Monday, September 12, 2016

What defines a "Millennial"

My bosses wrote OpEds coinciding with the 15th anniversary of September 11th about updating our view of the National Guard (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/11/opinions/national-guard-critical-component-america-military-anderson/index.html) and about evolving our approach to fighting extremism (https://medium.com/@rlleaders/creativity-wins-7df3e3409e59#.g6kv5sn3s). It got me thinking about how 9/11 shaped my generation, so I figured I get to write an OpEd, too.
I was 11 years old on September 11th, 2001 when my middle school went into lockdown. The teachers weren't allowed to tell us why we weren't switching classes anymore or why the buses were on their way to take us home. We got whispers of small bits of information from the kids that snuck their cellphones to the bathroom - something had happened in New York and now there might be bombs in DC. But we didn't have answers until we got home and watched the planes on loop on CNN then went straight to Yahoo to look up who Osama Bin Laden was.
In retrospect, I understand why the teachers weren't allowed to tell us anything. My middle school was in Silver Spring, Maryland - directly outside of DC. Many of my classmates parents worked in the District, as did my mother, and it would have caused a lot of panic to tell us that a plane had been flown into the Pentagon. My mother, who thankfully worked nowhere near Arlington, was evacuated from her office building and when they were officially released, she and her coworkers were advised against going underground. So, instead of taking the Metro home like any other day, they joined the scores of others walking out of DC. They reached their coworker's apartment and then were driven to another coworker's house in Bethesda where my father could go pick her up.
Looking back on that day, neither my parents nor I could remember why I didn't go with my dad to pick up my mom. I couldn't remember how many classes I had already sat through when school went on lockdown. But I remember exactly where I was sitting in Ms. Pateriya's world studies class - next to her desk and the TV cart, which we asked her to let us turn on even though it probably wasn't even hooked up to cable in the first place. I remember the way our family room was set up, and Kaylan and I looking up Bin Laden as we watched the news. I remember knowing this was a big deal and that it meant we were going to go to war.
My father was around the same age - 10 years old - on December 7th, 1941 when Japanese planes bombed Pearl Harbor. He said it was a quiet day, a normal day, until he turned on the radio and heard the news. And he immediately went to the kitchen to tell his grandma, "It's started," because even at 10 years old, he knew that our country was ramping up to joining the war, and the attack on Pearl Harbor was exactly what would allow us to finally do so. And he went on to believe the propaganda, to participate in paper drives, to support the war in what small ways he could as a pre-teen.
That's kinda the irony of adolescence - it's a strangely helpless time because you're old enough to understand most of what's happening but you aren't old enough to react, to do much in response. After all, we hadn't elected the government officials that sent us to war, and few of us could vote them out of office before they sent us into Iraq. Pearl Harbor and WWII informed my father's generation and now September 11th and the "War on Terror" have informed my generation - "The Millennials."
What defines a Millennial is not that we're coddled, that we got participation trophies, that we're self-centered or entitled or lazy. What defines us is that we came of age around the millennium when two big things happened - the internet became pervasive and September 11th launched us into a military conflict that has lasted for 15 years. Between these two groundbreaking events, we completely changed the way we as Americans view and interact with the world, each other, and information. And it's especially clear in the way Millennials engage with the world - and the way other generations react to Millennials.
We didn't get a choice in going to war - a war that's lasted for more than half of my life now with no end in sight. We didn't get a say in the economic policies that led to the crash in 2008, sending our generation out into a recession and a worse-than-stagnant job market. And despite how easy it would've been to become pessimists, Millennials mostly became idealists that are striving to make big changes in our country.
So, don't call us self-centered when we tell our elders that we don't want to do things their way because, frankly, it didn't seem to work so well. Don't call us entitled when we express our frustration at earning wages that haven't increased commensurately to inflation. Don't call us lazy when we demand a work-life balance because no generation before ours had the access to this level of 24-hour portable communication that enabled *work* to so easily infiltrate *life.* And don't call us coddled because our formative years were informed by a massive tragic event that launched a seemingly never-ending war, pushed us further toward extreme partisanship, and forever changed what we and the next generation view as "normalcy."
On the anniversaries of September 11th, there's always a lot of talk about unity, about supporting our troops and our first responders, about never forgetting what happened. And by September 12th, somehow much of the country manages to forget these notions. This year, try to remember. Remember that Millennials actually put unity into practice by embracing social networks that connect people from all walks of life. Remember that our troops are now largely Millennials. Remember that Millennials experienced monumental changes as we came of age. And don't dismiss our criticisms or our ideas.

