"Will you be with Harry in the end?" Yeah, it's cheap marketing, but I like it, for some reason...
First of all, I would like to start by saying that the spoilers I linked to previously turned out to be correct. I apologize for any part I played in ruining the ending for anyone who read it - but then, to be fair, you had to be looking for spoilers to find it, as was I. Personally I think, from what I've seen, the end of Potter 7 is a letdown, especially since Rowling said two major characters would die. A lot of us were thinking two of the "three" - Harry, Hermione, and Ron, that is. It seems a lot of Rowling's grim foreshadowing was overhyped, but then I have not actually read the book - and eagerly await its paperback release. (Jen confirmed the ending, went to Walmart and skimmed it.)
But, unlike so many other authors, I didn't come here to talk about the end of the Potter saga, but rather the beginning. The year was 2001, and if I remember correctly (memory is so often replaced by technology these days) the first three books were out. I didn't take them seriously at all. The fad that was the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers was fading, and Pokemon was just starting its rise, or perhaps at its peak. Off in the peripheral sights was this popular childrens' series that I heard about, inadvertently through the Church, ironically. This was when they started protesting the books. I was curious, but not curious enough to read a kiddie book. The first film had just come out, and while it looked interesting, I had no intention of seeing it.
One day at work - well, at a temp job I was working between jobs, actually - a guy was being fairly generous with some bootleg DVDs he had. Nothing he had really interested me, but I saw he had the (then) new Harry Potter movie. He loaned it to me, on 2 discs, with the promise I'd bring it back the next night. I was still living at home at this time, and my mother really had no interest in it. I tried to copy it to my computer, but couldn't figure it out. (I would later come to understand that it was a Video CD, and all I had to do was copy the big .DAT file over, and rename it to whatever.MPG, maybe join the two and compress with something like Divx.) So I tried to watch it with Windows Media Player, and miraculously, it worked. The film held my attention from the start. When dinner was ready, I could barely pull myself away. I took supper in my room, and when the movie was over, I wanted to watch it again. But not in the same night.
I returned the movie as promised, and on the next day off I got, I went and saw it in the theater. Big mistake, or at least the timing. There was no fewer than three grade-school classes on field trip in there, kids in second, third, fourth grade giggling at every scene. Lucky for me I knew mostly what was going on. I'd just wanted to see it in the theater, better quality and all.
Naturally, I have another story, for when it came out on DVD. We still had our very first DVD player, which is its own story (in short, we won it in a drawing at Hollywood Video for renting one several months prior). I had bought the craptacular Planet of the Apes remake, with Mark Wahlberg, and it would freeze up now and again. It was explained to me that movies were starting to come in the dual-layer format, and the first-generation DVD players could not handle that. So we needed a new DVD player. I also needed a new Playstation - my first one was starting to go out. So I dropped $250 on the new PlayStation 2, which also served as a DVD player, and I was assured it would play the dual layer discs. For years, our DVD player was a PS2. I bought the remote and everything. Barely a month went by, and Sony dropped the price to $200. I was mad, until I went into Best Buy, where I bought it, and they told me they guarantee low prices, and gave me $50 in store credit. Another month went by, and Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone released on DVD, and was included with all DVD players, including the PS2. In other words, had I waited 2 months, I would have paid $50 less and gotten a free Harry Potter DVD. I ate the difference that time, simply buying the Potter movie separately.
Since then, I've bought each movie (widescreen edition, as always) near the time they come out on DVD. I missed Chamber of Secrets (the second one), still burned by the theater experience with the first one. With Prisoner of Azkaban (Potter 3) I wised up and caught the midnight showing. And Jen and I saw Potter 4 (Goblet of Fire) together.
But let's backtrack some, shall we?
After seeing Potter 1 in the theater, I wanted to read the books. I had all three read by the time Chamber of Secrets came out in theaters. After Goblet of Fire came out in paperback, I bought it and then read all four books. I read and disliked Order of the Phoenix (Potter 5). Unlike the first four, it was not a page-turner, and was very dark, which is fine - but not so much for the Harry Potter series. At one point, I intended to read the four again, but only got the first three, quit partway thorugh Goblet. I very much enjoyed Half-Blood Prince (Potter 6). Now that the spoilers are on Wikipedia for Book 7, I'm not sure how much I anticipate it. Oh sure, I'll get it, but will it top Potter 6? Sure, I'll enjoy it, but will it be an ending worthy of such a great saga? Only time - a year at least - will tell.
I lost my books (perhaps left them behind) when I moved to North Carolina. Since then I've found the first two in the standard paperback size. I'm hoping to complete the collection in that size, actually, because they're so much easier to carry. And they look a little more professionally done, less like kids' books.
