Wednesday, March 22, 2006
It Was Her Encyclical Gentle Teen Grin.
When I took a job with the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, they sent me right away to NICE IN ARGYLE and a fifty CENT piece LENT for “GLACE,” which loosely translates to ice cream in French. I suppose ice cream was okay, since for LENT, I’d given up sugar CANE, ICY GINGER ALE, and CELT girls. In France, my mission was to spy on the “Glace” stand for any incriminating activity. To my dismay, the stand was manned by a red headed mademoiselle. Her name was “GINGER” NANCY CALE with TEN ICE treats for sale and could tell I was hungry. Her French seemed to slip into English here and there and her eyes were suspiciously green, but as a CIA agent, I had to play it cool like James Bond. After my “glace” we split for drinks. She had herself some whisky and ordered me a Mojito with extra cane sugar. Her ENCYCLICAL GENTLE TEEN GRIN over the booze made me remember what I had given up. “Ah! Screw Lent!” I said aloud, in English, and she replied “Aye! Fuck the Pope. He’s a TRAIL AGING LENNY LENT CE-” and I stopped her, for she said all this in clear Celt-English. She explained that she was a member of the Irish Intelligence and was sent to kill me, YET CARNAGE won’t LET a NICE LEG on an Irish girl kick some ass, especially an American’s from NCL (what I, a North Carolinian call North CaroLina). Then I noticed her argyle socks. I tossed my fifty cent piece on the table, we set our differences and our argyle aside, and forgot about our respective jobs. It wasn’t long before the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY caught. Over LAGER, they explained to me that LENT vices like GIN, ALE, ICE, and that a whisky drinking CELT named NANCY would be the demise of I. And, they were right.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Good Art = Quality Over Quantity
This here is my term paper for my Critical Writing class. I feel pretty good about it, so here it is. I hang it on the fridge before the grade comes. I expect to get an A on it...
Note that this is pre-edit.
According to Plato, art is a representation that is two steps removed from reality. An artist uses her skill to manipulate words and materials to create a desired image. A viewer must remember that the art is an illusion produced from the own mind of the artist, and not a true depiction of reality (Stumpf and Fieser 52). Further more, art is to be experienced. It is a sensual, visceral experience that can shape the way a viewer may interpret an aspect of humanity. By examining my own and Plato’s ideas on aesthetics, I will discuss how I apply these aesthetics to film. Also, I will explain how artistic quality is often sacrificed for financial success in movies today, in light of my aesthetic criteria. We will see that establishing one’s own artistic theories allows a viewer to fully experience a film as a work of art.
There are some films that may be considered standards from which other films are representations of. Citizen Cane and Casablanca are considered by some to be two of the best American films ever made. These can be considered, in Plato’s terms, as being ultimate Forms from which other films copy the techniques, styles, and format. Every so often, viewers are lucky enough to experience something new, such as an innovative technology that allows for more possibility or creative idea. Because new ideas are becoming almost continually, the general concepts of ultimate Form are always in flux, too. Today, it may be difficult for a young viewer to understand the quality of 1942’s Casablanca because of the evolution in acting, writing, and filming styles. Because our realities have changed drastically since 1942, our understanding of representations of realities is different as well. Still, there must be some sort of example that these classic films have set. Filmmakers may or may not look to these films as an example. Just like a modern free verse poet must know traditional forms in order to break them, a good filmmaker must understand the traditions and standards of film in order to break them and be able to create their own.
While the filmmaker may understand universal standards, the viewer must understand her own. It may help for a reviewer of film to know why Casablanca may be considered an ultimate example of film. However, in forming one’s own aesthetic a viewer must keep in mind her own Form of Beauty. Each individual should find their own preferences and beliefs on what makes a good film. Plato reminds us that when a viewer does not separate representation from reality, then the viewer is acknowledging an illusion of reality and not art. One must see a film as art and question what characteristics it has that makes it art. Also, one must keep in mind that what a filmmakers considers good art may not agree with the viewer. My personal aesthetic is based on what I find to be original and truly beautiful. I keep in mind Plato’s theory of art and ultimate Forms as a basis for producing my own argument on art. More importantly, I keep in mind what stimulates me personally when viewing a film.
