Poem: The sky is moving

The sky is moving

Sand between your teeth

‘Between’ because ‘beneath’

Is meaningless in this context

And shouldn’t a poem have meaning?

Shouldn’t a thing contain another thing?

To just be beautiful is rather sad

So, sand between your teeth

You’re probably at the beach, aren’t you?

Where else do you get sand between your teeth?

Suggestions are welcome

Though they will be ignored

This poem is not a team effort

 

Now sand beneath your teeth, however,

Wouldn’t that be fascinating?

A place where that happens

Is bound to be interesting

Yes, I have decided

That you’ve somehow gotten sand beneath your teeth

And now you’re looking up at the sky

Why else that particular title, after all?

Not because it seemed like a good idea at the time

No siree Bob

How dare you suggest that!

 

We’ve established that you’re staring up at the sky

You lie back in the sand

You close your eyes

And then when, after a while, you open them again

Does the world seem changed?

Let me narrow that down for you:

How does the sky look?

Is it brighter?

Darker?

Does it move faster or slower?

Does it move at all?

Something’s changed, right?

 

People say we look at the same world

No

We look through different eyes, so we look at different worlds

The world is in the eye of the beholder

Let’s take that a step further

The world is in the pen of the writer

And in this poem,

Of which I am the writer,

(Remember how your suggestions were disregarded)

Sand is beneath your teeth

Whatever that means

Poem: In the kitchen

In the kitchen

A kitchen’s a place where you cook

And maybe also eat

But you knew that

 

In the kitchen we set the table

And clear it again

Load and empty the dishwasher

 

In the kitchen we wrap birthday gifts

We read the newspaper in the morning

We check our email

 

In the kitchen we do our homework

We put away the groceries

Sneak a few cookies

 

In the kitchen we call 911

Because we’re not sure if we’ve got enough credit on our cell phone,

Which is a stupid thing to think:

911 is free

 

In the kitchen we’re unable to answer the operator’s questions

‘Is she breathing? Does she have a pulse?’

We don’t know:

We’re in the kitchen and she is outside

 

In the kitchen we hear our dad yell our name

His panic twists something inside of us

It makes us want to end the call:

We don’t, because the operator is still giving instructions

 

In the kitchen we secretly hope that everything will be fine

By the time we go outside

It isn’t:

But it isn’t over either

 

We don’t, like Taylor Swift, dance around by the refrigerator light

(though that must be nice)

We cook, we do our homework and we call 911

That’s about it

Poem: So you've got dreams

 

 

So you’ve got dreams

 

So you’ve got dreams

I don’t intend to be mean

But so what?

 

These dreams of yours are

Cotton candy forgotten, melting in the sun

As you read in a deck chair

(and think about your tan)

 

These dreams of yours are

Indentations in a piece of paper in the back of your desk drawer;

Whose existence you remember every once in a while

(and then push aside again)

 

These dreams of yours are

Fantasies you entertain when you play on your phone

Or don’t really watch TV

(and waste your time instead of doing)  

 

You’re halfway to sixty

You’re perfectly healthy

Yet, you don’t have a job

(and you live with your parents)

 

So you’ve got dreams

And what are they now?

(and will they always be)

Dreams

 

 

Uhm, what?: The 'realest' edition

So, Michael Douglas (from Basic Instinct and Fatal Attraction fame) recently said something about 'real' men. Apparently, there aren't a lot of those left in Hollywood. According to Douglas, young male movie stars are too busy with social media and they look too androgynous to be considered 'real' men anymore.

Fuck you, Michael Douglas.

First of all, you don't get to decide what constitutes a 'real man.'

Secondly, it's gotten more complicated in recent decades how masculinity and being male should be defined because society is finally accepting that transgender people exist and starting to treat them decently. This does, however, make it a little harder to say when someone is a man. In the past, I would have said that anyone with a dick is a man, regardless of the time they spent on social media and how they look. Not anymore. These days anyone who identifies as male is a man. That is the new definition. There are zero other requirements, so I wish people like Michael Douglas would stop trying to narrow down the definition with ridiculous and arbitrary qualities.

Thirdly, I am getting so tired of people who still whine about men and/or women breaking the gender mold. Newsflash: there are no gender-specific traits. Women work in science and construction and men cook and clean. Stop trying to make clothes, jobs and activities shameful for one gender because once upon a time these things were mostly associated with the other gender.

Being active on social media does not make someone less of a man. The way a guy looks does not make him less of a man. Being gay does not make someone not a 'real' man. Etc.

This whole stupid thing reminds me of how annoying politicians are always attempting to redefine 'American,' as if being an American citizen is not enough. Clearly, if you're not also doing this, voting that and going to this church then despite being an American you are not a 'real' American. What a load of bullshit.

Though, naturally, the exception to this 'no bullshit' rule is Iggy Azalea. She is not just real. She is the realest.

Uhm, what?: Negativity edition

I don't like Fifty Shades of Grey. I think the books are badly written, the sex in them is incredibly tedious, the main characters are stupid (Ana) and borderline evil (Christian) and instead of portraying BDSM they portray an abusive relationship.

Now, whenever I voice this opinion online, I get a lot of people telling me to shut up. That's not weird. It's the internet. Plus, a lot of people really like those books. What does strike me as weird is the reason some people think I should shut up. Apparently, I am being 'negative' when I say that I don't like something.

