A few weeks ago Mel, Paulina, Liz, and Jamie were over and I decided that we were going to watch some Seinfeld and it was going to cause them to fall in love with the show and want to watch every episode, and then we could make allusions to the show together and laugh for a long time (like what I do with Tejas all the time!) Well, we watched two episodes, they laughed a few times, and then they went on with their Seinfeld-free lives. It appears my pipe dream was not to be. (side note: possible title for a book: "Pipe Dreams: Smoking Hallucinogens and the Vaporizer Revolution" [or, perhaps more fitting for my writing style, "Pipe Dreams: How Super Mario Bros. Helped Unclog the 1980's Plumber Shortage"]) I really do wish they would like that show, and I think they would love it if they watched it for a while. Right now the Beatles' "Let It Be" is playing, and if that's a sign that I should give up on this endeavor, then I'm just going to ignore it. Maybe one day, they'll see it on TV and watch it, and it'll be a really good episode from the 4th or 5th season and they'll laugh really hard and decide maybe they'll want to watch some more the next time it comes on. Baby steps. Anyways, I'm not here to complain that my friends aren't watching my favorite TV shows. Well, that's not the only reason I'm here. So let's press on.
In high school, I watched almost exclusively comedy shows (save for that strange month-long obsession with 90's Law and Order). The four shows I will talk about here, and the shows I watched a lot during that time, are Seinfeld, Scrubs, The Office, and South Park (note: after finishing this, it turns out I didn't talk about South Park or the Office at all. Oops). Everyday, I used to come home, turn on the TV, and watch a recorded episode of one of these shows. First was Seinfeld, from 7th grade to my freshman year; next was the Office, during my sophomore and junior year; then Scrubs, during junior and senior year. South Park I watched online in about four or five months after my senior year of high school and during the first few months of college. In all of these shows, I would watch an episode, then rewatch it a few weeks later, then probably watch it again at some point. Suffice to say, I have seen just about every episode of these show (up to Season 4 of the Office and Season 7 of Scrubs, all of Seinfeld and South Park) at least three or four times. In some cases, like Seinfeld, I've seen most episodes probably five or six times. It will get to the point where I can recite the lines that the characters say through most of the episode. Anyways, so after this I would usually have a backlash where I wouldn't watch the show because I oversaturated it, and then after a few months or years I could start watching it. For example, after my freshman year I didn't really watch Seinfeld again until maybe senior year. Anyways, later on, when I would start watching the shows again, I noticed I was drawn to the earlier episodes of the show, usually the first two seasons or so. I was not sure why I did this, and have been thinking about this a lot. When I started rewatching Seinfeld, I would mostly focus on the episodes from 1989 to 1991, and maybe some 92's. (I'm going to be talking Seinfeld here for a while, then maybe bring in the other shows every once in a while as examples. Maybe.) These were the first few season of the show, the ones that were generally overlooked in favor of the most popular episodes from 1994 on. So, why would I only care about watching the older episodes of Seinfeld, and not the newer ones? Here a few different explanation I could make about it, and whether I think they're right or wrong. (The next part might be a little boring to you, so if you want feel free to skip the next three paragraphs and read from there)
1) The older episodes were not as talked about, and as a "true fan" I felt I should know these episodes really well and watch them more than normal people who watch the show: ok, this one sounds pretty pretentious, but think about if you're a fan of a band. I know I love the Beatles, and when I see a bootleg album that looks interesting I'll download it (here's a great link for that btw http://tinyurl.com/29bczpc). Or, if you really like Eminem or Jay-Z or someone, you'll look for basement tapes or unreleased mix tapes or something like that. You know, you want the stuff that most people haven't heard, because of not only the insights you'll gain from them (more on that later), but because as a real fan you've taken the time to look for this and you're rewarded with stuff most people haven't heard. So, I thought for a while this was why I wanted to watch these episodes, but I've decided that that isn't the case. Considering Seinfeld is such an old show, and hardly ever talked about these days, just being a fan in high school makes you a "true fan". I'm one of the only people that watched Seinfeld religiously in middle school and high school, so there's no reason for me to feel like I had to watch the older episodes just to be a "better" fan than other people.
Well, I've pretty much run out of wrong reasons why I thought I'd watch the older episodes. To be honest, for a long time I just didn't know, I just found these episodes to be better. They weren't necessarily funnier, or more heartfelt; I just liked them. In Seinfeld, I think the reason I like the old ones better (finally getting to the point of this post...) is because I felt like I was just spending time with the people I had grown to know and love. Now, for some Seinfeld history (don't worry, not too much).
Seinfeld is considered a "show about nothing". In that sense, there was no plot twist like in most shows (where the main character has just gotten off a divorce or just married or there's something different about him/her that drives some episodes), and the episodes dealt with the daily lives of the characters. One episode would be about finding a car in a parking garage, another would be about waiting for a table at a chinese restaurant, etc. It's just people going about their lives. Because of this seemingly lack of plot, much of the show relied on the characters. There's George, who tries harder than anyone I've ever seen at not working; Jerry, whose distant, sarcastic observations were so terrific it caused me to emulate that personality; Kramer, the compulsive, spastic neighbor who is always entangling himself in other people's probelms (while creating many of his own); and Elaine, the girl who tries hard but always seems to fail. Of course, these are what these characters become as the show progresses. When the show starts, they're just four normal people living in New York. That, I think, is why I love watching the older episodes: the characters are like real people. They're not stereotypes or one-dimensional, they're just people (this does not apply to Kramer, who was always sort of one-dimensional). George's character was one of a lazy person, and this defined his actions much of the time. But he was not always lazy and deceitful. Much of the time he did what anyone else would do. I often say that in the earlier episodes "personality defined actions", while in later episodes "actions defined personality". By this, I mean that at the beginning, the characters were regular people just like you and me, and like you and me they had personality traits. Jerry, the stand-up comedian, was observant and somewhat distant. Because of this, he would act like this sometimes, making witty observations about other people and generally not embroiling himself in problems. But other than this, he went about his life normally. George was a normal person with a lazy personality, so every once in a while he would cut corners or do something to make things easier for himself. However, later on in the show, the characters became archetypes of this. Jerry was always the one who would make sarcastic, biting observations about others in misery, George would be lazy and angry, and Elaine would be quick-tempered and incompetent. Their actions were predictable, and they acted like this at all times, and so their personalities became like this.
As I watch a show, I grow to love it and cherish it, and I feel like the characters exist and I know them intimately. I know what has happened to them, I know how they think, etc. In older episodes, the characters are generally more rounded, and not as much is going on in the plot (or at least, what is going on is more realistic and every-day. In the earlier episodes, I feel like I am just watching some people go about their lives. They aren't in the middle of something crazy that wouldn't happen in real life, they're not archetype characters that exist only on TV, they're just normal people going about their day. I love these characters so much, and I feel like by watching the old episodes, I am spending time with the people I love. I can hang out with Jerry as he tries to handle George's girl problems and the awkwardness of being friends with an ex, or be with Elaine while she tries to make a name for herself at her job. It's like I'm getting an inside look at who these people are, and just enjoy some time with them. I don't know if that sounds really pathetic, but I don't care. I love the first season of Scrubs because J.D. is what I would expect a first-year medical intern to be be like: quiet, observant, trying to do well but often overwhelmed, has crazy thoughts in his head, sometimes funny. Later on, he becomes somewhat one-dimensional in that he is either slapstick funny with his inner monologues and his antics, or completely serious about dramatic stuff. Nobody is completely serious one minute and completely silly the next, people are usually a mix of them. In the first season, J.D. is a real person, and one of my friends.
Now, many of you have seen the fatal flaw in my thought process. These characters are not "real" in any form of the word; they are things made up by other people and played by other people. The situations they are in are contrived, and their personalities are decided by a group of writers. Honestly, I don't know how to reconcile that with my feelings about the characters. I guess I'm just going to ignore it. There's also no point in watching earlier episodes of the show in hopes of learning more about the character, because the character is made up and thus has to change over the course of a show as the people who make him change. Eminem was still Eminem five years ago, obviously with different viewpoints but still with the same background. By listening to the Beatles' early music, you can retroactively see where their music was going to go. You can track how Kanye West has changed over the years. You cannot do this to characters on TV, as they have no history, have nowhere to go, and only exist in the moment. You can fake this as best you can for as long as you can, but eventually it will fail because the mind that created this character will change, and invariably so will the cahracter. Alas, it would appear that all we have of the characters we know and love are those short 20 minutes in which we can spend time with them and enjoy a few adventures. I guess that's all I can ask for.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Duality
You know that moment, the one where everything suddenly falls into place? The one where everything is suddenly illuminated in front of you, and the surrounding fog has vanished? When you spend weeks, months, even years attempting to discern all you can, and you feel you have it, but only loosely? Then in a split second the jigsaw pieces fit.
I like that feeling.
The thing is, this feeling cannot last long, because to know is to understand what you do not know. And it is only in absolute comprehension that you realize what you have is just another piece in an even larger puzzle.
I like that feeling too.
It is both intimidating and invigorating to become aware of the vastness in front of you, even if you can only grasp at this knowledge for an instant before it recedes away. Recognition of ignorance dispels ignorance.
