On absurdity and inverting the norm

Been a while, eh? In the meantime, I've submitted my first-ever solo book manuscript to the publishers and finished up another (edited) and sent *that* to another publisher. I've had my sister visit (and she's still here) and we've proceeded to explore the byways of this part of the United States (details another time) but I'm popping in now to share a couple of things:

1. This is a list of Monty Python sketches that are the favourites of various well-known (in varying degrees) people. Almost all of them point out the anarchic chaos that was central to much of Python but is it Neil Gaiman who encapsulates well what I think of them: the anarchy and chaos but also the unfamiliar-in-the-familiar. In other words, you think you know what will happen next but it doesn't happen the way you think it will. To me, this is a useful reminder that what may seem obvious to one person (social collective) is not so to others. I try make this the central point in my teaching but it's usually more difficult than it sound, especially when the thing you are teaching is national security or terrorism when the students think they know who are the baddies (and it's never "us")

2. As a fan of men in suits myself, I appreciate this!

Cuts (Australian)

A return to the more "serious" stuff now: I've been following the Australian budget and discussions over it. It's actually quite shocking how "mainstream" the major Australian newspapers (especially the Australian) are over this--the blame for whinging and not accepting realities seems to have fallen upon Labor (the opposition). This is absurd as it's a budget that cuts funding to the vulnerable. E.g. folks have to pay to visit their GPs now, which they never had to before; Universities can set their own fees for courses, which means some courses might disappear altogether as being "not cost effective". And we all know those won't be the "real science" courses though one of the key areas cut is also funding to science research. But it's also interesting as Australia has a manageable (compared to the US) budget deficit and the economy is doing quite well. And, yet, there have been cuts in social welfare and climate-related issues--$80 billion in long-term cuts just to health and education.

To me, the issue is a good one to follow because, while Australia is similar to the US in many ways, its opposition (generally toothless lately) is actually making a fair effort to protest these cuts to social welfare. Many of the general public are angry (and protesting). There seems to be more of an awareness that "we" shouldn't let the government do this sort of thing. Though, of course, that is what happens generally during full on neoliberal/austerity reforms and, yet, nothing changes and the cuts become normalized over time, creating a society of Haves and Have-nots in which the increasing inequality is brushed under the carpet. Just like us here, in fact.

For those interested in reading about the 2014 Australian budget, the Guardian has a whole bunch of stories here. 

Weddings! (or, just one wedding)

