Shine on, America!

Damn it feels good to be back.

Another thing I don't get about the Harry Potter Series

At the Hogwarts' School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, students are sorted into one of four houses, based on their strongest quality vis-a-vis the qualities exemplified by the houses. The most cunning and, let's say, morally flexible students go to Slytherin House. The most courageous students go to Gryffindor House (in other words, the cool jock House of Hogwarts). The brainiest students go to Ravenclaw House (the nerds). And, the most hardworking students go to Hufflepuff House (Reject House alert! Reject house alert!). The magical world, at least at Hogwarts, assumes that there are four types of qualities by which students should be streamed - cunning, courage, brains, effort. Nothing on kindness, nothing on technical skill, nothing on interpersonal skills. That's fine. For the purposes of this post, we can ignore all that.

In the Philosopher's Stone, Harry Potter proved that you can pick the House into which you are Sorted. The Sorting Hat, if you don't recall, wanted to place Harry into Slytherin - which would help him achieve Great Things, apparently - but he didn't want to go to Slytherin. Instead, the Sorting Hat sent him to Gryffindor. Fair enough. As it turns out through the series, Harry was one of the most courageous people in the Potter-verse. As were the Weasleys. And Neville "Badass" Longbottom (nickname added by me). And the various supporting characters - Draco Malfoy in Slytherin, for example.

There are, however, anomalies which require deeper thought. For instance, one thing that has always bugged me is the Sorting of Hermione Granger. For those of you who don't recall, Hermione Granger is played by Emma Watson, whose gratuitous picture can be found below.

Lovely

Hermione Granger was called, "The smartest witch of her age" by Remus Lupin, werewolf-turned-teacher-turned-emo werewolf. She gained an Outstanding in all her subjects at the Ordinary Wizarding Levels (OWLs) except for Defence Against the Dark Arts, whereby only Harry got an Outstanding. The wizarding world is strange for examinations - apparently only the best person in the class gets an Outstanding. Because, of course, two students can't be Outstanding at a particular subject. (Evidence: In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Ron congratulates Harry on his Outstanding OWL for Defence Against the Dark Arts and says, "Knew you'd be top in Defence Against the Dark Arts." This statement implies that only the top students gets an Outstanding. Have I overthought this? No shit, Captain Obvious).

Now, Hermione, on the other hand, scored 10 Outstandings and an Exceeds Expectations in Defence Against the Dark Arts. Hermione got an Outstanding for Astronomy, Care of Magical Creatures, Charms, Herbology, History of Magic, Transfiguration, Arithmancy, Ancient Runes, Muggle Studies and Potions. This means that she was the best student in 10 out of 11 subjects (she walked out on Divinity) at Hogwarts. By this, we have to ask ourselves - why the hell was she Sorted into Gryffindor rather than Ravenclaw?

Nitpicky point: Neville Longbottom scored an Outstanding for Herbology as well, giving us two Outstandings in Herbology. This clearly contradicts Ron's statement earlier. Again, picking at nits here but consistency would be nice. 

The easy answer, or rather, implication - in my less than humble opinion - is that she was braver rather than smarter. Hence, her courage was her stronger quality and, consequently, there you go - Gryffindor. Thus, all the 'brainy' students in Ravenclaw weren't as smart as Hermione Granger and yet, she got placed into Gryffindor. Now, if she was really braver than she was smarter and considering that she was the smartest of them all - in a way that the entire Harry Potter series from Hermione's point of view could have been called "Hermione Granger and the Time I Saved Two Idiots from a Crisis" - surely she must have been the most powerful and the most capable of ALL the Hogwarts' students. Yes, Harry Potter could be braver than she, but for him to be the leader and whatever, the difference in quantum between his bravery and her bravery must outmatch the difference in quantum between her brains and his brains. Given what we know about Hermione's brains, I find that difficult to believe.

See, let's consider the implications on a deeper...

Oops! Distraction!

Where were we? Okay. Let's consider the implications on a deeper level. Taking the fact that the series was, after all, called "Harry Potter and the..." we therefore take the assumption that Harry was braver than Hermione more so than Hermione was smarter than Harry. If that were true, how bloody brave must Harry be? Yes, Harry was courageous. He constantly put himself on the line, when fear really would have crippled any ordinary non-Chosen-One teenager. He managed to walk himself to be killed by Voldemort. And he had the courage to return from the Deathly Hallows to the real world (Movie Kaki Karen and I have disagreements about this, but I think it stems from differences in the way we perceive the state of death). Would Hermione have done it? Maybe. Maybe not. We'll never know - though she proved her courage by not crumbling under torture at the Malfoys when Bellatrix Lestrange was torturing her as well as the countless other times she saved two other Idiots from a Crisis. She was courageous, at the very least.

So, Hermione was certainly not average as a courageous person. She was clearly the opposite of Courage, the Cowardly Dog (had to, I apologize). Now, let's consider Harry's OWL grades (the best available benchmark for brains that we have in the Potter series. Nitpick: I refuse to consider it a legendarium until JK Rowling comes up with an entire history of how the world of magic was created and formed and evolved to the present state). Harry scored an Outstanding for Defence Against the Dark Arts, an Exceeds Expectations for Care of Magical Creatures, Charms, Herbology, Potions and Transfiguration, an Acceptable for Astronomy and he failed Divination and History of Magic, scoring a Poor and a Dreadful respectively. Now, this is likely me being patronizing here, but those are the grades of a distinctly average student. It's essentially one A, five Bs, one C, one D, and one E. Alphabet soup.

So, Harry is likely an average student. Unless all other Hogwarts students really suck. Now, we've agreed that Hermione Granger was not a person with average courage. Indeed, we must accept the premise that given that she was Sorted into Gryffindor, her courage must surpass her brains or otherwise, she would have been Sorted into Ravenclaw. We come to this - Hermione's brains are amazing. Harry's brains are average. Harry's courage is amazing. Hermione's courage is far above average. How is she not the most powerful of Dumbledore's Army, with Harry as the Symbol?

Wouldn't you want your leader to look like this?

Look, if she was sorted into Ravenclaw, as I argue she should have been, then fine. I can see the case for Harry Potter as the most powerful. And it's not like she's just book smart. I mean, I fully recognize that someone who scores an A for a given subject will not necessarily be as successful in that subject when it comes to practice. I get that. Potter makes this point too in the Order of the Phoenix, on one of his supremely emo rants:-

"You don't know what it's like! You - neither of you - you've never had to face him, have you? You think it's just memorising a bunch of spells and throwing them at him, like you're in class or something? The whole time you know there's nothing between you and dying except your own - your own brain or guts or whatever - like you can think straight when you know you're about a nanosecond from being murdered, or tortured, or watching your friends die - they've never taught us that in their classes, what it's like to deal with things like that..."

