2:46 PM -
Posted by Shelly -
Yesterday marked the 70th anniversary of the film Gone With the Wind (GWTW). This is one of my all-time favorite movies, and my sister and I can not only quote, but act out a good chunk of the movie for you, if you asked.
In an effort to kill time until my baby is born, I have been reading quite a few recent articles on GWTW, and have been particularly interested in the ones regarding Hattie McDaniel's role and subsequent Oscar win as Mammy.
How Hattie made history with a racist role
McDaniel's Mammy role helped birth modern black Hollywood
The reason that I find those articles interesting is because of the author's thoughts on the issue of race and racism in the movie and the portrayal of the slaves and other black characters. I have to admit, I hadn't given this much thought. Being white, I don't know if the characters are a racist portrayal or a somewhat realistic reflection of the 1860's.
Articles like this cause me to examine my own prejudices and thoughts on race. While my family is entirely from the South, specifically the racially-charged areas around Birmingham, I was raised near Nashville, where the racial dynamic seemed more balanced to me. My father worked in the area of discrimination investigation, and I think he was my biggest influence on seeing everyone as the same. Growing up in the suburbs I knew factually that we had less black families than white families in the neighborhood, but that wasn't something that I thought about. The first time it occurred to me that there was something different about that were my grandmother’s negative comments about me wanting to marry Michael Jackson (back when he was alive, popular and sane). My grandmother also would not allow me to ask my best friend LaTrece to visit her with me because "they would come and burn crosses in her front yard." Not knowing anything about race relations in Birmingham, I had to ask why in the world someone would want to burn crosses because my friend was there.
Sadly, I have come to realize how much of an issue race still is in some places. And how much of a hot button issue it still is with regards to things like GWTW. The statement of "black women and men in the film are loyal, simple folk who wish little more from life than to take care of nuanced, needy white people" really struck a chord with me. The only character (besides Prissy, who I took to be an idiot just because she was an idiot) that seemed "simple" to me was Gerald O'Hara's butler, Pork. But Mammy, she was not simple at all. She seemed to be the wisest of all the characters. Yes, she was very loyal to Scarlett, but I saw that loyalty as noble. Scarlett needed Mammy because Scarlett was selfish and unwise. She may have been a good businesswoman, but she knew nothing of people and relationships. Mammy did.
I also found fault with the article saying "The depictions of African-Americans presented here are ludicrously narrow." I thought about that statement for a while, and honestly, I don't agree. I see the author's point, there really isn't a huge range for any of the black characters, but I also think that narrow doesn't necessarily mean lacking in depth. If you are looking for depth in a character, you will really only find it in Rhett, and maybe Scarlett. EVERYONE is a shallow character. Take Melanie, for example: she was sweet, kind to everyone and loved most everyone. That was it. We don't know why... she just was. Talk about no depth. We don't know anything about her family (other than Ashley and Charles) and we don't know what she really thinks of those surrounding her, other than she loves them. So I would say that Mammy was a deeper character than Melanie, and she wasn't even one of the four major stars of the movie
I could go on and on, but this would end up as the longest blog. Suffice it to say that I think the two biggest points to be made are that it would be fair to compare the portrayal of characters in the movie with each other, not with our standards of today; and that I believe that Hattie McDaniel made great strides for her race in her portrayal of Mammy and in winning the Oscar. I remember her quote "I'd rather play a maid than be one." and I have a lot of respect for that.
I am curious as to what others, especially black people, think of Hattie McDaniel, her role in GWTW and if the movie does come across as racist. If you think so, why?
9:00 PM -
Posted by Shelly -
Continuing my story...
Makes some sense, right? Well, it's not that simple, easy or accurate. First, a woman doesn't always ovulate exactly 14 days after her period begins. Just like you don't always get hungry two hours and 15 minutes after you eat, every time you eat, ovulation is based on different factors. Hormones dictate ovulation and many, many things can affect hormones. Medications, stress, diet, etc. And, no two women are alike, so why should it be assumed that in this one respect we are all EXACTLY the same? It makes no sense. Our periods are all different, so why should our ovulation all be the same?
Second, while most women don't know (or keep track of) when they ovulated, that doesn't mean that all women don't know. Some women keep track of their menstrual cycle. Some women have such a regular cycle that it makes it easy to keep track of. Some women know their body well enough to tell when they can expect their period or ovulation.
With all that in mind, I go into my appointment knowing that the due date formula is not going to apply to me. As my cycle is so irregular, I keep track of it very closely. Because of this, I know exactly the day I ovulated and got pregnant. Prepared with an answer when asked "When was the first day of your last period?" I tell the nurse that it was Feb. 2, but that I ovulated and conceived on March 17. She tells me my due date is Nov. 9. I tell her that it should be in December because I conceived in March. She then tells me that the "conception date doesn't matter" and that my due date is calculated solely on my period and that the due date is Nov. 9. The appointment went downhill from there.
I won't go into the details of the rest of my appointment simply because they are only vague in my memory. I mentally checked out after the due date discussion. The nurse did make a negative comment about Nathan emptying the litter box and then something else about their office having the "Cadillac way of giving birth" but I didn't care. My decision to see a midwife was solid at that point. Incidentally, my midwife believed me when I told her the conception date. Also, the "dating" ultrasound I had later the same week confirmed my conception date, putting my due date in early December... the same date that I had told the OB/GYN nurse.
In the next few months, I did a lot of reading and watched a few documentaries on childbirth. I educated myself on what the options are for childbirth, and what I wanted out of my child's birth. I learned about the intervention cascade effect, and the dangers of commonly used drugs in childbirth.
Still, the thing is, so many people have negative comments about natural childbirth, and specifically how I will handle my own child's birth. I have gotten to the point where I simply don't honestly or completely answer questions that people ask about my child's upcoming birth. I often hear the "what if something goes wrong" question when voicing my desires for a home birth. The immediate reaction is that childbirth is a traumatic medical time bomb waiting to explode and kill everybody. It's a natural bodily function, not a disease.
Another response I get to my birth choices is the "you'll want that epidural when you feel the pain" kind of statement. This is frustrating because not only is it discouraging, but it is insulting as well. Not only do you not know how I will handle labor, I don't know how I will handle labor. I've never given birth before and my labor may be very, very different from yours. Just like our menstrual cycles are not the same, our labors will most likely not be the same, either. It is because of statements like that that I am much more private with those who say discouraging things to me (or about me) regarding my choice for a natural childbirth.
