jay_walk: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jay_walk at 11:38am on 17/09/2011 under , ,
Today: rowing trip, college application (open form, start filling out, do looking at which colleges I like or making appointments with counsellors or essay writing as necessary).
And that is entirely enough for today.
But no, I have to be such a self-loathing perfectionist that I think I'm failing at life whenever I don't finish twenty books a week, post deep world-changing insights daily, win at running and fencing and rowing four times a week, never not be best in school, write awesome fiction, and meet new people all the time. I am making my own life awful by constantly thinking there's so much I ought to be doing right now.
jay_walk: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jay_walk at 08:06pm on 16/09/2011 under , ,
I just realised I have some of that type of sociological or whatever opinions that people are so fond of discussing. I thought my opinions were sort of the obvious ones that I don't need to tell anyone because it's so obvious, but apparently not.
So, the whole "born this way" thing, suddenly lgbt people have taken to using it rather a lot, as a general statement of pride instead of purely as a counterargument.
I am firmly of the opinion it is the wrong argument to be having.
People do realise we've been arguing this point literally at least for a hundred years? Do the simplest ideas always take this long? Are we really that slow?
As far as I can tell a hundred years ago the argument was that it's not their fault they're gay, they're not committing that crime on purpose, they just cannot help it and ought to be pitied.
That may have been a relatively sympathetic view a hundred years ago, but why are we still having the same discussion? We shouldn't be telling people that people regrettably just can't help being gay, we ought to argue that it doesn't matter the slightest why because people ought to be able to do whatever they want for any reason at all. I don't want to discuss some "gay gene" when I don't care whether it's genes or god or the flying spaghetti monster or just deciding you want to make out with a dude right now, they point isn't why the point is it doesn't matter why.
I think it isn't a good idea for queers or anyone to attribute their lives to genes or god or fate. Not that I'm saying it is a choice (that would be stupid), but quit focusing on how it's not their fault; it's entirely irrelevant whose fault it is when there's nothing wrong in the first place.
Can we just get it over with, making all the stupid cishetero people stop being so very stupid, and get on with it, and maybe come up with something interesting instead of waiting for them to catch up?

Ok, rant over. How am I today?
1. Sick.
2. Sick of peoples repetitiveness.
3. Sick of lgb people, bored with the whole obsession on sex and romance, although I suspect asexual people have the same obsession with their lack thereof, so
4. Sick of people saying anything at all, especially about themselves.
jay_walk: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jay_walk at 07:13pm on 09/07/2011 under , , ,
books read for english class that end in suicide: 1/15
(Romeo and Juliet)

books read for german class (that I can remember) that end in suicide: 9/12

(the ones that didn't are about the holocaust, and that didn't end well for anyone either; and Antigone, which is the only one that isn't German, and also tragedy)

So much suicide.

Cultural problem or what.
Half my time in German class is spent on the topic "Why did this character kill themselves", "was it society's fault", "how planned was it", "just how suicidal were they". I'm beginning to believe it's just the standard formula ending for a profound, classic, meaningful etc. german book.

(Spoilers by listing which of those german books end in suicide, I suppose)

I cannot stand Werther, or the romantic plays (3), dreadful pompous language in those too. By contrast I like "the New Sorrows" a bit better, though not much.
Frisch (2) can make reading of potentially interesting things singularly unenjoyable.
I loved Perfume and only technically count that as a suicide.
Spring Awakening wasn't too bad, or too suicide-focused, either.
The Prodigy is the one book in which the whole depressiveness is beautiful.

But I loved all of brit lit and american literature.

