moving to make being gay illegal. Any "promotion" of homosexuality in media is treated in the same way as pornography, because if your child sees two men kiss it's life will be permanently damaged won't it? No Russian child can be adopted in Britain now, or France, or Canada, or any other country that has legalised gay marriage. Even if a straight couple adopts them, this country is no longer allowed Russian children.
Next in line is Putin's master stroke, the one that if allowed to go through will forever be remembered as his legacy. He wants to legally remove all children from homes with a gay couple. Not only adopted, but biological children too.
Putin is the head of a broken and medieval regime. A lieutenant colonel of the KGB sitting in the Kremlin pretending the soviet union never fell. Public opinion means nothing to this man but governments and the UN might be able to do something. The plans off the Russian government show a blatant disregard of human rights, wars have been started for far less.
Russia is large and powerful, but not untouchable. Putin believes he can act like Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein with impunity. The civilised governments of the world and the UN need to let him know that this is not the case. Putin has been at the top of Russian government, in one form or another, since 1999. Clearly it's time for a change.
For those of you who don't know, Vladimir Putin is openly moving to make being gay illegal. Any "promotion" of homosexuality in media is treated in the same way as pornography, because if your child sees two men kiss it's life will be permanently damaged won't it? No Russian child can be adopted in Britain now, or France, or Canada, or any other country that has legalised gay marriage. Even if a straight couple adopts them, this country is no longer allowed Russian children.
Next in line is Putin's master stroke, the one that if allowed to go through will forever be remembered as his legacy. He wants to legally remove all children from homes with a gay couple. Not only adopted, but biological children too.
Putin is the head of a broken and medieval regime. A lieutenant colonel of the KGB sitting in the Kremlin pretending the soviet union never fell. Public opinion means nothing to this man but governments and the UN might be able to do something. The plans off the Russian government show a blatant disregard of human rights, wars have been started for far less.
Russia is large and powerful, but not untouchable. Putin believes he can act like Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein with impunity. The civilised governments of the world and the UN need to let him know that this is not the case. Putin has been at the top of Russian government, in one form or another, since 1999. Clearly it's time for a change.
Saturday 27 July 2013
Happy Endings
I got dumped a few days ago... That was fun.
Shockingly though I am not going to focus on that (it will influence the post a lot though) that was my original plan but I don't think I can without feeling cruel or petty. Part of me says I have the right to be just that, but I love her too much for that.
Luckily an alternative presented itself to me while watching a film (fun size, its brilliant, go watch it) As you'd expect, a bunch of shit happens to the main characters that makes everyone very unhappy. This inspires character development and dramatic adventures and whatnot. All perfectly fine.
My issue comes at the end of the film (and almost every film ever, hence it being an issue) Everyone good ends up happy, everyone bad ends up unhappy. Take fun size as the example, Wren leaves the popular good looking guy to be with the nerd who loved her, April stops rejecting the guy who likes her in favour of coolness, Wren's mother isn't angry she's just happy to be with her children, etc, etc... That is not the way the world works, deserving to be happy is not a good enough reason in the eyes of the universe. The person you love will not suddenly realise they loved you too all along, bad people will not get the punishment they deserve. It's bothered me a little for a long time, it's hardly surprising that I'm more bothered this time.
Films are supposed to reflect real life to some degree, even things that seem totally insane and off the wall have to connect with reality in some way to be enjoyed. So why does no film have a realistic ending? Every film ends in a world where justice has been done to everyone. That's not how it works, life is not just, the world is not fair. Unhappy endings are a part of life and films need to accept this. I'm not saying I want everyone to end up depressed, no one would watch that film, but having one main protagonist end the film suffering at the hands of fate, worse off than they started, would not only be a poignant dramatic device to make for a memorable ending, but it would also be a much more realistic ending.
I know why they don't do it, happy ending are meant to make the watcher feel just that, happy. To me they've always just said one thing "if your life isn't perfect, then you must be the bad guy, only they end up unhappy." The idea that everyone gets their fairytale ending is bullshit, filling people with ridiculous dreams, vous ne revez pas, the world will never be kind to you. So we have to keep going, don't let one thing or person dominate your life, because it will be gone one day. You may never have a happy ending, but a happy life is something worth fighting for.
Shockingly though I am not going to focus on that (it will influence the post a lot though) that was my original plan but I don't think I can without feeling cruel or petty. Part of me says I have the right to be just that, but I love her too much for that.
Luckily an alternative presented itself to me while watching a film (fun size, its brilliant, go watch it) As you'd expect, a bunch of shit happens to the main characters that makes everyone very unhappy. This inspires character development and dramatic adventures and whatnot. All perfectly fine.
My issue comes at the end of the film (and almost every film ever, hence it being an issue) Everyone good ends up happy, everyone bad ends up unhappy. Take fun size as the example, Wren leaves the popular good looking guy to be with the nerd who loved her, April stops rejecting the guy who likes her in favour of coolness, Wren's mother isn't angry she's just happy to be with her children, etc, etc... That is not the way the world works, deserving to be happy is not a good enough reason in the eyes of the universe. The person you love will not suddenly realise they loved you too all along, bad people will not get the punishment they deserve. It's bothered me a little for a long time, it's hardly surprising that I'm more bothered this time.
Films are supposed to reflect real life to some degree, even things that seem totally insane and off the wall have to connect with reality in some way to be enjoyed. So why does no film have a realistic ending? Every film ends in a world where justice has been done to everyone. That's not how it works, life is not just, the world is not fair. Unhappy endings are a part of life and films need to accept this. I'm not saying I want everyone to end up depressed, no one would watch that film, but having one main protagonist end the film suffering at the hands of fate, worse off than they started, would not only be a poignant dramatic device to make for a memorable ending, but it would also be a much more realistic ending.
I know why they don't do it, happy ending are meant to make the watcher feel just that, happy. To me they've always just said one thing "if your life isn't perfect, then you must be the bad guy, only they end up unhappy." The idea that everyone gets their fairytale ending is bullshit, filling people with ridiculous dreams, vous ne revez pas, the world will never be kind to you. So we have to keep going, don't let one thing or person dominate your life, because it will be gone one day. You may never have a happy ending, but a happy life is something worth fighting for.
Sunday 9 June 2013
Let your children live
I'm encouraging commenting on this post more than any other I've done. Our topic for today is "How much freedom should a teenager get from their parents?" Obviously if you're a teenager or the parent of one I'd like to know how things really work as well as how you think they should. Are you parents too controlling, or your children too rebellious? Are there any cases where it's the other way around, where you feel like your parents don't care about keeping you safe, or that your children can't function without you?
The two situations I'm aware of in enough detail to write about are mine (obviously) and one other who I won't mention by name but you all know who it is anyway. Rather nicely from a blogging point of view, they're very different situations. That's not a good thing from a personal point of view, for reasons you will see later.
Firstly, my family. My mother is fairly relaxed about when I go out, I am expected to sleep at my house and not drink on school nights, that pretty much covers it. If I can tell her who I'll be with, so she knows they're not strangers from the internet or whatnot, then all is well. If I go out early in the evening I don't get told when to be home for dinner, I get a text while I'm out saying "Will you be home for dinner at *whenever*?" The answer is generally yes, but I know that it is my choice. If I go out later than that I obviously get asked when I'll be home, if I don't know (I often don't, I don't know much) then that is the answer I give and it is fine. I don't even ask if people can come over any more, it's not uncommon for me to tell my mum "Heather is on her way over" and that's the first she knows of it. The system for the sister (15) is pretty similar, she just gets told to be home at 10, she of course turns up at 10:15 most nights (it's a 15 minute walk to Jamie Walker's house, coincidence? I think not)
I might be biased because it's a system I'm obviously very used to, but I think it works rather well. My mother makes sure I am safe, then lets me live my life. As long as I am with people I know and have a way of contacting/getting home, all is well.
The other situation I'm concerned with is ever so slightly different. Like I said, I may be biased by my own family, but lets be honest, if you have a 17 year old child that has been out and eaten dinner at someone else's house, but you still demand they be home for 7:30, you are an overprotective cunt. Frankly if you can't cope with your child being out of the house all the way to (gasp) 8pm! Then you're probably just going to drive your child away and cause arguments. I'm not saying all parents should let their children be out for as long as they want, but unless they stopped growing up at 12 years old, then 7:30 is a stupid curfew.
All parents (with a few exceptions) just what their children to be safe and I know that letting them do whatever they like whenever they like is madness, but bubble wrapping your child is just as bad. Protect your children, keep them safe and catch them when they fall, just give them the chance to make their own choices, they will make mistakes, let them, help them deal with it and make better choices, don't force them to hide those mistakes and make everything worse. A parent's job is to raise their child to be able to live their life, not to run their life for them.
I know a lot of parents will think this is just a teenager thinking they know better than any adult, but that's far from the case. (No one show this next part to my mother) I am so grateful to my mother for the way she treats me. I know if I do something stupid, like getting really terribly ill from drinking too much, I will be rescued and made better, then mocked about it mercilessly. Now I don't drink on an empty stomach, I made the mistake, I learnt from it. If I wasn't free to do so I would just make the mistake away from the safety net of my mother later in life, then I could end up hospitalised or worse.
This has not been an angry teenage rant, this has been logic. If you agree, or disagree, or have anything to say about teenagers and parents, then the comment box is right down there.
The two situations I'm aware of in enough detail to write about are mine (obviously) and one other who I won't mention by name but you all know who it is anyway. Rather nicely from a blogging point of view, they're very different situations. That's not a good thing from a personal point of view, for reasons you will see later.