Fair point. Excellent point, actually. I can only offer counter examples. Hermione was involved in a shitload of battles with Harry from the Philosopher's Stone up to the Deathly Hallows. She dealt with Nagini, she dealt with Dementors, she dealt with Bellatrix Lestrange, she dealt with werewolves, she dealt with Death Eaters, and that sort of thing. She was also capable of putting things into practice. And this doesn't include all the other times her quick thinking got them out of a jam. Consider in Deathly Hallows, when the trio were visiting Xenophilius Lovegood and the Ministry of Magic came to capture them - she covered Ron in the Invisibility Cloak (as she knew that they thought he was supposed to be sick at home with Spattergroit), she blasted the floor so that the Ministry people could see Harry there (thus making Xenophilius' report true and getting him out of trouble) and she Disapparated them away. Bloody brilliant. Quick thinking. The only real difference in terms of challenges faced between she and Harry is that Harry fought Voldemort. That's it. 

Harry has the advantage against Voldemort because Harry is an anti-Voldemort bomb. Harry is himself a Horcrux. If Voldemort tries to kill Harry, Voldemort will kill the bit of Harry that is Voldemort's soul first. Next, and here's the fucking kicker. Harry's blood runs through Voldemort's veins, following events from the Goblet of Fire. Harry's blood has Lily's (his mom) protection, which protects Harry from any Voldemort spell essentially. So, as long as Voldemort is alive with Harry's blood in him, Voldemort keeps Lily's protection alive, thereby protecting Harry from Voldemort. So, essentially, Voldemort has neither the incentive (if he knew that Harry was a Horcrux) nor the ability to kill Harry. Convenient. You'd think Voldemort would have figured this shit out after having failed to kill Harry as a baby, in the Philosopher's Stone, in the Goblet of Fire, in the Order of the Phoenix and twice in Deathly Hallows. More so, after he Avada Kedavra'ed Harry in the Forbidden Forest towards the end of the Deathly Hallows. 6 times Voldemort failed to kill Harry. The Einstein Insanity quote comes to mind here. Voldemort isn't quite the rocket scientist, is he?

Hermione does not have that sort of cheat code. Now, if you were to face any other Death Eater except Voldemort himself, you'd have to pick Hermione. You just have the better chance. You lose some bravery points, but you gain a shit load of brain points. And, you have a massive distraction:-

Check out those pins. 

No, really, check out those pins. 

Anyway, the whole premise of Harry Potter has an asterisk to me, founded on the plothole that Hermione Granger was Sorted into Gryffindor. There's no way she shouldn't have been the most powerful student in the fight against Voldemort.

Now, what if she were Sorted, appropriately in my opinion into Ravenclaw? She wouldn't have been close to Harry and Ron. Harry and Ron, the Two Idiots who Get Into a Crisis, would find themselves lost and potentially dead without her brains. Ron would have continued dating Lavender or something, or maybe find himself some other girl. Harry and Ron may have gotten a third companion, sure, from Gryffindor, but no way that person is as smart as Hermione. No way they find all the horcruxes, solve all the shit that goes on in Hogwarts and all that jazz without Hermione. The only thing that would probably remain the same is that Hermione would still score top grades for everything, maybe even Defense Against the Dark Arts. And she would probably be the Boss of them. 

And she would still be lovely. 

City Lights

I came across one of the best soundtracks in memory from the 2004 movie, In Good Company. The movie itself was solid. I liked it - nice feel-good movie without being overly corny. And, of course, it featured the lovely Scarlett Johansson.

Hoodies are the way to go. 

Anyway, on the soundtrack. The soundtrack gave me the introduction to Iron and Wine - notably, Naked as We Came (interpret that how you will) and, more notably, The Trapeze Swinger. Listen to this in the dark. Don't think about anything else. Just soak in the song. Listen to the lyrics. It'll be worth it. Another song from that soundtrack is David Byrne's "Glass, Concrete and Stone." I hadn't thought of that song in a long time.

Tonight though, I was overlooking the skyline of some country at 10pm. And it was breathtaking. Whoever says that glass, concrete and stone (connection made!) lacks aesthetic qualities needs to have her or his head examined. I wish I could say I took a picture, but the Constant Reader knows how bad I am at all that. Anyway, city lights, when done right, are one of the world's best sights. Don't believe me? Fuck you. I have always loved the city lights on the water (snigger).

Anyway, beyond just the aesthetic of an amalgamation of concrete, glass and stone and lights, I thought also of Jay-Z's line in Empire State of Mind. Side note, I can rap the whole song without referring to lyrics. Just ask me. Anyway, the line goes, "8 Million Stories, out there in the naked." It's essentially what a city is, no? A dense agglomeration of people, all with their own stories, all with their own lives, hoping to achieve whatever it is they want to achieve, fighting every day (for most people at least) hoping just to make it through the week, hoping that one day their efforts will make the lives of their kids better. But like Jay-Z says, "It's a pity half of ya'll won't make it."

I cannot be fairly described as some paragon of humility, despite my best efforts, but I do believe what Jay-Z said, or rapped. In a city of 8 million people, there are 8 million stories. It felt rather peculiar looking down tonight at the city below, seeing the various lights from office buildings, homes, roads, cars whatever and thinking that each person contributing to those lights were living out their own story. Maybe they were rushing home to watch the latest Mad Men episode. Maybe they were taking on another shift as a cab driver to help put food on the table. Maybe they were trying to close a deal in some office. Maybe they had just reeturned from a date. I don't know. But it's quite humbling, I think. When you recall that in the grand scheme of 8 million people, one's life is just that. One. Out of 8 Million.

And the thing is, each of those 8 million stories is unique. Well, nearly all anyway (accounting for siblings who grew up in the same family, attended the same schools etc etc). I have never believed that just because you're unique, you're therefore special as I've made clear before. But that uniqueness is still something that is interesting. If each person is a story, which admittedly appeals to me from a poetic sense, then each unique story makes that person the only person in the world who has lived that tale. I think it's fair to say that hardly anybody is special, but everyone is unique. It's like the following two quotes from Watchmen (by Doc Manhattan):-

"Themodynamic miracles...events with odds against so astronomical they're effectively impossible, like oxygen spontaneously becoming gold. I long to observe such a thing. And yet, in each human coupling, a thousand million sperm vie for a single egg. Multiply those odds by countless generations, against the odds of your ancestors being alive; meeting; siring this precise son; that exact daughter...Until your mother loves a man she has every reason to hate, and of that union, of the thousand million children competing for fertilization, it was you, only you, that emerged. To distill so specific a form from that chaos of improbability, like turning air into gold...that is the crowning likelihood. The thermodynamic miracle."

"Yes, anybody in the world...But the world is so full of people, so crowded with these miracles that they become commonplace and we forget...I forget. We gaze continually at the world and it grows dull in our perceptions. Yet seen from another's vantage point, as if new, it may still take our breath away. Come...dry your eyes, for you are life, rarer than a quark and unpredictable beyond the dreams of Heisenberg. Come, dry your eyes. And let's go home."

I think cities remind us of stuff like that. A collection of stories, each one nearly entirely unique, coming together to try and make things work. It's humbling. Even the most reprehensible person has a story and even the most tame of people has a story. And that's life. And Doc Manhattan says we must remember that.