I am not fond of most of what the curriculum considers to be good german literature, or of german class in general.
Suicide-obsession, gravity, nothing spirited: all the whole enlightenment and romanticism brought to literature, it seems, is grandiose language.
Which isn't to say there aren't german works I love, or even depressive german works I like (I like Kafka for example, but then again I wasn't forced to read that). There's Sturm und Drang things I like too, I like Goethe's Prometheus. But they seem to have chosen just the most tedious stuff they could find for school.
It's just not a good curriculum, the general mood in germany is that education should not be fun or interesting. It also involves a lot of learning about grammar, for native speakers, which english class doesn't. And I have my complaints about the whole "Rechtschreibung" thing too, and about the language purists.
(One more year of it to go, and I do try to appreciate the nice things I pick up in that class, even of it's like 10 % instead of 99 % in other classes.)
jay_walk: (Default)
Just because I remembered about 5 different people ( therapists, psychologists, endocrinologists) have told me to just take some birth control if I want to feel better. WTF? And I'm sitting there wanting to say "... you know what's in that, right?" Seriously, what the fuck. That is absolutely sick. This from those psychologists who claim to be experts on transsexuality (who have actually been the least helpful and most wrong people I've ever met). Read more... )
jay_walk: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jay_walk at 12:24pm on 29/06/2011 under , , ,
is a really really cool idea. Maybe it could be improved by also offering 3-minute or 10-minute versions, because I can't write anything (fiction) at all unless under direct pressure but I could write a lot of cool stuff given 10 minutes of it.

Here's where I write opinions that make me sound like a misanthropic arrogant jerk and expect too much of people:

So far I have written on "morals", I have written on "crush". What most people have written on "morals" disgusts me.
So given 60 seconds apparently what's in people's minds is:
- nobody has any morals anymore; society is awful and degenerate, there should be more morals
- a few odd America-centric christianity-centric variations of the above
- a sense of how useful, right, and holy morals are
- without morals= evil
- morals = idea of what's right and wrong
- different people can have different morals
- where morals do /ought to come from (parents, society, didactic stories)

I don't know, I'm surprised. It all seems awfully regurgitated and meaningless, what people are thinking. I am always shocked to see samples of what people think, or rather don't think. Yes, I take everything too seriously.
No original thinking? No completely bizarre opinions? No nihilists, skeptics, absurdists, artists, megalomaniacs, delusions, delusional despair, hopelessness, complete idealists, god-haters, religious fanatics,...? With so many different interesting things one could write, it ought to be possible for 80% of everyone to not say the normal stuff. But no. Well I knew that, that most of stuff most people have got to say is pretty much the same stuff a million times, but still, it's depressing.
I know if the task was to be deep, creative, surprising, and original in 60 seconds there's probably be more interesting thing. But still wouldn't it be cool if that kind of diversity of thought were in people's minds without specifically trying?

Not that I can do any better, I regurgitated some stuff I got from Dorian Gray probably:
"People who don't have morals are the more moral. Having morals is having defined rules. Life being short, they probably come from cultural background and assumptions. Morals are never true. Morals are all true; the less restricted, the better. "
and in sixty seconds I did not write anything that makes sense, and neither something so deliberately abstract that the lesson is that it makes no sense.

By the way, consider the difference between immoral and amoral. In The Collector, Clegg is not immoral but amoral: he doesn't defy his sense of morality, he just has no sense of morality. Amorality isn't inherently bad, if he'd just had some basic "don't infringe on other people's rights; let people make their own choices" nothing would have happened. Morals or empathy aren't necessary, just some basic leaving people their rights. (Egocentric, solipsistic, that's his problem- doesn't occur to him his plans aren't to everyone else's liking too.) Of course there's more to be said on that book, I wrote a research paper on it.

I loathe fables, for the reason that made-up stories are not proof, not a convincing argument to do anything. When someone wants to convince me to act a certain way, but gives the silliest justifications, I get frustrated. Frustrated like when I'm trying to have a debate with someone and they argue by goofing off. They apparently became popular in the era of enlightenment and independent reasoning. I laughed when I read that sentence, because letting fictional talking animals tell me what to do is exactly what independence and rationality ought to be. Well, maybe it's that at least people are thinking or reading anything at all. Or maybe I miss the point of fables completely.

On "crush", of course there's a lot of people talking about crushes in cliché ways. Boring, mind-numbing, but not that surprising. I wrote about the verb instead, it made me think of crushed ice and I still haven't thought of the word for that odd squeaking sound ice cubes make when they tear. Then there still had to be crushing in the story, so I put all the ice and snow on top of someone.
"The sound of ice cracking, tearing, sliding, sounds like in a glass of lemonade; a crushing weight of hard, sharp blocks digging into his arm, his torso, his face – suffocating - "


16 17 18