The Pop Tart

I'm moving on from Blogger to Blog City. Take a look at the new Pop Tart.

Hope to see you there.

I worked in a shoe store for 4 1/2 years and I really enjoyed it, not least because of the great discount I got on shoes. Shoes, along with purses and bags, have always been amongst my favorite purchases. Even when I can't find the right pair, I don't get a complex about them not fitting or feel self-conscious trying them on - as opposed to clothes which can send me into a major meltdown. I love shoes. So how is it I've come to hate them in the pop culture world?

Because they're all over the place. Everytime I turn around, pick up a book, or watch a television shoe, there's the discussion. About the Manolo's the heroine just loves. Can I just state for the record, I have never seen a pair of Manolo Blahniks that I've considered even remotely attractive? And I'll argue to the death that this is not just because my personal taste isn't there. They're ugly shoes that couldn't flatter a pair of feet if they tried.

And yet every chick lit novel (and I use the term advisedly) has a heroine who'll just die if she can't get a pair or she'll die if anything happens to the ones she has or she'll just die because the woman who stole her boyfriend has three pairs. I'm sure that somewhere, somewhen there was the first chick lit novel to mention shoes and they were entirely germaine to the plot. But what they've become is some kind of lazy shorthand for the authors. Want to make her a hip, urban chick? She must crave Manolo's.

Don't get me wrong I'm not dissing the genre as in this piece but I am dissing the authors employing lazy shortcuts. Give me individuals. Maybe your heroine could love Birkenstocks or penny loafers? Perhaps she goes barefoot, okay, that would be difficult to pull off in an urban setting. But come up with something new to tell me who these women are. There aren't enough Manolo's in the world the shoe them all.

A friend who's taste in books is similar to mine has been suggesting I read a couple of books by Patricia Briggs for a while now and though I trust her, I resisted. Why? Because the the protagonist of the books is a guy. Confession time. I read some of just about everything including mysteries, romance, sf, fantasy, literary fiction, light fiction, even some nonfiction. So what's the reading confession? About 80% of my reading features females as the primary protagonists. If a book stars a man, I'm far less likely to pick it up and when I do pick it up, I take a while to read. Does that make me prejudiced? It's not that I don't like the guys when I do read them (as I'm about to prove), I just don't seek them out. Is that wrong? Weird? Unusual?

In this case, resistance was futile since H. lent me her very own well-read copies of the Hurog books by Briggs. First up was Dragon Bones and it set up one of the most original fantasy storylines I've read in a long while. Wardwick of Hurog is heir to Hurog Keep and when his father dies suddenly he expects to inherit. The only problem is the survival mechanism Ward has been using to survive his father. Since a young age Ward has pretended to be a simpleton. His act is so good that his uncle is named his guardian and the Tallvenish King of the Five Kingdoms has declared him unfit. To prove he deserves to inherit the home and land that he loves, Ward sets out to make himself a hero. After all, if he's a hero, no one will think to deny him his rightful place.

I loved Ward so much that I immediately dove into the sequel Dragon Blood and read that in record time. Patricia Briggs (who also wrote a new Urban Fantasy, Moon Called which I liked) is a genius when it comes to characterization. What really impressed me about these two books and the others I immediately went on to glom, was their relative shortness as fantasy novels. With a few sentences we know who Ward is and the same goes for every other character. People do bad things but aren't cartoon villains. Redemption is possible and honor is admirable. Every scene, perhaps every sentence, ties back into the storyline. Nothing is dropped or forgotten. That takes real skill.

So will this change my reading patterns when it comes to male protags? Probably not much, unless Patricia Briggs' name is on the cover of the book.

In my job as a librarian, I'm generally considered to be a member of the younger guard. I'm not, though I like to let them think I am and if you've read this blog for any amount of time you know I'm am in spirit if not numbers. Over the last couple of days I attended the WiLSWorld Conference here in Madison and the wow factor was that it made me feel both way old and just young enough to maybe keep up.

