bessiemae

[bessiemae]

So, I reread Jane Eyre recently. Haven't read it in awhile, but since I got through the terrible Wuthering Heights, I decided to go back to an old favorite to see if I still liked it. The answer is yes.

Unpopular (or certainly minority) opinion, but I actually enjoy Jane's time with the River's more than the time she spends in Thornfield with Mr. Rochester, even though that's seen as what the book is about. I mean, I don't like St. John. But, Mary and Diana were wonderful people. Reading about Jane taking German lessons and then turning around and giving drawing lessons and enjoying both and all three of them being cozy together sounds so, well, cozy. And, as someone who works with people who think the phrase "comfortable silence" is an oxymoron, Jane's time as a school teacher also sounds heavenly. The students like her as well as the parents and she gets invited to dinner sometimes and she's well liked in town and people are friendly. But, she gets to go home alone to her little cottage It's just the right amount of socializing without it becoming overwhelming.

I've already read both of Anne Bronte's novels. Didn't care for Agnes Grey (it's better than Wuthering Heights, but that's not hard) but loved The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. I plan one day to read Charlotte's other novels.

[bessiemae]

So, I finally read Wuthering Heights. I tried years and years ago, and gave up because of the Yorkshire phonetic speech. But, recently, I just decided to give it a shot and was glad to find out that most of the book is not written like that. I still had to skip most of it, but I don't think I missed anything that would significantly change the story. Anyway.

I don't know if this is a controversial opinion or not, but I hate Heathcliff. I can sympathize with the child, but not the man. Heck, I don't think it would be strictly right, but certainly understandable if he had focused all his tormenting on Hindley. But, to torment the children of people you feel wronged you? Even after the parents are no longer around to feel anything about it? No. He just seemed so over the top. And the great love he had for Cathy? I read people say that yes, he was a monster but his love was so passionate and wouldn't it be nice to have someone love so much? Um, no. That's not love. That's not passion. That's psychotic. (I know we're not supposed to use terms in a descriptive way, but I don't know of any other way to put it). Stay away from me with that kind of "love".

And everything just seemed so over the top just to make people suffer.

I could say more about other characters, but honestly, I'm just so overwhelmed by the vileness of Heathcliff. I would say the story moved quickly once I got past the funetik accent. So it wasn't throw it across the room horrible. But, I've read books from every Bronte sister now, and this is certainly my least favorite.

[bessiemae]

Long rant about Black media and the lack of positive stories and also about people's attitudes towards that.

So, I periodically go on the look out for cozy, comforting books about Black people. Because I like those books and I think Black people should have those just like anyone else. Inevitably, I come across someone on Reddit asking for similar books. Usually, they ask for books that aren't about pain and suffering. And, EVERY time, you get some of the same responses. First, multiple people will haul out books that are filled with pain and suffering. That are about pain and suffering. But, they are about Black people. They bring up all the classics whether they fit the request or not. Imagine if someone just said they wanted a feel good book without specifying race. If they said they wanted something without tragedy. No one would suggest something Anna Karenina and then say it's the opposite of what was asked for, but it's such a good book they had to recommend it. So, why do they do that for books about Black people? Is it to prove that they have read books by Black people? Kindred was an amazing book. I sped through it because I couldn't wait to see what happened next. I would totally recommend it. Unless someone specifically asked for a book that wasn't about Black trauma. Then, I would never recommend it.

Second, someone will say that stories need conflict. As if asking for a book without Black trauma means you don't understand how stories work. Yes, fiction does need conflict. Conflict does not equal trauma. Or, it's not the only definition. Anne of Green Gables is full of conflicts. Anne is not 100% happy through the entire book and everything doesn't go right on every page. But, it's a feel good book. She's not happy all of the time, but she's happy throughout the book. There's moments of joy sprinkled throughout the difficult moments. And while a tragedy does happen, it's not about the tragedy. You don't come away from the book thinking the primary story is about loss and pain. Conflict can be funny. Or, even a book with a serious subject can be about someone overcoming troubles and finding joy. And, again, if you ask just for a general feel good or comforting book, you will get a bunch of suggestions without someone arguing that books need conflict.

Third, people will argue that books about Black pain and suffering are realistic. And some will get sarcastic and angry that you don't want to deal with it. Except, it's not the only reality. I don't wake up every day in a cloud of misery bombarded by suffering and trauma whenever I step out of my house. People need to listen to Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's TED talk about the danger of a single story. Pain and suffering and racism is not the only story for Black people and to say that people who want one of the other stories of Black people is not wanting reality is annoying.