So, the long answer to the question of why I chose a midwife is this: I have done research and have come to the conclusion that mine and my child's health and well-being are of the utmost importance to me. To compromise either of our health and well-being for the sake of some pain relief is not something I want to do. God designed my body to conceive, grow, birth and feed a child. I believe that the ability to move freely during labor, along with supportive people in attendance, will help with pain management in labor and delivery. I am accepting the pain involved in the process in order for my child to be alert, healthy and responsive. I believe that the fewer interventions performed during labor and birth, the less chance of complications happening.
I believe that my daughter will be able to breastfeed sooner and with less complications, and that she will bond with both her father and me more easily than if she and I were medicated. I believe that her transition from the safe environment of my womb to the more harsh outside world will be more peaceful and less traumatic if all three of us are aware of our surroundings and have the ability to feel and move.
While I understand that many people do not think that my choices are good, wise or healthy choices, I have since given up on changing people's minds. However, I do wish that those who do not agree with my choices respect the fact that these are my choices to make. Negative comments and discouraging words aren't good for anybody.
The impetus for this long blog entry was this article on the Vanderbilt Nurse Midwives: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/magazines/vanderbilt-magazine/2009/11/rebirth-of-the-midwife/. If you are interested in learning more about midwifery or the women who will be attending the birth of my daughter, please have a look at the article.
And hopefully my next blog entry will be a birth announcement!
5:00 PM -
Posted by Shelly -
The continuing saga of my decision to use a midwife for the birth of my child...
Nine years ago, my best friend gave birth to her first child. She planned to have a natural birth with an OB/GYN, and I am ashamed to admit that I scoffed at her decision. Ultimately, she had some pain relievers, but most of her labor was unmedicated. After the birth of her second child with a midwife in a birthing center, I heard more in depth the differences between the two births. I was surprised to hear how differently she was treated by the OB versus the midwife. Essentially, the OB had let her suffer for hours with a slight complication that could have been easily remedied early on. The midwife, when encountering the same complication, took care of the issue within a couple of contractions. I was stunned at the lack of sympathy and care she was shown during her first birth.
Which brings me to my own experience. After Nathan and I discussed our desires for this pregnancy and birth, we had pretty much decided on going to the Vanderbilt midwives. However, because of some medications I was taking at the time, I wanted to get in to see my OB/GYN as quickly as possible so that I would have some guidance on whether or not to continue my meds. I have been seeing this OB/GYN for years and really do like him. However, he has said some things in the past that has made me question using him for a birth. He told me, many years ago, that if I ever had children, I would have to have a Cesarean section (C-section) because my pelvic opening was too small. This made no sense to me then or now. How can you know if one object can pass through another without seeing the first object? Plus, I have known other women who were told the exact same thing by a doctor and those women gave birth vaginally.
Anyway, I made an appointment with his nurse for my first prenatal visit. When I arrived, the waiting room was full (as usual) and loud. I remember thinking that this environment was not going to be conducive to a calm, happy pregnancy for me if I had to face this noisy, crowded waiting room every month. After I was called back, the nurse got my vitals, did a pregnancy test just to make sure and then started recording my history. Of course, the first thing they ask is the first date of your last menstrual period. This information is used to calculate your due date. For those unfamiliar with this formula, the logic goes like this: it is assumed (based on nothing but an assumption) that a woman ovulates 14 days after the first day of her period. The date of ovulation is considered the date that the baby was conceived. A baby gestates for generally 38 weeks from the date of conception. So, if you take the first day of the last period and add 40 weeks (38 weeks gestation + 14 days to ovulation) you get the baby's due date.
To be continued...
8:38 AM -
Posted by Shelly -
I have had quite a few people ask me why I decided to have a midwife, so I figured I'd share my thoughts on the subject. Because this is a long post, I figured I'd break it up in easy-to-swallow segments.
The short answer to the question is that I want to have a natural, unmedicated childbirth. I believe that it is not only best for my baby, but for me as well. Surprisingly, I have not had the support in this decision that I had expected, even from family members.
Twenty-two years ago I and my other sisters were allowed to watch our youngest sister's birth. I was 12 years old at the time and her birth had a profound effect on me. My step-mother was induced (I still don't know why) a few days before her due date, so everything surrounding the birth was very scheduled. We went into the hospital early in the morning, got my step-mother checked-in and set up in the labor and delivery room. The room was massive, with chairs and an ottoman. I remember the nurses starting the drugs that would induce labor, and I remember my step-sister and I napping a bit because nothing, as far as we could tell, was really happening. We would have to leave the L&D room from time to time so that my step-mother could be checked, but otherwise, it was all of us just sitting around.
Finally, in the early afternoon, I woke up from a nap to find a few extra nurses in the room and realized that we could all see the baby's head. I was excited that my sister was about to be born... except she wasn't. We waited and waited. She was right there ready to pop out; we could all see it! I suppose we asked what the holdup was and were told that we were waiting on the doctor to arrive to deliver the baby. I don't know how long we waited, but it seemed ridiculous to me. There were plenty of perfectly capable nurses in the room, many who had already been taking care of my step-mother anyway, who could catch the baby. It made zero sense to me, and on top of that, my step-mother had to sit with a ready-to-be-born baby inside her just for the convenience of the doctor.
More to come...
4:41 PM -
Posted by Shelly -
In my effort to update things, i.e. blog, Twitter, etc... I realized that despite saying on my just-posted blog entry (and on Facebook) that I didn't have anything to say, I actually do have something to say!
So I went to Dollar Tree on my lunch break and saw some stealing going on. It wasn't shoplifting, per se, but it was definitely stealing. The man in front of me in line had an armful of random things: mustard, a plastic army hat, cards, a couple of toy swords, candy... just stuff. He also had a young boy with him, probably about 5 or 7 years old. When he got to the cashier, she seemed to know him (and especially the boy) and mumbled to the man something like "fifteen." The man got what looked to be three wadded five dollar bills out of his pocket and then put them on the counter. After she bagged his items, none of which were scanned or rung up on the register, she told me that she was ready to ring me up. The man left.
