Ramble On

Friday, April 08, 2011

The Nature of Individuality (Real versus Contrived) on the Internet and beyond

So it's 2:30AM and I'm unable to sleep because I feel like I have ideas itching to get out of my head and onto some tangible format where I can read it/share with others. Please forgive the rambling if it gets to be too much. Or don't, in fact, since they're my thoughts, why do I feel a need to apologize for the fact that it may not be condensed into "tweet" length?

Ever since I was young, I was told I was an individual, and that being an individual was a valuable thing, to be guarded carefully and to be proud of. Yet I can't help but feel like the older I get, the more and more society is becoming homogeneous. Maybe it's globalization, or social networking, or pop culture, but I find that fewer and fewer people are individuals.

When I moved from elementary to "middle" school (I still call it Grade 7-8) only 1 other person from my elementary school went to the same place. It was a chance to "reinvent" myself, and yet, it just didn't work. I was still me, the same person I was before, and while I may have made a few concessions (giving up sweat pants and juice boxes) towards being less 'geeky', I don't think I changed who I was all that much (although in reality I probably was very different, but just nothing that I was consciously doing was in aid of being different or 'fitting in'). By no means was I the popular kid, but nor was I a huge dweeb and unpopular (though I probably was).

I managed to have my first few girlfriends (though a few weeks of 'dating' really doesn't seem like much in hindsight 15+ yrs later), hear a whole bunch of new music that I'd never been exposed to before, and learn a lot more about who I was, and how much I did (or in my case, didn't) care about what others thought of me. Of course there were times when something would happen and I'd wonder why some particular girl didn't like me (she probably liked me, but didn't like like me, a distinction I had trouble making up until my early 20s if I'm being completely honest), but for the most part, those times were few and far between.

The times when I felt like I didn't fit in were times when my parents were very helpful, and contrary to the usual way things go, I actually appreciated my parents quite a bit as a teenager (other than the need of my mother to make everything herself instead of buying it - a trait I now admire instead of mock - and of my father to try and get a deal instead of paying the full asking price - something I was once embarrassed by that I now try to emulate myself). They made it abundantly clear to me that I was unique, and that for the mostpart, if all the kids at school liked "x" and I liked "y" that was perfectly normal. Looking back, I think that may have been THE single most valuable thing they ever did for me.

Grade 7-8 came to a close, and onto High School, which wasn't such a big step since 7-8 had been in the actual high school, and practically on Queen's Campus. (It's true, from the start of Grade 7 until the end of 4th Year, my classes were in a 2 square block radius). Grade 9 had a few more attempts to fit in, or normalize, which were entirely useless at making me enjoy school any more at all. I had friends, and acquaintances, but the vast majority of the time, I simply went, did my best on the classwork, and was out the door as soon as possible.

It wasn't until Grade 10-11 that I finally felt like I was who I was, and there was no more need to try and be somebody else, or fit some kind of theoretical mold of what I was supposed to be like. I was there, I knew just about everyone by name, and maybe a little bit about most of the people, but somehow kind of floated between the groups and cliques. I knew some jocks, some nerds, some preps, (or whatever the KCVI equivalent was - Rowers I guess?) drama types, and so on. But I certainly never associated myself with one group over the others. I think it's because of this that I never had a problem being who I was, having my own opinions, expressing them, and being rather happy with who I was and feeling that I was rather self-aware.

Moving onto university, I was a fairly well formed version of who I am today, albeit with some major experiences along the way. In university I felt like I was who I was, and wasn't trying to be anyone else. That isn't to say that sometimes I followed what someone else did, or thought 'hey I'm going to do what he's doing', but for the mostpart, I think I stuck to my own individuality. Obviously some moments of self-doubt and insecurity crept in, but most of the time, I'd talk it out with friends or just realise, I didn't give a flying fuck what someone thought of me if they didn't like me or had a completely skewed sense of who I was.

By the time graduation rolled along, I was confident in the person I was, and while there have been shifts and changes along the way, the person from then strongly resembles the one who's writing this manifesto of whatever it is.