Socrates once said, "The only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing." Wisdom comes from that tiny split-second when it all makes sense, and suddenly you are able to look out from your plateau, and all you see is a great plain stretching out in all directions with no end in sight. It simultaneously makes your heart pound and drop out of your chest. You breathe fast, and not at all. You go numb, and feel everything at once. Your vision blurs, and you have never seen more clearly. It is in that open vastness that you see the unconquerable, the forever free, that which can never be obtained. And in this moment nirvana is reached; waves of calm wash upon the beaches that harbor your fears, you trepidations, your thoughts. You know all and you know none.
As quickly as the moment comes, it is gone, and you are back.
I like that feeling.
The thing is, this feeling cannot last long, because to know is to understand what you do not know. And it is only in absolute comprehension that you realize what you have is just another piece in an even larger puzzle.
I like that feeling too.
It is both intimidating and invigorating to become aware of the vastness in front of you, even if you can only grasp at this knowledge for an instant before it recedes away. Recognition of ignorance dispels ignorance.
Socrates once said, "The only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing." Wisdom comes from that tiny split-second when it all makes sense, and suddenly you are able to look out from your plateau, and all you see is a great plain stretching out in all directions with no end in sight. It simultaneously makes your heart pound and drop out of your chest. You breathe fast, and not at all. You go numb, and feel everything at once. Your vision blurs, and you have never seen more clearly. It is in that open vastness that you see the unconquerable, the forever free, that which can never be obtained. And in this moment nirvana is reached; waves of calm wash upon the beaches that harbor your fears, you trepidations, your thoughts. You know all and you know none.
As quickly as the moment comes, it is gone, and you are back.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Nostalgia in a Time Capsule; Or, Hello from the Past
Is it ever weird to you that you are able to see yourself from years ago? Like, we all know you can see pictures that were taken of you, and look at yourself and think, "Aw, I was so cute back then." But, you can see much more than that. You have the ability to put yourself back into the shoes you wore earlier in your life (metaphorically, you're feet have probably grown since then). Take Facebook, for example. If you scroll down far enough on your own homepage, you can look at the things you and others wrote years earlier. It's especially easy if you do the filter that just shows the posts you've made, and instantly you are able to track your growth/progression through your status updates. Just a few minutes ago I read a fb message I had sent someone two years earlier. Or go to your photos, and on the first one click previous, and go through your pictures in reverse. You are seeing yourself from most likely two to three years ago (more or less depending on how long you've had fb). Or go through the saved documents on your computer. If I had my brother's external hard drive with me, I would be able to see essays I wrote in high school, sophomoric efforts (pun) that I then saw as literature at its zenith. I have sat down and for hours gone back through the things I had previously done.
Often times, this serves no greater purpose than to look back and chuckle at how far we have come, or perhaps serve a dish of longing for times past. But every once in a while, looking back means so much more. It is a chance to put yourself into the mindset that you held during the making of that event, and compare the differences between yourself then and yourself now. I think this is most easily accomplished through playlists you have made. Over the years, I have made many CDs for many people, usually without more motive than bringing to fruition the excitement of making a set of tracks that at first seem to be disparate but in fact hold a common theme or contain a flowing wave of emotion. As I mentioned about a year and a half ago on one of the first posts on this blog, each song holds a connotation to me (speaking of the ease of looking back on one's past, what better way than a blog where in one scroll I can read things that were on my mind a year before). Each song elicits an emotion or triggers a set of memories that are usually tied to some time and event in one's life. These can change over time, but some of these initial-impression connotations stay with you. For example, the pop-punk that manifested itself in my life throughout the summer after my sophomore year hold the connotation of heartbreak and the struggle to stay above water. As I grew older and these feeling left me, my music changed with me, leading to different connotations being attached to other songs. Over time, of course, some of the better punk songs from that time warranted a longer shelf life on the library of my itunes (see what I did there?), and as I listened to them with fresh ears, new feelings would leech themselves on, creating a new connotation for the song. Another example: one of the punk songs during that time was "Nobody's Listening" by Linkin Park was put on my workout playlist, and every time I exercise I hear that song. This has nearly stripped away its old connotation and replaced it with a new one. However, if I put on Meteora, the album where Nobody's Listening is contained, and give it a run-through, I'm positive I can go back to the feelings I had when I would lie on my bed all those years ago and turned the volume up to eleven to drown out the thoughts of sadness I had (don't worry, never thoughts of suicide, it was never that bad, and I have always loved life :) Notice the parentheses holds two uses in this context. Boom.
But, I digress. The point of all of that is that every once in a while I will be scrolling through my iPod and I will come to a CD I had made for someone years earlier, and I'll put it on. Within the first four or five seconds, all the memories and emotions having to do with the songs of the CD come flooding back into me. I am able to see the world the way I had when I compiled the playlist. The relationships I was forging, the bonds that were breaking, the angst (oh, the angst!), the trivialities of every day life. All of this occurs in anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes, until I wrench myself away from the past and back into the present. At its most extreme, I am left shaken, feeling as though I had been transported back in time. This eventually passes, and then I am back to my absentminded musings of now. But those few minutes afterward are just about the only time I truly feel nostalgia. Hell, the reason I started writing this article was because the message I had written two years ago triggered these happenings until I was left with an intense longing to go back and relive the things that have already happened to me. I don't know if I would change them, but just to live in oneself. Why is it that our best hiding places fade away over the years? (That was going to be a status update one of these days, you know. Consider yourselves lucky)
Why are we nostalgic? Why do we long for the past when we have so much life to live? I think it is a lot like reading a good book over again or listening to a song you know backwards and forwards. You already know the outcome, you know the ups and downs and you are there just to relive the ride. There is comfort in the past because it has already happened, and there is nothing to be afraid of. There are no twists in the past, because the twists have already occurred and cease to be surprises, only the next chapter in the story. This is what makes the future so fearsome. Anything could happen tomorrow, and there is nothing you can do about it. Things happen, often without your consent, and you are left gasping for breath. You can do nothing but approach it head on. But sometimes, it is just so much nicer to avoid this by looking back to what has already happened and reflect upon that. The road less traveled is less traveled for a reason.
I am currently listening to a CD Jason Huang made as Christmas present for his friends during senior year. The song "Let Go" by Frou Frou came on a few minutes ago, and with it all the connotations. The song is not strongly associated with Jason's CD, as I had heard it numerous times (and still do) on the "Garden State" CD. As that song played, and while I was writing the last paragraphs, the feelings and emotions came to me. First, images of the final scene of Garden State (spoiler alert), with Zach Braff holding Natalie Portman on the stairs while she cries, and then coming back later and everything works out. This stays with me for a few seconds before I move onto a more personal connection to the song. I saw myself driving my white Toyota Avalon XLS down Herriman Ave, windows open, and blasting the song for all to hear. The wind whips through my hair, and I consider this song to be the greatest composition ever conceived. Thoughts of going home to watch Scrubs, going to English to talk to Chris, Jason, and Mihir while Jason and Chris battle it out under the desk. Competing with Swupnil for the higher grammar and spelling test grades. Coming to math and spending the first 20 minutes listening to Mrs. Scola launch into a lengthy monologue about her adorable children and hilarious stories about her life. Going to lunch and wondering with whom I should sit with, and the implications of doing so. Courting girls. Putting off homework. Complaining about AP Bio. These are the feelings I get when listening to Let Go, and when I return back to the present, all I want to do is transport to junior year and be with my friends and just relive everything. The last thing I want to do is live in the present and know that with tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, come things that cannot be known until they happen.
Is it bad to be afraid of the future? I think everyone, to some degree, does fear the unknown. And yet, most deal with it, by preparing as much as they can, and accepting the fact that what happens will happen.
What happens when we die? Do our souls live on, merely relieved of their bodies? Or do we just stop functioning, and everything is gone? How do we prepare for it? What can you do? I supposed the answer is everything you can before you go. We all know where the path ends up, but we don't know how it gets there. All we can do is enjoy the walk.
Even in one hour of writing, you can tell how much my perspective changes. From nostalgia to fear of the future to fears upon death to a resolve to live life to the fullest. I am sure that in the future I will return to this post and, in curiosity of my past life, read this. But what will I be like then?
Hello, future self. I am 18 year old Andrew (soon to be 19). I am lying in my bed in my dorm room at UC Berkeley at at 3:20 in the morning. I do not know what I want to do with my life. I'd like to think that one day I will have a lot of money, but when I look upon the work ethic I currently posses, I do not see myself doing this. I have not made a lot of friends here at Berkeley, probably because I am afraid that if I make new friends then the old friends I have made will not mean as much. I don't know whether Rubber Soul or Revolver is a better album. I like making puns. I enjoy being with people, but I like being by myself just as much. I am afraid that when I will die I will regret that I have wasted parts of my life. Will I ever get married and have a family? Will I be able to be with the same woman for the majority of my life and still be madly in love with her? Will my kids like me? Will I take them to the beach, and teach them how to play baseball, and be there at their recitals and games, and make sure they watch good TV shows and listen to go music, and make sure that they always try their hardest? Will I be optimistic? Will I leave a lasting impact in anyone's life? Will I make the world a better place? Will I believe in God? When I am on my deathbed, who will be around me? Who will attend my funeral, and what will they really think of me? Eventually, all of these questions will be answered, in that dark, unknowing future. And when that time comes, it will be past, and I'm sure I will look back on them fondly, wishing I could relive the moments that make life worth living. Future self, I hope you know what's important in life, because this might be our only chance to live it.
