Before I write this, I just want to say that this will be the last post ever on this blog. I have bought a domain name and will be creating an entirely new blog before late summer/September. Thanks to anyone who read this blog.
Personal branding is so important now, ironically even to get a job in corporate branding, that I have been having anxiety attacks. I knew that something has been wrong with me for the last six months and it hit me this morning like a lightning bolt. I have no brand identity. I have an identity but so does that one minnow swimming in a school of other minnows. Does it mean anything? Does that one minnow get noticed? Probably not.
For years my personal brand identity has been that I don't need one, and that anyone who has one is a conformist idiot. Now I realize that even to be recognized as a non-conformist you must be recognizable first, and this usually requires some form of conformity. This is actually quite philosophical and I don't feel like getting into that right now, but it's something to think about.
I used to think that blogging was emo and idiotic - now I realize it's essential. Social media is turning the way of swimming in that school of other minnows, so a social media brand identity is a must. Once a person recognizes you as a "brand" and thinks that it's something they would be interested in adopting into their psyche, they will demand the full experience. They want a personality to interact with. They don't know you, so you have to completely create the illusion that your brand "personality" is sitting in their living room, chatting with them, and genuinely cares about them. A website is a must to achieve this, even a personal one. This cannot be stressed enough.
There are so many brands that even personal ones are hard to pick apart from each other. Does it come down to appearance? I used to think that was disgusting and superficial, but now we live almost entirely in a world where people will pay only if they identify with a "friend." Appearances, then, are essential – they are the first thing that people notice about another person and the first thing that draws them in. Not only do you have to have an enticing product to offer, you better have an attractive store-front.
The part that gets me isn't the requirements of self-branding, because I know that I can be successful on that front. What gets me is how to create one. Are brands better when they're recognizable or when they create stereotype conflict? If I wanted to sell hotdogs, let's say, is it better to adopt the red-and-yellow shirt-wearing, ballpark personality or something completely off the mark, like a surfer who just happens to be into hotdogs? And, similarly, if I want to be a writer (and get paid for it), is it better to adopt the all-black wearing, chain smoking, scarf-wearing coffee-shop sitter persona (I'm pretty much already this, except more frumpy), or would it be better to be a 4'11 pin-up girl type with 6" hills and a killer writing portfolio?
This is tough. If someone has some experiences with self-branding, let me know so I can at least start. I feel like I'm too far behind now to catch up, even at 25. I feel like I let the opportunity slip-away during adolescence.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Monday, June 20, 2011
Cereal is the most important meal of the day
I am probably poorer than I've ever been – school and age will do that to a person. So I'm editing all of my negative thoughts about money into positive ones.
In no way am I bitching about being impoverished because I can afford basic needs that many others may not and I count myself lucky every day (disclaimer: I'm not a moron).
Negative thought a) I can't afford take-out anymore.
Positive thought a) Mini Wheats are awesome. I will eat them for breakfast, lunch and dinner because they are THAT awesome. Sometimes I will eat them without milk to switch it up a bit. They also come in about 17 different flavors, so when I finish this box of regular frosted I can eat any other flavor from the frosted rainbow.
Negative thought b) I can't afford to go to BOTH a movie and out for dinner.
Positive thought b) I will go to the movie and eat popcorn for dinner. Popcorn is awesome.
Negative thought c) I can't afford new clothes and all of my old clothes are frumpy and ugly
Positive thought c) time to clean out the closet. If your clothes look ugly they were a waste of money in the first place. This will teach you fashion sense for the future.
Negative thought d) I hate the bus. It stinks and it's gross and I don't want to take it.
Positive thought d) This may be the last 20 years where people will interact with each other. Make the most of seeing people.
Negative thought e) My wallet is empty
Positive though e) There is more room for bigger bills
Negative thought f) my job sucks
Positive thought f) thank goodness that you HAVE a job, and now you know what you don't want to do for the rest of your life.
Negative thought g) I can't get that new technology thing
Positive thought g) that new technology thing will be outdated the second you buy it anyway. Like a car.
Negative thought h) I can't afford to drink and smoke anymore
Positive thought h) that's probably a good thing?
Negative thought i) I can't afford to buy my cousin's niece's cousin's cousin a really nice gift for her birthday
Positive thought i) who exactly are you trying to impress again? save your money, she's not impressed.
Negative thought j) I can't buy coffee anymore
Positive thought j) Do you know how much of a rip-off coffee and tea are? A tea bag costs 10 cents maybe. Coffee made in a pot costs maybe 25 cents. And you're going to pay $4.50 for it? Coffee is essentially a roasted bean broth. If I put "bouillon de grains de café torréfiés" on a menu, you would probably pay $15 for it.
Negative thought k) I think like an old person now
Positive thought k) you will eventually anyway, might as well get it over with now
In no way am I bitching about being impoverished because I can afford basic needs that many others may not and I count myself lucky every day (disclaimer: I'm not a moron).
Negative thought a) I can't afford take-out anymore.
Positive thought a) Mini Wheats are awesome. I will eat them for breakfast, lunch and dinner because they are THAT awesome. Sometimes I will eat them without milk to switch it up a bit. They also come in about 17 different flavors, so when I finish this box of regular frosted I can eat any other flavor from the frosted rainbow.
Negative thought b) I can't afford to go to BOTH a movie and out for dinner.
Positive thought b) I will go to the movie and eat popcorn for dinner. Popcorn is awesome.
Negative thought c) I can't afford new clothes and all of my old clothes are frumpy and ugly
Positive thought c) time to clean out the closet. If your clothes look ugly they were a waste of money in the first place. This will teach you fashion sense for the future.
Negative thought d) I hate the bus. It stinks and it's gross and I don't want to take it.
Positive thought d) This may be the last 20 years where people will interact with each other. Make the most of seeing people.
Negative thought e) My wallet is empty
Positive though e) There is more room for bigger bills
Negative thought f) my job sucks
Positive thought f) thank goodness that you HAVE a job, and now you know what you don't want to do for the rest of your life.
Negative thought g) I can't get that new technology thing
Positive thought g) that new technology thing will be outdated the second you buy it anyway. Like a car.
Negative thought h) I can't afford to drink and smoke anymore
Positive thought h) that's probably a good thing?
Negative thought i) I can't afford to buy my cousin's niece's cousin's cousin a really nice gift for her birthday
Positive thought i) who exactly are you trying to impress again? save your money, she's not impressed.
Negative thought j) I can't buy coffee anymore
Positive thought j) Do you know how much of a rip-off coffee and tea are? A tea bag costs 10 cents maybe. Coffee made in a pot costs maybe 25 cents. And you're going to pay $4.50 for it? Coffee is essentially a roasted bean broth. If I put "bouillon de grains de café torréfiés" on a menu, you would probably pay $15 for it.
Negative thought k) I think like an old person now
Positive thought k) you will eventually anyway, might as well get it over with now
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Editing a habit
I have two habits I hate...smoking and coffee. I recently cut coffee out almost entirely and cigarettes are more difficult. But I have quit smoking before so I will tell you how I edited out coffee and cigarette addictions.
1) drink a lot of water (like 3 L a day)... Not only is smoking dehydrating, I'm pretty sure it takes nutrients out of your tissues. That craving goes away when you're at your optimum fluid capacity. Same with coffee...coffee is acidic so drinking tons more water will make you crave it less.
2) exercise...nothing is grosser than when you're doing a really hard exercise and you puke from dehydration or choke up a lung. Have some goals and the other two will get less and less.
3) just don't buy any...there's the whole, "I just want one cigarette but then I have to try to get the individual cigarettes and it's just easier to buy a pack and smoke one and keep the others for an emergency.". That doesn't work. Buying extra large coffees because you think you're getting value is a bad idea as well.
4). boredom is a killer. It's what gets be every time. Being over stimulated gets me too, like when I read a book or eat too much or watch a movie and get bored halfway through. You pretty much have to reboot the mind by disciplining it. "no, just because you're bored doesnt give you the right to smoke a pack in one sitting."
5). Be conscious...sometimes the act of buying these things is more unconscious than the act of ingestion. Make sure you're on top pod your thoughts...try not to let your prions get the better of you and take power over you in certain situations that would make you buy these thongs.
1) drink a lot of water (like 3 L a day)... Not only is smoking dehydrating, I'm pretty sure it takes nutrients out of your tissues. That craving goes away when you're at your optimum fluid capacity. Same with coffee...coffee is acidic so drinking tons more water will make you crave it less.
2) exercise...nothing is grosser than when you're doing a really hard exercise and you puke from dehydration or choke up a lung. Have some goals and the other two will get less and less.
3) just don't buy any...there's the whole, "I just want one cigarette but then I have to try to get the individual cigarettes and it's just easier to buy a pack and smoke one and keep the others for an emergency.". That doesn't work. Buying extra large coffees because you think you're getting value is a bad idea as well.
4). boredom is a killer. It's what gets be every time. Being over stimulated gets me too, like when I read a book or eat too much or watch a movie and get bored halfway through. You pretty much have to reboot the mind by disciplining it. "no, just because you're bored doesnt give you the right to smoke a pack in one sitting."
5). Be conscious...sometimes the act of buying these things is more unconscious than the act of ingestion. Make sure you're on top pod your thoughts...try not to let your prions get the better of you and take power over you in certain situations that would make you buy these thongs.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Editing your Perceptions of Yourself
This may be dangerously close to Brian's post, but I guess we had the same wavelengths going on this week.