It's like some people feel we don't have the right to light hearted stories. That we have a duty to immerse ourselves in suffering. Look at Abbott Elementary. A really good comedy show set in a struggling, primarily Black school. It has serious subjects presented in a funny way. It's a feel good show. People started to suggest that the show should do a school shooting episode. You can find the humor in difficulty of getting school supplies. You can focus on the ways teachers make do. You can't make school shooting funny. Remember, Abbott Elementary is a comedy. And no one was hoping for some kind of dark humor twisted comedy. They wanted a hard hitting somber episode. Even though it's not the style of the show at all.

And, I'm not saying on these threads people never try to actually answer the question (although it seems like it's only a handful of stories), but the things I mention inevitably come up that don't come up when someone doesn't specify that they are focusing on Black people.

[bessiemae]

So, record snow in Louisiana starting on Tuesday. There's good and bad about it. Just speaking from my personal experience.

The Good: It was beautiful! Also, it gave me an unexpected vacation from work. Since we're not used to snow down here, when it happens, we shut down. I've been off since Monday (MLK Day) and I don't go back until tomorrow! Also, this wasn't good because of the snow, but in spite of it - we never lost power. So, while it was cold outside, it was nice and warm inside.

The bad: I didn't get to make a snowman! Oh, I went outside all bundled up and everything. And there was definitely enough snow. But, I could not manage to form it into balls. Not even tiny ones for a mini snowman. I don't know how other people around here were able to do it. And now, the snow has melted (not completely) so my chance is gone.

And, PSA for everyone. On the chance this happens again and the weather people give you a heads up days in advance - go to the store early and stock up on FOOD. Even if it's just canned food.

[bessiemae]

Random thought in my head. The word family should mean just that. It should not mean "only intended for little kids." It should mean it's safe for little kids and they will find interest in it, but also adults and older kids can enjoy it too. Families come in all ages and combinations. And while I've never had children, I will assume that parents can enjoy some time in the company of their kids.

Around the holidays, there was an event advertised as a family cookie decorating activity. I assumed that, yes, there would be a lot of kids. But, it didn't seem to be something that would be solely for kids. Adults eat cookies. And decorating is fun! Why shouldn't an adult want to participate? I found that it was mainly for kids and for adults to hang back and chat and watch the kids because they were too young to attend on their own.

Hey, if you have something going on where you intend for the primary audience/participants to be little kids, say that.

Maybe I just never grew up. Now, if I see something listed as "family friendly" and it seems interesting, I have to do research. Has it happened before? Are their photos? Do I see adults actually participating or are they merely chaperones?

[bessiemae]

When they inevitably make another Little Women movie (and I hope they do at some point, because I didn't care for the Greta Gerwig one) I think they should cast younger actresses for the part. I mean, for all of them. If I'm thinking right, Meg and Jo are in their mid 20's by the end of the book. Cast actresses who are 18-20, and they can do both the early years and the later ones. Also, an 18 year old playing Jo would look more realistic fighting with Amy. And, it would be interesting to see someone who actually looks 15 (even if she's a little older) at the start.

They would probably still have to do two actresses for Amy. I think the change from 12 to 22 is too big. (I'm guessing at her age at the end) A 16 year old would be fine for Beth. Claire Danes was the right age.

I just think that none of the movies really do a good job of showing just how young the sisters are at the beginning of the book. Yes, Meg and Jo work, but they're also kids and in some ways see themselves like that.

[bessiemae]

So more of me coming here to talk about Reddit. (Although I did actually comment on the post there) And, more Gilmore Girls stuff. But, why do people keep thinking that Rory would not have been able to work if she married Logan? For the most part I'm not discussing AYITL, because we can either see it as an alternate universe or season 7. We can't reconcile both. But, contradicting that, I will say he offered her a place to write her book. So, even with the crappy cheating and Odette and going back to work for his dad (or never leaving, because AU) he still respected Rory's writing and goals.

But, back to ignoring all that. People keep acting like the fact that Logan's mother and grandfather said that Rory wasn't suitable because she had a career meant that she had no choice but to give it up if she was married to him. And they act like Logan was perfectly willing to go along with it. That he ever said he wanted a trophy wife. Also, at the end of the series, Logan was going to be living on a completely different coast from his family. He was no longer working for his dad. I don't get the impression that the job he was going to was going to require a lot of society wives helping to schmooze clients. I'm sure if there were any parties that needed planning, the company would hire people.