Often times, this serves no greater purpose than to look back and chuckle at how far we have come, or perhaps serve a dish of longing for times past. But every once in a while, looking back means so much more. It is a chance to put yourself into the mindset that you held during the making of that event, and compare the differences between yourself then and yourself now. I think this is most easily accomplished through playlists you have made. Over the years, I have made many CDs for many people, usually without more motive than bringing to fruition the excitement of making a set of tracks that at first seem to be disparate but in fact hold a common theme or contain a flowing wave of emotion. As I mentioned about a year and a half ago on one of the first posts on this blog, each song holds a connotation to me (speaking of the ease of looking back on one's past, what better way than a blog where in one scroll I can read things that were on my mind a year before). Each song elicits an emotion or triggers a set of memories that are usually tied to some time and event in one's life. These can change over time, but some of these initial-impression connotations stay with you. For example, the pop-punk that manifested itself in my life throughout the summer after my sophomore year hold the connotation of heartbreak and the struggle to stay above water. As I grew older and these feeling left me, my music changed with me, leading to different connotations being attached to other songs. Over time, of course, some of the better punk songs from that time warranted a longer shelf life on the library of my itunes (see what I did there?), and as I listened to them with fresh ears, new feelings would leech themselves on, creating a new connotation for the song. Another example: one of the punk songs during that time was "Nobody's Listening" by Linkin Park was put on my workout playlist, and every time I exercise I hear that song. This has nearly stripped away its old connotation and replaced it with a new one. However, if I put on Meteora, the album where Nobody's Listening is contained, and give it a run-through, I'm positive I can go back to the feelings I had when I would lie on my bed all those years ago and turned the volume up to eleven to drown out the thoughts of sadness I had (don't worry, never thoughts of suicide, it was never that bad, and I have always loved life :) Notice the parentheses holds two uses in this context. Boom.
But, I digress. The point of all of that is that every once in a while I will be scrolling through my iPod and I will come to a CD I had made for someone years earlier, and I'll put it on. Within the first four or five seconds, all the memories and emotions having to do with the songs of the CD come flooding back into me. I am able to see the world the way I had when I compiled the playlist. The relationships I was forging, the bonds that were breaking, the angst (oh, the angst!), the trivialities of every day life. All of this occurs in anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes, until I wrench myself away from the past and back into the present. At its most extreme, I am left shaken, feeling as though I had been transported back in time. This eventually passes, and then I am back to my absentminded musings of now. But those few minutes afterward are just about the only time I truly feel nostalgia. Hell, the reason I started writing this article was because the message I had written two years ago triggered these happenings until I was left with an intense longing to go back and relive the things that have already happened to me. I don't know if I would change them, but just to live in oneself. Why is it that our best hiding places fade away over the years? (That was going to be a status update one of these days, you know. Consider yourselves lucky)
Why are we nostalgic? Why do we long for the past when we have so much life to live? I think it is a lot like reading a good book over again or listening to a song you know backwards and forwards. You already know the outcome, you know the ups and downs and you are there just to relive the ride. There is comfort in the past because it has already happened, and there is nothing to be afraid of. There are no twists in the past, because the twists have already occurred and cease to be surprises, only the next chapter in the story. This is what makes the future so fearsome. Anything could happen tomorrow, and there is nothing you can do about it. Things happen, often without your consent, and you are left gasping for breath. You can do nothing but approach it head on. But sometimes, it is just so much nicer to avoid this by looking back to what has already happened and reflect upon that. The road less traveled is less traveled for a reason.
I am currently listening to a CD Jason Huang made as Christmas present for his friends during senior year. The song "Let Go" by Frou Frou came on a few minutes ago, and with it all the connotations. The song is not strongly associated with Jason's CD, as I had heard it numerous times (and still do) on the "Garden State" CD. As that song played, and while I was writing the last paragraphs, the feelings and emotions came to me. First, images of the final scene of Garden State (spoiler alert), with Zach Braff holding Natalie Portman on the stairs while she cries, and then coming back later and everything works out. This stays with me for a few seconds before I move onto a more personal connection to the song. I saw myself driving my white Toyota Avalon XLS down Herriman Ave, windows open, and blasting the song for all to hear. The wind whips through my hair, and I consider this song to be the greatest composition ever conceived. Thoughts of going home to watch Scrubs, going to English to talk to Chris, Jason, and Mihir while Jason and Chris battle it out under the desk. Competing with Swupnil for the higher grammar and spelling test grades. Coming to math and spending the first 20 minutes listening to Mrs. Scola launch into a lengthy monologue about her adorable children and hilarious stories about her life. Going to lunch and wondering with whom I should sit with, and the implications of doing so. Courting girls. Putting off homework. Complaining about AP Bio. These are the feelings I get when listening to Let Go, and when I return back to the present, all I want to do is transport to junior year and be with my friends and just relive everything. The last thing I want to do is live in the present and know that with tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, come things that cannot be known until they happen.
Is it bad to be afraid of the future? I think everyone, to some degree, does fear the unknown. And yet, most deal with it, by preparing as much as they can, and accepting the fact that what happens will happen.
What happens when we die? Do our souls live on, merely relieved of their bodies? Or do we just stop functioning, and everything is gone? How do we prepare for it? What can you do? I supposed the answer is everything you can before you go. We all know where the path ends up, but we don't know how it gets there. All we can do is enjoy the walk.
Even in one hour of writing, you can tell how much my perspective changes. From nostalgia to fear of the future to fears upon death to a resolve to live life to the fullest. I am sure that in the future I will return to this post and, in curiosity of my past life, read this. But what will I be like then?
Hello, future self. I am 18 year old Andrew (soon to be 19). I am lying in my bed in my dorm room at UC Berkeley at at 3:20 in the morning. I do not know what I want to do with my life. I'd like to think that one day I will have a lot of money, but when I look upon the work ethic I currently posses, I do not see myself doing this. I have not made a lot of friends here at Berkeley, probably because I am afraid that if I make new friends then the old friends I have made will not mean as much. I don't know whether Rubber Soul or Revolver is a better album. I like making puns. I enjoy being with people, but I like being by myself just as much. I am afraid that when I will die I will regret that I have wasted parts of my life. Will I ever get married and have a family? Will I be able to be with the same woman for the majority of my life and still be madly in love with her? Will my kids like me? Will I take them to the beach, and teach them how to play baseball, and be there at their recitals and games, and make sure they watch good TV shows and listen to go music, and make sure that they always try their hardest? Will I be optimistic? Will I leave a lasting impact in anyone's life? Will I make the world a better place? Will I believe in God? When I am on my deathbed, who will be around me? Who will attend my funeral, and what will they really think of me? Eventually, all of these questions will be answered, in that dark, unknowing future. And when that time comes, it will be past, and I'm sure I will look back on them fondly, wishing I could relive the moments that make life worth living. Future self, I hope you know what's important in life, because this might be our only chance to live it.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
coming full circle
this is what happened to me over the last ten minutes.