I used to think that I totally sucked at everything. If I wasn't perfect the first time, I as a person just wasn't any good. When I was little and I colored outside of a line in a coloring book, I would throw the whole coloring book away. I would Hulk rip it in half. Which is quite an achievement for a 4 year old, now that I think about it.
Now that I'm older, I find that I'm really good at a lot of things that I never would have imagined. It all comes down to editing your perceptions of yourself and just not caring what anyone else thinks. Ultimately that's what it comes down to. Don't doubt yourself before you've even tried something because we're all just empty vessels, if you really think about it. The only thing holding half of us back is perceptions and negativity.
A) High Interval Training -- I never ever thought of myself as athletic, and no one else ever did, so I never tried. Then one week I started jumping rope and I lost 10 lbs in 1.5 weeks. I didn't put much thought into it until I tried it again. Now I've been doing high intervals every day for the last month and I love it! My favorites are any of the Jillian Michaels' workouts (particularly the 30 Day ones), P90X Plyos and any of the Shaun T Insanity workouts (which are very hard, by the way). Jumping rope is still fun, too. I actually enjoy doing high intervals and they can take down the average athletic person. Now I don't particularly care what others think of me because I'm doing something healthy that I enjoy doing. And I lost weight.
B) Twitter -- Sometimes with Twitter I'm really on with it. If I don't have anything witty to say about a current event I usually just avoid it all together because I think Facebook is the place for status updates. I'm not really that bad at Twitter. I hated Twitter; I had a Twitter account for 2 years before we were forced to use it in school. If we hadn't have been forced to do it, I would have never found out that I'm semi-witty.
C) Baking -- One of the first things I ever baked was zucchini chocolate cake, and it won first prize in the fair 3 years in a row. It even went up against my sister's identical cake. I love baking much more than cooking, even though I love that too. I make pönnukökurs quite often, which are Icelandic pancakes rolled up with brown sugar. Sometimes I make vinarterta, which is an Icelandic cake made of sugar cookie layers filled with prunes (it sounds kinda gross but it's like a big Fig Newton, and everyone likes Fig Newtons). Apparently no one has the patience to make them so you can sell them at Christmas time. I mean I also make pies and bread and doughnuts and cupcakes, etc etc, but the funny thing is that I don't like sugar so I never eat my own baking except to taste it.
D) Video Games -- I think I started playing video games when I was 4. First game I ever played was Super Mario (pretty obvious) but then I graduated into Battletoads, probably one of the most challenging games on the NES. My grandma bought me a Playstation for Christmas (coolest Grandma ever) and I played that a lot. I saved up my money from my first ever job to buy a PS2, and I played that a lot. Then it was onto the PS3. And between all that was computer games. I think I made a Sim City with 1 million people once, which was a challenge. I don't have time to play video games very often anymore, but I beat LA Noire twice and Portal 2 so I guess I have enough time lately.
See? Even I'm good at some things. There are things I want to try but I'm not scared to even try them because I'm not afraid to try things anymore. Anyone can be good at anything if they just edit out other people's perceptions and projections and just work at it. So what is everyone secretly good at, come on, share.
P.S. Sarcasm isn't a talent.
I used to think that I totally sucked at everything. If I wasn't perfect the first time, I as a person just wasn't any good. When I was little and I colored outside of a line in a coloring book, I would throw the whole coloring book away. I would Hulk rip it in half. Which is quite an achievement for a 4 year old, now that I think about it.
Now that I'm older, I find that I'm really good at a lot of things that I never would have imagined. It all comes down to editing your perceptions of yourself and just not caring what anyone else thinks. Ultimately that's what it comes down to. Don't doubt yourself before you've even tried something because we're all just empty vessels, if you really think about it. The only thing holding half of us back is perceptions and negativity.
A) High Interval Training -- I never ever thought of myself as athletic, and no one else ever did, so I never tried. Then one week I started jumping rope and I lost 10 lbs in 1.5 weeks. I didn't put much thought into it until I tried it again. Now I've been doing high intervals every day for the last month and I love it! My favorites are any of the Jillian Michaels' workouts (particularly the 30 Day ones), P90X Plyos and any of the Shaun T Insanity workouts (which are very hard, by the way). Jumping rope is still fun, too. I actually enjoy doing high intervals and they can take down the average athletic person. Now I don't particularly care what others think of me because I'm doing something healthy that I enjoy doing. And I lost weight.
B) Twitter -- Sometimes with Twitter I'm really on with it. If I don't have anything witty to say about a current event I usually just avoid it all together because I think Facebook is the place for status updates. I'm not really that bad at Twitter. I hated Twitter; I had a Twitter account for 2 years before we were forced to use it in school. If we hadn't have been forced to do it, I would have never found out that I'm semi-witty.
C) Baking -- One of the first things I ever baked was zucchini chocolate cake, and it won first prize in the fair 3 years in a row. It even went up against my sister's identical cake. I love baking much more than cooking, even though I love that too. I make pönnukökurs quite often, which are Icelandic pancakes rolled up with brown sugar. Sometimes I make vinarterta, which is an Icelandic cake made of sugar cookie layers filled with prunes (it sounds kinda gross but it's like a big Fig Newton, and everyone likes Fig Newtons). Apparently no one has the patience to make them so you can sell them at Christmas time. I mean I also make pies and bread and doughnuts and cupcakes, etc etc, but the funny thing is that I don't like sugar so I never eat my own baking except to taste it.
D) Video Games -- I think I started playing video games when I was 4. First game I ever played was Super Mario (pretty obvious) but then I graduated into Battletoads, probably one of the most challenging games on the NES. My grandma bought me a Playstation for Christmas (coolest Grandma ever) and I played that a lot. I saved up my money from my first ever job to buy a PS2, and I played that a lot. Then it was onto the PS3. And between all that was computer games. I think I made a Sim City with 1 million people once, which was a challenge. I don't have time to play video games very often anymore, but I beat LA Noire twice and Portal 2 so I guess I have enough time lately.
See? Even I'm good at some things. There are things I want to try but I'm not scared to even try them because I'm not afraid to try things anymore. Anyone can be good at anything if they just edit out other people's perceptions and projections and just work at it. So what is everyone secretly good at, come on, share.
P.S. Sarcasm isn't a talent.
Monday, May 30, 2011
I need to edit my closet
I know this post is probably lame, but I have no idea how to edit a wardrobe.
I know I need a whole new wardrobe. I've been rich, poor, a bit richer, a bit poorer, then basically in poverty for the last year.
Do I throw things in bags and let them sit for 2 months before I send them to Goodwill in case I need to wear something in there? Do I let things sit for five years and then go closet digging and find things that look brand new and get excited? I don't know!
The thing is that I'm turning into a new person. The clothes that I have don't match who I am becoming. So now I'm stuck hanging on to these things that remind me of a time I don't particularly want to remember. Clothes are truly a first impression of the person that you are trying to communicate, which is why it is very important to edit your wardrobe to fit that person. People are truly that superficial. I never wanted to believe it, but I believe it now.
So I guess instead of doing the whole write and delete that I usually do for everything, I'm stuck with what I've got and I have to edit it.
I have major issues with editing, which I just remembered from writing this. See, if it's not working for me, I lack the ability to just edit it until it does. I trash the whole thing and start from scratch. This includes pretty much everything; I'm very black and white. It's a dangerous lifestyle.
Usually what I do when I don't like something anymore is I a) burn it or delete it; b) throw it away, no matter what it is; c) give it away; or d) ignore it, hoping it will go away.
But you can't always do that. Sometimes you're just stuck with what you have. Which includes ugly clothes.
I think I've figured it out, though. Just buy things that you can't get sick of in the first place. In certain colors. Buy shoes that can't ever go out of style. Buy a nice purse and never put Rollo's in it to melt (true story). I mean these are pretty obvious things, but not for me I guess. Oh, and no impulse buys. Those are the worst. They always end up getting the boot.
I know I need a whole new wardrobe. I've been rich, poor, a bit richer, a bit poorer, then basically in poverty for the last year.
Do I throw things in bags and let them sit for 2 months before I send them to Goodwill in case I need to wear something in there? Do I let things sit for five years and then go closet digging and find things that look brand new and get excited? I don't know!
The thing is that I'm turning into a new person. The clothes that I have don't match who I am becoming. So now I'm stuck hanging on to these things that remind me of a time I don't particularly want to remember. Clothes are truly a first impression of the person that you are trying to communicate, which is why it is very important to edit your wardrobe to fit that person. People are truly that superficial. I never wanted to believe it, but I believe it now.
So I guess instead of doing the whole write and delete that I usually do for everything, I'm stuck with what I've got and I have to edit it.
I have major issues with editing, which I just remembered from writing this. See, if it's not working for me, I lack the ability to just edit it until it does. I trash the whole thing and start from scratch. This includes pretty much everything; I'm very black and white. It's a dangerous lifestyle.
Usually what I do when I don't like something anymore is I a) burn it or delete it; b) throw it away, no matter what it is; c) give it away; or d) ignore it, hoping it will go away.
But you can't always do that. Sometimes you're just stuck with what you have. Which includes ugly clothes.
I think I've figured it out, though. Just buy things that you can't get sick of in the first place. In certain colors. Buy shoes that can't ever go out of style. Buy a nice purse and never put Rollo's in it to melt (true story). I mean these are pretty obvious things, but not for me I guess. Oh, and no impulse buys. Those are the worst. They always end up getting the boot.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Editing Perfection
I had about 15 different editing topics to choose from and then it dawned on me: what standard are we editing toward, and doesn't this standard continuously evolve anyway?
