Did you know that there was originally no word "pea"? The English word "pea" was taken from the French (or Old French, or something) "pease". That's singular, one pea. (And hee, I know someone with that name, as, I'm sure many of you also do.) Anyway, since the sound "s" denotes a plural in this, our English language, speakers of Old English determined that "pease" must be plural, and that in the singular, you would have one "pea".
Peeeeeeeea.
Dictionary.com says that the word of the day is recidivism, which means: "A tendency to lapse into a previous condition or pattern of behavior; especially, a falling back or relapse into prior criminal habits." Hee. That's a funny word.
Yesterday, I saw Kill Bill and Lost In Translation . In that order. It was kind of like a theme day. Only not really.
My shirt smells very nice. I'm going to have to wash it, eventually, though. Sadder yet, even sooner than that, I'm going to need to take it off and put on a different shirt.
I now need to compose a structure for the definite determiner in Romanian. This is not as fun and action-packed as it sounds.
Sunday
Monday
Moral of this post: DayQuil can fuck you up.
So, anyway, for about the past two weeks, I've been working on a show. It's part of my obligations for my major. Behind the scenes. I wound up being the "light girl" which means that I operated the light board. So all of the cool lighting effects (and any unfortunate fuck ups) were ALL ME, baby. The show was "Serenading Louie" by Lanford Wilson. I really can't do it justice with words. We rocked the house nightly. For those of you not in the know, it has nothing to do with Serenading, and there's no one named Louie. It's just really depressing and messed up, but completely great.
This is an awful recap of the experience but here are my excuses: I'm lazy, and I'm sick. Apparently the regiment of missing sleep, running around, and standing out in the cold does not leave one in the best of condition. Who knew? I woke up today feeling like miserable crap, as if someone had given my body license to break down now that the show is over. Well, no! Fuck you, soma! I'm the establishment.
I am, by the way, rather high. I took some DayQuil, which works insanely well for about half an hour. I think it's the fumes and the fast absorption rate into the blood. Anyway, I took some more to make me feel better for class. It was only two hours later, but the non-sickenifying effects had already worn off, and I was all scratchy and drippy and achy and irritable.
Whoa, baby. Acetaminophen is some good shit. Only now I'm all drugged up and spacey, but I still feel sick. And I have yet more class to go to. But miracuously, I have no new homework this week. Score!
I'm hoping to kick the shit out of this viral thing by Friday. This is important to me.
You know what's awesome? Monkeys.
This is an awful recap of the experience but here are my excuses: I'm lazy, and I'm sick. Apparently the regiment of missing sleep, running around, and standing out in the cold does not leave one in the best of condition. Who knew? I woke up today feeling like miserable crap, as if someone had given my body license to break down now that the show is over. Well, no! Fuck you, soma! I'm the establishment.
I am, by the way, rather high. I took some DayQuil, which works insanely well for about half an hour. I think it's the fumes and the fast absorption rate into the blood. Anyway, I took some more to make me feel better for class. It was only two hours later, but the non-sickenifying effects had already worn off, and I was all scratchy and drippy and achy and irritable.
Whoa, baby. Acetaminophen is some good shit. Only now I'm all drugged up and spacey, but I still feel sick. And I have yet more class to go to. But miracuously, I have no new homework this week. Score!
I'm hoping to kick the shit out of this viral thing by Friday. This is important to me.
You know what's awesome? Monkeys.
Friday
I'm sorry for your loss.
Now lets talk about sex, "humor", and buying me presents!
I want to kick the asses of everyone. Or, at the moment, 81.5% of everyone.
It's one fucking mouse click.
I want to kick the asses of everyone. Or, at the moment, 81.5% of everyone.
It's one fucking mouse click.
Wednesday
9
This is about as candid as I get, folks.
When my cousin Denise was about, let's say, 15, she wanted to pick out songs to play at her wedding. (Isn't that cute.) She wanted my advice on them. (Isn't that cute.) One song she played for me was "Heaven" by Bryan Adams. It was the first time I had heard it. She didn't care for it, but I immediately fell in love with it. Yes, it's a power ballad. Yes, it's Bryan Adams. Yes, ... you know what, fuck you all, I love this song. Because I just do, so there.