I'm currently in Marietta, GA (slightly outside of Atlanta) for a friend's wedding. I've known said friend since undergrad, when I was a wee confused kid who'd landed up in far north Queensland and lucked out in finding some really wonderful people to hang out with. She's also provided me with some info about one of my alter egos (the marine biologist) as she's a sea/ocean/water (whatever we call it) geologist (she doesn't know I have alter egos). But, that's not my point. My point is: this was a wedding in which I knew NO ONE. None. Zero people. Except the bride and obviously the bride's not going to have time to stand around and hold my hand and make sure I didn't flounder in the waters of social oceans (dreadful analogy/metaphor/whatever we call it there). Instead, I was left on my own and am not sure how I did (not too well, I think, from a conventional social behaviour sense) but can say I had a marvellous time. So here's what happened:
I was placed at a table where there were 5 people (out of a table which seated 8). I was the only female (I later found out some of the lads were supposed to bring their wives and girlfriends but didn't--who knows why!) and I was the only person that didn't draw, write, own, edit comic books. In fact, I think I can name the number of comic book artists/writers I know on the fingers of one hand and have fingers left over. Oh and I know very little about So Bad They Are Awesome '80s films (the wedding songs were almost all from the '80s and there was a lot of 80s films discussions going on) and I'd just come off a 14hr buses/train journey+2 hr bus journey from Atlanta to Marietta (for a distance of 20 some miles. Yeah public transport!) so my comprehension/concentration skills, already fairly minimal, were shot.
And, yet, as I said, I had a great time. Why, you ask? Well, I think the main reason was that it was like hanging out with people I know. Someone would start off by talking about Thor and the conversation would jump from Helmsworth, Chris to ancient Norse myths to what they have in other religions/cultures to how women were portrayed in the comic book Thor vs movie Thor and then back to how ancient people conceptualized "men" and end with a joke. There were no rules but also everyone KNEW stuff. Romans? Yeah, they were killed by (long explanation)...Oh no, Romans were the ones who (another different explanation)...man, those Romans (joke). It was the sort of thing where your brain works to keep up and then you feel a bit energized afterwards. There was also no filter (ok, that was mainly me) as things like: "Oh, goodbye. Nice to meet you. Hope you have a good trip back. Gosh can we add yet another platitude to that? But, wait, Don't forget the platypus." made perfect sense (none of us really drank anything apart from copious amounts of coffee). My last words to them? (as I was worriedly waiting to figure out if the shuttle to the hotel had left without me on it and they were asking if they should wait with me, even though they had hours of driving ahead): "No, no worries. I'll just stay here and haunt this bloody place as a ghost."
Answer: That's a pretty perfect answer.
I mean, it's rare anyone says that to me. My uni friends would have been all: that Priya, she's so weird. Here, the folks thought that I'm sure (and thought I was rude, too, since I spent quite a fair bit of time trying not to fall asleep over the table) but didn't say it. And kept on keeping on even when it was obvious I wasn't doing much to uphold my end of the convos.
[This blog has gone from my observations about the news/uni stuff to my observations about me and my thrilling personal life. Let's just say it's observations on/about anything?]
ETA:  To point out that I'm sure folks *thought* I was weird but didn't *say* it. I mean, I was operating on 5hrs of sleep for the previous 48 so, yes, high on adrenaline and coffee and sheer nervousness at knowing No One At All. 

You...(not) talking to me?

For the past few months, I’ve been going around a fair bit with another person. Said person is just over 6ft tall and not Asian and a man. He's from Europe (Austria) so has an accent. The reason I bring all these identity markers up here is that I’ve found it interesting to see how people react to each of us. For me, I have noticed that shopkeepers, service personnel, cashiers, librarians, etc all talk to me more than to him. They chitchat, asking questions about the book/thing I’ve bought or just general convo about the weather (we love the weather here. We’re almost British in how much we talk about it). For him, it’s people at pubs/bars/restaurants and also (we’re both at university) at uni. The most interesting difference I’ve noted is how many people at uni ask him about what his research is on while people generally talk to me about…yes, weather or student quirks or something that is unrelated to my research. 

In general university settings, folks from other departments and colleges talk to him usually, not me even if we are stood together. I think this is partly upon me----I do not exude charm or friendliness and find large (or largish) social situations quite stressful so am probably stood there looking as though I'm suffering through it all. If there’s someone else around, I’m happy to let them take up the slack of talking while I stand around and try to fade into the nearest wall. He, on the other hand, is laid back and casual and enjoys talking to university people*. But I think, too, our differing experiences indicate the gendered nature of certain types of spaces and places here: folks in shops, libraries, animal rescues, etc tend to be women and especially local women. From talking to some of my department’s administrative staff, I’ve realized that quite a few of the women here tend to be self conscious about their accents and a bit intimidated when they are talking to someone else, especially if the someone else is a foreign academic. “I feel the way I speak is funny”, as one of my department’s staff people said it. Also, the university settings where my friend tends to be talked to/with more are mainly populated by male faculty. These men seem to be more comfortable talking to other men, especially if they are from engineering or computing science (two of the biggest departments at my university).

There really isn't any grand conclusion to draw from this but just something that I found interesting...observation of trifles, as it were. Which was (and is) sort of the theme of this blog. At which I'll try to be more frequent in the future (but then I always say this, don't I?)

* Definitely not to locals, though--there's a story for another day there about foreign expectations of "the US South" and attitudes therein.

The military doin' what it does best...

On the subject of military self-representation, I was reading ASPI's weekly round up of things to read when they directed me to this:

British troops dancing and singing...

which then led to Swedish marines lip syncing to Greased Lightning..

and then to US soldiers doing a parody of a Saturday Night Live skit.