Interestingly, this has happened to me. A few years ago at my local Dollar Tree, I went in to get a few things and when the cashier "rang me up," he simply bagged my items, told me the total (somewhere around $3.28), I gave him cash, he gave me change and I left. I realized that he didn't ring up my items, but it wasn't until I got out the door that it dawned on me that he was stealing from the store. If he didn't ring up my items but still only charged me what I would have paid if he had, his register would ultimately show an overage at the end of the night and he would pocket the extra. Obviously this would only work if the customer was paying cash.
Now that I think about this, I seem to recall that this sort of scam got a couple of people fired from the Chick-fil-A that I worked at in high school.
Anyway, back to today... I wonder what was really going on with the cashier, the customer and the child. I didn't count the man's items, so I don't know if he had more or less than what she charged him. Since it appeared that she knew the man, was she just trying to help out a poor guy with a kid without damaging his pride? Or was she just using him to make a little money for herself?
After having had someone use me to make some easy money off Dollar Tree, I decided that if they tried that trick with me again I would ask for a receipt so that they would have to ring me up on the register. But I really don't know what to make of what happened today or what, if anything, I should do about it.
8:14 PM -
Posted by Shelly -
So it's a week late, but Nathan's big birthday present was a trip to Birmingham to go to the Rick & Bubba radio show. This morning was the show and it was a lot of fun! We made R&B some ham and cheese rolls (which I hoped they liked) and just got to sit back and watch them do their morning show. During the commercial breaks Bubba threw a tennis ball up against the windows (literally at every commercial break... all 12 that we were there for) and Rick gave us a drum solo on the kit. He specifically played a Latin beat for me for some unknown reason (he said, "Mom, I know you like the Latin stuff" or something like that). After the show, we got a nice picture made with them.
After Rick & Bubba, we went to Vulcan Park, which I may or may not have been to as a child. We got some great pictures and I found out that my parents and/or grandparents lied to me about Vulcan's butt. I was told that there was controversy about his butt being exposed and that it was covered up eventually with some metal shorts or something. When I asked about this today at the museum, I was told that there was indeed controversy, but that his butt was not covered up, rather he was turned 17 degrees so as not to be mooning Homewood. Please do enjoy my picture of Vulcan's butt.
After Vulcan, I finally learned where Five Points is, as we went to a health food store there to buy incense and snacks. After that, we drove quickly by the place where my grandparents used to live (we drove quickly because it is now a very scary-looking place) and then stopped by the cemetery to see theirs and my uncle's graves.
Finally, we headed back home. However, we did stop in Cullman at Denny's to eat. Since we are deprived of any Denny's in the Middle Tennessee Area, this was a special treat. The food was excellent, but the service was bad. We were there for nearly an hour, and most of it was waiting on our waitress to come by so we could ask for our check and a to-go box. But, again, the food was fantastic!!
If this sounds a bit like "What I Did On My Summer Vacation," it's because I am just exhausted! Not only did we pack a lot into a short time, we slept terribly last night at the hotel. But I never sleep well in a strange bed, anyway. Still we had a great time!!
5:33 PM -
Posted by Shelly -
Today is September 11. Everyone knows what happened today and what they were doing when it happened. I remember being at work that morning and hearing what was going on in New York. I also remember that I had to leave work early that day because we were having a new hot water heater installed in our house that afternoon.
Not that it's not a sad day or anything, but it's not that big a deal for me. Mainly because I associate it so much with what happened the following week. On Sept. 18, 2001 our house caught fire and we lost nearly everything, including five of our cats.
The thing is, when you hear about Sept. 11, you hear so much about how people came together and how much help there was out there for people in need. But the next week, we didn't experience much of that. I can't say that some people weren't sympathetic; I can't say that some people didn't go the extra mile for us. There were plenty of people who did. But there were plenty of people who didn't.
Yeah, I suppose I am bitter about it still. And I really didn't realize that I was until now. I don't know many people who have been through what we had, so I guess it's hard for people to really understand what it's like to lose your beloved pets, whose poor dead bodies were treated like trash by the authorities. It's hard for people to know what it's like to go to K-mart at night to buy clothes because all you have is what you wore to work that day. It's hard for people to know what it's like to be told that your possessions are irrecoverable not because they are damaged, but because the cleaning crew is stealing from you. Those are the memories that I associate with September 2001.
Of course, I can't forget that there were very, very kind people who were quite generous to us. The pet cremation company who treated our cats like the children they were to us (and, funnily enough, the company gave us a "bulk" discount because we had so many to be cremated). There was the church group who donated sheets and bedding for us once we had an apartment and some furniture. And there were the people who gave us money to help us until the insurance kicked in. Those were the real lifesavers, especially in those first few days when we really had nothing.
So, I am sad for the people that died in the terrorist attacks eight years ago. I am sad for how divided our country is after a brief time of being united. But mostly, when people talk about today, I relive the time just after Sept. 11, when we lost so much ourselves.
2:59 PM -
Posted by Shelly -
This past weekend, Nathan and I went to hear two midwives, Ina May Gaskin and Umsalaama Abdullah, speak at an event called "Labor (of Love) Day."
If you aren't familiar with Ina May Gaskin, she is the founder of The Farm Midwifery Center in Summertown, TN. She has written a few of books, one of which I have read, Ina May's Guide to Childbirth, and one that Nathan is reading called Spiritual Midwifery.
As we plan on a natural childbirth, these books have been not only helpful, but very encouraging. I am excited to see how our birth turns out in light of all that we have learned recently about natural childbirth.
Below are some pictures I took at the event.
Oh, and I really wanted to title this entry "My Vagina Birth" due to a comment an audience member made, but I thought it would be too much for the faint of heart. ;)
4:02 PM -
Posted by Shelly -
So I have not blogged in nearly two months. Yes, yes, I know I am a slacker, but I have an excuse! I am pregnant, busy and forgetful. Pretty much everyone who could possibly read this blog already knows that we have a young'un on the way, and that she is a girl. Still, I have to put her cute little picture up:
That's my daughter! Which is just weird to say "my daughter." So, I will try to keep the blog better posted on the Rogers comings and goings.