The only time I really succumbed to the self-doubt and loss of assuredness was once I got onto Facebook. All of a sudden I was adding people to my list just because I knew them briefly, or went to school with them at some point, or had had interactions with them. I found myself wanting people to know who I knew, what I had done, what I thought was cool, and all the rest of it.

Wait a minute...something's wrong here...why do I care what someone who I had Grade 10 Geography with thinks of my friend list or my choice in Movies or Music?
Why am I feeling lowered self worth or need for reassurance when someone from Elementary school or camp doesn't respond to my message or wall post?
Why am I doing stupid quizzes and hoping that my answer makes me cooler in the eyes of someone I never had more than 15 minutes conversation with in 5 years of High School or 4 years of university?

It amazed me how in the span of 6 weeks I'd gone from not even having facebook, to letting it have such an impact on me. If someone disagreed with something I said or wrote or took it out of context, I'd be sad or upset and it would linger. I had a list of "Friends" that was nearing 300 people, yet the number I'd been out for a drink with or had a meaningful conversation with was a fraction of that number. I found myself doing things like not putting a movie on my favourites list because someone might see it and think I was a loser or something. Or writing a reply to someone's posting on something, and then editing it to sound better (something which exists in all online interactions I believe, from email to IM to chatting, to social networking).

I wasn't aware of it at first, but then it started to dawn on me...Facebook had taken me back to Grade 7-9! I was trying to get approval from people who I thought needed to like me...yet they were supposedly "friends", and of course your friends like you regardless. Something was seriously wrong with this...I think I'd have been much happier calling the 300 on my list "acquaintances" with a smaller portion as "friends". I was always someone who believed that having a few close very good friends was far more important than having a bunch of casual friends. Those were acquaintances to me; the people in High School I knew, and would say hi to, but wouldn't go camping with or out for a pint with. The friends were fewer in number but much more important. I had to remember, not everyone was going to be your best friend, and someone you were close with in grade 5 or 11 was someone you might not know at all now, or even like.

Eventually I realized what I had done, devolving into a teenaged mindset, seeking approval unknowingly from all these people, some of whom I barely knew. That's when I thought forget this, I don't care what 280 or so people think of me, I'm me and that's that. I went through my list with a heavy hand on the delete button, and after the initial feeling of worth from having so many "friends" dissipated, I felt better getting rid of people from that list that I didn't communicate with, or particularly like, or want to get to know, or have anything in common with anymore (or hadn't had at any time).

Now I have no problem posting what I want and not giving a shit what anyone thinks of it. I have to live with me, so if I'm good with me, and it's not hurting anyone else, then great.

But here's the problem: I don't think what I experienced is uncommon. I think this is much more common a problem than people may be aware of. I was also fortunate in not having to deal with facebook until I was 27 years old. I cannot imagine what it must be like for kids growing up trying to find their own unique identities while being on a facebook or twitter or some other online site. I think as humans we all have a desire to be liked by as many people as possible, and we might do things to be more liked that aren't exactly in tune with who we really are as people.

I know much has been written about this, and I think it's agreed upon that many people construct the individual that they want others to think they are, or that they think others will like. This may be OK with teeny things (like not admitting you love My Little Pony or something) but can be dangerous when you deny who you really are, or have to live your life according to a character (or caricature I should say) you've created of yourself. I should also be clear, that when it comes to the majority, I'm lucky enough to have been encouraged to be myself, the unique individual I am, and not everyone is that lucky or fortunate; nor do people have belief in themselves, and many struggle their whole lives with the problem.

I also think it might be easier for me to avoid that, or be aware of it, because I feel I have a very good knowledge of the self, and know when I'm not being true to who I am. It also helps a bunch that I don't respect social convention on many accounts, and feel that tact can be a hinderance, rather than a helpful guide in life. (this may also explain some of the issues I've come up against, but that's OK, I made my tactless bed, and I have to sleep in it).

So, summing up I suppose, I'm going to continue to make a concerted effort to be Gavin, the real one who people know, and not some constructed, idealized version of myself. I do like some really shitty movies, I do think a lot of people are assholes, and I do have a realist (some say pessimist) outlook many days. But I'm also very happy with who I am, I'm happy with the life I lead (I'd love a bit more $$ but then again, who wouldn't? If only for the freedom it offers) and I don't feel the need to justify myself to anyone. Therefore, I guess I don't need to expound on whether or not having a blog is egotistical, lame, or completely normal, and simply a great outlet for writing, which I wouldn't otherwise have.