When I was a freshman there was a "dance" "club" version of the song made, sung by some chick. I guess it was somewhat popular (my aversion to the radio has been going on for a few years now). Because I could hear it wafting on the breeze all the time. It was horrible, and I wanted to cry tears of blood and murder bystanders every time I heard it. It was as if they were urinating on the graves of my ancestors, that's how offended I was by this song. Anyway.
There's a lyric somewhere around the middle, and it doesn't rhyme, and it always kind of stuck out to me because it seems awkward, but not in an awkward way. It's: "Now nothing can take you away from me/We've been down that road before but that's over now". I always wondered if, were I to play this at my own wedding, if I would have to go through some lost love trauma in order to qualify. And it's one short line, amidst an entire song of simple romantic lines.
Life, it seems, is much simpler in theory than it is in practice. If this song is about real people, than that line can recount an unexplainable amount of tears and sorrow, and make them seem utterly insignificant. Because "that's over now". And there seems like there should be more explanation. How were they split apart, how did they come back together? All very important questions, that, I suppose, deserve answers. But on the other hand, it doesn't matter. The whys don't matter.
I think that true love is very rare. I also think it's very dangerous. Because true love makes one person dependent on another for their very survival. The presence or lack of presence of a single person in your life can dictate whether you are happy or not. But what do you do when that person isn't there anymore? My cousin Teresa (1st cousin, once removed) was married to a man named Gus. She was always a sarcastic, and some would say dour person (she was great), but she loved him with all her heart, and he made her extremely happy. And then, as people are wont to do, he died. And she kept living, but completely apathetically. She just sort of hung around, waiting to die. And then when she got sick, she just didn't fight it, and she let it win. And I can think of other examples.
That elusive, true, unconditional love is one of life's biggest high-stakes gambles. Because when you're winning, you are in the metaphorical money. But when you lose, you lose everything. And sometimes I wonder if the gain balances out the eventual loss.
And it's thinking about things like this that really make me marvel at my Aunt Rose. She turned 90 this August. She married my Uncle Joe when she was 16. He was 20. ("Oh, well I was almost seventeen!" - Aunt Rose) My Uncle Joe died on New Year's Day, 1990. They were married for 60 years. I don't know how I would deal with that. I don't know how she dealt with her son dying of a heart attack before he turned 40. I don't know how she dealt with her daughter (Teresa) give up on life with nothing she could do to help her. I don't know how she can handle having only one living sibling, when she originally had six. I don't know how she managed to be so strong, beautiful, and kind after the life she had.
She is a miracle. I am in awe.
I suppose this entry was supposed to capture a feeling or a state of being that I've been in lately. There are some times that I worry about what other people will think and say, and how that will affect me. And sometimes I just think, "Nuts to other people". Because I am happy. And I like being that way. And I am very much in love with someone. And if this is not the definition of unconditional love, then I don't know what is. And ironically, this person loves me.
And that's what's important.
Alright, you may resume the rest of your lives.
When my cousin Denise was about, let's say, 15, she wanted to pick out songs to play at her wedding. (Isn't that cute.) She wanted my advice on them. (Isn't that cute.) One song she played for me was "Heaven" by Bryan Adams. It was the first time I had heard it. She didn't care for it, but I immediately fell in love with it. Yes, it's a power ballad. Yes, it's Bryan Adams. Yes, ... you know what, fuck you all, I love this song. Because I just do, so there.
When I was a freshman there was a "dance" "club" version of the song made, sung by some chick. I guess it was somewhat popular (my aversion to the radio has been going on for a few years now). Because I could hear it wafting on the breeze all the time. It was horrible, and I wanted to cry tears of blood and murder bystanders every time I heard it. It was as if they were urinating on the graves of my ancestors, that's how offended I was by this song. Anyway.
There's a lyric somewhere around the middle, and it doesn't rhyme, and it always kind of stuck out to me because it seems awkward, but not in an awkward way. It's: "Now nothing can take you away from me/We've been down that road before but that's over now". I always wondered if, were I to play this at my own wedding, if I would have to go through some lost love trauma in order to qualify. And it's one short line, amidst an entire song of simple romantic lines.
