Let's talk reality for just a minute. I spouted off about the "good" and the "mediocre" science fiction or supernatural shows that either are on the air today or have been in the past. I was wrong on a couple of counts, I admit it.
I still love Summer Glau but Terminator: TSCC is no longer on the good list (sorry everybody involved, it's just not that great) and has slipped to mediocre (at best). Perhaps it was my anticipation (re: blind hope for the show to be as good as the movies, and I liked even number three by the way) or my stubborn streak to defend milady Glau's feminine and feminist honor that got in the way initially. It never should have been listed as one of the good shows... I was just really hoping it would deserve to be.
The poll was rather unsuccessful... not even Mul (my fiance') answered it! I listed some obvious sci fi choices there that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot LCD flat screen (esp. Doctor Who). No one took the bait and color me surprised. But then I've yet to receive any responses or comments yet from my blog posts, so I must live on - tortured in my anonymity.
Watching a lot of 4400 and CSI (the original, not NY or Miami or anything like that - just Vegas - the best one) right now... and Hitchcock movies (Suspicion, Sabotage, Rebecca, we own To Catch a Thief and some others). I love my local public library!
Speaking of the library, I found out that card holders can request old TV shows on DVD now... like the Dukes of Hazzard, Cosby Show, Columbo, Wonder Woman (Lynda Carter, kid you not!), Bosom Buddies, Fantasy Island and WKRP in Cincinnati. But don't bother trying to get Angel or Buffy seasons... I could only find ONE season of Angel available (and thank goodness it was season three because "Waiting in the Wings" is in that season with Summer Glau!) and NONE of the Buffy episodes, even though there are graphic novels that I didn't even know existed available.
Enough waxing poetic on the public library system, except for one more thing. I love the graphic novel series called Y: the Last Man. It's awesome so far, I have only read into book number 5 so far and will be ordering all of the others that I can from (you guessed it) my local library. If I understand the rumors correctly, this year the series ends! Supposedly the last of the 10 big books was out in January, yay. There are already discussions about possible movies (a trilogy with Shia Labeouf) in the works. So I still have a ways to catch up, but if I do so and then have to wait for the finale because the library system hasn't seen fit to keep up with it, that'll grate a bit. Anywho... back to book 5.
Thanks for reading. Respond to something or I'll start wondering why I type this stuff in the first place. Certainly not for Da Boy's amusement!
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Sci Fi and Television
I believe I've mentioned that I'm a Science Fiction fan. Tonight I watched the 2 hour premiere of Knight Rider.
...
nuff said.
I've enjoyed more action and plot out of B-rate Godzilla movies (the 60's-70's versions from Japan with English subtitles). The voice of the new Kitt is just disappointing. HAL had more personality. I cannot and will not believe that I was listening to and cringing at Val Kilmer's voice. That's what everyone's telling me, but he's so much better than that!
The actor/driver is a VERY attractive, sweet guy that just can't carry the show all by himself. The actress/scientist is supermodel gorgeous (not related to Rene Russo) and thankfully CAN act, but has such atrocious dialogue she can't do anything with it. Now let's get to Ms. Poitier... acting as their FBI connection.
This poor lady, sprung from such loins as Oscar-winning Sidney Poitier, gets to announce (quite blatantly) in the first two minutes of her appearance that she is a lesbian. Since when does being a lesbian add personality? Is that something that could have been revealed over time or with some amount of subtlety - maybe when she's shown in a relationship rather than a one night stand as her bed-guest implies? The rest of her character is expressed by having her trail after the elusive heroes and their talking car and die in the last half hour of the show. Well, at least her horror stops there and she doesn't have to be further associated with this tripe. What? You mean I was wrong? It was somebody else who got shot and died? Oh, sorry. Oops, I guess I'd given up paying a great deal of attention to the show by that point (when your enthusiastic watchers have tuned out at the shooting parts, it's got to be pretty bad).
So the token black (lesbian, let's not forget) female FBI agent is still with the show and slated for more episodes beyond the pilot? Awww... that's too bad. She REALLY needs to work hard to live up to her father's name - or maybe she should have dropped it from the credits so that she could fail on the show's merits (er... lack thereof) and not carry around the embarrassing stigma of ... hm... well, getting caught up with a really bad show, and we'll just leave it at that. Hopefully she can prove to us all (much, much later and with better options) that she has the acting gene. I note that she's got lots of minor acting credits to her name already but she's got nothing to work with here, that's certain.