So finally, that's up to you, to decide if you want to read this, if you want to comment on it, if it will change your opinion of me, one way or another, or whatever. All I know is, I'm glad that I figured out what I was doing before it became a huge problem, and I hope other people are self-aware enough to notice if it's becoming/is an issue for them.

And if you made it this far, I promise the next entry will be something about music. Because I like music and writing about music far more than this rambling garbage, but I had to get it out of my system and I'll be curious to see if anyone feels similarly ( but I won't change my opinion even if no one does).

Until next time, Gavin will Return in: Thunderball.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, February 28, 2011

Oscar Post Mortem


The above snapshot in time shows how they killed it less than halfway into the show last night. James Franco, who was brilliant in 127 Hours, seemed about as interested in being there as I was in listening to Colleen Atwood read her monotone acceptance speech for Best Costume Design for Alice in Wonderland (it was the right winner, but she literally read off a tiny scrap of paper in a monotone voice making no eye contact and going over time). Anne Hathaway was happier to be there, but she acted like she was the unpopular girl invited to the cool kids' party. "Look I've got a dress on, yay! Look a movie star, wowie!"


I was happy that it was going at a quick pace, though I still think they need to set a moratorium on thanking your illegal alien garderner Manuel and your British Nanny as well as Craft Services in your acceptance. That being said the guy who thanked his mom for doing Craft Services for his short was hilarious. No one cares about someone they've never heard of thanking their grade 3 teacher after they win Best Sound Editing. Kirk Douglas was more entertaining with his lines than nearly all of the winners were with their acceptance speeches. Other than Melissa Leo dropping the f-bomb and the documentary makers commenting on Wall Street CEOs not being in jail (kudos without going Michael Moore on it), there wasn't anything noteworthy said...though I might want to see Colin Firth's dancing.


Of the 18 categories I cared enough to have an opinion on, I got 8 of them right, though I have no idea how to judge Sound Editing versus Mixing. They're the same idea in my head and I have no idea why they don't just have one Sound Oscar. I saw 8 of the 10 Best Picture candidates (Toy Story 3 and Black Swan being the exceptions) and for once felt qualified to offer opinion on the films and nominees, as you can judge in my past posts lately...


Good: Christian Bale getting recognized and giving Dicky Ecklund the shoutout; Inception and Social Network winning 7 between them, showing that the Academy isn't all that out of touch (though Christopher Nolan should have been nomiated for Best Director); Colin Firth being crowned; Trent Reznor winning an Oscar; Alice in Wonderland being recognized for their stunning artistic achievement (art literally - winning Art Direction and Costumes); The Kids are Alright being shutout.


Bad: True Grit and 127 Hours both being shut out; lame acceptance speeches nearly across the board; the fact that Billy Crystal got more applause than the hosts did all night long; Celine Dion's ego overshadowing the "In Memorium" piece of the show; Halle Berry deciding that Lena Horne was somehow more worthy of singling out for a memorial than any of the others who passed this year (um Dennis Hopper anyone?) I'm sorry, it may sound bad, but I just don't think one person deserves that extra recognition over all the others who passed.


Ugly: for a night of stars, when they showed shots of the audience, I saw fewer stars than I recall seeing at the Oscars for years. It used to be everyone was there, even if they weren't up for anything. Thanks to Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks for showing up (I realize they both had movies they were involved with be up for awards, but I can't recall them not showing up in past years, whereas I didn't see a lot of the usual crowd.) Maybe Oscar just isn't the big show it used to be, or maybe, which I think is more likely, their hosts this year just gave no one any spark of anticipation or wanting to be there.


All in all, a rather tedious 3+ hours with a few good moments thrown in, and no real surprises at all. I was expecting at least one or two instances where the 2 front runners would split votes allowing third place to sneak out the win. No movie won more than 4 Oscars this year, which is fair because the there were a bunch of great films this year and each had their own strengths.