Monday, December 14, 2015

Project #7: Fuzzy Scarf


I got this gorgeous yarn (Patons Bohemian in Indigo Indulgence) as a gift, but I didn't know what to do with it at first. I mostly work with DK or worsted weight, so this fuzzy bulky yarn was a bit out of my wheelhouse. I tested a section with some simple crochet patterns, but I felt that it ended up too thick no matter what stitch I used. That meant I would have to knit with the yarn to make it a wearable thickness. But, see, I've only ever knitted one thing ever, so I was more than a bit daunted.



I really didn't need to be. Turns out, bulky yarns are great for knitting because it takes far fewer stitches to get a lot of length. Hell, I finished this entire scarf in less than a day, and I am not a quick knitter. Plus, this super fuzzy yarn is very forgiving. Because the stitches are barely visible - I did a standard knit, so one side is smooth knit and the other nubby purl, but unless you look closely or touch the scarf, most wouldn't be able to tell - the mistakes and uneven stitching is also barely visible. I can hardly find the areas where I wove in the ends, and I was the one that made the damn thing. So consider me converted to bulky yarns. They aren't exactly viable for making sweaters, but for scarves, hats, and maybe blankets (if I really want to knit that much... which I doubt I ever will), they're great.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

Project #6: New Baby Blanket DONE!



After a few unfortunate missteps with matching the yarn (8 out of 10 of the Prince Pebbles matched the Soft Fern perfectly, and I of course managed to start with one of the two that didn't) I ended up making not one but two versions of the blanket. After realizing how different the yarns were, I couldn't bring myself to give such an imperfect blanket to my cousin, so I started a new one. My coworker liked the half blanket so much that she asked to buy it instead of letting it go to waste, so I finished it up for her and now both blankets have good homes.



The pattern is more or less the same as this, but I adjusted the number of squares per row and the size of each square/row. I also used back post double crochet for the ribbing instead of front posts because the BPDC leave the reverse looking more similar to the single crochet.

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

An Open Letter to Aspiring Writers

Dear Writers,

If your planning to submit a scirpt for consideration, please think of the industry reader's sitting at there desks wandering what they did too deserve the castigation of halving to decode you're typos.

Please remember how frustrating it was to read that sentence. Please run spellcheck, but don't blindly trust it. Please learn the difference between your and you're (and all the other homophone sets). Please stop making plurals into possessives. Please don't use a thesaurus to find replacement words that you can't actually define. And please, for the love of all that is holy, understand that pass, past, and passed are not interchangeable regardless of how you (incorrectly) pronounce them when you speak.

No one will hire you as a writer if you can't do some basic proofreading.

All best,
Every Assistant Ever

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Project #6: New Baby Blanket!

I'm super excited to be making another baby blanket for my cousin! I spent about an hour wandering the aisles of Joann Fabrics trying to decide on the yarn before finally settling on this gorgeous Bernat Softee Baby ombre called "Prince Pebbles" that I'll pair with the coordinating grey ("Flannel") and possibly the coordinating green ("Soft Fern") and teal ("Aqua") if I can find them at any of my local stores.


Saturday, August 8, 2015

The Pain of Watching a Show You Love Die, pt2

I’ve addressed the short-lived series ripped from your TV too soon, but what about the ones that go on forever, far past any interest you once held in them?

All shows have their ups and downs. Even the often flawless THE GOOD WIFE had that storyline with Kalinda’s husband, and the damn near perfect FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS strayed into weird during season two. (plus it had Julie Taylor - I mean, the girl got mad at a baby) At the end of the day, despite a few missteps, both of those series continued to be pretty awesome throughout their runs.* That is not always the case.

I rarely quit shows even when they become nearly unwatchable because, like many SFF fans, I’m a completionist. I get very invested in the characters and the world, and I’m often unwilling to give up hope that the series will manage to right the ship.