Please define perfection for me...ok, you can't. I can't. So if we're constantly editing ourselves, products, cars, houses, etc etc...I just get lost in it. Are we aiming for perfection? Obviously corrections are supposed to get us that much closer to perfection, right?
The perfect house keeps evolving, the perfect car keeps evolving, the perfect foods keep evolving, the perfect looks keep evolving. I get that the standard of perfection is set to keep us from getting bored, to keep us interested as consumers, to make us feel like something is wrong with us so that we must get better by using new and improved products. Those people who have edited themselves "to the standard" and broke their backs for it, those people who quite possible remortgaged their houses 3 times for it, are going to have the things they worked so hard for edited in the future anyway. 30 years from now whatever that thing is will be changed, bulldozed down, discontinued or "improved" to the standard of the time.
I guess my point is to just keep things as natural as possible and keep things simple. That's about all you can ask for. Nothing will be considered perfect because perfection is an elusive standard, but there are simple and consistent principles that make this constant editing and evolution unnecessary. Everything is pretty perfect the way it has always been available to us.
For example, food is consistent if you keep it simple. Vegetables, fruits, animals and grains have evolved very little, if at all, over hundreds of years. Maybe instead of fad products, just eat very simply.
Some old school products such as some soaps, perfumes, lotions and makeup have evolved very little over the years. Maybe it has everything to do with the ingredients and nothing to do with improvements. Improvements are obviously a sham: we weren't born needing synthetics, so why would improving a synthetic that we already don't need justify an extra $50 price tag? Don't fall for it. And the synthetics that tend to work are replicas of things that are found naturally anyway.
Houses are going to evolve constantly, so why not just live in a house that you enjoy and not one that will impress your neighbors? Cars will constantly evolve, so why be car poor? All of these things will constantly edit their standards over time, and so will people. Why break your back for that?
There will always be the issue of medicine but the main ingredients in synthetic medications have been used for thousands of years anyway. Many medications cause side effects, which then create more necessary medications to treat those side effects. I'm not arguing that medications aren't necessary for some, but they are a way of editing perfection as well. Countless people use and abuse them because they think whatever they are medicating themselves for will go away and bring them that much closer to the standard of perfection.
My philosophy is that the more complicated something is, the more editing will be necessary. Complication and amount of editing are directly correlated. Just let things flow naturally (and I don't mean aim for the bare minimum) and you will probably find that you'll be happy and have a lot less work cut out for yourself in the end. If you're feeling bad about not reaching the standard of perfection, just remember that a lot of it is made up and about 90% of it is your own projections. Edit that out and you'll be golden.
I'm not saying not to buy or do things that you think are perfect; those small things that will make you very happy for years. Just don't buy things or do things because you think they'll make you look perfect. That's never a good standard because that standard isn't fixed.
Please define perfection for me...ok, you can't. I can't. So if we're constantly editing ourselves, products, cars, houses, etc etc...I just get lost in it. Are we aiming for perfection? Obviously corrections are supposed to get us that much closer to perfection, right?
The perfect house keeps evolving, the perfect car keeps evolving, the perfect foods keep evolving, the perfect looks keep evolving. I get that the standard of perfection is set to keep us from getting bored, to keep us interested as consumers, to make us feel like something is wrong with us so that we must get better by using new and improved products. Those people who have edited themselves "to the standard" and broke their backs for it, those people who quite possible remortgaged their houses 3 times for it, are going to have the things they worked so hard for edited in the future anyway. 30 years from now whatever that thing is will be changed, bulldozed down, discontinued or "improved" to the standard of the time.
I guess my point is to just keep things as natural as possible and keep things simple. That's about all you can ask for. Nothing will be considered perfect because perfection is an elusive standard, but there are simple and consistent principles that make this constant editing and evolution unnecessary. Everything is pretty perfect the way it has always been available to us.
For example, food is consistent if you keep it simple. Vegetables, fruits, animals and grains have evolved very little, if at all, over hundreds of years. Maybe instead of fad products, just eat very simply.
Some old school products such as some soaps, perfumes, lotions and makeup have evolved very little over the years. Maybe it has everything to do with the ingredients and nothing to do with improvements. Improvements are obviously a sham: we weren't born needing synthetics, so why would improving a synthetic that we already don't need justify an extra $50 price tag? Don't fall for it. And the synthetics that tend to work are replicas of things that are found naturally anyway.
Houses are going to evolve constantly, so why not just live in a house that you enjoy and not one that will impress your neighbors? Cars will constantly evolve, so why be car poor? All of these things will constantly edit their standards over time, and so will people. Why break your back for that?
There will always be the issue of medicine but the main ingredients in synthetic medications have been used for thousands of years anyway. Many medications cause side effects, which then create more necessary medications to treat those side effects. I'm not arguing that medications aren't necessary for some, but they are a way of editing perfection as well. Countless people use and abuse them because they think whatever they are medicating themselves for will go away and bring them that much closer to the standard of perfection.
My philosophy is that the more complicated something is, the more editing will be necessary. Complication and amount of editing are directly correlated. Just let things flow naturally (and I don't mean aim for the bare minimum) and you will probably find that you'll be happy and have a lot less work cut out for yourself in the end. If you're feeling bad about not reaching the standard of perfection, just remember that a lot of it is made up and about 90% of it is your own projections. Edit that out and you'll be golden.
I'm not saying not to buy or do things that you think are perfect; those small things that will make you very happy for years. Just don't buy things or do things because you think they'll make you look perfect. That's never a good standard because that standard isn't fixed.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Editing and the Mind
If writing were a psychic apparatus, the writer would be the id, writing would be the ego, and editing would be the super-ego.
Sometimes good editing goes beyond basic syntax and grammar. Writing is a conscious effort often heavily influenced by the unconscious: the writer's emotions and drives often slip into their writing, unbeknownst to the writer. The writing that they produce is an attempt at balancing the desires of the writer with the demands of the editor. The writer and the editor are opposing forces, with the writing being the only thing really joining the two. A good editor should take the writing and transform it to communicate the writer's overall intentions in the most organized way possible.
Writing doesn't necessarily have to conform to societal morals and expectations, but I believe that out of fear many writers restrain themselves in their writing by trying to please both themselves and the editor. This is actually quite damaging, because now not only has the ego (the writing) repressed the desires of the writer (the id) in a disorganized fashion, the super-ego (the editor) will further repress the writer until there is no underlying soul left in the work.
I like to think that the best writers in the world don't have an ego and that they are their own editors, in every sense of the word. These writers' super-egos and ids communicate directly, without having to go through the ego: this would probably explain why so many of the best writers in this world are depressed, self-conscious, and riddled with anxiety. The writer's super-ego can directly edit, judge and bring forth what lies in the id, without repressing or losing any authenticity in the process. The writing, then, becomes part of a strange emptiness - a nirvana, if you will. The author constructs an ego(the writing) without having an ego-construction themselves. This direct editing and communication transcends the id and brings forth something instinctual and beautiful, pleasing to both the writer and the editor.
I believe that good writing becomes its own entity through the struggle between writer and editor and their ultimate synergy. I believe that authenticity in creativity is born out of struggle and moments of transcendence. If anything, rules and technicalities should only help to communicate this in the most advantageous and recognizable ways possible.
Sometimes good editing goes beyond basic syntax and grammar. Writing is a conscious effort often heavily influenced by the unconscious: the writer's emotions and drives often slip into their writing, unbeknownst to the writer. The writing that they produce is an attempt at balancing the desires of the writer with the demands of the editor. The writer and the editor are opposing forces, with the writing being the only thing really joining the two. A good editor should take the writing and transform it to communicate the writer's overall intentions in the most organized way possible.
Writing doesn't necessarily have to conform to societal morals and expectations, but I believe that out of fear many writers restrain themselves in their writing by trying to please both themselves and the editor. This is actually quite damaging, because now not only has the ego (the writing) repressed the desires of the writer (the id) in a disorganized fashion, the super-ego (the editor) will further repress the writer until there is no underlying soul left in the work.
I like to think that the best writers in the world don't have an ego and that they are their own editors, in every sense of the word. These writers' super-egos and ids communicate directly, without having to go through the ego: this would probably explain why so many of the best writers in this world are depressed, self-conscious, and riddled with anxiety. The writer's super-ego can directly edit, judge and bring forth what lies in the id, without repressing or losing any authenticity in the process. The writing, then, becomes part of a strange emptiness - a nirvana, if you will. The author constructs an ego(the writing) without having an ego-construction themselves. This direct editing and communication transcends the id and brings forth something instinctual and beautiful, pleasing to both the writer and the editor.
I believe that good writing becomes its own entity through the struggle between writer and editor and their ultimate synergy. I believe that authenticity in creativity is born out of struggle and moments of transcendence. If anything, rules and technicalities should only help to communicate this in the most advantageous and recognizable ways possible.
Monday, April 18, 2011
The Stagelights Sonata of Beethoven Blatz
This review is so old that I think I saw a cobweb.
The CreComms were tasked with reviewing "The Moonlight Sonata of Beethoven Blatz," a romp through the unsexy sexy lives of Mennonite farmers.
The play, created by past CreComm CreWriting instructor Armin Wiebe, follows the drama of Obrum Kehler and his wife, Susch, as they bring a broken piano and the broken Beethoven Blatz into their home.
Things start getting a bit tricky, however, when Obrum leaves Susch and Blatz alone while he goes off to work. And Teen, Susch's best girl friend, makes things even trickier.