5:05 PM -
Posted by Shelly -
I have to put my two cents with the whole "Jon & Kate Plus 8" thing, especially since I wouldn't be surprised if Nathan is sick to death of hearing me going on and on about it. You know, we see it everywhere; on the magazines at the store, on the clip shows on TV (which, on a side note, if you don't watch The Soup on E!, you are missing a heckuva good time!!). The Gosselins are just plain everywhere.
Of course, last night was another two new episodes. I had them set to tape but only got to see commercials for them as yet (The Golden Girls was on and I didn't want to change the channel!). In the commercial for the "Kate's Birthday" episode, one of the sextuplets (a boy) yells loudly, "Happy Birthday Mom!" and a second later another sextuplet (a girl) screams a "Happy Birthday, Mom!" even louder, to the point that it was not a scream, but rather a screech. The next part of the commercial showed Kate and the kids at the Ace of Cakes (from Food Network) store and Kate was jokingly snapping at Duff, the guy who runs Ace of Cakes. Both segments stood out to me, although at the time I didn't put much more thought into them other than rolling my eyes at Kate being a bitch, again.
Currently I am reading a book called Captivating. It is what most people would call a "self-help" book or possibly "Christian inspirational." Either way, the point of this book is to kind of break down and analyze what makes a woman who she is and how to get past hurts in her life. In the chapter I have read most recently, the point was made that while a girl's father tells her (by his words and actions) what a woman's value is, it is a girl's mother who teaches her (also by her words and actions) how to be a woman. The mother is the example of femininity and shows her daughter how a woman acts and what the essence of a woman is.
Now obviously, many mothers do not teach true femininity, but rather a concept that was developed by their own experiences and their own mother's teachings. So we have a lot of women in the world who have no idea how to truly be a woman nor how to act like a woman.
How does all this tie into Jon & Kate? Well, I didn't realize it at the time I saw the commercial last night, but that segment was an excellent example of how our children, and specifically in this case our daughters, are who we mold them to be (unwittingly or not). I have watched enough Jon & Kate to realize that Kate often raises her voice when she wants attention focused on her. Obviously when she needs to be heard over a bunch of screaming kids, she must raise her voice, but when she wants Jon to pay attention to her, she raises her voice to him as well. When she wanted Duff at Ace of Cakes to pay attention to her, she raised her voice, even jokingly, to him. This not only shows her children that in order to be heard, you must be loud, but it also diminishes other people's, specifically men, roles in the world. In order for people to pay attention to you, you have to be louder than everyone else. It doesn't matter who the other person is that you have to be louder than, it just matters that you are louder.
Earlier in the commercial, when Kate's daughter yelled "Happy Birthday!" louder than the son that had yelled it first, it occurred to me that Kate may already be setting this standard without realizing it. The son's "Happy Birthday!" contribution was diminished by the daughter's louder scream. It wasn't an echo of the son's love for his mother, it was a trump. Is that how a woman is supposed to act? Is this what Kate is teaching her daughter? To be a woman is to be the loudest so that people will pay attention to you when you want it?
I am sure it could be argued that this is how kids are, and I am sure that there is a "multiple child" dynamic that is factoring into the children's behavior. Still, I can't help but speculate, and take mental notes, on what effect Kate's neuroses are having on her children. I have already seen Mady and Cara take on more responsibility since Jon's absence to help Kate out with the younger kids. Is this an unhealthy extension of Kate's controlling nature?
Who knows. I am not a psychologist and I sure ain't qualified to analyze anybody but myself. Still, it does help me to see these things happen if only to give me guidance as to the kind of parent I want to be to my children.
4:13 PM -
Posted by Shelly -
So I was updating my Facebook status with a realization I had about Sawyer and then I got to thinking that I might was well go ahead and blog my other thoughts on Season 5.
First, I have to say that again, Nathan has pretty much called it. I love that he has been pretty accurate in his ideas about the show, not only because they are interesting anyway, but because he isn't the type to rub anyone's face in it. You know the type of person who says, "Oh, it's sooo obvious what they are doing. I know exactly what's going to happen!" Nathan hasn't been like that at all.
Early on in the series, I believe between seasons two and three, we decided to watch all the episodes from the beginning of the series and make notes of things we thought were interesting and/or record our theories. Back during the re-watching of "Exodus, Part II" Nathan came up with what we called the "Jacob and Esau" theory, which goes basically like this:
- JACOB & ESAU THEORY: There are two forces at work on the island. One, Jacob, is the rightful heir of the island, but is impotent for whatever reason. Esau is currently running the island, which is not his birthright, even though he thinks that it is. The Others may or may not be following Jacob, or they may be controlled by Esau.
- Locke’s destiny is not good, as we have been led to believe. He has unwittingly been following the course laid out for him by the “bad” (Esau) part of the island. He says it’s his destiny to open the hatch, but Walt sees that it is plainly bad. Walt also seems to be unwanted by the Others once they have him. I would tend to believe that he is being led by the “good” side. Either way, Locke and Walt are on opposite sides.
Now, we now know that there are indeed two entities that occupy the island and that there is an animosity, if not outright hostility between the two (I'll call them Jacob and Esau for the sake of clarity here). More recently, Nathan also questioned whether the "Egyptians" (the Others/Richard Alpert/Leader of the Others) were enslaving "Jacob's people" (the regular Others/the island natives) once again as they did during Moses' time.
After watching last night's episode, I am beginning to think that Locke has not been led or talked to by Jacob at all this whole time. I think that rather than Jacob being confined or imprisoned by Esau, it has been Esau impersonating Jacob to manipulate situations/people into the scenario he wanted so that he could finally kill Jacob. I have felt like there was an awful lot of supernatural conflict within Locke (and even conflicting info coming from others, especially Walt). I questioned this way back during "Exodus." So again, I wonder if Walt and Locke are on opposing sides without realizing it.
Also, I have been reading over my notes from the second and third season. This was when the Swan and the Others figured pretty prominently in the story. In reviewing the Others' actions those seasons, they don't appear to be "good" people. There is a distinct lack of compassion and benevolence in the group. It is mostly a selfish, self-serving, manipulative and violent group. The actions that Jacob showed in the season five finale did not jibe with being the leader (or head) of those kind of people. So I go back again to thinking that Esau is the one that everyone has been calling Jacob this whole time but isn't really Jacob.