Again, the jokes from Miss Congeniality aside, why do women who perform masculine duties (like being cops or agents of the government with sidearms) have to be assumed lesbian - it's ingrained? If it looks like a bull dyke and talks like a bull dyke and acts like a bull dyke... why then it must be a woman performing a duty that is usually assumed to be that of a man. Am I the only person who thinks that an individual's sexual identity and preference have nothing to do with their choice of career? Interesting.
No, to wash the nasty taste out of my mouth, I offer a list of television shows (individually conceived or based off a movie or other series) that have a distinct supernatural or science fiction quality that made them memorable or worthy.
Good shows: Quantum Leap, Babylon Five, Star Trek (and ALL it's incarnations and spin-offs are included here - we can discuss the individual series' at a later time), Time Trax, Sliders, Alien Nation, Buffy, Angel, SG1 (that's Star Gate One for those that don't know - pronounced ess gee 1), Earth 2 (from 1994, lasted one season), Firefly (one of the best), Third Rock from the Sun (but I watched that one for the funny - nothing but the funny), Roswell, John Doe (with Prison Break's Dominic Purcell), Smallville, Voyagers!, and Terminator: the Sarah Connor Chronicles (good gosh, they could have come up with a better, shorter name than that, surely!).
Mediocre shows or those that I watched in my childhood and remember fondly: the Bionic Man/Woman/Dog/Girl (a TV movie starring the regulars plus a very young Sandra Bullock - so CUTE!), the Misfits of Science (OMG very early Courtney Cox), Andromeda, Farscape, Max Headroom, Lois and Clark (not nearly enough science), Birds of Prey (with the fantastic Dina Meyer), I even remember Space 1999 and the Tomorrow People (slightly). All of these shows were better than the pilot of this new (and improved because it's a Ford Mustang mind you) Knight Rider.
Classic Sci Fi shows that are in a class all by themselves: the Outer Limits, Amazing Stories, Night Gallery, the Twilight Zone, and X-Files (yes, I include X-Files as a necessary primer to Sci Fi for the junior fan of today).
Now for the more interesting question: What shows did I NOT list here and was it on purpose? Take the poll at the bottom of the screen... we'll see.
*sigh* So I guess I'm done. Surely there are other shows that you'll want to discuss or some from above that you'll want to debate. Let me know.
...
nuff said.
I've enjoyed more action and plot out of B-rate Godzilla movies (the 60's-70's versions from Japan with English subtitles). The voice of the new Kitt is just disappointing. HAL had more personality. I cannot and will not believe that I was listening to and cringing at Val Kilmer's voice. That's what everyone's telling me, but he's so much better than that!
The actor/driver is a VERY attractive, sweet guy that just can't carry the show all by himself. The actress/scientist is supermodel gorgeous (not related to Rene Russo) and thankfully CAN act, but has such atrocious dialogue she can't do anything with it. Now let's get to Ms. Poitier... acting as their FBI connection.
This poor lady, sprung from such loins as Oscar-winning Sidney Poitier, gets to announce (quite blatantly) in the first two minutes of her appearance that she is a lesbian. Since when does being a lesbian add personality? Is that something that could have been revealed over time or with some amount of subtlety - maybe when she's shown in a relationship rather than a one night stand as her bed-guest implies? The rest of her character is expressed by having her trail after the elusive heroes and their talking car and die in the last half hour of the show. Well, at least her horror stops there and she doesn't have to be further associated with this tripe. What? You mean I was wrong? It was somebody else who got shot and died? Oh, sorry. Oops, I guess I'd given up paying a great deal of attention to the show by that point (when your enthusiastic watchers have tuned out at the shooting parts, it's got to be pretty bad).
So the token black (lesbian, let's not forget) female FBI agent is still with the show and slated for more episodes beyond the pilot? Awww... that's too bad. She REALLY needs to work hard to live up to her father's name - or maybe she should have dropped it from the credits so that she could fail on the show's merits (er... lack thereof) and not carry around the embarrassing stigma of ... hm... well, getting caught up with a really bad show, and we'll just leave it at that. Hopefully she can prove to us all (much, much later and with better options) that she has the acting gene. I note that she's got lots of minor acting credits to her name already but she's got nothing to work with here, that's certain.
Again, the jokes from Miss Congeniality aside, why do women who perform masculine duties (like being cops or agents of the government with sidearms) have to be assumed lesbian - it's ingrained? If it looks like a bull dyke and talks like a bull dyke and acts like a bull dyke... why then it must be a woman performing a duty that is usually assumed to be that of a man. Am I the only person who thinks that an individual's sexual identity and preference have nothing to do with their choice of career? Interesting.
