Not gonna go out on this limb on a 25k post, but maybe it’s okay that kids today don’t know as much about using an actual computer as we do/did? Is it useful knowledge? Of course it is. So is using a sewing machine or being able to rebuild your VW with a copy of that one book every VW driver used to have. That’s not the right question—most practical knowledge is useful after all. The question should be “is it relevant to the way people live right now.” “How to Keep Your VW Alive” is a timeless fucking classic; my ex and I kept our copy long after he sold his VW. But I’m not buying a copy now because it won’t exactly help me keep my VW ID4 on the road.
And it’s funny, because I tend to read along with those posts and nod my head, because back in my day we HAD to know all that computer stuff. And then for some reason today, I remembered a conversation my mom and I had with my grandma in the mid 70s when I was a teenager. Grandma made my mom’s wedding dress. She worked at a department store doing alterations on foundation wear, which if you look at 1950s foundation wear, you’ll realize was both necessary and difficult. So she was shocked when I said most of my friends didn’t know their way around a sewing machine. “But how do you make sure your clothes fit?!” Well, Grandma, people don’t wear heavy foundation wear any more and clothes don’t need to be as tailored as they did back in the day—it’s 1975 and the only alterations I need to do is hemming my flares so they just touch the floor when I’m wearing platforms.
Now you can back up and look at the broader picture, the one that says, but your car should be repairable by you as long as you have clear instructions, and you should be able to alter your clothes or make your own, and yes, you should know how to organize the files on the desktop of your laptop. But the fact that for the most part it’s become easier and easier to just not do those things (if they can be done at all) isn’t exactly the fault of Kids Today. And it’s certainly not meeting them where they are or even trying to understand why they feel they don’t need that knowledge if, instead of looking at why they don’t have it and maybe even don’t need it, you just decry their lack of the Deep Wisdom.
401 notes
·
View notes
thinking about how while we all make the “doomed by the narrative” jokes about tony, it’s so much worse than that. the narrative tries so so hard to save him multiple times throughout the novella and yet his tunnel vision with the ggy mystery always leads him to doom himself
84 notes
·
View notes
Mickey and Ian’s characterization was flawed in the final seasons but one thing I found particularly odd about some of Ian’s decisions is that they almost felt like he didn’t know Mickey at all. Which is so weird because Ian is the one who knows and understands Mickey better than anyone. It’s one of the main things about their relationship.
But then he tells Mickey that he only has 87% of his heart when he knows about Mickey’s own insecurities and doubts. He knows his husband. So he had to have known how Mickey was going to react to that and how much it would’ve hurt him? Similarly suggesting a temporary break in prison. After everything surely he’d have to know how that was gonna go? Same thing with the monogamy conversation I think.
Signing the lease without telling Mickey when he knows how Mickey reacts to change and new surroundings. And about how Mickey feels about the South Side (he literally has a tattoo that says South Side Forever, no matter what happened to him there, Mickey viewed that place as his home). I do think Ian’s intentions for it were pure so they could start fresh, and probably part of it was because he knew if he brought it up to Mickey before signing then Mickey would never agree. But why would he ever think Mickey would be okay with him making that decision without him? And surely he’d have to know that a change that big wouldn’t be easy for Mickey to adjust to.
Not comforting Mickey after Terry’s death and being dismissive when he knows how complicated grieving an abusive parent is and Mickey’s history with Terry. Ian understands how complex those feelings are because he felt them after Monica. And he knows Mickey, even if how Mickey feels about Terry is hard for Ian to understand, he still knows that showing that level of emotion is difficult and rare for Mickey.
These aren’t even criticisms of Ian, they’re criticism of the writing. It’s fair that sometimes they’ll both make decisions that might be against how the other person feels, no one’s perfect. But a lot of these just don’t really make sense to me? One of the most important things about Gallavich before the later seasons was that Ian often saw through Mickey and understood him. He knew what Mickey wanted/meant even if it was contrary to what he said. Where did that part of their relationship go?
93 notes
·
View notes