[bessiemae]

Self improvement attempts

My attention span has deteriorated dreadfully. Sometimes I watch a one minute clip and I'm fast forwarding (sorry, I'm an old fogey) to the end. So, now if I watch something like a Youtube short or something on Twitter and I know I want to see the end, I am making myself sit through it. I know it's not reading for an hour, but baby steps. And, speaking of reading, I'm also making myself finish a chapter of anything before I move on to something else.

Health. I do need to lose weight. Also, while I've been very fortunate, I don't want to become pre or even just diabetic. But, carbs are my weak spots. And, I don't plan to give them up completely. So, I already try to do half rice, half cauliflower rice sometimes to cut back. But, I also plan to have one meal a day that is no carbs. And get a good amount of protein. And vegetables. I figure even without the weight consideration, I'll be getting health benefits. Plus, it's not a drastic change. Having a veggie omelet and fruit for breakfast doesn't mean I can't have pasta for lunch or dinner.

[bessiemae]

So, I've wrote a post about Gilmore Girls and Dean. Adding to it here.

So, In Rory's Dance, Dean tells Tristan that he'll "kill" him. People keep bringing this up. He's so violent! He threatened to kill Tristan! First, he said it because he was telling Tristan that he wouldn't fight him. And he was letting Tristan know that he (Tristan) wouldn't want Dean to fight him. Because if he did, he'd kill him. Second, he clearly wasn't being literal. The show is Gilmore Girls, not Breaking Bad. (Can't think of an equivalent family dramedy to make my point) Also, people do speak figuratively in real life.

But, I wonder. Are people viewing this the way they'd view it if it happened in real life? That threats should be taken seriously? While ignoring the type of show they're watching? And, has society gotten to the point that hyperbole doesn't exist? That everything should be taken at face value? This will be hard to say. I think we should be careful of how we speak and not hurt others with our words. I also think that language that isn't allowed to be figurative and exaggerate a little is colorless and dull. And that being able to understand when someone is saying something for effect is a social skill people should have.

Also the thing I will say every time someone brings this scene up. Dean repeatedly refuses to fight Tristan. He walks away more than once. Even the "Because I'll kill you" is followed by Dean walking away from Tristan. And Tristan comes at him again. And Dean tells him to stay away from Rory, and walks away. He spends this whole scene showing restraint over and over, but because he doesn't say "If you insist on fighting, I'm bigger than you and stronger than you, so a fight between us won't come out in your favor" but instead sums it up with "because I'll kill you" people see him as an aggressive bully.

[bessiemae]

Okay, I'm years behind talking about this, but Youtube recommended me a video about Glass Onion. It was a critique of a critique. So, I'll put my pet peeve behind a cut, just in case anyone hasn't seen the movie and plans to.

The movie makes no sense if the Mona Lisa was fake!! Now, some people argue that the Mona Lisa in the movie that got destroyed actually was wood, like the real Mona Lisa. I don't know, and it doesn't matter. Even if the Mona Lisa of the movie was canvas, unlike the real painting, in the universe of the movie it's meant to be real. That's the only thing that makes sense. Why? Because Miles' reputation would not have been so completely destroyed unless he destroyed the actual painting. Maybe temporarily people would have been shocked, but I think they would have forgotten once the real Mona Lisa was shown to be safe and sound. And as dumb as Miles was, I think once he knew he didn't destroy it, he would have pretended that he knew it was fake all along.

Now, again, some people have argued that the replica (replica in our universe, not the movie's) was wood, but it's not important what this was made of. First, because I'm guessing many people had no idea what the Mona Lisa was painted on. I didn't. And even if you did, think of the movie. The Mona Lisa and its destruction played too big of a role for the comeuppance to be that Miles was fooled by a fake.

The movie ended on Helen's triumph. But, it would be a poor triumph if his fuel just took down a fake. And if the argument was that none of them knew it was fake, well, that still adds an unnecessary complication and plot point.

[bessiemae]

I wrote fanfiction today. I have no plans to share it at the moment, but I have a long stretch of time off, and one of the things I wanted to do was write during it. And I thought fanfiction was best, because I wouldn't paralyze myself wondering if it could be published and then wondering if it couldn't and should I waste my time with it. So, I decided I will write things that I know from the start are only for the pure love of writing and that will never be published.

And I did it. I wrote in long hand, so I wouldn't even be thinking of internet audiences. Just for me. And it shouldn't surprise me at all, but when I am writing, I really enjoy it. When I'm not writing, I convince myself that maybe I no longer have an interest in it. When I try to think of something to write, but I'm also trying to please an imaginary publisher or critique group, my mind goes blank and I wonder if writing was just a childhood fantasy. But, when I write just for me, the absorption and interest is just there.