Quality over quantity is a virtue that not many current American films follow. It seems that the more a movie cost to make, the more attention it gets. Films that attract little public attention tend to be the ones that had little money to work with. When a smart and talented filmmaker has little resource, she will use the cheapest and most abundant resource an artist has, her creativity. This tool is responsible for unique and interesting results in any artistic media. Just as Einstein quoted, “Imagination is more important than knowledge,” a cheaply produced film states that “Imagination is more important than Hollywood businessmen hitting the jackpot at the box office.” I often leave a movie theater feeling that I would have rather wasted my eight dollars on a fast-food dinners for the rest of the week. It seems that most movies that come out today that have a large advertising budget have three of the following characteristics: confusing gratuitous sex and lust with sincere love, conventionally attractive and grotesquely thin actresses, and predictable plots involving prototypical and monochrome characters written with mediocre talent. There are other characteristics involving the blandness of a film’s score, cinematography, and actors’ abilities. All of these are problems that can be solved by committing to making a piece of art rather than a product to sell and make sickening amounts of money off of. Filmmakers who do such things are mocking the idea of Beauty, to which art is meant to represent. They are concerned with the quantity their product consumes rather than the quality that it gives to viewers.
Fortunately there are filmmakers who are apart from the business of Hollywood. Their films are original, creative, and thoughtfully pieced together to please or contest a viewer’s desire for beauty, whatever her definition of beauty is. A few examples artistically motivated filmmakers include, Darren Aronofsky who directed Requiem for a Dream and Pi, the writer and director of Donnie Darko known as Richard Kelly, and writer / director / producer Wes Anderson who is known for Bottle Rocket and The Royal Tenenbaums. All three of these men have fashioned unique and evocative films that represent a form of Beauty, one that has heart and, simply said, one that really wants to make something great. Money clearly was and was not an issue in making these films. Requiem and Pi together had a budget under five million dollars and received much critical acclaim (by 1997) while the most recent film adaptation of Godzilla in 1998 cost almost $125 million to make and received negative critical acclaim. Donnie Darko, a confusing yet entertaining time travel-teen hero film set in the late 1980s, cost under five million to make, and still had to work on charity to produce some of the flawless special effects. Since its limited release in 2001, it has been gaining a cult following. While The Royal Tenenbaums cost about $28 million to make, the heart and creative quality of this film overshadows its contemporaries (budget data from Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia). In 2001, the year of its release date, Tenenbaums did not make it into the top twenty highest grossing films in the year (“Business Data for The Royal Tenenbaums 2001”). It did, however receive critical acclaim like the other films mentioned. Anderson, Aronofsky, and Kelly are fine examples of quality filmmaking today.
When I see a film I want to be impressed by original and skillfully crafted imagery, plot, and characters. I expect to be interested in the story and characters, no matter how detestable or unattractive they may be. If I find myself still thinking about the film hours later, and even talking about it days later, then I feel that it has successfully affected my emotions and my questioning of Beauty. In this case, the film is a true piece of art in that it has manipulated human interactions and tendencies into a story that clearly comprehends the mysteries of human interactions and tendencies. Sometimes it is more appropriate to watch a slapstick comedy for the sake of laughing one’s ass off, and if its intention is to make one laugh then it is successful if the experience lingers and has probed one’s standards of comedy. A quality film is to be an experience for the viewer and not a passive, unconscious accident. Also, the filmmaker’s intention must be to produce a creative work of art. This is apparent when the piece stands out from others, when it stands apart from prototypes, predictability, and oversimplification of human emotion. While Plato states that art is two steps away from reality, the farther away from reality a film is lessens its artistic quality, thus taking it farther away from the ultimate form of Beauty. The close a piece of art is to Beauty, Plato states, the more perfect it is (Stumpf and Fieser 52-3).