Speaking of life, may I interest you in a new scientific hypothesis - life began even before the Sun existed. The arguments make sense. Next comes the proof. But this is baller.

The Importance of Sticking the Landing

There are things in life that are easy to let go. And there are also, naturally, things in life that are not easy to let go. While Don Draper's quote - "Just get out of here and move forward. It never happened. It will shock you how much it never happened." - is great life advice for nearly every conceivable situation, there is still one particular thing that continues to bother me to this day. That particular thing is the ending of the Dark Knight Rises.

I wrote about this in an earlier review of the movie. But, I'm not through. And, yes, spoiler alert. But if you haven't watched the movie yet (it's been half a year), and you're going to be all, "Don't spoil it for me! I still want to watch it!", I have two responses. The first is that you probably don't care about it enough anyway, so it's no big deal. The second is, go screw yourself. Cheerful remonstrations aside, the reason I am returning to this issue is because I had a micro-mini-Eureka moment about 5 minutes ago juxtaposing why the LOTR ending worked so well and TDKR ending didn't.

Here's what I wrote about the ending of TDKR:-

"...I agree it covered up all loose ends and was a very neat ending to the Trilogy (more on this later). But to me, it's a bit too neat. At the end of the movie, Bane was defeated. Talia Al'Ghul was defeated. Gotham was saved. Lucius Fox got what he wanted. Alfred got what he wanted. John Blake got what he wanted. James Gordon got what he wanted. Bruce Wayne got what he wanted. Hell, even Selina Kyle got what she wanted. But how likely is this? In a world where I can suspend belief to believe that the Batman is real, I'm still finding it difficult to believe that after an epic war/battle such as this one, all the major 'good guys' got happy endings.

No one fell from grace. No one died. No one faced a moral dilemma and came out of it for the worse. In short, no one lost anything. I have never been in a war. Fine. But I find it hard to believe that everyone, even the "good guys" can come out of it never having lost anything. Even if it's just a little part of themselves. How is it that all the "good guys" can just move on so easily? Yes, I know Rachel died in The Dark Knight but that was a different "war". I'm talking about the "war" just in the context of TDKR. How can you go through so much sacrifice without it having a Dent on who you are? It was just too neat for me. I would have liked to have seen an ending like in the Godfather series, particularly in Godfather 2 - Michael Corleone sitting in his cabin at Lake Tahoe, on top of the world but bitterly alone (before you crucify me on a spoiler for Godfather 2, the movie has been out for 38 years. It's your fault if I spoiled anything for you). Sure, the man got what he wanted, but not without losing a huge part of himself."

It really does still strike me as incredibly unlikely that there is really no character character development (not a typo - I mean the character of a character) after such a huge battle between the forces of Bane and the Arkham Asylum-nites and Batman, future Batman, Selina Kyle and Gotham's finest. How does one really not evolve? How does one not be scarred for life? After going through so much, it seems exceedingly unrealistic for me - from a character development perspective - that everyone gets a happy ending. My bet is that it's meant to cater to wide layperson audiences who, as is expected, would prefer neat, happy endings for all our heroes. 

BUT, just because it's a happy ending doesn't mean it's the appropriate ending. Yes, yes, 'appropriate' is subjective. Yes, yes, this is just my opinion (I hate rebuttals that go, "It's just your opinion." Well, thanks Captain Obvious. Who else's opinion is it?). However, it's still a legitimate argument. If a person has been a lousy athlete for the first 18 years of her life, what are the odds that she'll be an excellent athlete in College? Pretty shitty odds right? But, in movies, that person somehow becomes a star athlete in College, through the virtues of determination and hard work. She wins the State championship. Everyone's happy. Moviegoers feel good. You know what sucks about that scenario? First of all, if she was a lousy athlete her whole life, she probably will still be a lousy athlete in the future - athleticism is hugely dependent on natural endowments. Second of all, this shits in the face of all athletes who were good athletes their whole lives AND have put in the requisite effort to be successful AND have strong determination to succeed. What happened to them? Why shouldn't the story be about them? For more of this bullshit-type endings, please watch South Park's Stanley's Cup episode (Season 10, Episode 14). It's a mistake to believe that we, or the people who star in movies, are necessarily the protagonists of every story.

This leads me to a juxtaposition between the ending of the LOTR series and TDKR series. I've already described, in very brief terms, what happened at the end of TDKR. At the end of the Return of the King, we see that after the deed is done, the hobbits return to the Shire, about a year or so after their long journey. Here is a step-by-step version of what made the ending so brilliant (again, this movie has been out for 9 years), based on the movie. The book stuff comes a bit later. 

1. The Hobbits return to the Green Dragon Pub. It's dusk in the Shire. Frodo brings 4 mugs of ale to the table, where Pippin, Merry and Samwise are seated. The 4 hobbits look around the table - they see their other fellow hobbits of the Shire, having fun, having a good laugh, enjoying the night, just like how they have enjoyed it so many nights before and will so many nights henceforth. But our 4 hobbits know what the other hobbits don't know which is how hard the battle was fought to ensure that there are many more nights like these. They look around solemnly, knowing how much loss and sacrifice they've had to go through (Boromir, Theoden, Haldir etc etc) and they're thinking, "Wow, we understand things and we are privy to things that these other hobbits will never have to know." In short, they're just like the stories World War veterans tell. They've been changed, for better or for worse. They toast. 

N.B: It's one of the most beautiful scenes in the entire trilogy. In fact, I think it's Movie Kaki Karen's favourite scene in the trilogy. 

Here is some dialogue from the book as the Hobbits approach the Shire on their return.

"Well, here we are, just the four of us that started out together," said Merry. "We have left all the rest behind, one after another. It seems almost like a dream that has slowly faded."

"Not to me," said Frodo. "To me it feels more like falling asleep again." 

2. Frodo feels the stab of the Morgul blade on the 1-year anniversary of the stabbing. Frodo has been stung by Shelob, had his finger bitten off by Gollum and has been stabbed by the Witch King. Did anyone really ever think he could ever be the same again? Anyway, the movie shows that he's struggling with this.

This bit is explained even better in the book. Here's the bit between Gandalf and Frodo.

"Alas! there are some wounds that cannot be wholly cured," said Gandalf.

"I fear it may be so with mine," said Frodo. "There is no real going back. Though I may come to the Shire, it will not seem the same; for I shall not be the same. I am wounded with knife, sting, and tooth, and a long burden. Where shall I find rest?"

Gandalf did not answer.

BOOM! If I had just been as succinct as this in writing this thing out, you'd have finished reading this 10 minutes ago. This is essentially my point. Frodo is no longer the same. Neither is Bruce Wayne, Selina Kyle, Alfred, Commissioner Gordon, John Blake and Lucius Fox. How could they possibly be?