The keynote speaker was the very dynamic Stephen Abrams, a Canadian who's big in the library world and has done a little of everything. Yesterday he thrilled me and scared the crap out of me by showing all the things out there we can be doing and the things we're not. His focus was on how on we can meet the user where they're at, rather then waiting for them to come to us (and he thinks the millenial generation won't be coming to us). Many of the web places he mentioned as being key to this group are barely on most librarys' radars - including mine. We know they're there but haven't yet figured out how to make them work for us. Things like My Space, Facebook, Flickr, Delicious, to name a few. And even those are probably going to be obsolete soon. Photobucket is making big inroads on Flickr as a photo site. Who knows what will be next?

I don't and though I'm excited to try and figure it out, man oh man am I feeling old. If you want to check out Stephen Abrams, take a look at his blog. And if that isn't enough, take a look at the other keynote speaker's blog, Lorcan Dempsey and see if you can't come up with a few more things we need to know about.

Since there's not much on tv this summer I've been catching up on a couple of shows that I only saw hit-or-miss during the regular season. One makes me happy every time I watch it and one makes me sad. And I love them both.

The show that makes me happy is My Name is Earl. I just smile when I watch, and many times laugh out loud. Earl's view of the world is such a nice one. You know the story, he's a reformed petty con who won the lottery. Now he keeps a list of everyone he did wrong and in each episode sets about righting that wrong, often with unintended and hilarious results. A favorite so far? Earl realizes he didn't pay $500 dollars in taxes to the government and tries to repay it. He and his brother Randy end up hanging from ropes inside an abandoned water tower. You'll have to catch the repeat to figure out why.

I just love the tone of this show and Earl's ex-wife Joy and her new husband Crab Man make me laugh in just about every scene they're in. Want a look at the Earl's list? Makes me smile just thinking of the episodes to come.

Equally wonderful, but not nearly as happy is Earl's companion show on NBC, The Office. The theme of the show? "Inappropriate remarks? Petty behavior? Zero productivity? All in a day's work." And each episode lovingly captures how that happens in an office. This particular office is attached to a warehouse. The company is Dunder Mifflin and they ship office supplies. The people working in the office are the paper pushers and are led by the inept, but oh so egotistical, Michael.

The writers get the feeling of pointlessness workers experience just right. That's what makes each episode so good. It's also what makes me feel so melancholy after watching. I just want to find these people and give them all hugs (even Dwight). The creators also get the feeling of camaraderie right. These are people who might never be friends if they met anywhere else, but because they have common problems (work, Michael) they're able to bond and find some common ground.

I'm starting to sound a little corny (my own motto). But it's the people we work with who make our jobs bearable. My co-workers have made me laugh and kept me sane when I've had to deal with the Michael's of this world. And I thank them for it.

The Office gets the dynamics just right. I just wish these characters could have some of Earl's joy (not his wife). Of course, then The Office wouldn't be nearly as good.

I haven't posted much lately - partly because I've been busy with a new blog for work, and partly because I just haven't been inspired. Don't know what the doldrums have been about but I have found a couple of shows to be excited about, even though they won't be on tv until 2007 earliest.

The first is being filmed by Alan Ball (of Six Feet Under fame) and is based on the books by Charlaine Harris featuring psychic Sookie Stackhouse. Sookie works as a bar waitress in her small southern town and is thrilled to meet her first vampire when Bill walks into the bar. Sookie can read people's thoughts, which seems like a good thing. It's not. She's lonely and mistrusted by her neighbors. Vampire Bill's arrival sparks more then curiousity in Sookie. She's attracted to this powerful man who's mind is a complete blank. Alan Ball loves the books and is already at work on the series for HBO. I can't wait. If you'd like to explore the Sookie universe (where vampires and weres and shapeshifters abound) start with Dead Until Dark.

The second is a series based on the books by Jeff Lindsay. Jeff's character is Dexter who is a blood-spatter expert who works for the Miami police. Oh, yeah, he's also a serial killer. Lindsay introduced this intriguing character in Darkly Dreaming Dexter. Though the book wasn't perfect I was intrigued by Dexter and can't wait to see what a television series would look like. Most of you are probably shaking your head skeptically at this point. Television ruins so many good things. But this series is being filmed for Showtime.

When these shows come out I'll probably be spending big bucks to get both cable stations. I'm hoping they'll live up to my expectations. Whether they do or not I'll continue to read the books and dream that these shows will do justice to the written word.

