On Mid-life crises
Having reached that point in my life where a mid-life crisis is imminent, I have been giving the matter some thought. As teenagers, we long for adulthood and the freedoms we believe it will bring. In our 20s we believe we have arrived. We are all grown up now. We can legally get shit-faced and we know everything there is to know. There is still room for improvement, however, as we keep one eye on our boss's job. In our 30s we realize we weren't really all that grown up in our 20s and but now we've got everything under control and life is good.
Then come the 40s. Reality sets in. It seems to me, from where I sit, a mid-life crisis is outward expression of the realization that we still aren't very grown up and, as a matter of fact, being a grown up is overrated.
Oops.
Okay, so I haven't exactly been following the pattern I tried to establish where I would post a little blurb about each book I was reading as I finished it. I've finished both Krondor: The Assassins and Krondor: Tear of the Gods with narry a word about either. Indeed, much as a "direct to DVD" movie, Krondor: Tear of the Gods never made an appearance in the currently reading list. I suppose what it boils down to is blogging is work, work I enjoy, but work nonetheless. I haven't had a lot of time or energy for "frivolous work" (read-work I enjoy) lately so I go straight to veg mode, which often means picking up a good book to get lost in. I find Raymond Feist's books easy to get lost in, and that's a good thing in a fantasy book.
For someone who recently said to a friend, "I hate religion, and I mean that in the nicest way," I find myself wondering why I'm reading this book at all. I truly have no use for religion, Christian, Unitarian, Pagan or otherwise. And yet it continues to fascinate me. Maybe I keep hoping that there is something out there that will speak to me, or, more likely, I'm still trying to come to grips with a force that was a major part of my life for much longer than not. I've had Mere Christianity sitting on my shelves for a while now. I'm not entirely unfamiliar with C.S. Lewis' work. I read the Narinia books a couple of times as a teenager and have read a couple of other of his works including The Screwtape Letters
Here is where I attempt to set up a new pattern. Rather than waiting until the end of each book, I'm going to start making comments as I feel necessary. There is already much I could have written, and likely won't remember about The Mythic Past. Thoughts have similarly come and gone while reading A Clinicians Guide to Substance Abuse. However, having blathered on for a while now and having not really said much of anything, I'm going to stop now and go to bed before I fall asleep in my chair, and save a couple of observations I have about what I've read thus far for another time.
Things that make you go, hmmmm….
...the Academy generally frowns on gays playing gays—it's not really acting, after all. Though Sir Ian McKellen broke the curse in 1999 with a Best Actor nomination for Gods and Monsters, actual trophies have been reserved for "courageous" straights playing gay, like William Hurt, Tom Hanks, Hilary Swank, Charlise Theron, and Philip Seymour Hoffman (as if it takes courage to accept career-defining roles most actors would die for). Alas, whenever another X-Men movie rolls around, no one says, "Wow, Sir Ian was so brave to play straight! What a stretch!" (Musto, 2007)
What is it, do you think, that requires "courage" to take on a gay role? Why do straight folk get more credit for acting in a gay role than gay folk get for acting in a straight role? Does the Academy have a one-dimensional view of gay folk that presumes all gay people think and act alike? Would a gay, nelly actor be given credit for acting the part of a butch leather daddy or vice versa? Is it really about your acting ability? Your ability to pretend you are something you are not? Is it really because pretending that you're gay is more difficult than pretending you are a cannibalistic serial killer, King Aurthur, or Miranda Preistly?
Or is it because of the fear that if you act in a gay role, people might actually think you are gay? Is it about the weight of possible repercussions for playing a role that is still objectionable to most of society? You can play a serial killer and no one bats an eyelash, because no one seriously thinks there's a possible reality behind the role. But play gay, and watch the rumors fly. Watch the press ask stupid questions like "Did you enjoy kissing [insert name of co-star here]?" as if a straight man kissing a man is really so different than a straight man kissing a woman for whom he has little or no attraction.
The "courage" that is required is bucking the possible damage the being gay can do to your career. Nor is is it an unfounded fear. Hollywood has a long history of pressuring gay bachelors to get married to deflect rumors of their deviance. Remember Tommy Kirk? Didn't think so. Tommy Kirk was the cute, young man who played in multiple Disney movies in the 50s and 60s. Old Yeller, Swiss Family Robinson, The Shaggy Dog, Son of Flubber, Savage Sam, to name a few. Disney found out Tommy was gay in 1965 ... and fired him ("Tommy Kirk," n.d.). Tommy now runs an upholstery and carpet cleaning business.
Even today in our brave new world Rupert Everett complains that he is denied roles because studio execs don't think the public will accept an openly gay man in a romantic leading role. (But they'll accept Jack Nicholson? Puhleeze. Ladies, how many of you are dying to make it with Jack?) Is it really about public perceptions or are execs just unwilling to tell Everett he doesn't have the acting ability to pull it off? One lady friend of mine opines
Depends on how good an actor he is really. If he can ACT like he's having a good time when he's kissing a woman then he's good enough to play straight guys. If not, if that underlying 'yuk' factor is in his body language, then everyone will remember that he's very openly gay and that's all they'll see.
I agree, but I still have a hard time seeing how this is materially different from straight actors who are not attracted to each other or, not entirely unlikely, who despise each other. Still, one openly gay casting director has said he refuses to date actors because "an actor seen in public with him risked confinement to gay or sexually ambiguous roles" (Bartone, 2002).
Apparently in Hollywood, the land of morally bankrupt liberals who are trying to teach America's children how to be gay, it's only O.K. to act gay. It's still not really O.K. to be gay.
Musto, M. (May 2007). The Glass Closet: Why the stars won't come out and play. Out, 52-54.
Tommy Kirk (n.d.). Retrieved June 13, 2007 from www.imdb.com.
Pass it on.
Good As You: Another 'ex-gay' non-success story
I did the ex-gay thing for a while, the unofficial Mormon version, at least. The great motivator for men and women who seek out this path is fear of Divine Retribution. They buy into the snake oil that religion is selling because they believe that God will punish them for being/acting gay. Of course, they don't frame it that way in their own minds. God wants only what is best for them.
News flash folks. Religion does not have one, single clue about what God thinks is best for you. Some few are willing to admit that. Seek them out if you enjoy/need/desire a religious foundation to your life. The rest are impostors who know only what they think is best for you. What God thinks is best for you is between you and God. No one else.
True courage is taking the chance to stand on your own two feet, to develop a truly personal relationship with the divine, and walk away from those who would challenge your ability to decide for yourself what is best for you.
Finished – Krondor: The Betrayal
I actually finished this book a while back and am half way through Krondor: The Assassins. Finding the time to update the blog has been problematic lately. Some good things are keeping me busy. Some mundane things. The major thing sucking up time the past week has been Pride, but I'll post more about that later.
These are a part of a second trilogy called the The Riftwar Legacy, a reference to a war fought in an earlier four book seiries called The Serpentwar Saga. You don't necessarily have to have read The Serpentwar Saga before reading The Riftwar Legacy. It's actually been years since I read The Serpentwar Saga. I don't remember more than general details. Occasionally a reference is made to an event or character from The Serpentwar Saga that I don't remember, but it hardly impairs my ability to understand and enjoy the current story.
I'm a sucker for fantasy. Have I mentioned that before? If you haven't noticed, I can chew through light reading in pretty short order. Raymond E. Feist has created a believable world, and his characters are also believable and well developed. His plot lines are complex enough to keep your interest without stretching credibility. As credible as a fantasy world can be, that is.
He has a few odd one offs that don't belong to a particular series. I'll probably try and pick them up through the summer.