3. The Hobbits meet Bilbo, believing they're about to send Bilbo off Into The West. To the surprise of the Hobbits, Gandalf and Frodo leave as well. Here is the bit that kicks in. A neat ending would be everyone lives happily ever after in their own homes but they meet every now and then. Gimli goes back to Erebor, Legolas goes back to Mirkwood, Aragorn and Arwen go back to Gondor, Eomer goes back to Rohan, the Hobbits go back to the Shire, Gandalf just wanders about as usual. Tolkein could have done that. But no. He chose an ending which was the best fit. Frodo, jaded by everything, had to leave. He couldn't stay in the Shire after everything that happened. To the dismay of Merry, Pippin and especially Sam, Frodo took the ship into the West. Here's what he told Sam (who was devastated and distraught, as was a fair bit of moviewatchers who thought he should have stayed to complete the happy ending - you know who you are):-

"Where are you going, Master?" cried Sam, though at last he understood what was happning.

"To the Havens, Sam," said Frodo.

"And I can't come." 

"No, Sam. Not yet anyway, not further than the Havens. Though you too were a Ring-bearer, if only for a little while. Your time may come. Do not be too sad, Sam. You cannot always be torn in two. You will have to be one and whole, for many years. You have so much to enjoy and to be, and to do."

"But," said Sam, and tears started in his eyes, "I thought you were going to enjoy the Shire, too, for years and years, after all you have done."

"So I thought too, once. But I have been too deeply hurt, Sam. I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them."

Again, if I was as succinct, we would have been done long ago. But please ponder the wisdom of these words and please realize the truth in them. Life isn't a series of happy endings for everyone. People lose things. And sometimes, the right ending is the ending where somebody starts over, as Jennifer Connelly's character says in 'He's Just Not That Into You.' Damn right I quoted that movie. But it is true. Just because an ending is neat doesn't make it the right ending. It can be, but it's not necessarily so. The neat ending worked in the Harry Potter series. It works in most Disney movies. But sometimes, stories shouldn't end on a neat or happy note, simply because stories need to end in the way that life generally dictates that it should end. Consider the movies Zodiac, Se7en, the Godfather series and so on. Their ending works because it was what the setting of the movies called for. Or consider the Watchmen story. Or Stephen King's "It" where the Losers Club kills "It" but they end up losing memories of their childhoods and the friends they spent them with. The "It" ending kills me because it's so goddamn moving and sure, I wish they all could still hang out or whatever, but that ending would not have worked. I mean, after everything the kids in the Losers Club have been through and after all they've experienced and sacrificed together, it sucked that they all had to forget each other. But in the context of the story, it had to happen. 

Before I end, please appreciate this quote from Stephen King, taken from one of his books.

'And will I tell you that these three lived happily ever after? I will not, for no one ever does. But there was happiness. And they did live.'

So, remember. Sticking the Landing (or ending for the non-metaphor inclined) is critical to any story. But the landing must fit the story that was told, rather than having a neat or happy ending just for the sake of having a neat or happy ending. Go with what fits. 

A Rather Arbitrarily-Structured Review of 2012

I was thinking of a way to sum up my thoughts about a whole bunch of things that I watched, read, saw, experienced, whatever-ed in 2012. As most of you know, I like structure. And it does kill me when I can't figure out a storyline that fits the facts I have. This methodology is Sherlock Holmes approved, by the way. Holmes said, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." So, yes, it annoys me when I cannot fit a story to a bunch of facts or ideas I'm trying to tell. It doubly annoys me when these facts or ideas are not arranged in a consistent manner. In other words, screw this. I'm just going to arbitrarily run through 2012.

Things that should have been on my Top 12 Things I'm Looking Forward to in 2012 list but weren't. 

1. Mad Men Season 5. 

A basic metaphorical summary of everything you need to know about Don Draper

Wtf man. Way to drop the ball. In my defense, it wasn't a certainty that Mad Men was going to be aired at all. In my offense, I dropped the ball. I saw this description on Grantland that best encapsulates why Mad Men is so great, by Chuck Klosterman:-

"This, I think, is what makes Breaking Bad and (especially) Mad Men so vastly different: When nothing happens, nothing is lost. The quiet moments are better than the loud ones. There is subtext in everything - the language, the clothes, and even the semiotics (once, on a JetBlue flight, I watched an early episode of Mad Men without audio and was amazed by how much could be deduced, simply by the various characters' posture and where they happened to be around the office). A week in which nothing happens might still be the apex of an entire season."

You gotta love any show that doesn't rely on "events" happening to still be an intensely rewarding series.

2. Wreck It Ralph

Dropped the ball again. This comes up again later.

Top 5 Books that I've read in 2012

Again, this only covers books that I've read in 2012. This doesn't mean, necessarily, that the books were published in 2012.

5. Dream Team by Jack McCallum - A book about the 1992 USA Men's Olympic Basketball team, otherwise more commonly known as the Dream Team. It goes through, in good detail for any basketball fan, the events leading up to the Olympics, how the team was chosen, what went on during the Olympics, and a fantastic recap of the greatest basketball game ever played. If you like basketball, you will like this book.

4. The Percy Jackson Series by Rick Riordan - I wrote about it before here. A criminally underrated series vis-a-vis Harry Potter, Twilight, the Hunger Games and other such brand name book series. Good clean fun, well-written (doesn't abuse adverbs), quite funny and, at times, quite deep. Also, it does help with remembering or identifying the different Greek Gods.

3. Poor Economics by Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo - A wonderful book on the new in-thing in Development Economics - randomized control trials. Loads of magnificent insights, particularly ways in understanding just how similar the poor is to the rich and as such, why we are more likely to find televisions in the homes of the poor but not necessarily food. A must read for anyone interested in the field.

2. Justice: What is the Right Thing to Do by Michael Sandel - A brief survey of the various political philosophies across time. From Aristotle to Bentham to Locke to Kant to Hayek to Rawls, it provides an excellent way in thinking of different issues in today's world. A great reminder that economic reasoning shouldn't be the only perspective with which we view issues - values should be brought to the table as well. A really thought-provoking read, perfect for the layperson who wishes to learn some other ways of thinking about things.

1. Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman - My book of the year. It does a fantastic job in highlighting the various systematic biases that we, as members of the human, face when we think. Does brilliantly in describing the various biases to thinking that affect us, despite how rational we believe we are. I learned an immense deal from the book, and I'm looking to apply that to my own thinking, just to make sure that I correct for or, at the very least, take into account the possible biases that may be structurally biasing my thought process. If I were lord and emperor of the free world, I'd make everyone read this book.

Honorable Mention (because I'm still reading it): The Social Conquest of Earth by Edward O. Wilson - I'm only about 1/3s of the way through the book. It's essentially a description of how evolution and natural selection has shaped the homo sapiens species into becoming the dominant eusocial species on earth and how it, via its social abilities, came to take control of the world over the other animal species. Gives a better description than any I've found about the improbability of the homo sapiens species dominance, actually.

[Before the creationists rejoice, I should add that any scenario in which we could have ended up was just as improbable as the other. By virtue of events turning out, it just so happened we ended up this way. And that's why things seem so improbable - the likelihood of things turning out this way is minimal, BUT, the likelihood of things turning out another specific way is just as minimal. We just happened to turn out this way - it's difficult to imagine what would happen if events unfolded in other ways.]