The play's low German inflected dialogue was engaging, funny and difficult. Blatz was irritatingly dreamy - quite the opposite of the down-to-business Teen.
Wiebe says that he had originally wrote the play to take place in periods of darkness, hence why Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" featured prominently throughout. The entire play, due to production decisions, was featured in the light. Makes good sense, but the audience is in for an eyeful.
Wiebe also noted that Beethoven originally wrote the sonata after overhearing a blind girl playing one of his pieces. When he went to see her, moonlight poured onto the piano as she played. The sonata writing, and Beethoven himself, are mirrored throughout the play through Blatz's manic episodes, composed sonata (written for Sonja, his true love, which is transferred onto Susch) and through the actual Moonlight Sonata, which plays throughout.
The play was successful and humorous, making biblical references, Mennonite cultural references (Brummtopp, anyone?) and musical references throughout. The only thing that bothered me was the ending, which I felt was cheery and ambiguous given the situation these characters find themselves in.
3.5 out of 5.
For more information on Armin Wiebe and his work, visit www.arminwiebe.com.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
If I see another restaurant makeover show I will go on a hunger strike
So tonight was the Restaurant: Impossible premiere (although it's been airing in the US since January) and I have one word: yawn. The trend is half-baked and overdone. The British are coming! The British are coming!
I admit that I have had my months of Gordon Ramsay addiction issues, even enrolling in GRA (Gordon Ramsay Anonymous, something totally made up). He's like the guy who doesn't pat you on the back to find the best place to stick the knife, he stabs you first then goes out looking for a paramedic.
I get that entertainment is everyone's main priority and it gets the ratings and blah blah. Hell's Kitchen was fun, although he was too much of a prick at times. Then there's Kitchen Nightmares, basically a documentary on the atrocity that is British food.
Then Heston Blumenthal, the executive chef at Fat Duck in England, and my bald soulmate, took on Little Chef's menu (like revamping the British Smitty's).
Then Jamie Oliver started making over the British school system by revamping cafeterias (which is a fine thing to do, but who's going to trust that a millionaire is working in the country's best interests?)
Now Robert Irvine, our Canadian muscley friend from Dinner: Impossible, who is also British, is making restaurants over. We already have a slough of makeover shows plus the British ones, such as David Adjey's the Opener and Restaurant Makeover. Why not add another one for good measure?
The ultimate irony is that the problem with society isn't that there are too many bad restaurants; the problem is that there's too MANY restaurants. So instead of teaching us how to cook, you've replaced hours of valuable training time on the Food Network with gourmet chefs entering rookie territory.
If you want obesity rates to go down, quit replacing cooking shows with shows that showcase the industry. 80% of restaurants fail in the first 3 years of opening. Why? Because people rely on chains that make things 40% more fattening than if you had cooked it. Educate us on chains then, not some poor bastards trying to make a business out of something that wasn't their destiny to begin with.
I get that food is a necessity and that having lazy, untrained and uneducated locals in charge of your health is a nightmare in itself, because people put a certain blind faith into food that they don't into many other things. It's nice that Michelin star chefs want to pass along their success, but only 1-2% of chefs are at that level. Something that should be easy and fair trade and organic and local in theory (because they seem to think everyone has access to the freshest produce and proteins in the world at 4 am because they do) turns into a viscious expense for people who just aren't trained, educated or have the resources. French fries require little brain power and are cheap and reliable.
British invaders, I love you but start cooking again instead of showing off. It would be much more cheritable to drive the idea home that people should cook through cooking shows than to drive us to a revamped restaurant.
I admit that I have had my months of Gordon Ramsay addiction issues, even enrolling in GRA (Gordon Ramsay Anonymous, something totally made up). He's like the guy who doesn't pat you on the back to find the best place to stick the knife, he stabs you first then goes out looking for a paramedic.
I get that entertainment is everyone's main priority and it gets the ratings and blah blah. Hell's Kitchen was fun, although he was too much of a prick at times. Then there's Kitchen Nightmares, basically a documentary on the atrocity that is British food.
Then Heston Blumenthal, the executive chef at Fat Duck in England, and my bald soulmate, took on Little Chef's menu (like revamping the British Smitty's).
Then Jamie Oliver started making over the British school system by revamping cafeterias (which is a fine thing to do, but who's going to trust that a millionaire is working in the country's best interests?)
Now Robert Irvine, our Canadian muscley friend from Dinner: Impossible, who is also British, is making restaurants over. We already have a slough of makeover shows plus the British ones, such as David Adjey's the Opener and Restaurant Makeover. Why not add another one for good measure?
The ultimate irony is that the problem with society isn't that there are too many bad restaurants; the problem is that there's too MANY restaurants. So instead of teaching us how to cook, you've replaced hours of valuable training time on the Food Network with gourmet chefs entering rookie territory.
If you want obesity rates to go down, quit replacing cooking shows with shows that showcase the industry. 80% of restaurants fail in the first 3 years of opening. Why? Because people rely on chains that make things 40% more fattening than if you had cooked it. Educate us on chains then, not some poor bastards trying to make a business out of something that wasn't their destiny to begin with.
I get that food is a necessity and that having lazy, untrained and uneducated locals in charge of your health is a nightmare in itself, because people put a certain blind faith into food that they don't into many other things. It's nice that Michelin star chefs want to pass along their success, but only 1-2% of chefs are at that level. Something that should be easy and fair trade and organic and local in theory (because they seem to think everyone has access to the freshest produce and proteins in the world at 4 am because they do) turns into a viscious expense for people who just aren't trained, educated or have the resources. French fries require little brain power and are cheap and reliable.
British invaders, I love you but start cooking again instead of showing off. It would be much more cheritable to drive the idea home that people should cook through cooking shows than to drive us to a revamped restaurant.
Friday, April 1, 2011
NYC
Last year in November I went to NYC by myself to meet someone I never met. He was from Jamaica. Everyone thought it was shady. I didn't.
I must be more brave than I give myself credit for. I booked the flight on a Thursday and was on the plane the following Friday. I went for 3 days, which seems like no time, but it's enough time to see things. There are people in NYC who have lived there all their lives and haven't seen everything.
People paint NYC as this glamorous place full of beautiful, artsy, rich people: like the rainier, colder, moodier L.A. But in all honesty, everything is so cramped and so many different messages are flying at you by the thousands that you miss things quite easily. There are just simply TOO many people and businesses to have one thing really stand out. Everything just starts to blur together. Everyone starts looking the same. But maybe after living there and seeing people, people and more people, certain people start standing out.
For those who have never been, NYC is basically millions of people living in tiny, cramped apartments that are built with weird angles. The kitchens are barely big enough to open the oven all the way. They are cramped together with a 2x2 rectangle of landscaping in the front, followed by a fence. You have to walk about 10 blocks to get to the subway station. The roads are like huge parking lots where you drive down the middle and cars are parked perpendicular to you rather than parallel. 90% of apartment buildings are walkups. It is NEVER ENDING apartment blocks. There are no houses that aren't duplexes. Everybody lives in an apartment. They take the subway or train to work in the morning and take it back home again, and that's really all there is to NYC. Get in, get out.
Manhattan is absolutely dead on Sundays because the city is built to ship people in to work and then ship them directly out again. When I say dead I mean streets were empty and I only saw a couple hundred people. But on weekdays it looks like a sea of heads and suits. Not sure what happened that Sunday: either they were in church, having brunch, or gone home. Maybe it was Thanksgiving around that time so nobody was out. The only people down there were the ones who were shopping or at the park. Manhattan is like an oasis after being in the other parts of the city, but people literally have to cut their limbs off and sell them to live there. There's no place to live. I didn't see any celebrities (obviously, because I barely saw any people in general).
Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx are brick after brick after brick after brick after water tower after water tower after water tower after garage after garage after garage after bridge after bridge after bridge. Nobody talks to each other in New York. It's lonely. And then you drive out to Connecticut, and the roads are nicer and the leaves are beautiful and there are outlet malls.
Every place is marked by its culture. In the Caribbean centers you can only find rice and peas and jerk chicken for blocks and blocks. Then you start moving into the Italian parts, where every building is a deli, an auto repair shop or a nail salon. The streets run at weird angles. But everything is available to you in every way. I just never seemed to be able to find anything.
All you hear are trains running over your head and you habituate to the brakes screeching. There are so many pigeons that people have to wash their cars every day. The roads run at weird angles.
I got a different (and accurate) perception of New York because of who I was with. No one had a gun, there were no drug deals going down, nothing like that. It was just how millions of people every day there live their lives.
There are many beautiful things in New York. The fact that they built it up to what it has become completely blows my mind. The bridges are beautiful (The Brooklyn Bridge is cliche but amazing). Little things, like seeing food in windows and constantly looking up until you're dizzy trying to see the tops of skyscrapers and the constant glare of neon signs are just different experiences. The subway system is an experience in itself because it's so well organized and fast.
Anyway, I'm naive so maybe others have great experiences. But I just seen it as a gigantic jungle of bricks with a big oasis in the middle. Or like inception, you know, like a dream within a dream.
I really liked the parks in Manhattan, especially after seeing nothing but massive apartment blocks for 2 days. I started seeing people there. People were out skating on little ponds that were made.
Anyway, my point is that you can't take a massive city and think it's all like Manhattan, because it really really really isn't. People want to live and work there because they think it's like Sex and the City, but it's far from it. I'm scared that if I lived there my mind would turn into a mash of schedule. Subway, work, work, subway, sleep, subway, work, work, subway, sleep. People go and stay in Manhattan and that's it, and those people are narrow-minded. I highly encourage people to go there and see as much of the city as they can. It is fascinating, massive, and lonely.