i was reading a note that was on my facebook notification thing (whatever screen it goes to when you press "home") and i noticed that dhruv had written a note about how scientists had synthesized a ribosome for the first time, so i sorta skimmed through what he had written. then i got to the bottom of the note, where a boy named daryl chang had commented. i noticed his profile picture: a stick figure. in fact, it was a stick figure that i had seen when i was searching for one to put as my profile picture. so, i wanted to see who this poser was (or, for jason, the "phony"). i didn't know who he was, but he liked classical music, so he's probably in orchestra. anyways, i looked at his groups and noticed one of them that just said "lupus". i had heard that term many times, and 85% of the time i could have told you what it was, but at that moment nothing was connecting. so, i clicked on it, and it was a disease, and about spreading its awareness. and i thought hmm, it's kind of weird that the group name would just be "lupus", not "spreading lupus awareness" or somthing. just the name by itself almost made me think it was making fun of it or something. which made me think of dysentery. i consider dysentery to be one of the funniest diseases, and i'm guessing part of it has to do with name and the other part has to do with the symptoms. but really kids, dysentery is no laughing matter, and i am extremely insensitive on my thoughts on dysentery, but hey, after you've been killed by it about 100 times on oregon trail, you become a little numb to it. anyways, so i decided to search "dysentery" on facebook to see if anyone else shared a fondness for the hilarity of the tragic, tragic disease. alas, there were none. but then i thought of the song "dysentery gary" by blink-182, which is probably my favorite song by them, so i looked more closely at the names of the results. one of them was a music group, called "nocturnal dysentery". it was under the subcategory "reggae", of which i am a fan, so clicked on the to check them out. it was in some random language, so i youtube searched them to check out what they sounded like. unfortunately, they were not reggae, but grunge metal (or something like that). so anyways, after that i was pretty disappointed, but one of my tabs was still on the nocturnal dysentery site, so i clicked on "reggae" to see what groups there were. i found one that was just "ska", so i clicked on it. it was just your avergae "we love (insert what you love here [i.e. ska])!" group, so i skimmed through most of it. until i came to this post, which was something like "my favorite ska albums". this guy listed his 5 favorite ska albums, and his top two were both albums by a band called "the hotknives". now, i have never heard of them, but if two of their albums were in his top 5, they have to be pretty good. so i youtube searched them, and came up with a song i think called "julie, julie". it was pretty good, but i wanted to listen to their most popular song to get an idea of what kind of taste this random person who put his top 5 albums on fb had in music. so, of course, wikipedia. but i type it in, and i don't get anything. so i click on the top search result which is "hot knives". which is a song by the band "bright eyes", and it wasn't really that interesting. then i saw the lead singer say some quote, and he was like "this song is about a woman wh finds out her whole life is a mess and she has o change the entire thing" (this is most likely not at all what it said, but it caught my attention, and that's its only relevance to this story.) the name "bright eyes" really rung a bell in my head; i was sure that i had heard some of their music before or someone had told me about them. anyways, i youtube searched them as well, and was going to click on the first song when i saw this one a few down called "the first day of my life" and the description was just "quite possible the sweetest video ever :)". being the ever happy boy that i am, i clicked on that one (i also assumed that if i heard a song from them it would have been this song, because people generally like showing other people happy songs [or more-depressing-then-usual songs, as iis the case today when i showed nikki lgfuad by motion city soundtrack]). so anyways, i start listening/ watching the video, and it's a really really cool song and i loved the video, and some comment said the video was made by the director having a party and letting his friends listen to the song alone and he captured their reactions on a camera. so, i had another band whose music i needed to get, so i put it on my list and went to itunes to check their other stuff out. i typed in "bright eyes" on the itunes search box, and clicked on the album with this song. suddenly, i knew why i felt like i had heard the name "bright eyes" before. i had looked at this band this summer, or earlier, when i was getting into the shins, headlights, arcade fire, etc. i had looked up the exact band i had found 6+ months ago by following links and procrastination (i have about 2 hours of chem left tonight). i had no idea where this was going to take me, and it caught me complete surprise when i read the album description and realized i had already read this a while before.
small world, huh.
i was reading a note that was on my facebook notification thing (whatever screen it goes to when you press "home") and i noticed that dhruv had written a note about how scientists had synthesized a ribosome for the first time, so i sorta skimmed through what he had written. then i got to the bottom of the note, where a boy named daryl chang had commented. i noticed his profile picture: a stick figure. in fact, it was a stick figure that i had seen when i was searching for one to put as my profile picture. so, i wanted to see who this poser was (or, for jason, the "phony"). i didn't know who he was, but he liked classical music, so he's probably in orchestra. anyways, i looked at his groups and noticed one of them that just said "lupus". i had heard that term many times, and 85% of the time i could have told you what it was, but at that moment nothing was connecting. so, i clicked on it, and it was a disease, and about spreading its awareness. and i thought hmm, it's kind of weird that the group name would just be "lupus", not "spreading lupus awareness" or somthing. just the name by itself almost made me think it was making fun of it or something. which made me think of dysentery. i consider dysentery to be one of the funniest diseases, and i'm guessing part of it has to do with name and the other part has to do with the symptoms. but really kids, dysentery is no laughing matter, and i am extremely insensitive on my thoughts on dysentery, but hey, after you've been killed by it about 100 times on oregon trail, you become a little numb to it. anyways, so i decided to search "dysentery" on facebook to see if anyone else shared a fondness for the hilarity of the tragic, tragic disease. alas, there were none. but then i thought of the song "dysentery gary" by blink-182, which is probably my favorite song by them, so i looked more closely at the names of the results. one of them was a music group, called "nocturnal dysentery". it was under the subcategory "reggae", of which i am a fan, so clicked on the to check them out. it was in some random language, so i youtube searched them to check out what they sounded like. unfortunately, they were not reggae, but grunge metal (or something like that). so anyways, after that i was pretty disappointed, but one of my tabs was still on the nocturnal dysentery site, so i clicked on "reggae" to see what groups there were. i found one that was just "ska", so i clicked on it. it was just your avergae "we love (insert what you love here [i.e. ska])!" group, so i skimmed through most of it. until i came to this post, which was something like "my favorite ska albums". this guy listed his 5 favorite ska albums, and his top two were both albums by a band called "the hotknives". now, i have never heard of them, but if two of their albums were in his top 5, they have to be pretty good. so i youtube searched them, and came up with a song i think called "julie, julie". it was pretty good, but i wanted to listen to their most popular song to get an idea of what kind of taste this random person who put his top 5 albums on fb had in music. so, of course, wikipedia. but i type it in, and i don't get anything. so i click on the top search result which is "hot knives". which is a song by the band "bright eyes", and it wasn't really that interesting. then i saw the lead singer say some quote, and he was like "this song is about a woman wh finds out her whole life is a mess and she has o change the entire thing" (this is most likely not at all what it said, but it caught my attention, and that's its only relevance to this story.) the name "bright eyes" really rung a bell in my head; i was sure that i had heard some of their music before or someone had told me about them. anyways, i youtube searched them as well, and was going to click on the first song when i saw this one a few down called "the first day of my life" and the description was just "quite possible the sweetest video ever :)". being the ever happy boy that i am, i clicked on that one (i also assumed that if i heard a song from them it would have been this song, because people generally like showing other people happy songs [or more-depressing-then-usual songs, as iis the case today when i showed nikki lgfuad by motion city soundtrack]). so anyways, i start listening/ watching the video, and it's a really really cool song and i loved the video, and some comment said the video was made by the director having a party and letting his friends listen to the song alone and he captured their reactions on a camera. so, i had another band whose music i needed to get, so i put it on my list and went to itunes to check their other stuff out. i typed in "bright eyes" on the itunes search box, and clicked on the album with this song. suddenly, i knew why i felt like i had heard the name "bright eyes" before. i had looked at this band this summer, or earlier, when i was getting into the shins, headlights, arcade fire, etc. i had looked up the exact band i had found 6+ months ago by following links and procrastination (i have about 2 hours of chem left tonight). i had no idea where this was going to take me, and it caught me complete surprise when i read the album description and realized i had already read this a while before.
small world, huh.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
War - What Is It Good For?
Well, definitely not what it used to be good for. Here are excerpts from two books that I recently read: 1984 by George Orwell and Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut. It seems their reasons for war are two sides of the same coin.
1984
The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limt the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling class against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word "war" therefore, has become misleading. It probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and has been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three superstates, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each involatile within its own boundaries. For in that caseeach would still be a self-contained universe, freed forever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This - although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense - is the inner meaning of the party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.
Cat's Cradle
"When Bokonon and McCabe took over this miserable country years ago," said Julian Castle, "they threw out the priests. And then Bokonon, cynically and playfully, invented a new religion."
"I know." I said.
"Well, when it became evident that no government or economic reform was going to make people much less miserable, the religion became the one real instrument of hope. Truth was the enemy of the people, because the truth was so terrible, so Bokonon made it his business to provide the people with better and better lies."
"How did he come to be an outlaw?"
"It was his own idea. He asked McCabe to outlaw him and his religion, too, in order to give the religious life of the people more zest, more tang. He wrote a little poem about it, incidentally."
Castle quoted this poem, which does not appear in The Books of Bokonon.
So I said good-bye to government,
And I gave my reason:
The a really good religion
Is a form of treason.
"Bokonon suggested the hook, too, as the proper punishment for Bokononists," he said. "It was something he'd seen in the Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussaud's." He winked ghoulishly. "That was for zest, too."
"Did many people die on the hook?"
"Not at first, not at first. At first it was all make-believe. Rumors were cunningly circulated about executions, but no one really knew anyone who had died that way. McCabe had a good old time making bloodthirsty threats against the Bokononists - which was everybody.
"And then Bokonon went into cozy hiding," Castle continued, "where he wrote and preached all day long and ate good things his disciples brought him. McCabe would organize the unemployed, which was practically everybody, into great Bokonon hunts. About every six months McCabe would announce triumphantly that Bokonon was surrounded by a ring of steel, which was remorselessly closing in. And then the leaders of the rermorseless ring would have to report to McCabe, full of chagrin and apoplexy, that Bokonon had done the impossible. He had escaped, had evaporated, had lived to preach another day. Miracle!"
"McCabe and Bokonon did not succeed in raising what is generally thought of as the standard of living," said Castle. "The truth was that life was as short and brutish and mean as ever.
"But people didn't have to pay as much attention to the awful truth. As the living legend of the cruel tyrant in the city and the gentle holy man in the jungle grew, so, too, did the happiness of the people grow. They were all employed full time as actors in a play they understood, that any human being anywhere could understand and applaud."
"So life became a work of art," I marveled.
"Yes. There was only one trouble with it."
"Oh?"
"The drama was very tough on the souls of the two main actors, McCabe and Bokonon. As young men, they had pretty much been alike, had both been half-angel, half-pirate. But the drama demanded the pirate half in Bokonon and the angel half of McCabe to wither away. And McCabe and Bokonon paid a terrible price in agony for the happiness of the people--McCabe knowing the agony of the tyrant and Bokonon knowing the agony of the saint. They both became, for all practical purposes, insane."