Life, it seems, is much simpler in theory than it is in practice. If this song is about real people, than that line can recount an unexplainable amount of tears and sorrow, and make them seem utterly insignificant. Because "that's over now". And there seems like there should be more explanation. How were they split apart, how did they come back together? All very important questions, that, I suppose, deserve answers. But on the other hand, it doesn't matter. The whys don't matter.
I think that true love is very rare. I also think it's very dangerous. Because true love makes one person dependent on another for their very survival. The presence or lack of presence of a single person in your life can dictate whether you are happy or not. But what do you do when that person isn't there anymore? My cousin Teresa (1st cousin, once removed) was married to a man named Gus. She was always a sarcastic, and some would say dour person (she was great), but she loved him with all her heart, and he made her extremely happy. And then, as people are wont to do, he died. And she kept living, but completely apathetically. She just sort of hung around, waiting to die. And then when she got sick, she just didn't fight it, and she let it win. And I can think of other examples.
That elusive, true, unconditional love is one of life's biggest high-stakes gambles. Because when you're winning, you are in the metaphorical money. But when you lose, you lose everything. And sometimes I wonder if the gain balances out the eventual loss.
And it's thinking about things like this that really make me marvel at my Aunt Rose. She turned 90 this August. She married my Uncle Joe when she was 16. He was 20. ("Oh, well I was almost seventeen!" - Aunt Rose) My Uncle Joe died on New Year's Day, 1990. They were married for 60 years. I don't know how I would deal with that. I don't know how she dealt with her son dying of a heart attack before he turned 40. I don't know how she dealt with her daughter (Teresa) give up on life with nothing she could do to help her. I don't know how she can handle having only one living sibling, when she originally had six. I don't know how she managed to be so strong, beautiful, and kind after the life she had.
She is a miracle. I am in awe.
I suppose this entry was supposed to capture a feeling or a state of being that I've been in lately. There are some times that I worry about what other people will think and say, and how that will affect me. And sometimes I just think, "Nuts to other people". Because I am happy. And I like being that way. And I am very much in love with someone. And if this is not the definition of unconditional love, then I don't know what is. And ironically, this person loves me.
And that's what's important.
Alright, you may resume the rest of your lives.
Thursday
Wherein I both post a list, and then critique it, thus being as complacently anal as is humanly possible.
Alrighty, so, I live in a dorm. And we have some preceptors. These kids are students who for some reason decided that they wanted to be in charge of stuff. So they do things like put up information inside the dorms, listen to student complaints, organize activities; a whole bunch of crap. The preceptor for the second and third floors of my building (and therefore "my" preceptor) is named Jen. Or you can "call" her Jen, if you're British. Anyway, she is a very nice girl with long red hair, and she's perky and sweet and I enjoy her company a bunch. However, I must question some of the choices that she makes as a preceptor. Like, for example, the bafflingly crass bulletin board in my hallway. Which I will not go into at this time. Maybe later. Anyway, no, here I am going to review and evaluate some "Bathroom Etiquette" flyers that she wrote and taped up in the 'throoms. I will highlight her words in bold, so that I can avoid using italics, for Stephanie's sake. (and also my own)
BATHROOM ETIQUETTE
I should note that this whole thing is centered on the paper, and in a script-y font. I may look through my fonts to see which one it is later, but blah, not right now. Anyway, I think it's far too flashy for a memorandum of utilitarian instruction.
1. When finished using the facilities, FLUSH!!! It's the right thing to do!!
Okay, some more notes on form. You will note if you continue reading that there are a lot of exclamation marks on this puppy. Seriously, it gives me a headache. I don't think any of this information is really *that* important. Also, since she's already using a flowy, slanty font, italics for emphasis don't seem to be an option. So she has opted to use capitalization. I don't approve. I have the same problem that I do with the exclamations. It's not that critical. Alright, moving on to content. My main objection with this is the ambiguity of the first sentence. "Facilities"? If you mean the toilet, say "toilet". We are not the Queen. The bathroom has many facilities, such as the sinks and the showers. Should we also flush after using them? (You think I'm exaggerating, but seriously. Higher education or not, most college students are really simple.) Now the second sentence. I don't like how this implies that flushing the toilet is a moral obligation. Making value judgments is wrong.