I must be more brave than I give myself credit for. I booked the flight on a Thursday and was on the plane the following Friday. I went for 3 days, which seems like no time, but it's enough time to see things. There are people in NYC who have lived there all their lives and haven't seen everything.
People paint NYC as this glamorous place full of beautiful, artsy, rich people: like the rainier, colder, moodier L.A. But in all honesty, everything is so cramped and so many different messages are flying at you by the thousands that you miss things quite easily. There are just simply TOO many people and businesses to have one thing really stand out. Everything just starts to blur together. Everyone starts looking the same. But maybe after living there and seeing people, people and more people, certain people start standing out.
For those who have never been, NYC is basically millions of people living in tiny, cramped apartments that are built with weird angles. The kitchens are barely big enough to open the oven all the way. They are cramped together with a 2x2 rectangle of landscaping in the front, followed by a fence. You have to walk about 10 blocks to get to the subway station. The roads are like huge parking lots where you drive down the middle and cars are parked perpendicular to you rather than parallel. 90% of apartment buildings are walkups. It is NEVER ENDING apartment blocks. There are no houses that aren't duplexes. Everybody lives in an apartment. They take the subway or train to work in the morning and take it back home again, and that's really all there is to NYC. Get in, get out.
Manhattan is absolutely dead on Sundays because the city is built to ship people in to work and then ship them directly out again. When I say dead I mean streets were empty and I only saw a couple hundred people. But on weekdays it looks like a sea of heads and suits. Not sure what happened that Sunday: either they were in church, having brunch, or gone home. Maybe it was Thanksgiving around that time so nobody was out. The only people down there were the ones who were shopping or at the park. Manhattan is like an oasis after being in the other parts of the city, but people literally have to cut their limbs off and sell them to live there. There's no place to live. I didn't see any celebrities (obviously, because I barely saw any people in general).
Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx are brick after brick after brick after brick after water tower after water tower after water tower after garage after garage after garage after bridge after bridge after bridge. Nobody talks to each other in New York. It's lonely. And then you drive out to Connecticut, and the roads are nicer and the leaves are beautiful and there are outlet malls.
Every place is marked by its culture. In the Caribbean centers you can only find rice and peas and jerk chicken for blocks and blocks. Then you start moving into the Italian parts, where every building is a deli, an auto repair shop or a nail salon. The streets run at weird angles. But everything is available to you in every way. I just never seemed to be able to find anything.
All you hear are trains running over your head and you habituate to the brakes screeching. There are so many pigeons that people have to wash their cars every day. The roads run at weird angles.
I got a different (and accurate) perception of New York because of who I was with. No one had a gun, there were no drug deals going down, nothing like that. It was just how millions of people every day there live their lives.
There are many beautiful things in New York. The fact that they built it up to what it has become completely blows my mind. The bridges are beautiful (The Brooklyn Bridge is cliche but amazing). Little things, like seeing food in windows and constantly looking up until you're dizzy trying to see the tops of skyscrapers and the constant glare of neon signs are just different experiences. The subway system is an experience in itself because it's so well organized and fast.
Anyway, I'm naive so maybe others have great experiences. But I just seen it as a gigantic jungle of bricks with a big oasis in the middle. Or like inception, you know, like a dream within a dream.
I really liked the parks in Manhattan, especially after seeing nothing but massive apartment blocks for 2 days. I started seeing people there. People were out skating on little ponds that were made.
Anyway, my point is that you can't take a massive city and think it's all like Manhattan, because it really really really isn't. People want to live and work there because they think it's like Sex and the City, but it's far from it. I'm scared that if I lived there my mind would turn into a mash of schedule. Subway, work, work, subway, sleep, subway, work, work, subway, sleep. People go and stay in Manhattan and that's it, and those people are narrow-minded. I highly encourage people to go there and see as much of the city as they can. It is fascinating, massive, and lonely.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
CreComm observations
So, like all CreComms, and I mean all, I've been trying my best and working hard. During the magazine project I put in some 18 hour days, last semester was running at a steady 12. Since the magazine is over I've been putting in around 8, and I haven't felt so guilty, lazy or useless in a long time.
Why should I feel this guilty for not putting in a 16 hour day? If I do anything fun, like go out for dinner or watch half an hour of TV, I feel awful. The whole life being balanced thing went out the window long ago. I stopped watching tv.
I'm glad this program gave me the guilt I need to be successful in life. Every rich person at one point put in 20 hour days 7 days a week. We don't even really have it that bad. Then I think of the people who have actual brutal jobs and this is really nothing. So then I feel guilty about feeling busy on top of feeling guilty for not being busy enough. What a cycle.
Anyway, this summer I might have to get 2 jobs to keep up the rhythm I am accustomed too. I'm scared I'll be done school and have Trainspotting withdrawal symptoms. Maybe I'll just start drooling uncontrollaby.
Oh well, it's been so far ok. Things I may have wanted to change but a good kick in the ass.
Why should I feel this guilty for not putting in a 16 hour day? If I do anything fun, like go out for dinner or watch half an hour of TV, I feel awful. The whole life being balanced thing went out the window long ago. I stopped watching tv.
I'm glad this program gave me the guilt I need to be successful in life. Every rich person at one point put in 20 hour days 7 days a week. We don't even really have it that bad. Then I think of the people who have actual brutal jobs and this is really nothing. So then I feel guilty about feeling busy on top of feeling guilty for not being busy enough. What a cycle.
Anyway, this summer I might have to get 2 jobs to keep up the rhythm I am accustomed too. I'm scared I'll be done school and have Trainspotting withdrawal symptoms. Maybe I'll just start drooling uncontrollaby.
Oh well, it's been so far ok. Things I may have wanted to change but a good kick in the ass.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Shockport!
There's nothing shocking about Lockport, I just wanted to get your attention.
I went to Lockport today and everytime I go out that way I keep wanting to live out there. Lockport, Selkirk, St. Andrews...they're all my kind of places. I have come to the conclusion that I need to live by water in order to be happy, and those places seem to have an abundance of water.
I had a hotdog for the first time in 7 years today. One at Half Moon and one at Skinner's. I didn't eat all of each hotdog because I despise hotdogs, so there's still 3/4 of each sitting in the fridge, but they were actually good hotdogs! I finally understand that whole snap to bite ratio or whatever people keep talking about when it comes to good hotdogs. Still won't eat relish, though. I'm not sure if I can be a good judge of a hotdog if I can't eat relish.
I saw TFJ struggle down a hill, heard that there were lots of fish and that people were catching them by the minute, found out that Wet n' Wild closed down years ago (they should just call it Shockport because I was shocked about that). I had a good day! Abandoned water slides are creepy and depressing, almost like some remnant of Chernobyl. But they are really amazing to look at. Bryan Scott has a good picture of the creepiness that is abandoned water slides.
My only regret: that I didn't take a nicer picture of Wet n' Wild, in all it's abandoned glory. And that I had no idea it was closed. Now I know what to do for the future. Everything we do is learning!
This hotdog and I say "peace out."
I went to Lockport today and everytime I go out that way I keep wanting to live out there. Lockport, Selkirk, St. Andrews...they're all my kind of places. I have come to the conclusion that I need to live by water in order to be happy, and those places seem to have an abundance of water.
I had a hotdog for the first time in 7 years today. One at Half Moon and one at Skinner's. I didn't eat all of each hotdog because I despise hotdogs, so there's still 3/4 of each sitting in the fridge, but they were actually good hotdogs! I finally understand that whole snap to bite ratio or whatever people keep talking about when it comes to good hotdogs. Still won't eat relish, though. I'm not sure if I can be a good judge of a hotdog if I can't eat relish.
I saw TFJ struggle down a hill, heard that there were lots of fish and that people were catching them by the minute, found out that Wet n' Wild closed down years ago (they should just call it Shockport because I was shocked about that). I had a good day! Abandoned water slides are creepy and depressing, almost like some remnant of Chernobyl. But they are really amazing to look at. Bryan Scott has a good picture of the creepiness that is abandoned water slides.
My only regret: that I didn't take a nicer picture of Wet n' Wild, in all it's abandoned glory. And that I had no idea it was closed. Now I know what to do for the future. Everything we do is learning!
This hotdog and I say "peace out."
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Hey, TwitFace! Twitter vs. Facebook
It's a war of the worlds. The online worlds. And I am going to cover it. Here are the stats of the opposing parties.
A) Facebook: Facebook is a blend of reality and a fantasy life. Your friends and relatives are connected to you, you can share pictures with each other, you remain connected, and you have the control to share whatever you want (unless some jerk keeps tagging you in photos). Your relationships with people are probably as strong as your real life relationships with those people. You might have 800 friends, but you probably only comment on, like, or look at 50 of those people's posts.
Because of this, you might have coworkers and acquaintances and close friends and relatives, all in the same clump. You may write personal things intended for close friends that your acquaintaces shouldn't be seeing, or you may write something intended for your classmates that your relatives will end up seeing that might not jive with the personality that you've been presenting all along.
Facebook allows you to choose groups for certain posts so only certain people can see them, but if you're not saavy in anyway technologically you might screw that up. Instantly your douchebaggery is broadcasted to your entire little inner world. And, just like a real little inner world, it's difficult to not feel guilty when blocking people out of your life. However, because there's no threat of immediate emotional response, it's much easier on Facebook and brings out your inner sociopath slowly.