No, to wash the nasty taste out of my mouth, I offer a list of television shows (individually conceived or based off a movie or other series) that have a distinct supernatural or science fiction quality that made them memorable or worthy.
Good shows: Quantum Leap, Babylon Five, Star Trek (and ALL it's incarnations and spin-offs are included here - we can discuss the individual series' at a later time), Time Trax, Sliders, Alien Nation, Buffy, Angel, SG1 (that's Star Gate One for those that don't know - pronounced ess gee 1), Earth 2 (from 1994, lasted one season), Firefly (one of the best), Third Rock from the Sun (but I watched that one for the funny - nothing but the funny), Roswell, John Doe (with Prison Break's Dominic Purcell), Smallville, Voyagers!, and Terminator: the Sarah Connor Chronicles (good gosh, they could have come up with a better, shorter name than that, surely!).
Mediocre shows or those that I watched in my childhood and remember fondly: the Bionic Man/Woman/Dog/Girl (a TV movie starring the regulars plus a very young Sandra Bullock - so CUTE!), the Misfits of Science (OMG very early Courtney Cox), Andromeda, Farscape, Max Headroom, Lois and Clark (not nearly enough science), Birds of Prey (with the fantastic Dina Meyer), I even remember Space 1999 and the Tomorrow People (slightly). All of these shows were better than the pilot of this new (and improved because it's a Ford Mustang mind you) Knight Rider.
Classic Sci Fi shows that are in a class all by themselves: the Outer Limits, Amazing Stories, Night Gallery, the Twilight Zone, and X-Files (yes, I include X-Files as a necessary primer to Sci Fi for the junior fan of today).
Now for the more interesting question: What shows did I NOT list here and was it on purpose? Take the poll at the bottom of the screen... we'll see.
*sigh* So I guess I'm done. Surely there are other shows that you'll want to discuss or some from above that you'll want to debate. Let me know.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Objectionable Material (?)
I’ve finally discovered an issue I consider moving or important enough to blog about as a response. I’m still feeling rather emotional about it so the language may end up fraught with descriptive terms that seem out of place. Give me a few paragraphs to catch a hold of myself.
I work at a library so I am constantly exposed to media, literature, art and periodicals that I’ve never taken note of before working there. For example, in the non-fiction section we barcode and shelve magazines. In seeing so many different periodicals pass my desk, I have found that the last interior page of a magazine often has a short editorial related to the theme of that issue or expressing a measure of humor or facts from history. The most recent issue of Ms. Magazine (it's a quarterly, winter 2008, arrived today) has a special last page like that… called No Comment. I am damn well making a comment about this one.
Let me start off by admitting that I have never had the inclination or the opportunity to scan through an issue of Ms. before. It just happened to be on the bottom of the pile I was bar coding today and as I slowed down my work, I peeked at the last page – simply curious. Arranged on the white page were three separate items of interest.
The upper left item is an image of a boxed figure, as if ready for retail sale. It’s Hillary Clinton as a nutcracker called (appropriately enough) the Hillary Nutcracker. The packaging boasts that she has “stainless steel thighs” and “cracks toughest nuts”. The (not extremely) recognizable figure has a toothy smile, blonde hair and a big political button displayed upon her fashionable blue suit. Of course, that’s not all but I don’t want to spoil it for you. Obviously, the closeness of the primaries and her bid for presidential office makes this a time-sensitive icon, possibly to become more popular or appreciated if Ms. Clinton should be successful in her endeavor. I thought it was great. Noting that the marketing company’s address was listed, I assumed that this novelty item was for sale. I wanted to look into the possibility of purchasing one and anticipated a look at their website upon my break.
The bottom half of the page is taken up by an ad for Svedka Vodka. It shows off a very cool feminized android figure called a fembot with the text “Make your next trophy wife 100% titanium”. The smaller image of the product is accompanied by the slogan “Voted #1 vodka of 2033”. I am a huge fan of sci-fi and found this very clever.
The last image on the page (upper right) is the ad from Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, an episode of which I will be watching in about 5 minutes. It’s the torso and head of Cameron, the teenaged female Terminator unit, a starring character of the new show. She’s played by an idol of mine (and my 12-year old daughter’s), Summer Glau – dancer and actress. She takes roles that show females (young admittedly, the lady’s only 26 now) as strong individuals – even if they are the mentally and emotionally vulnerable victims of pursuit by an overwhelming government force. Our household loves Summer Glau and her work, and I always find this image of her attractive. It may be the show’s character suspended from metal rods and wires, her endoskeleton showing from underneath her fake skin, but the light on the profile of her face and the admirable expression is breathtaking and purely Summer’s skill as a physical actress showing through.
