Viewing Posts tagged: thinky

princessgeorge replied to your post “ugh, yesterday kicked my ass. actually, the whole week kicked my ass….”

They’re sort of adjacent to a lot of interesting questions about family/career but aren’t taking them on and don’t seem likely to. Which is a missed opportunity.

That’s a fantastic point. Plotwise, this is the second “oops” pregnancy — not just in the series, but in this season. They did “my life is empty/worthless with a baby” with Ann. Considering how much of the series is about Leslie and her career and ambitions, I would have much preferred them asking those questions instead of it just being a repeat of “oops” and “our lives are worthless without babies!” 

Sunday Apr 13 10am  1 note


ugh, yesterday kicked my ass. actually, the whole week kicked my ass. yesterday just pushed me over. i’ll catch up on life… eventually.

princessgeorge replied to your post “my not surprising unpopular parks & rec opinion [[MOR] i haven’t…”

I’m about the same - I’ll watch but I’ll let it pile up, and it’s just nowhere near as good as it used to be. Which still makes it an OK show. But I’m not really invested. (Aside: I need to talk to you abt Fleuvogs, will msg you!)

I feel the way I did about HIMYM — i kept watching although i didn’t really care about anyone anymore. It wasn’t until Barney’s manipulation of Robin, where he broke her down again and again, was brushed away with “oh, but it’s okay because he proposed and isn’t that the most romantic thing ever?!?” that i was so angry that I gave it up. 

I’m not angry with Parks, just disappointed. I just checked my TIVO and realized that i missed even more than I thought, and I have very little interest in checking them out. That makes me sad — I miss the excited anticipation, the ache I had for everything to come in those 30 minutes. I’m sad that at 10pm on a Thursday, i realize that I’d forgotten that Parks was even on that night.

slackmistress replied to your post “my not surprising unpopular parks & rec opinion [[MOR] i haven’t…”

I feel like it’s become about the situations and not about the characters. (I feel the same way about Community, too) That always ruins it for me.

From the Parks season premiere, I was disappointed in how the writers seemed to forget who their characters were — well, aside from RON BEING ALL-KNOWING SAGE. And with forgetting who their characters are, their character arcs and paths feel patched together rather than the deliberate and lovely arcs they’d had in seasons earlier. I agree, we don’t need wacky situations — the show handled wacky in the most entertaining and engaging way when it was placed in relatable situations. 

(Aside from the premiere, I haven’t seen Community this season, but i can see that happening.)

rikyl replied to your post “my not surprising unpopular parks & rec opinion [[MOR] i haven’t…”

That’s too bad but understandable. I don’t really trust this show like I used to, in regards to how they’re going to handle this.

I’m a big believer in “trust the tale, not the teller,” but I don’t trust the show at all. I honestly feel like the endgame is now “hey, wasn’t it funny that i wanted to be President? That was so dumb of me — HAVING BABIES IS WAY MORE IMPORTANT!” We’ve already seen them spend two seasons explaining why Ann and Chris were a bad match only to turn around and say “HEY! BABIES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN A COMPATIBLE RELATIONSHIP! EVERYONE NEEDS TO HAVE BABIES!”

And with Diane getting pregnant, that’s three pregnancies in one season. Is it lazy storytelling or a deliberate message that the only important thing in life is to have babies? I’m just not interested in following the Ann and Leslie sharing their pregnancy/labor/child-rearing adventures. 

Part of why I’m so disappointed in that is because the show did such a wonderful job of illustrating the idea of making a family out of your friends, and now it seems to be saying that kind of family is nothing and worthless compared to the one you procreate. 

diaphenia replied to your post “my not surprising unpopular parks & rec opinion [[MOR] i haven’t…”

Fair point

I was so excited to have an awesome lady who loved her life, her husband, her relationships and was unapologetically ambitious in her career. Even if they don’t decide to make Leslie give up on her grand-scale political ambitions, they will inevitably be weighed against the “can she have it all?” question that is never, ever posed to men. 

I completely respect that Schur, Poehler et al have the right to guide their series the way they want, but I don’t know if it’s something that interested in joining along anymore. 

Saturday Apr 12 10pm  3 notes


random thought for today:

I was informed that someone didn’t recognize me right away because my hair was wet and looked dark. They knew me as the girl with the blue hair. (Said person only sees me a couple of times a year, so that’s pretty fair — i’m always surprised when anyone remembers me at all.)

I wonder if there’s more people who think of me as “the girl with the blue hair.” it’s funny to me because while i *know* my hair is blue, i never think about it until i see my silver-grey roots coming in.

(and it’s far more preferable to being recognized for my lisp. weeks before learning my name, the boy i dated in college referred to me as “the cute girl with the lisp.”)

Thursday Mar 20 12am  6 notes


I’m more than a little tipsy off one beer and a couple of hours with old coworkers. It’s the lightest I’ve felt in many days, both physically and mentally. The next couple of hours on the journey home will sober me up and I wonder what level of gravity will find me then.