Castle crooked his index finger of his left hand. "And then, people really did start dying on the hook."
"But Bokonon was never caught?" I asked.
"McCabe never went that crazy. He never made a really serious effort to catch Bokonon. It would have been easy to do."
"Why didn't he catch him?"
"McCabe was always sane enough to realize that without the holy man to war against, he himself would become meaningless."
It's amazing how similar utopias and dystopias are... and it appears that Cat's Cradle had doublethink as well, in response to the "play" thing. Anyways, have fun finding the interweaving points. The 1984 excerpt I wanted to put down was actually a lot longer, but I didn't think it would hold attention very well. Just go read it for yourself if you're interested.
1984
The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limt the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling class against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word "war" therefore, has become misleading. It probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and has been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three superstates, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each involatile within its own boundaries. For in that caseeach would still be a self-contained universe, freed forever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This - although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense - is the inner meaning of the party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.
Cat's Cradle
"When Bokonon and McCabe took over this miserable country years ago," said Julian Castle, "they threw out the priests. And then Bokonon, cynically and playfully, invented a new religion."
"I know." I said.
"Well, when it became evident that no government or economic reform was going to make people much less miserable, the religion became the one real instrument of hope. Truth was the enemy of the people, because the truth was so terrible, so Bokonon made it his business to provide the people with better and better lies."
"How did he come to be an outlaw?"
"It was his own idea. He asked McCabe to outlaw him and his religion, too, in order to give the religious life of the people more zest, more tang. He wrote a little poem about it, incidentally."
Castle quoted this poem, which does not appear in The Books of Bokonon.
So I said good-bye to government,
And I gave my reason:
The a really good religion
Is a form of treason.
"Bokonon suggested the hook, too, as the proper punishment for Bokononists," he said. "It was something he'd seen in the Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussaud's." He winked ghoulishly. "That was for zest, too."
"Did many people die on the hook?"
"Not at first, not at first. At first it was all make-believe. Rumors were cunningly circulated about executions, but no one really knew anyone who had died that way. McCabe had a good old time making bloodthirsty threats against the Bokononists - which was everybody.
"And then Bokonon went into cozy hiding," Castle continued, "where he wrote and preached all day long and ate good things his disciples brought him. McCabe would organize the unemployed, which was practically everybody, into great Bokonon hunts. About every six months McCabe would announce triumphantly that Bokonon was surrounded by a ring of steel, which was remorselessly closing in. And then the leaders of the rermorseless ring would have to report to McCabe, full of chagrin and apoplexy, that Bokonon had done the impossible. He had escaped, had evaporated, had lived to preach another day. Miracle!"
"McCabe and Bokonon did not succeed in raising what is generally thought of as the standard of living," said Castle. "The truth was that life was as short and brutish and mean as ever.
"But people didn't have to pay as much attention to the awful truth. As the living legend of the cruel tyrant in the city and the gentle holy man in the jungle grew, so, too, did the happiness of the people grow. They were all employed full time as actors in a play they understood, that any human being anywhere could understand and applaud."
"So life became a work of art," I marveled.
"Yes. There was only one trouble with it."
"Oh?"
"The drama was very tough on the souls of the two main actors, McCabe and Bokonon. As young men, they had pretty much been alike, had both been half-angel, half-pirate. But the drama demanded the pirate half in Bokonon and the angel half of McCabe to wither away. And McCabe and Bokonon paid a terrible price in agony for the happiness of the people--McCabe knowing the agony of the tyrant and Bokonon knowing the agony of the saint. They both became, for all practical purposes, insane."
Castle crooked his index finger of his left hand. "And then, people really did start dying on the hook."
"But Bokonon was never caught?" I asked.
"McCabe never went that crazy. He never made a really serious effort to catch Bokonon. It would have been easy to do."
"Why didn't he catch him?"
"McCabe was always sane enough to realize that without the holy man to war against, he himself would become meaningless."
It's amazing how similar utopias and dystopias are... and it appears that Cat's Cradle had doublethink as well, in response to the "play" thing. Anyways, have fun finding the interweaving points. The 1984 excerpt I wanted to put down was actually a lot longer, but I didn't think it would hold attention very well. Just go read it for yourself if you're interested.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Ad-dition: 2+2=5
I haven't posted in a while, mostly because I haven't really thought that there was anything that I have realized/ thought about that was really important. But I was going to do one a while ago on advertising, and that sort of fell to the wayside. And I just played Apples to Apples with my family, so I guess I can talk about that. Nothing much has happened in my life that warrants discussion, and this isn't a diary, so I guess we'll see what comes from this. Actually, I'll just let that be my first topic of discussion.
I'm beginning to think that I'm like J.D. from Scrubs, and actually like most people in the world, in that I only desire what I do not have. Once I get something, be it a present that I had wanted, music that I had been really eager to listen to, or even starting school, I very quickly no long want it. Not as quickly as J.D. does with Elliot, for those of you that have seen the show, but normally within a few weeks. That's why I'm partly glad that I don't have Guitar Hero, because I'd never want to play it if I did. I haven't wanted to play Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion since those first two weeks when I played it 10 hours a day after I borrowed it from Aaron. I was ready to get back to school and start senior year all during the summer, but about two weeks into it I couldn't wait to get out. I really hope that doesn't happen with Arrested Development, since I got all three seasons on DVD only a few days ago for Christmas. It seems like once I have obtained something, it instantly becomes part of my past. I guess this happens to everyone to some degree, and it's really frustrating isn't it? Oh well. I think it happened with this blog as well, I have always had lots of thought swirling around my head, but once I got this blog and had it for a few months I never really wanted to write in this.
So anyways, on to what I was going to write about about a month and a half ago but I never did (see above). It has to do with advertising and marketing. I've already talked to some people about this, most notably Priyanka, my dad, Kevin, and Mihir (those two just the first half). So anyways, about a month and a half ago Jason Huang, Mihir Sathe, Kevin Shimizu, Jamie Turley, Aaron Garg, and I all went shopping at Valley Fair to buy "hip" clothes for Austin to usher him into this decade (no offense Austin)(actually that along with my cd, which was and still is incredible [fusion of electronic and acoustic, talk to me about it to learn more/ if you want a copy {the ending is an emotional rollercoaster}]). We got like five shirts I think, and they were all pretty good, and as we were leaving I noticed the Puma store and insisted that we go inside. So we shopped around a bit, and decided that maybe Austin needed a cool belt to go along with his awesome shirts. We looked at the belts, and there were two styles: a $28 model and an $18 model. Now personally, I think it's a little ridiculous to buy any belt for more than like $12, but that's beside the point. As we looked closer, we noticed that the two models were strikingly similar. Hmm... In fact, they were the exact same. The only difference was that on the $18 model the buckle was a bit more cloudy, like there were small scratches all over it in a semi-unifrom way that made it not reflect as well. It's hard to explain, but hopefully you sort of get the picture. But, the only way you can tell the difference when someone was wearing it is if you conciously looked for it, or you were six inches away from it with the $28 belt to compare it too. But, there are only a few reasons you stand (or kneel) six inches away from a belt for extended periods of times, and we won't divulge into them. For the sake of this argument, the two belt models are the same. We even asked a salesperson what the difference was, and they were just like, "Well, this one has a different color of fabric. This one's green and this one's gray." First of all, color variation should not be a cause for a 50% increase in price. Second of all, we pointed out to the guy that there are green and gray colors of the fabric in both of the models, so clearly he has no idea what he's talking about. Which means it was up to Detective Andrew to solve the case, which is obviously the next step in this process. So I sat down and thought about it for a while. This was when we were trying to move, mind you, so in order for our house to look better we had packed up every single book and put them in the attic. Except one, "Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs", which was in my mom's car at the time. Composed of a collection of stand-alone essays and being the only book in the house, I promptly read each chapter a good seven or eight times, which allows me to bring up any part of that book in discussion, which I have frequently done (as many of you know). Once again, it would help. One large theme in many of his essays is the definition of "cool". One such essay discusses how kid's cereal ads on on TV create a character that is unable to obtain the cereal, making it excluesive, and therefore cool because not everyone can have it. A large part of coolness is having something that no one else has, but having it look like anyone could have gotten it if they had enough fouresight. Exclusivity is a big part of coolness, and cereal advertisers know it. See: Trix Rabbit (on a side note, the article said that a 1997 poll revealed that 99% of all those asked wanted the Rabbit to finally be given the Trix), Sonny (who's coo-coo[?] for Cocoa Puffs), that dog-man from Cookie Crisps, and a lot of others but I haven't read the essay in a while and I'm doing this from memory (remember, I was thinking of writing this a month ago, when I could remember all of this). So back to the Puma belts. I am pretty sure that the store was artificially gnerating coolness, just like MTV used to do when it was hip. By making one belt $10 more expensive than another, Puma is creating exclusivity. The $28 belt is more expensive, ergo it is more exclusive, thereby cooler than the other one. I don't really know if this is true, but most of the things in Puma are pretty expensive, and so if you're going to buy a belt from there rather than somewhere else like at Macy's or JC Penny's or somewhere, there's a better chance that you are looking for fashion and are willing to spend the extra ten dollars to be cool. Although, common sense would dictate you buy the $18 one and say you bought the $28 one. It's not an airtight case, but that's OK with me. I think I really am onto something with this artifiially generated coolness, and I'm sure a while back I had more arguments for this, but I can't remember them at the moment. So anyways, onto my next point, which I will put in a new paragraph so you can conveniently find it.