I think, though, all in all, it was a satisfying season. Pierre Chang's acting has greatly improved and it appears that some of the other actors have grown more into their characters as the season has gone on. I am especially pleased with the woman who plays Eloise (not Fionnula Flanagan). She is excellent thus far. And I should also give kudos to the casting department because it seems like they actually try to get people who look alike (and can act well) to play related characters. I thought that the young Kate and Tom Brennan were very close in appearance to their adult counterparts and the same goes for teenage Ellie, adult Eloise and senior Mrs. Hawking. Those three women bear a good enough resemblance to each other for me to forget that it is three different people playing the same person.
Here are my bullet points for "The Incident, Parts I & II."
- Jacob always touches the Lostie that he comes in contact with.
- Jacob also, seemingly, encourages people in their sin. He didn’t really reprimand Kate for stealing, he gave Sawyer a pen to write his revenge note, and he prevented Sayid from being killed, but let Nadia get hit, which just encouraged Sayid’s revenge complex.
- Sawyer did not cry when he thought that Kate was dead (Because You Left), but when he thinks that Juliet is dead by being pulled into the electromagnetic pocket, he weeps terribly. Does he have a deeper and more true a love/relationship with Juliet than just the passion he had with Kate?
4:26 PM -
Posted by Shelly -
Well, Nathan called it. He called it all. From "oh, that's just Faraday and Miles at the door" to "Charles Widmore is his father," Nathan called all the surprises in last night's episode.
All in all, I was pleased with this episode. I am glad to have some back story on Daniel Faraday, and he has more depth as a character to me. Starting from the beginning, it seems as though there is a distinct lack of freedom in the Lost universe. I know that there is this whole fate vs. free will thing going on anyway, but to me, fate doesn’t rob you of your freedom. Destiny and fate things that will happen no matter what you do, whether you know about them or not. Telling someone that they have a purpose and then forcing them to live out that purpose is bondage, not freedom.
For example, if the guy wearing the red shoes was going to die, no matter what he or anyone else did to prevent it, it seems like acceptance and living his life the way he wanted would be acceptable to both the ideas of fate and free will.
So, it seems to me that forcing someone into their “destiny” defeats the purpose of destiny. Forcing the inevitable doesn’t make it an inevitable situation; it makes it a fact before the fact.
And that’s just the piano scene at the beginning!
My friend Lu basically said that Daniel had crappy parents and I agree. Eloise Hawking pushed Daniel into the life that she wanted him to have (or said he was supposed to have) without really having his welfare at heart. Their relationship can somewhat be compared to that of Jesus and God (bear with me a moment). Jesus had a destiny that was his purpose to fulfill. He knew that and accepted that. However, he was not told by God that he needed to live his whole life focused on dying for our sins and that he couldn’t have any friends and couldn’t have a life. Jesus was able to hang out with his friends and go to weddings and have good times. He didn’t have a cross sitting in front of his face all the time reminding him of his destiny and he didn’t have to hide his life from his Father because God would disapprove.
Daniel’s mother did not treat him the same way. As it is implied that Daniel’s destiny is imperative to the whole world, Mrs. Hawking pushed him and pushed him to that destiny at the cost of his own physical and mental health. And, uhem… I think Jesus’ destiny was a bit more imperative to the world and you don’t see God telling Jesus that he won’t be proud of him until he does exactly what God tells him to do. Anyway, Mrs. Hawking was selfish, no matter how much of the fate of the world she had in mind.
AND… let me point out another philosophy that applies: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” (or the one [tear]). Once again, there was free will and a choice in Spock’s decision to save the Enterprise. The needs of the many did outweigh Spock’s need, and it may have been his destiny to save everyone, but he still could have said no. Mrs. Hawking never seemed to give Daniel the chance to say no, nor did she instill in him at a young age his ability to do so.
But I digress…
Now, let me vent a few of my frustrations with this episode. First, I am again disappointed in the production values and continuity. It was clear in “Confirmed Dead” last season when Daniel was introduced that his hair was shorter, and wet, if not gelled back a little. While they used the same scene from “Confirmed Dead” to open the 2004 portion of his story, his hair went from short and sweaty to a little longer and wispy. Call it nit-picking on my part, but I call it lazy on production’s part. I mean Lost is better than that! And are they going to explain (on the show) why Ben said Charlotte was born in 1979, but she is clearly older than that since she’s showing up as a child in 1977?
I don’t know if I said it before, but I’ll say it now, I feel like now that the show has an end date, things are being rushed and the quality is lower than in the past.
Overall, though, it was a great episode. I would ask you to voice your thoughts, but you never do… so :p on you!!
“The Variable” bullet points:
- Did Daniel really put Theresa Spencer in a coma? How does he remember it if his memory is messed up? Did someone else do it and blame Daniel?
- Is Charles Widmore telling the truth when he says that he faked the plane wreckage?
- Does Mrs. Hawking “remember” in the future that she shot and killed Daniel in 1977?
- Are Charles Widmore and Eloise Hawking really Daniel’s biological parents or were they charge with raising him like Kate was with Aaron?
- Why doesn’t Daniel have a British accent?
2:24 PM -
Posted by Shelly -
I didn't get to post my thoughts on "Dead is Dead" on Wednesday because of my very busy work week and the fact that our DVR didn't tape the last three minutes of Lost. We about died until we got to watch it the next day.
Overall, I thought it was a good episode. Almost great, but just a tad shy. I thought the story was slightly weak, especially for a Ben-centric episode. And, I am getting frustrated with the ham-fisted delivery on "important" lines, such as when Ben told young Ethan to be quiet. I understand that we as the audience need to know that the kid was Ethan, but the delivery was so obvious and unnatural. Michael Emerson has done better in delivering these type of lines in the past, and I thought he could have done better this time.
This type of thing has been a problem all season. I have felt like either the acting or the directing has lost some quality. I wonder if, now that there is an end date, the story is actually being rushed to reach that finish line. Even if that is not the case, I do feel like the acting has become sub-par this year.
Getting back to the story, I do appreciate that the writers are very able to answer a question/solve a mystery with very few lines. For example, when Ben took Alex from Danielle, he told her to run away should she ever hear whispers in the jungle, or else Alex would die. That explains so much of Rousseau's desire to stay away from the Others, for her lack of interaction with them and her experience with the whispers. I am very satisfied with how the writers are explaining these type of things.