Kudos to the Coens for their reply to having 10 nominations for the great True Grit: "Ten seems like an awful lot. We don't want to take anyone else's." I think since both they and Jeff Bridges already have Oscar gold on the resume, it was easier to overlook the movie this year, and good for them having such a great attitude about it. (I also think 127 Hours suffered from the director already having his Oscar success - Danny Boyle [Slumdog]).
Also be sure to check out Steve's Oscar breakdown.


Now I look forward to Summer movie season and all the Marvel superhero flicks!!! Popcorn Action...yay.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, February 14, 2011

The Grammys

First of all, I don't watch the Grammys. Second of all, I have a major problem with the Grammys, in that it seems to recognize sales and popularity, rather than critical acclaim or importance. (It doesn't seem to, it does I should say).

Then there's all the big names to never win a Grammy or to only be given a Lifetime Achievement Grammy as a sort of consolation prize much later on.


The Grammys have been around since 1958, so they've had lots to choose from, and yet you look at it and realize it's just a joke.

U2 have won 22 Grammys, but if you look closer, 16 of those were earned for 2 of their last 3 albums, over the last 10 years (for How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb [9] and All That You Can't Leave Behind [7]). By comparison, The Joshua Tree only won 2.
How are there 9 different ways for one album to win that many awards from the same institution??? Let me just brainstorm...
1) Best Album
2) Best Rock Album
3) Best Record (which means song to the Grammy people)
4) Best Production
5) Best Liner Notes
6) Best God Complex on a Lead Singer
7) Best Usage of Headwear by a Guitarist
8) Best iTunes Commercial
9) Best Cash Earner
I'm fairly sure a couple of those might not be categories, but they might as well be. Did you know there are over 100 different Grammy categories???
My favourites include:
Best Classical Crossover Album - I suppose this is where the London Symphony Orchestra plays NWA's Greatest Hits?
Best Remixed Recording, Non-Classical - I wasn't even aware Classical music had remixes...doesn't that by definition make it not Classical??
Best Spoken Word Album for Children - Seriously? What?? Best Bedtime stories album? Wow.
Best Regional Mexican Album - I'm not even making that up. But give the Recording Academy credit, they've got the highest standards. There weren't enough entries into this category so "by Academy Rules" there was no winner or nominees. Shocking!
The Big Names Never to Win a Grammy:
1) Led Zeppelin - Given Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 2005.
2) The Who - Given the same in 2001.
3) Jimi Hendrix - Given the same in 1992.
4) Queen - none.
5) Bob Marley - Given the same in 2001.
6) The Beach Boys - none.
7) The Kinks - none.
Up until last night, no less than NEIL YOUNG!!! Had never won a Grammy either.
So when I see that Alison Krauss (who is talented I grant) has 26 Grammys, Beyonce has 16 (3 more than Michael Jackson), Chaka Khan has 10, Black Eyed Peas has 6, I just can't take it seriously.
It was nice to see that the Black Keys won 3 Grammys last night, but based on the inflated numbers of Grammys handed out, and those not recognized, they are simply meaningless.
I'll stick to my own enjoyment and recommendations from people who I respect.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, February 10, 2011

The Return of Gavin Incognito

Credit where credit is due: this comeback brought to you by Steve Johns.

Blogging seemed to lose it's appeal a few years back and I felt I was being negative Nancy all the time...that shocks you all I'm sure. But recently, I've been keeping up with some folks blogs (Steve, Jackson) and realizing, I enjoy reading what people have to say, and people I know are interesting and we seem to share a common link of growing up in relatively similar situations.
I don't have much of importance to write about today, and I promise I will do my best not to return to blogging as venting therapy (but I know it will happen once or twice) but I think I'd rather get back to writing than just sit back and do nothing.
If you pay any attention to my rather pedestrian self, you'll know I watch a lot of movies and listen to a lot of music. So I think I'm going to stick to my strengths, and focus on those. The facebook movie reviews are quality I think, but not many seem to read, so maybe if they look all fancy in a blog they'll be more interesting? Who knows, only time will tell...if nothing else, Gavin Incognito (which I love as a nickname for the record) might be more...cognito now. (If that's a word)

Labels: ,