I'm going to enter Nonfiction Readers Anonymous territory and talk about a nonfiction book. In fact Nonanon is the one who recommended the book and she even lent me her hard won (through ILL) copy. The book is Finding Serenity: Anti-Heroes, Lost Shepherds and Space Hookers in Joss Whedon's Firefly, edited by Jane Espenson and I loved it.

Now as you know I don't read nonfiction all that much, but the combination of Nonanon's recommendation and the fact that the essays in this book were all about my favorite canceled show, Firefly, meant I was willing to dive in. And I'm so glad I did. I read most of the essays in a night and dreamed of Mal and the crew. Couldn't get better then that.

The essay writers are a mix of authors and other professionals (including one sex therapist). Like the editor I found only one essay, by John Wright, that I totally disagreed with, but even that one was thought provoking. Covering everything from gender roles to Chinese Words in the 'Verse, there's something for anyone who's a fan of the show, and I'd argue, for those who aren't as well. There's even a chapter by Jewel Staite who played Kaylee. Favorite chapter? I liked them all, but thought the one about the Reavers - The Heirs of Sawney Beane by Lawrence Watt-Evans - the most interesting.

Thank you Nonanon for the rec. and forgive me for thinking you were giving me a book on finding my inner serenity. Of course you know me better then that.

Not going to talk about anything high brow today. Whoops, just realized I never have, so no surprise there. Not even going to talk low brow entertainment either. I'm going to talk the most basic form of mindless fun out there. I'm talking about Yahoo Games.

I work in a library and frequently see people using their Internet time playing games. No, not online poker or gambling (though there are some of those too), but the games with the bouncy balls that make boing boing noices or the many colored squares that steadily fill the screen. I used to think they were nuts. Why use their alotted 90 minutes to play some game? Couldn't their time be better spent making inane conversation in a chat room or exchanging emails with their potential mail-order brides? What's the appeal?

I've since learned the lesson. When all else fails in my office - can't get stupid iTunes to work no matter how fool-proof it's supposed to be (they never met me apparently!), can't figure what to write in my blog, can't figure out what to write for a review or in my book - abandon them all and head for Yahoo games! Mindless and just competitive enough to be interesting and yet totally meaningless and harmless. Doesn't matter how badly I do. I can play until I get a crick in my neck and there's no harm, no foul. As much as I get into the game while I play it, I walk away relaxed. I've been able to shut my brain down to all else while I played and that's saying something.

So the next time you're feeling like you're about to smash the computer or toss the monitor out the window visit Yahoo Games. I recommend Super Bounce Out and Cubis if you're wondering.

The replies to my last post got me thinking about tv shows that were all too short-lived. It's scary to commit to a television show, 'cause chances are, you'll grow to love it and then it will be yanked from the screen. Or it will hop from night to night like a manic frog. No telling where it will land. Some shows are doomed at the start by their timeslot. Firefly was one such show. I think it's time slot was 7 pm on Fridays? For a clever, but hard to qualify, science fiction show? What were they thinking? And though I still can get a bit of the clever Joss Whedon on his blog, that doesn't help me.

Other shows are killed by lack of promotion. The one I mentioned in the comments on my last post with the cop named Rose Phillips was Under Suspicion. The show came out in 1994, lasted less then a season and I could remember tonight that the female lead's name was Rose "Phil" Phillips. She was played stupendously by Karen Sillas as the only female on an all male police squad (with an early appearance by Eric LaSalle of ER fame). Here's a bit from a review at the time: When one co-worker asks if she's a lesbian. Phil doesn't miss a beat. "That depends," she says in withering deadpan. "Are you the alternative?" When another wonders what it's like being a woman with all these men, she replies: "The toilet seat's always up." Her conflicted love interest was in Internal Affairs and played by a favorite of mine, Phillip Casnoff. Good, good stuff. And come to think of it, I think this one was killed not only by lack of promotion but also by a Friday night time slot.

From this season Commander in Chief had a lot of promise. Though I was sceptical, Geena Davis was very convincing as the first woman president. The dynamic of her taking office and having a family was interesting initially. But it suffered the demented frog effect both in scheduling and writing. In one season it was seen on three nights and had three writer teams. Not good. What started out as a show about a strong, capable, intelligent woman thrust into the job of a lifetime became just another melodramatic spectacle. It became less about what impact a woman would have on the job of president and more about how a female would be so conflicted by the job. Not nearly as interesting.

