Re-reading Shakespeare: A Midsummer Night’s Dream

(1) Why does Helena rat Hermia out? Her competition for Demetrius is leaving Athens to get married! Let her go! But no:

I will go tell him of fair Hermia’s flight:
Then to the wood will he, tomorrow night,
Pursue her; and for this intelligence
If I have thanks, it is a dear expense.
But herein mean I to enrich my pain,
To have his sight thither and back again.

The “dear expense” is an ironic compensation. She’s betraying her friend to him for nothing but the bit of grudging attention she will receive. But it puts her in an even worse position than before.

I guess she’s one of those women, happy to be Demetrius’s dog.

I am your spaniel; and, Demetrius,
The more you beat me, I will fawn on you.
Use me but as your spaniel, spurn me, strike me,
Neglect me, lose me; only give me leave,
Unworthy as I am, to follow you.
What worser place can I beg in your love —
And yet a place of high respect with me —
Than to be used as you use your dog?

Argh! They’ve always been with us.

(2) It’s often been remarked how the diminishment of one sense enhances another. Hermia expands on this when she follows the sound of Lysander’s voice in the dark:

Dark night, that from the eye his function takes,
The more quick of apprehension makes;
Wherein it doth impair the seeing sense,
It pays the hearing double recompense.

But is this true? Do we hear better at night? I think the science is still shaky, but it’s interesting that as folk wisdom the idea has such a long history.

(3) Near the end of Theseus’s “The lunatic, the lover, and the poet” speech he offers this up:

Such tricks hath strong imagination,
That if it would but apprehend some joy,
It comprehends some bringer of that joy

This strikes me as one of those profound human truths Shakespeare is always tossing out, but I wonder why it’s expressed in such clunky lines. They’re hard enough to read much less speak aloud. Was that intentional?

The men who knew too much

manwhoknewtoomuch5

Over at Alex on Film I’ve added my notes on Hitchcock’s The Man Who Knew Too Much, both the 1934 and 1956 versions. Critics have fun debating the relative merits of these two films. Personally, I don’t see any comparison. The original holds up well. The remake is a bad movie by any set of standards I can think of.

manwhoknewtoomuch22

All my childhood favourites

Along the way to a reading recently I wanted to stop in somewhere and pick up some Life Savers. I’ve been having cravings for Life Savers lately. In particular, “Wint-O-Green” Life Savers. Apparently this kind of Life Saver will spark in your mouth if you do something really stupid like bite down hard on them. I just like the taste.

I thought this would be easy. This only goes to show how old and out of touch I am. I first went to a Little Short Stop I passed on my way downtown. They had no Life Savers, only Certs and Menthos.

Then I tried a seedy variety store downtown. I mean, this place looked so run down I couldn’t believe it was open. They had a candy rack that had one — one! — roll of Life Savers. God knows how long it had been sitting there. Plus it was the multi-fruit flavours package. No deal.

I then went into the drug store in the mall. They had a big candy rack but no Life Savers were on display. The checkout lady then showed me the aisle where they had bags of Life Savers. Ridiculous! Apparently Life Savers don’t come in rolls any more. You buy them in these big bags, wherein each Life Saver is individually wrapped, like in those jars you see on the counter in front of the teller in your bank. If you still go to a bank. How environmental is that? There’s more packaging in one of those bags then there is candy.

By the way, did you know that a mere four Life Savers total 60 calories? That’s incredible! So a whole roll — and that’s not a lot of candy — has more calories than a Snickers bar! How is that possible? I mean, they’re really, really small.

Anyway, I didn’t want a bag of Life Savers, I wanted a roll. I did, however, get a bag of wine gums because they were half price and I was getting hungry for a sugar fix. Plus I really like wine gums.

My final stop was another variety store on the main drag. No Life Savers. I got into a conversation with the guy at the checkout. He told me that Life Savers aren’t popular any more. He said that people like something called Jolly Rogers candy better. At least I thought he said Jolly Rogers. Maybe he said Jolly Ranchers, or meant to say Jolly Ranchers. I’ve never heard of Jolly-anything candy before.

How depressing! Life Savers were a part of my childhood. Now they seem to be disappearing.

Then yesterday . . .

I was going to the bank just after lunch and stopped in to Dairy Queen for some dessert. Specifically, what I wanted was a dipped cone. A dipped caramel cone. This was another childhood favourite.

Did you know you can’t get a dipped caramel cone in Canada any more? The only flavour is chocolate! The cashier told me that lots of people ask for caramel but they only have that flavour in the U.S. now.

Whatever happened to the world I grew up in? The past doesn’t even want to sell me its stuff!