All in all, the Potter saga has been an enjoyable experience so far, and I'm sort of kicking myself for having not discovered it until later. But that's fine, better late than never, eh? If you're looking for a start, a way to "break in" to the excitement, rent "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" on DVD, and watch it. The movies are pretty good as far as book-to-film adaptations go, especially the first couple. If you thought the first one was flat - well, its primary purpose was to introduce the characters. If you thought the first one was at least decent, but it left you undecided, check out "...Chamber of Secrets". Those two should give you an accurate reading as to how you'll take to the series. After that, 3 is a little darker, and 4 is a little more expansive, but it's really much of the same - which is not a bad thing if you find yourself liking the series.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
Movie Review: Hannibal (2001)
Of all the movies in my DVD collection, the goriest and most brutal isn't a zombie movie, or a horror film. It isn't either of the three Saw movies (though those do come close). It's also not a war movie, though, again, Braveheart comes pretty close as well. As is the case with the most disturbing movie I've seen (which I do not have), it's a drama: Hannibal, starring Sir Anthony Hopkins for the second time as the cold, calculating killer, Dr. Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter, who first appeared in the award-winning The Silence of the Lambs, and would go on to appear in Red Dragon. There are two other Lecter films - Manhunter, a direct-to-video adaptation of Red Dragon in 1986 (and not featuring Hopkins), and Hannibal Rising, the prequel which came out last year, in which Lecter was too young to be portrayed by Hopkins.
Hannibal never throws too much violence or gore at the screen at any given time, and there isn't anything outstanding as far as that goes in the first half hour or so. Any younger viewers who wanted to see it might lose interest before coming to anything they might consider rewarding. But overall, it isn't lacking for statistics. We have at least one stabbing death, several by gunshot... and then it gets interesting. Two eaten alive by wild boars, one hung and disemboweled at the same time, and I can't even say what happens to the final victim. I could, but that's probably the best shocker.
A brief history: Lecter was born to nobility in Eastern Europe and grew up in World War II. His parents were killed in the war, and a band of rogues found the lodge he and his sister were hiding in. Faced with the choice to "eat or die", they killed, cooked, and ate his sister, who was no more than four or five at the time. Somehow he got away, ended up being raised by his uncle's Japanese wife, and studied medicine in France, and eventually psychology. The guy's a genius to the point of nearly being a savant, but insane, and has killed over a dozen people before finally getting caught. Even while behind bars, he still manages to kill a doctor or orderly who gets too close. And nobody wants to talk to him, because he can read people like a book, discover their secrets and use them against them. To his credit, Lecter only kills people who he feels deserve it, although this has included those he thought were merely rude, or doing a minor disservice, such as an instrumentalist in a symphony playing out of key.
Hannibal (again, the movie) opens, for the most part, with the one Lecter victim who lived, Mason Verger, a billionaire and child rapist Lecter convinced to cut off his own face and feed the skin to his dogs. Throughout the course of the movie, Lecter is hunted by men hired by the billionaire, as well as authorities in both America and France who want to bring him back to custody. Or at least that's how it would appear, at first; nobody "hunts" Hannibal Lecter. This is a character who is found only when he wants to be, a character who hunts and outsmarts his hunters. All the while being polite about it, as he does adhere to the code of morality he holds others to; warped as it may be, decency and manners are at the core.
I missed Silence of the Lambs when it came out, was generally uninterested at the time. I was about 12, more caught up in movies like Terminator 2 (which remains a favorite to this day). It wasn't until later that I'd seen it. I never really was a fan of the movie, but more of Lecter himself. Like Darth Vader from the original Star Wars trilogy, he's a villain you can root for, one you almost want to win. Although unlike Vader, in every Lecter movie, he isn't the villain, and here, it's Verger. Not only because of the horrific crimes of his past, but for the plan of torture he wants to exact on Lecter. If you watch this movie and don't feel anything for him three-quarters of the way in, you surely will when Verger spells out exactly what he plans to do with Hannibal.
By the time Hannibal came out in theaters, I was interested, but I hadn't yet read the books. When I talked to a good friend about it, who had read the books, his first question to me was, "Are they gonna have the boars?" I hadn't heard anything about any boars at this point, but it intrigued me - and got me reading the book (although I did see the movie first). The book did cover more ground - it was a lot more in-depth - but the part with the boars wasn't any better in the book. (If you're wondering what I mean, ask yourself what you think a billionaire would use wild boars for as far as revenge. If you knew how big these things are - bigger than any pig or dog - your best guess might be pretty close.)
I'm surprised this movie is only rated R. There is a lot of stuff in this movie which would likely give someone nightmares, much more so than these horror movies that have come out over the years. The boars, the hanging, the scene at the end - even Hannibal himself, are just the thing nightmares are made of. Still, it's one of the best movies I have, and if you haven't seen it - and have a tough enough stomach - you're missing out.
Hannibal never throws too much violence or gore at the screen at any given time, and there isn't anything outstanding as far as that goes in the first half hour or so. Any younger viewers who wanted to see it might lose interest before coming to anything they might consider rewarding. But overall, it isn't lacking for statistics. We have at least one stabbing death, several by gunshot... and then it gets interesting. Two eaten alive by wild boars, one hung and disemboweled at the same time, and I can't even say what happens to the final victim. I could, but that's probably the best shocker.