Firstly, my family. My mother is fairly relaxed about when I go out, I am expected to sleep at my house and not drink on school nights, that pretty much covers it. If I can tell her who I'll be with, so she knows they're not strangers from the internet or whatnot, then all is well. If I go out early in the evening I don't get told when to be home for dinner, I get a text while I'm out saying "Will you be home for dinner at *whenever*?" The answer is generally yes, but I know that it is my choice. If I go out later than that I obviously get asked when I'll be home, if I don't know (I often don't, I don't know much) then that is the answer I give and it is fine. I don't even ask if people can come over any more, it's not uncommon for me to tell my mum "Heather is on her way over" and that's the first she knows of it. The system for the sister (15) is pretty similar, she just gets told to be home at 10, she of course turns up at 10:15 most nights (it's a 15 minute walk to Jamie Walker's house, coincidence? I think not)
I might be biased because it's a system I'm obviously very used to, but I think it works rather well. My mother makes sure I am safe, then lets me live my life. As long as I am with people I know and have a way of contacting/getting home, all is well.
The other situation I'm concerned with is ever so slightly different. Like I said, I may be biased by my own family, but lets be honest, if you have a 17 year old child that has been out and eaten dinner at someone else's house, but you still demand they be home for 7:30, you are an overprotective cunt. Frankly if you can't cope with your child being out of the house all the way to (gasp) 8pm! Then you're probably just going to drive your child away and cause arguments. I'm not saying all parents should let their children be out for as long as they want, but unless they stopped growing up at 12 years old, then 7:30 is a stupid curfew.
All parents (with a few exceptions) just what their children to be safe and I know that letting them do whatever they like whenever they like is madness, but bubble wrapping your child is just as bad. Protect your children, keep them safe and catch them when they fall, just give them the chance to make their own choices, they will make mistakes, let them, help them deal with it and make better choices, don't force them to hide those mistakes and make everything worse. A parent's job is to raise their child to be able to live their life, not to run their life for them.
I know a lot of parents will think this is just a teenager thinking they know better than any adult, but that's far from the case. (No one show this next part to my mother) I am so grateful to my mother for the way she treats me. I know if I do something stupid, like getting really terribly ill from drinking too much, I will be rescued and made better, then mocked about it mercilessly. Now I don't drink on an empty stomach, I made the mistake, I learnt from it. If I wasn't free to do so I would just make the mistake away from the safety net of my mother later in life, then I could end up hospitalised or worse.
This has not been an angry teenage rant, this has been logic. If you agree, or disagree, or have anything to say about teenagers and parents, then the comment box is right down there.
Monday 20 May 2013
The Name of The Doctor
Obviously this post will have spoilers, a fucking fuckton of spoilers, let's not joke about here, it's going to be a massive list of spoiler after spoiler after spoiler. I think that should do as a warning, if you complain to me about spoiling it now, I have the legal right to kill you.
My 3rd ever post on this blog was named after a single episode of something (15,000,000 merits, black mirror, season 1) and now, 49 posts later you have this one (doctor who, season 7 part 2) I've only seen the episode 3 times so far, so this won't be perfect, but people have been confused on twitter, one even directly asking me for an explanation. So sit back and prepare yourself for the angry nerd's guide to Trenzalore "fun for all the family"... Well not really, it's a mass war grave.
The site of one of the doctors battles, described by the great intelligence as "a minor skirmish" the entire planet appears as a desolate burnt out rock, whether this is a result of the battle on the surface is never explained, but one thing is clear. This was not a minor skirmish by human standards, the entirety of the surface that is shown on screen is covered in gravestones, varying in size based on rank. Of course that cues a dramatic camera pan up a hill, upon which stands a 'grave' that would tower over the largest structures on earth. It is of course the final resting place of the doctor. I put grave in inverted commas there as the monolith is in fact the ruined shell of the long dead tardis.
Point of confusion 1, the doctor refers to "a size leak," where a dying tardis's dimension dams break down and the tardis swells to the enormous size of the one seen on the hill. So is the massive size of the doctor's grave a sign of his unquestioned authority over the forces on one side of the battle, or is it merely a coincidental side effect of the size leak?
One thing is for certain, the doctor would have no shortage of allies. Davros said it best in Journey's end (the one with the 3 doctors) "The man who abhors violence, never carrying a gun, but this is the truth, Doctor: you take ordinary people and fashion them into weapons." I would be shocked if the doctor fired a single shot on Trenzalore, but it would definitely have been his battle to win or lose. One more thing we're not told (have you noticed how many more questions are raised than answered?) is the outcome of the battle, all we know is one key casualty.
My 3rd ever post on this blog was named after a single episode of something (15,000,000 merits, black mirror, season 1) and now, 49 posts later you have this one (doctor who, season 7 part 2) I've only seen the episode 3 times so far, so this won't be perfect, but people have been confused on twitter, one even directly asking me for an explanation. So sit back and prepare yourself for the angry nerd's guide to Trenzalore "fun for all the family"... Well not really, it's a mass war grave.
Trenzalore
Point of confusion 1, the doctor refers to "a size leak," where a dying tardis's dimension dams break down and the tardis swells to the enormous size of the one seen on the hill. So is the massive size of the doctor's grave a sign of his unquestioned authority over the forces on one side of the battle, or is it merely a coincidental side effect of the size leak?One thing is for certain, the doctor would have no shortage of allies. Davros said it best in Journey's end (the one with the 3 doctors) "The man who abhors violence, never carrying a gun, but this is the truth, Doctor: you take ordinary people and fashion them into weapons." I would be shocked if the doctor fired a single shot on Trenzalore, but it would definitely have been his battle to win or lose. One more thing we're not told (have you noticed how many more questions are raised than answered?) is the outcome of the battle, all we know is one key casualty.
The Tomb
I think there's some media trickery going on here as I can't seem to find a proper picture of the grave/timeline, so rather than take a screenshot on iPlayer and risk a serious (however unlikely) fucking over from the beeb, you can have a reaction shot instead, deal with it.
The final resting place of the doctor is in the only place it could ever be, the control room of the tardis. The command console has been removed and replaced with a glowing tangle of light lines that represent the damage done to the universe's natural timeline by the doctor's journey to and fro throughout time. The lines are described as "an open wound," quite how this works is probably not known to anyone... or really possible, lets be honest. However we must accept that the open wound model holds as it is central to the whole reason the great intelligence summoned everyone there. He enters the timeline to unleash a rather impressive clusterfuck on the doctor's entire life, or as he put it "I can turn every one of your victories into defeats, poison every friendship, deliver pain to your every breath" what a nice bloke. Entering the timestream allows the great intelligence to appear in and influence multiple key events in the doctor's life, appearing as both the same person and many at once... Now who do we know who's shown that impossible trait before?
Clara Oswald
Bingo. From the moment the intelligence explained his plan, the truth about Clara was made painfully clear. Once again we were all wrong weren't we? Although without the knowledge of a timelord's grave, it would have been a miracle if someone had called it. Obviously Clara follows the intelligence into the timestream to undo everything he has wrought. From the theft of the tardis to Victorian London, Clara is there steering the doctor in the direction he was meant to go. Apart from River (we'll get to her, don't worry) Clara is the only companion to my knowledge (I did a little research, I'm not 100%) that has willingly and knowingly sacrificed her own life for the sake of the doctor.
She jumps into a tear in spacetime that scatters her life across the entire existence of the doctor (somewhere between 300 and >1,000,000 years... Yeah, he isn't consistent on that) She doesn't just sacrifice herself at Trenzalore, she dies for him again and again, living life after life, dying death after death, with only one constant factor, she has to save the doctor. Now lets be honest here, who wouldn't want to have Clara waiting around every bend as our own guardian angel? I mean she is (second time I've quoted this on my blog) a total screaming genius, but modest and a tiny bit sexy. Well more than a tiny bit, I mean look at her!.. *ahem* moving on
River Song
I'm not sure if it's essential or blasphemy to include a section on River in a post this filled with spoilers, but we missed her didn't we? (hint: the answer is yes) This is the first time we've seen River post library from her point of view, quite logically you might think seeing as she died in the library. Her body is still there in fact, what we see in this episode is the digital conciousness stored in the library computer. Summoned to the "conference call" by madame Vastra and kept present throughout by a psychic link with Clara, River continues to influence the doctor's life despite the minor setback of being dead. River is the one who speaks the doctor's name (cleverly at one of the points where she cannot be seen by the TV audience) to open the tomb door when the doctor refuses. Anything else I could say you already know about River, so let's get to our final point.
The Doctor
Shockingly I don't have a huge amount to write here. The doctor's name is not revealed, so we can't speculate as to it's significance. I am a little miffed as to how the monumental paradox of the doctor visiting his own grave had almost no effect on anything, far less than Rose meeting herself as a baby and without the huge tardis based machine used by the master. Really we are left with one thing to discus, but it's a big one. What event lies in the doctor's future that requires him to act "without choice, in the name of peace and sanity"? To renounce the name doctor and become something I don't dare speculate about? Is the event even in his future, or his past? The doctor clearly knew what he was talking to 'himself' about, was it that event that made him become the doctor? I don't have any answers in this section of the post. Only questions that we must make do with until November. Obviously priority question 1 is, is John Hurt the next doctor? The next master? Some other ally to the doctor? Or another enemy? Or put simply, who is he?
Thursday 16 May 2013
Feel sad? Be happy!
Yesterday was fucking awful. Specifically between about 4:30 and 6:30. It's ok, I'll only do a little Katie moping, then I'll get to the point (the point is my reaction, so the moping is context). I told you that Katie came out to me a few weeks ago ("you" being the whole internet... fuck) well obviously, considering my feelings for her, it changed... nothing. You see the issue here? Well luckily we agreed that our "more than friends, less than a couple" thing, was not working before either of us (me) had a full blown breakdown. Unfortunately that meant discontinuing said thing. Have you ever tried to work out how much closeness you need to lose with someone you love is needed to maintain your emotional well being? It is not a fun thing to do, but it was needed so it was done.
Shockingly this put me in what is often known as a "bad mood" spectacularly bad in fact. However I've already cried over Katie once and I'm damned if I'm going to cry for the same reason twice in one lifetime (excluding Les Miserables of course) So instead my brain decided the best thing for it was to go fully in the opposite direction. Since yesterday evening I've been weirdly and inexplicably hyper, I'm surprised I haven't broken any more furniture around school. I must say, double biology in that twisted emotional state is a rather difficult task. I just wanted to carry on "flouncing" as Morbey insists on calling it.