Being partial to Wes Anderson movies, I tend to use them as standards that other films should meet. It is an example of what fits into my own aesthetic of beauty involving quality cinematic storytelling. Tenenbaums is a dark comedy or a “dramedy,” but this does not keep it from being compared to other genres of film. This film clearly probes the human condition by objectively presenting various human relationships from father-daughter to sweetheart-sweetheart. It is a story that does not clearly solve problems around melancholy and disillusionment, but it does present it beautifully through the perfection of art. All of Anderson’s movies are charming and full of heart and meaning. They meet my criteria for quality film that is evocative and interesting and where the filmmaker’s passion is evident in every aspect of the film.
It is difficult to find a film today that meets this criterion. However quality films must be few and far between in order to be appreciated for art. Plato’s theories of Beauty and art apply to film in that, to be considered a respectable art, it may be judged up against ultimate Forms or examples. Understanding these ideas can help a viewer establish stronger opinions and personal ideas of what can be a standard in Beauty and art, but especially what stimulates her sensations and emotions. This way, art can be more of an experience.
Note that this is pre-edit.
According to Plato, art is a representation that is two steps removed from reality. An artist uses her skill to manipulate words and materials to create a desired image. A viewer must remember that the art is an illusion produced from the own mind of the artist, and not a true depiction of reality (Stumpf and Fieser 52). Further more, art is to be experienced. It is a sensual, visceral experience that can shape the way a viewer may interpret an aspect of humanity. By examining my own and Plato’s ideas on aesthetics, I will discuss how I apply these aesthetics to film. Also, I will explain how artistic quality is often sacrificed for financial success in movies today, in light of my aesthetic criteria. We will see that establishing one’s own artistic theories allows a viewer to fully experience a film as a work of art.
There are some films that may be considered standards from which other films are representations of. Citizen Cane and Casablanca are considered by some to be two of the best American films ever made. These can be considered, in Plato’s terms, as being ultimate Forms from which other films copy the techniques, styles, and format. Every so often, viewers are lucky enough to experience something new, such as an innovative technology that allows for more possibility or creative idea. Because new ideas are becoming almost continually, the general concepts of ultimate Form are always in flux, too. Today, it may be difficult for a young viewer to understand the quality of 1942’s Casablanca because of the evolution in acting, writing, and filming styles. Because our realities have changed drastically since 1942, our understanding of representations of realities is different as well. Still, there must be some sort of example that these classic films have set. Filmmakers may or may not look to these films as an example. Just like a modern free verse poet must know traditional forms in order to break them, a good filmmaker must understand the traditions and standards of film in order to break them and be able to create their own.
While the filmmaker may understand universal standards, the viewer must understand her own. It may help for a reviewer of film to know why Casablanca may be considered an ultimate example of film. However, in forming one’s own aesthetic a viewer must keep in mind her own Form of Beauty. Each individual should find their own preferences and beliefs on what makes a good film. Plato reminds us that when a viewer does not separate representation from reality, then the viewer is acknowledging an illusion of reality and not art. One must see a film as art and question what characteristics it has that makes it art. Also, one must keep in mind that what a filmmakers considers good art may not agree with the viewer. My personal aesthetic is based on what I find to be original and truly beautiful. I keep in mind Plato’s theory of art and ultimate Forms as a basis for producing my own argument on art. More importantly, I keep in mind what stimulates me personally when viewing a film.