I was also very pleased with the info we got on Smokey, the smoke monster. Nathan pointed out the similarities between Ben's confrontation/judgement versus Mr. Eko's and the resulting death of Mr. Eko for not repenting. I have been upset with Smokey's judgement on Mr. Eko since it happened just because I understand and sympathize with Mr. Eko. I can understand his lack of repentance because he essentially sacrificed his entire life for his brother, Yemi, so that Yemi wouldn't have to become what Mr. Eko did. Still, I was glad and saddened to see the pain Ben felt when reviewing his life with Alex.
When I finally got to watch the confrontation between Ben and "Alex," wow, that was just out of nowhere. Yay! Someone/something finally called Ben out, threw his selfish acts in his face and told him to straighten up, fly right, or die. End of story. That was definitely one of the best endings I have seen in a while.
Here are my other bullet points from "Dead is Dead."
- The door/passageway to summon Smokey was part of Ben's house. DHARMA built those houses, so what, if anything, did DHARMA know about that passageway or about Smokey?
- Why does Ben not remember Jack, Kate, Hurley, et. al. from the DHARMA Imitative? Or is he lying?
9:54 PM -
Posted by Shelly -
I asked Nathan if he had any thoughts to share with the blog, and his response was, "Other than I was totally f-ing right and everyone else can suck it, no." So let's start there.
Granted, we don't know for sure if Ben does die, but we do know that Richard Alpert does alter Ben in some way. Ben will "lose his innocence" and become changed. I suspect that this same type of change happened to Rousseau's people as well. It appears that Richard took Ben to the same place (the Temple?) that the French team descended after Montand lost his arm to Smokey. Using my mad geometry skills (thank you for Proofs, God) and logic, we can deduce that going into the Temple changes those who enter. It appears that next week is a Ben-centric episode and I am excited to see which pieces of the puzzle they give us in Ben's story.
I also find it sad that Roger appeared to have a change of heart about Ben, but after being taken to Richard, there doesn't seem to be much hope of that relationship being reconciled. However, I love that Roger's character is being given more depth.
And, I hate to admit it, but I liked this Kate-centric story. I am heartened to find that she (apparently) didn't come back to the island for Sawyer, but for Aaron. Damn me for possibly starting to like Kate!
It never ceases to amaze me how much you can tie Lost into emotional health/unhealth. Nathan and I had an interesting conversation about DHARMA Initiative Jack and his now "healthier" attitude. He doesn't seem to want to fix everything anymore to prove his worth and value. And, as the wise sage Gidget has said in the past, once an formerly unhealthy person starts acting healthy, the unhealthy around them don't like it. Kate, Juliet, etc. don't like Jack's new attitude of "I'm just going to do what I am supposed to do and I am not responsible for everyone else." I may like this new Jack.
Finally, I love that the writers are asking/answering our time travel questions and using references to Back to the Future. As a sucker for a good time travel story, I am eating this mess up with a spoon. Thank you Hurley!!
Here are my bullet points for "Whatever Happened, Happened." If you're reading this, feel free to comment!
- Who is really responsible for Evil Ben? Sayid for killing him? Juliet for suggesting he go to the Others? Kate and Sawyer for taking him there? Richard for accepting him and taking him to the Temple?
- How do Charles Widmore and Eloise Hawking factor into the hierarchy of the Others?
12:21 PM -
Posted by Shelly -
First, I would say that in the grander scheme of the story, this was not a throwaway episode. It seemed to set up some conflict between the Losties and the DHARMA Initiative (DI) folks. It also asked the question, "Why were they supposed to come back if it will only cause trouble?"
That being said, I found this to be a weak, if not irritating, episode. There have been few Sayid-centric episodes that have really added depth to his character and it just seems like we keep getting told "Sayid's capable of killing but has a heart of gold!" just as often as we're told "Jack's old man was an ass and therefore Jack has Daddy issues!”
I also was very disappointed in William Sanderson’s performance as Oldham. I have seen Sanderson in other roles, not the least of which was Larry of the infamous “Larry, Darryl and Darryl,” and I have considered him to be an adequate, if not good, actor. However, I felt like he was wooden and poorly spoken throughout his scene. I wasn’t convinced of anything other than the director grabbed some guy off the street and said “Read these lines!” and that’s what happened.
I decided long ago (actually, just after I saw “The Long Con”) that when these types of episodes happened, I would just trust the creators and hope for a better episode the next week. So that’s what I am going to do!
Other interesting thoughts from He’s Our You:
- Sayid “created” evil Ben in killing him as a child. The Others took Ben’s body and was “resurrected.” But this resurrected Ben was changed. If Sayid hadn’t killed young Ben, Ben wouldn’t have grown up to be the way he was. (This is Nathan’s big theory and I like it!)
- Interesting note: both Sayid and Mr. Eko killed someone/something for another person to spare them the trauma (possibly both were brothers?).
12:00 PM -
Posted by Shelly -
Again, I am sharing my thoughts on Lost. Last night's episode was called "Namaste." I had, unfortunately, seen a picture of Kate and Jack with the 70s clothes and shell necklace a few weeks ago, and knew that they, if not all the Oceanic 6, were going to end up involved with the DHARMA Initiative (DI). But I didn't know that Sawyer, Juliet, et. al. would be there first.
Lu commented this morning that she loves the "new" Sawyer (Jim, I suppose we should call him, although that will never stick). I heartily agree. He is able to use his lawless background to keep him and his friends alive, safe and happy. I mean, have you seen any of the Losties as happy at any point as these guys are in the DI? Sawyer's settled, Juliet's content, Jin's speaking English, and Miles is... well, whatever... he looks happy.
That being said, I find it very interesting how unhappy the Losties become when they are reunited. It seems everyone has gotten what they wanted... Jack wanted to come back to the island, Kate (we assume) wanted to be with Sawyer, and Sawyer wanted to be with Kate. Score! Everyone should be happy, right? Wrong... so very wrong. I love when there is some sort of life lesson in pop culture, and this just screams LIFE LESSON! Getting what you want isn't necessarily going to make you happy. And, what's best for you isn't necessarily what you want. (Just FYI, this lesson is really, really screaming at me with this episode).