SLEEPY HOLLOW had a creatively exciting first season, but it became loaded down with a larger episode order, unnecessary love stories, convoluted plotting, and an unexpectedly dour Orlando Jones. They’ve since gutted the cast and pledged to return to the first season’s tighter pacing and Ichabbie-focused stories. With the casting of a love interest for Ichabod and a crossover with BONES (whaaaa?), I’m not totally convinced that this once promising series will be able to rebuild what it lost last season – both in audience and quality – but I will still give SH one more chance.

Sometimes you fall for shows that you know will never be great, but you stick with them anyway. Despite numerous dropped storylines and too many magic baby plotlines (FYI 1 is usually too many), I still believe that GRIMM can be as fun as season 1, even though season 1 had just as many issues. My roommate, however, has deleted it from the DVR and is threatening to call psychological services if I continue to lie to myself about its potential to actually stick with a coherent season-long arc.

Then there are the rest of the shows on our apartment’s chopping block. We’ve been frustrated with the most recent season(s) of SUITS and have let it build up a long backlog in our DVR. This show started out so strong – a smart, witty law series that had complex female characters and ultra-charismatic leads. Yet in recent years, Jessica, Donna, and Rachel have been making choices that are completely out of character and, frankly, not smart. Jessica, the head of the firm, whose name has been on the wall for the entire run of the series, keeps getting battered by people interested in hurting her in order to get to Harvey, and she consequently makes reactionary decisions that tend to be born out of emotions rather than logic. It seems highly unlikely that this powerful career-driven woman got to her current position in the firm by making decisions in this way, and it seems even more unlikely that she would start now. Gina Torres’ incomparable acting skills and commanding presence are not enough to hide the cracks in the writing. And I’m still not ready to talk about what they’ve done to Ms. Gal Friday, Donna. I feel personally victimized by how the writers have treated her character. But beyond the rapid decline in the consistency and development for the characters (female and male alike), the show is leaning hard into its annoying movie quoting and overly petty internal politics that have never been why I watched the show.

There’s a certain point when a series is no longer enjoyable to watch and instead becomes a chore.

Usually, that point comes when the show no longer resembles what it started as – when the character development doesn’t align with the characters’ established backstories; when the storylines become so convoluted that you need to take notes while watching; when the least enjoyable elements (be they characters, plotlines, or an excessive reliance on spectacle) are thrust front and center. That’s when we start to wonder who is still watching.

There is something to be said for shows that go out on a high note. Many would have loved to see BREAKING BAD continue, but its 5 season run (by choice) and shorter episode orders (yay cable!) allowed the writers to craft a consistently engaging story that never had to struggle through filler or try in vain to top itself with ever twistier storylines. (yo ‘sup SCANDAL)

TV series are money-making ventures, and the studios, networks, and producers will keep them going as long as they bring in the cash. Aiming for syndication numbers can be a powerful motivator, and an inability to launch a successful replacement series can sometimes mean the old guard shows stick around until they are barely shells of what they once were. Though it is nice to see these crews (and actors, and writers, and producers) employed, it is a disservice to the story and to the audience to ask us to pretend the show hasn’t lost its spark.

That being said, SUPERNATURAL will run forever. And I’m OK with that.

*Fear not, TGW fans, THE GOOD WIFE is not over yet. It will return for a 7th (and likely final) season this fall.

Friday, July 3, 2015

Let's Talk About Gaslighting in Superhero Shows

This is a trope the needs to go away. Not only does it inject major logic flaws into the story, but it is also, like, way uncool to do that to someone. First things first, what the heck is “GASLIGHTING?” The term comes from the play Gas Light (and 1940/1944 film adaptations that you should totally watch) in which the main character uses systematic psychological manipulation to convince his wife that she is insane – for example, insisting that his wife is imagining things when she (correctly) notes the change in brightness of their home’s gas lamps. You’re probably thinking that is some pretty clear-cut psychological abuse that would totally be the M.O. of the villains in our beloved superhero shows. Nope. This is actually a thing our supposed heroes do (almost pathologically) to those they “love.”

Let’s take the biggest superhero shows on TV: ARROW, THE FLASH, and iZOMBIE. You’ll notice they all come from The CW, so keep in mind that the audience for that network skews younger and might not have enough experience with relationships to be able to understand why this is such a problem.