Quality over quantity is a virtue that not many current American films follow. It seems that the more a movie cost to make, the more attention it gets. Films that attract little public attention tend to be the ones that had little money to work with. When a smart and talented filmmaker has little resource, she will use the cheapest and most abundant resource an artist has, her creativity. This tool is responsible for unique and interesting results in any artistic media. Just as Einstein quoted, “Imagination is more important than knowledge,” a cheaply produced film states that “Imagination is more important than Hollywood businessmen hitting the jackpot at the box office.” I often leave a movie theater feeling that I would have rather wasted my eight dollars on a fast-food dinners for the rest of the week. It seems that most movies that come out today that have a large advertising budget have three of the following characteristics: confusing gratuitous sex and lust with sincere love, conventionally attractive and grotesquely thin actresses, and predictable plots involving prototypical and monochrome characters written with mediocre talent. There are other characteristics involving the blandness of a film’s score, cinematography, and actors’ abilities. All of these are problems that can be solved by committing to making a piece of art rather than a product to sell and make sickening amounts of money off of. Filmmakers who do such things are mocking the idea of Beauty, to which art is meant to represent. They are concerned with the quantity their product consumes rather than the quality that it gives to viewers.
Fortunately there are filmmakers who are apart from the business of Hollywood. Their films are original, creative, and thoughtfully pieced together to please or contest a viewer’s desire for beauty, whatever her definition of beauty is. A few examples artistically motivated filmmakers include, Darren Aronofsky who directed Requiem for a Dream and Pi, the writer and director of Donnie Darko known as Richard Kelly, and writer / director / producer Wes Anderson who is known for Bottle Rocket and The Royal Tenenbaums. All three of these men have fashioned unique and evocative films that represent a form of Beauty, one that has heart and, simply said, one that really wants to make something great. Money clearly was and was not an issue in making these films. Requiem and Pi together had a budget under five million dollars and received much critical acclaim (by 1997) while the most recent film adaptation of Godzilla in 1998 cost almost $125 million to make and received negative critical acclaim. Donnie Darko, a confusing yet entertaining time travel-teen hero film set in the late 1980s, cost under five million to make, and still had to work on charity to produce some of the flawless special effects. Since its limited release in 2001, it has been gaining a cult following. While The Royal Tenenbaums cost about $28 million to make, the heart and creative quality of this film overshadows its contemporaries (budget data from Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia). In 2001, the year of its release date, Tenenbaums did not make it into the top twenty highest grossing films in the year (“Business Data for The Royal Tenenbaums 2001”). It did, however receive critical acclaim like the other films mentioned. Anderson, Aronofsky, and Kelly are fine examples of quality filmmaking today.
When I see a film I want to be impressed by original and skillfully crafted imagery, plot, and characters. I expect to be interested in the story and characters, no matter how detestable or unattractive they may be. If I find myself still thinking about the film hours later, and even talking about it days later, then I feel that it has successfully affected my emotions and my questioning of Beauty. In this case, the film is a true piece of art in that it has manipulated human interactions and tendencies into a story that clearly comprehends the mysteries of human interactions and tendencies. Sometimes it is more appropriate to watch a slapstick comedy for the sake of laughing one’s ass off, and if its intention is to make one laugh then it is successful if the experience lingers and has probed one’s standards of comedy. A quality film is to be an experience for the viewer and not a passive, unconscious accident. Also, the filmmaker’s intention must be to produce a creative work of art. This is apparent when the piece stands out from others, when it stands apart from prototypes, predictability, and oversimplification of human emotion. While Plato states that art is two steps away from reality, the farther away from reality a film is lessens its artistic quality, thus taking it farther away from the ultimate form of Beauty. The close a piece of art is to Beauty, Plato states, the more perfect it is (Stumpf and Fieser 52-3).
Being partial to Wes Anderson movies, I tend to use them as standards that other films should meet. It is an example of what fits into my own aesthetic of beauty involving quality cinematic storytelling. Tenenbaums is a dark comedy or a “dramedy,” but this does not keep it from being compared to other genres of film. This film clearly probes the human condition by objectively presenting various human relationships from father-daughter to sweetheart-sweetheart. It is a story that does not clearly solve problems around melancholy and disillusionment, but it does present it beautifully through the perfection of art. All of Anderson’s movies are charming and full of heart and meaning. They meet my criteria for quality film that is evocative and interesting and where the filmmaker’s passion is evident in every aspect of the film.