My Top 5 Most-Played Songs of 2012

Again, the songs need not have been released in 2012. It's just simply the songs that got the most rotation on my playlist throughout the year. If you listen to them and appreciate the lyrics, I think you can notice a certain pattern to the type of songs that get a lot of air time on my playlist. But here we go:-

5. Thrice - A Song for Milly Michaelson

An oldie but goodie. Since I was introduced to it in 2008 or so by Zain, this song has become one of my top 5 favorite songs. The lyrics are really sweet and I'd venture it to be one of the best love songs there is.

Cool lyricism: Here we go, hold on tight and don't let go, I won't ever let you fall, I love the night - flying over these city lights, but I love you most of all.

4. Pavement - Spit on a Stranger

Also quite an old song. But it has great staying power. There's another version by Kathryn Williams that's more reflective, I suppose and some may enjoy it. But I think this is the best version. A generally introspective song.

Cool lyricism: I've been thinking long and hard about the things you said to me, and now I see the long, the short, the middle and what's in between.

3. The Explorer's Club - Forever

Taken from HIMYM. It's the scene where Marshall and Lily get back together in Season 2. HIMYM actually has quite a lot of brilliant songs on it's soundtrack. There's a track called "Rivers and Roads" by the Head and the Heart which should get an honorable mention but it just wasn't played enough. But it's good to give it a go. "Forever" is very sweet though - the vocals fit the song very well. They sound very innocent, hopeful and that sort of thing. A good short 2.5 minute track that tends to leave a feel-good notion.

Cool lyricsm: She's the kind of girl who's in my thoughts all night, and she's the kind of girls who makes your wrongs all right.

2. Bon Iver - For Emma, Forever Ago

This is the type of song with which you can lock yourself up in a wooden cabin for a month and just contemplate, life, the universe and everything. Maybe the "forever ago" bit adds to the whole melancholia and nostalgia sensations that kind of pervade the song. It's very soulful. A great end of the year song. But I did listen to it throughout the year, in fairness. Also, bonus points for the name "Emma." The vocals are really haunting.

Cool lyricism: I toured the light, so many foreign roads, for Emma, forever ago.

1. Lupe Fiasco - The Show Goes On

Uses the hook from Modest Mouse's "Float On" to great effect. "The Show Goes On" is a terrific song for any occasion. If you're in a good mood and want to pump yourself up, play it. If you're down and you want a lift, play it. If you're bogged down with tonnes of crap, play it. It's a song that's sure to encourage. If you choose to listen to it, which you really should, take some time to appreciate the lyrics. I should add, though, that Lupe himself didn't particularly want to do this song, which does sadden me a little, but the song is still good. And he did add a bit of retribution in the lyrics to the producers. But anyway, give it a listen and try to go along with the lyrics.

Cool lyricism: So no matter what you've been through, no matter what you in to, no matter what you see when you look outside your window, brown grass or green grass, picket fence or barbed wire, never ever put them down, you just lift your arms higher. Raise 'em till your arms tired, let 'em know you there, that you struggling and surviving, that you gon' persevere.

Top 5 Movies I've Watched in 2012

To be clear, I know that I've rated some of these movies before in other posts. But after the benchmarking and the normalizing of the ratings, I cannot find myself agreeing with some of the ratings I made earlier. The Dark Knight Rises is not an 8.5, for example. Neither is Hugo an 8.8. I have adjusted these ratings. I must also note that I should watch The Dark Knight Rises again some time in the future, this time, with my expectations managed so that I can evaluate it as a movie on its own.

5. 21 Jump Street (8.0/10)

A movie in which Channing Tatum was more hilarious than Jonah Hill. Overall, a very funny movie - comedy of the year. I think it's the type of movie everyone can enjoy - it's not overly 'bro' like The Hangover, neither does it take itself too seriously that it becomes unintentional comedy like most Nicolas Cage movies.

T-3. The Cabin in the Woods (8.3/10)

A really smart take on the classic horror/slasher genre. Hell of a ride, great entertainment with loads of laughs. And, it has Amy Acker:-

Still my dream girl after all these years.

T-3. Wreck it Ralph (8.3/10)

As I mentioned earlier, I dropped the ball on this. I'm not even sure why. Maybe it wasn't on the IMDB releases list at end-2011. But in any case, a lot of nostalgia and familiarity with this one. Particularly poignant to you if you used to play a lot of old-school video games. But even if you didn't, the characters are easy to like and the story is easy to follow, and it will lead you to a good sense of satisfaction at the end. Very smartly-written and the graphics are great too.

2. Hugo (8.5/10)

I did say I reduced Hugo's ratings. But of course, not by that much. As I wrote before here, this was a really well-done adventure-imagination movie. I am quite the sucker for these types of movies, particularly if they're adventures by children and particularly if they go back in time to the mid 1900s etc. I mean, there's something really quite beautiful about a kid's adventures, I think. Maybe they hit the nail on the inner child's head in all of us. The world in which Huge was crafted to live in was rather magical (in the railway station), Chloe Moretz becomes more and more pwntastic each time she's on screen, and I do like that Hugo's own mini-life-goal was part of a bigger plan and bigger purpose for the movie. I strongly encourage you to watch the movie, you will like it.

1. The Hobbit (9.0/10)

Radagast the Brown!

I've already watched this movie thrice - 2D, 3D and 3D Imax. Just bloody go watch it.

A Review of the Top 12 Things I Looked Forward to in 2012

At the end of last year, I wrote a post about the Top 12 Things I Looked Forward to in 2012. Fortunately, I have managed to experience all 12 of these. Given that the world is supposed to end, according to the Mayans anyway, in a couple of days time, I figured I should at least review these things before the world comes to an end. If we're still around on the 22nd, then I'll start thinking about the things I'm looking forward to in 2013. For those of you scoring at home, if the world is going to end, it should end at 8pm Malaysia time (7am EST) for the simple reason that all regions of the world, according to the time zone lines, would have hit the 21st of December. But of course, it'd be 1am on the 22nd of December in Samoa, so, yeah...Haven't really figured out how it would work.

But anyway, here we go. I'm introducing a new 3-tier ranking system for evaluating these 12 things. I figured, anytime you have to add yet another convoluted method of ranking things to all the previous convoluted methods of ranking things you've done before, you got to do it. Even that previous sentence is convoluted. Anyway, it's pretty simple. We're going either by Underwhelmed, Whelmed or Overwhelmed. Underwhelmed just means that it was below expectations. Overwhelmed means it hit above expectations (obviously this means a lot more as we more higher up the rankings). Whelmed is just that. That feeling when things meet your expectations but all you can go is, "Oh, okay."

Onward ho.

12. American Reunion

This one was always about nostalgia for me. It was fun to see the crew get back into it. It was exactly as I expected, so I can't complain.

Verdict: Whelmed

11. The Avengers

I think that one of the saddest things to come across is to see someone with so much potential fail to make the most out of their potential. This is essentially my problem with the Avengers. There was so much room to do stuff with the characters. I understand the appeal behind the final product of the movie - it was good fun, nice rock and roll type thingy. But I think it could have done a lot more, plot-wise. Also, Loki didn't cut it for me as a villain.