A brief history: Lecter was born to nobility in Eastern Europe and grew up in World War II. His parents were killed in the war, and a band of rogues found the lodge he and his sister were hiding in. Faced with the choice to "eat or die", they killed, cooked, and ate his sister, who was no more than four or five at the time. Somehow he got away, ended up being raised by his uncle's Japanese wife, and studied medicine in France, and eventually psychology. The guy's a genius to the point of nearly being a savant, but insane, and has killed over a dozen people before finally getting caught. Even while behind bars, he still manages to kill a doctor or orderly who gets too close. And nobody wants to talk to him, because he can read people like a book, discover their secrets and use them against them. To his credit, Lecter only kills people who he feels deserve it, although this has included those he thought were merely rude, or doing a minor disservice, such as an instrumentalist in a symphony playing out of key.
Hannibal (again, the movie) opens, for the most part, with the one Lecter victim who lived, Mason Verger, a billionaire and child rapist Lecter convinced to cut off his own face and feed the skin to his dogs. Throughout the course of the movie, Lecter is hunted by men hired by the billionaire, as well as authorities in both America and France who want to bring him back to custody. Or at least that's how it would appear, at first; nobody "hunts" Hannibal Lecter. This is a character who is found only when he wants to be, a character who hunts and outsmarts his hunters. All the while being polite about it, as he does adhere to the code of morality he holds others to; warped as it may be, decency and manners are at the core.
I missed Silence of the Lambs when it came out, was generally uninterested at the time. I was about 12, more caught up in movies like Terminator 2 (which remains a favorite to this day). It wasn't until later that I'd seen it. I never really was a fan of the movie, but more of Lecter himself. Like Darth Vader from the original Star Wars trilogy, he's a villain you can root for, one you almost want to win. Although unlike Vader, in every Lecter movie, he isn't the villain, and here, it's Verger. Not only because of the horrific crimes of his past, but for the plan of torture he wants to exact on Lecter. If you watch this movie and don't feel anything for him three-quarters of the way in, you surely will when Verger spells out exactly what he plans to do with Hannibal.
By the time Hannibal came out in theaters, I was interested, but I hadn't yet read the books. When I talked to a good friend about it, who had read the books, his first question to me was, "Are they gonna have the boars?" I hadn't heard anything about any boars at this point, but it intrigued me - and got me reading the book (although I did see the movie first). The book did cover more ground - it was a lot more in-depth - but the part with the boars wasn't any better in the book. (If you're wondering what I mean, ask yourself what you think a billionaire would use wild boars for as far as revenge. If you knew how big these things are - bigger than any pig or dog - your best guess might be pretty close.)
I'm surprised this movie is only rated R. There is a lot of stuff in this movie which would likely give someone nightmares, much more so than these horror movies that have come out over the years. The boars, the hanging, the scene at the end - even Hannibal himself, are just the thing nightmares are made of. Still, it's one of the best movies I have, and if you haven't seen it - and have a tough enough stomach - you're missing out.
Why I don't care about Potter 7 spoilers
Note: No spoilers posted here. Linked, perhaps, but I don't endorse any as real (and am not in a position to).
The first and primary reason is simple: For me, the book isn't coming out for at least another year. I don't read hardcovers; they're too awkward to hold. The price has nothing to do with it - I would pay that price for the paperback if I could. I just want something I can comfortably hold and maybe tote around with me.
And the second reason is that with Half-Blood Prince (aka Potter 6) the major spoiler was out the day it came out. At first it was a shock, but then it was like "oh, ok..." and when I got to read the paperback, it was still a good read.
Now with all the excitement over potential spoilers - which, it hasn't even been verified that any are in fact real - it's hard to find a good source of information, even with Google. A semi-authorative site like Wikipedia or the major Potter fansites aren't going to carry spoilers, real or fake. I've been searching, and everything conflicts.
The following are not spoilers, but an either-or analysis of how I'll probably react.
Harry lives/dies/becomes evil. Harry's fate is the most important spoiler of all. J.K. Rowling has said a few times that she doesn't want to continue writing Potter books and that this is "the end of it". If Harry dies, that would be a smart move on her part. Kill off the possibility of potential sequels, official and fan-written. Although if she either comes up with more stories to tell (or needs the money), the franchise is guaranteed to earn big bucks and that could be open. If he lives, it'll be like "yawn... what's the big deal". Most of us, I think, expect Harry to triumph over Voldemort and restore peace to the wizarding community. I don't like the theory people toss around about Harry going over to the Dark Side. This isn't Star Wars and he isn't Anakin Skywalker. Where Anakin was good, but had that dark streak, Harry is pretty much pure. Him allying with Voldemort or becoming the new Dark Lord just doesn't make sense.
Now, the following link, may contain spoilers. Doing some Google searching, I found an article which not only has statements about what will happen - but what appear to be photocopies of the last chapter as well as chapter lists. Again, I'm not endorsing this, but it's the most reliable site I could find in 3 pages of Google searching. I realize that's not very deep, but I don't care to find the spoilers THAT badly.
Gryffindor Gazette
And the book will be out tomorrow, after which time the fake spoilers will fade away and we'll all know what really happens. Heck, anyone can ride down to Walmart and peek in the book themselves and see what's what.
PS: Comment moderation is enabled, so don't post spoilers. They'll be deleted. A link with a warning, sure - as long as the link is valid (actually has spoilers, no adult stuff, no warez, minimal if any advertisements).