Facebook has a lot of "keeping up with the Joneses'" going on, which, if you're smart or a total dumbass, can work majorly to your advantage or disadvantage.
Advantage: Any photos, status update posts or friends that you make are instantly marketing YOUR LIFE, and Facebook works just like any other cliquey place in life. For example: wall posts about your excitement, followed by photos = instant jealousy by your followers. Posts like "Mexico today!" on the coldest day of the year, "Bought a house today" and "My boyfriend just bought me THIS" followed by picture of Tiffany's necklace = instant jealousy and suck up comments that make your followers feel like a loser or like they must bow to you. You haven't done anything to justify anyone deleting you and you haven't done anything to really brag, yet you have just marketed yourself as the one who has the life and all the goodness that comes from people who have lives.
Facebook posts work much like hypnosis - 3-5 words is the ideal. The more casual you make your comments, the more it looks like this is just the way you live your life. Don't be negative and switch it up. "Going snowboaring today," "great workout this morning," "Beach Time!" "Great time with the girls," etc etc. That stuff radiates. Photographic evidence = more radiation. Interactive posts = great. Open questions, wishes, bucket lists get the comments.
Don't post too much, though! If you post too much it becomes obvious that you don't actually have a life.
Disadvantage: What if you don't have a life? But everyone has a life? Not true. Don't use Facebook to whine. Talking about the fantasy life you want and presenting a misaligned one to your FBFs will backfire. Writing big long essays = instant loser/annoying. Never EVER use Facebook as a firezone; ie. don't use it to bully people. People can see you're a jackass.
Whining, frequent intoxication, general sadness = bad. Half the people on Facebook don't know your drama and don't care. Pick up the phone and talk to someone who won't use your information against you. Toxic friends = toxic Facebook Wall. Deleted!!
Getting attention with constant sad posts = shady. Unless it's rare and legitimate, don't make sad posts. "Wall F*cking" on Facebook = gross. Sometimes texting is better.
Selling stuff: Sell your blog, sell your perspective: everything you do on Facebook is selling your perspective on life, instantly. But, like I said above, it works in the same way as your Facebook posts, photos, etc. Make sure your perspective aligns with the person you're presenting yourself as.
In summary: Facebook works like real life. It's cliquey and it's a tough world to break into. Don't try to be something you're not and don't be offended by people with fantasy lives because it's easy to market yourself in the same way. I don't do it because I don't care, but that's how I perceive it to work. DON'T SHARE THINGS ON FACEBOOK THAT YOU WOULDN'T WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW IN REAL LIFE. Don't add people just to have a higher friend count because that's just stupid, and make sure that you figure out who's more important: your family or your friends. Work accordingly.
Twitter
I love Twitter and I like it more than Facebook. If people have something to say they only have 140 characters to say it with. You get it out there without revealing too much (unless you say something STUPID, then everything can go wrong very fast. Message absorption is more likely with Twitter than Facebook). There is a lot more room for wit. Pictures are instant and relevant with Plixi. If I'm interested, I will click the link. If not, no.
Twitter is fast, fast, fast, and I don't have to read through 85 "I'm so sad," or "Post this if you believe in love" essays to find information. Unfollowing someone is much less personal than deleting someone on Facebook. I don't notice if someone suddenly disappears and I don't particularly care (unless it was my best friend or something).
Twitter is a total news hurricane. I am so much more current with Twitter than I ever was with Facebook. Facebook offers me nothing relevant unless it's keeping up with relatives that live far away or with friends or friends with babies who live far away. Joining groups is becoming the way to go. Other than that, Twitter trumps Facebook for me. I'm not learning anything by creeping people I don't even know! Facebook is a snake pit. Who cares if I read far into a picture about someone and then relay gossip? Not me. At least I can relay other gossip that's not as personal.
Twitter: Not so great for keeping in contact with people you care about, but way better for getting information that's relevant to your life. More impersonal, but if something goes wrong can become very personal, fast.
A) Facebook: Facebook is a blend of reality and a fantasy life. Your friends and relatives are connected to you, you can share pictures with each other, you remain connected, and you have the control to share whatever you want (unless some jerk keeps tagging you in photos). Your relationships with people are probably as strong as your real life relationships with those people. You might have 800 friends, but you probably only comment on, like, or look at 50 of those people's posts.
Because of this, you might have coworkers and acquaintances and close friends and relatives, all in the same clump. You may write personal things intended for close friends that your acquaintaces shouldn't be seeing, or you may write something intended for your classmates that your relatives will end up seeing that might not jive with the personality that you've been presenting all along.
Facebook allows you to choose groups for certain posts so only certain people can see them, but if you're not saavy in anyway technologically you might screw that up. Instantly your douchebaggery is broadcasted to your entire little inner world. And, just like a real little inner world, it's difficult to not feel guilty when blocking people out of your life. However, because there's no threat of immediate emotional response, it's much easier on Facebook and brings out your inner sociopath slowly.
Facebook has a lot of "keeping up with the Joneses'" going on, which, if you're smart or a total dumbass, can work majorly to your advantage or disadvantage.
Advantage: Any photos, status update posts or friends that you make are instantly marketing YOUR LIFE, and Facebook works just like any other cliquey place in life. For example: wall posts about your excitement, followed by photos = instant jealousy by your followers. Posts like "Mexico today!" on the coldest day of the year, "Bought a house today" and "My boyfriend just bought me THIS" followed by picture of Tiffany's necklace = instant jealousy and suck up comments that make your followers feel like a loser or like they must bow to you. You haven't done anything to justify anyone deleting you and you haven't done anything to really brag, yet you have just marketed yourself as the one who has the life and all the goodness that comes from people who have lives.
Facebook posts work much like hypnosis - 3-5 words is the ideal. The more casual you make your comments, the more it looks like this is just the way you live your life. Don't be negative and switch it up. "Going snowboaring today," "great workout this morning," "Beach Time!" "Great time with the girls," etc etc. That stuff radiates. Photographic evidence = more radiation. Interactive posts = great. Open questions, wishes, bucket lists get the comments.
Don't post too much, though! If you post too much it becomes obvious that you don't actually have a life.
Disadvantage: What if you don't have a life? But everyone has a life? Not true. Don't use Facebook to whine. Talking about the fantasy life you want and presenting a misaligned one to your FBFs will backfire. Writing big long essays = instant loser/annoying. Never EVER use Facebook as a firezone; ie. don't use it to bully people. People can see you're a jackass.
Whining, frequent intoxication, general sadness = bad. Half the people on Facebook don't know your drama and don't care. Pick up the phone and talk to someone who won't use your information against you. Toxic friends = toxic Facebook Wall. Deleted!!
Getting attention with constant sad posts = shady. Unless it's rare and legitimate, don't make sad posts. "Wall F*cking" on Facebook = gross. Sometimes texting is better.
Selling stuff: Sell your blog, sell your perspective: everything you do on Facebook is selling your perspective on life, instantly. But, like I said above, it works in the same way as your Facebook posts, photos, etc. Make sure your perspective aligns with the person you're presenting yourself as.
In summary: Facebook works like real life. It's cliquey and it's a tough world to break into. Don't try to be something you're not and don't be offended by people with fantasy lives because it's easy to market yourself in the same way. I don't do it because I don't care, but that's how I perceive it to work. DON'T SHARE THINGS ON FACEBOOK THAT YOU WOULDN'T WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW IN REAL LIFE. Don't add people just to have a higher friend count because that's just stupid, and make sure that you figure out who's more important: your family or your friends. Work accordingly.
I love Twitter and I like it more than Facebook. If people have something to say they only have 140 characters to say it with. You get it out there without revealing too much (unless you say something STUPID, then everything can go wrong very fast. Message absorption is more likely with Twitter than Facebook). There is a lot more room for wit. Pictures are instant and relevant with Plixi. If I'm interested, I will click the link. If not, no.
Twitter is fast, fast, fast, and I don't have to read through 85 "I'm so sad," or "Post this if you believe in love" essays to find information. Unfollowing someone is much less personal than deleting someone on Facebook. I don't notice if someone suddenly disappears and I don't particularly care (unless it was my best friend or something).
Twitter is a total news hurricane. I am so much more current with Twitter than I ever was with Facebook. Facebook offers me nothing relevant unless it's keeping up with relatives that live far away or with friends or friends with babies who live far away. Joining groups is becoming the way to go. Other than that, Twitter trumps Facebook for me. I'm not learning anything by creeping people I don't even know! Facebook is a snake pit. Who cares if I read far into a picture about someone and then relay gossip? Not me. At least I can relay other gossip that's not as personal.
Twitter: Not so great for keeping in contact with people you care about, but way better for getting information that's relevant to your life. More impersonal, but if something goes wrong can become very personal, fast.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Publishing vs. Writing
I did talk about this in my last blog post but I don't think I wrote about it very clearly.
I feel like the relationship between the writer and their published work is one of either complete blood shed or distance. You have to stand behind your work and work hard at getting the message out, however you can (like how Julie Wilson plans to use social media to promote her new manuscript to publishers), or you rely on a formula that works for the publisher and you don't follow it, get rejected and go back to the drawing board until you tell them they're holding up 5 fingers when they're holding up 3. In this process you lose pieces of your creativity until it dies. Sometimes you can trip over the formula and fall into it because either a) it is a top top notch piece of work or b) you've accidentally stumbled into a hot market without even realizing it. This might be 10 years after you even write the thing and have sent it to every publisher in the world. They might tell you that market exists, you write it, and then the market dies. Then what happens? Nothing! So you have to be rocket fast or a psychic sometimes as well.
