Back when our princess and the pea situation was going on, the nondenominational witch OB/GYN (who I have since fired) said my ovarian cysts were "just a couple of centimeters" big.
And that stuck with me. Here we are, nearly two years (and two doctors) later, and Leonard is getting a little tired of having medical devices stuck into her orifices.
"But why, Leonard? Why are you complaining? They're just a couple of centimeters big."
You know what else is "just a couple of centimeters"? A penny. A dime. A nickel.
Let's try an experiment: why don't you stick a nickel up your nostril1. Oh, you want it removed now? Why? It's just a couple of centimeters. How about swallowing the nickel and letting it ruminate in your stomach for a bit. No? How about your ear, your eye, or your colon? No, that doesn't sound like fun? "Just a couple of centimeters" doesn't really matter when the object should not be in your body, when your body is not designed to fit said object, when said object is pressing against other parts of your body and causing problems.
Leonard fired that last craptastic doctor. That last craptastic doctor ignored the pain and the symptoms and tried stuff that didn't work. Plus, she made me feel bad about myself. The new doctor (we'll have to give her a name soon) has given Leonard ALL THE INFO. Leonard could give you the measurements of her uterus should the situation require it!
So, to recollect, in the past five months, Leonard has had:
1 Leonard can fit an entire quarter up her nostril.2 2 Leonard does not do "the quarter trick" anymore, ever since one got stuck up there.3 3 While Leonard was at work.4 4 Leonard was the shift manager at the time.5 5 Co-workers and underlings called her "Nostril-damus" for some time after.
I shouldn't be nervous, but I am. Today is Day #1 of a two-day photo shoot. But I'm not the model this time. I'm the hair and make-up stylist.
Hair, make-up, and costumes (or "playing dress-up") is one of the main things I enjoy about theatre, so let's hope it translates to the camera. People are counting on me for my esoteric knowledge of victory rolls, red lipstick, and wig caps! I already had a stress dream about it last night (in which I forgot several key items), so I know I'm right on track.
During a conversation with a co-star about visual arts, I said that I "had no talent" in that area. I come from a long line of artists, but I can't draw (or paint or sculpt or photograph) for shit. My co-star disagreed. She said that I "have an editorial eye." And that stuck with me. I'd like to think she was right. I know what I want in my head when trying to achieve certain looks.
At any rate, we can all thank Leonard's mother for this. Because of her most of my childhood was spent watching musicals and movies from Hollywood's Golden Age; that has played no small part in my desire to play dress-up all the time. And like my acting, I have no formal education in hair/make-up. Just trial and errors, a mother who sold Mary Kay cosmetics for a very long time, and now, YouTube tutorials.
Below is the tutorial I used to teach myself how to do victory rolls:
When this photo shoot is complete, I'm sure the Frogman will have things to post, including (possibly) some "behind the scenes" stuff in which you may see me poking about.
This blog has been devoid of new posts for far too long. So, of course, Leonard is back with something to complain about. This time we turn our feminist analytic eye to Maroon 5.
The more I hear from you, Maroon 5, the less I like you. Yes, even you, Adam Levine. In fact, especially you, Adam Levine. There is, of course, the outrage over the video for the song "Animals," featuring Levine's real-life wife. As the article points out, the song already says some pretty disgusting things, like "I'm preyin' on you tonight." Not okay, Maroon 5! I'm not going to waste my time dissecting it; the linked HuffPost article already does a good job. This song has joined the ranks of "Blurred Lines" for me -- meaning I turn the station as soon as it comes on.
Instead, let's look at the "harmless" song "Sugar." And let us, for the time being, ignore that it is a rip off of Prince's "U Got the Look." Seriously. The first time I heard the song, I thought I was hearing a cover of a Prince song, just couldn't put my finger on which one.
Since that first hearing, I inevitably catch the song during its bridge of :
I want that red velvet
I want that sugar sweet
Don't let nobody touch it
Unless that somebody's me
I gotta be a man
There ain't no other way
So, before Leonard starts frothing at the mouth, let's take a look-see. "Sugar," of course, is a euphemism for specifically kisses, more generally loving actions/affection. Angela Landsbury even uses it in the 1961 Elvis Presley film Blue Hawaii -- in which she plays Elvis' mother. Let that sink in for a bit.