The first and primary reason is simple: For me, the book isn't coming out for at least another year. I don't read hardcovers; they're too awkward to hold. The price has nothing to do with it - I would pay that price for the paperback if I could. I just want something I can comfortably hold and maybe tote around with me.
And the second reason is that with Half-Blood Prince (aka Potter 6) the major spoiler was out the day it came out. At first it was a shock, but then it was like "oh, ok..." and when I got to read the paperback, it was still a good read.
Now with all the excitement over potential spoilers - which, it hasn't even been verified that any are in fact real - it's hard to find a good source of information, even with Google. A semi-authorative site like Wikipedia or the major Potter fansites aren't going to carry spoilers, real or fake. I've been searching, and everything conflicts.
The following are not spoilers, but an either-or analysis of how I'll probably react.
Harry lives/dies/becomes evil. Harry's fate is the most important spoiler of all. J.K. Rowling has said a few times that she doesn't want to continue writing Potter books and that this is "the end of it". If Harry dies, that would be a smart move on her part. Kill off the possibility of potential sequels, official and fan-written. Although if she either comes up with more stories to tell (or needs the money), the franchise is guaranteed to earn big bucks and that could be open. If he lives, it'll be like "yawn... what's the big deal". Most of us, I think, expect Harry to triumph over Voldemort and restore peace to the wizarding community. I don't like the theory people toss around about Harry going over to the Dark Side. This isn't Star Wars and he isn't Anakin Skywalker. Where Anakin was good, but had that dark streak, Harry is pretty much pure. Him allying with Voldemort or becoming the new Dark Lord just doesn't make sense.
Now, the following link, may contain spoilers. Doing some Google searching, I found an article which not only has statements about what will happen - but what appear to be photocopies of the last chapter as well as chapter lists. Again, I'm not endorsing this, but it's the most reliable site I could find in 3 pages of Google searching. I realize that's not very deep, but I don't care to find the spoilers THAT badly.
Gryffindor Gazette
And the book will be out tomorrow, after which time the fake spoilers will fade away and we'll all know what really happens. Heck, anyone can ride down to Walmart and peek in the book themselves and see what's what.
PS: Comment moderation is enabled, so don't post spoilers. They'll be deleted. A link with a warning, sure - as long as the link is valid (actually has spoilers, no adult stuff, no warez, minimal if any advertisements).
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Never wanted to grow up...
I just recalled, the other day, the old (possibly current) Toys 'R' Us slogan, "I don't wanna grow up..." None of us do, and it didn't originate with the toy store, but perhaps with the story of Peter Pan and his world where boys never grow up. Now, approaching my 28th birthday - still young in the eyes of my elders, and a grown man to children - I'm wondering if somewhere along the line, I grew up and just didn't notice. Few people, I think, recall various milestones of aging such as growing out of diapers, eating solid foods, first day of school - maybe even the start of puberty (more obvious and memorable to the girls, of course). And I'm not one of them. The first milestone I really remember (though not the year) is stating my resolve to give up cartoons by my next birthday. My parents had divorced, and it was in the short time (six months at the most) that my father was staying with my paternal grandmother (his mom) before getting back on his feet and getting his own place again. Or maybe we were visiting, but I think he was living there. I mostly kept my word, but naturally I slipped a few times, and that resolve went away later. I won't watch cartoons for the sake of doing so, but I enjoy some animated movies (Shrek and Over the Hedge, Cars for instance) and don't mind seeing cartoons when they're on. (Though I don't get Pokemon and Spongebob - I still respect the classics, like Looney Toons, Tom & Jerry, etc.)
Then, as I became a teenager, it became "I'll always listen to heavy metal music and so will my kids" (as my parents played for me "their" music, classic rock). As I got online, I talked with people who were raising kids on Korn and Disturbed, with little critique even from the conservatives. But before that, I was a huge Metallica fan. Now - mostly following the lawsuits against the fans stemming from Napster downloads in 1999, but also a big part because of how my tastes changed, as well as their style - I don't even listen to them. If I hear Enter Sandman, or One, or The Unforgiven on the radio, I listen to it and even enjoy it some. But you won't catch me listening to their albums all the way through or intentionally. After I got out of metal, I rediscovered classic rock, and discovered Enya's "A Day Without Rain" album. I'd still go back to metal from time to time, but it was different bands. Metallica, then Disturbed, and then Nightwish (if you haven't heard of them, don't worry - they're from Finland - northern Europe - very few Americans know of them). Now I find myself listening to more country music than anything else. I've gone from liking angry and loud music to preferring soothing sounds with honest and straightforward lyrics. The metal bands I've loved will always hold some place in my heart, I just don't actively listen to them.