2. If you "sprinkle" on the seat, CLEAN IT!!! After all it is yours!!
Again, with the cutesy words. "Sprinkle" will not motivate the populace. Seriously, I don't know of many girls who will have a problem not spraying urine on a toilet seat. Unless of course, they're using that "hover" technique in a public restroom, the logistics of which simply baffle me. I don't think anyone will be doing that for a year on what is essentially, their home toilet. Again with the over emphatic emphasis. And, may I ask, what is she trying to instill is mine? The accidentally sprayed urine, or the seat cover? It's so unclear. Why am I doing this again? What's my motivation?
3. The courtesy flush- enough said!!!
Um. Actually, it really isn't. I have no idea what the "courtesy flush" is. The only time I've heard it before now is in that one scene in the first Austin Powers movie. If this really is essential to acting in a refined manner whilst in the rest room, I really think the terms should be explained, and not left up to faith that they are universally understood.
4. If your hair falls out in the shower, the least you can do is turn the nozzle towards the hair so it goes down the DRAIN!!! No one wants to see someone else's hair in the shower!!
Okay, this I don't even know what to make of. She's actually advocating that we stuff the drains full with our hair. Am I the only one who forsees problems here? Mainly the one caused by the fact that hair clogs a drain? I also object to the fact that this is a blatantly subjective method for dealing with shower-shedding. I shed immensely when I'm in the shower, mostly because I finger-comb my hair when I use conditioner, to ensure even and silky body. Anyway, usually, the hair will come out in my fingers. And I stick it on the wall. And then, when I'm through showering, I use my patented finger-swirl method to remove the hair, and I deposit it in the trash when I leave. Now, if you ask me, I think this is a brilliant and fabulous system, especially if you have long hair, as I do. However, I also understand that this is a personal preference, and would never command anyone else to follow my own personal method for hair maintenance. Also, I'd like this opportunity to say that I don't know why hair is so gross. It's hair; we're all mammals and we all have it. It's in the shower, so you know it's clean, and you wouldn't be grossed out if it was still attached to its owner's head. Having said that, though ... geugh. Hair in the shower is freakin' icky.
5. Food in the sink, it's just GROSS!!! Food belongs in your mouth, stomach, or in the trash!!
Sigh. No really, sigh. First of all, food in the sink is not "just" gross. It's also inconvenient and repugnant and off-putting, and a host of other adjectives that I can think of just in this sitting. Also, I am upset at the lack of correct punctuation. Colon, not comma. Also, I dislike the value judgments again here. The food "belongs" somewhere, like it has some sort of social obligation to stay in its place. Also, on a strictly scientific level, the second sentence is incorrect. There are many other places where it is acceptable to find food. The esophagus, for example, or the small intestine. As a matter of fact, the entire digestive tract. Also, when food is not in use, it does not need to be in the trash. It can be in a storage or serving container, which I believe is where most of the world's food actually is. What's really wrong with this rule is that it lacks an instruction of any kind. I *think* her point is that you are not to leave food in the sink. In which case that's what should be stated, not all this other mumbo jumbo.
6. Wash your hands before leaving the bathroom!!! Basically this will not spread germs between people!!
"Well, science girl, if you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am?" Finally, an actual instruction. Then of course, she has to go and mess it up with the second line. First of all, you want to get that "basically" out of there. To be blatantly misogynistic for a moment, you can totally tell that this was written by a chick. She presents a piece of fact, but then modifies it when she relates it by inserting an ameliorating word ("basically") so that the sentence becomes less forceful. I have noticed that I do this all the time. My writing is peppered with the words "essentially" and "basically" and "possibley". I like the way I write, and I don't want to change, but sometimes I do consider the socio-political reasons for why I insert these words, and I do feel like I should break free of oppression and stop being subjugated by ... stuff. Eh, whatever. I'm gonna go shave my legs and wear something pink. I'm sorry, I got way off-topic there. Anyway! The major problem in the second sentence is that it explains what will *not* happen if you take a certain action. Well, seriously, if you think about it, the list of things that will *not* happen if you take a certain action are infinite. It's much clearer and much more precise to state what desired outcome *will* happen if you take a requested action. It would be better to say "This will stop the spread of germs between people." Of course, that's untrue, though. Because people are germy little fucks. So you'd have to choose a more politic yet still effective phrasing such as "This will help curb the spread of germ transmission between people in the hall." Hot damn, I should be a speech-writer.