Hollywood recall

totalrecall1

Hollywood is on a real remake binge. I think mainly because they’re out of original ideas, but also because big budgets demand projects with immediate brand recognition and because there’s a general sense out there that CGI makes everything better. Hence the remake of Total Recall (1990) in 2012 with Colin Farrell (notes just posted on Alex on Film). They shouldn’t have bothered, but I guess there was money in it. What really surprised me was finding out that the remake was partially filmed in my hometown of Guelph, Ontario. I didn’t even recognize it! Which made me wonder why they even went there . . .

totalrecall22

The Zombie Chronicles: Part Two

The eternal question.

They’ll figure it out.

Over at Alex on Film I’ve just completed the second round of my notes on zombie cinema, taking the genre from 1990 to the present day (with the ’90s being a rather thin decade, just before the twenty-first century take off). Purists can complain all they want about what constitutes a proper zombie film, but I allow for any virus with zombie-like symptoms, and so include films like 28 Days Later and The Crazies. I also include my notes on The Purge, because even though that isn’t a zombie or zombie-virus movie it shares the same structure.

For the most part, these movies aren’t very good. Indeed, going over the list I can only see a handful of films that I would recommend seeing: Rec, Pontypool, The Horde, and Shaun of the Dead. None of these are American productions. I’m not sure if that means anything.

I suggest that 2007 may have been the year of “peak zombie,” as what we’re getting now tend to be domesticated, overblown, or parodic zombie films. The genre feels played out to me, but will likely keep going for a while based on how well it seems to suit the zeitgeist. You can see Part One of the Zombie Chronicles here.

Night of the Living Dead (1990)
Return of the Living Dead III (1993)
28 Days Later (2002)
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Shaun of the Dead (2004)
Land of the Dead (2005)
Return of the Living Dead: Necropolis (2005)
Return of the Living Dead: Rave to the Grave (2005)
Fido (2006)
Night of the Living Dead 3D (2006)
Diary of the Dead (2007)
I Am Legend (2007)
Rec (2007)
28 Weeks Later (2007)
I Sell the Dead (2008)
Quarantine (2008)
The Horde (2009)
Pontypool (2009)
Rec 2 (2009)
Survival of the Dead (2009)
Zombieland (2009)
The Crazies (2010)
Exit Humanity (2011)
Juan of the Dead (2011)
Cockneys vs Zombies (2012)
Rec 3 (2012)
The Purge (2013)
Warm Bodies (2013)
World War Z (2013)
Zombies (2014)
Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse (2015)
Dawn of the Deaf (2016)
The Girl with All the Gifts (2016)
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016)
The Night Eats the World (2018)
The Dead Don’t Die (2019)
Little Monsters (2019)
Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)
28 Years Later (2025)

Everyday rudeness #2: Biking on the sidewalk

Last week I was passed by four — four! — bikes zooming past me on the sidewalk as I was walking to the bank. This is more than annoying. It’s unsafe, because that’s a lot of weight moving at a good speed. What really bugged me though is that on that particular stretch of road there is a clearly marked bike lane, complete with pictures of a bicycle stenciled on it for those who can’t read. I didn’t see any bicycles using the bike lane.

What is the purpose of having bike lanes if cyclists won’t use them? Where does the sense of privilege and entitlement (the essence of rude behaviour) come from that lets cyclists feel they have a right to appropriate the pedestrian walkway? It’s clearly against the rules. I’m not sure if it’s strictly illegal, but I think you may be liable to get a warning for doing it. These cyclists put pedestrians at risk, especially when they’re passing you from behind and you don’t even know they’re there.

Anyway, I’ve started yelling at these people to keep their bikes on the road. I suppose this only increases the general level of everyday rudeness, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

The end of the word as we know it

Last year I had the odd experience of reading (and reviewing) two new books that came out at almost exactly the same time and that were, despite being speculative fantasies, remarkably similar: Peter Norman’s Emberton and Alena Graedon’s The Word Exchange. Both books have heroes who work for dictionary publishers, which means they’re manning the bastions against the coming digital apocalypse of cyber-barbarism. The citadel, however, is crumbling both from without and within. Literature and culture are disintegrating, along with language itself. The  heroine in The Word Exchange is sure of the crisis we face:

As more and more of our actions are mediated by machines . . . there’s no telling what will happen, not only to language but in some sense to civilization. The end of words would mean the end of memory and thought. In other words, our past and future.

Reading event: Andre Alexis and Russell Smith

André Alexis, Fifteen Dogs and Russell Smith, Confidence

BookShelf Cafe eBar, May 12 2015:

The eBar at the BookShelf is a nice venue for a reading because it’s dark and cozy and quite small so you don’t have a lot of empty seats. The only problem I’ve found is that the seating isn’t always the best because it’s not oriented toward the end of the bar, where the readings take place. It’s also not a great venue if you’re on your own. It feels like you’re dining alone. Luckily, and quite unusually (for me), I was with a couple of friends.