In high school, I think we were required to vote in Government class, or at least encouraged to. When asked the difference between Democrats and Republicans, I was instead given the definitions of a democracy (basically, everyone has a say) and a republic (elected officials make the rules, individuals don't have a say). The democracy sounded better, so that's what I registered as. Clinton was a hero, and Bush (father and son) were the Devil and the Antichrist. I actually found myself liking Clinton and disliking the Bushes on their positions on certain issues, but I still found myself prejudiced. Now that I've moved, I haven't even registered to vote. I don't know what I'd choose if I did, but lately I haven't been impressed with Democrats. I still haven't found a Republican I like, but there are other choices I wasn't really given in school. The Green party is interesting, but I disagree with them on a few key points I won't go into. Then there's the Liberitarians, who seem to fit my ideals - from what I've heard they believe the government should regulate less - the old, "if you don't want an abortion don't have one", "if you don't like gay marriage don't marry someone of the same gender", and "if you don't like guns don't own one". But it sounds too good to be true, there's got to be something they have that I disagree with. The point is, I'll definitely learn more before selecting a party to stand behind.
Then there's teenagers. I raised a little hell in my 15th summer, but not much. I hadn't had a single romantic or even sexual experience until I was in my mid-20s. My mom says I've got my dad beat by 6-7 years, so I guess I can take comfort in that, but it seemed like every guy I knew had girls left and right, and the few girls I knew had at least one guy. Talking to some of these guys now, they downplay it - and perhaps exxagerated it then - but I still felt behind. However, I did my share of cursing. I listened to the bands and watched the movies I wasn't supposed to. (Back then, there weren't games like Grand Theft Auto that kids aren't supposed to play. Nintendo was still committed to families, Sega was dying, the Playstation wasn't out yet, and the Xbox was a long way off. Video games were innocent, for the most part.) Thus, the peak of my rebellion was hanging out with a friend my mother hated, and general delinquincy. Mall loitering and the most minor of vandalisms were my greatest offenses. Oh, and I started reading Dean Koontz, starting with the book Lightning, because a friend told me it had profanity in it, in so many words. And then I pretty much became a nerd. So now I see how today's teenagers are - and more recently and specifically, my favorite cousin - and my first reaction is of shock, followed quickly by a small amount of disappointment - and then, once I've had a moment or two to think, understanding that I was part of that (even if just on the outside looking in) a little over 10 years ago.
Yeah, I guess I grew up. I didn't realize it when I moved out of my mother's house. I didn't realize it when I married my best friend, and I didn't even realize it on our first anniversary; I still considered myself a "guy" (that stage between boy and man). I'm still a guy in some ways, still a boy in others (still play Nintendo games, love my Game Boy DS) but for the most part, I've found myself grown up, by learning that kids I've known since they were babies, are themselves in the process of growing up - so I must have at some point before, as I'm 11 or 13 years older.
Then, as I became a teenager, it became "I'll always listen to heavy metal music and so will my kids" (as my parents played for me "their" music, classic rock). As I got online, I talked with people who were raising kids on Korn and Disturbed, with little critique even from the conservatives. But before that, I was a huge Metallica fan. Now - mostly following the lawsuits against the fans stemming from Napster downloads in 1999, but also a big part because of how my tastes changed, as well as their style - I don't even listen to them. If I hear Enter Sandman, or One, or The Unforgiven on the radio, I listen to it and even enjoy it some. But you won't catch me listening to their albums all the way through or intentionally. After I got out of metal, I rediscovered classic rock, and discovered Enya's "A Day Without Rain" album. I'd still go back to metal from time to time, but it was different bands. Metallica, then Disturbed, and then Nightwish (if you haven't heard of them, don't worry - they're from Finland - northern Europe - very few Americans know of them). Now I find myself listening to more country music than anything else. I've gone from liking angry and loud music to preferring soothing sounds with honest and straightforward lyrics. The metal bands I've loved will always hold some place in my heart, I just don't actively listen to them.
In high school, I think we were required to vote in Government class, or at least encouraged to. When asked the difference between Democrats and Republicans, I was instead given the definitions of a democracy (basically, everyone has a say) and a republic (elected officials make the rules, individuals don't have a say). The democracy sounded better, so that's what I registered as. Clinton was a hero, and Bush (father and son) were the Devil and the Antichrist. I actually found myself liking Clinton and disliking the Bushes on their positions on certain issues, but I still found myself prejudiced. Now that I've moved, I haven't even registered to vote. I don't know what I'd choose if I did, but lately I haven't been impressed with Democrats. I still haven't found a Republican I like, but there are other choices I wasn't really given in school. The Green party is interesting, but I disagree with them on a few key points I won't go into. Then there's the Liberitarians, who seem to fit my ideals - from what I've heard they believe the government should regulate less - the old, "if you don't want an abortion don't have one", "if you don't like gay marriage don't marry someone of the same gender", and "if you don't like guns don't own one". But it sounds too good to be true, there's got to be something they have that I disagree with. The point is, I'll definitely learn more before selecting a party to stand behind.