Thank you so much for your consideration, this will make our community much nicer to live in!!!!
Ah, the closer. And to signify that we are at the end, there are four exclamation marks!!!! Isn't that super? Anyway, I always find that it's nice to thank people in advance, especially if you know that they just sat through reading something that was really poorly written, but I would never thank anyone "so much" when they haven't technically done anything yet. I also don't like this because it implies that the *consideration* is what will make the community a nicer place to live in. This is untrue, it is the implementation of the ideas discussed in the paper that will better the environment of the bathroom. This, I think is where conditional phrasing needs to be employed. This sounds too final, like if you've gotten to the end of this flyer, then your work is done. There is nothing to imply that this needs to be an ongoing effort to be effective. It's a flawed ending to a well-intentioned but poorly realized proposition.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the kind of crap that I think about all the time. Isn't it devastatingly fascinating to be me?
BATHROOM ETIQUETTE
I should note that this whole thing is centered on the paper, and in a script-y font. I may look through my fonts to see which one it is later, but blah, not right now. Anyway, I think it's far too flashy for a memorandum of utilitarian instruction.
1. When finished using the facilities, FLUSH!!! It's the right thing to do!!
Okay, some more notes on form. You will note if you continue reading that there are a lot of exclamation marks on this puppy. Seriously, it gives me a headache. I don't think any of this information is really *that* important. Also, since she's already using a flowy, slanty font, italics for emphasis don't seem to be an option. So she has opted to use capitalization. I don't approve. I have the same problem that I do with the exclamations. It's not that critical. Alright, moving on to content. My main objection with this is the ambiguity of the first sentence. "Facilities"? If you mean the toilet, say "toilet". We are not the Queen. The bathroom has many facilities, such as the sinks and the showers. Should we also flush after using them? (You think I'm exaggerating, but seriously. Higher education or not, most college students are really simple.) Now the second sentence. I don't like how this implies that flushing the toilet is a moral obligation. Making value judgments is wrong.
2. If you "sprinkle" on the seat, CLEAN IT!!! After all it is yours!!
Again, with the cutesy words. "Sprinkle" will not motivate the populace. Seriously, I don't know of many girls who will have a problem not spraying urine on a toilet seat. Unless of course, they're using that "hover" technique in a public restroom, the logistics of which simply baffle me. I don't think anyone will be doing that for a year on what is essentially, their home toilet. Again with the over emphatic emphasis. And, may I ask, what is she trying to instill is mine? The accidentally sprayed urine, or the seat cover? It's so unclear. Why am I doing this again? What's my motivation?
3. The courtesy flush- enough said!!!
Um. Actually, it really isn't. I have no idea what the "courtesy flush" is. The only time I've heard it before now is in that one scene in the first Austin Powers movie. If this really is essential to acting in a refined manner whilst in the rest room, I really think the terms should be explained, and not left up to faith that they are universally understood.
4. If your hair falls out in the shower, the least you can do is turn the nozzle towards the hair so it goes down the DRAIN!!! No one wants to see someone else's hair in the shower!!
Okay, this I don't even know what to make of. She's actually advocating that we stuff the drains full with our hair. Am I the only one who forsees problems here? Mainly the one caused by the fact that hair clogs a drain? I also object to the fact that this is a blatantly subjective method for dealing with shower-shedding. I shed immensely when I'm in the shower, mostly because I finger-comb my hair when I use conditioner, to ensure even and silky body. Anyway, usually, the hair will come out in my fingers. And I stick it on the wall. And then, when I'm through showering, I use my patented finger-swirl method to remove the hair, and I deposit it in the trash when I leave. Now, if you ask me, I think this is a brilliant and fabulous system, especially if you have long hair, as I do. However, I also understand that this is a personal preference, and would never command anyone else to follow my own personal method for hair maintenance. Also, I'd like this opportunity to say that I don't know why hair is so gross. It's hair; we're all mammals and we all have it. It's in the shower, so you know it's clean, and you wouldn't be grossed out if it was still attached to its owner's head. Having said that, though ... geugh. Hair in the shower is freakin' icky.