A surprising little side effect of this temporary manic state is a (slightly weird) forwardness with Heather and Lucy, something I would to say sorry for while I'm slightly sane... However the background to my phone is not being changed any time soon.
Right that's all I have for you on manic responses to depressing events, at least without getting super serial. So goodnight my sweet little audience.
Shockingly this put me in what is often known as a "bad mood" spectacularly bad in fact. However I've already cried over Katie once and I'm damned if I'm going to cry for the same reason twice in one lifetime (excluding Les Miserables of course) So instead my brain decided the best thing for it was to go fully in the opposite direction. Since yesterday evening I've been weirdly and inexplicably hyper, I'm surprised I haven't broken any more furniture around school. I must say, double biology in that twisted emotional state is a rather difficult task. I just wanted to carry on "flouncing" as Morbey insists on calling it.
A surprising little side effect of this temporary manic state is a (slightly weird) forwardness with Heather and Lucy, something I would to say sorry for while I'm slightly sane... However the background to my phone is not being changed any time soon.
Right that's all I have for you on manic responses to depressing events, at least without getting super serial. So goodnight my sweet little audience.
Monday 13 May 2013
A year and a half of total crap
This is my 50th post, I know mad isn't it!? We're coming up to 10,000 hits as well, hardly ground breaking but it's a strange thing to think that people across the globe from Britain to China, via Canada and the FYR of Macedonia have read the bullshit that pours from my mind onto my keyboard. So this is a simple little post to say thank you I guess. I like to think this is a place where I can be me, away from the real world, but I doubt I'd keep going if I had no readers.
I'm genuinely curious, why are you reading this? Don't get me wrong I'm grateful for every hit, but it hurts my brain to think that there are people thousands of miles away, people I will never meet, who read this little blog and get to see into my crazy mixed up mind. Like I said, I know 10,000 is nothing too special, but it's my (almost) 10,000 and it means a lot to me.
Anyway, that's all I have for you, not much of a milestone entry, but I only wanted to say thank you for reading my pointless little storied. Now, onwards to 100,000 hits and more!
I'm genuinely curious, why are you reading this? Don't get me wrong I'm grateful for every hit, but it hurts my brain to think that there are people thousands of miles away, people I will never meet, who read this little blog and get to see into my crazy mixed up mind. Like I said, I know 10,000 is nothing too special, but it's my (almost) 10,000 and it means a lot to me.
Anyway, that's all I have for you, not much of a milestone entry, but I only wanted to say thank you for reading my pointless little storied. Now, onwards to 100,000 hits and more!
Monday 29 April 2013
Heterosexual Homosexualphilia
I'm coining that term to refer to a person who is only attracted to homosexuals of the opposite sex, a term made necessary by the fact it applies to me. If you've read my post Nothing Worth Saying, or you know me in the real world, then you'll be aware of Katie and how bloody wonderful she is... Well except for one small issue, I told her I loved her on Sunday morning (just after midnight) and so, just as happened last time I confessed my love for someone, she came out. It was almost the same comment, they both said they were "80% lesbian", which I'm now pretty sure translates as "100% lesbian but not totally come to terms with it yet"
Now you should be able to appreciate just how impressive it is that I've managed to hit 2/2 closet homosexuals, but I want to know just how probable it is, so lets do the maths... Oh come on! It's that or I get depressing and mopey. The maths is better right? Good.
So the current scientifc estimate is that 1.4% of women are openly lesbian and 7.5% report "same gender desire"
Obviously they weren't out when I fell for them so the odds of me meeting them while they were in the closet is 7.5%^2=0.5625% More exactly that's the odds of you picking two random women and them both being in Narnia.
Then we have the more difficult question of "what are the odds of me falling in love with them strongly enough to admit it?" Even if we assume everyone has an equal chance after a certain point, how close is that point? So lets assume some simple numbers.
An apparent formula for people you meet in life is "Your age X 365 + leap years you've lived through X 2" for an average of meeting 2 people per day. I'm not very social so lets loose the "X 2"
18X365+4=6574
half it to eliminate men=3287
now lets assume I only care for about 1/20 of those 3000 women, that the rest are just passing acquaintances, classmates and whatnot=164.35=164 no decimalising of women.
Again, I'm taking estimates here, but apparently the average is 4 real loves in a lifetime, now all 4 coming before you're 19 is insane, so we'll quarter it (giving my lifespan a rough estimate of 76). therefore the odds of me falling in love with any one person I know is 1/164=0.6097%
So multiplying the two together gives us a final estimate of 0.006097X0.005625=0.0034299%
That gives us a rough estimate that there will be somewhere around 240,000 heterosexual homosexualphiles in the world. That's an insanely small number, I'm almost proud to be one of them.
Now before someone like Jonny, or Katie actually, she said stats was easy, turns up to criticise my maths, I want it to be clear that there are a lot of assumptions and estimates going on. Reasonably there could be anything from 1 (that's me) to 2,000,000 of us in the world. Of course if there's a fundamental error going on, feel free to point it out.
240,000 out of 7,000,000,000 though, that's nothing really is it? It's half the population of Liverpool, spread over the globe, I very much doubt that any one in the same situation will ever read this, but if you are a heterosexual homosexualphile, you are not alone!
Now you should be able to appreciate just how impressive it is that I've managed to hit 2/2 closet homosexuals, but I want to know just how probable it is, so lets do the maths... Oh come on! It's that or I get depressing and mopey. The maths is better right? Good.
So the current scientifc estimate is that 1.4% of women are openly lesbian and 7.5% report "same gender desire"
Obviously they weren't out when I fell for them so the odds of me meeting them while they were in the closet is 7.5%^2=0.5625% More exactly that's the odds of you picking two random women and them both being in Narnia.
Then we have the more difficult question of "what are the odds of me falling in love with them strongly enough to admit it?" Even if we assume everyone has an equal chance after a certain point, how close is that point? So lets assume some simple numbers.
An apparent formula for people you meet in life is "Your age X 365 + leap years you've lived through X 2" for an average of meeting 2 people per day. I'm not very social so lets loose the "X 2"
18X365+4=6574
half it to eliminate men=3287
now lets assume I only care for about 1/20 of those 3000 women, that the rest are just passing acquaintances, classmates and whatnot=164.35=164 no decimalising of women.
Again, I'm taking estimates here, but apparently the average is 4 real loves in a lifetime, now all 4 coming before you're 19 is insane, so we'll quarter it (giving my lifespan a rough estimate of 76). therefore the odds of me falling in love with any one person I know is 1/164=0.6097%
So multiplying the two together gives us a final estimate of 0.006097X0.005625=0.0034299%
That gives us a rough estimate that there will be somewhere around 240,000 heterosexual homosexualphiles in the world. That's an insanely small number, I'm almost proud to be one of them.
Now before someone like Jonny, or Katie actually, she said stats was easy, turns up to criticise my maths, I want it to be clear that there are a lot of assumptions and estimates going on. Reasonably there could be anything from 1 (that's me) to 2,000,000 of us in the world. Of course if there's a fundamental error going on, feel free to point it out.
240,000 out of 7,000,000,000 though, that's nothing really is it? It's half the population of Liverpool, spread over the globe, I very much doubt that any one in the same situation will ever read this, but if you are a heterosexual homosexualphile, you are not alone!
Friday 26 April 2013
The Myth of Selflessness
Is that not just the most cynical title you've ever read? Considering the title of my blog it's hardly likely that this is a problem for anyone now is it? If it is a problem for you let me know, so I can laugh at you. Now, to the cheery business of calling you all selfish cunts.
Selflessness is the act of performing an action that offers no benefit to you, and is in fact often detrimental to you, purely for the benefit of others. A fairly simple and certainly honourable cause to stand for, but think about this: if you enjoy acting selflessly, does the fact it makes you happy not therefore mean it can no longer be called selfless?
Maybe an example would help, so imagine yourself in this situation. Someone you care about texts you late at night, clearly in a bad mood. You stay up to try and cheer them up, but appear to be getting nowhere. Now you're losing sleep and almost certainly dragging your own mood down to try and help someone else, you're not the reason they're unhappy so have no obligation to help. It's a pretty selfless way to spend the night is it not?
So why do you do it? We all know the answer, it makes us happy to see the people we care about being happy. So when you go out of your way to make someone else happy, are you doing it for the sake of their mood, or your own?
You may come across as the loveliest fucking thing there is, but in reality we're all as selfish as each other. Don't get me wrong, you are still doing good, still helping others, but it is done for the sake of the person performing the action not the one benefiting from it.
Selflessness is the act of performing an action that offers no benefit to you, and is in fact often detrimental to you, purely for the benefit of others. A fairly simple and certainly honourable cause to stand for, but think about this: if you enjoy acting selflessly, does the fact it makes you happy not therefore mean it can no longer be called selfless?
Maybe an example would help, so imagine yourself in this situation. Someone you care about texts you late at night, clearly in a bad mood. You stay up to try and cheer them up, but appear to be getting nowhere. Now you're losing sleep and almost certainly dragging your own mood down to try and help someone else, you're not the reason they're unhappy so have no obligation to help. It's a pretty selfless way to spend the night is it not?
So why do you do it? We all know the answer, it makes us happy to see the people we care about being happy. So when you go out of your way to make someone else happy, are you doing it for the sake of their mood, or your own?
You may come across as the loveliest fucking thing there is, but in reality we're all as selfish as each other. Don't get me wrong, you are still doing good, still helping others, but it is done for the sake of the person performing the action not the one benefiting from it.
Tuesday 23 April 2013
Nothing Worth Saying
I know I've said I'm opposed to writing out of a feeling of obligation, but it's been almost a month so I'm going to, sorry. The problem is, I really have (as the the title suggests) nothing to write for you. It seems odd as so much shit has happened recently, especially in Korea and the US, but I just can't seem to get into my normal angry ranting mood that powers those kind of post.
So I'm deeply sorry, but to explain to you why (not that you're likely to care) I'm going to make one of my rare personal life posts. I won't blame you if you just move on now, go read the post about Helena or the pope again, they're much more fun. Those of you still here, I owe you a cookie.
