A drawing of a harp, with some curlicue details.
So, notthemarimba from Tumblr and I watched the first episode of the BBC's Sherlock a while ago, Gmail chatting while we did so. (She lives in Utah. I live in Ontario. It's not like we could hang out in the same room). We had a blast. So today we did the same thing with episode two. Below the cut are the results of today's adventure. Be warned, it's long and makes very little sense, but there's some entertaining exchanges in it.

Spoilers for episode 2 of the BBC Sherlock, obv.

LESS ORIENTALISM. MORE GAY KISSIN'. )

Friends:

May. 30th, 2010 06:57 pm
A drawing of a harp, with some curlicue details.
I have both LiveJournal and Dreamwidth. As you've probably noticed, I don't really post on either. (For that, you want my Tumblr or my wordpress blog, probably.

But. I do read the things other people post on both websites quite reliably. And some of you use both to post! So, what I want to know is:

If you crosspost things between LiveJournal and Dreamwidth, which would you rather I comment on?

I am fairly certain most people's preferences aren't really that pronounced, but if you do have one, I'd like to know it, just so I can keep things orderly.

Thanks-in-advance!

-Dorian
A drawing of a harp, with some curlicue details.
"it was not a missile sent to destroy you. it was a letter from my own climb. you are free—as cara is—to simply let it flutter to the ground and ignore it if it contains no useful directions for your own path."

NOT ACTUALLY HELPFUL.

[From this post on Tumblr, which was a response to my response to this conversation, which started with something I said. Yikes]
A drawing of a harp, with some curlicue details.

FUN TIMES. What happened was this: she was talking about how suicide rates tend to increase in societies undergoing rapid/significant change. As an example, she mentioned the high rates in Aboriginal communities, and how First Nations culture in Canada (and the US) has been changing significantly pretty much ever since "we" came over and started interacting with "them". Do you see the problem here? I'll give you a minute.


...


...


I'm Métis. So in a very real sense, I am "them", at least partially. Which means that when she said that, she was totally ignoring (a) a big part of my heritage, (b) a big part of the heritage of other Métis or First Nations students in the class [I don't know if there are any or not], and (c), heck, the fact that there's a lot of people in the class who are descended from (or are) much more recent immigrants, from countries that do not have that same history with First Nations people. Not so much cool.


I didn't actually realize until today, actually, how much of an emotional investment I've made in my Métis identity. I only started thinking about it in any serious way relatively recently (<1 year ago), and I don't spend much time dwelling on it consciously. But when she ignored it...it hurt. It hurt a lot more than I would have expected it to, had you asked me before it happened. Huh.


ON THE BRIGHT SIDE, however. I called her out on it both right after it happened and in more detail after the lecture was over. And I think we had a good conversation. She was very respectful, and said that while she tries to be aware of the language she uses, it's sometimes easy to forget that people in your audience may be excluded by an "us". However, she said she'd try very hard to keep that in mind in future, and that she recognized how important it was.


I mean, if she does it again, I'm going to be extremely unimpressed. But she seemed sincere, and I feel good about our dialogue.



[This was originally posted on my Tumblr.]
A drawing of a harp, with some curlicue details.
So, I just started class again yesterday. Which means I've been spending a lot of time looking at course outlines. And (as the title to this post implies) I've noticed something. It's a seemingly insignificant thing, but I actually find it really interesting. It's just a little word string that crops up over and over again in the syllabuses for arts courses (in high school or university): "With special emphasis on Canadian content"*.

"With special emphasis on Canadian content". Now, I think that's valuable. I think it's good to look at what people in our own country are doing, because I feel like their efforts are often overlooked. Where it becomes interesting is when you compare us to, say, America. Now, I've never taken a class there, so I am to a certain extent, talking through my hat here. But I'm guessing most courses don't include "with special emphasis on American content" in their descriptions. And furthermore? I'm betting a lot of those courses still primarily focus on American content.

Why is this? If I had to hazard a guess, it would be something like the following: the USA is (to be frank) a bit of a domineering country. It's built a national identity around the idea of being the top of the heap, of being the best. And as such, it promotes its cultural products pretty aggressively, even in other markets. To use the nomenclature of identity politics, it sets itself up as an unmarked or neutral category.

And what that means for Canada is that we have to, to a certain extent, define ourselves oppositionally. Many Canadians consume mainly (or entirely, even!) American cultural products--American television, movies, theatre, literature...heck, even American foods and beverages! (Most major food chains here--the obvious exception being Tim Hortons--are rooted in the US). And that means that, without courses explicitly protecting Canadian content, it's going to be lost in the shuffle. Which would be a damn shame, because there are some wonderful, vibrant, talented voices coming out of Canada. Voices which all too often go ignored.

I don't have any neat conclusions to draw here--just an observation I thought was worth sharing. It's amazing, how unexpected the sources for inspiration can be.


*Or some variant thereof.

[Crossposted to LiveJournal]
A drawing of a harp, with some curlicue details.
[This was written in response to a "Writer's Block" prompt on LiveJournal. The question was: "Are there any political issues, such as abortion or capital punishment, that are so fundamental to your core values that you could not respect and/or trust someone who held a contrary view?"]

---

I think this question is actually really interesting, because it gets to the heart of how I've changed over the past, I don't know. Call it a year or so.