Then there's teenagers. I raised a little hell in my 15th summer, but not much. I hadn't had a single romantic or even sexual experience until I was in my mid-20s. My mom says I've got my dad beat by 6-7 years, so I guess I can take comfort in that, but it seemed like every guy I knew had girls left and right, and the few girls I knew had at least one guy. Talking to some of these guys now, they downplay it - and perhaps exxagerated it then - but I still felt behind. However, I did my share of cursing. I listened to the bands and watched the movies I wasn't supposed to. (Back then, there weren't games like Grand Theft Auto that kids aren't supposed to play. Nintendo was still committed to families, Sega was dying, the Playstation wasn't out yet, and the Xbox was a long way off. Video games were innocent, for the most part.) Thus, the peak of my rebellion was hanging out with a friend my mother hated, and general delinquincy. Mall loitering and the most minor of vandalisms were my greatest offenses. Oh, and I started reading Dean Koontz, starting with the book Lightning, because a friend told me it had profanity in it, in so many words. And then I pretty much became a nerd. So now I see how today's teenagers are - and more recently and specifically, my favorite cousin - and my first reaction is of shock, followed quickly by a small amount of disappointment - and then, once I've had a moment or two to think, understanding that I was part of that (even if just on the outside looking in) a little over 10 years ago.
Yeah, I guess I grew up. I didn't realize it when I moved out of my mother's house. I didn't realize it when I married my best friend, and I didn't even realize it on our first anniversary; I still considered myself a "guy" (that stage between boy and man). I'm still a guy in some ways, still a boy in others (still play Nintendo games, love my Game Boy DS) but for the most part, I've found myself grown up, by learning that kids I've known since they were babies, are themselves in the process of growing up - so I must have at some point before, as I'm 11 or 13 years older.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
New comment system
Just a small update in the commenting system. This blog has reached a level of popularity or size where it has become the target of illicit advertising groups selling scams or otherwise contraband merchandise (prescription drugs, stuff like that), and they do so by spamming blogs, emails - you've probably seen some in your own email inbox.
So I've simply added one step to the commenting - the comment must be approved before it can be posted. Since a comment will not appear on the site until I approve it, this blog should become unattractive to these spammers, as well as anyone who would post something rude or inflammatory. Since I check my email daily, if you post a good comment, it should show up on the page within the day.
So I've simply added one step to the commenting - the comment must be approved before it can be posted. Since a comment will not appear on the site until I approve it, this blog should become unattractive to these spammers, as well as anyone who would post something rude or inflammatory. Since I check my email daily, if you post a good comment, it should show up on the page within the day.
Health problem, my right leg
First I would like to preface this post by warning you that this is fairly graphic and the pictures, maybe some of the description, are not for the faint of heart. The pictures, for that reason, will not be linked with reduced-size images as I have done in the past, but rather text links you can click at your own risk.
Back in November 2006, driving to work one night my leg felt rather stiff, but it was OK. When I got the chance, I examined it, and my leg appeared to have a rash on it, or perhaps a case of poison ivy/oak. It itched a little, but I found the skin to be tough, unlike either a rash or any skin infection I'd had before or heard of. Over the next couple days, it grew and began to welt up, and it hurt to walk on. One day Jen drove me to work, and when my shift ended, she took me to the emergency room at Pitt County Memorial Hospital, for my first experience there as a patient.
Here's what it looked like a day or two before we went to the ER. This image isn't graphic, but it is a little disturbing.
PCMH was quick to diagnose it not as a rash but as something called Cellulitis, which I won't even try to explain here. You can click the name there to read up on it on Wikipedia. Basically, it's an infection and it can be fatal if untreated. I was put on an IV drip and sent home with a 2-week supply (Jen remembers 1 week, but I remember 2) of two different antibiotics.
After the medicine was up, the redness had receeded to a smaller area, but still about 4-6" high and 4-5" wide. This actually opened up, as you can see in the next picture. Click here to see it. Note that this picture is pretty disturbing. I used various dressings to keep it covered, figuring (correctly) that it would heal. I learned the hard way that regular gauze would stick to it and hurt to remove (although it was easier to remove in the shower). I discovered J&J's triple-layer non-stick gauze pads and have been using them since, not just for my leg, but for Jen's condition as well. After a while, the area scabbed over, and when the scar began peeling (with my help), it left behind a dark spot, like a birthmark. (A doctor told me this is normal, and it will fade over time.)
In late December of 2004, I got what appeared to be a bite on my leg. It was about the size of a quarter, perhaps a centimeter or so deep, and filled with this thick mucus. I treated it with alcohol wipes, eventually got all that crap out, and kept it covered. Neosporin, which I swear by for minor scrapes and cuts, did nothing. However, the bite did have the tough skin around it, and I think tried to redevelop the cellulitis, but I'd been able to treat that with Hydrocortizone. I would have gone back to the ER, but I had no health insurance at the time, and didn't get it until much later.
Even after I had the insurance, though, I didn't seek medical attention. I'm not really afraid of doctors or even needles (though I used to be), I guess I just thought I could treat it on my own. In June I decided to do something about it, and had Jen (being that she knows the area better) pick me a doctor and make me an appointment. (I love being married. I don't like making appointments.)