I'm pretty certain the lack of anger and therefore the lack of posts can be traced back to the only significant change in my life for... ages, damn my life is exciting. For those of you who I don't know in the real world (I have hits from all over the world, but no idea why this is) the change I speak of is the addition of something small, welsh and exceptionally pretty to my life... No I have not brought a lamb! It is of course a person, a female person so I'll stop referring to her as it now.
I know what you're going to say "But Marshall, any time you have any interest in anyone you turn into the lamb you didn't buy!" Well firstly can you stop going on about the bloody lamb? More importantly, I somehow seem to have bypassed that, fucking irritating to everyone, phase. Maybe all my crazy and seeming irrational fears had a logical basis, because I'm feeling none of them now. I am as obsessive as ever, but not in a dramatic downward spiral this time, but all happy and excitable, like a small child at Christmas, so that's definitely better, but probably still irritating to some people.
Well fuck, I'd promised myself this wasn't going to be a post about Katie, but it sort of is now isn't it? Ah well you know what I'm like. One of you reading this might even be Katie, although you shouldn't be because I told her not to read my blog as there's a good chance of political opinions that are... Oh what's the word?.. Oh yeah, correct.
And just like that it's the blog you came here for.
Because correct is the right word for left wing politics, being left wing isn't some vapid hippy ideal, nor is it a totalitarian socialist nuthouse. It is the logical and moral belief in equal rights and equal opportunities, in a society where the people who put the most into society get the most out, as it should be. Right wing politics is the great system of "them and us". The rich own the money and have the power, therefore only the rich deserve money and power.
I am not a communist or any form of leftist radical, all I believe is that everyone should have the chance to make something of their life based purely on merit.
It's the same logic that props up my republican ideals, no one should be born into a position of unquestionable power, monarchy is the perfect example of true right wing politics. You are born, you therefore have the right to be head of state. That is not logic, that is madness, why is it still in effect?
So in summary: Katie is beautiful and causes a lack of anger in most things, but generates anger at politics... also, the royals are all a bunch of pointless tax draining cunts.
So I'm deeply sorry, but to explain to you why (not that you're likely to care) I'm going to make one of my rare personal life posts. I won't blame you if you just move on now, go read the post about Helena or the pope again, they're much more fun. Those of you still here, I owe you a cookie.
I'm pretty certain the lack of anger and therefore the lack of posts can be traced back to the only significant change in my life for... ages, damn my life is exciting. For those of you who I don't know in the real world (I have hits from all over the world, but no idea why this is) the change I speak of is the addition of something small, welsh and exceptionally pretty to my life... No I have not brought a lamb! It is of course a person, a female person so I'll stop referring to her as it now.
I know what you're going to say "But Marshall, any time you have any interest in anyone you turn into the lamb you didn't buy!" Well firstly can you stop going on about the bloody lamb? More importantly, I somehow seem to have bypassed that, fucking irritating to everyone, phase. Maybe all my crazy and seeming irrational fears had a logical basis, because I'm feeling none of them now. I am as obsessive as ever, but not in a dramatic downward spiral this time, but all happy and excitable, like a small child at Christmas, so that's definitely better, but probably still irritating to some people.
Well fuck, I'd promised myself this wasn't going to be a post about Katie, but it sort of is now isn't it? Ah well you know what I'm like. One of you reading this might even be Katie, although you shouldn't be because I told her not to read my blog as there's a good chance of political opinions that are... Oh what's the word?.. Oh yeah, correct.
And just like that it's the blog you came here for.
Because correct is the right word for left wing politics, being left wing isn't some vapid hippy ideal, nor is it a totalitarian socialist nuthouse. It is the logical and moral belief in equal rights and equal opportunities, in a society where the people who put the most into society get the most out, as it should be. Right wing politics is the great system of "them and us". The rich own the money and have the power, therefore only the rich deserve money and power.
I am not a communist or any form of leftist radical, all I believe is that everyone should have the chance to make something of their life based purely on merit.
It's the same logic that props up my republican ideals, no one should be born into a position of unquestionable power, monarchy is the perfect example of true right wing politics. You are born, you therefore have the right to be head of state. That is not logic, that is madness, why is it still in effect?
So in summary: Katie is beautiful and causes a lack of anger in most things, but generates anger at politics... also, the royals are all a bunch of pointless tax draining cunts.
Saturday 30 March 2013
Clara 'Oswin' Oswald
If you're reading this and my view of my reader is anywhere near accurate, then you've already watched the Dr Who episode "The Bells of St. John" (that's today's for those of you to stupid to think (which is of course non of you, but I have to be prepared for muggles to come along now and again)) If you haven't then go fucking watch it! Both to avoid the spoilers and so what I'm saying makes sense... Ok are we all caught up now? Good, let's proceed.
No wait, one more thing before we do. Do you think because Matt Smith is the youngest Doctor ever that someone high up decreed that the companions must be younger and hotter than ever before? I mean when they unveiled a leggy redhead in a policewoman's uniform I was pretty certain that was not to be topped, but then, well... this happened:
I mean seriously! She is properly hot. The only reason Jenna Louise Coleman is not on "the list" is because she's on both my father's and brother's, if there was ever something that you shouldn't share with your family, it's list entries (find the post "the Lovell list" to explain that)
Anywho, now I actually am going to get to the actual timey-wimey, nerdy-wordy things I came here to say. To avoid (or possibly create) confusion We'll be using this system from here onwards:
Clara=Victorian
Oswin=Dalek
Jenna=This episode (and series, but that's not relevant yet) (yes I know that's the actress's name but what other option do I have? "Oswald"? No, that's an old man's name! Don't be so silly)
The most obvious question the writers have made us ask is "Are Clara, Jenna and Oswin all the same person?" which obviously leads on to the more interesting "If yes, how is she resurrecting?" or "If no, what connects them?"
I know I came here to express my theories and thoughts about these questions, but I can't answer the first of them. She's met the Doctor for the first time 3 times now, but she never knew him beforehand. So this means that surely they're not one person being resurrected, otherwise Oswin and Jenna would remember the meeting Clara had with him wouldn't they? So they must be different people surely?
However, it seems that knowledge is passed between them. Clara is in the past and not a genius, Oswin is in the future and she's able to hack a whole dalek prison at will. Jenna, at the start of the episode, knows nothing about computers, she then gets uploaded, downloaded and all the other sorts of loaded (that sounds rude now I write it) and becomes a total screaming genius but modest and a tiny bit sexy, much like Oswin is. That implies some sort of consistent conciousness that allows knowledge to be passed down on a linear timeline. So maybe they are the same person but why is knowledge passed and not memories?
Besides, there are a few subtle differences between the 3 of them. Oswin's first name was, obviously, Oswin, Clara's middle name was Oswin, but then Jenna didn't recognise the name. How can a name flit in and out of the timeline for a person/people?
Let's be honest, I've answered nothing have I? I've just listed all the options. Well to quote Neil deGrasse Tyson and Jean Valjean "Sometimes, one must be content to love the questions themselves." "The truth is given to us all in our time, in our turn." So put the kettle on, put your feet up, and watch the pretty woman and the mad man in a box.
No wait, one more thing before we do. Do you think because Matt Smith is the youngest Doctor ever that someone high up decreed that the companions must be younger and hotter than ever before? I mean when they unveiled a leggy redhead in a policewoman's uniform I was pretty certain that was not to be topped, but then, well... this happened:
Anywho, now I actually am going to get to the actual timey-wimey, nerdy-wordy things I came here to say. To avoid (or possibly create) confusion We'll be using this system from here onwards:
Clara=Victorian
Oswin=Dalek
Jenna=This episode (and series, but that's not relevant yet) (yes I know that's the actress's name but what other option do I have? "Oswald"? No, that's an old man's name! Don't be so silly)
The most obvious question the writers have made us ask is "Are Clara, Jenna and Oswin all the same person?" which obviously leads on to the more interesting "If yes, how is she resurrecting?" or "If no, what connects them?"
I know I came here to express my theories and thoughts about these questions, but I can't answer the first of them. She's met the Doctor for the first time 3 times now, but she never knew him beforehand. So this means that surely they're not one person being resurrected, otherwise Oswin and Jenna would remember the meeting Clara had with him wouldn't they? So they must be different people surely?
However, it seems that knowledge is passed between them. Clara is in the past and not a genius, Oswin is in the future and she's able to hack a whole dalek prison at will. Jenna, at the start of the episode, knows nothing about computers, she then gets uploaded, downloaded and all the other sorts of loaded (that sounds rude now I write it) and becomes a total screaming genius but modest and a tiny bit sexy, much like Oswin is. That implies some sort of consistent conciousness that allows knowledge to be passed down on a linear timeline. So maybe they are the same person but why is knowledge passed and not memories?
Besides, there are a few subtle differences between the 3 of them. Oswin's first name was, obviously, Oswin, Clara's middle name was Oswin, but then Jenna didn't recognise the name. How can a name flit in and out of the timeline for a person/people?
Let's be honest, I've answered nothing have I? I've just listed all the options. Well to quote Neil deGrasse Tyson and Jean Valjean "Sometimes, one must be content to love the questions themselves." "The truth is given to us all in our time, in our turn." So put the kettle on, put your feet up, and watch the pretty woman and the mad man in a box.
Tuesday 19 March 2013
Strangers on the Internet
This is going to rambley, I can feel it. Try and stick with me on this... Yes of course rambley is a real word, why would you even question that? Anyway, to business.
I'm not a fan of naming fandoms, in fact I'm not a fan of the word fandom itself, but I concede that they do make things neater. Especially on (the main focus of this post) twitter, where everything is neatly condensed into tiny snippets of information. It does make life easier to just look and see Belieber, Directioner, and all that other shite and just sit there going "nope nope, oh wait! Nope!" I'm sure plenty of them are good and interesting people deep down... well some of them, maybe, but if they care enough about awful music to make it that obvious, I'm not going to dig that far before giving up. Anywho, I came here to extol the virtues of these people (Fandom people, not beliebers) not complain.