In simplest terms: I don't put up with shit anymore. I am tired, tired to the bone of smiling politely and trying to get along with people whose views I find so fundamentally, terribly wrong. It's work--I'd be lying if I said it wasn't. Calling people out, or not letting them get away with things, is really hard, and I don't always succeed in doing it. But I try, I try damn hard, and that's because it matters.

To get back to the question: I suppose I still respect people who hold opposing views on key issues (and I promise, I'll get to what those issues are). But that respect is tenuous in the extreme, and prone to being revoked. I try and get along with people, to not make waves, and I do feel that someone can hold a wrongheaded view but still be a good person, because people are complicated. But if the person holds that view with conviction, and not just through ignorance, the respect is conditional in the extreme.

And I'll never trust them. Never. Respect is one thing. Civility is one thing. But don't ask me to trust someone who has shown themselves willing to compromise on or flat-out oppose [here we go with the list] queer rights. Or women's rights. Or disability rights, or rights for people of colour. Rights for people who aren't wealthy, or for those who don't fit into the dominant religion. For people who are the "wrong" shape or size, or don't fit into an appropriately gendered box. Or anything at all that's about treating people as equals, as human beings. If you oppose any of that, I may--may--respect you, depending on the circumstance. I may--may--even like you. But I will never, never trust you.

Because if you don't believe that everyone deserves to be treated fairly, without any of the weasel-words that so often accompany these problematic viewpoints (at least, when they're expressed by "liberal" people), then how can I trust you?

How can I trust you when you've shown that you believe some people are inferior?

[Crossposted to LJ]
A drawing of a harp, with some curlicue details.
From Chally ([personal profile] challyzatb)
1. What's your favourite play and why?
Well, at the moment I'm really into In the Next Room, but that might be because I only just saw it. I'm also a big fan of Ibsen's Hedda Gabler, and the musical Grey Gardens (book by Doug Wright). One thing all of these have in common is complex, well-drawn female characters. Hmm...

2. Which three historical figures would you like to invite to dinner?
Gosh, I don't even know. I have perhaps slightly neglected my historical studies, I am not going to lie. Sylvia Plath, maybe? I am a bit fan of her poetry and she seems like she'd've been fascinating. Carolyn Heilbrun, a writer I really respect. And maybe Aphra Behn. I'd like to know more about her.

3. Please share a really good experience you had in 2009.
Seeing my first two shows on Broadway (nine months apart). Also, becoming part of a number of fantastic online communities.

4. What's your favourite item of clothing, and what's its history?
Perhaps my Joanna Newsom tshirt, which I got for Christmas a number of years ago. I'm not sure why I like it so much, but I really do.

5. Would you care to share a life goal with us?
I want to work with the Lincoln Centre Theatre company in NYC. They put on wonderful shows, and are a fantastic non-profit arts organization.
A drawing of a harp, with some curlicue details.
So, yesterday, I went to NYC for the day! I met up with two friends from LiveJournal, and we ended up seeing (after abortive attempts at Ragtime and Finian's Rainbow) In the Next Room.

And you know what? I'm glad we did. Because it was excellent. It takes place at the dawn of the electric age, and centers on a young mother and her husband, a doctor who treats hysteria patients through vibrator-induced "paroxysms". This sounds...questionably tasteful, but it's handled both politely and hilariously.

The play itself is excellent. But the true joy is in seeing what the actors do with the material. There are seven characters, but four of them are basically peripheral. The three at the centre of the story are Dr. Givings (Michael Cerveris), Mrs. Givings (Laura Benanti), and Mrs. Daldry (Maria Dizzia). And they are all excellent. Benanti is, of course, fabulous as Mrs. Givings. She's flighty, charming, and her line-readings are perfect. Cerveris is less flashy, but so is his part. He nails Dr. Givings' slightly distracted demeanour. And then there's Maria Dizzia.

Without question I am now a massive Maria Dizzia fan. Massive. Her Mrs. Daldry is basically perfect, alternating rapidly between girlish glee and dour tradition. She embodies the numerous contradictory emotions of the character, and manages to do it all believably and hilariously. We met her at the stagedoor afterward, and she was completely unrecognizable as the character. She became a different person onstage. (As a sidenote, we also met Benanti and Cerveris at stagedoor, who were both charming).

Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Quincy Tyler Bernstine as Elizabeth, Mrs. Givings' wetnurse. Her role is not at all a flashy one--for most of the show she remains a peripheral figure--but in the second act she has a long monologue which I found very powerful indeed, and which Ms. Bernstine delivers extremely well.

Bottom line: It's a very good play, well worth seeing. Student rush tickets, which we got, are also only $21, and resulted in (at least for us) quite good seats.

(xposted at LiveJournal
A drawing of a harp, with some curlicue details.
Because LiveJournal, Facebook, and Twitter just weren't enough, apparently. Anyway, here is my Dreamwidth! I'm not yet sure what I'll do with it, but ideally, once I start doing some political blogging again, here's where it'll show up. That's The Plan, anyway.


Whoever you are reading this, I love you all and you should comment so I know you exist (unless you're an oppressive asshole, in which case neither of the statements in the preceding sentence apply).

October 2010

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627 282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Style:
[personal profile] ninetydegrees
Resources:
Smoke Curl

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 28th, 2012 05:58 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios