Book v. Film: An Education

Maybe I mentioned it, or not, but a few weeks ago I lived out a dream of mine: my department sent a few people to a publishing vendor fair. This means all kinds of publishing houses, from Penguin and Random House to smaller art, medical, and religious presses, showed up at an Embassy Suites to talk shop and give away books. It was much better than my already crazy expectations, and I left with 3 shopping bags full of advance copies, unproofed galleys, and things I had waited literally months for in stores (R. Crumb's The Book of Genesis)...all for free. So if you need new reading material, hit me up. No way can I finish these on my own!

Back to Book v. Film. It's been a busy semester, and this tiny little book has been the only thing I've read from my haul so far. An Education is very short (172 pages) and reads quickly. The movie version is based only on a few pages from this book, and frankly the movie seems boring for that reason. The 150 pages not dealing with the cradle-robbing affair (see below) are super engrossing, and Lynn Barber is relatable and funny. The majority of the book is about Barber's climb through publishing and journalism in London, starting with her job at Penthouse at its start in the '70s, and ends with a long and--really--breathtaking reflection on her marriage and family. I give An Education my very highest recommendation. I'll even let you borrow my copy!

We've all seen the trailers for the film version of An Education, or heard the actors on Fresh Air, or seen something related to the Oscars hyping it up. Peter Sarsgaard is an adult man having an affair with a 16-year-old schoolgirl in England in the early '60s. YAWN! It won't be out on DVD for another week, and like I said, I'm not too crazy about watching it. I will, for the sake of this beloved blog feature, but I might not like it...but then, I said the same thing about the book. Wink!

Will this Wednesday ever end??????

I know - this site has really "jumped the shark" and "everyone and their mom knows about it", but I used to love fluffernutter sandwiches.

Cheetahs: F that!

Today in Broadsheet*, Mary Elizabeth Williams discussed a recent New York Observer article about the new wave in subtly degrading women: cheetahs! I'm not linking to the article, and I didn't want to read the article, but apparently a cheetah is a woman who gets you drunk, goes home and seduces you, and spends the night? Is this news?

Two important points were raised in the comments: 1) if a woman takes you back to her own house, she has no choice but to spend the night; 2) if a man is so drunkenly incapacitated as to be "taken advantage of" by a woman, he probably won't be able to have sex. Soooo, does this thing exist at all? If so, why is it a problem? Have women come up with a cute name for men who get them drunk and take them home...besides "my new boyfriend"?**

But that don't matter, because for these writers it's "time to trot out the old 'sexual taxonomy of women' satire... You can fart it out before your first latte has kicked in, and the thing will pay for itself in outraged comments and blog links."

True. LaZy WrItiNG aLeRt!

Williams breaks down the six reasons this is annoying, and it's so great. One good point:

"5. Pop rhetorical quiz time! Why is it that gay men can classify themselves as bears and otters and all other manner of creatures and it seems cute and sexy, but female sexual animals are somehow just pathetic?"

And:

"Because the funny thing -- funny strange, not funny ha-ha -- in each eager new spin on the women-as-cougars-and-cheetahs-and-pumas-and-kittens-and-ocelots story is the same old criticism of us for our sexual choices and erotic initiative. Whatever species you name it, it's all just catty. Mrrrreeer!"

*I like Broadsheet way more than Jezebel, and way way way more than The Frisky (almost goes without saying, but I want to make myself clear: I hate The Frisky), and of course much more than The XX. As a "women's issues" column, Salon has really won with Broadsheet.

**Obviously there are other names for this behavior, like "rapist" and "felon." But I'm talking about what happens every weekend at most bars in the world. Sans tranquilizers, plus low self-esteem.

We saw Twilight last night!

I think I speak for Susan and Katie both when I say we were into it. Not as much as The Notebook (let's not get ahead of ourselves) but I am really surprising myself here by wanting to see New Moon pretty much ASAP.

Gel from Heaven

Do you guys know what this stuff is? Seth Fisher generously brought me back 2 tubes from his trip to France earlier this year, and it's re-fueled an old addiction...an addiction that left me crying, by the side of the road, and 50 pounds heavier, once upon a time.

Just kidding, but it is hard to stop with this stuff once you get started. Picture this: vanilla, chestnuts, sugar, water. In a paste, but there's nothing to it so it looks like a gel. Stir it into your yogurt. Fill a crepe with it! Slather some on a cookie. Eat it from a spoon! Things get out of hand really easily!

I know it's a little early, but if anyone's wondering what to get me for Christmas, they're selling it on Amazon. Shipping is $5.00, so you might as well get 3 or 4 while you're at it. Just saying!

Miley Cyrus

It's hard to ignore Party in the USA. The first time I heard it, I thought "this is horrible". After a few more listens on the radio, I realized I wasn't changing the station. I youtubed her "controversial" performance at the Teen Choice Awards where she pole dances. Or as Miley & the Cyrus fam say, "she's just dancing on an ice cream truck". It's true, she is, but also, come on! We get what's implied. It's clearly over the top, but after watching the whole thing I think more than trying to be sexy, she just comes off as really uncomfortable and awkward. Check out her awkward facial grimace after the show is over. Also awkward at the end: the God shout-out. I imagine this is some brilliance from Billy Ray that differentiates Miley from Britney's early performances. I could care less if she's trying to experiment with her sexuality or whatever way they put it...but let's just admit that's what you're doing and not try to pretend it's anything different. I think we all remember the Annie Leibovitz "omg we had no idea she'd just be wearing a sheet" controversy from this family.

I think the thing about Party in the USA that gets me the most is her voice (also the chorus - does she need to say "and a britney song was on" 3 times??). We all know it's not great. But as compared to her last single The Climb, Party in the USA sounds like a completely different person singing. I get that it's auto-tuned, but even more then that it sounds like she's had something corrected with her vocal cords. Judge for yourself!

Something to think about for best/worst lyrics ever - "noddin' my head like yeah, movin' my hips like yeah".

Shopping 4 Shoes

I am a BIG-TIME brand loyalist when it comes to shoes. And my Number One brand is probably Camper. The first time I heard of Camper was during my year abroad, when my friends and I would window-shop the boutiques in downtown Angers while we waited for our bus at night. So yeah, my attachment is probably a little sentimental, but Camper shoes are sooooooooooo cute and comfortable and durable, and you really can't beat that.

They're a Spanish brand, which I think is how they're able to be so stylish (have you ever met a Spanish person?). Here are some of the hot ones for this fall (full disclosure: I already own the red pair):

I also love the soles of the shoes, and every sole is different. Little details like this really count!

I know these shoes aren't cheap, but I always figure, w/r/t shoes: you can pick, at most, 3 of the 4: comfort, style, durability, price. For example: Birkenstocks are comfortable, durable, and sometimes stylish...but they're not cheap. Pretty much any shoe from Urban Outfitters will be stylish and cheap, but you're living in a fantasy world if you think they'll be comfortable and durable. Those $3 fake Crocs you got from Eckerd? Good luck with style, durability, and comfort! Etc. etc. Anyway, my money is (literallllllllllllly!) on Camper.

"I'm a percentage person."

Sometimes when I'm making plans with friends and I've got something else going on or my attendance depends on another person's absence (sorry! but you know how it goes. sometimes you just don't want to hang with some people), I'll say "I'm 85% sure I'm coming," or "I dunno, only feeling like 9% tonight." It's easier for me AND you, and sort of more fun as well. But I never really thought of relationships (romantic ones, friendships, and business relationships if that's part of your life) in those terms...until I was reading this advice column and the columnist broke down the question as a percent. Which I liked.

The question was "How important is sex for a relationship and what can you do if it stops?"

And his answer was as follows (partially; the full answer is on his site, linked above):

... let me further add that I’m a percentage person. I’ll put a percentage on anything. (Will I make out with her after dinner? 12%.) I’m especially fond of a really low percentage shot, like, was Angie flirting with me? 1.2%. This all gets me to the fact that I’ve thought about the sex question a lot. Which isn’t really a sex or no sex question, but more of a “mutually agreed upon amount needed” question. If two people both don’t like to get it on and find each other.. more power to them. So I’m going to stick with what I’ve got until someone proves me other wise: 50%. Yup, a straight 50. Why? It’s a bit like when a company buys a share of another company. And it is always 49 or 51 percent What the news heads like to call “the controlling share”. It’s only two percent away between the two but a world of difference in what it means to the dynamic on the whole. But at 50, neither works without the other right down the middle. of course there is always fluctuation, so I’ll give my sex math a +/- 4%. It’s also like a test. If you aced the “gets along” half but skipped the sex section (sextion? pow!) you would still fail, and vice versa. Never mind the fact that a relationship with unbalanced sex is just a friend who hangs around too much and stresses you out. No fun there. So yea. that’s my answer, it’s 50 percent of the test. To all those people who are thinking “but we get along so well, so I can look past it…” well, you can’t. Same goes for the “he’s a total loser but the sex is ammmaaaazing..” Anyway you score it, you still get an F for the class. It might hold together for a bit, but either disproportionate situation will eventually erode your personal chunk of love.

Wow. What a good, objective way to look at such a problem. I might take a cue for my own advice-giving! How would you think of your problems if you had to display them in graph form?