Here we are. So next on the list is Disney, most notably the Disney Channel. I'm sure many of you have noticed at this point that Disney Channel does not show outside advertisements, only ads promoting their own shows, a stupid thing on "special kids" (like the girl who collected pez dispensers... ahaha my sister and I had a good laugh with that one), or other arms of the Disney franchise (usually Disneyland/ Disneyworld). But no revenue from outside advertisers, which I'm pretty sure is where most TV stations get most if not all of their revenue. Which means that Disney Channel pulls their revenue from somewhere else. I mean, I'm sure they get some money from the Disney stores, and some extra money from theme parks and stuff. But the more I thought about it (and the more links I clicked on after googling "how does the disney channel make money?" [apparently other people want to know too]), the more I realized that was in fact exactly how they did it. Disney Channel is, in the broad spectrum of things, one large advertisement for other parts of Disney. They thrust the Disney name into every household that holds a child aged 7-13, give or take a few years. They make kids want to have everything Disney, because that is what is cool. Let's see how they do it.
I would consider the Lizzie Mcguire series as the turning point of Disney Channel, from an under performing arm of the Disney Corporation to one of the most profitable parts of it (Disney Channel and products from it now account for like 45% of Disney profits or something). Most of us still remember the Disney Channel shows that were on back then, with classics like Smart Guy, Boy Meets World, and Recess (oh the good old days). But Lizzie McGuire seemed like a new show, one that tailored to the late middle school/ early high school girls and the boy problems they faced. Maybe shows on that channel had done that before, but they either weren't very good or didn't focus on the boy problems (oh Gordo... you lovable goofball). This show caught kid's attention due to its quirky, accident-prone lead character and her mildly funny (and even that is stretching that) animated inner-thoughts persona. It quickly became Disney Channel's highest rated show and spawned movies, books, dolls, cd's, manga (?!), McDonald toys, furniture themes, and various other things. All in all, it is estimated that this merchandise garnered Disney $100 million. Wow. And I'm pretty sure that's not including the $55.6 million grossed by The Lizzie McGuire movie. That's a lot of money for a show that had a minscule budget compared to most primetime shows. And therein lies a large part of Disney Channel's ability to suck up the cash like a vacuum. They sign obscure, unknown children into contracts that are almost carrer-binding. As it turns out, Hilary Duff produced her first cd with Disney Channel, but the contract did not stipulate that she needed to stay with them for cd's, or movies, and she quickly realized that she could make more money herself than she ever could with Disney. She took off to Hollywood Records, making three more cd's (two of which have gone platinum) and has made numerous movies, most of which have naught to do with Disney. And they do not get a cent of anything she makes. They have been sure not to do that again. With the huge numbers of Lizzie McGuire, Disney Channel realized that they had found the gem, and sought any way possible to continue the trend. It would appear the formula is: Sitcom with sporadic main character who is by no means perfect, but is still lovable (Raven, Zach and Cody, Alex [Witches From Waverly Place]), add in a stupid friend who never seems to understand what is going on and throws in spontaneous phrases (Arwen [Suite Life], Chelsea [That's So Raven], Oliver [Hannah Montana], Newt [Cory in the House], Ron [Kim Possible]), have another friend the main character is close to (Eddie [Raven], Lily [Hannah Montana], Miranda/Gordo [Lizzie McGuire]) , and use the same 50 or so plotlines over and over again in each show. What does that equal? Pure success.
It does not matter that I could write the script for every single one of these shows, it does not matter that I know how the episode is going to end three minutes into it, it does not matter that every single show is essentially the same show with a twist (live in a hotel room, have psychic powers, be a witch, be a pop star [actually, this can be said for almost every sitcom on television, and most dramas, they're all mostly the same formula just with a twist, and then it's up to the writers to distinguish the show from the others {the exception being Seinfeld, which had no twist, it just had the four characters and their lives (perhaps this was the twist?); thankfully the characters and the writing in that show allowed it to be so great]}). The only thing that matters is that children continue to watch the shows, and continue to tell their parents to take them to Disneyland and buy them Hannah Montana tickets. Even Disney's Head of Television Anne Sweeney knew this; according to Wikipedia, "Sweeney's successful strategy was to discover, nurture, and aggressively cross-promote teen music stars whose style and image were carefully targeted to the preteen segment of 10-year-olds in the period between childhood and adolescence." So... yea. Two-thirds of all American preteens regularly watch Hannah Montana, if that's any indication of how well they are doing. Disney Channel has discovered the secret formula to making money: Target the kids, not adults, and make them need the stuff; what parent is going to turn down their kids crying request for a Hannah Montana doll? The one thing that puzzled me for a long time was that Disney Channel just became a huge enterprise over the last few years, with the advent of Lizzie McGuire. Does that mean that before that they were just operating in the red, waiting for a hit? That seems like a really long-term investment, to have a channel lose money for twenty years before it starts turning profits. But then again, Disney Channel Original Series are a relatively modern thing. They always had a few, but much of the channel's programming throughout the 1980s and 1990s were reruns of previously-aired shows on ABC or other channels. There has always been the children's section, with the likes of Winnie the Pooh, Mickey Mouse, and Playhouse Disney. "Modern" Disney Channel Original Series probably started with around 2000, with Even Stevens. But before that, there was probably not a very large cost to make shows, as they were creating very few new ones, just reshowing episodes already creating by another arm of Disney. And even now, Disney Channel does not have a large operating cost, since they make these career contracts with future stars when they are very young, and the salary they receive is not high (at least much lower than a primetime actor). Disney then makes a profit on everything having to do with that person, be it movies, music, or TV shows (see: Raven, Miley Cyrus, Selena Gomez). These people are walking talking money-makers; whatever they make will make kids from around the country flock to get it. This has set up Disney Channel for years to come, and I don't see it ending anytime soon.
Ok, enough with Disney Channel. I skipped around a lot, and probably repeated myself frequently, but in my defense I did write that over a span of two days. So my other topic is much shorter; all I really wanted to say was that I am beginning to see major improvements with my culturing. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I've been embarking on a mission over the lsat year and a half or so to become more knowledgeable on the likes of music, books, television, movies, current events, technology, politics, and assorted others. This requires me devoting a rather large part of my life to finding new bands, watching TV (lots of TV...), reading a lot of magazines, and daily (or two or three times a day) checking various websites. I've been seeing major improvements with both my understanding of jokes and my ability to have a relevant topic from a TV show or book or article to whatever someone is saying to me. Which is probably why my stories take so long... It probably also helps that I like to talk. Anyways, we were playing Apples to Apples, and I was really proud because I knew most of the people that were on the cards, whether they were classic authors or famous historical figures or old movie stars. It's starting to pay off! Although, I'm pretty lacking in the book department. I really need to read Animal Farm, 1984, Catch-22, Fight Club, and other books that have been extremely influential in society today. I've been listening to some older stuff from Radiohead (stuff from "Hail to the Thief" and "OK Computer", so not really that old, but not their most recent album) and a lot of it has references to these books. Also, did you know that every title in Panic! at the Disco's album "A Fever you Can't Sweat Out" is a reference to Fight Club? I am really ahead of most people when it comes to television and music, but I lag far behind with books and movies. There are all these great movies I need to see, perhaps some of you guys would like to watch them with me second semester? And tell me any other books you think I need to read. With your help, we can make this blog more interactive! Anyways, that's about it. I think soon I'm going to put a list of my favorite albums of all time, but I don't want to yet because I need to listen to a lot of them more and there is still a lot of music I want to get and listen to. So, stay tuned for more sooner or later.
I'm beginning to think that I'm like J.D. from Scrubs, and actually like most people in the world, in that I only desire what I do not have. Once I get something, be it a present that I had wanted, music that I had been really eager to listen to, or even starting school, I very quickly no long want it. Not as quickly as J.D. does with Elliot, for those of you that have seen the show, but normally within a few weeks. That's why I'm partly glad that I don't have Guitar Hero, because I'd never want to play it if I did. I haven't wanted to play Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion since those first two weeks when I played it 10 hours a day after I borrowed it from Aaron. I was ready to get back to school and start senior year all during the summer, but about two weeks into it I couldn't wait to get out. I really hope that doesn't happen with Arrested Development, since I got all three seasons on DVD only a few days ago for Christmas. It seems like once I have obtained something, it instantly becomes part of my past. I guess this happens to everyone to some degree, and it's really frustrating isn't it? Oh well. I think it happened with this blog as well, I have always had lots of thought swirling around my head, but once I got this blog and had it for a few months I never really wanted to write in this.