So why were these three ads placed together on a page called No Comment? I made a quick assumption about the human(oid) subjects of the ads. The three female images all portray some form of strength (even it’s from electrical impulse driven hydraulic power) and are fake women as far as icons created to sell a product (the nutcracker novelty, vodka, a TV show). I didn’t think much beyond this assumption and planned to investigate further later.
Eventually I take a break at my desk and pick up the Ms. Magazine. Reading more carefully now, I see that there is an explanation to the purpose of the page. It’s to badger the manufacturers and publicity companies about their “objectionable ads”. The reader is further requested to report objectionable ads to Ms. through the editor of this page (No Comment – funny, that title, considering this novel I’m writing).
Interesting how a woman (who appreciates the female form & spirit and associates any image of a “strong woman” with the strengths of character, mind and body that Hillary Clinton and Summer Glau personify) decides to make her first complaint about the stereotyping of women to a medium that claims to defend the rights of women. In fact, I was most concerned when I first saw the front cover, a photo of a woman muted by a tape gag X’d across her mouth. Never one to promote violence against women as a matter of depersonalizing them or making them less human by removing her ability to defend herself or respond, I found this cover photograph objectionable. If ever there was an image that I identified as demeaning to women, this would be it. But I understand the point of the article and agree that the statement made by muffling the woman on the cover is both profound and provocative.
The Hillary Nutcracker novelty isn’t funny when you realize one of the other statements made on the box. It’s “Is America ready for this nutcracker?” If she is the right person for the job, then it doesn’t matter whether she is female or male. Gender is NOT a reason to either dismiss or choose a candidate for leadership – simply their ability to perform in the office to which they were elected. I take offense that someone is using such a creative toy/tool to promote the idea that one of America’s female candidates for president is somehow a destabilizing force simply because she’s got ovaries. This toy/tool would not be funny if it were Britney Spears depicted. Why? Because B. Spears is NOT a strong representation of womanhood… she’s an embarrassment. Hillary C. on the other hand can do more than hold her own. She’s strong enough (however you want to take that adjective) to be the impetus for this toy/tool and makes it both thought-provoking and funny. She can survive this. Besides, the joke doesn't work with the male candidates.
The android vodka seller is an obviously fake (but attractive) female. Her mechanics are showing at each joint and the shiny plastic body forms of her torso, forearms and butt cheeks emulate, but do not convince us of, the soft fleshly exterior of a human woman. There’s an expression on the face but it’s truly inconsequential – knowing that she represents the trophy wife (a reputation for women who are ultimately inconsequential themselves without representing her mate/husband for his benefit) who are often depicted as botoxed, liposucked, acrylic-nailed and bleached blond proves just how fake she is supposed to appear. The text nearby is more disturbing. The single word that I found offensive was “next”, as if a gentleman should expect to have more than one trophy wife in his lifetime. Now the stereotype of trophy wives are cruel and dehumanizing, but let’s face the facts… most stereotypes are based off of some event or trend in reality and we all have a certain standard in mind when the term is said.
Now we come to the image of Cameron, another fake and mechanical woman. But this one isn’t obvious. She was designed to accurately impersonate an attractive but average high school teen. Her purpose is to protect the life of an average (for now) high school teen who happens to be male (John Connor). She’s like the secret service going to college with Chelsea Clinton in that she’s meant to blend in with the surroundings and not disrupt the place too much. So how much more disturbing is the “passing” fake woman than the obvious one? Not. Cameron is a machine but has programming to allow her to function as a human, mimicking emotions and varying her reactions. You just have to remind yourself once in a while that her lack of a heart doesn’t mean that her central processing unit isn’t in the right place.
Why are any of these images of strong women on this list? Because one makes fun of a political incumbent? Because one plays off of an artificial woman stereotype? Because one strips the mask off of the underlying fake woman, proving that we are a gullible society and are capable of being fooled by a veneer of false femininity? Hm.
Would the readers of Ms. also find images of transgenders or cross-dressing men objectionable? These could be considered fake females… in imagery anyway. How insulting. What am I to make of the opinions expressed by exposing these three ads as objectionable? That strong women are offensive? That because a female is fake, or can pass when she's faking, that she is against the grain or flaunting the standard? I SOOO do not agree. What kind of a stereotype are you promoting, Ms. - women have to fit within certain parameters to be acceptable?