Monday Feb 24 8pm  9 notes



at the risk of sounding offensive,

why is everyone depressed these days? When I was younger no one ever talked about being depressed, and not many people seemed that depressed, It has always been a thing for sure but it was not nearly as ubiquitous as it is these days. now it seems to be more common among young people than not-being-depressed is.

has it always been that way, but people didn’t understand it/talk about it? Have people always been depressed but didn’t have a forum like the internet to discuss it? Are some people diagnosing themselves with “depression” when it may be something else? Did something change in society that is causing more people to be depressed? Is there something in the food? Or is it one of those things where I am conflating what it’s like on the internet to what it’s like IRL?

honest question

I think there are a lot of things going on — on one side, people say “I’m so depressed” when they’re upset about a situation, which can often be more aptly described as “sad.” “I’m so sad that my favorite restaurant closed” or “I’m so sad that my mom won’t let me go to XX.” I don’t doubt that the feelings are truly painful and full of disappointment, but I don’t think they are “proper depression.”

There is still a huge stigma on mental illness, especially when talking about it in person. If you’ve never had to deal with it, then it’d hard to understand the pain and frustration when people say to you “what’s wrong with you? why don’t you just choose to be happy?” or “so many people have it worse than you, what do you have to complain about?” And when you’re being told that you have absolutely no reason to feel this overwhelming, suffocating depression because your life isn’t “as bad” as someone else’s then you stop talking about it and feel even worse and it spirals down. 

Then you see someone talking about their own struggles online. And you realize that you’re not alone and that if you say, “hey, me too” in a conversation about depression, people aren’t going to jump down your throat and tell you that you have no right to complain or feel the way that you do. So you go from “hey, me too” into a slightly more detailed explanation of how you’re feeling and maybe someone else says “me too” and you feel even more understood and less-alone.

It’s much easier to do it online because it’s far less intimidating — you don’t risk your family and friends telling you that you are making things up for attention, nor do you have to deal with their personal biases when it comes to your feelings. It’s a relatively safe space to put your story out there — especially when it can be anonymous like on tumblr — to test the waters and hopefully find the resources to get help.

(Source: the1janitor)

Thursday May 9 2pm  49 notes


drst answered your question: Gateway Episodes: Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Pilot. I knew someone who tried to watch Buffy with S2. I was all NOOOOOO! GO BACK AND WATCH S1! 

xingfumaomi answered your question: Gateway Episodes: Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Um I would suggest maybe the first episode cuz its the first episode and stuff

a-pale-imitation answered your question: Gateway Episodes: Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Maybe Im weird, but I like to start at the beginning when introducing someone to a show. So, episode one.

In general, I think that starting with the pilot of any show makes sense. But with some series, especially ones that run several seasons long and feature their own mythology, newcomers can feel overwhelmed and potentially turned off by the idea of investing that much time and emotion. 

I think of Gateway Episodes as the thing you show someone who is on the fence about a series, not someone who is super excited to start watching it. Which is why I feel that the mythology-lite episodes, or episodes that don’t hinge on a character’s history are best. 

I thought about “Halloween,” but it’s so much stronger to get the effect of the Princess of Buffonia when you know Buffy and Angel’s history, and her own self-doubt around their relationship. “Band Candy” is one of my fun favorites, but you need to know the characters to fully enjoy the way they’re all upended — although the hotness of Ripper needs no explanation.

Wednesday May 8 12am  2 notes


Gateway Episodes: Buffy the Vampire Slayer

This article suggests that “Earshot” is the best gateway episode to introduce someone to BuffyIt’s a fantastic episode but THE GATEWAY one? I strongly disagree. You need to know these characters — especially Buffy and Jonathan — to understand the immense gravity of Jonathan’s decision and Buffy’s agony as she is literally being driven mad by all the voices in her head. You need to know her life to understand exactly what she means when she says that it, at times, “sucks beyond the telling of it.” And you need to know “Band Candy” to get the hilarity of the references.

I think the ideal gateway episode into a series, especially a cult one, is a mythology-lite episode that showcases the tone of the show. It’s why “Blink” works so well for Doctor Who. It’s creepy to the point of being downright terrifying at times, yet there is minimal Doctor and his mythology in it.

To showcase Buffy's horror and the humor without a dependence on all things Slayer-y, I'd suggest “Out of Mind, Out of Sight” or “Go Fish.” “Hush” is another good choice, but since Buffy is so well-known for the witty dialogue, it fails to be the most powerful introduction.


What do you think is the best gateway episode into Buffy?

Posted Tuesday May 7 11pm  8 notes


herbalsmoothie asked: I also find it disappointing that Leslie is (concretely) planning to have kids now. I think there've been some hints before Partridge that she might want kids; End of the World comes to mind, where she freaks out about Ben's potential future kids. Still, even though they're married now, it would be refreshing to see the show choose a less obvious route for what's next for her. And more than that, baby storylines are often terrible and indicate a lack of better ideas- and now Parks has 2 of them.

(answering this several days late!)

They really do indicate a lack of better ideas and the fact that they’re mushing two into the season makes me wonder where they are planning to take the series. The less said about Ann’s arc the better, and I get that the discussion would come up with Ben and Leslie now that they’re married. You have put much of my issues with the writers taking this tack so perfectly: “Even though they’re married now, it would be refreshing to see the show choose a less obvious route for what’s next for her.”

Parks hasn’t always taken the easy, obvious route for their characters even if things generally do work out for everyone. And for the most part, they have given us fairly unconventional characters that are believable and relatable, that we care about and want to follow them through their journey. I know that Mike Schur’s original plan was to have Leslie go through a number of bad dates/relationships until they developed the Ben Wyatt character* — so they have leanings to go superpredictable but it gives me hope that they respond and react creatively to unexpected changes and chemistry. (After this season, I’m hopeful but not holding my breath.)


* “When Greg Daniels and I were designing the show originally, we thought instead of putting Leslie in one significant relationship, we were going to have her date a lot of different people and learn different things from different types of guys. It’s why we introduced Louis CK’s character and Justin Theroux’s character. We wanted her to date guys who were different shapes of wrong for her and learn slowly what kind of man was right for her. And then Adam Scott was cast and we put them on-camera together and we thought, well, we’re not going to beat this.” — Mike Schur on Vulture

Friday Apr 26 4pm  3 notes


ryeloza replied to your post: 

I agree with some of this, but I read the more in that line more like wanting to make time for her family (Ben now, and maybe kids later) in addition to her accomplishments, not that she wanted to give up one for the other.

I disagree that the “I want more” is about spending more time with Ben. I totally realize that it sounds like i’m arguing semantics, but to quote the whole scene:

Accomplishments are great, but I want something more. I want what Jerry has. I mean, we’re always going to work but I think we need to fill this scrapbook too. [holds up FAMILY ALBUM scrapbook] Maybe we should take a real day off and talk about starting our family.”

The “more” is in direct relation to “accomplishments,” and then she says that she wants what Jerry has — a partner and several children "Starting our family" just means "starting to have children." 

(And I feel like “we’re always going to work” is completely a throwaway line.)

I feel like if Leslie already had kids and her career wasn’t as successful, she’d be saying it the other way, My family is great, but I want more than that I think it was poor phrasing.

But that is not the character that the show was built around. If this show was about a mother who had kids and didn’t feel like she had a successful career and wanted to get involved in politics/government, it would be a completely different situation. 

ashisfriendly replied to your post: 

But hasn’t Leslie talked about their future children before? I know that a bfast at Jerrys to switch her is hard to believe but she’s talked about it before just not DEEP.

herbalsmoothie pointed out that Leslie mentioned Ben’s future kids in “End of the World,” but I really don’t recall her talking about wanting/having kids herself until “Partridge.” I’m not saying that she hadn’t, I just don’t remember any examples.

Monday Apr 22 11pm  19 notes


kyrie-anne asked: I've loved your recent posts re: the portrayal of women and motherhood. I totally see how "Accomplishments are great but I want more than that," and that scene perpetuates the motherhood narrative, but I wonder if there is another way to read the line. Can you see - in the pathos of the show - the idea that the people in your life matter more than accomplishments? I'm thinking of the line "Waffles. Friends. Work." I think the line fits inside a larger argument the show is making. Am I crazy?

Thank you! The whole “all women want to be mothers” narrative is something I’ve been looking at critically for a long time and I’m especially fascinated by how it’s perpetuated and portrayed in the media. 

I completely agree with you that the line CAN be taken in to mean that we are more than our accomplishments. However, in this case, she says it SPECIFICALLY in the context of having a baby. “Accomplishments are great but I want more than that… Maybe we should take a real day off and talk about starting our family.” If the context was “I want to take time off and travel around the world” or “I’ve decided that I no longer want to be President and instead I want to work on X project in Pawnee to make life better for everyone,” I’d fully be on board with your suggestion of the line. 

Also — this is Leslie Knope, who was so excited that she got her first subcommittee before she was 34 and is determined to be the President of the United States. One breakfast with the Gergich family undid her lifelong ambition and drive for those accomplishments? Is that an emotional arc that is true to the character — that in ONE moment, everything that has defined and excited her about everything she can and will do in life has been relegated to “yeah, they’re nice and all, but they’re nothing compared to having babies!” I don’t think so, and in a way, I think that’s what bothers me the most about this declaration.

What I would LOVE is if Leslie and Ben actually do have a talk and decide that they don’t need to have babies to be a family. That they can be an amazing family with just the two of them. That would be awesome but I HIGHLY doubt Parks would do it. 

Has that ever been shown on TV? A couple talking about it and making the decision together not to have kids? I can’t think of any examples right now — it seems like in most cases, one person wants kids and the other doesn’t and it is a constant underlying tension that erupts into huge fights from time to time. But a coherent, respectful conversation in which two people decide that they don’t want to be parents? Oh, hell no. 

Monday Apr 22 10pm  6 notes

RSS | Archive | Home