Any show's you've taken a chance on? Any networks grab you and then stab you?

In the history of dramatic television there have been many fine shows. Many I've become attached to. And many that left the canvas with a whimper, long after they'd lost my interest. That's what almost happened with The West Wing. A couple of years ago I'd just about lost interest. After writer Aaron Sorkin was replaced with John Wells I thought the show changed for the worse. Though I've enjoyed John Wells' programs in the past (most notably China Beach) I didn't enjoy what he did to the characters in season 4. Suddenly it seemed like my favorite characters just couldn't get along. And while I did think it was more realistic that highly ambitious people, like those who would staff the west wing, probably wouldn't all love each other, it still hurt to watch. Where was the clever banter? Where the underlying love they all had for one another. Gone. And so was I almost.

And then a funny thing happened. Perhaps in a last ditch bid to gain a new audience with shock and awe, perhaps merely because the salaries became too high. Whatever the reason the writers decided to create a whole new group of people to star the show and tell the story of a presidential campaign without Martin Sheen and company. And funnier still, it worked.

This last season (the last, damn it!) has been tremendous. Fascinating. Well-written. Suspenseful. It's all been there. With Jimmy Smits and Alan Alda as the democratic and republican nominees The West Wing became a whole new ball game. And now it's almost over and I don't want it to be.

In terms of dramatic television I can't remember the last series that was still so watchable this late in the game. I loved NYPD Blue but didn't miss it all that much when it was gone. Ditto the aforementioned China Beach. Both fine shows, but ones that had lost that certain something by the time the curtain came down. Sad though I was to see them go, I mourned what they were in their heyday, rather then the final product. And that's what's so different this time around. The West Wing is good television. Plain and simple. Please NBC, wake up at this late point and realize what a good show looks like, though I know it's been eons since you've seen one.

Any dramas you missed after they were gone?

When I was twelve I read my first dragon novel. The book was The White Dragon by Anne McCaffrey. In that novel Jaxom is a young landholder on the planet of Pern. His parents were killed before he reached his majority and though Jaxom is now almost an adult he still answers to far too many people and often feels powerless. When he accidentally impresses (bonds with) a young dragon, all hell breaks loose. Landholders don't become dragon riders! But impression on Pern is a one way thing. Once a dragon and his rider bond, there's no getting between them. Jaxom and his dragon Ruth go on to have many adventures and save the world. What fun. After reading that first one by McCaffrey I glommed them all and I read them cover to cover, back to back. Though I got much enjoyment from them, none quite lived up to Jaxom and Ruth. Until now.

The other night I read until 3 in the morning. The book? His Majesty's Dragon by Naomi Novik. Ms. Novik has taken Ms. McCaffreys fantasy idea and placed it in the middle of the Napoleonic wars. What a fabulous read. Captain Will Laurence is an up-and-coming naval officer in the British Navy. When his ship captures a French one he's surprised and how hard his opponents fight him. The discovery of a dragon egg makes everything clear. Dragons are powerful allies in the war and the British dragon corps is desperately outnumbered by the French. Will attempts to get the egg to London before it hatches but it's too late. And much against his inclination Will is bonded with the dragon. Being a dragonrider means leaving his beloved navy and entering a strata of fighting men who are admired and scorned with equal measure by British society. When the dragon asks for a name, Will chooses Temeraire. And a partnership is formed.

I loved that this was a grown up version of the story. Will and Temeraire's relationship is equal parts fascinating and charming. Temeraire is the rarest of the rare in dragon kind and his intelligence more then equals Will's. As they bond and train together it's clear they will be a team for life. What made this such a great read was the placement of the dragons into this historical context. Ms. Novik has an incredible imagination but has also done the research. Dragons battling over the English channel? Really? Yes.

Equally wonderful is the fact that these novels were previously pubbed in England (take a look at the British cover) so they are going to be published in quick succession here in the states. One in April, May and June. Can't wait.