I see people complaining about boring and generic tweets on a daily basis, but I never see the original problem. I got bored of pointing out that you only see boring shit from the people you follow, if you stop following them it all goes away. Related to this is people who feel obligated to follow everyone they know in the real world, I hate most of the people I know in the real world! I can see why people would want to avoid real world people on the internet, I only occasionally have to deal with Kelly questioning my... *sigh* fine I'll say it, Helenaist nature. If I had that shit on a daily basis I'd do what I know at least one other person I know has, get another account to be me on, and just be Marshall on the one I have now. I say at least one as the point of the second account is it stays away from people from the real world, so maybe there are plenty of them are out there.
Right, we may as well get to the point in the title now shall we? I follow 127 people on twitter and I'm followed by 102 (at least while I'm writing this) only 30 people (well 29, 30 accounts) are on both lists. This is because I follow people who I find interesting, whether someone follows me or not has no impact on my choice to follow them or not, even if they get pissy about me not following back. About 6 of those people make up well over 3/4 of my interactions. I've only met 2 of them and can only tell you what 3 of them look like, that is because the other 3 all have pictures of Helena Bonham Carter as their icons (The other one I don't know is Katie... We don't talk about why she's in my interactions). Now finally I get to make a genuine point! It doesn't matter that I may never meet these people, that isn't important. We share interests (no, not just Helena, not always) and the whole point of twitter is to connect to people you share interests with, not people you know. I spend a ridiculous amount of time on twitter and essentially none on facebook, because I'm much more interested in strangers I share interests with, than I am in acquaintances I don't give a shit about.
Basically, there is no reason to complain about what people tweet. There are so many accounts out there that you can have a perfectly full timeline that all interests you. Just unfollow the boring people and follow interesting strangers in their place.
I'm not a fan of naming fandoms, in fact I'm not a fan of the word fandom itself, but I concede that they do make things neater. Especially on (the main focus of this post) twitter, where everything is neatly condensed into tiny snippets of information. It does make life easier to just look and see Belieber, Directioner, and all that other shite and just sit there going "nope nope, oh wait! Nope!" I'm sure plenty of them are good and interesting people deep down... well some of them, maybe, but if they care enough about awful music to make it that obvious, I'm not going to dig that far before giving up. Anywho, I came here to extol the virtues of these people (Fandom people, not beliebers) not complain.
I see people complaining about boring and generic tweets on a daily basis, but I never see the original problem. I got bored of pointing out that you only see boring shit from the people you follow, if you stop following them it all goes away. Related to this is people who feel obligated to follow everyone they know in the real world, I hate most of the people I know in the real world! I can see why people would want to avoid real world people on the internet, I only occasionally have to deal with Kelly questioning my... *sigh* fine I'll say it, Helenaist nature. If I had that shit on a daily basis I'd do what I know at least one other person I know has, get another account to be me on, and just be Marshall on the one I have now. I say at least one as the point of the second account is it stays away from people from the real world, so maybe there are plenty of them are out there.
Right, we may as well get to the point in the title now shall we? I follow 127 people on twitter and I'm followed by 102 (at least while I'm writing this) only 30 people (well 29, 30 accounts) are on both lists. This is because I follow people who I find interesting, whether someone follows me or not has no impact on my choice to follow them or not, even if they get pissy about me not following back. About 6 of those people make up well over 3/4 of my interactions. I've only met 2 of them and can only tell you what 3 of them look like, that is because the other 3 all have pictures of Helena Bonham Carter as their icons (The other one I don't know is Katie... We don't talk about why she's in my interactions). Now finally I get to make a genuine point! It doesn't matter that I may never meet these people, that isn't important. We share interests (no, not just Helena, not always) and the whole point of twitter is to connect to people you share interests with, not people you know. I spend a ridiculous amount of time on twitter and essentially none on facebook, because I'm much more interested in strangers I share interests with, than I am in acquaintances I don't give a shit about.
Basically, there is no reason to complain about what people tweet. There are so many accounts out there that you can have a perfectly full timeline that all interests you. Just unfollow the boring people and follow interesting strangers in their place.
Thursday 28 February 2013
Sometimes, I Just Don't Get People
Earlier today Josh left one of the study rooms at school by (according to all sources) jumping on a table and heading, as the crow flies, straight out of the room. Now I wasn't there so all I have is information gathered afterwards but apparently the issue he had taken was with Megan "existing" (that was his one word answer when I asked him what she was doing wrong)
Now I know this is probably a lot like the Joan Rivers thing the other day, I'd be much less concerned if it was other people involved, but nevertheless, what sort of a problem is existing? Everyone does it, literally everyone, so that is no reason to rage at any one person. Thinking about it, a disproportionate amount of the people I know have a talent for inexplicable rage, this one though is noteworthy for the sheer sustained passion of it all. Generally episodes like these (be they mine, Josh's, Jonny's or someone else's) are either a massive sudden outburst over one specific (generally minor) offence, or a sort of simmering anger (normally explainable, sometimes not)
However it was demonstrated on the bus (in a rather entertaining manner) that this was something spectacularly different. I'll spare you the details but every time I removed my headphones (they were in to prevent me arguing, I'm hardly the perfect audience for an anti-Megan rant) I was greeted by some more (in some cases rather creative) abusive ranting, even a random thing like a child outside the bus or being in Seaton would somehow swing back to the same angry point. I was actually quite impressed, I don't think I could keep being that angry for more than a few minutes. Yet the only reasoning I could get for it was that Megan exists, just like I do and Josh does and everyone you've ever met does. I don't know what the real reason for Josh's anger was (we all know it wasn't "existing") but I hope Megan continues to do it, just for the entertainment it provides.
To justify writing this (I really just wanted to share a story of crazy anger) I'm going to try and crowbar a point on the end here. It's perfectly ok to hate someone, even to the point of table vaulting to get away from them. Just try to have a reason for it, you can't hate everyone, so target your anger at things that shouldn't be accepted, not just existing.
Now I know this is probably a lot like the Joan Rivers thing the other day, I'd be much less concerned if it was other people involved, but nevertheless, what sort of a problem is existing? Everyone does it, literally everyone, so that is no reason to rage at any one person. Thinking about it, a disproportionate amount of the people I know have a talent for inexplicable rage, this one though is noteworthy for the sheer sustained passion of it all. Generally episodes like these (be they mine, Josh's, Jonny's or someone else's) are either a massive sudden outburst over one specific (generally minor) offence, or a sort of simmering anger (normally explainable, sometimes not)
However it was demonstrated on the bus (in a rather entertaining manner) that this was something spectacularly different. I'll spare you the details but every time I removed my headphones (they were in to prevent me arguing, I'm hardly the perfect audience for an anti-Megan rant) I was greeted by some more (in some cases rather creative) abusive ranting, even a random thing like a child outside the bus or being in Seaton would somehow swing back to the same angry point. I was actually quite impressed, I don't think I could keep being that angry for more than a few minutes. Yet the only reasoning I could get for it was that Megan exists, just like I do and Josh does and everyone you've ever met does. I don't know what the real reason for Josh's anger was (we all know it wasn't "existing") but I hope Megan continues to do it, just for the entertainment it provides.
To justify writing this (I really just wanted to share a story of crazy anger) I'm going to try and crowbar a point on the end here. It's perfectly ok to hate someone, even to the point of table vaulting to get away from them. Just try to have a reason for it, you can't hate everyone, so target your anger at things that shouldn't be accepted, not just existing.
Wednesday 13 February 2013
Brilliance and Beauty
I'd told myself for a long time that I wasn't going to write this post, but after the blasphemy that was this Monday's tutor it was essentially inevitable. The fact that Megan is currently tapping away at her keyboard for the exact same reason I am was just the trigger that set me off. You know exactly how I feel about Helena Bonham Carter so now you just have to sit back and I will explain why this is and, more importantly, why you should feel that way too. I've known who Helena is for as long as I can remember and been in love with her since the Order of the Phoenix came out in 2007, incidentally one of the worst Potter films but the one that introduced two of the best characters in cinema, Bellatrix (obviously) and Luna. Anyway, we're not here to talk magic, but rather about this magical woman. (see what I did there? Good wasn't it? Oh fine we can just move on)
My first point is so blindingly obvious it even goes in the title, she is bloody beautiful isn't she? I realised in chemistry the other day that if you doubled my age I'd still be a decade younger than she is, but at 46 she is still one of the most attractive people on this planet. Certainly when you only look at people over 40 there isn't really anyone to contest my point. What makes Helena so brilliant is that she's unique, a bloody rare quality when so many celebrities seem to be pure carbon copies of one another, I know there are other celebrities that stand out from the crowd but no one does it quite so well as the "corset queen" (a title I'll get to later). Take awards ceremonies as a nice easy example, as soon as I say that you can get a pretty clear idea in your head of what an average actress would be wearing. Fancy but fairly simple dress, certainly shoes that match at least but not Helena. You might argue that it's a desperate bid for attention like the sort of thing lady gaga would do, but I don't think so because she always looks almost uncomfortable when photographed in public, like she'd rather be avoiding the attention and that's why she isn't dressed up in the same way as everyone else. In photo-shoots and when acting she always seems far more relaxed than she ever seems as herself, so I don't think she dresses like that to try and stand out, I think she dresses like that because she is truly unique and lets be honest with ourselves here: normal is boring, unique is sexy. Right I think 282 words just about covers beauty enough to get by, if I don't stop now I might go on forever. So lets get on to why she's so much more than a pretty face.
Part of the blasphemy I mentioned at the start of this post is essentially "Helena Bonham Carter plays one role through all her films" now I agree the two examples, Lovett and Thenardier, have quite a bit in common but take more than 15 seconds to think about it and you'll see how ridiculous a statement that is. In fact I don't even need words to deal with it, just a picture of a few of the roles she's played will do, you don't even need to recognise them all, just see that they're clearly quite different. There's a possibly imaginary psychopath, between the queen mother and a chimp. The same role? Far from it.