So Adam Levine1 wants our "sugar." Okay, fine. But our "red velvet"? He's not talking about the cake, ladies and gentlemen. "Velvet" is a euphemism for "vagina"; in fact, "tipping the velvet" means cunnilingus (see also: Tipping the Velvet by Sarah Waters). "Red velvet" is even more explicit as labia is generally pinkish colored.
So Adam Levine wants my vagina now. Alright, fine. BUT, here's the problem(s): "Don't let nobody touch it / Unless that somebody's me." Excuse me? You do not have agency over my body parts, Adam Levine; only I do. You do not get to say who gets to touch it. Saying "don't let nobody touch it" even excludes me from touching myself (and that's certainly not going to happen). IF I let someone else "touch it," that's my decision, whether it's the "you" (here Adam Levine) or someone else.
But wait, there's more!
"I gotta be a man / There ain't no other way"
So apparently Adam Levine's masculinity depends on his ability to touch and/or control my body? Don't look at me that way, readers. He said it! In fact, he just said that the ONLY way to "be a man" (whatever the fuck that means) is to have my body.
Masculinity is so many other things, and one person's ability to "feel" masculine (or feminine or whatever) is not up to some other person. Just as I have agency over my body, so do you have control over how you want to feel and/or explore your gender. Don't bring my red velvet labia into it.
In short, the song is gross, though possibly not as obviously offensive as "Animals." But to top it all off, the "official video" for the song shows Maroon 5 supposedly crashing wedding receptions and singing this song to newlyweds (straight newlyweds, I should add). Eww.
1In all fairness to Mr. Levine, a true rhetorical analysis would not confuse him, the singer, with the speaker of the song (thank you, New Criticism). We typically say "the speaker," just like when dealing with poetry. But it's funnier to say Adam Levine wants Leonard's vagina.
I did not quite care for this book. I finished it through sheer force of will. Part of the reason I think I didn't like it is I didn't know what I was getting myself into. I had the impression it was more of a mystery based on the painting in question, rather than the sort of coming of age story it turned out to be. Don't get me wrong; I enjoy a good bildungsroman, but usually of the female persuasion. It also helps when reading a story of this length to actually like the protagonist. By the time he's an adult, I didn't like Theo.
Well, that's not entirely true. Within the first fifteen pages, I was bored with Theo; I have little patience for boys idolizing their mothers, living or dead. But moving on...
He keeps making poor decisions, and we just have to read along, letting it happen -- again and again and again and again. The entire novel is his downward hate spiral of self-loathing and guilt. It took me so long to finish this book because I would have to stop reading out of either frustration or boredom. Frustration because Theo continues to make the same mistakes again and again (and does not learn from them) and boredom because it's so fucking long.
I know long books. I majored in Victorian literature, for Christ's sake! But every one of Tartt's sections (and each chapter is divided into about five sections) is at least two pages longer than it needs to be. This book needs a good editor to show her where she's reached the peak of each section and to stop; instead Tartt keeps going, hitting us over the head with the non-stop descriptions and rambling sentence fragments.
I found the ending to be anti-climatic. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but this wasn't it. I guess seeing as how (read entire review on Goodreads to view spoiler)[he idolizes his dead mother so much in the beginning of the book, we should not be surprised that she's his "savior" during the melodramatic hotel sequence at the end. (hide spoiler)] Moreover, the last "section" loses Theo's voice entirely and turns into what I can only assume is Tartt where she expounds needlessly on life, death, meaning, fate, yadda yadda yadda. I started skimming because it didn't seem relevant to the story at all, and I don't enjoy other people's moralizing.
I'm giving it two stars instead of one because I did feel compelled to finish it. I would give up, put the book down, then pick it back up again (days or weeks later) just to have stuff get interesting again. Sadly, those interesting bits were usually short-lived, but she did draw me in from time to time.