Verdict: Moderately Underwhelmed

10. Rise of the Guardians

In fairness, I was always going to be a bit biased towards this movie because of its premise. I think it's pretty kickass to have the Sandman, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Jack Frost and Santa battle the Boogeyman. While the plot was fairly standard cartoon-y stuff, I did like the theme of believing. I still believe in Santa, in all fairness. (If you're wondering why I can let this plot go, it's only because the Avengers had way more potential).

Verdict: Very slightly overwhelmed

9. The Amazing Spiderman

It's really not even fair how Emma Stone can have such an effect on males and females alike. She stole my heart completely, again, in the movie as loveable Gwen Stacy. In the sequel, shit is going to be flipped by me. I don't want to spoiler things but in my defense, the comic series has been out there for ages. In any case, I thought the movie was alright overall. Nothing really stood out but Emma. Not the biggest fan of the Lizard, but I can see why they pulled a Batman Begins thing by only introducing the archvillain in the sequel.

Verdict: Whelmed

8. The Raven

I watched this on a plane ride somewhere and it's just as well. The movie tried quite hard to be all dark and stuff, but it didn't really reach a level of darkness I felt would be good for the movie. It's hard for me to take John Cusack seriously anyway, what more as Edgar Allan Poe. Again, I expected it earlier to be dark along the lines of Se7en or Zodiac. But it probably only reached along the lines of some generic ghost story.

Verdict: Underwhelmed

7. Lob City

Did not disappoint. Got treated to an incredible array of dunks and lobs throughout the season. Granted, my respect for Chris Paul, the lobber, grew more than my excitement for Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan, the lobbee-s, but Lob City was still great fun. More to come for sure.

Verdict: Overwhelmed

6. The US Olympics Basketball Team 2012

Of the 12 players I tipped to be included in the team, 7 were in - Lebron, Kobe, CP3, Deron Williams, Kevin Durant, Kevin Love, Carmelo Anthony. The remaining 5 were all injured. And I gotta say, my 5 picks were spot on. The ones who came on after were replacements for the 5 that were injured. Russ West for Derrick Rose. James Harden for Dwyane Wade. Andre Iguodola for Blake Griffin. Anthony Davis for Chris Bosh. Tyson Chandler for Dwight Howard. Anyway, it was good fun watching the team play. And great fun watching Kevin Durant showing his all-world scoring skills. And much greater fun watching Lebron own the team and the Olympics.

Verdict: Overwhelmed

5. Lebron and Wade with the Eff You Edge

I do love it when athletes play with a real Eff You Edge. D-Wade does that on a regular basis anyway but Lebron did it this year, which I wrote about here and here. We saw a transcendent basketball player in his prime as a result. As a Celtics fan, screw you Lebron. As a basketball fan, I was a Witness.

Verdict: Significantly Overwhelmed

4. Euro 2012

For the 2010 World Cup, I decided to try and be unconventional and pick Brazil to win in my betting pool, assuming of course that gambling is legal. For the 2012 Euros, I decided to go with convention and pick Spain for my betting pool. I finished a close second. It was the right choice. What does this tell us? Firstly, people like picking the unconventional decision because if it pans out, you look like a genius. But there's a reason it's unconventional. Secondly, conventionality tends to win because the odds are in its favor. Like so many things in life, unless you feel very strongly against the odds, just go with the bloody odds. Go with convention. In other news, the football was okay - it was fun watching a transcendent team get down and boogie. And I love watching Xabi Alonso.

Verdict: Only Slightly Overwhelmed

3. BBC's Sherlock

Well, I wrote about this here and here. You know what I think about it. If you don't watch it, you're just seriously denying yourself a fricking blast of a TV show. I would like to make a correction though. In my review on "The Final Problem", I did say Fuck the Hobbit. Well, that was premature as I now know. But even so, I can't bloody wait for Season 3. This is the best show on TV right now.

Verdict: Magnificently Overwhelmed

2. The Dark Knight Rises

My full opinion on the movie is here. For the purposes of a review of things I looked forward to, here is 1 important thought - I sincerely believed that this movie could be my greatest movie of all-time. The potential was high. Expectations were high. And as we know, things tend to regress to the mean and maybe basing the Dark Knight Rises off a reference point of The Dark Knight made it significantly more difficult for the movie to whelm me, what more overwhelm me.

To reiterate, this was my main problem with the movie:-

"In a world where I can suspend belief to believe that the Batman is real, I'm still finding it difficult to believe that after an epic war/battle such as this one, all the major 'good guys' got happy endings...It was just too neat fore me. I would have liked to have seen an ending like the Godfather series, particularly in Godfather 2 - Michael Corleone sitting in his cabin at Lake Tahoe, on top of the world but bitterly alone (before you crucify me on a spoiler for Godfather 2, the movie has been out for 38 years. It's your fault if I spoiled anything for you)."

Verdict: Significantly Underwhelmed

1. The Hobbit

Hand on heart, I will be watching this movie for the third time in 7 days in just an hour's time. I will post a full review once more people have watched it. But this should give you an inclination of what I think and how I feel about the movie. I picked this particular picture because it's the White Council - the Council of the Wisest beings on Middle-Earth. This would naturally appeal to me. And after the meeting, Gandalf has some amazing words of wisdom that should be kept to heart. In any case, you can also tell given my seriously substantial love for Sherlock, I did admit that I was wrong about "Fuck the Hobbit." That was a mistake. The Hobbit is, well, deserving of my number 1 spot. (Hint: If you can't guess who takes my Number 1 spot for the year 2013, assuming no apocalypse, you need to evaluate things).

Verdict: Magnificently Overwhelmed

Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!

While I am not really one to follow weekly releases of comic books, as evidenced by my preference to wait for the New 52 Graphic Novels - Detective Comics, Action Comics, Justice League of America etc - rather than collect each individual issue, I have been trying quite hard to seek out the Before Watchmen miniseries by individual issue. I'm not certain why; after all, I just have to wait a bit for the Graphic Novel to come out, encapsulating all the various issues into one easy, convenient book.

The Before Watchmen miniseries capture the events in the lives of the Watchmen before they became, well, the Watchmen. The series includes Minutemen, Nite Owl, Rorshach, Silk Spectre, Dr Manhattan, The Comedian and, my 14th favourite male character of all time, Ozymandias.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Of the entire miniseries, I have chosen to follow Rorshach, The Comedian, Dr Manhattan (quite psychadelic to be fair) and, of course, Ozymandias. And I gotta say, tracing how Adrian Veidt became Ozymandias is seriously compelling and, dare I say, inspiring. Especially, of course, if you're a megalomaniac.

I've always thought a superhero or an idol, for lack of a better word, should not really be someone you can relate to, but rather someone you can strive towards. For this reason, while I can understand why people tend to like, say, Spiderman or Batman or, maybe, Wolverine, I'm not convinced that they make good 'idols', necessarily. It's kind of the same logic when building, say, a company. Would it be better to build a company based on pragmatism or a company based on ideals? I can take the pragmatism point, but I strongly advocate ideals, simply because ideals are things behind which people can rally. But I digress.