From vigilante Oliver Queen to walking (or running) science experiment Barry Allen to zombie Liv Moore, superheroes understandably are not going to be broadcasting their identity to the public at large. Makes sense. No one wants to wear their good underwear every single day lest today’s the day they get arrested (or, ya know, shot on sight) while going about their mundane daily business. The problem isn’t that these superheroes are keeping their identities secret from the world, it’s that it makes no sense for them to keep this information from the people they love (and who love them). It makes especially little sense when those loved ones are actively trying to figure out the truth behind the superheroes and weird crime patterns that have been showing up lately.

Many heroes assert that they must keep their loved ones out of the loop in order to protect them, but time and again this has been proven to be a completely illogical line of reasoning. It is 100% ineffective. How many times in these shows (and comic books and movies and everything) have villains gone after the hero’s family or paramour in order to hurt the hero/draw the hero out/just generally be a jerk?

Thea Queen was targeted by Slade. Moira Queen was killed by Slade. Did not knowing about Oliver protect either of them? For those playing along at home, the answer is a definitive NO. When Thea learned Malcolm Merlyn was a pretty evil ninja dude, she didn’t crucify her father; she asked him to train her in order to protect herself. If Oliver had revealed his identity to Thea earlier, maybe she would have sought his help instead of aligning with the Bad Guy™ that went on to use her in order to enact his own complicated plan to oust Ra’s al Ghul and take over the League of Assassins.

Then there’s poor Iris West, to whom Barry refused to reveal his secret identity regardless of the numerous baddies that went after her because she ran that silly blog about The Red Streak. She would put herself in dangerous situations in order to get scoop on the meta-humans and to figure out who was behind the mask. She also kept posting public messages about where The Flash should meet her, which really was basically a beacon for any aspiring villain to capture a person with an obvious connection to The Flash and/or set a trap for The Flash himself. Rather than tell Iris so she stops putting herself in unnecessary danger and stops giving any baddie with an internet connection easy access to info about The Flash’s whereabouts, Barry, Joe West, and everyone else did everything in their power to misdirect her, including covering up the murder of her mentor. She never truly realized how much danger she was actually in.

Perhaps the most egregious gaslighting was that of Major Lilywhite on iZOMBIE. Major is a great human being who is rarely judgmental. He naturally noticed and became concerned about the disappearances of the “at risk youth” with whom he worked. He put together the zombie part and tried to seek help from those he trusted, including Liv. Unfortunately, those he trusted were so blindly obsessed with keeping their own secret that they made him question his theories until he literally believed he was going crazy and checked himself into a mental hospital. Without the support of those he thought he could rely on, Major chose to go after the zombie problem by himself, and SHOCKER it put him in a super dangerous situation.

Keeping the hero’s loved ones in the dark doesn’t protect them. It does precisely the opposite.

It also sidelines those characters. When they are not let into the inner circle, they rarely can actively participate in the inner circle’s storylines. Instead, they usually are relegated to B-plots or serve only as obstacles for the heroes to work around. Given that often the loved one kept in the dark is one half of the OTP, this also means that audiences will not connect with that intended romance. When the characters barely interact and the hero is often lying to their love interest, how can they build chemistry? There’s a reason far more fans ship Oliver/Felicity than Oliver/Laurel. And when the love interest is little more than an annoyance, why should we root for her/him to get together with the hero? Laurel 2.0, aka Iris, flitted around the edges of the story while publishing her ridiculous and poorly designed blog, but she didn’t actively contribute to the plot until the last few episodes ... coincidentally around the time she finally learned that Barry was the hero she was so obsessively pursuing.

All of these love interests are shown to be smart because they have picked up on the weirdness happening around them. Major actually figured out that zombies exist, which is honestly impressive given all the roadblocks put up by Liv, Ravi, and a basic understanding of reality pre-Max Rager. (Don’t you think Max should be spelled Maxx? That seems like something a company like that would do.) Yet for some irrational reason, these heroes think that trusting their loved ones and validating their loved ones’ theories will somehow put everyone in greater danger. It makes no sense. It is patently false. It hampers the characters, the intended romance, and the overall plot. It needs to stop.