If you enjoyed this book, good for you, though I don't understand why. I will not be recommending it to anyone except people I feel need to be punished in a literary manner. View all my reviews
Well, here we are again, at the end of a second book in a series, and I've rated it slightly lower than the first book. Again, I say it's because the inner workings of this world (the factions, the Choosing, the Initiations and training) are no longer new. I think it's that kind of minutia that I find fascinating.
As the book began, I actually started to get a little bored. It could be because I had already read the first chapter of Insurgent as a "sneak preview" at the end of Divergent. But more than that, it quickly started to feel like an action movie. Now don't get me wrong; I love action movies. But I want to watch them, not read about them. Just as I started to feel this was going to be nothing more than running and shooting guns, two things happened that both the characters in the book and I had forgotten about: (view on Goodreads to read see the spoiler) [the factionless (including Edward) are brought back into the story, and Tobias/Four's (formerly dead) mom. (hide spoiler)]The former felt like a much more important plot development than the latter, which sort of feels like "shock value."
It's only about 7/8 through the book where we really find out what we're fighting for, and even then, it's still vague. It was unclear to me (until the very, very end) if Tris knew all of the information from Marcus, et al, but just hadn't shared it with the reader, or if she was flying blind, too. It's only when those things ("THE information") are brought to light that the story becomes truly interesting again because it is no longer recycling old ideas and old conflicts.
Towards the end (during that same 7/8 period), I did find one "continuity" mistake, and that bothered me. It both is and is not a big deal. (spoiler on Goodreads)[After Tris decides against carrying a gun, she carries the "stunner" (page 461 in the hard back edition). That's all fine and dandy. And then ten pages later, she mentions pulling out and pointing a gun at an Erudite member (471 in hard back). But she didn't have a gun! It's not important because it's one small detail that someone (probably the editor) forgot to check in terms of continuity. It is a big deal because Tris struggles with carrying a gun (after having shot Will at the end of Divergent) throughout THE ENTIRE BOOK!!! (hide spoiler)] So someone dropped the ball on that one.
The book ends with a definite cliffhanger, and in a moment of truly good timing from the Universe, my turn on the wait list for Allegiant has come up just as I finished Insurgent. Needless to say, I am intrigued to see how this all ends. View all my reviews
Alright, Leonard is fed up with people trashing one of our favorite shows! So the following rant is an attempt to refute claims that The Big Bang Theory is sexist, anti-women, and/or "nerd minstrel."
First: Nerd Minstrel.
I must quote Wil Wheaton here, who, when asked this same question, said:
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and if someone believes that about Big Bang Theory, they’re certainly not obligated to watch it. That said, I completely disagree with that assessment based on my knowledge of the writers and producers (all of whom are giant nerds), and the knowledge that the person who popularized that sentiment you referenced is deliberately provocative and kind of a jerk.
The writer in question is James Peter Gates, or "Jimmy the Saint" on SickChirpse.com. And that's all I can say about him. I've never heard of him before, and taking a glance at his writings (including his TBBT article), I can say that I doubt he and I see eye to eye on...almost anything. What I can do is define "minstrel" or more specifically, "minstrel show." According to Wikipedia (source of all knowledge), a "minstrel show"
was an American entertainment consisting of comic skits, variety acts, dancing, and music, performed by white people in blackface or, especially after the Civil War, black people in blackface.
Minstrel shows lampooned black people as dim-witted, lazy, buffoonish, superstitious, happy-go-lucky, and musical.
So lampooning people of color (especially by white people) is BAD, I think we can all agree. So I guess Gates is saying that non-nerds are lampooning nerds on a TV show. I suppose, he's half right. The actors who portray Sheldon, Leonard, Howard, and Raj are just that -- actors. They may or may not also identify as "nerds," "geeks," "dorks," etc. But people portraying people who they really aren't is the very nature of acting and television. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Gates is saying that non-nerd people "lampooning" nerds is the problem. (I am not, however, going to address each of the characteristics the Wikipedia article addresses ["dim-witted," "lazy," etc.] as those clearly don't apply.)
And I guess I just don't see this. I don't see it as portraying nerds in a negative light, let alone by people in "nerdface" (what would THAT even look like??).