This last is particularly interesting especially as it pokes fun at the US military-- a common refrain is "The US Army won't let me go home". Does this count as sanitized resistance (presumably it's approved by the Powers in Charge)? Or, is it just some guys having fun, showing "us" at home, the readers who run across it in some news story, that soldiers are human too? In short, to what ends are we being allowed to see these? 

Things on TV (that have little/nothing to do with terrorism)

A few things to add to the previous post:

1. I'm not going to comment on the Budweiser military advert, except to say that both Bud adverts (and quite a fair few of them actually) showed an idealised vision of the United States that doesn't really exist in reality. Young, clean, white people joyous. Instead of debating whether the military should support this advert or not, why are we not asking why that advert was even necessary? If you stop sending young folks off to war, the whole premise of the advert and the view that "we" should "support the military" becomes irrelevant. Instead, here's an advert that didn't make it to the Superbowl (and never will). Imagine this in the place of the Budweiser advert.

2. Which brings me to Enlisted. My granddad and us (grandkids) used to watch heaps of films borrowed from the local British Council (for those who know me in person, this partly explains the accent. As does living in a house with one main room and which had the BBC World Service on at all times). Some of our favorites were the Dad's Army series. The construction of Britain as a plucky little island facing the scary hordes of Hitler's Germany is, of course, ridiculous for a country which still had a pretty big empire at the time the show is set. But the show itself and its ridiculous characters helped poke fun (to me, at least) at the notion that Britain was powerful. Indeed, the British were a bit stupid, keen on rules, but also innovative (some times) and lucky (at other times). I find Enlisted similar. And by its focus on everyday aspects of war, it humanizes war. So far, in just a few episodes, they have touched on PTSD, the difficulties of being friends if you are an officer and others are your juniors? (whatever it's called in the military), and drawn attention to the difficulties faced by those left behind as folks go off to war. Of course, the gender dynamics are problematic (the show focuses on a family of three brothers. There is a female officer that commands the other team thing but, so far, she's not really had much to do) and it plays a bit too much into the whole "they're just a band of lovable misfits" narrative that seems to proliferate about just every security service in the US these days (exhibit B: Brooklyn Nine-Nine) but I'd rather have this than something like NCIS.

I am not a regular NCIS viewer but had it on today for the episode titled "Monsters and Men" (without any irony). There's a terrorist (brown-skinned, speaking in an English-y accent, of course), there's a young white woman (of course), there's an older white guy who "saves" this young woman and there's an interrogation scene, during which it is implied Young White Woman and Brown Terrorist Bloke had a bit of a thing going at some point. In the end, even when the disembodied voice of his sister urges him to call off his diabolical suicide bombing plan (of course, I mean, what else would brown-skinned terrorists types *do* otherwise?), BTB tries to take YWW hostage (insert your own comment regarding masculinities/fear of Brown Blokes after "our" women/etc here) and is shot by the Older White Guy. I mean, what would we do without Old White Guys to save us in the nick of damned time, eh? What?

3. Right. That apparently annoyed me more than I thought it would. Let me end with a bit of levity. Sometimes, slogging through yet another extremely boring government document on something or the other that invariably annoys me, I dream of doing a completely different kind of research. Perhaps the sort that says: "Faster cyclists are seen as more attractive." I mean, on the one hand, yeah. On the other, what about non cyclists? Are faster humans in general considered more attractive? Should I bother with looking up the actual study (no)? 

I have feels...but not the kind that they were looking for

Big day yesterday. I was glued to the television, cheering on This Team over That Team. It was the best. When That Guy ran over the line? Best feeling ever. It was like having Raylon Givens as *my* town's sheriff (Yes, I know he's a US Marshal or whatnot. Just go with it) and having the Tardis land on my back yard.

But, the best of feel was, of course, for this. Look at the wee puppy! they said. Look at the (ridiculously clean cut, very well dressed and *clean*) people! Look at the lovely horsies! I'm not a fan of horses. Friend Y (who I've known since a kid) lives with her bloke in a horse boarding farm in Maryland. Horses are giant and have large teeth.