It appears that Jack expected to come back to the island and be the leader again. Wrong! Kate expected to pick right back up where she left off with Sawyer. Wrong! And, I have to ask, what do you do when you have had one love, lost it, gained another, and then the first comes back around? Because that's going on left and right at Camp Otherton. I have thought about it, and I really don't know what I would do. It would really depend on if Nathan was Sawyer or Jack to my Kate. Or Jack or Sawyer to my Juliet. Raise your hand if you haven't slept with two of these four people... anyone? Anyone?
Moving past the JJSK love quad (what a great name for a band or a restaurant), I was sad that Hurley didn't have a bigger role in this episode, aside from Sawyer hug at the beginning and his "Whoa-what?" line during the picture. I hope that he really fits in the DI and thrives. And what happened to Daniel? We know that at some point he has helped/will help construct the Orchid, but where is he now?
And finally, I am about over Ben and I am so glad that Sun clocked him one in the head. I know, I know, I speak blasphemy, but poor Ben hasn't had any real depth since "The Man Behind the Curtain." I am hoping that the three-episode story arc that includes young Ben really redeems that with me.
So, below are the little notes/theories I had about "Namaste." Hope you enjoy, or they provoke thought, or that they make sense. Feel free to leave comments!
NAMASTE
- Why was Radzinsky running the Flame? Do DHARMA people change stations/jobs?
- Radzinsky either just happened to be in the Swan at the purge and was forced to stay there or be killed by the Hostiles; or, he made a deal with the Hostiles that he and someone else would have to stay and push the button (because if someone didn’t, it would be disastrous). Part of the deal was that Radzinsky and/or his partner couldn’t leave the Swan or interfere with the Hostiles.
- Radzinsky wore the protective suit outside the Swan for a period of time due to paranoia, but Kelvin discovered at some point that there was no need to wear the suit, and only did so first for Radzinsky’s sake, then to keep Desmond confined to the Swan by believing that he would
die outside without the suit.
- Is the baby really Ethan? That’s a 12 year age gap between actor and character.
12:00 PM -
Posted by Shelly -
pop·u·lar adj. - regarded with great favor, approval, or affection especially by the general public.
I have been left out of a group at work recently. When I realized that I was left out, I thought to myself, 'Here I am once again, not part of the popular crowd.'
Of my 12 years in school, I only spent one year as part of the popular clique... the cool kids. That was 1986, and I held on to my popularity as tightly as I could. The following year, my stock plummeted and I was virtually friendless. So from then on, I was desperate to be popular again, though it was always elusive.
Flash forward to the present. I am sitting at my desk wondering why some people avoid talking to me; why I am not asked for my opinion; why are they going to lunch without me. Why am I still not popular?
Then it occurred to me... why do I assume that any group that I am not a part of, but want to be a part of is THE popular group? Who determined that? Apparently I determined that some time ago. Granted, people generally want to be included, but do I really see myself as less popular because I am not in a particular group? I would conclude that I was less popular if no one talked to me, but that's not the case. There are people at work with whom I enjoy chatting very much, and it seems they enjoy chatting with me, as they don't run the other direction when they see me coming. So really, who's popular here? Does it really matter?
This also got me to thinking about my high school friends. I didn't view myself as part of the popular crowd in high school, but again... who determined that we weren't? I don't arbitrarily hang out with people. I have standards... I mean, I have to enjoy a person's company. Humor, sincerity, loyalty, compassion... those are the types of people I want to be around. Those are the people I regard with great favor. So how can they not be popular? They were popular with someone. They were popular with me. So, logically, I would be popular to the people that want to be around me.
So it turns out, I am popular! Ha!
11:45 AM -
Posted by Shelly -
For a couple of years now, Nathan and I have been keeping notes on Lost as we have watched and re-watched episodes. We're up to 15 pages of notes as of last night's episode entitled "LaFleur."
So I figured rather than let them go to waste in my computer, I would share them on the blog. Now, keep in mind that these are just notes and crazy theories that we have come up with, so please don't take them as Lost gospel. Please do enjoy...
LAFLEUR
· The Others are the ones that can’t get pregnant/have children. They can’t procreate and have to resurrect recently deceased people to keep their population. When a person has been resurrected by the Others, they are “changed” and not exactly the person they were before. Rousseau’s people were killed by Smokey and the Others resurrected them. They weren’t the same, and that’s why Danielle said they were “different” and sick. That’s why she had to kill them.
· The Others’ women are the ones who have been dying during pregnancy. Anyone who is not an other who has gotten pregnant on the island has given birth and had a healthy baby. The Purge may seem like the trigger to the pregnancy issue, but really, the people who were able to give birth were all dead at that point.
· The “Truce” stipulates that the Others’ bodies who have been killed must be buried. And the body of a DHARMA person must be taken back to the DHARMA compound, or that person becomes an Other (see resurrection theory above).
5:25 PM -
Posted by Shelly -
I finally finished watching the Oscars over the weekend. I would say that all in all, it was a pretty good show. I think that Hugh Jackman was a great host and I think he has the sense of humor to really make the show funny.
I also loved the five previous winners coming out to present for the major awards. Yes, it probably made the show a bit longer, but I thought it was a good way to acknowledge people that have won in the past but may have been forgotten (Eva Marie Saint, anyone?).
Now the musical number in the middle of the show? I could have done without that. It was too much, and I was really put off by the High School Musical people performing in it.
I do wish that they would shorten the show overall, but I don't think that's ever going to happen.
8:18 PM -
Posted by Shelly -
I was changing my Facebook status a bunch to reflect my thoughts on the Oscars and the Red Carpet, and then I decided to blog my thoughts:
7:38 pm - Watching the red carpet. So far, the dresses are beautiful. And I'm loving Tim Gunn!
7:50 pm - Bury me in Valentino; the EW interviewer sucks; Meryl's dress... eh.
8:13 pm - HUGH JACKMAN ROCKS! He is Wolverine!
8:20 pm - I love Whoopi's dress.
8:25 pm - Surprised by the Penelope Cruz win. I was really expecting Viola Davis to win.
8:30 pm - Not surprised, but disappointed, at Milk's Original Screenplay win. I am partial to In Bruges.
8:35 pm - Do I need to go see Slumdog Millionaire? It's going to win everything (just won Adapted Screenplay); is it that good?
8:36 pm - I LOVE how they put Jennifer Anniston's presentation waaaaayyyy away from Brangelina. HA!