Whoo boy, I’m about tapped out. I’m emotionally drained and it’s late. I’m tired of ranting and to spin a bit of fairness in the direction of Ms. Magazine, I appreciate the opportunity to send their last page editor my nomination for objectionable ad. When I find one.
I work at a library so I am constantly exposed to media, literature, art and periodicals that I’ve never taken note of before working there. For example, in the non-fiction section we barcode and shelve magazines. In seeing so many different periodicals pass my desk, I have found that the last interior page of a magazine often has a short editorial related to the theme of that issue or expressing a measure of humor or facts from history. The most recent issue of Ms. Magazine (it's a quarterly, winter 2008, arrived today) has a special last page like that… called No Comment. I am damn well making a comment about this one.
Let me start off by admitting that I have never had the inclination or the opportunity to scan through an issue of Ms. before. It just happened to be on the bottom of the pile I was bar coding today and as I slowed down my work, I peeked at the last page – simply curious. Arranged on the white page were three separate items of interest.
The upper left item is an image of a boxed figure, as if ready for retail sale. It’s Hillary Clinton as a nutcracker called (appropriately enough) the Hillary Nutcracker. The packaging boasts that she has “stainless steel thighs” and “cracks toughest nuts”. The (not extremely) recognizable figure has a toothy smile, blonde hair and a big political button displayed upon her fashionable blue suit. Of course, that’s not all but I don’t want to spoil it for you. Obviously, the closeness of the primaries and her bid for presidential office makes this a time-sensitive icon, possibly to become more popular or appreciated if Ms. Clinton should be successful in her endeavor. I thought it was great. Noting that the marketing company’s address was listed, I assumed that this novelty item was for sale. I wanted to look into the possibility of purchasing one and anticipated a look at their website upon my break.
The bottom half of the page is taken up by an ad for Svedka Vodka. It shows off a very cool feminized android figure called a fembot with the text “Make your next trophy wife 100% titanium”. The smaller image of the product is accompanied by the slogan “Voted #1 vodka of 2033”. I am a huge fan of sci-fi and found this very clever.
The last image on the page (upper right) is the ad from Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, an episode of which I will be watching in about 5 minutes. It’s the torso and head of Cameron, the teenaged female Terminator unit, a starring character of the new show. She’s played by an idol of mine (and my 12-year old daughter’s), Summer Glau – dancer and actress. She takes roles that show females (young admittedly, the lady’s only 26 now) as strong individuals – even if they are the mentally and emotionally vulnerable victims of pursuit by an overwhelming government force. Our household loves Summer Glau and her work, and I always find this image of her attractive. It may be the show’s character suspended from metal rods and wires, her endoskeleton showing from underneath her fake skin, but the light on the profile of her face and the admirable expression is breathtaking and purely Summer’s skill as a physical actress showing through.
So why were these three ads placed together on a page called No Comment? I made a quick assumption about the human(oid) subjects of the ads. The three female images all portray some form of strength (even it’s from electrical impulse driven hydraulic power) and are fake women as far as icons created to sell a product (the nutcracker novelty, vodka, a TV show). I didn’t think much beyond this assumption and planned to investigate further later.
Eventually I take a break at my desk and pick up the Ms. Magazine. Reading more carefully now, I see that there is an explanation to the purpose of the page. It’s to badger the manufacturers and publicity companies about their “objectionable ads”. The reader is further requested to report objectionable ads to Ms. through the editor of this page (No Comment – funny, that title, considering this novel I’m writing).
Interesting how a woman (who appreciates the female form & spirit and associates any image of a “strong woman” with the strengths of character, mind and body that Hillary Clinton and Summer Glau personify) decides to make her first complaint about the stereotyping of women to a medium that claims to defend the rights of women. In fact, I was most concerned when I first saw the front cover, a photo of a woman muted by a tape gag X’d across her mouth. Never one to promote violence against women as a matter of depersonalizing them or making them less human by removing her ability to defend herself or respond, I found this cover photograph objectionable. If ever there was an image that I identified as demeaning to women, this would be it. But I understand the point of the article and agree that the statement made by muffling the woman on the cover is both profound and provocative.