It is difficult to find a film today that meets this criterion. However quality films must be few and far between in order to be appreciated for art. Plato’s theories of Beauty and art apply to film in that, to be considered a respectable art, it may be judged up against ultimate Forms or examples. Understanding these ideas can help a viewer establish stronger opinions and personal ideas of what can be a standard in Beauty and art, but especially what stimulates her sensations and emotions. This way, art can be more of an experience.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Saturday, October 22, 2005
My mom
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 13:33:06 -0400
From: Ann Bayout
To: Angela
Subject: Halloween
Hi Angela, the Halloween story was nice. I had no idea thatyou got teased about things. I enjoyed doing them like Mammy and my brothersand sister did. Can you remember all the outfits? I tried to. Do youremember this from last year?--- What happened to the ghost when he got tooclose to the bonfire? He burnt his halloweenie. Ha Ha, Love mommy
^^^ My favorite email of the moment.
From: Ann Bayout
To: Angela
Subject: Halloween
Hi Angela, the Halloween story was nice. I had no idea thatyou got teased about things. I enjoyed doing them like Mammy and my brothersand sister did. Can you remember all the outfits? I tried to. Do youremember this from last year?--- What happened to the ghost when he got tooclose to the bonfire? He burnt his halloweenie. Ha Ha, Love mommy
^^^ My favorite email of the moment.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Brains are gray, as a matter of fact
I wish that I had a cat in my dorm room that when I was gone all day, and my roommate was gone all day, would pad around and eat bugs, jump on my computer and type kitty nonsense, and play with the fuzz balls from my slippers. Imaginary kitty would curl up in a gray ball matching the gray yarn by my bed and sleep all day looking peaceful and cozy with the little slits of his tightly closed eyes.
HEY, it's October the first.
HEY, it's October the first.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Dear Jacket
It's that time of year again. I know that it's soon, but the premature cool weather has given me reason to layer. However, I am not in your arms. You are at home, on my chair, in the barren bedroom. Jacket, I have been cheating on you again. First it was Blazer, now it has become Jean. While Jean Jacket is hip and fitted nicely, you, Jacket (original Jacket), are still my number one at heart. I've worn you in the snow when it was thermally inappropriate, I've worn you in May just for fun, I've worn you while dancing to Billy Idol songs. You're always at the greatest of events and appearing in the greatest of memories. Do not fret! Just know that the first days of fall when we can smell leaves and pumpkins in the air, I will be with you.
Love,
Angela
Love,
Angela
Monday, August 22, 2005
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
lunch, today
Seriously, I appriciate when people I don't know well come to a restaurant with Burmese food and Malaysian food and don't act freaked out by the exotic variety and the unpronouncable names and the all the lemongrass and coconut rice, seriously, is it weird that I care so much about the fact that he seemed so nonchalant about getting a special sort of soup I will probably never see again unless I went to Burma or Malaysia and didn't cross his eyes and didn't ask the waiter ignorant questions and didn't even act pretentious at the onset of tofu and more lemongrass and his spicy chai, seriously, there was not a word from the table of the chopsticks and deeply ethnic food under the ceiling fans and early 20th century ceilings hanging high like the smoke from the kitchen as the new cook lost his way.
(yeah, and I seriously skipped work again today and went to eat with some friends.)
(yeah, and I seriously skipped work again today and went to eat with some friends.)
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Ripped from the clutches of Shontae
New model 'permits time travel'
By Julianna Kettlewell, BBC News science reporter
If you went back in time and met your teenage parents, you could not split them up and prevent your birth - even if you wanted to, a new quantum model has stated.
Researchers speculate that time travel can occur within a kind of feedback loop where backwards movement is possible, but only in a way that is "complementary" to the present. In other words, you can pop back in time and have a look around, but you cannot do anything that will alter the present you left behind. The new model, which uses the laws of quantum mechanics, gets rid of the famous paradox surrounding time travel.