I consider myself a nerd, geek, dork as well. I enjoy many of the same hobbies and games and movies and things the characters on the show enjoy. I do not find the jokes offensive to my nerd status. I do not necessarily laugh "at" them. My laughter is recognition of the situation. My laughter signifies, "Oh yeah, I've had that happen!" or even "Oh man, I wish that could happen to me!" It is not schadenfreudeor even self-preservation ("Thank God that's you and not me!"). It is recognition, community, and overall joy.
I also feel that comparing the writing style of a single television show to an entire entertainment movement which exploited and was offensive to an entire race of people to be just slightly hyperbolic. Just sayin'.
But like Wil Wheaton said, if you feel that The Big Bang Theory is somehow lampooning nerds and all of the jokes are at their expense in a hurtful and offensive manner, then by all means, you do not have to watch. However, how many of you have watched the show? How many of you out there have seen it and felt it matches Mr. Gates' description, and how many of you are simply repeating what you've heard other people say? If you have watched, great! If you haven't, then stop saying "It IS this," and start saying, "I've not watched it, but I don't think I'd like it."
If you don’t understand why people don’t like the big bang theory, once
in an episode the cast was at a comic store browsing and a woman walked
in, and one of the leads said “Is she lost?” and that was the joke.
Okay, at first I thought I was all over this one. I thought this was referring to S02E20, "The Hofstadter Isotope," which is the first episode where we see the comic book store as a physical location, and Penny stops in. However, I just watched said episode and this line of dialogue is never uttered. Never fear! This Leonard (not be to confused with Johnny Galecki's Leonard) is not to be daunted!
[Sidebar: Big shout-out and "thank you!" to the Big Bang Theory Wikiwhich helped me find which episodes featured The Comic Center of Pasadena, a.k.a. "the comic book store."]
So I next went to Season 6, Episode 13 "The Bakersfield Expedition," which is probably one of my favorite episodes to date. In this episode, the three female characters -- Penny, Bernadette, and Amy -- decide to check out some comic books. If these things are so important to their partners, perhaps they should give them a chance? They walk in and the line "Is she lost?" is again never uttered.
So it's hard to take a stand and/or defend something that didn't actually happen in an episode. Please, if you find this episode, let me know -- either in the comments here or an "Ask" via Tumblr -- so I can watch it.
I'm a little sad because my defense of this scene was going to harken back to my very first night at my very first Comic Con *le sigh* Another time, I suppose.
Lastly, the idea that The Big Bang Theory is sexist. I thought I had read a user post somewhere saying the show tries to "put women in their place," and now I can't find that. Let's look at the female characters to determine if sexism is occurring.
Penny: If sexism was possibly going to occur, it would start here. Penny was the only female character for a long time, and a major premise of the show were here interactions with the boys across the hall. At first her character was an amalgam of stereotypes: she's blonde, boozy, sexually promiscuous, a struggling actress/waitress, without a college education, and from Omaha, NE. If anything, I could get offended about the Nebraska thing, having been born there myself.
However, she's also in a loving relationship with one of the "nerds," did start taking college classes (because she wanted to), has used the science she's picked up around the guys in conversations with other people, and is no longer a waitress. She's also an entrepreneur (S02E18 "The Work Song Nanocluster," S04E12 "The Bus Pants Utilization"). She and Sheldon have a sweetly complicated friendship as well, part friendship, part owner/pet, part parent/child. He's driven her to the ER (and he HATES driving), and she, of course, has sung "Soft Kitty" to him.
Also, one of the fun things about the show's writers is their ability to poke fun at themselves. In S02E19, "The Dead Hooker Extrapolation," Penny hates a fellow actress for all of the same characteristics I listed above, and we're able to see the depth that makes her good person and friend, not some shallow floozy (like the aforementioned actress). Also, while Penny does not necessarily like comic books, she did spend quite a bit of time playing World of Warcraft (and enjoying it! S02E03 "The Barbarian Sublimation").
Bernadette: Bernadette is probably my favorite of the three. She's all of 4'11" with a squeaky, high-pitched voice and a violent streak (probably why I love her). She also disproves the possible stereotype about waitresses. She started off working at the Cheesecake Factory with Penny (who set her up with Howard, BTW), working her way through school. She's a brilliant scientist working for a large pharmaceutical company, and she is the bread-winner for her family.