I would still like to write something that gets accepted by a traditional publisher, where I can giddily tell everyone "I've been published!" But, right now, I think I need to write for the love of writing and hope that the rest will grow from it.

[bessiemae]

Are we too focused on productivity? I don't know exactly who I mean by "we" because you don't know exactly where everyone online is. But, I made the mistake of doomscrolling after a bad decision by people in charge. So, I went on Reddit to see if anyone posted about how to feel better after doomscrolling. And the top results were from the productivity topic.

And if you do a search for rest or vacation on Google, you'll get websites explaining how people need to rest and it makes you more productive afterwards. And there's nothing wrong with being productive. But, it's like the be all and end all goal people are supposed to have is productivity. You don't rest to heal your mind and body so you can feel good and, by the way, you might also be more productive as a good side effect. No, it's like it's the core reason to do anything. You don't rest so you don't feel like crap, because feeling like crap is bad, period. You rest so you can get back to being productive. You don't try to recover mentally from doomscrolling because wallowing in misery is objectively bad in and of itself. No, you recover because it gets in the way of your productivity.

Maybe I'm weird, but maybe instead of saying you'll be more productive after a break, maybe say you need and deserve a rest because you're human and not a machine and it will be good for you. And don't worry about whether you'll be more productive afterwards. Focus on the benefits to yourself.

[bessiemae]

Why is it some people can't resist saying how much they dislike a character or how terrible a character is? And repeatedly. They're drawn to any thread with that character's name. And, sure, some do lend themselves to a general discussion. Like if someone asks what do people think of the character or their actions. Obviously, someone will think something bad. But, if someone starts a topic all about why they like a character is it really necessary for people to go into that thread to say why they hate them? Honestly, I think someone could start a topic about whether certain character's hair color is more dark blond or light brown, and someone will jump in to say why the character is the most selfish hypocrite. And, again, it's not like you can't say anything bad about a character. But, you don't have to go to every post just to reiterate it. It's almost like people don't like people liking a character they don't. And you might say the opposite is true but I don't find it that bad. Which might be hypocritical on my part, but I feel the same way about characters I can't stand. If you love a character, it doesn't bother me.

And what's really annoying is when someone (like me, but sometimes others) starts a topic specifically asking for some positivity about a character and people feel the need to give backhanded insulting 'compliments'. Fake example: "They were great in episode 25 - the one they didn't show up in" or "I love their relatives". Instead of accepting that since they have nothing good to say, the thread isn't for them. I mean, it's not like they won't have multiple other places to repeat the reasons they don't like someone.

[bessiemae]

Warning. I''m about to be critical of Rory Gilmore. Specifically about the affair with Dean.

First, lets get this out of the way. Dean is completely at fault for cheating on Lindsay. That goes without question. No one has ever tried to defend Dean in any way. However, people have defended Rory.

When the show first aired, the general justification was that Rory didn't take vows, so she had no obligation to respect Dean's marriage. I admit I was flabbergasted reading multiple posts like this. I mean, obviously people feel that way or no one would sleep with someone married. But, I always assumed it was a something only a small number of people sleeping with a married person truly believed. Others would tell themselves that to justify what they knew was wrong. And others outside the situation would all agree that hurting an innocent party is wrong. No certificate or vows necessary. But, it seemed people honestly felt Rory was completely in her right to sleep with Dean because she wasn't the married one.

Skip ahead to now. The reasoning isn't that Rory doesn't have to worry about Dean being married. It's that Rory had no idea that Dean was still married. That she thought it was over and he was free to be with her. I don't accept that. Did Dean imply that he and Lindsay were in agreement that the marriage was emotionally over (which is a different thing from being legally over)? Yes, so we can blame him for that. But, I don't think Rory really felt that meant Dean was no longer married. I mean, look at her argument with Lorelai. Yes, she says that it's over, but when Lorelai pushes, Rory doesn't answer that he told her that it was something that both he and Lindsay are on the same page. She admits they didn't discuss the details. Probably because neither one of them wanted to discuss it. And they had time. It's not like they were frantically tearing clothes off and moving so fast she couldn't catch her breath to ask a few probing questions. Like "So,you're getting divorced?" If she had asked and he had said yes, I'd be more inclined to say Rory was innocent in this. Also, take her other justifications. Lindsay isn't right for him. (implication, Rory is) That he's not a married guy. But, not because a divorce or even separation are in the works, but because "he's Dean. My Dean" which overrides his marriage. Again, we see this in her saying "he was my boyfriend first!" She slept with Dean because she felt her teenage relationship with him took precedence over his marriage.