I've come to expect product placement in my reality shows. Idol judges drink coke products and the contestants shill in the commercials they perform in. On The Apprentice every episode is one long advertisement (those companies certainly aren't getting any work product out of the actual tasks!). And over on Bravo Project Runway and now Top Chef have taken this to new levels. I was watching Top Chef the other night and not only did they drive around in glossy SUVs, but when they unpacked them the hatch came down and the camera lingered lovingly on the vehicle name and logo. Cheesy, yes. But sort of to be expected in reality shows.

What's been more then a little creepy lately is the product placements happening in dramas (and comedies too I suppose). I've gotten hooked on the new HBO series Big Love (more on that in my next post), but it's been more then a little distracting to have products not only shown but mentioned quite prominently. In last Sunday's episode the products named and shown included the Ipod, an SUV, several brands of shoes, and a movie store. How's that for getting a bang for your buck?

This is HBO we're talking about. The channel I, and every other subscriber out there, pay an arm and a leg to watch. Do they really need to be making money shilling products in their highly regarded dramas? It's not even that I'm morally opposed to the idea - I'm not sure what I am. It's that it lessens the quality of the show. If I'm jerked out of the story every time a character stops to advertise something, there goes the dramatic impact and if they do it often enough, there goes me.

If HBO is that hard up for cash, maybe they should just put some commercials on in that dead space between movies.

I always thought that I should write some kind of self-help book and make buckets of money. Come up with some basic system and make everyone think it was profound. A library co-worker and I used to throw ideas at each other - he wanted to write about what your library books say about you. I thought of Pooh, Winnie that is.

My idea is to study people based on which character in Pooh they like and identify with. My older sister is a Piglet fan. And like Piglet she worries about what people think and wants to please, but she always has that sort of hopeful tone. My younger sister loves Tigger and that fits her perfectly. She's volatile and quick with the emotions and then she gets over it. I don't know that I'd call her bouncy, trouncy, but she is fun, fun, fun. People love to go out with her because they know she'll have a good time and so will they. My mom's an Eeyore. Slightly cynical and convinced something bad is probably coming but lovable all the same.

Me, I'm a Pooh. Kind of clueless about a lot of things, but happy to just keep getting along. Like Piglet, Pooh experiences anxious moments about the situations he gets into, but he doesn't dwell. And though I'm a worrier (my motto is to imagine the worst so the reality ain't so bad), I also think I'm a fairly sunny person. Pooh and I worry but we also figure it will all work out somehow and there's no point in not looking for the next good thing. Oh, and the potential emptiness in my belly takes up a lot of my time too.

So which Pooh character are you? Anyone identify with Rabbit? Christopher Robin? I'll use all of you as research for my book.

I think I'm over Lost. At the start of this season they put Veronica Mars on opposite the ABC show and that meant I could only watch when VM wasn't on or in repeats. That's turned out to be just fine. I'm pretty caught up with the show (thanks to video and repeats) and I've lost interest.

In terms of television, dramas are where it's at for me. I rarely watch current comedies - in fact the only one's I've watched with any regularity this season are My Name is Earl and The Office. Give me drama and character development and long-term relationships that have ups and downs and I'm yours.

That's what I thought I'd gotten with Lost. During the first season I loved the set-up of forty people stranded on a mysterious island. How would they cope? How would it change them? And despite the fact that I'm not a fan of flashbacks, I liked the use of them here. By discovering what led them to the island we got to learn so much about them. But the flashbacks continued. And nothing changed. And I realized that very little character development was actually happening. How is that possible?

Every episode focuses on one character and we get flashbacks. Problem is, nothing comes of them. We discover something about them and next episode it's basically dropped so that the writers can flash back in someone else's life. So many story lines are dropped or used for dramatic effect. But very little progresses on the island. Even in the real time of their lives on the island. Kate and Claire and Rousseau go off to find medicine for Claire's baby. They find another hatch and a facility and Kate finds evidence that the Others are faking their mountain men look. Is there a conversation about this? Not that I've seen.

These characters don't behave like real people. Sure I get that this is tv, but give me a break. Why is there no discussion of anything? Comparing of notes?

This isn't supposed to be a rant about the plotting. But the plotting is what is getting in the way of the dramatic potential of these characters. I'm probably in the minority but I want to see how these people are dealing emotionally. They've been on this island for two months and yet, outside of each episodes little action/adventure plot, they seem just fine. They live on a nice beach and have plenty of food. No drama there.