A) I think the first thing with writing and publishing is that the relationship between you (the writer) and the writing you made has to die a bit. It has to become a living breathing thing on its own, separate from yourself. If it can't do this, it's a book of diary entries and no one is interested unless you've been institutionalized, a celebrity, abused, an addict, or related to someone with a better story than most. Get yourself out of the story and get yourself out of there fast, unless you're one of those things I listed that are exceptions. You can feel connected to it, but you have to cut the umbilical cord.
B) Self-publishing is still rebellious and it will always be rebellious (unless, and this won't happen, small small publishing houses all over start pumping out more salesworthy content than the massive publishing houses). There's something kind of romantic about self-publishing because it proves how strongly you feel about your idea. The creative process is still lost in the editing process (but gained through the fact that more people who aren't you will finally understand what you're trying to say), but it's a bit more preserved in that it has seen the light more than if your manuscript has been rejected by every publisher.
C) Writing is like every other creative thing in this world, you have to fight for it to get out there. Why do you think writers have agents? Every creative person who has any intention of sharing their work with the world has an agent. Why? Because the creative world is way too hard to navigate on your own. They're the Sherpas of the creative world. So I think self-publishing is rebellious for that reason as well -- that you're alone and by-passing what is "logical."
D) Everyone thinks that what they have to say is worth publishing. Gen X and Gen Y grew up thinking that they're misunderstood, so this automatically associates itself to art. I was thinking of publishing a book with nothing in it but 2 pages of punctutation marks and sending it to publishers. I could promote it as my philosophical frustration with the art world. I can even copywrite it because that combination of punctuation marks has probably never been seen. Is it a good idea? NO! Of course not. It would be rejected in about 30 seconds and some small group of liberated people 85 years later may pick up a copy and talk bullshit about it, but that's about it. Just because someone thinks that they're creative doesn't mean they should be allowed to slap their name on something that a massive company also has to put their name on. Sorry. It takes years of work and fighting currents and bringing something to life in order to be taken into consideration, and then it has to have a market. And the market is getting smaller because no one reads books anymore except for children, small groups of adults, and the elderly.
An integral part of the creative process is inspiration. If you have a great piece of work, go for it, send it to publishers. I think it's a great idea. If you want to market your IPP, self-publish and get your manuscript out to publishers everywhere. It's a great opportunity! I'm not saying CreComm's suck, because we already have been through every elimination process known to us, anyway. It's just hard to be creative without inspiration, and it's hard to be inspired without creativity, that's all. School running adjacent to the IPP may threaten to kill one or the other.
I feel like the relationship between the writer and their published work is one of either complete blood shed or distance. You have to stand behind your work and work hard at getting the message out, however you can (like how Julie Wilson plans to use social media to promote her new manuscript to publishers), or you rely on a formula that works for the publisher and you don't follow it, get rejected and go back to the drawing board until you tell them they're holding up 5 fingers when they're holding up 3. In this process you lose pieces of your creativity until it dies. Sometimes you can trip over the formula and fall into it because either a) it is a top top notch piece of work or b) you've accidentally stumbled into a hot market without even realizing it. This might be 10 years after you even write the thing and have sent it to every publisher in the world. They might tell you that market exists, you write it, and then the market dies. Then what happens? Nothing! So you have to be rocket fast or a psychic sometimes as well.
A) I think the first thing with writing and publishing is that the relationship between you (the writer) and the writing you made has to die a bit. It has to become a living breathing thing on its own, separate from yourself. If it can't do this, it's a book of diary entries and no one is interested unless you've been institutionalized, a celebrity, abused, an addict, or related to someone with a better story than most. Get yourself out of the story and get yourself out of there fast, unless you're one of those things I listed that are exceptions. You can feel connected to it, but you have to cut the umbilical cord.
B) Self-publishing is still rebellious and it will always be rebellious (unless, and this won't happen, small small publishing houses all over start pumping out more salesworthy content than the massive publishing houses). There's something kind of romantic about self-publishing because it proves how strongly you feel about your idea. The creative process is still lost in the editing process (but gained through the fact that more people who aren't you will finally understand what you're trying to say), but it's a bit more preserved in that it has seen the light more than if your manuscript has been rejected by every publisher.
C) Writing is like every other creative thing in this world, you have to fight for it to get out there. Why do you think writers have agents? Every creative person who has any intention of sharing their work with the world has an agent. Why? Because the creative world is way too hard to navigate on your own. They're the Sherpas of the creative world. So I think self-publishing is rebellious for that reason as well -- that you're alone and by-passing what is "logical."
D) Everyone thinks that what they have to say is worth publishing. Gen X and Gen Y grew up thinking that they're misunderstood, so this automatically associates itself to art. I was thinking of publishing a book with nothing in it but 2 pages of punctutation marks and sending it to publishers. I could promote it as my philosophical frustration with the art world. I can even copywrite it because that combination of punctuation marks has probably never been seen. Is it a good idea? NO! Of course not. It would be rejected in about 30 seconds and some small group of liberated people 85 years later may pick up a copy and talk bullshit about it, but that's about it. Just because someone thinks that they're creative doesn't mean they should be allowed to slap their name on something that a massive company also has to put their name on. Sorry. It takes years of work and fighting currents and bringing something to life in order to be taken into consideration, and then it has to have a market. And the market is getting smaller because no one reads books anymore except for children, small groups of adults, and the elderly.
An integral part of the creative process is inspiration. If you have a great piece of work, go for it, send it to publishers. I think it's a great idea. If you want to market your IPP, self-publish and get your manuscript out to publishers everywhere. It's a great opportunity! I'm not saying CreComm's suck, because we already have been through every elimination process known to us, anyway. It's just hard to be creative without inspiration, and it's hard to be inspired without creativity, that's all. School running adjacent to the IPP may threaten to kill one or the other.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
My Seen Reading
After seeing Julie Wilson today, who writes the blog "Seen Reading," I feel inspired to tell you my own favorite seen readings because this is something I have paid attention to for years taking the bus and being an English major and blah blah blah.
1) guy with one hand reading a self-help book on dealing with being an amputee. Honest to God.
2) pretentious asshole everyday for a week on the bus reading my favorite doorstop, War
and Peace. He must have learned to read in the Japanese style (right to left) because he started on page 600 and worked his way through to about page 20. Obviously not reading it.
3)girl reading Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon. Which was cute because I remember noticing that the episode of The Simpsons where Lisa goes to college and feels accepted because they were reading the book was on maybe 2 nights before.
So now I will briefly talk about publishing. I have NO idea what to do. When ambitious I guarantee I will find a publisher, but you have to be able to write...if I don't get published I guess my writing is just diary entries. I always thought the idea of self publishing preserved the struggle of the artist and was a romantic idea. Most books that are successfully published have a formula, and a couple are so earth shattering they slip through the cracks. All this talk about publishing has made me feel lazy, and I'm not. I guess I'm not starving enough to get published? Or connected enough?
I'm broke, I have that working in my favor.
1) guy with one hand reading a self-help book on dealing with being an amputee. Honest to God.
2) pretentious asshole everyday for a week on the bus reading my favorite doorstop, War
and Peace. He must have learned to read in the Japanese style (right to left) because he started on page 600 and worked his way through to about page 20. Obviously not reading it.
3)girl reading Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon. Which was cute because I remember noticing that the episode of The Simpsons where Lisa goes to college and feels accepted because they were reading the book was on maybe 2 nights before.
So now I will briefly talk about publishing. I have NO idea what to do. When ambitious I guarantee I will find a publisher, but you have to be able to write...if I don't get published I guess my writing is just diary entries. I always thought the idea of self publishing preserved the struggle of the artist and was a romantic idea. Most books that are successfully published have a formula, and a couple are so earth shattering they slip through the cracks. All this talk about publishing has made me feel lazy, and I'm not. I guess I'm not starving enough to get published? Or connected enough?
I'm broke, I have that working in my favor.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Zoning Out
Lately I've been zoning out a lot. I'm in and then I'm out, and I'm out far. Is there any purpose to this? Am I doing something beneficial for my brain?
I noticed my creativity, productivity, intelligence and overall happiness are going up, which makes no sense whatsoever. I pay attention better to useful things because I'm not taking in the same amount of useless mental garbage.
I feel kind of bad, hopefully I don't ignore anyone by accident because I'm out, and hopefully I don't walk out into traffic. But it's really not that bad. I kind of encourage it, so long as you don't start autofailing at life.
I noticed my creativity, productivity, intelligence and overall happiness are going up, which makes no sense whatsoever. I pay attention better to useful things because I'm not taking in the same amount of useless mental garbage.
I feel kind of bad, hopefully I don't ignore anyone by accident because I'm out, and hopefully I don't walk out into traffic. But it's really not that bad. I kind of encourage it, so long as you don't start autofailing at life.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Oscar Predictions
The 2011 Oscar Noms are out. Here are my predictions.
Best Picture: The Social Network
Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale
Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo
Best Actor: Colin Firth
Best Actress: Natalie Portman. Could be Annette Benning.
Best Director: David Fincher
Best Screenplay - adapted : Aaron Sorkin
Best Screenplay, Original -- Christopher Nolan
Best Animated Feature -- Toy Story 3
Best Documentary - Exit through the Gift Shop
And costumes will go to Alice and Wonderland and sound/effects to Inception. If anyone disagrees please post a hearty annoyed response.
P.S. I am seeing a lot of cries for Leonardo DiCaprio to be nominated for best actor. Just because a movie blew your mind and made you feel smart doesn't really mean that actor should win. Just sayin!