But, puppies! you say. PUPPIES! How can you not like puppies? Looks like the woman bred them, doesn't it? Do you know how many dogs and cats are killed each day in US shelter? It's 3-4 million, each year according to the Humane Society. That's 1 every 11 seconds. Want a dog? Go to your bloody shelter, not to the pretty woman who happens to have 8 perfect-looking labrador puppies (most popular in US and also the most abandoned in shelters because you know what? Turns out labs are highly active and need a lot of exercise). Want a lab? Well, there are rescues that just focus on specific breeds. Go find one.

Labs. There's the other thing. A lovely golden lab (black dogs don't get adopted as often). There's not many of those around. So what if you watch this advert, get all the feels, go rescue (or buy, more likely) a perfect golden lab and find out it's a damned puppy. It pees everywhere. It chews things. It makes little whiny noises. It needs taking out *all* the damned time. Well, that's all right, isn't it? Just take it to the local shelter and go home and knock back a can of bud. 

Sherlock lives!

Been a while, yes? But, I'm back and all ready to talk about various pop culture-y things, mainly (for the moment) Sherlock Season 3 (let's leave aside questions of run on sentences and what seems like a lack of appreciation for English grammar on my part). I've watched the Empty Hearse (EH) and Sign of Three (SoT) and have some thoughts (not in length since I'm also dealing with a burst water pipe and a flooded basement in my Real Life. But, hey, I still managed to watch Sherlock since there's only so much of staring at pipes-in-old-walls one can do). I've not yet watched the final episode--The Last Vow

- This series seems to be an effort in humanizing (in the most basic sense of the term) Sherlock. He's gone from a "high functioning sociopath" (though he calls himself that again here) to a quirky friend, one who takes time to meticulously plan a stag night for his best friend, one who gives a lovely speech at said best friend's wedding, one who apologises for not letting in the best friend on the Big Secret, one who kisses girls (becomes relevant for another point I want to make), one who is almost too conventional. It's a bit strange since I think since the charm of Sherlock was that it was about a person who was clearly not a fit for the current world actually managing to do all right in it. Even do really well in it. As such, it was a show for and about misfits and about friends (Well, just one-Watson)

- In a show set in London, why are there so few people of colour? I suppose one could laud the show for not going the "usual way" and having the police chap be black (and, really, Rupert Graves is superb in his role as Lestrade) but what about medical examiners/random people/friends/etc? Or, Mary even? It's a very white milieu and I find that somewhat odd.

- Following on from that, did we really need to establish Sherlock as (fairly) aggressively heterosexual? Kissing Molly; Kissing whatshername; Why couldn't he have been played as "Girlfriend? No, not really my area" (from 2010's A Study in Pink and a sentence that is open to different interpretations) rather than "goes about kissing girls since he's lonely now that John's leaving him to get married".

- Women. I'm not the only one who reckons Mr. Moffat isn't that great at writing women. Mary, to me, comes off very much River Song-ish. All we need is "sweetie"after the end of whatever it is she's saying. That's not to knock River Song (or Mary) but that one almost expects her (Mary) to do something nefarious in the final episode now. She's been almost too tolerant of Sherlock and seems to be able to get both Watson and Sherlock to do what she wants. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens in the final episode (though my bet on having her turn out to be Moriarty's twin/double/wife/sister is probably not going to work out--too obvious, eh?). Molly's moved on but to another chap who looks rather like Sherlock. We never see Watson's sister. Mrs. Hudson remains a bit of a stereotype as well and doesn't really have much to do (though her past and her marriages seem to be foreshadowing what will happen to the Watsons, perhaps?)

In short, I'm somewhat disappointed so far with EH and SoT. I'm disappointed with the efforts to humanize Sherlock as a conventional (and boring) human being. I'd have preferred him as "odd" and a "misfit" but one with friends who care for him and who he, in his own way(s), cares for. Lestrade hugs him when he realizes Sherlock lives and that is when he (and we) still think it's OldSherlock--grumpy, uncaring of people often, unused to living in "society" but capable of doing so and capable of having friends.