Paradox explained
Although the laws of physics seem to permit temporal gymnastics, the concept is laden with uncomfortable contradictions. The main headache stems from the idea that if you went back in time you could, theoretically, do something to change the present; and that possibility messes up the whole theory of time travel. Clearly, the present never is changed by mischievous time-travellers: people don't suddenly fade into the ether because a rerun of events has prevented their births - that much is obvious. So either time travel is not possible, or something is actually acting to prevent any backward movement from changing the present.
For most of us, the former option might seem most likely, but Einstein's general theory of relativity leads some physicists to suspect the latter. According to Einstein, space-time can curve back on itself, theoretically allowing travellers to double back and meet younger versions of themselves.
And now a team of physicists from the US and Austria says this situation can only be the case if there are physical constraints acting to protect the present from changes in the past. Weird laws The researchers say these constraints exist because of the weird laws of quantum mechanics even though, traditionally, they don't account for a backwards movement in time.
Quantum behaviour is governed by probabilities. Before something has actually been observed, there are a number of possibilities regarding its state. But once its state has been measured those possibilities shrink to one - uncertainty is eliminated. So, if you know the present, you cannot change it.
If, for example, you know your father is alive today, the laws of the quantum universe state that there is no possibility of him being killed in the past. It is as if, in some strange way, the present takes account of all the possible routes back into the past and, because your father is certainly alive, none of the routes back can possibly lead to his death.
"Quantum mechanics distinguishes between something that might happen and something that did happen," Professor Dan Greenberger, of the City University of New York, US, told the BBC News website.
"If we don't know your father is alive right now - if there is only a 90% chance that he is alive right now, then there is a chance that you can go back and kill him. But if you know he is alive, there is no chance you can kill him."
In other words, even if you take a trip back in time with the specific intention of killing your father, so long as you know he is happily sitting in his chair when you leave him in the present, you can be sure that something will prevent you from murdering him in the past. It is as if it has already happened.
"You go back to kill your father, but you'd arrive after he'd left the room, you wouldn't find him, or you'd change your mind," said Professor Greenberger.
"You wouldn't be able to kill him because the very fact that he is alive today is going to conspire against you so that you'll never end up taking that path leads you to killing him." Greenberger and colleague Karl Svozil introduce their quantum mechanical model of time travel on the ArXiv e-print service.
Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4097258.stm Published: 2005/06/17 10:03:47 GMT © BBC MMV
By Julianna Kettlewell, BBC News science reporter
If you went back in time and met your teenage parents, you could not split them up and prevent your birth - even if you wanted to, a new quantum model has stated.
Researchers speculate that time travel can occur within a kind of feedback loop where backwards movement is possible, but only in a way that is "complementary" to the present. In other words, you can pop back in time and have a look around, but you cannot do anything that will alter the present you left behind. The new model, which uses the laws of quantum mechanics, gets rid of the famous paradox surrounding time travel.
Paradox explained
Although the laws of physics seem to permit temporal gymnastics, the concept is laden with uncomfortable contradictions. The main headache stems from the idea that if you went back in time you could, theoretically, do something to change the present; and that possibility messes up the whole theory of time travel. Clearly, the present never is changed by mischievous time-travellers: people don't suddenly fade into the ether because a rerun of events has prevented their births - that much is obvious. So either time travel is not possible, or something is actually acting to prevent any backward movement from changing the present.
For most of us, the former option might seem most likely, but Einstein's general theory of relativity leads some physicists to suspect the latter. According to Einstein, space-time can curve back on itself, theoretically allowing travellers to double back and meet younger versions of themselves.
And now a team of physicists from the US and Austria says this situation can only be the case if there are physical constraints acting to protect the present from changes in the past. Weird laws The researchers say these constraints exist because of the weird laws of quantum mechanics even though, traditionally, they don't account for a backwards movement in time.
Quantum behaviour is governed by probabilities. Before something has actually been observed, there are a number of possibilities regarding its state. But once its state has been measured those possibilities shrink to one - uncertainty is eliminated. So, if you know the present, you cannot change it.