So anyways, on to what I was going to write about about a month and a half ago but I never did (see above). It has to do with advertising and marketing. I've already talked to some people about this, most notably Priyanka, my dad, Kevin, and Mihir (those two just the first half). So anyways, about a month and a half ago Jason Huang, Mihir Sathe, Kevin Shimizu, Jamie Turley, Aaron Garg, and I all went shopping at Valley Fair to buy "hip" clothes for Austin to usher him into this decade (no offense Austin)(actually that along with my cd, which was and still is incredible [fusion of electronic and acoustic, talk to me about it to learn more/ if you want a copy {the ending is an emotional rollercoaster}]). We got like five shirts I think, and they were all pretty good, and as we were leaving I noticed the Puma store and insisted that we go inside. So we shopped around a bit, and decided that maybe Austin needed a cool belt to go along with his awesome shirts. We looked at the belts, and there were two styles: a $28 model and an $18 model. Now personally, I think it's a little ridiculous to buy any belt for more than like $12, but that's beside the point. As we looked closer, we noticed that the two models were strikingly similar. Hmm... In fact, they were the exact same. The only difference was that on the $18 model the buckle was a bit more cloudy, like there were small scratches all over it in a semi-unifrom way that made it not reflect as well. It's hard to explain, but hopefully you sort of get the picture. But, the only way you can tell the difference when someone was wearing it is if you conciously looked for it, or you were six inches away from it with the $28 belt to compare it too. But, there are only a few reasons you stand (or kneel) six inches away from a belt for extended periods of times, and we won't divulge into them. For the sake of this argument, the two belt models are the same. We even asked a salesperson what the difference was, and they were just like, "Well, this one has a different color of fabric. This one's green and this one's gray." First of all, color variation should not be a cause for a 50% increase in price. Second of all, we pointed out to the guy that there are green and gray colors of the fabric in both of the models, so clearly he has no idea what he's talking about. Which means it was up to Detective Andrew to solve the case, which is obviously the next step in this process. So I sat down and thought about it for a while. This was when we were trying to move, mind you, so in order for our house to look better we had packed up every single book and put them in the attic. Except one, "Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs", which was in my mom's car at the time. Composed of a collection of stand-alone essays and being the only book in the house, I promptly read each chapter a good seven or eight times, which allows me to bring up any part of that book in discussion, which I have frequently done (as many of you know). Once again, it would help. One large theme in many of his essays is the definition of "cool". One such essay discusses how kid's cereal ads on on TV create a character that is unable to obtain the cereal, making it excluesive, and therefore cool because not everyone can have it. A large part of coolness is having something that no one else has, but having it look like anyone could have gotten it if they had enough fouresight. Exclusivity is a big part of coolness, and cereal advertisers know it. See: Trix Rabbit (on a side note, the article said that a 1997 poll revealed that 99% of all those asked wanted the Rabbit to finally be given the Trix), Sonny (who's coo-coo[?] for Cocoa Puffs), that dog-man from Cookie Crisps, and a lot of others but I haven't read the essay in a while and I'm doing this from memory (remember, I was thinking of writing this a month ago, when I could remember all of this). So back to the Puma belts. I am pretty sure that the store was artificially gnerating coolness, just like MTV used to do when it was hip. By making one belt $10 more expensive than another, Puma is creating exclusivity. The $28 belt is more expensive, ergo it is more exclusive, thereby cooler than the other one. I don't really know if this is true, but most of the things in Puma are pretty expensive, and so if you're going to buy a belt from there rather than somewhere else like at Macy's or JC Penny's or somewhere, there's a better chance that you are looking for fashion and are willing to spend the extra ten dollars to be cool. Although, common sense would dictate you buy the $18 one and say you bought the $28 one. It's not an airtight case, but that's OK with me. I think I really am onto something with this artifiially generated coolness, and I'm sure a while back I had more arguments for this, but I can't remember them at the moment. So anyways, onto my next point, which I will put in a new paragraph so you can conveniently find it.
Here we are. So next on the list is Disney, most notably the Disney Channel. I'm sure many of you have noticed at this point that Disney Channel does not show outside advertisements, only ads promoting their own shows, a stupid thing on "special kids" (like the girl who collected pez dispensers... ahaha my sister and I had a good laugh with that one), or other arms of the Disney franchise (usually Disneyland/ Disneyworld). But no revenue from outside advertisers, which I'm pretty sure is where most TV stations get most if not all of their revenue. Which means that Disney Channel pulls their revenue from somewhere else. I mean, I'm sure they get some money from the Disney stores, and some extra money from theme parks and stuff. But the more I thought about it (and the more links I clicked on after googling "how does the disney channel make money?" [apparently other people want to know too]), the more I realized that was in fact exactly how they did it. Disney Channel is, in the broad spectrum of things, one large advertisement for other parts of Disney. They thrust the Disney name into every household that holds a child aged 7-13, give or take a few years. They make kids want to have everything Disney, because that is what is cool. Let's see how they do it.
I would consider the Lizzie Mcguire series as the turning point of Disney Channel, from an under performing arm of the Disney Corporation to one of the most profitable parts of it (Disney Channel and products from it now account for like 45% of Disney profits or something). Most of us still remember the Disney Channel shows that were on back then, with classics like Smart Guy, Boy Meets World, and Recess (oh the good old days). But Lizzie McGuire seemed like a new show, one that tailored to the late middle school/ early high school girls and the boy problems they faced. Maybe shows on that channel had done that before, but they either weren't very good or didn't focus on the boy problems (oh Gordo... you lovable goofball). This show caught kid's attention due to its quirky, accident-prone lead character and her mildly funny (and even that is stretching that) animated inner-thoughts persona. It quickly became Disney Channel's highest rated show and spawned movies, books, dolls, cd's, manga (?!), McDonald toys, furniture themes, and various other things. All in all, it is estimated that this merchandise garnered Disney $100 million. Wow. And I'm pretty sure that's not including the $55.6 million grossed by The Lizzie McGuire movie. That's a lot of money for a show that had a minscule budget compared to most primetime shows. And therein lies a large part of Disney Channel's ability to suck up the cash like a vacuum. They sign obscure, unknown children into contracts that are almost carrer-binding. As it turns out, Hilary Duff produced her first cd with Disney Channel, but the contract did not stipulate that she needed to stay with them for cd's, or movies, and she quickly realized that she could make more money herself than she ever could with Disney. She took off to Hollywood Records, making three more cd's (two of which have gone platinum) and has made numerous movies, most of which have naught to do with Disney. And they do not get a cent of anything she makes. They have been sure not to do that again. With the huge numbers of Lizzie McGuire, Disney Channel realized that they had found the gem, and sought any way possible to continue the trend. It would appear the formula is: Sitcom with sporadic main character who is by no means perfect, but is still lovable (Raven, Zach and Cody, Alex [Witches From Waverly Place]), add in a stupid friend who never seems to understand what is going on and throws in spontaneous phrases (Arwen [Suite Life], Chelsea [That's So Raven], Oliver [Hannah Montana], Newt [Cory in the House], Ron [Kim Possible]), have another friend the main character is close to (Eddie [Raven], Lily [Hannah Montana], Miranda/Gordo [Lizzie McGuire]) , and use the same 50 or so plotlines over and over again in each show. What does that equal? Pure success.
It does not matter that I could write the script for every single one of these shows, it does not matter that I know how the episode is going to end three minutes into it, it does not matter that every single show is essentially the same show with a twist (live in a hotel room, have psychic powers, be a witch, be a pop star [actually, this can be said for almost every sitcom on television, and most dramas, they're all mostly the same formula just with a twist, and then it's up to the writers to distinguish the show from the others {the exception being Seinfeld, which had no twist, it just had the four characters and their lives (perhaps this was the twist?); thankfully the characters and the writing in that show allowed it to be so great]}). The only thing that matters is that children continue to watch the shows, and continue to tell their parents to take them to Disneyland and buy them Hannah Montana tickets. Even Disney's Head of Television Anne Sweeney knew this; according to Wikipedia, "Sweeney's successful strategy was to discover, nurture, and aggressively cross-promote teen music stars whose style and image were carefully targeted to the preteen segment of 10-year-olds in the period between childhood and adolescence." So... yea. Two-thirds of all American preteens regularly watch Hannah Montana, if that's any indication of how well they are doing. Disney Channel has discovered the secret formula to making money: Target the kids, not adults, and make them need the stuff; what parent is going to turn down their kids crying request for a Hannah Montana doll? The one thing that puzzled me for a long time was that Disney Channel just became a huge enterprise over the last few years, with the advent of Lizzie McGuire. Does that mean that before that they were just operating in the red, waiting for a hit? That seems like a really long-term investment, to have a channel lose money for twenty years before it starts turning profits. But then again, Disney Channel Original Series are a relatively modern thing. They always had a few, but much of the channel's programming throughout the 1980s and 1990s were reruns of previously-aired shows on ABC or other channels. There has always been the children's section, with the likes of Winnie the Pooh, Mickey Mouse, and Playhouse Disney. "Modern" Disney Channel Original Series probably started with around 2000, with Even Stevens. But before that, there was probably not a very large cost to make shows, as they were creating very few new ones, just reshowing episodes already creating by another arm of Disney. And even now, Disney Channel does not have a large operating cost, since they make these career contracts with future stars when they are very young, and the salary they receive is not high (at least much lower than a primetime actor). Disney then makes a profit on everything having to do with that person, be it movies, music, or TV shows (see: Raven, Miley Cyrus, Selena Gomez). These people are walking talking money-makers; whatever they make will make kids from around the country flock to get it. This has set up Disney Channel for years to come, and I don't see it ending anytime soon.