I suppose you could say she "wear the pants" in her marriage with Howard, if you wanted to use such a term, but this show never falls into that annoying, wife-as-nag-husband-is-henpecked trope like Everyone Loves Raymond or Home Improvement did. She is fiercely loyal to her spouse (S06E09 "The Parking Spot Escalation") and to her friends (S07E13 "The Occupation Recalibration").
So how is this sexist?
Amy Farrah Fowler: she's a fucking neurobiologist! She's also very well-rounded; she enjoys both Chaucer and playing the harp. She has her own apartment and her own car, so she clearly knows how to manage her funds. And don't forget: when she and Sheldon first began their relationship, she was just as analytical, literal, and standoffish as he is. Their relationship has changed and evolved, just like Bernadette and Howard's, and Penny and Leonard's -- like all good relationships (and writing) should.
So, again, I'm afraid I don't see how the show is sexist. Do these three women enjoy comic books? Not necessarily, no. Does the show say that NO WOMEN enjoy comic books? Absolutely not. In fact, Raj met his (now ex-) girlfriend, Lucy, in the comic book store (S06E16 "The Tangible Affection Proof"). Additionally, in "The Bakersfield Expedition," these women do take the time to explore comic books and actually have very involved discussions/arguments about them.
The long and short of it is, nothing I say here will convince you to watch the show if you've decided not to. If you have watched it and decided you don't like it, nothing I say will convince you otherwise. You don't have to like everything, and you and I don't have to like the same things. But please stop badmouthing the show and saying it's things it's not, especially when the proof is lacking.
And how here is a clip of one of my other favorite episodes, E02E11 "The Bath Item Gift Hypothesis." Penny's gift proves that she pays attention to what Leonard and Sheldon like because say, for instance, you've never watched an episode of Star Trek in your life (I know it's hard to believe, but such people do exist). And then you start hearing about it from friends and acquaintances. And you hear characters' and actors' names (like Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, Leonard Nimoy, etc.) tossed around. You would REALLY have to be on your game to put all of that together AND recognize Leonard Nimoy currently, as an elderly man, when out in public. It's like my friends who talk sports a lot. I hear the names, I know the team names, but I wouldn't be able to pick any of them out of a line-up. So what Penny did is actually quite impressive (and Jim Parsons' acting in this scene is just phenomenal).
One phrase comes to mind after finishing Cress, the third book in Marissa Meyer's Lunar Chronicles series: "balancing act." While each book is Meyer's take on traditional fairy tales such as Cinderella and Rapunzel, each book also connects those characters in a larger story. By the time we get to Cress, we have Cinderella and her Prince, Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf, Rapunzel and her Prince, plus their associated collection of stepmothers, witches, and sidekicks. In less skilled hands, that could easily become a tangled mess (pun intended) rather than weaving together multiple storylines for one fast-paced novel.
I did find this one faster paced than Scarlet (hence the higher rating). Unlike Scarlet, it seemed to end on more of a cliffhanger, making me excited to read the next book (Winter), which, sadly, does not come out until 2015.
Like the other novels, Meyer's spin on the Rapunzel tale is clever without trying too hard to be clever. We have
a girl with super-long hair
who is trapped in a "tower"
by a witch
rescued by a prince
Meyer is also sure to include two other slightly lesser known aspects of the Rapunzel story; when reading the epigraphs at the beginning of those chapters, I immediately thought, "Oh yeah! That happens!" So bravo to that.
Also, about two-thirds of the way through this book, a couple of other fairy tale items clicked in my head that Meyer has been setting up, but not explicitly stated yet. Specifically, (view spoiler)[the fairy tale identity of Queen Luna and Princess Winter, how they fit into the fairy tale universe. Perhaps everyone else already knew they are Snow White and the Evil (jealous, vain) Queen, plus the Huntsman, and I'm just a little slow. Like I said, it was before Winter was really mentioned, but suddenly it all fell into place. (hide spoiler)] Well done on that, Meyer! It's not often that I don't see such things coming.
I'm now just sad that I have to wait another year to see how things turn out. View all my reviews