Best Picture: The Social Network
Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale
Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo
Best Actor: Colin Firth
Best Actress: Natalie Portman. Could be Annette Benning.
Best Director: David Fincher
Best Screenplay - adapted : Aaron Sorkin
Best Screenplay, Original -- Christopher Nolan
Best Animated Feature -- Toy Story 3
Best Documentary - Exit through the Gift Shop
And costumes will go to Alice and Wonderland and sound/effects to Inception. If anyone disagrees please post a hearty annoyed response.
P.S. I am seeing a lot of cries for Leonardo DiCaprio to be nominated for best actor. Just because a movie blew your mind and made you feel smart doesn't really mean that actor should win. Just sayin!
Friday, January 21, 2011
Way to go Iceland with your crazy food
So it's Þorrablót in Iceland (Thorra-blot, except quick off the tongue), the festival of MidWinter and Thor the Thunder god. Probably the darkest festival in the world as there is barely any sunlight, Þorrablót is also the time of year that has the most suicides in Iceland (go figure).
So why not make this cold and dark time less suicidal by serving the grossest food imaginable? Þorramatur (Thorrra-mat-ur) = Thor's food. Makes sense to me! I'm sure if given a platter as an offering Thor purposely leaned right over into his box of thunderbolts. Here's a menu.
Hákarl (putrefied shark) (Hau-karl)-- essentially shark meat that's been pissed on. Seriously. And it tastes like one of the worst things that you can think of. Anyway, Hákarl is shark meat that is divided into pieces, and then buried in a large pit and covered with gravel (where it used to be pissed on before it was buried). After 6-16 weeks, it is dug up, washed, and hung out to dry for 2-4 months. When the drying is done, the crust is removed and the white meat cut into small pieces. It tastes like either bad cheese or straight up urine. It is usually served in cubes. Gordan Ramsay threw up after eating it on the F word and most people vote it as the worst food in the world. Icelandic people think it's fun to disgust people and will probably try to make you try it. Take the darker piece (the lighter, the nastier).
So why not make this cold and dark time less suicidal by serving the grossest food imaginable? Þorramatur (Thorrra-mat-ur) = Thor's food. Makes sense to me! I'm sure if given a platter as an offering Thor purposely leaned right over into his box of thunderbolts. Here's a menu.
Hákarl (putrefied shark) (Hau-karl)-- essentially shark meat that's been pissed on. Seriously. And it tastes like one of the worst things that you can think of. Anyway, Hákarl is shark meat that is divided into pieces, and then buried in a large pit and covered with gravel (where it used to be pissed on before it was buried). After 6-16 weeks, it is dug up, washed, and hung out to dry for 2-4 months. When the drying is done, the crust is removed and the white meat cut into small pieces. It tastes like either bad cheese or straight up urine. It is usually served in cubes. Gordan Ramsay threw up after eating it on the F word and most people vote it as the worst food in the world. Icelandic people think it's fun to disgust people and will probably try to make you try it. Take the darker piece (the lighter, the nastier).
- Blóðmör or Slátur (slau-ter) (filled sausage/black pudding) -- to make this you need a huge pot of sheep's blood boiling on the stove and a sheep's stomach cut into pieces. You must sew the pieces of stomach into little stomach bags that you can stuff. Now you take mutton and fat, oatmeal, Icelandic moss and some other stuff, and mix with the blood. Stuff the stomach bags with the mixture and boil. Yum yum.
- Hrútspungur (ram's scrotum with testicles) (hroots-punger) -- aren't these Prairie Oysters? I've had them before and they tasted like McNuggets. But these are different. They're pickled. It's more like pâté than McNuggets. McTesticles.
- Svið (jellied sheep's head) -- (Svith)-- this one's a good one. A sheep's head is burned to remove the wool, cut in half, brain removed, boiled and eaten like that or in a jelly. Yum!
- Harðfiskur -- ok, this is more like fish jerky and it's good. It's smoked fish that's hung and dried into a jerky. You eat it with lots of butter. It's not that bad. They make it sound gross.
- Some others include selshreyfar (sour seal flippers), hvalrengi (sour whale fat) and the most ridiculous sounding, Kaest skata (rotted stingray). If you're bored serve a platter to your friends. I'm sure they'll be pleased.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
When animals don't attack
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Does the Blood Type Diet work? Yeah, kinda, maybe?
The Blood Type Diet, or "Eat Right For Your Type," created by Dr. Peter D'Adamo, contends that each blood type evolved to metabolize certain foods that were natural to a person's ancestral environment, and that the exercises done now should reflect those that would have been done ages ago. Type-Os thrive on a high-protein diet and intense exercise, evolved in the north and is the oldest type; Type -As are suited to an organic vegetarian diet, should do yoga and keep calm, and evolved when the original Africans pushed further into Europe in search of food; Type-Bs should eat lean meats and proteins (not chicken) and green vegetables, should do mental/physical exercises, and evolved when they were pushed into the Himalayas; and Type ABs are a combination of Type A and Type B so it is suggested they combine both A and B diets and exercises.
In the last 6 months, I did the Blood Type Diet twice, for 6 weeks at a time. I'm not sure if that's long enough to see results or to judge something properly.
I am type O+ (the most boring of the blood types) and just going by the website, I went on a high protein, intense exercise kick. I ate half a piece of pumpernickel bread with every meal (because I was worried about my kidneys) and the rest was protein. I also did circuit training and went swimming for an hour every day.
In the summer I noticed the best results. I lost about 3" off my waist (which is good for me because I've always been the same size, which is weird). I never was more happy in my life, and I was quite muscular. I still have some muscle under there, I think.
I went off of it because it is a HARD diet to maintain. Unless you pack a lunch of a picnic ham and a can of salmon, and travel with a chicken in your bag, you are going to break the rules. Even if you did that, you'd still need to pack a cooler and a can opener.
I went back on it for a while in October until around the beginning of December and I lost about 7 lbs, which isn't really noticeable. It was terrible, though. I was starving, achy, bitchy and moody. I went off it.
Now the thing with this diet is this: I noticed results, but it coincides with the other things that I was doing. For example, in the summer, I was extremely happy. But I was also exercising intensely, the sun was out, I started dating my boyfriend, etc etc. Did the high protein really have anything to do with that? Also, I noticed that the more omnivorous, regular diets coincide with the less common blood types, so it's more likely that the more common blood types will lose weight by picking up a more strict diet. The Type O diet resembles the Atkins diet, the Type A diet is obvious because vegetarians who eat "fresh organic produce" are obviously consuming "less" calories. Was I on the Atkins diet or the Blood Type Diet?
I want to believe that this diet actually works, but I'm not sure. I believe Dr. D'Adamo and his evolutionary theories. I'm Icelandic and everyone in my family has an O+ blood type, and I can see how my Viking relatives would have survived on high protein intake and intense bursts of exercise. And it does say I'm more predisposed to ulcers and thyroid disorders (for me it's ulcers). But...this screams fad to me. People like to be different and have things specialized for them. It's just obvious ways to decrease calories packaged into a feeling unique diet. And it says that Os are outgoing. No one in my family is outgoing!
So if you want to lose weight just eat less calories. I've pretty much put myself through every fad imaginable, that's the only thing I can tell you. I'm still going for it.
In the last 6 months, I did the Blood Type Diet twice, for 6 weeks at a time. I'm not sure if that's long enough to see results or to judge something properly.
I am type O+ (the most boring of the blood types) and just going by the website, I went on a high protein, intense exercise kick. I ate half a piece of pumpernickel bread with every meal (because I was worried about my kidneys) and the rest was protein. I also did circuit training and went swimming for an hour every day.
In the summer I noticed the best results. I lost about 3" off my waist (which is good for me because I've always been the same size, which is weird). I never was more happy in my life, and I was quite muscular. I still have some muscle under there, I think.
I went off of it because it is a HARD diet to maintain. Unless you pack a lunch of a picnic ham and a can of salmon, and travel with a chicken in your bag, you are going to break the rules. Even if you did that, you'd still need to pack a cooler and a can opener.
I went back on it for a while in October until around the beginning of December and I lost about 7 lbs, which isn't really noticeable. It was terrible, though. I was starving, achy, bitchy and moody. I went off it.
Now the thing with this diet is this: I noticed results, but it coincides with the other things that I was doing. For example, in the summer, I was extremely happy. But I was also exercising intensely, the sun was out, I started dating my boyfriend, etc etc. Did the high protein really have anything to do with that? Also, I noticed that the more omnivorous, regular diets coincide with the less common blood types, so it's more likely that the more common blood types will lose weight by picking up a more strict diet. The Type O diet resembles the Atkins diet, the Type A diet is obvious because vegetarians who eat "fresh organic produce" are obviously consuming "less" calories. Was I on the Atkins diet or the Blood Type Diet?
I want to believe that this diet actually works, but I'm not sure. I believe Dr. D'Adamo and his evolutionary theories. I'm Icelandic and everyone in my family has an O+ blood type, and I can see how my Viking relatives would have survived on high protein intake and intense bursts of exercise. And it does say I'm more predisposed to ulcers and thyroid disorders (for me it's ulcers). But...this screams fad to me. People like to be different and have things specialized for them. It's just obvious ways to decrease calories packaged into a feeling unique diet. And it says that Os are outgoing. No one in my family is outgoing!
So if you want to lose weight just eat less calories. I've pretty much put myself through every fad imaginable, that's the only thing I can tell you. I'm still going for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)