I saw the doctor this past Monday, the 16th. She said that what I have is no bite, nor a relapse of the cellulitis, but an ulceration (ulcer) caused by poor circulation, which she said is common in the private security industry, caused by standing a lot. (My friends at work will laugh at this, because I don't stand much, but overall I guess I do stand more than some other professions.) She prescribed me one of the same antibiotics I had before, and something that will help to reduce and eliminate the fluid in my legs (the left leg even has some). My mother will be relieved to know that I also got a prescription for the asthma inhaler I used in CA, the Maxair Autohaler. (She didn't like me using the regular Albuterol-based stuff like Proventil and Ventolin, so she asked about an alternative - apparently Pilbuterol as used in the Autohaler is a modification on Albuterol which does much of the same thing without the "hyper" side effect.) My doctor actually didn't know what pilbuterol was (she wasn't an allergist, just a general physician, so it's forgivable) but did recognize it by the trade name of Autohaler. I can't afford to fill that prescription until tomorrow, though, when I get paid.
I actually don't need an inhaler, really. It's just that I should have one. My asthma hasn't bothered me much since I've moved to the South, despite the more aggressive environment and allergens - maybe I've grown out of it. Actually, the doctor should have checked to make sure I have asthma rather than taking me at my word. But albuterol (and much less pilbuterol) can't be abused, so using it would be almost harmless if I didn't need it. And I won't use it unless I need it. I was carrying around a Primatene Mist inhaler, and those are downright evil. They contain a steroid of some kind which raises the heart rate temporarily. One could kill oneself with one, if one used it enough times in rapid succession. I don't like putting my heart health at risk to relieve another problem. As soon as I got the prescription note for the Autohaler, I tossed the Primatene one. I should have held onto it until actually getting the Autohaler, maybe kept it as a backup, but no... Those things are bad news.
I should have taken care of both of these problems, if not right when I got out here, at least when I got the insurance. I get decent insurance ($20 office visits, $10 prescriptions) through Jen's work - my job doesn't offer insurance. It's not the best insurance I've been covered by, but it's affordable, I guess. So if you have insurance and you have a health problem, learn from my mistake and get it taken care of.
Back in November 2006, driving to work one night my leg felt rather stiff, but it was OK. When I got the chance, I examined it, and my leg appeared to have a rash on it, or perhaps a case of poison ivy/oak. It itched a little, but I found the skin to be tough, unlike either a rash or any skin infection I'd had before or heard of. Over the next couple days, it grew and began to welt up, and it hurt to walk on. One day Jen drove me to work, and when my shift ended, she took me to the emergency room at Pitt County Memorial Hospital, for my first experience there as a patient.
Here's what it looked like a day or two before we went to the ER. This image isn't graphic, but it is a little disturbing.
PCMH was quick to diagnose it not as a rash but as something called Cellulitis, which I won't even try to explain here. You can click the name there to read up on it on Wikipedia. Basically, it's an infection and it can be fatal if untreated. I was put on an IV drip and sent home with a 2-week supply (Jen remembers 1 week, but I remember 2) of two different antibiotics.
After the medicine was up, the redness had receeded to a smaller area, but still about 4-6" high and 4-5" wide. This actually opened up, as you can see in the next picture. Click here to see it. Note that this picture is pretty disturbing. I used various dressings to keep it covered, figuring (correctly) that it would heal. I learned the hard way that regular gauze would stick to it and hurt to remove (although it was easier to remove in the shower). I discovered J&J's triple-layer non-stick gauze pads and have been using them since, not just for my leg, but for Jen's condition as well. After a while, the area scabbed over, and when the scar began peeling (with my help), it left behind a dark spot, like a birthmark. (A doctor told me this is normal, and it will fade over time.)
In late December of 2004, I got what appeared to be a bite on my leg. It was about the size of a quarter, perhaps a centimeter or so deep, and filled with this thick mucus. I treated it with alcohol wipes, eventually got all that crap out, and kept it covered. Neosporin, which I swear by for minor scrapes and cuts, did nothing. However, the bite did have the tough skin around it, and I think tried to redevelop the cellulitis, but I'd been able to treat that with Hydrocortizone. I would have gone back to the ER, but I had no health insurance at the time, and didn't get it until much later.
Even after I had the insurance, though, I didn't seek medical attention. I'm not really afraid of doctors or even needles (though I used to be), I guess I just thought I could treat it on my own. In June I decided to do something about it, and had Jen (being that she knows the area better) pick me a doctor and make me an appointment. (I love being married. I don't like making appointments.)
I saw the doctor this past Monday, the 16th. She said that what I have is no bite, nor a relapse of the cellulitis, but an ulceration (ulcer) caused by poor circulation, which she said is common in the private security industry, caused by standing a lot. (My friends at work will laugh at this, because I don't stand much, but overall I guess I do stand more than some other professions.) She prescribed me one of the same antibiotics I had before, and something that will help to reduce and eliminate the fluid in my legs (the left leg even has some). My mother will be relieved to know that I also got a prescription for the asthma inhaler I used in CA, the Maxair Autohaler. (She didn't like me using the regular Albuterol-based stuff like Proventil and Ventolin, so she asked about an alternative - apparently Pilbuterol as used in the Autohaler is a modification on Albuterol which does much of the same thing without the "hyper" side effect.) My doctor actually didn't know what pilbuterol was (she wasn't an allergist, just a general physician, so it's forgivable) but did recognize it by the trade name of Autohaler. I can't afford to fill that prescription until tomorrow, though, when I get paid.