5. Food in the sink, it's just GROSS!!! Food belongs in your mouth, stomach, or in the trash!!
Sigh. No really, sigh. First of all, food in the sink is not "just" gross. It's also inconvenient and repugnant and off-putting, and a host of other adjectives that I can think of just in this sitting. Also, I am upset at the lack of correct punctuation. Colon, not comma. Also, I dislike the value judgments again here. The food "belongs" somewhere, like it has some sort of social obligation to stay in its place. Also, on a strictly scientific level, the second sentence is incorrect. There are many other places where it is acceptable to find food. The esophagus, for example, or the small intestine. As a matter of fact, the entire digestive tract. Also, when food is not in use, it does not need to be in the trash. It can be in a storage or serving container, which I believe is where most of the world's food actually is. What's really wrong with this rule is that it lacks an instruction of any kind. I *think* her point is that you are not to leave food in the sink. In which case that's what should be stated, not all this other mumbo jumbo.
6. Wash your hands before leaving the bathroom!!! Basically this will not spread germs between people!!
"Well, science girl, if you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am?" Finally, an actual instruction. Then of course, she has to go and mess it up with the second line. First of all, you want to get that "basically" out of there. To be blatantly misogynistic for a moment, you can totally tell that this was written by a chick. She presents a piece of fact, but then modifies it when she relates it by inserting an ameliorating word ("basically") so that the sentence becomes less forceful. I have noticed that I do this all the time. My writing is peppered with the words "essentially" and "basically" and "possibley". I like the way I write, and I don't want to change, but sometimes I do consider the socio-political reasons for why I insert these words, and I do feel like I should break free of oppression and stop being subjugated by ... stuff. Eh, whatever. I'm gonna go shave my legs and wear something pink. I'm sorry, I got way off-topic there. Anyway! The major problem in the second sentence is that it explains what will *not* happen if you take a certain action. Well, seriously, if you think about it, the list of things that will *not* happen if you take a certain action are infinite. It's much clearer and much more precise to state what desired outcome *will* happen if you take a requested action. It would be better to say "This will stop the spread of germs between people." Of course, that's untrue, though. Because people are germy little fucks. So you'd have to choose a more politic yet still effective phrasing such as "This will help curb the spread of germ transmission between people in the hall." Hot damn, I should be a speech-writer.
Thank you so much for your consideration, this will make our community much nicer to live in!!!!
Ah, the closer. And to signify that we are at the end, there are four exclamation marks!!!! Isn't that super? Anyway, I always find that it's nice to thank people in advance, especially if you know that they just sat through reading something that was really poorly written, but I would never thank anyone "so much" when they haven't technically done anything yet. I also don't like this because it implies that the *consideration* is what will make the community a nicer place to live in. This is untrue, it is the implementation of the ideas discussed in the paper that will better the environment of the bathroom. This, I think is where conditional phrasing needs to be employed. This sounds too final, like if you've gotten to the end of this flyer, then your work is done. There is nothing to imply that this needs to be an ongoing effort to be effective. It's a flawed ending to a well-intentioned but poorly realized proposition.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the kind of crap that I think about all the time. Isn't it devastatingly fascinating to be me?
Wednesday
View, again.
[Begin Spoiler for Angel 5.2, "Just Rewards" — Highlight to view]
Dude! Dude!! Dude!!! I make that noise! That noise that Villain Of The Week Who Was Actually A Good Actor That I Enjoyed Watching made when he did that whateveritwas that he did at the end! That's my humming noise. That I often mention making but that I don't think anyone reading this has ever heard me make. (Ironically, I'm making the noise as I type this.) Perhaps I too can control the dead.
I must admit (probably to Kirk's disappointment) that some parts of this had me laughing out loud. Some parts of it were just well done. And some conversations (like Angel comparing his soul-searching to Spike's lack thereof) were needed in this universe.