I'll probably still tune in from time to time when VM is on hiatus, but I'm not dying to see it anymore. Okay, anything about Sawyer will probably keep me coming back too.

First and foremost I thought Jon Stewart was hilarious. But then I thought Dave Letterman did a 'heck of a job' too. I watched the Oscars with a group of friends and we were all laughing out loud at Stewart's jokes and the campaign commercials. Stupid hollywood people. As for the show itself, I wasn't really in a rooting mood. Most years I'm rooting for one or two but this year, meh. I didn't even have a strong anti-rooting campaign going. Not sure what that means.

So since I didn't have particularly strong feelings about this one (well, I did hate Charlize Theron's dress and I do think that Jennifer Aniston needs to change her hair or dresses or something and I did think it was kind of cute/awkward for Jennifer Garner considering J-Lo, the former Bennifer gal, was in the audience) I'll talk about my award show theories.

Golden Globes
No. 1 - If there's a hot young thing nominated in the best actress in a tv show category who's never been nominated before, and probably won't be nominated again, then she wins - think Jennifer Garner, Jessica Alba.

No. 2 - If there's a non-american actor nominated, he/she will win. This is the Hollywood Foreign Press after all.

No. 3 - Shows with scads of beautiful people win. Sex and the City, Desperate Housewives, Lost

No. 4 - This one trumps all the others. The HFP likes to be 'edgy' and independent and what they'd consider as trendsetters, but at the same time they like to be in with the popular gang. It's a fine line. Which translates to wins for Felicity Huffman and Brokeback Mountain and Weeds winner Mary-Louise Parker as well as the wins for Lost and Desperate Housewives.

The Emmys
No. 1 - Safety. If if was good enough to win last year, it's definitely good enough this year. Witness Frasier and though it pains me to say it, The West Wing

No. 2 - If there is a "movie star" guesting on a tv show or starring in a made for tv movie, they win. Of course, if they're a "movie star" they must be better then the lowly tv hacks.

The Oscars
No. 1 - Similar to the Emmy's number one, but I'd peg this one more as having to do with being "it". This applies especially to the ladies but can work for movies too. They've all had big popularity momentum going in. Reese and Crash this year.

No. 2 - If there's an actor in the category who has a tony accent (read British) they get the win. Oscar is just snobbish enough to think that British actors are better because a lot of them have done theahtah. Rachel Weisz this year.

No. 3 - They reward people a year too late. When they've had an oversight in nomination, that person gets to be nominated the next year (and frequently wins). Think Whoopi Goldberg.

Now none of these is hard and fast and these frequently trump each other, but take a look at their histories and tell me if I'm wrong.

I'm highly susceptible to suggestion. Say something that includes a phrase or even a word from a song I know well and suddenly I'm singing that song - though sometimes it takes me a while to backtrack my thinking patterns to figure out why. When I read a review that sounds good, I'll likely get the item from the library or, more likely, I'll buy it. This includes music especially. Even music I haven't heard! If the review makes it sound like something I might enjoy, I'm there. I'm always on the hunt for that next CD I'll listen to endlessly in the car.

Long story not so short, I read a review of a new rock/pop duo out of Australia (I think) and couldn't resist. The cd is the Secret Life of...the Veronicas! How could I pass that up?

I've only listened to one runthrough, but I have to say I like. They've been compared to Avril Levigne and Veruca Salt and I can definitely see that. In fact, sounds like their producers have worked with everyone from Madonna to Avril and that can't be a bad thing. Not sure what song will be a favorite yet, but the cd is definitely going to be in the player for a while.

Back in the day (early 90's) I worked at a library branch and got to be friendly with a fellow Anne McCaffrey fan. Every time I'd see her we traded notes on the latest science fiction we'd read and whatever Anne M. stuff that came up. Though we only spoke across a check-out counter on her weekly visits to the library she came to trust me enough to tell me her deep dark secret. With a group of friends she'd created a fan 'zine devoted to the dragon worlds of Anne McCaffrey! Wow! A self-published magazine devoted to new tales of the empathic dragons and their humans. Who'd a thunk it?