The Hillary Nutcracker novelty isn’t funny when you realize one of the other statements made on the box. It’s “Is America ready for this nutcracker?” If she is the right person for the job, then it doesn’t matter whether she is female or male. Gender is NOT a reason to either dismiss or choose a candidate for leadership – simply their ability to perform in the office to which they were elected. I take offense that someone is using such a creative toy/tool to promote the idea that one of America’s female candidates for president is somehow a destabilizing force simply because she’s got ovaries. This toy/tool would not be funny if it were Britney Spears depicted. Why? Because B. Spears is NOT a strong representation of womanhood… she’s an embarrassment. Hillary C. on the other hand can do more than hold her own. She’s strong enough (however you want to take that adjective) to be the impetus for this toy/tool and makes it both thought-provoking and funny. She can survive this. Besides, the joke doesn't work with the male candidates.
The android vodka seller is an obviously fake (but attractive) female. Her mechanics are showing at each joint and the shiny plastic body forms of her torso, forearms and butt cheeks emulate, but do not convince us of, the soft fleshly exterior of a human woman. There’s an expression on the face but it’s truly inconsequential – knowing that she represents the trophy wife (a reputation for women who are ultimately inconsequential themselves without representing her mate/husband for his benefit) who are often depicted as botoxed, liposucked, acrylic-nailed and bleached blond proves just how fake she is supposed to appear. The text nearby is more disturbing. The single word that I found offensive was “next”, as if a gentleman should expect to have more than one trophy wife in his lifetime. Now the stereotype of trophy wives are cruel and dehumanizing, but let’s face the facts… most stereotypes are based off of some event or trend in reality and we all have a certain standard in mind when the term is said.
Now we come to the image of Cameron, another fake and mechanical woman. But this one isn’t obvious. She was designed to accurately impersonate an attractive but average high school teen. Her purpose is to protect the life of an average (for now) high school teen who happens to be male (John Connor). She’s like the secret service going to college with Chelsea Clinton in that she’s meant to blend in with the surroundings and not disrupt the place too much. So how much more disturbing is the “passing” fake woman than the obvious one? Not. Cameron is a machine but has programming to allow her to function as a human, mimicking emotions and varying her reactions. You just have to remind yourself once in a while that her lack of a heart doesn’t mean that her central processing unit isn’t in the right place.
Why are any of these images of strong women on this list? Because one makes fun of a political incumbent? Because one plays off of an artificial woman stereotype? Because one strips the mask off of the underlying fake woman, proving that we are a gullible society and are capable of being fooled by a veneer of false femininity? Hm.
Would the readers of Ms. also find images of transgenders or cross-dressing men objectionable? These could be considered fake females… in imagery anyway. How insulting. What am I to make of the opinions expressed by exposing these three ads as objectionable? That strong women are offensive? That because a female is fake, or can pass when she's faking, that she is against the grain or flaunting the standard? I SOOO do not agree. What kind of a stereotype are you promoting, Ms. - women have to fit within certain parameters to be acceptable?
Whoo boy, I’m about tapped out. I’m emotionally drained and it’s late. I’m tired of ranting and to spin a bit of fairness in the direction of Ms. Magazine, I appreciate the opportunity to send their last page editor my nomination for objectionable ad. When I find one.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
The Patience of a Man
My fiance' is a doll. He's got the patience of an enlightened Buddah, just not so chubby.
Every once in a while (three or more times today, and counting), I go completely crazy. He's watching the Superbowl game (darn those Giants) and I'm blurting out obnoxious things like, "Why isn't my password working? The computer isn't letting me into my account." So what does he do? He gets up from what he is enjoying to see why I'm harping. Then he makes several (seemingly banal at the time) suggestions as to what I might try to alleviate the problem. When I fuss at him for my own incompetence, he (politely) tells me off for being shrewish and states simply that he could go back to what he was doing... unless I want his help. At that, I feel foolish and ask him to help. Going over all of the options of error-making, I convince him that it couldn't possibly be a user-made problem. In fact, I defended myself explaining how I would have avoided all of those suggested and common pitfalls. Then...
I suddenly realize what I had done and freeze up like a deer in headlights. He notes that I'm startled into catatonia and asks if I'm alright. Then I have to blush from annoyed shame, type in the alternate password I'd set up originally, see that it works and hang my head before (using the smallest and most humble voice with which I can eat crow) apologizing to him. I was such a bother!
He's not without faults, really. There's a temper to speak of and he plays with his cowlick when he's agitated or excited about something (most recently that all-important football game). But to me, he's my hero and best friend. And I don't deserve him. Nope, not even when I bring him dinner so he doesn't have to get up from his turn at the computer.
I love you Mul. Abore 'pa zin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)