Unfortunately, mentioning it doesn't fix it. It's nice to know that Whosoever thought "Hey, Spike never actually became a better person after getting a soul" can feel validated by this episode, but it really only serves to highlight the flaws and confusion.
Speaking of highlights, I really love Harm. I really, really do. Such wisdom and pith.
I liked this episode, but I am still undecided on what I think of this plot-line. So this review is crappy and disjointed. I have no real opinions. Except on this one point: To me, it was absolutely 100% obvious that Angel was sending Lawyer With The Yellow Tie to his death. "Hey, go tell an extremely evil person some bad news" equals death. Angel should know this. I knew this. Anyone who has ever watched this show before should know this. Why did everyone seem so surprised when he wound up as dead as he so logically would have?
I suppose that everyone who's worried about how they're going to handle this whole "running a law firm" plot should be grateful for Spike. And I suppose everyone who's worried about how they're going to handle this whole "Spike" plot-line should be glad for the crappy lawyer story. Because the writers will now split their attention between them, and never fully explore either. Why that should make anyone happy, I don't know. Variety, I guess.
It's nice that Spike still feels like Buffy's his property. You keep holding on to that dream, Spike. You'll fuck her into submission someday.
[End Spoiler]
Dude! Dude!! Dude!!! I make that noise! That noise that Villain Of The Week Who Was Actually A Good Actor That I Enjoyed Watching made when he did that whateveritwas that he did at the end! That's my humming noise. That I often mention making but that I don't think anyone reading this has ever heard me make. (Ironically, I'm making the noise as I type this.) Perhaps I too can control the dead.
I must admit (probably to Kirk's disappointment) that some parts of this had me laughing out loud. Some parts of it were just well done. And some conversations (like Angel comparing his soul-searching to Spike's lack thereof) were needed in this universe.
Unfortunately, mentioning it doesn't fix it. It's nice to know that Whosoever thought "Hey, Spike never actually became a better person after getting a soul" can feel validated by this episode, but it really only serves to highlight the flaws and confusion.
Speaking of highlights, I really love Harm. I really, really do. Such wisdom and pith.
I liked this episode, but I am still undecided on what I think of this plot-line. So this review is crappy and disjointed. I have no real opinions. Except on this one point: To me, it was absolutely 100% obvious that Angel was sending Lawyer With The Yellow Tie to his death. "Hey, go tell an extremely evil person some bad news" equals death. Angel should know this. I knew this. Anyone who has ever watched this show before should know this. Why did everyone seem so surprised when he wound up as dead as he so logically would have?
I suppose that everyone who's worried about how they're going to handle this whole "running a law firm" plot should be grateful for Spike. And I suppose everyone who's worried about how they're going to handle this whole "Spike" plot-line should be glad for the crappy lawyer story. Because the writers will now split their attention between them, and never fully explore either. Why that should make anyone happy, I don't know. Variety, I guess.
It's nice that Spike still feels like Buffy's his property. You keep holding on to that dream, Spike. You'll fuck her into submission someday.
[End Spoiler]
I have no BUST!
This is not true in some senses. I mean, I have a bust in the dress sense. It's rather ample. I also have busts of Beethoven and Nefertiti in my computer room. (Shut up!) I do not, however, have Butt Ugly Spoiler Tags. I have pretty spoiler tags. Therefore, in the non-existant game of "My spoiler tags vs. Pat's spoiler tags," I win. And now,
SHOW!!
[Begin Spoiler for Angel 5.1, "Convictions" — Highlight to view]
Wow. Parts of that were actually funny.
Wow. I like Angel's new hair.
Wow. That girl that plays Eve is the worst, most miscast actress I have ever seen. I mean. .... sigh. If I plan to review every episode, I should save the ranting. I'm sure I'll have many opportunities to expound in the coming weeks.
I see Joss Whedon hasn't lost his keen ability to bludgeon the audience with exposition.
"I have no problem spanking men" : the sentence that will launch a billion slashfics.
Also, I like Harmony. No, I did not get boy-brainwashed. She's cute.
You know, between the "George Sr." comment and the Dixie Chicks poster, I'd say that Joss isn't voting Repulican in '04.