The rest of this walk down memory lane has long since faded. The Pop Tart certainly never submitted any of her own stories to the 'zine. 'Course not. That was someone else and if you have copies, they're fakes.

TPT's efforts aside, ever since then I've been fascinated with the idea of 'zines and in this electronic age, fanfiction. Man the good, the bad and the ugly is all out there. And truly much of it's so bad it's good. Want examples? Check out Godawful Fan Fiction . With everything from Shakespeare to Lord of the Rings, the reviewers have got the worst covered - seems a lot of Mary Sue's want to get with Legolas. Go figure.

I was going to post about award shows tonight but just got through doing an IM chat with my sister and mom and thought I'd talk about that instead. I've never been a big fan of the chatroom idea. Too many people talking in sentences that say nothing. Working in a public library and seeing the purile things typed by the teens sort of turned me off chat.

Change came recently when my nephew left for Iraq. Before he went we got him a laptop and he's able to do chat online. So now I'm joining the text message world, kicking and screaming I'll admit. My sister and her son can talk via their computers with built in microphones. I have to type as I listen to them. Strange, I gotta say. Feels like I'm a deaf mute talking to hearing, speaking people as I type. Which in a weird way is what writing a blog sometimes feels like. Is anyone hearing me right now? I wonder. What a big silent world it is.

I digress. What I wanted to say is that I'm now a converted fan of the IM possibilities. My sister can talk to her son almost daily though he's half a world away in one of the most dangerous areas of the world (Taji - where Bob Woodruff and his cameraman were hurt). She has the comfort of hearing his voice at frequent intervals and even my mom (his grandmother) has joined in. Though somehow all we get are growls from her mic, she's trying. I'm trying to convince myself it's her dial-up and not operator error.

Next time I see those kids in the library with their inane online chatter, I'll no longer sneer. Though my nephew has to pay $75 for 100 hours of internet time on his laptop (don't get me started on the army charging so much!) he can talk to his mother whenever he has some time off. That's a very good thing.

So right now I'm going to go back to noodling around the net while I wait for my nephew to knock on my virtual door.

Every now and then I hear about a Hollywood couple breaking up and I feel sad. Weird isn't it? I don't know these people, never met 'em, never will. Why should I care? I've not figured that out, but I have made a study, as The Pop Tart, of what breaks up most of the marriages, and relationships, we read about. The male ego.


My thesis:
Things will go along swimmingly with a H-wood hot couple until she becomes bigger then him. Now this thesis only applies to couples where both members are in the public eye. If one is a behind the scenes H-wood worker or not in the business then it's a much different picture.

Okay, the male ego. He can't take it when she gets bigger then him. Was there ever any doubt that Halle Berry and her musician hubby were going to split? Sure he was cheating but the writing was on the wall as soon as she won her Oscar. Same goes for Helen Hunt and Hank Azaria? She was already composing her irreconcilable differences as she thanked the academy! And think of the first Bennifer. J-Lo on her way up, Ben on his way down. They break up and he takes up with a lesser Jennifer (who seems nicer I'll grant) and they're married in record time. Ditto Benjamin Bratt and Julia Roberts. How long after their divorce before he married his model and started having some babies?

Babies are the second part of the equation. If a power couple is equally powerful but she's starting to edge him out then the babymaking starts. This part of the thesis has two different scenarios. First response to her getting more attention: If they're like Tom and Nicole or Brad and Jen, then as she starts to edge him out, he sheds her and takes up with someone else. That someone else is almost immediately having his baby (Katie H. and Angelina, need I say more?). Proves his manliness to the nth degree.

The second way is to keep her and keep your ego. Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones - equally powerful - but she's still rising and he's about done. What to do, what to do? Get her pregnant of course. Notice that when CZJ wins her Oscar she is hugely pregnant with Michael's child. Worked out nicely didn't it? Proof of his vigor on display to the whole world. Brad and Angelina fit this one as well as the first. She's already pregnant. Need I say more?

None of this is to say women don't have egos. In H-wood couples it's all about ego, they are performers after all. No, the women have egos. But if they're the lesser success in the marriage, Newman and Woodward, Hanks and Wilson, Travolta and Preston, women are more able to take the blow to the ego. Society says it's okay for them to be less powerful. They have nothing to prove.