If, for example, you know your father is alive today, the laws of the quantum universe state that there is no possibility of him being killed in the past. It is as if, in some strange way, the present takes account of all the possible routes back into the past and, because your father is certainly alive, none of the routes back can possibly lead to his death.
"Quantum mechanics distinguishes between something that might happen and something that did happen," Professor Dan Greenberger, of the City University of New York, US, told the BBC News website.
"If we don't know your father is alive right now - if there is only a 90% chance that he is alive right now, then there is a chance that you can go back and kill him. But if you know he is alive, there is no chance you can kill him."
In other words, even if you take a trip back in time with the specific intention of killing your father, so long as you know he is happily sitting in his chair when you leave him in the present, you can be sure that something will prevent you from murdering him in the past. It is as if it has already happened.
"You go back to kill your father, but you'd arrive after he'd left the room, you wouldn't find him, or you'd change your mind," said Professor Greenberger.
"You wouldn't be able to kill him because the very fact that he is alive today is going to conspire against you so that you'll never end up taking that path leads you to killing him." Greenberger and colleague Karl Svozil introduce their quantum mechanical model of time travel on the ArXiv e-print service.
Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4097258.stm Published: 2005/06/17 10:03:47 GMT © BBC MMV
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
and she never says goodbye when she leaves
Indigo ran off with lavender
to be more like her
feminine self tasting
petunias and cantelope
without having to share
sagging brooding blue's
iced bathwater chai
I can never seem to find
why she let herself all gloom
though rinds can be intimidating
and polen makes her sneeze
and her eyes itch and burn
orange when she sleeps
Never did she dream in
green after choking
on cloves cracking
like the fire in her
anxiety since
the age of periwinkle
Delicately her master
sharpens the yellow from
the back end but never
the ones she stood next
to in class photos
I've Gone Ornery
she scribbles on the cover
of a plucked flower
exhales a cleansing
breath and wonders aloud,
But what is petunia?
Overnight, graciously
I deliberatly
needed Indigo
but she's never there in the morning.
Indigo ran off with lavender
to be more like her
feminine self tasting
petunias and cantelope
without having to share
sagging brooding blue's
iced bathwater chai
I can never seem to find
why she let herself all gloom
though rinds can be intimidating
and polen makes her sneeze
and her eyes itch and burn
orange when she sleeps
Never did she dream in
green after choking
on cloves cracking
like the fire in her
anxiety since
the age of periwinkle
Delicately her master
sharpens the yellow from
the back end but never
the ones she stood next
to in class photos
I've Gone Ornery
she scribbles on the cover
of a plucked flower
exhales a cleansing
breath and wonders aloud,
But what is petunia?
Overnight, graciously
I deliberatly
needed Indigo
but she's never there in the morning.
Monday, August 08, 2005
In memory of Andrew because I miss that fish!
As Shontae and I are talking fishy, I must pause and remember my favorite fish of all time, Andrew. For those of you who have been faithful fans of my blogity blog, you may remember when my betta fish died (because I am stupid and left the window open for him to freeze like a fishstick). I was very sad and felt very guilty, and I even took the effort to make a coffin and grave for him. Now Andrew resides in a purple Kleenex box, decorated appropriatly with lilies, inside of his cuppy (where he liked to take Time Out or naps) behind the Grotto at my school. So, St. Bernadette and Mother Mary watch over his plot while I take classes next door in Aquinas.
I am sure that Andrew is somewhere now with his girlfriend the headless mermaid in the ocean of the Galapagos Islands, hanging out with ignuanas and flaring at purple jelly fish.
Whoever thought one could miss a fish, however, he was a good one and had a lot of personality. I'm debating whether I would want another one or not because it may not be the same, or it would be the same and I would feel guilty replacing Andrew.
Or, I could get real and eat fish sticks.
I am sure that Andrew is somewhere now with his girlfriend the headless mermaid in the ocean of the Galapagos Islands, hanging out with ignuanas and flaring at purple jelly fish.