Adrian Veidt's journey and eventual Watchmen-defining moment make for a nice twist because Adrian Veidt makes for an antagonist who is kind of an idol of mine. I mean, he's called, in the comics, as the "smartest man on the planet." Doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to see why that would be appealing to me. But the way in which he became Ozymandias or, at least, his journey in the first 2 (of 6) issues of the Ozymandias Before Watchmen series is incredibly fascinating. I'm not going to give a synopsis of the events because I seriously think you should read it, but I really love the way in which he became an idol of sorts - He chose to measure himself against his idol.

I don't think I'm being very eloquent here, but essentially, I find it really fascinating how he became an idol (of mine, at least) because he wanted to be like his idol. And, unlike 99% of the human population, he actually achieved the successes of his idol. I mean, most of us, we want to be like MLK, we want to be like Lincoln, we want to be like Mandela, we want to be like Gandhi. But we never get to be simply because, well, we fall short of them. But there's nothing wrong with striving to be like them. And that's the difference between us and Adrian Veidt. He did not fall short.

In Before Watchmen, he describes how his mind was battling with the following questions - Firstly, how had someone so young (Alexander the Great) come so close to uniting such an ancient, primitive world? And secondly, how did one man drag a civilization barehanded from the blood and filth of such utter barbarity? Taking it upon himself to match Alexander, he chose to measure his own success against the success of Alexander, setting himself on his life path. He wanted to bring an age of illumination to a benighted world. He adds though, and this is an amazing line - one which actually gave me goose bumps and blew my fricking mind, "In truth, I think I just wanted to be able to have something to say to (Alexander), should we ever meet in the Hall of Legends."

Wow.

I mean, wow.

Of course, as the story goes, while he traced the life of Alexander, Veidt found disappointment in his idol as he found that Alexander had not united all the world, nor built a unity that would survive him. This, of course, despite Alexander reportedly weeping when he found out that there were no worlds left to concur. Instead, on a hashish-induced night, Veidt finally found his calling. He had finally found Alexander's true triumph. Alexander has merely resurrected an age of pharaohs, whose wisdom was truly immortal and was now the source of inspiration for Veidt. And, in time, he took the name Ozymandias, the Greek version of Ramesses II, the greatest Egyptian pharaoh of all time.

Anyway, so that's how Veidt became Ozymandias. But the next step was to find a way to become immortal, to match the achievements of Alexander and Ramesses II, to bring an age of illumination to a benighted world. He needed to find his way into the Hall of Legends. You know how the story goes. If you don't, shame on you. Realising that merely fighting crime and evil villains only helped symptoms of the human condition, he strived instead to alter the human condition, attempting to alter human nature rather than simply applying bandaids in spaces where the negative side of human nature chose to manifest itself. He realised that no amount of beating up villains would really alter human nature. It was no way to join the Hall of Legends. The Smartest Man on the Planet had, in fact, been slow to catch up to a fact fully understood by The Comedian earlier, which was that mankind has been trying to kill each other off since the beginning of time.

Once he understood that, Ozymandias crafted the biggest trick in human history. Essentially, his method was this - realising that, throughout human history, humans have found other humans to be their enemy; there was no common enemy to unite everybody. In essence, that has been true of most wars in history - people uniting against a common enemy. I mean, consider World War 2. 2 countries which would enter into a Cold War and, really, had no real reason to be allies found themselves on the same side against a common enemy - the Nazis. That's what unites people. The presence of the 'other' against which everyone rallies.

Ozymandias gave everyone that 'other' by killing millions to save billions, ending the Cold War (which was threatening to erupt in nuclear war between the aforementioned 2 countries). Rather than stopping the present symptom (the Cold War) as he knew more wars would come even if he achieved peace negotiations or whatever, he chose to alter human nature, giving humanity a new 'other' in which to unite against.

Now, I'm all for the greater good and all that but I do have my moral reasoning objections against what Ozymandias did which made him the antagonist of Watchmen. But using a rather Bentham-ic Utilitarian kind of world view, he chose to sacrifice millions to save billions. A completely out-of-the-box unorthodox method to really unite the world. And that's what happened. He succeeeded (at least until the end of the novel - we don't know events that transpired after the New Frontiersman found Rorshach's journal). Whether or not he brought an age of illumination to a benighted world, he united the world. He united humanity by giving it a new common enemy.

Ozymandias may have had his methodology completely screwed up, but y'know, I completely buy the original idea that he had. I don't condone the execution of the idea nor would I have done it but I think he was right. If you want to change human nature or at least trick human nature, give a common enemy. This has ALWAYS worked in the past. Think of Americans uniting against Communists or Malaysians uniting against the British for independence or that sort of thing. This works. You can't keep on dealing with each human versus human problem one by one and expect it to be sustainable. But giving all of humanity a new common enemy? That is fricking brilliant. Give the man credit - he measured up to the successes of his idol, becoming an idol himself despite being a villain and should he have met Alexander or Ramesses II in the Hall of Legends, he would have had something to say. And they would have looked upon his works and have despaired. 

Selected Excerpts from the Poem of Joys

I once took a class in College, sophomore year of College to be more precise, called Poems, Poets and Poetry. It had a very high 'Q' Rating (a student-based evaluation of all classes) and the Professor, Helen Vendler, is one of the most renowned literary experts in the United States. So, I figured, I needed to take two literature classes to fulfill my graduation requirements under the liberal arts system, why not take this class? I kind of like poetry, maybe this will help me be more cultured - or so I thought.

I was wrong. Not only did I not become more cultured, not only did it turn me off of poetry, it caused me to get jaded way too early in my College career - the 3rd semester of an 8 semester program. I had no idea how people could write 10 pages critiquing just one poem. Of course, this was just me - a friend of mine who also took the class absolutely loved it. But then again, she majored in English Lit, so, yeah...

But that said, it's not that I hate poetry or anything. I just hate the analysis of poetry. I realise I just bashed an entire profession so let me clarify. I'm not saying your work is useless, I'm just saying I hate doing it. I don't see how I'm supposed to argue that the poet clearly meant to convey Hidden Message A because he wrote this sentence in this way. To be fair, maybe he is conveying Hidden Message A. But maybe, there was no hidden message. Maybe he just wrote it as is. For us to go and discover hidden messages, we need to believe that there is a hidden message in the first place. What if there isn't? A satire of this was done in South Park - The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs. An exchange goes as follows:-

Stan: ...This book is nothing but smut and vulgarity purely for the sake of smut and vulgarity!
Assemblyman 1: That's just because you're too young to understand the underlying themes.
Cartman: There are no underlying themes! We know that for a fact!
Assemblyman 2: You just fail to understand what the author meant.
Kyle: The author meant to be as gross as possible because it was funny!
Assemblyman 3: [chuckles] No, no, that's such a simplistic view.
Stan: Goddammit, there is no deeper meaning in this book! Read it again!
Assemblywoman 1: Oh, so you're suggesting that the author just arbitrarily made fun of Sarah Jessica Parker for no reason?
Kyle: Yes!
Assemblywoman 1: But what would be the point?
Cartman: There is no point! It's just because Sarah Jessica Parker is fucking ugly!
Assemblywoman 2: No writer would take the time to make fun of Sarah Jessica Parker just because they think she's ugly.
Stan, Cartman and Kyle: Yes, they would!
Assemblywoman 2: It is because Ms Jessica Parker is a metaphor in the book for oppression felt by the lower class.
Stan: What? Dude, that is not in the book at all.
Assemblyman 2: Boys, this book is an important look at how liberals are hurting the country!
Stan: What?
Assemblywoman 2: Wait, Scrotie McBoogerballs is the most conservative hating liberal in literature!
Assemblyman 2: What book did YOU read?
Stan: There's nothing about liberals or conservatives!