Roles like Mrs Lovett may be what people expect from Helena now but they are a far cry from what made her famous and gave her the nickname I mentioned earlier. Roles like Olivia and Ophelia in adaptations of Shakespeare, as well as things like Elizabeth in Frankenstein (none of which feature above) are all the sort of "Prim Edwardian" style characters that previously defined her. She said she wanted to shock people and if you'd watched her carer from the start (obviously I didn't, I was -10 when she started making films) I think you'd have experienced a fair deal of shock over the course of it. Unfortunately I don't think there are many roles left that will give her the chance to shock people any more, she's covered such a ridiculously wide range that nothing would be a surprise in the future. Of course she could always act badly, that would be pretty shocking to me at least. I've seen 15 films which have a credit for Helena Bonham Carter, all of them were good. I know that only covers 1/5 of the films she's in but I can't think of anyone else who's so consistently good across so many genres and roles.
A range that greatly exceeds that of Tim Burton, who is a brilliant director don't get me wrong, but there are people who insist that Helena is famous because of Tim. There is no other way of putting it, that's just pain bullshit. Helena and Tim met in 2001 while filming Planet of the Apes. By this point Helena ha appeared in 41 films across 18 years. Working with Tim has been a significant part of her recent career, but even since 2011 she's been in Harry Potter, Great Expectations and Les Miserables, none of which involved Tim Burton, all of which were very successful and the two I've seen were both brilliant. So Helena Bonham Carter is definitely not Tim Burton's "wife and actress". She isn't even his wife, they're an odd pair like that, but like I said, odd trumps normal any day.
Ok it's coming up to 11 o'clock so I'll leave this here for now. Let me know if I've missed anything, or if you disagree with anything I've said let me know. I'll leave you with one (more if I ever work out the way to make photos behave on blogger) of my all time favourite photos of Helena, aren't I good to you?
Part of the blasphemy I mentioned at the start of this post is essentially "Helena Bonham Carter plays one role through all her films" now I agree the two examples, Lovett and Thenardier, have quite a bit in common but take more than 15 seconds to think about it and you'll see how ridiculous a statement that is. In fact I don't even need words to deal with it, just a picture of a few of the roles she's played will do, you don't even need to recognise them all, just see that they're clearly quite different. There's a possibly imaginary psychopath, between the queen mother and a chimp. The same role? Far from it.
A range that greatly exceeds that of Tim Burton, who is a brilliant director don't get me wrong, but there are people who insist that Helena is famous because of Tim. There is no other way of putting it, that's just pain bullshit. Helena and Tim met in 2001 while filming Planet of the Apes. By this point Helena ha appeared in 41 films across 18 years. Working with Tim has been a significant part of her recent career, but even since 2011 she's been in Harry Potter, Great Expectations and Les Miserables, none of which involved Tim Burton, all of which were very successful and the two I've seen were both brilliant. So Helena Bonham Carter is definitely not Tim Burton's "wife and actress". She isn't even his wife, they're an odd pair like that, but like I said, odd trumps normal any day.
Ok it's coming up to 11 o'clock so I'll leave this here for now. Let me know if I've missed anything, or if you disagree with anything I've said let me know. I'll leave you with one (more if I ever work out the way to make photos behave on blogger) of my all time favourite photos of Helena, aren't I good to you?
Monday 11 February 2013
Power to the Papal
Today it was announced that we will see something at the end of the month that hasn't happened since 1945; the worlds most powerful Nazi is giving up his power. I'm taking of course about Joseph Ratzinger, pope since 2005, who is the first pope to step down from the post since 1415 (you'd think he could hold on for 2 more years for neatness sake) blaming old age and ill health (the ill health is probably punishment from god for being at the head of the worlds largest paedophile facilitating organisation.) Of course at this point you'll be thinking "So an old man is retiring, what's your point Marshall?" It is this: is there any point in replacing Ratzinger?
I'm not saying we get rid of religion, we should do of course but I know that some people are just incapable of growing up enough to stop believing in fairy tales. Organised religion on the other hand, a religion that has it's own UN recognised state, that's something else entirely. I fail to see any need for the pope, or frankly the church. If you want to blame your problems on the will of your imaginary friend then go ahead, but do you really need an international ring of tax avoiders, paedophiles, homophobes and racists to tell you how to be a good person? It's time we do away with the church and live good lives because it's right, not because we are compelled to under threat of eternal damnation.
In fact lets go further than that. Let's take this resignation as a sign from the pope's boss. Just like the resignation of 1415, this is the herald of a new age in human society. A time when we can tear down the ancient institutions that take so much from the people and give nothing real back to us. Religion, monarchy, bigotry, these are things that hold society back from development. The world is changing faster now than it has for centuries, now is the perfect time to prune away the old useless branches at the top of the tree. No one is truly free until we live in a land where all people answer in equal measure to the government and that government answers in turn to its people. Yet as it is there is so much power invested in mystical beings and arbitrary powers with no accountability.
If we want to move on we need to trim the fat, prune away the wasteful medieval structures of society and replace them with justifiable, fair, democratic practices. If someone wants to be head of state they should require the will of the people to take that post, no one should be born into power. If organised religion must continue, treat it and tax it like any other organisation and never hold the will of the church above the law. These are fair requests for a fair society, a true republic free from state religion.
This is not an issue anyone should remain silent on, we all have a voice to demand liberty from those who govern us, to declare our freedom from those who would tie our hands and silence our words. Your country belongs to its people, not their government, never believe otherwise. Demand democracy, demand liberty, demand the freedom that is your right as a human.
I'm not saying we get rid of religion, we should do of course but I know that some people are just incapable of growing up enough to stop believing in fairy tales. Organised religion on the other hand, a religion that has it's own UN recognised state, that's something else entirely. I fail to see any need for the pope, or frankly the church. If you want to blame your problems on the will of your imaginary friend then go ahead, but do you really need an international ring of tax avoiders, paedophiles, homophobes and racists to tell you how to be a good person? It's time we do away with the church and live good lives because it's right, not because we are compelled to under threat of eternal damnation.
In fact lets go further than that. Let's take this resignation as a sign from the pope's boss. Just like the resignation of 1415, this is the herald of a new age in human society. A time when we can tear down the ancient institutions that take so much from the people and give nothing real back to us. Religion, monarchy, bigotry, these are things that hold society back from development. The world is changing faster now than it has for centuries, now is the perfect time to prune away the old useless branches at the top of the tree. No one is truly free until we live in a land where all people answer in equal measure to the government and that government answers in turn to its people. Yet as it is there is so much power invested in mystical beings and arbitrary powers with no accountability.
If we want to move on we need to trim the fat, prune away the wasteful medieval structures of society and replace them with justifiable, fair, democratic practices. If someone wants to be head of state they should require the will of the people to take that post, no one should be born into power. If organised religion must continue, treat it and tax it like any other organisation and never hold the will of the church above the law. These are fair requests for a fair society, a true republic free from state religion.
This is not an issue anyone should remain silent on, we all have a voice to demand liberty from those who govern us, to declare our freedom from those who would tie our hands and silence our words. Your country belongs to its people, not their government, never believe otherwise. Demand democracy, demand liberty, demand the freedom that is your right as a human.
Tuesday 29 January 2013
Now - Paramore
It's ok, it's still me here, you haven't wandered into Megan's not daily music blog, but music is today's topic, more specifically the single from Paramore's 4th album that comes out in April. I recently got back into Paramore so I obviously began paying attention to the news about the new album (I'd know it was coming out for a long time, I just hadn't cared before) The reason I'm writing an entire post on a single song is simple: I don't know what my opinion of it is, so I'd like to see what other people think about it to help me. Obviously step 1 in helping me here would be hearing the song, so here you go.
I'm literally just playing that on a loop as I write this and I have to say, the first 15 seconds are bloody awful, it is one of the most irritating intros to a song I'll voluntarily listen to. Then the "Now-ow-ow-ow..." is used throughout the song and that's probably my main complaint about the song. I dislike the "Don't try to take this from me" bits even more, seriously that's just... no, but they only come into it twice (only 4 lines, not a massive issue) so I can cope.
Other than that I have very little to really complain about. It sounds properly different to all their old stuff but still somehow, in the back of my head, really reminds me of one of their previous songs, but I cant think which, especially around the lines "starting over, head back in" if an old Paramore fan can see what I mean and tell me which song I'm thinking of I will be forever grateful.
Aside from the previously mentioned exceptions, I think Hayley sounds better than ever and the band sounds just as good as a 3 piece as it did with 5 members. In fact, scrap what I said at the start, once you get past the intro it is a damn good song and I'm sure the album with have some songs that are even better. So while I still want to hear your opinion I think I've got a hold on mine now. Now is a good song that just has a few parts I don't like, I'll probably buy the album and I'm sure I'll love it as much as the other 3, besides the intro to this song won't be used for the others will it? So I'll probably like most of them more than this.
So there we go, proof that over-thinking a song into a blog post can fix the indecision you're having about it, so this was worth it for that if nothing else. Now you're done reading this leave a comment just I know how you feel, if you like it tell me why, if you don't, do the same (don't just put "It's shit" you'll sound stupid)
Right, that's all for now, I'm off to listen to the rest of Paramore's songs, I'll see you peasants later.
Friday 25 January 2013
Nikola Tesla
Lets just be clear about a few simple truths before we begin. Nikola Tesla was the greatest scientist to have ever lived, if his life wasn't plagued by the lesser minds of business men like the cretinous Tomas Edison then Tesla would be a household name as the father of modern science. Tesla did things alone in the 19th century that teams of scientists cannot replicate to this day. He was quite possibly the smartest person in history and yet he is greatly underrated by many people, the same people who hold up the insane notion that Edison was inventor of the light bulb and father of the modern electrical era. If you are one of these people, take a seat and let me explain everything wrong with your views on scientific history.