Whoever thought one could miss a fish, however, he was a good one and had a lot of personality. I'm debating whether I would want another one or not because it may not be the same, or it would be the same and I would feel guilty replacing Andrew.
Or, I could get real and eat fish sticks.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Sunday, July 31, 2005
and there were pockets all along
I got this skirt at the Gap for 12 bucks, and I always thought that pockets on it were fake, until last night at Gooski's with Crystal, and I was a little drunk, when I found these little pockets are actually pockets. They'd been sewn up all this time, and I just realized all I had to do was push on through and Bam I had pockets.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
(SEAN)
When I don't care that gross food is gross I make myself believe that it will make me strong, like superhero stronger. Such as the various treats I pick up on my Saturday morning break from work. The sausage biscuits from 7-11, the 49 cent cheeseburgers from McDonald's. They're not real food, so they must have such a high amount of preservatives and radioactive fillers that someday I will just start glowing bright green and be able to shoot lightening bolts at moving cars.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
My favorite email of the moment
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:42:40 -0400
From: Molly F Prosser
To: Angela Bayout
Subject: RE: Tropico?
ps. Yams rule.
From: Molly F Prosser
To: Angela Bayout
Subject: RE: Tropico?
ps. Yams rule.
Friday, July 08, 2005
PART 2. (see below-)
The "(1)" are meant to be superscripts.
The Electric Birds
The creamy slips of
the Sunday ads
spilling from the dollar
Gazette remind me
of Bisquick pancakes
and raw alkaline
cores
of peaches forced
passed the tongue
like cold cough
syrup spoons.
Wires grid air
into new Enumeration
Districts, electric
birds
trapeze singers
welcome me home(1)
-where in the closet behind the stale wool coat is still that plastic bag stretched out like a faded tank top. Tentacles spill from the hems of scrap plaid cotton the same starch texture as the first time I wore a strapless dress in the mirror behind the door and then in the reflection of his red hatchback that could have been stolen from a funhouse, and he liked that dress so much it ripped under his snarky foaming smirk I misunderstood for a smile.
(1)The first summer I
lived alone in the
city I wore nothing
but old tank tops
and underpants on
the hottest weekends
of July while the oven
heated for Bisquick
biscuits I kneaded
with my own
agile fingers made
for pens. Peaches
were a commodity
then that I didn’t
have to swallow
with the charcoal
biscuits and tablespoons
of dollar
marmalade
while watching cars
parallel park
from the sitting sill
of my bedroom window.
I’d listen to the electric
birds on wires strung
parallel from each
other, cutting the air
in shallow slits
and the birds take
steep plunges, spilling
into the street
below.
The Electric Birds
The creamy slips of
the Sunday ads
spilling from the dollar
Gazette remind me
of Bisquick pancakes
and raw alkaline
cores
of peaches forced
passed the tongue
like cold cough
syrup spoons.
Wires grid air
into new Enumeration
Districts, electric
birds
trapeze singers
welcome me home(1)
-where in the closet behind the stale wool coat is still that plastic bag stretched out like a faded tank top. Tentacles spill from the hems of scrap plaid cotton the same starch texture as the first time I wore a strapless dress in the mirror behind the door and then in the reflection of his red hatchback that could have been stolen from a funhouse, and he liked that dress so much it ripped under his snarky foaming smirk I misunderstood for a smile.
(1)The first summer I
lived alone in the
city I wore nothing
but old tank tops
and underpants on
the hottest weekends
of July while the oven
heated for Bisquick
biscuits I kneaded
with my own
agile fingers made
for pens. Peaches
were a commodity
then that I didn’t
have to swallow
with the charcoal
biscuits and tablespoons
of dollar
marmalade
while watching cars
parallel park
from the sitting sill
of my bedroom window.
I’d listen to the electric
birds on wires strung
parallel from each
other, cutting the air
in shallow slits
and the birds take
steep plunges, spilling
into the street
below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)