8:50 pm - Animation section boring. Dad sends Facebook friend request so diverting attention to Facebook for a bit.
8:54 pm - Why am I not fast forwarding through the awards I don't care about?
8:55 pm - Robert Pattinson is HATING doing whatever presentation he's doing. Poor guy.
9:00 pm - Further proof that Joaquin Phoenix is faking it: Ben Stiller's presentation of the Cinematography Award.
9:00 pm - Another Slumdog win. I think I will avoid this movie.
9:10 pm - I'll say it again, HUGH JACKMAN ROCKS!
9:12 pm - High School Musical people do not rock. They should not perform at the Oscars.
9:19 pm - Christopher Walken looks bad.
9:20 pm - Heath Ledger will get this award. If not, there will be a massive outcry.
9:21 pm - Told you so. Me and Sean Penn are both crying.
9:25 pm - Bill Mahr is a cocky, arrogant bastard. I'm just sayin'.
9:27 pm - The DVR has caught up to live TV. Bummer. Nathan says I have to watch TV like the poor people now.
9:33 pm - I wonder if there really is just an hour left or if it's going to go over. I don't think I want to stay up that late.
9:44 pm - Phillip Seymour Hoffman looks really good in a black beret. Nothing interesting in going on otherwise. Sean Penn looks like he's crying every time they show him.
10:10 pm - Thought that Waltz with Bashir would win Foregin Language. I am so bored with the Oscars right now. I may go on to bed.
10:42 pm - Haven't watched for 30 minutes. Nathan told me that Kate Winslet won, which I am excited about that. But still, I am going to bed.
11:22 AM -
Posted by Shelly -
I know I haven't posted in a while, but it's been a very, very busy few weeks. Let me catch you up...
First, my dad called me at work a couple of weeks ago saying that he was on his way to the emergency room with chest pains. Following tests and an arteriogram, it was determined that he would need triple bypass surgery. Spam and I, along with other family members, spent a lot of time at the hospital with him. He made it through well and is doing great. He's back home and recovering nicely.
But, while Deddy was in the hospital, I developed vertigo. After seeing a couple of doctors, I was given special exercises to do to make it go away. The exercises have helped, but it was nearly a week before I was able to drive again.
So, I have been spending the last few days playing catch-up, both at home and at work.
It's been a rough few weeks but the patients are all on the road to recovery.
4:13 PM -
Posted by Shelly -
After we ran around The Villages like a bunch of 60-year-olds without a care in the world, we finally did some Christmasy activities.
Nathan's grandparents, whom we affectionately call Memie and Pal, came over for presents and visiting. We all had a good time opening our gifts, with cakes and gift cards and golfing items and rocks the size of your eye being exchanged.
Elaine prepared a wonderful dinner with ham, peas, potatoes, green beans, sweet potatoes and dessert. It was quite yummy and, if you can believe it, I actually ate the peas and green beans. Most of you know what a finicky eater I am and I haven't touched a pea in 25 years. But Elaine's pea dish was really good and I need to get the recipe from her.
Paul and Elaine's friends from across the street, Ed and Addie, came over to eat with us. These two are a hoot to be around and enhanced an already fun group. So we all had a good meal and then, in the true spirit of the season, watched The Nativity. I hadn't seen it before, but you know if I am crying at the end, that means I hated it so much and am sad that I will never get those two hours of my life back OR I loved it and was very moved. It was the latter. Great, great movie and I would recommend it any time of the year, not just the holidays.
Of course, there was more food to be had on Christmas Day. Elaine made a wonderful breakfast and I ate so much! Ed and Addie and Memie and Pal came over to eat with us and we had a lively conversation about Ed's disdain for grits.
We relaxed for a few hours (everyone was so full that we skipped lunch) and then went to Ed and Addie's for dinner. Ed made a rib roast and Addie made a strawberry shortcake-type dessert. Again, the food was wonderful!
After dinner, Paul and Elaine took us around The Villages to look at Christmas lights. There were a lot of homes that had lights except the big display that we spent a good deal of time looking for wasn't turned on. Lots of Christmas lights without electricity just looks cluttered and messy.
We left for home the day after Christmas, but that will be my next post. However, I want to make it clear that I place all the blame for the four extra pounds I came home with squarely on Elaine, Ed and Addie!
5:06 PM -
Posted by Shelly -
We made it to Nathan's parent's house in the evening and had dinner at CiCi's Pizza. Nathan's parents live about an hour north of Orlando in a retirement community called The Villages.
Now, if you don't know about The Villages, let me tell you all about it! When I say "retirement community," don't get the idea that this is where old people go to get away from noisy kids so that they can die in peace. This is a place where old people go to get away from noisy kids so that they can have an ass-kicking good time! The first time I visited Paul and Elaine in The Villages and after seeing the place, I couldn't wait to retire and live there myself.
The Villages covers about the same area as Manhattan and has about 10,000 residents, so it's not a sleepy little old folk’s neighborhood. They have golf courses and pools and social clubs and two "town squares," Spanish Springs and Lake Sumter Landing. There are plenty of specialty shops, chain stores and restaurants in the town squares so you can just park your car and walk around for a while.
One thing I noticed the first time we stayed with Paul & Elaine at The Villages was the use of golf carts as the main mode of transportation. It makes sense; a large chunk of the residents are golfers and with a gated community, it's safe (and cheaper) to get from place to place on a golf cart.
Everywhere you go, including the town squares and even the grocery stores on the outskirts of town, there are golf carts and golf cart parking. Below is a picture at Lake Sumter Landing and the entire parking row filled with nothing but golf carts.
The thing is, there are a lot of not-so-ordinary golf carts out there. Many of these people take their carts seriously. They soup them up, pimp them out and create some sweet rides. They put their names on the front of their carts; have Christmas lights on their carts; whatever they please. It's great!
Now that I think about it, maybe next time Nathan and I are down there, we'll take some decals with us to pimp out my father-in-law's cart. But we'll have to put some serious thought into what he would want... somehow I can't see him riding around with "Paul's Bitchin' Camaro" written across the back bumper of his cart.
Stay tuned for the next installment of "Four Rogers in a Chrysler at Christmas" because I haven't yet told you about the wonderful food, the fabulous company and the beautiful lights.
Posts
