Things I Hate
1. Mornings and winter. Obviously.
2. The phrase “there are only two types of people in the world: X and Y.” I most recently encountered its uselessness in this form: “I think the world is evenly divided between people who read these books as children and those who didn’t.” So useless! The problem is that the sayer of the phrase always thinks she is making a grand philosophical claim. However, all that is happening is the mere statement of a logical fact. Yes, people either did or did not read about Narnia as children. By itself this means nothing! Yes, people either prefer dogs over cats or they prefer cats over dogs. What does this mean? NOTHING!
3. Fawning magazine profiles. The problem here is that these pieces are almost always carbon copies of each other. Just replace “King King” with “Narnia,” add a joke about wardrobes and fauns, and you’re done! Was it a challenge to get your movie made? Indeed, it was! Were you nervous about the famous actors/children on the set, even though you found them to be inspirations in the end? You bet! I’ll summarize the rest. “Blah, blah, blah, journey. Blah, blah, blah, “I don’t care if my vision makes any money [lie].” Blah, blah, blah “Of course, [actor] isn’t nearly the asshole [he/she] seems!”
The only real pleasure of these things is finding the occasional thinly-veiled slam. For example, the Narnia director on why he replaced Brian Cox with Liam Neeson at the last minute. “I’m a huge fan of Brian, and that’s what got in the way.” HEE! Also, bu-u-u-u-u-urn.
4. Live reality TV reunion shows. Survivor ended last night. And it was satisfying. But the stupid reunion show was as painful as always. For whatever reason, the contestants always look so much less attractive having bathed and eaten. And you quickly discover that whatever wit they displayed on the show was significantly aided by the magic of editing. Sad.
2. The phrase “there are only two types of people in the world: X and Y.” I most recently encountered its uselessness in this form: “I think the world is evenly divided between people who read these books as children and those who didn’t.” So useless! The problem is that the sayer of the phrase always thinks she is making a grand philosophical claim. However, all that is happening is the mere statement of a logical fact. Yes, people either did or did not read about Narnia as children. By itself this means nothing! Yes, people either prefer dogs over cats or they prefer cats over dogs. What does this mean? NOTHING!
3. Fawning magazine profiles. The problem here is that these pieces are almost always carbon copies of each other. Just replace “King King” with “Narnia,” add a joke about wardrobes and fauns, and you’re done! Was it a challenge to get your movie made? Indeed, it was! Were you nervous about the famous actors/children on the set, even though you found them to be inspirations in the end? You bet! I’ll summarize the rest. “Blah, blah, blah, journey. Blah, blah, blah, “I don’t care if my vision makes any money [lie].” Blah, blah, blah “Of course, [actor] isn’t nearly the asshole [he/she] seems!”
The only real pleasure of these things is finding the occasional thinly-veiled slam. For example, the Narnia director on why he replaced Brian Cox with Liam Neeson at the last minute. “I’m a huge fan of Brian, and that’s what got in the way.” HEE! Also, bu-u-u-u-u-urn.
4. Live reality TV reunion shows. Survivor ended last night. And it was satisfying. But the stupid reunion show was as painful as always. For whatever reason, the contestants always look so much less attractive having bathed and eaten. And you quickly discover that whatever wit they displayed on the show was significantly aided by the magic of editing. Sad.
posted by OleNelson at 10:30 AM
4 Comments:
Ahem, but isn't that rather SEXIST, APA unapproved language in point #1?
Shame, shame, T-bone.
I mean #2, sorry. It is Monday, after all.
Hm. I actually chose the "she" because (1) the particular example I was thinking of involved a woman and (2) I've been trying to default feminine on general-use pronouns.
Why would a "he" there have been less sexist? Because this example involved a negative character type? Is it still the case that "he" means "people" and "she" means "womankind"?
I'd love commentary on the alleged sexism of the sentence.
Somebody famous once said :"There are two kinds of people in the world: those who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who don't".
I find that quote pretty much sums up the silliness of which you speak.
Post a Comment
<< Home