But anyway, I just felt like sharing three excerpts from the Poem of Joys by Walt Whitman, which is my favourite poem. I have never done any "close reading" of it nor have I tried to figure out what deeper meanings there are in the poem beyond a straight eyed interpretation of it. The full poem is here. But here are my two favourite excerpts:-

Yet, O my soul supreme!
Know'st thou the joys of pensive thought?
Joys of the free and lonesome heart - the tender, gloomy heart?
Joy of the solitary walk - the spirit bowed yet proud - the suffering and the struggle?
The agonistic throes, the extasies - joys of the solemn musings, day or night?
Joys of the thought of Death - the great spheres Time and Space?
Prophetic joys of better, loftier love's ideals - the Divine Wife - the sweet, eternal, perfect Comrade?
Joys all thine own, undying one - joys worthy thee, O Soul.

O joy of suffering!
To struggle against great odds! to meet enemies undaunted!
To be entirely alone with them! to find how much one can stand!
To look strife, torture, prison, popular odium, death, face to face!
To mount the scaffold! to advance to the muzzles of guns with perfect nonchalance!
To be indeed a God!

O to have my life henceforth a poem of new joys!
To dance, clap hands, exult, shout, skip, leap, roll on, float on.
To be a sailor of the world, bound for all ports.
A ship itself, (see indeed these sails I spread to the sun and air),
A swift and swelling ship, full of rich words - full of joys.

On that note - To be a sailor of the world, bound for all ports - I leave you with this - XKCD's Click and Drag. It's one of the most moving and most profound things I've seen in recent times.

Flying Over These City Lights

In the very first episode of Mad Men, "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes", Don Draper says, "Advertising is based on one thing - Happiness. You know what happiness is? Happiness is the smell of a new car. It's freedom from fear. It's a billboard on the side of the road that screams reassurance that whatever you're doing...it's okay. You are okay." Of course, I don't need to tell you that he delivered the lines immaculately. But if you don't believe me, check this out.

In a previous post, I tried to describe what I think is the subtle difference between happiness and contentment. In my mind, this is best described in the book "Lady Audley's Secret" by Mary Elizabeth Bradden. The passage is so good that I think it bears repeating.

"Let any man make a calculation of his existence, subtracting the hours in which he has been thoroughly happy — really and entirely at his ease, without one arriere pensee to mar his enjoyment — without the most infinitesimal cloud to overshadow the brightness of his horizon. Let him do this, and surely he will laugh in utter bitterness of soul when he sets down the sum of his felicity, and discovers the pitiful smallness of the amount. He will have enjoyed himself for a week or ten days in thirty years, perhaps. In thirty years of dull December, and blustering March, and showery April, and dark November weather, there may have been seven or eight glorious August days through which the sun has blazed in cloudless radiance, and the summer breezes have breathed perpetual balm. How fondly we recollect these solitary days of pleasure, and hope for their recurrence, and try to plan the circumstances that made them bright; and arrange, and predestinate, and diplomatise with fate for a renewal of the remembered joy. As if any joy could ever be built up out of such and such constituent parts! As if happiness were not essentially accidental — a bright and wandering bird, utterly irregular in its migrations; with us one summer's day, and forever gone from us on the next!"

Today, I finished a book called, "The Perks of Being a Wallflower," written by Stephen Chbosky. In case there was any lack of clarity as to why I chose to pick up the book, let me start by saying I saw the trailer for the upcoming movie on Youtube. And guess who's in it.

Really no prizes for guessing. 

So, anyway, I got a copy of the book and I started reading it. It's not very long. So it was a good way to start an Independence Day morning. 

This wasn't though. 

And, I've come across what is probably the most famous quote from this book some time before. But now that I had the proper context for it and how it arose, I felt very provoked by it. The quote goes, "When we got out of the tunnel, Sam screamed this really funny scream, and there it was. Downtown. Lights on buildings and everything makes you wonder. Sam sat down and started laughing. Patrick started laughing. I started laughing. And in that moment, I swear we were infinite.”

Of course, part of the reason I love this quote is because I’m generally a big fan of city lights. But, y’know, I think that bolded bit is a simple but great description of a hyped-up version of what Don Draper was saying. I think, as people go through things, it’s very rare to find moments like the one described in Lady Audley’s Secret, where you feel pure contentment without a single thing bothering you at all.

"A Song for Milly Michaelson"

But I also think it is exceedingly rare to find moments like the one described by Draper and the one described in Perks. To be a bit more pedantic, I would say that the feeling that Draper details out is the foundation for the one that Perks details. First, you have to put yourself in a situation where you can think, “Whatever it is that’s going on in my life, I am okay.” It’s sort of a way of saying that while you may have all sorts of problems and issues going on with you, at that moment, you really just could not give a crap about them. And I think it’s, as Draper says, freedom from fear. And when you realize that you’re in a situation that makes you feel that you couldn’t care less about your issues (in a good way), then you can just enjoy yourself. And enjoy the moment. As well as how you feel in that very moment. I think this is where Perks does a fantastic job.

Imagine, you’re cruising with 2 of your favourite people in the world. You’re driving at night. The city lights are all around you. There’s no traffic. You can go as fast as you like. A song comes on that you all equally love and makes you all feel super hyped up. Like, at that moment, you’re invincible. Totally and completely invincible. The wind is in your hair and your face. You’re just soaking in everything around you. You feel infinite.

It’s an amazing description. When I read it, I could instantly identify exactly what feelings I believed the author was trying to convey. In fairness, it’s a bit like that song by Fun called “We Are Young” but I’m not particularly fond of that song. It’s like you’re in the zone and you feel that nothing you do at that moment could go wrong.

I think these are all generally rare moments in life. I mean, I’m speaking obviously from my own personal experience. I can’t think of many times in my life where I’ve felt true contentment or when I’ve felt utterly invincible despite massive blots on the radar screen or that sort of thing. Maybe I’m the lucky one in the sense that some people may not have experienced these. Or maybe I’m the emotionally-stunted one where these are actually fairly common for people. I don’t know. But in any case, ‘infinite’ is a deeply profound feeling to have. And certainly I hope to say at least once more in my life that, “In that moment, I swear we were infinite.”