Rory wanted to sleep with Dean. But, I don't think she could have done it and admit to herself that his marriage didn't matter to her. She wouldn't have gone to him or instigated anything, but since he came to her, well, he was her boyfriend first. But, she couldn't risk going any deeper with her questioning and keep her from hiding from herself the fact that she was sleeping with a married man .

Also, I have to step back and look at it from a writing perspective. They could have played it very differently. They could have had Rory tell Lorelai that Dean was leaving Lindsay. And when pressed she could have said that he said it was over so that must be what he meant. Or even just repeat him saying that both he and Lindsay felt that it was over. They could have played it as Lorelai being sympathetic and sad that Rory's first time came from being tricked. They could even still have their fight only this time it would be because Rory was mad at Lorelai for disparaging Dean's integrity. But, it's pretty clear that they were not writing a naive girl who had no idea of the situation.

[bessiemae]

Pet peeve of tumblr tagging. STOP tagging every character in a show if the post isn't about those characters. Just tag the show and the characters your post is about. It is so annoying when I'm trying to find posts discussing and analyzing my favorite characters so I put their names in the search bar and get a whole bunch of search results. But, the actual posts don't even mention the character, let alone discuss them. They're just a tag at the bottom of the post.

[bessiemae]

I read this really good book recently. Redwood Court by DéLana R. A. Dameron. It's fiction about a black family,living in South Carolina mainly in the 90's, although we see a lot of the family life before then, and it ends in the 2000's. The grandparents live on Redwood Court and one of their grandchildren, Mika, spends a lot of time there.

Cut, because I think I'm going to ramble.

This book reminds me a lot of A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (high praise from me) in that it deals with some harsh realities, it doesn't feel like a book about them. It's a book about family. About coming of age, with Mika turning 16 at the end of the book. It even shows multiple viewpoints with us not just getting in the head of the teenage girl protagonist, but also her mother and father and grandparents. In fact, while I felt a huge kinship to Francie Nolan in Tree, I was much more drawn to Teeta and Weesie (Mika's grandfather and grandmother) and Major (her father).

There's no big plot. It's mainly a slice of life story. And, it is what I've been looking for in a book about black characters. A book that won't have the keywords being "heart wrenching" and "gritty" and a "searing look at African American life". Instead, it's more likely to be described as "heartwarming" "tender" and "joyful". I mean, people are always talking about how we shouldn't just read about black pain, as if that's all our lives are. But, then, it's so hard for me to find books like that. I mean, non fiction, sure. And the genre of romance. (Not that I have anything against romance, but it's not my first pick of a book) But, otherwise, it seems they're all "important" novels where important means, "remember, if you're black, you're life sucks". And, I'm guessing this is not the only book like this, but I still think it's rare. Don't get me wrong, I like books with harsh stuff (hurt/comfort is one of my favorite fanfic tropes? Genres? And I like my hurt to hurt before the comfort), but sometimes I just want a book that can be called gentle. And while I can name a number of books about white characters that can be described that way, not that many with black ones. And I think we deserve to have books like that.

And this isn't a book where nothing bad happens and racism doesn't exist. But, it doesn't dwell on it. It doesn't minimize, but the characters don't suffer. They have joy. Also, being poor. While that is not a good thing at all (says Captain Obvious) we see that the neighbors of Redwood Court help each other. Take up collections when a neighbor is struggling.

This is basically a feel good book. And also, had some nostalgia. I didn't grow up in South Carolina, and certain ways they spoke was unusual. But, some things were familiar to me growing up. I'm thinking people who grew up like me might be able to see something of themselves or their family in the characters. And people very very different because of race or even just location or ways of growing up -because not a monolith- might still love the characters and might even identify with them despite the external differences. Or even if you don't identify, you might still love them.

I would love for this book to become a classic one day. I mean, a true, it stands the test of time, classic. Not a "modern classic" that's used for something that's only existed for five years. But, the times we live in, we don't get many books focused on white characters like this, so who knows what books written now will be considered classics in the future. Maybe the focus will be all about how bad life is and only those types of books will be considered important enough. I really hope this isn't the case. This book deserves to last.

[bessiemae]

What is it with people just coming by unannounced? I'm not sorry, and I'll never be someone to enjoy a spontaneous visit. Call first. Call and ask if it's okay, and be prepared and accepting of a no. Especially if you're not a close friend. (And if you are a close friend, than you should know not to just come by unannounced).

This little rant is inspired by the fact that the apartment maintenance man just knocked on the door. No call to let us know he was planning to come or anything, just a sudden disturbance in the peace of the home.