I actually don't need an inhaler, really. It's just that I should have one. My asthma hasn't bothered me much since I've moved to the South, despite the more aggressive environment and allergens - maybe I've grown out of it. Actually, the doctor should have checked to make sure I have asthma rather than taking me at my word. But albuterol (and much less pilbuterol) can't be abused, so using it would be almost harmless if I didn't need it. And I won't use it unless I need it. I was carrying around a Primatene Mist inhaler, and those are downright evil. They contain a steroid of some kind which raises the heart rate temporarily. One could kill oneself with one, if one used it enough times in rapid succession. I don't like putting my heart health at risk to relieve another problem. As soon as I got the prescription note for the Autohaler, I tossed the Primatene one. I should have held onto it until actually getting the Autohaler, maybe kept it as a backup, but no... Those things are bad news.
I should have taken care of both of these problems, if not right when I got out here, at least when I got the insurance. I get decent insurance ($20 office visits, $10 prescriptions) through Jen's work - my job doesn't offer insurance. It's not the best insurance I've been covered by, but it's affordable, I guess. So if you have insurance and you have a health problem, learn from my mistake and get it taken care of.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Women who find "Ma'am" inappropriate (DearAbby)
I think this would be my first blog entry posting a "news" article and commenting on it, and also my first blog entry to use the new label "Opinion" (which covers political, religion, and social commentaries).
Shouldn't "Definitely Not" have sent this to Miss Manners instead, or is that column even around anymore? (I never liked Miss Manners, but it seems more a question for her than Jerry Springer... err, "Abby".)
I don't think I'd used the word "ma'am" to address a woman more than once or twice when I lived in California. It would have been awkard and maybe not even well accepted by the receiver. My parents did teach me some manners, but that particular address (as well as Sir) seemed out of place. Out here, it's expected. Heck, I even call Jen "Ma'am" from time to time, not out of sarcasm, but out of the respect that the word carries. And I use it whenever we go out, especially when we're on vacation here in the South.
Jen doesn't care for using the Sir or Ma'am in her own speech, but she'll refer to a woman as Miss _____, which she said comes from the North (Connecticut). I just can't see myself doing it, though I think I tried once.
"Definitely Not" should have consulted Wikipedia, at the very least, before making a fool of herself. Or maybe seen a few episodes of Star Trek: Voyager, which irked some Trekkies by having a female captain, who is addressed as Ma'am as well as Sir and Captain.
I've never even heard of someone (out here) being offended by being called Sir or Ma'am...
See also: Wikipedia on Ma'am (redirects to Madam) and Mason-Dixon Line
Also, this was posted on the UDMB, the latest incarnation of the Disturbed board, where I met Jen. Click here to hear what Disturbed fans have to say about the DearAbby article.
DEAR ABBY: I may be alone in my thoughts on this subject, but I feel that addressing a woman as "ma'am" is an extremely derogatory term. I believe it is a derivative of "mammy" and simply a way of keeping a woman in her place.
How would any man like to be called "geezer" or "old goat" on a regular basis? I regard "ma'am" in the same negative light.
How can I politely, yet firmly, respond to those who persist in their rude behavior when I am called "ma'am?"
DEFINITELY NOT YOUR MA'AM IN SOUTH CAROLINA
DEAR DEFINITELY NOT: You must be a recent transplant to the South, because south of the Mason-Dixon (and also in the military), to address a woman as "ma'am" shows respect. I don't know where you got the idea that "ma'am" is a derivative of "mammy," but it's a huge mistake, and I hope you haven't said it to anyone else.
"Ma'am" is a contraction of the word "madam," a form of respectful address to an adult -- usually married -- woman. If you prefer to be called something else, ask the person to call you "Lisa," "Ms. Jones," etc. But please don't pick a fight, or you will look foolish.
source
Shouldn't "Definitely Not" have sent this to Miss Manners instead, or is that column even around anymore? (I never liked Miss Manners, but it seems more a question for her than Jerry Springer... err, "Abby".)
I don't think I'd used the word "ma'am" to address a woman more than once or twice when I lived in California. It would have been awkard and maybe not even well accepted by the receiver. My parents did teach me some manners, but that particular address (as well as Sir) seemed out of place. Out here, it's expected. Heck, I even call Jen "Ma'am" from time to time, not out of sarcasm, but out of the respect that the word carries. And I use it whenever we go out, especially when we're on vacation here in the South.
Jen doesn't care for using the Sir or Ma'am in her own speech, but she'll refer to a woman as Miss _____, which she said comes from the North (Connecticut). I just can't see myself doing it, though I think I tried once.
"Definitely Not" should have consulted Wikipedia, at the very least, before making a fool of herself. Or maybe seen a few episodes of Star Trek: Voyager, which irked some Trekkies by having a female captain, who is addressed as Ma'am as well as Sir and Captain.
I've never even heard of someone (out here) being offended by being called Sir or Ma'am...
See also: Wikipedia on Ma'am (redirects to Madam) and Mason-Dixon Line
Also, this was posted on the UDMB, the latest incarnation of the Disturbed board, where I met Jen. Click here to hear what Disturbed fans have to say about the DearAbby article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)