Ok, enough with Disney Channel. I skipped around a lot, and probably repeated myself frequently, but in my defense I did write that over a span of two days. So my other topic is much shorter; all I really wanted to say was that I am beginning to see major improvements with my culturing. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I've been embarking on a mission over the lsat year and a half or so to become more knowledgeable on the likes of music, books, television, movies, current events, technology, politics, and assorted others. This requires me devoting a rather large part of my life to finding new bands, watching TV (lots of TV...), reading a lot of magazines, and daily (or two or three times a day) checking various websites. I've been seeing major improvements with both my understanding of jokes and my ability to have a relevant topic from a TV show or book or article to whatever someone is saying to me. Which is probably why my stories take so long... It probably also helps that I like to talk. Anyways, we were playing Apples to Apples, and I was really proud because I knew most of the people that were on the cards, whether they were classic authors or famous historical figures or old movie stars. It's starting to pay off! Although, I'm pretty lacking in the book department. I really need to read Animal Farm, 1984, Catch-22, Fight Club, and other books that have been extremely influential in society today. I've been listening to some older stuff from Radiohead (stuff from "Hail to the Thief" and "OK Computer", so not really that old, but not their most recent album) and a lot of it has references to these books. Also, did you know that every title in Panic! at the Disco's album "A Fever you Can't Sweat Out" is a reference to Fight Club? I am really ahead of most people when it comes to television and music, but I lag far behind with books and movies. There are all these great movies I need to see, perhaps some of you guys would like to watch them with me second semester? And tell me any other books you think I need to read. With your help, we can make this blog more interactive! Anyways, that's about it. I think soon I'm going to put a list of my favorite albums of all time, but I don't want to yet because I need to listen to a lot of them more and there is still a lot of music I want to get and listen to. So, stay tuned for more sooner or later.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
On Intolerance
I'd like to share with you an English journal entry i wrote last year during first semester. It was a response to the "Sinners at the Hands of an Angry God" article and tape. For those of you who are not familiar with this, it is a sermon given by preacher Johnathon Edwards (no relation to the other one) during the Great Awakening. It essentially preaches on the principle that the only reason people are not in hell is the pleasure of God. Satan stands ready to pounce on almost all of humanity, save those few are saved (for lack of a better word). If you really want to learn more about it, just wikipedia it or something. Anyways, this is my response to it. Just remember my constraints: this was a journal write, so I was only able to write about a page and a half before running out of room, and I was supposed to stay on topic, so I wasn't able to stray too far (also, I turned this in, so swearing was strictly prohibited). I was not even closely able to express my full views on this topic, and I move around quite a bit, but hopefully it is an accurate representation of some of my views.
I think the way that Edwards is trying to convert people is completely inappropriate. One does not come to Christ because of the fear they have of going to Hell; they come because of His love. Edwards is acting the same as the people on street corners with bullhorns yelling about how all the adulterers and fornicators and homosexuals in the world will go to Hell unless they convert to Christianity. Jesus taught about love during his life, not about the damnation of all non-believers. If you turn to a page in the New Testament, chances are you will find some verse about how God and Christ love us. You will probably not find it condemning homosexuality as a sin. And yet Christians today are taught that homosexuals "choose" to be the way they are and will become straight once they find Christ. They are not taught that Jesus loves everyone, only that Jesus loves Christians. Also, some religious tolerance in this world would be nice. In July, a Hindu priest opened a Senate floor meeting (Congress sessions always begin with a prayer), only to be booed multiple times. The comments below this article proclaimed how it is unacceptable that a "pagan prayer" was said before the Government Under God. They said that even though the Constitution proclaims freedom of speech, the founding fathers never would have thought anything other than a Christian prayer would be said. Does no one else see the hypocrisy? Just because the pledge of allegiance says "one nation under God" doesn't mean that it is acceptable to condemn another religion. Leaders of the free world indeed. When did "religious tolerance" come to mean "Christian tolerance"? Another comment exclaimed how Christians are the most intolerated minority. Oh, so I guess it's ok to boo another religion because they really just don't know how good they have it. Give me a break. And since when did God recognize countries? It's a good thing thing California was taken from Mexico in 1847, or God never would have known to bless us. This is ridiculous. Stop using our Lord and Savior to pursue your personal agenda by condemning all others as wrong and heretical. Maybe, if you practiced what you preached, you would realize how stupid you sound. And Edwards shouldn't talk about everyone going to Hell, that's not going to attract too many people. If he talked about the Lord's grace and the wonders of Heaven, people may actually be drawn into Christianity rather than put off by Hell.
Many of you can tell that I get more and more frustrated as the entry goes on. If Chris Rea is reading this (shout out!), this was a few weeks after we watched the video on bullhorns in youth group, so that's where some of this is coming from. As i typed this into this post, there were so many things that I wanted to add, but I tried to stay true of what I wrote in the journal entry. The only thing added was that Congress opens with a prayer session, because that information was needed to understand what I was talking about. I wish I had more time and space to write the originaly entry, but maybe it's succinctity is a good thing.
To those directly affected by Prop 8's passage, there is nothing I can say that can ease the pain you are suffering. I know it is much easier for me to say to fight on than it is to carry that out, but that is all there is to be done. My favorite quote of all time is "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees". Continue fighting, for they will never bring you down.
If I can endure for this minute
Whatever is happening to me,
No matter how heavy my heart is
Or how dark the moment be-
If I can remain calm and quiet,
With all the world crashing about me,
Secure in the knowledge that God loves me,
When everyone else seems to doubt me-
If I can but keep on believing
What I know in my heart to be true,
That darkness will fade with the morning
And that will pass away, too-
Then nothing in life can defeat me
For as long as the knowledge remains
I can suffer whatever is happening
For I know God will break all of the chains
That are binding me tight in the darkness
And trying to fill me with fear-
For there is no night without dawning
And I know my morning is near.
-Helen Steiller Rice, "This Too Shall Pass"
I think the way that Edwards is trying to convert people is completely inappropriate. One does not come to Christ because of the fear they have of going to Hell; they come because of His love. Edwards is acting the same as the people on street corners with bullhorns yelling about how all the adulterers and fornicators and homosexuals in the world will go to Hell unless they convert to Christianity. Jesus taught about love during his life, not about the damnation of all non-believers. If you turn to a page in the New Testament, chances are you will find some verse about how God and Christ love us. You will probably not find it condemning homosexuality as a sin. And yet Christians today are taught that homosexuals "choose" to be the way they are and will become straight once they find Christ. They are not taught that Jesus loves everyone, only that Jesus loves Christians. Also, some religious tolerance in this world would be nice. In July, a Hindu priest opened a Senate floor meeting (Congress sessions always begin with a prayer), only to be booed multiple times. The comments below this article proclaimed how it is unacceptable that a "pagan prayer" was said before the Government Under God. They said that even though the Constitution proclaims freedom of speech, the founding fathers never would have thought anything other than a Christian prayer would be said. Does no one else see the hypocrisy? Just because the pledge of allegiance says "one nation under God" doesn't mean that it is acceptable to condemn another religion. Leaders of the free world indeed. When did "religious tolerance" come to mean "Christian tolerance"? Another comment exclaimed how Christians are the most intolerated minority. Oh, so I guess it's ok to boo another religion because they really just don't know how good they have it. Give me a break. And since when did God recognize countries? It's a good thing thing California was taken from Mexico in 1847, or God never would have known to bless us. This is ridiculous. Stop using our Lord and Savior to pursue your personal agenda by condemning all others as wrong and heretical. Maybe, if you practiced what you preached, you would realize how stupid you sound. And Edwards shouldn't talk about everyone going to Hell, that's not going to attract too many people. If he talked about the Lord's grace and the wonders of Heaven, people may actually be drawn into Christianity rather than put off by Hell.
Many of you can tell that I get more and more frustrated as the entry goes on. If Chris Rea is reading this (shout out!), this was a few weeks after we watched the video on bullhorns in youth group, so that's where some of this is coming from. As i typed this into this post, there were so many things that I wanted to add, but I tried to stay true of what I wrote in the journal entry. The only thing added was that Congress opens with a prayer session, because that information was needed to understand what I was talking about. I wish I had more time and space to write the originaly entry, but maybe it's succinctity is a good thing.
To those directly affected by Prop 8's passage, there is nothing I can say that can ease the pain you are suffering. I know it is much easier for me to say to fight on than it is to carry that out, but that is all there is to be done. My favorite quote of all time is "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees". Continue fighting, for they will never bring you down.
If I can endure for this minute
Whatever is happening to me,
No matter how heavy my heart is
Or how dark the moment be-
If I can remain calm and quiet,
With all the world crashing about me,
Secure in the knowledge that God loves me,
When everyone else seems to doubt me-
If I can but keep on believing
What I know in my heart to be true,
That darkness will fade with the morning
And that will pass away, too-
Then nothing in life can defeat me
For as long as the knowledge remains
I can suffer whatever is happening
For I know God will break all of the chains
That are binding me tight in the darkness
And trying to fill me with fear-
For there is no night without dawning
And I know my morning is near.
-Helen Steiller Rice, "This Too Shall Pass"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)