Which brings me to the sad breakup that started my pistons firing. Chad and Hillary. I really thought they were going to weather it. She won her Oscar but he did a well-reviewed turn on ER. Seemed like he was dealing. Now we hear they've separated and have been for a while. I'm wondering if that second Oscar nom finally did them in?

Any couples you can think of to disprove my thesis?

We've all picked up on them from time to time. These conventions that follow us from show to show and character to character. The mythologies, or lies if you will, of tv.

First up:
Single woman finds herself pregnant. Let's call her Heroina. What's Heroina going to do? I'll tell you. She'll have a serious conversation with a close someone (generally a sister or best friend) in which she's told that she has a "choice". Heroina nodds knowingly. Yes Heroina knows she has a "choice". Next couple of scenes are Heroina angsting over her "choice" and then she's at the clinic. She'll look painfully at all the happily pregnant women and you the viewer are supposed to know that this is very, very difficult for her. Heroina's name is called and the screen fades to black. The viewer is supposed to be hanging on the edge of their seat. What will she do? Will our Heroina go through with it? What does that mean about her character? Of course you know the answer. Heroina can't go through with it. Next scene is her walking somewhere alone or sitting in a restaurant thinking of this scary thing she's decided to do.

What burns me about these scenes is that I hate what the writers are saying. Don't get me wrong, I don't want these women to have abortions. I'm very ambivalent on the topic myself. But I hate the oh so serious, we'll make it clear what the law is, but of course our Heroina is much too good and pure to actually go through with something like this. That's the true message. Though she may have a "choice" no truly good woman will do this thing. She can't, she's good. Apparently only bit players who've been raped can make the "choice" or very bad women.

Second thing that gets me is that adoption is rarely mentioned as an alternative. I know several families who have received the gift of a child and are raising them with every bit of the love they have to offer. Why is that not part of Heroina's "choice"? I'll tell you.

Second Up:
Because the second mythology television perpetuates is that all adoptees will spend their lives with holes in their hearts or souls. They long to find their birth parents. They won't be complete until they find the people who gave them up and learn why they were GIVEN UP. Blech! I don't doubt that some adoptees have questions about their biological underpinnings. But I also know some who don't have one scintilla of interest in pursuing this path. They are content with their family (of course whether I believe that or not is whole 'nother question because really is anyone content with their family?).

So what's this message all about? A little more murky then the "choice" message. But I think it's clear that being an adoptee is always considered on television as being someone other. Someone who isn't fulfilled because they don't have the all-glorious "family" around them. And maybe that's the biggest mythology of tv there is. That family is everything. Think of the Sopranos.

Why do I care about any of this? Because we all watch television and it permeates everything about our culture. These messages get through. If you make that "choice" you're a bad woman and if you give up that baby you're a bad woman. The only choice you have to be a good woman is to birth that child and raise it on your own. You don't have the convenience of the writers providing a miscarriage if a baby doesn't fit the story.

Trying out my new avatar. Let me know what you think.

Off for the holiday today so I went to see a movie with a good friend. She had a baby at the beginning of November and was glad to leave baby J with hubby and see a movie. I let her pick the movie and she picked The Family Stone. Fine by me. I couldn't quite remember if it was the one with Jennifer Aniston finding out her family inspired The Graduate or if it was the Sarah Jessica Parker film where she's going home to meet her boyfriend's family for the first time at Christmas. It was the second one, in case you're as clueless as I am.

Liked the movie a lot but found myself crying throughout. Not even sure why. It had it's tender moments but the only real three-hanky scene was at the end. So what the heck? The movie itself was very good. SJP plays an uptight waspy gal brought home to meet the very close Stone family. They take an immediate dislike to this cold woman their beloved prodigal has brought home and things go from there. Lots of good performances with the always cute Luke Wilson as a laid-back documentarian keeping it real.

The movie is not without flaws. The too pat and too quick resolution was weak, though emotionally pleasing. And the reasoning behind Everett's (son who brings SJP's character home) behavior isn't too clear. But all in all I do recommend it.

As to the crying? Still not altogether clear on that. I think the happy family Christmas thing just struck a nerve. Feels like something I'll never have again. Cue the violins.