The reading itself was exceptional. Both authors are accomplished public speakers, though in a different ways. They each read for fifteen minutes, and then answered a couple of questions after. The main question they responded to had to deal with the fate of “literary” fiction in today’s culture/marketplace. Since this is a subject I spend a lot of time thinking about I was interested in their thoughtful answers, which cast me into further reflections on the matter. André also told a great story about dogsitting a pack of howling dogs while working on a novel.

Unfortunately things wrapped up quickly and I didn’t get a chance to talk for very long to either author. Nevertheless, this was still one of the best readings I’ve ever attended, an opinion shared by the half-dozen or so people I spoke to after. It would be great to see these two together on television, or YouTube at least. This country could really use more lively, well-informed, and articulate literary discussion.

Dangerous Dining with Alex #7

Bar Burrito Large Grilled Chicken Burrito

Overview: A “fresh Mexican grill.” But doesn’t Mexico have incredibly high levels of obesity? According to a 2010 study seven out of ten Mexicans were overweight with a third clinically obese. Should I be jumping on this train?

Label: I didn’t see a nutritional guide at my location but one is easily viewable online. The only problem with it is that it only gives you information for one serving size, which I take it is the “regular” size burrito. Since I had the large burrito, what should I do? Double the amounts? That’s what I did when converting the numbers for a Subway Six-inch Sub to a Foot-long, but I’m not sure it’s entirely accurate here. Still . . . what else do I have to go on?

The thing about these numbers in nutritional guides is that they’re all slanted toward the best possible scenario. I usually eat the worst possible scenario, and more than one of them.

Anyway, assuming a large shell with double the regular ingredients the total comes to 1,320 calories. That’s about 100 calories more than the Subway sub I usually get, which sounds right. Sodium was just under Subway, probably because I was substituting chicken for cold cuts. It was still pretty dangerous though, at nearly 2,500 mg. Fat came in at 45 g (arond 17 g of saturated fats), which was surprisingly good (again, relatively speaking).

Review: Overall, I find these little guys to be a tasty and filling treat. My one objection is that they tend to go overboard on the beans. I wish I could substitute something else for all the beans but I don’t think that’s possible. I mean, you have to have some beans in there but I don’t like too much because they tend to overpower the rest of the burrito.

It’s also important to get someone who knows what they’re doing making it. This is obviously important in the wrapping because they have to be rolled up pretty darn tight so they don’t start to drip too much and come apart when you’re eating them, which is something that I’ve found to be a problem. But they also have to spread the beans out and mix the other ingredients in when they’re being assembled because otherwise you end up eating big mouthfuls of nothing but beans and shell.

I do think the price is a little high, though I guess it’s comparable to any of the specialty subs at Subway — which, for me, is this meal’s main competition. I think because it’s such a tight little package I just feel like I should be getting more for my money. Even the large burrito is only about the size of my fist. I’ve never seen a regular-size burrito so I can only imagine how disappointing they must seem.

Price: $8.25

Score: 6.5 / 10

Dangerous Dining

Everyday rudeness #1: Bench hogging at the gym

Rudeness isn’t limited to merely inconsiderate behaviour that leads to minor inconvenience. Indeed, thinking of it in such terms only makes it worse. Anti-social behaviour means something and has consequences.

But what is rudeness? I suppose it takes many forms in many different contexts, but one of the most prominent today is assholery. In his book Assholes: A Theory (2012), philosophy professor Aaron James offers up the following definition:

a person counts as an asshole when, and only when, he systematically allows himself to enjoy special advantages in interpersonal relations out of an entrenched sense of entitlement that immunizes him against the complaints of other people.

At the gym that I go to the locker room is set up with a single bench surrounded by three rows of lockers. So if you want to sit down to take your shoes off or put them on, bench space can be quite limited depending on the time of day. Despite this, people regularly (and I mean every day) load the bench up with their gym bag, clothes, towels, shoes, etc., thus preventing anyone else from sitting on it (which is, after all, what it’s actually there for).

Several weeks ago one retired fellow went into a very vocal (and profanity-laden) tirade against the “young people” he saw doing this. What I’ve noticed, however, is that older members do this just as often as kids. As much as we may want to shake our heads (or fists) at such egregious displays of youthful  narcissism and entitlement, it isn’t a generational thing.

At times it really gets to be a bit much. My favourite bench assholes are the ones who take all their gear out of their locker, arrange it across half the bench, and then leave to take a shower! Thus preventing anyone from using their bench while they’re not even in the general area. It’s all I can do at such times not to sweep their mess right on to the floor, where it properly belongs (why the hell do your shoes need to be put up on the bench?). And this is not something that I’ve only seen occur once or twice. I see it two or three times a week.

I’ve always wondered what would happen if someone actually confronted such assholes. My guess is that they would be baffled, if not offended. I doubt any of them would think they were doing anything wrong. And yet clearly things would become unmanageable in the locker room if everyone behaved the way they do. They simply take for granted the idea that they have a right to do what other people don’t. They are assholes.