Enough of blow by blow. I liked it. It was a bit shaky at first, either because it's the first new episode I've seen in a while, or it's the first new episode Whedon has seen in a while. Either way. I'm still not sure how I feel about this whole law firm scenario. It needs to be done extremely well in order to work, and I no longer have that kind of faith in Joss & Co. So far, in this first episode, though, it is of the good. Gunn being secretive and ambiguously evil is good. Man getting head blown off by shotgun is good. (I am a strange girl.) Bioterrorism, not so good, but at least there weren't any glaring errors. ME should be reminded that this is not a sci-fi show. However, I did enjoy Fred yelling at her labmates. (I would also like to point out that Fred's being a physicist still doesn't make her an expert in all areas of science.)
From this episode, I could envision a full and interesting season (as long as Eve is killed immediately) with darkness, humor, and ample screen development for the remaining characters.
Of course, this episode is not the acid test of this season, because this episode did not have Spike in it. Except, of course, for the "surprise" "dramatic" ending. In which James Marsters managed to ham up his three seconds of screen time: very impressive. Having actually watched the season finale of Buffy, I am keenly aware that there is absolutely no logically way for the amulet to arrive to Angel in a sealed envelope, and contain Spike. Because I can't even make that not sound stupid. I wonder which god will descend from which machine to "explain" all this wackiness.
I really don't want to be pessimistic, but this episode was a great setup for a season of a show that I would be interested in watching, but in the last five seconds, it was already usurped and contaminated by a set of rapidly aging cheekbones. You know what? I'm done with Spike. I was happy that he died, because I had finished caring about his character. I was happy that his arc had been resolved and set aside. I can't find that caring anymore, especially not when I know that it's going to come at the expense of the characters that I am still interested in.
End review.
[End Spoiler]
SHOW!!
[Begin Spoiler for Angel 5.1, "Convictions" — Highlight to view]
Wow. Parts of that were actually funny.
Wow. I like Angel's new hair.
Wow. That girl that plays Eve is the worst, most miscast actress I have ever seen. I mean. .... sigh. If I plan to review every episode, I should save the ranting. I'm sure I'll have many opportunities to expound in the coming weeks.
I see Joss Whedon hasn't lost his keen ability to bludgeon the audience with exposition.
"I have no problem spanking men" : the sentence that will launch a billion slashfics.
Also, I like Harmony. No, I did not get boy-brainwashed. She's cute.
You know, between the "George Sr." comment and the Dixie Chicks poster, I'd say that Joss isn't voting Repulican in '04.
Enough of blow by blow. I liked it. It was a bit shaky at first, either because it's the first new episode I've seen in a while, or it's the first new episode Whedon has seen in a while. Either way. I'm still not sure how I feel about this whole law firm scenario. It needs to be done extremely well in order to work, and I no longer have that kind of faith in Joss & Co. So far, in this first episode, though, it is of the good. Gunn being secretive and ambiguously evil is good. Man getting head blown off by shotgun is good. (I am a strange girl.) Bioterrorism, not so good, but at least there weren't any glaring errors. ME should be reminded that this is not a sci-fi show. However, I did enjoy Fred yelling at her labmates. (I would also like to point out that Fred's being a physicist still doesn't make her an expert in all areas of science.)
From this episode, I could envision a full and interesting season (as long as Eve is killed immediately) with darkness, humor, and ample screen development for the remaining characters.
Of course, this episode is not the acid test of this season, because this episode did not have Spike in it. Except, of course, for the "surprise" "dramatic" ending. In which James Marsters managed to ham up his three seconds of screen time: very impressive. Having actually watched the season finale of Buffy, I am keenly aware that there is absolutely no logically way for the amulet to arrive to Angel in a sealed envelope, and contain Spike. Because I can't even make that not sound stupid. I wonder which god will descend from which machine to "explain" all this wackiness.
I really don't want to be pessimistic, but this episode was a great setup for a season of a show that I would be interested in watching, but in the last five seconds, it was already usurped and contaminated by a set of rapidly aging cheekbones. You know what? I'm done with Spike. I was happy that he died, because I had finished caring about his character. I was happy that his arc had been resolved and set aside. I can't find that caring anymore, especially not when I know that it's going to come at the expense of the characters that I am still interested in.
End review.
[End Spoiler]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