Well, yeah, but why is that a bad thing?

If I am about to buy a book I often check the reviews for it. Reviews are fantastic preparation because (positive or negative) they usually give me an idea of whether I'll like the book or not. E.g. if the positive reviews rave about how the main character is super special and awesome and beautiful and everyone loves him or her, I'll probably not be buying that book. I'm not overly fond of those kind of characters. I like my characters to have flaws. Perfection is boring. Negative reviews are very handy in this regard, because a lot of them tell you exactly what is wrong with a book. Criticism is useful.

Furthermore, in the case of Fifty Shades of Grey, where a pretty disturbing relationship and a pretty awful man are portrayed as wonderful and ideal, I find it very important to speak out about certain aspects of the novels. Sometimes saying 'this is not normal; this is not okay' is necessary if only to present a different viewpoint.

Some people have a tendency to attempt to dismiss negative opinions. There is a lot of 'don't like it, don't read it' and 'get a life' and 'you must be really pathetic/crazy to be spending so much time on something you hate' going around. Now, on the one hand, I kind of understand this attitude. After all, if you don't enjoy something, why spend time on it?

However, we're not talking about reading the books. No amount of money could get me to slog through them again. I'm giving 'Grey' a miss.

Dissecting Fifty Shades of Grey gives me joy, though. I like connecting with other people who share my dislike for the series and hearing their opinions. I write Fifty Shades of Grey fanfiction too (I'm bookjunk on fanfiction.net) because if ever a series needed improving it's that one.

Finally, I think that E.L. James is a hack and I'd like people to know that she is a hack. Not because of the abuse or because of the misrepresentation of BDSM or because both of her heroes are extremely unlikeable or because the sex is unsexy. It is not the horrible story that makes me think that she is a shitty writer: it is her writing. Her characterisation is barely there. She tells instead of shows constantly. Her characters are supposed to be American, but they use British idiom all the time. There is no sense of time or place.

Even if the story wasn't highly objectionable, the writing would still be abysmal. I think James should either let her editor do his or her job or seriously hone her writing skills. I want people to read books that are good. And by "good" I don't mean Hemingway (because I loathe him). I mean, I want people to read books that are decently written whether that be erotica, sci-fi, fantasy, detective etc.

What is up with this strange anti-negativity movement? Are people not allowed to dislike things anymore? Or should I just do that in silence for fear of offending anyone who does like the thing that I don't like? It does not affect my enjoyment one iota if someone expresses a negative opinion about something I like. Instead of demanding that the "haters" shrug and move on, I shrug and move on.

  

Girl crush of the moment: Chloe Howl

So, I get girl crushes all the time. You know (or you don’t, but – don’t worry – I’m going to explain it) how in Friends, Rachel lets Ross make a list of five women he’s allowed to have sex with if he meets them and can somehow convince them to have sex with him? And then Joey convinces him not to put Isabella Rossellini on there because there’s no chance in hell that he’ll ever meet her and then Ross does meet her, but he’s already got his little list laminated and Isabella is not on it and she’s like, ‘That looks pretty permanent and my name’s not on there, so…’

Well, I’m about seventy percent straight and thirty percent gay, so I’ve got a similar list in my head. There are three women permanently on there (in no particular order):

                                                                      Alexis Bledel

                                                                        Liv Tyler

                                                                  Julianna Margulies

The other two spots are subject to change. And...a new contender has emerged! Her name is Chloe Howl and she’s gorgeous. She’s got super cute, short, red hair. She’s got a lovely accent and beautiful porcelain skin. Plus, freckles.

                                                     Look at those freckles! So fucking hot.

Anyway, she’s a singer. She’s got a bit of an attitude. Not a diva-attitude or a rude-attitude; just a don’t-fuck-with-me attitude. I really like her style. Listen to her songs No Strings, Disappointed, I Wish I Could Tell You and Paper Heart to experience some of that attitude and to hear her awesome accent. She looks great in a dress too.

                                                                         Yum.

Okay, that's it. Random picture of a handsome guy and we're done here.

                                               He's also got a wonderful accent, by the way.

Uhm, what?: 'Read the book if you want to understand the movie' edition

Sometimes I read YouTube comments. Hahaha, why? WHY? I don't know, okay. It's a sick compulsion. I wish I could quit you, YouTube comments. (Brokeback Mountain reference, FTW).

Anyway, lately I've noticed a lot of people whining about something very specific that I find baffling. When videos (CinemaSins etc.) point out that a book adaptation didn't answer a question or had a plothole, people take to the comment section to complain. Their comments often boil down to 'Of course you didn't get the movie: you didn't read the book!'

Um, angry YouTube commenters?

If you need to read the book to understand the movie, then the movie didn't do a very good job.

Yeah, I recommend Harry Potter books to people, but not so they can understand the movies. Harry Potter books are awesome (they do get a little less so towards the end, though). If you have to read the books to be able to follow the movies, then - say it with me - the movies have failed to do their job. They're not an extension of the books. A movie should be able to stand on its own.

People go to the cinema to watch a story unfold on screen. That story needs to be comprehensible. People generally don't go to the cinema in the hope that they'll have to read the book later to clear up key plot points of the movie.

You make no sense, angry YouTube commenters.