Lets start with the common but insane idea that Tomas Edison was the inventor of the light bulb and therefore the man responsible for the electrical age we live in. Besides religion I can't think of anything so commonly accepted and yet so far from reality, Edison did nothing more than work out how to market and sell the ideas that were pioneered by 22 men before him, he invented nothing. Edison also worked hard to prevent to development of(amongst other things) : alternating current, radar, X-rays and wireless electricity. 3 of these are important parts of the modern word Edison was supposed to have helped usher in and one has still not been re-invented, all 4 were the products of the great mind of a certain Serbian who isn't officially credited with their invention because he let other people use build on his work without patenting them to hold back development by other people.
Just a few other things we wouldn't have without Tesla: hydroelectric power, transistors (and therefore computers), remote controls, neon lights, modern motors, wireless communications and radios. I honestly can't think of anyone who has given more to the world than Tesla did. If his work was backed for it's merit and not based on the profit it could generate, then we'd be living with the benefits of Tesla's genius in so many ways. Not least is the wireless power I mentioned earlier, Tesla developed a method of transferring power safely through the atmosphere and was in the process of building a tower that could have provided free electricity to the entire world. Then his funding was cut off, people with money don't like other people having free things so the project was scrapped.
Then, after all that, all his amazing work and every genius invention. Tesla died alone and penniless, shut in a hotel room talking to an imaginary bird. It says far too much about the world that possibly the greatest mind humanity has ever known was lost to the world in that way, I'll leave this post with the same thing I said about Eponine: Tesla deserved so much but ended up dying with nothing.
Lets start with the common but insane idea that Tomas Edison was the inventor of the light bulb and therefore the man responsible for the electrical age we live in. Besides religion I can't think of anything so commonly accepted and yet so far from reality, Edison did nothing more than work out how to market and sell the ideas that were pioneered by 22 men before him, he invented nothing. Edison also worked hard to prevent to development of(amongst other things) : alternating current, radar, X-rays and wireless electricity. 3 of these are important parts of the modern word Edison was supposed to have helped usher in and one has still not been re-invented, all 4 were the products of the great mind of a certain Serbian who isn't officially credited with their invention because he let other people use build on his work without patenting them to hold back development by other people.
Just a few other things we wouldn't have without Tesla: hydroelectric power, transistors (and therefore computers), remote controls, neon lights, modern motors, wireless communications and radios. I honestly can't think of anyone who has given more to the world than Tesla did. If his work was backed for it's merit and not based on the profit it could generate, then we'd be living with the benefits of Tesla's genius in so many ways. Not least is the wireless power I mentioned earlier, Tesla developed a method of transferring power safely through the atmosphere and was in the process of building a tower that could have provided free electricity to the entire world. Then his funding was cut off, people with money don't like other people having free things so the project was scrapped.
Then, after all that, all his amazing work and every genius invention. Tesla died alone and penniless, shut in a hotel room talking to an imaginary bird. It says far too much about the world that possibly the greatest mind humanity has ever known was lost to the world in that way, I'll leave this post with the same thing I said about Eponine: Tesla deserved so much but ended up dying with nothing.
Tuesday 15 January 2013
Blogception
That's a blog post about blogs, but you already knew that. This blog has been up for just over a year now and I had another one before that, I've known people who had before that as well. However it's only recently that other people's blogs have really started to attract my interest. I only 3 blogs at the moment... and two of those are the same person so...
The reason I write a blog is to clear my head of random or obsessive thoughts to try and give me a chance to think freely on the inside of my head. It never works of course, the thoughts that really clog up my head are not ones I'll be making public any-time soon. I find writing helps anyway, clearing out the little things makes a bit of room for the rest.
You might think that's a stupid reason to start a blog, to you I say this: come up with a better one. You can use a computer well enough to get here, so you're perfectly capable of having a blog at least as good as this one. You might think no one will read it, that's what I always think, but even this little pile of crap gets around 50-120 views a day, it might not sound like a it but it isn't bad. There are over 7 thousand-million people in this world (I refuse to contribute to the american devaluing of a billion) there are people out there who you will never meet that share your interests, so share with them.
It's not like you have to share anything near your life story with the internet, focus on one interest if you want to, there are as many niche blogs out there as there are niche interests. Take Emily's blog, "Common People" for example, I would have never thought about blogging about hashtags, but frankly it's one of the funniest things on the internet, so there is really nothing wrong with a tight focus. Can't decide what to focus on? Make more than one blog then! The other two blogs I follow are Megan's general blog "A little splash of magic" and the more specific "A little splash of music" if she has the time to set up a second blog (one she claims will have daily posts) during the January exams, then you certainly have time to run one for however many interests you have. Leave it for a few weeks if you're busy or bored, then come back when you want.
The world is a big place, there are all sorts of people in it, people who share your interests. The only way to know that these people exist is to share your interests and let the world know about them.
The reason I write a blog is to clear my head of random or obsessive thoughts to try and give me a chance to think freely on the inside of my head. It never works of course, the thoughts that really clog up my head are not ones I'll be making public any-time soon. I find writing helps anyway, clearing out the little things makes a bit of room for the rest.
You might think that's a stupid reason to start a blog, to you I say this: come up with a better one. You can use a computer well enough to get here, so you're perfectly capable of having a blog at least as good as this one. You might think no one will read it, that's what I always think, but even this little pile of crap gets around 50-120 views a day, it might not sound like a it but it isn't bad. There are over 7 thousand-million people in this world (I refuse to contribute to the american devaluing of a billion) there are people out there who you will never meet that share your interests, so share with them.
It's not like you have to share anything near your life story with the internet, focus on one interest if you want to, there are as many niche blogs out there as there are niche interests. Take Emily's blog, "Common People" for example, I would have never thought about blogging about hashtags, but frankly it's one of the funniest things on the internet, so there is really nothing wrong with a tight focus. Can't decide what to focus on? Make more than one blog then! The other two blogs I follow are Megan's general blog "A little splash of magic" and the more specific "A little splash of music" if she has the time to set up a second blog (one she claims will have daily posts) during the January exams, then you certainly have time to run one for however many interests you have. Leave it for a few weeks if you're busy or bored, then come back when you want.
The world is a big place, there are all sorts of people in it, people who share your interests. The only way to know that these people exist is to share your interests and let the world know about them.
Sunday 13 January 2013
The most inevitable post in blogging history
I went to see Les Mis yesterday, this is the post we all knew was coming. I've decided against any attempt to write a review as it will just become fangirly and meaningless to everyone. Instead I'm going to address the main concern raised before the film came out, the casting. It was a cinema production from day one so no one really expected west end/Broadway stars to be playing the main characters, but nevertheless the singing talent of the cast was understandably questioned. Now the film is out I give my opinion on what the answer to those questions should be, or it might turn into a character by character analysis, we shall see. Obviously I'll talk about the film as well, how could I not? It was just amazing!.. Moving on. This list is in the order they are on IMDB, if you think someone should be mentioned earlier, don't complain to me (if it was up to me, Eponine would first, and second... and the rest)
On and while we're here, if you don't want any spoilers, stop reading now.
On and while we're here, if you don't want any spoilers, stop reading now.
Hugh Jackman- Jean Valjean
I'm sure I was not alone in thinking "Wolverine in a really sad musical? That can't work!" Oh how wrong we were! Jackman is brilliant, he plays the conflicted but unyielding compassion of Valjean brilliantly. He isn't as powerful a singer as the people who have played him on stage but he is one of the best singers in the film and he makes full use of the way cinema allows him to show every powerful emotion. "Who am I?" was so brilliantly full of turmoil and fear. Despite the fact he was singing all the time, Valjean is a totally believable character, his interactions with Javert are all tense and emotional. The scene where Javert is released from the rebels is brilliantly shot and acted, it perfectly shows both the similarities and differences between the two men. Both have an unwavering dedication to do what they believe is right, the only difference is their motivation. Valjean seeks to please god by helping others to repay his sins, Javert is driven by his duty to the law and the conviction of duty. It is one of the best scenes in the film and shows off just how good a Valjean Hugh Jackman is.
Russell Crowe- Javert
Although technically the 'bad guy' of the film, it is impossible to bear a grudge against Javert. All he ever does is his duty, what he believes to be right. I didn't believe Russell Crowe could pull off Javert, I didn't think he could sing it well enough and I could see how easy it would be to make Javert a hateful and evil character. Thankfully I was again surprised by the brilliant performance. When Javert places the medal on Gavroche I almost cried (for the second time) Javert is not a mindless soldier like so many characters are made to make other films a world of simple black and white, he is very human. It's the conflict between his humanity and his duty that eventually drives Javert to his death. The way that both "Stars" and "Javert's suicide" are shot is beautifully paralleled, while the songs are polar opposites. During Stars Javert sings of his clear, focused, unchanging dedication to the law and his duty. Then his life is spared by Valjean and he is torn between his duty to take a fugitive into custody, and repaying the debt he owes the man who freed him, despite Javert hounding him for well over a decade. The actual shots for both are breathtaking, but I'll let you see that for yourself.
Anne Hathaway- Fantine
I wasn't too worried about this one, I certainly thought Anne Hathaway would make a better Fantine than catwoman. I was right, she may spend most of the time crying but you can't expect anything else. Fantine is possibly the most pitiful character in all of creation, but that takes nothing away from the depth of the character, you feel truly sorry for Fantine, something about the way Anne Hathaway plays her really works. She doesn't really live long enough for me to say much more. Fantine is brilliant because no matter how bad her life gets, and it gets pretty awful, she takes nothing for herself and does everything for her daughter.
Amanda Seyfried- Cosette
I'll be honest with you, I don't like Cosette, young Cosette has to deal with the abuse from the Thenardiers and has some depth to her. Then Valjean adopts her and she grows up to be pretty much a non-character. I remember her role in the film simply because when I think about there remains a Cosette shaped hole in the plot. On top of that, I don't think Amanda Seyfried is anywhere near attractive enough to have the effect on Marius that she does, nor is she well trained enough to sing soprano. Even when done well Cosette is a vapid waste of space, unfortunately in the case of this film, she is not done well.
Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter- The Thenardiers
If Javert is the bad guy you can't hate, then these two are the comedy duo you cannot like. While they do perform the greatest and funniest version of "Master of the House" ever, they then manage to play both characters so well I wanted to hit them both rather hard, as it should be. The Thenardiers are terrible people, abusive to both Cosette and Eponine, thieves, looters, blackmailers. They are brilliantly acted to a point of total loathing (remember this is HBC we're talking about, to make me hate that takes a talent that only she herself possesses... *ahem* moving on) I say they're a comedy duo but honestly they made me properly angry. The characters as characters are amazing, as people they are worse than anyone else in the film. Most of the characters in the film have a morally justifiable drive behind their actions, duty, redemption, family, etc. for the Thenardiers? Money, nothing else matters to them, they are just hideous people, perfectly acted.
Eddie Redmayne- Marius
I had no idea who Eddie Redmayne was before seeing Les Mis, so I had no preconceptions going into it. My only comparison is Nick Jonas so with that standard to live up to, Redmayne is god on earth. Speaking generally though, he is a pretty good Marius. Not a bad singer, not a bad actor. Marius is a bit thick for not noticing Eponine, but other than that Marius is a pretty good guy. His gamble on the barricade saved (well, slightly extended) the lives of everyone else there... Except Eponine, which leads me to the question: Why the hell were "A Little Fall of Rain" and "Drink With Me" not properly in the film? But I digress, Redmayne is a very good Marius, giving him proper depth and emotion, so much so that I even believe his interest in his two dimensional wife
Aaron Tevit- Enjolras
Another guy I hadn't heard of, another very good actor. A very restrained and level Enjolras but still with all the passion and spirit he should have. Enjolras's death was one of the best scenes in the film. It was brilliant and terrible in equal measure. From the first shot at Gavroche right to the point Enjolras falls out of the window it's one of the most moving and horrific scenes in the film.
Samantha Barks- Eponine
Before I get all fangirly over Sam's Eponine, can we all just take a moment to pause and give thanks that this brilliant role was not given to Taylor Swift, ok lets go: Samantha Barks is fucking amazing as Eponine! This woman singing "On my own" is the only thing that has made me cry in years, she is just that good. Eponine is one of the best characters in anything ever and Samantha Barks plays her perfectly. Everything that ever happens to Eponine is fucking awful, yet she dies with a smile on her face. I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can not be in love with Eponine, yet Marius manages to not even notice that she is in love with him! Seriously, that's a whole new level of retarded. Eponine deserved so much and ended up dying with nothing.
Friday 11 January 2013
Musicians you don't know, but should
Firstly if you're a festival person that title certainly won't apply to you. Secondly I'd understand (but not forgive) thinking that that's a very hipsterish title, but for one good reason it isn't: I'm going to put videos in this post and implore you to find more, a hipster want's no one to share their music, I want everyone to. If you do know any of the following artists, there are a few real people might know, and I don't know that you know them please say so, it's always great to know people you share interests with.
Anywho lets get on with it shall we? Just a little bit on each, with the strong advice you go and listen to much, much more. Starting with a band that it's very hard to find good videos of.
Put your volume up high and ignore the wind, it'll be worth it when you go see them live. It's almost worth going to a festival just to see these 3, they are certainly the best (and possibly the only) skunk band in the world (that's skiffle punk, don't say this isn't an educational blog) Few bands will ever make you laugh as much as a hobos gig will. Songs like Tyburn jig (that's that one ^) show that they can do properly beautiful serious songs, but seeing wino beat a toy guitar with a ladle while my brother fails to play a kazoo, that was pretty good too. The hobos are pure brilliance and the fact all they got from Britain's got talent was half a second in a montage, shows just how awful that program is. Fuck ITV, go and see this band
I chose that specific video for one reason and one reason only, one of those voices you hear at the end there, is moi! So I've sung on a professional music video, your move Jevons! Again, this a band that will make you laugh as well as sing amazing songs that you'll be singing months later. "I don't wanna go home was summed up perfectly by Skeg so as I'm lazy, I'll let that do "This is a tale of every festival you have ever been to, that moment when you wake up on a Monday morning and you realise that its back to the humdrum of real life, bills, deadlines and preparing for the fact that it is not ok to speak to strangers, it's not ok to dance and sing along with them, then you get that 'earworm' from the night before, that one song, sung on a small stage with hundreds of people singing along, or that fella on the bridge en route back to camping field singing what everyone else is feeling, and you find yourself humming the hazy lyrics as you pack away your tent, ready for your real life."
The most recently seen by me and a very good band to just dance and sing to. The first on this list I've not had the chance to get to know, I'm going to have to talk about music now aren't I? Well here goes. "Mad Dog Mcrea blend a unique mixture of folk rock, pop, gypsy jazz, bluegrass and ‘shake your ass’ music. From self penned songs of adventure, drinking, love and life to traditional songs of gypsies, fairies, legless pirates and black flies, Mad Dog never fail to capture their audience with their infectious songs." that's totally not taken from their website. Seriously though this is a bad well worth a look with some brilliant songs.
Anywho lets get on with it shall we? Just a little bit on each, with the strong advice you go and listen to much, much more. Starting with a band that it's very hard to find good videos of.
Hobo Jones and the Junkyard Dogs
3 Daft Monkeys
I did a one man waltz to this song at Beautiful Days, it's one of the few things I remember (I ran out of vodka by the end of the (extended, woot woot!) set) another is Athene's dress... no comment there. There is a new 3DM album out this year and Athene just had a baby, these are things that make me smile and give me hope for humanity. I struggle to find fault with these 4 (yeah, 4, 3 daft monkeys, one daft name) my dad complained that there was no percussion, now they have a drummer (hence 4) who is turning into Bilbo Baggins (he's not started transforming yet in this video) and they're fun people too (imagine chatting to say, bono, no one wants that) Want a conversation purely in hashtags? I've had that conversation with their bassist. Have a shirt from 2010? It's fine to run (like an excited child) across a festival to have a chat and get it signed... in 2012. They are an amazing band and genuinely nice people.
And while I'm here: Massive congratulations to Tim and Athene on the birth of their son!
Dan Donnelly
Dan is quite simply one of the nicest, most talented people I have ever had the pleasure of meeting (even if he does call me Jackson) There are so few people who sound anywhere near as good with or without a band and he will never "make it" (what-ever the hell that means) because music doesn't sell anymore, image sells and Dan has an image that no record company will ever consider, human. If you make your living playing in people's living rooms for a place to sleep and it's working, you have to be getting by on pure talent (that's the past now, Dan's a proper grown up dad too now) one of those gigs was in my dads living room a good few years ago, it will never be forgotten.
Deferred Sucess
Mad Dog Mcrea
Ferocious Dog
Frankly if I need to say any more than "Ken's hair" then something is wrong here, but I will. When I first saw this band I was certain there was no way I'd ever like them, but here we are. The more I go to festivals the less bands I pass up on (at BD I was pretty much at the main stage for everything but PIL) Ferocious dog play a great range of music and very little of it is bad, if you don't like this song, look up another, you'll find something for I promise.
The Skints
Yes, I do know the words to this song. Another band I was fairly nonplussed about at first, then they were announced for Beautiful days so I thought I'd check them out and holy Moses! They are good, very good. Far from any band I'd liked before but why should that ever be an issue? They were absolutely brilliant on the main stage and I'm certain they'll be back on before too long and that is a very good thing. The only bad thing I can say: one of their songs has the line "when we met we both were strangers"... is that not a given? I can deal with it though.
Dreadzone
AHOY! (Sorry Mrs L) I used to avoid Dreadzone sets like the the plague, but the more I listen to them the more they grow on me. Yet another beautiful memory from beautiful days, they were on far earlier than normal but it was still an amazing set that I bounced so hard to I was sure I'd broken an ankle. Dreadzone's music is as one of a kind as their front man, when Spee was diagnosed with scoliosis the only change that made to the sets was the fact he now brings a stool to sit on while he sings, that's how we roll in the fields!
The Levellers
They organise Beautiful Days, they headline the festival. They are the first band I ever truly got into and I'm sure will remain at the top of my musical list for many more years. This year is their 25th year in action and they are still just as good as ever. Their time at the top if popular music faded long ago, but that has done nothing to stop them releasing music to rival their best. Static on the airwaves was not as good levelling the land, but it was close, can anyone ask for more?
I think I'd better stop there, well done for sticking with me on this, I hope you like something here but if not that's fine, because in the words of a song both the first and last band on this list often end sets with "There is only one way of life, and that's your own"
Thursday 10 January 2013
When are you... you?
It hit me as I was walking home, the person walking down the road to my house is a totally different person to the one who walks through it, at school I'm different again, so I started wondering how much of people I know. I doubt people are ever truly acting as someone else, rather fronting one area of their personality to fit the situation they're in. I'm condemning it in any way, we all do it, we need to. Just think of how you talk to your friends, now imagine talking in that way to your grandmother. See my point? Good.
So naturally I get to wondering, when am I most me? I've come to the conclusion that you're reading it. It's far from perfect, I've been censoring myself since I first got a reasonable number of hits, but it's the closest thing to me you're likely to see. I even have emotions here, something that's met with shock and horror in the real world, so of course I can never start to have human emotions to make it normal.
That's why I like writing here so much, I write the way I am, not the way I act. Twitter is the same to a lesser extent, I can write and tweet all my weird obsessive crap and not see the reactions. This plan goes to shit when people I know read it and question me on it. I'd much prefer it if people who I know don't read my things (with a few notable exceptions) so I can be obsessive in peace.
But as it is, this is the way we are, toodle bye dear.
So naturally I get to wondering, when am I most me? I've come to the conclusion that you're reading it. It's far from perfect, I've been censoring myself since I first got a reasonable number of hits, but it's the closest thing to me you're likely to see. I even have emotions here, something that's met with shock and horror in the real world, so of course I can never start to have human emotions to make it normal.
That's why I like writing here so much, I write the way I am, not the way I act. Twitter is the same to a lesser extent, I can write and tweet all my weird obsessive crap and not see the reactions. This plan goes to shit when people I know read it and question me on it. I'd much prefer it if people who I know don't read my things (with a few notable exceptions) so I can be obsessive in peace.
But as it is, this is the way we are, toodle bye dear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)