ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-changes

Thinking about a couple of conversations I've had in recent and not-so-recent times about at what point in childhood we sort of acknowledge our own sexuality, and how that comes about. The interesting question to ask is what pop culture figures have been formative in that realization. Then the more interesting thing is to extrapolate to how that figure has or hasn't affected our current proclivities. The first person I can really remember being attracted to was David Bowie in his role as Jareth in Labyrinth. Is this why the thought of boys in eyeliner is so appealing to me now?

saddest/best conversation ever...

...with an 8-ish-year-old boy named Alejandro.

Alejandro: If you could only pick one, what would be your favorite animal?
Malia: Hmmmm...Armadillo.
Alejandro: I have a really hard time picking between monkeys and snakes.
Malia: I think I like monkeys better than snakes.
Alejandro: But snakes. They're so long, and the way they move...
Malia: Do you have a pet snake?
Alejandro: No. I wish you could train a snake.
Malia: Yeah. That'd be pretty cool, if you could have a snake that could do tricks and stuff.
Alejandro: No, that's not what I mean. Like if you loved it, and cared for it...that it could love you back...I don't think a snake could ever love you back...


What can you say to that?

an addendum to previous post

For those who didn't think Harry Potter was worthy of lit snobbery, I say aha! A lit snob parody! NB: this website is basically a huge spoiler for Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. This website.

kid lit + old movies = regressing and becoming a fuddy duddy at the same time...

So as I suppose many people do, I go through noticeable phases with my culture preferences. Right now it seems I'm on a kick to see old movies and to read kid's books. The kid lit kick is a little easier to suss out: it's Harry Potter what done it. As I think might be the case with many a lit snob, I was introduced to HP as travel reading. While of course the common criticisms are that her universe isn't terribly original and her prose isn't terribly skillfully written, somehow neither of those detracts from the fact the the books are still really good. Engaging, charming, and in the case of the latest installment, moving. Yikes. I attest, however, that I did not attend any midnight gala to procure the most recent book. So I'm officially "not overboard." I am, however, unreasonably excited that they've cast Jarvis Cocker as the lead singer of the Weird Sisters in the next Harry Potter movie that's due in November.Unreasonably excited.

The kid lit kick has branched out a bit. Just finished an old favorite, The Phantom Tollbooth, which I submit is best enjoyed when read aloud with funny voices. The next kid lit pick is Howl's Moving Castle, the novel on which the recent Miyazaki film was based. And of course, having seen Charlie and the Chocolate Factory may inspire me to reread some Dahl. It's not so bad, right?

The old movie thing is a bit harder to pin down. Perhaps it's because I've rented most of the documentaries at Faye's. Perhaps (read: Certainly) I'm a person who's drawn in by lists and I feel the need to see some of these Great Movies of the Film Canon. So in the past couple of months I've seen (all for the first time) Casablanca, Sunset Blvd, North by Northwest, Singin' in the Rain, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Lawrence of Arabia, and of course, the silent film IT, which has its place among Most Enjoyable Cinematic Experiences of All Time. Frankly there's a reason these type of films show up on everyone's list. A little trepidatious at the prospect of seeing a 3.5 hour long war movie (Lawrence of Arabia), how surprised was I to find that the main character was both hilarious and totally fey. How genius is that? A little dismayed that the only female parts in the whole film were the completely robed women ululating from the hills, but we'll save a post about film and the patriarchy for another day...