park talk

oh my goodness.

well, i'm done. i've just finished taking my last two finals. the one i had to submit for my criticism class put me through the wringer. i wrote ten pages on six different authors in one night. i think that is the closest i've ever come to being a basket case, loosing my mind. it was my own fault really, because i procrastinated so badly that i left myself only one night to do it. so. as of this point, i'm not so sure about that 4.0. i think i should just give up. the pursuit of perfection in college is virtually impossible. at this very moment, two of my classmates are sitting in this computer lab working on their criticism finals. i wish them luck because if its due by 3pm today and they're just now working on it...

also, the "d" on this keyboard is a little temperamental, so if some of my words are missing their ds, its because the key wouldn't cooperate. its like keys on the piano that don't play anymore--you never realize how much you need that key until it stops working. isn't it interesting that both music and literature require the use of the alphabet? i find it fascinating. to think that a symbol, a single character, can represent both a letter and a musical note. how do they read notes in regions where the Roman alphabet isn't used? are they obliged to conform to the use of the Roman alphabet when it comes to playing music? i think they must. and i could have a lot of fun playing with the multiple connotations of the word "key" in music and literature, but i think i won't. suffice it to say that the word "key" sums up the word "alphabet" when it comes to literature and music. it is the basic building block. at least in today's day and age where literature is usually created with the use of a keyboard and a computer. i'm very tempted to look up the etymological origins of this word...

i don't know what it is about this morning, perhaps it is the relief, but all these thoughts are coming to me unbidden. in the shower this morning i thought about packs: how most things that are bad for humans come in packs--cigarettes, beer, wolves...i think it's interesting that what is unhealthy for us comes in larger quantities. i mean, you can't buy one cigarette. maybe you could from a person, but not in a store. and anyway what kind of smoker only wants one cigarette? that just goes to show you how much i know about smoking. it's the same thing with beer. where can you buy one beer except in a bar? they sell them in packs everywhere else. sometimes they don't even sell them, they just distribute them in packs. large quantities, i tell you. it really is bad for us. only when the acquirement of such things is mediated by a person are we saved, ie: one beer at the bar from the bartender, one cigarette from a person. if we're left to ourselves in a market, we'll buy the packs. which is another reason why being a consumer is hard. you're taken advantage of by being made to buy a certain number of things. we need that human mediation. except, that is, when you're at Costco. human mediation there takes the form of people handing out samples and instead you get the reverse effect: if you like the sample, you buy the bag of 24 pieces, or the box of 50 rolls or what have you. but Costco is wholesale and you can't blame them. besides, some people only take the sample and make a meal of it (like my father) without buying the product, and in this case, the personal mediation works effectively. it's actually rather nice.

lastnight when i was writing my criticism final, my mind would wander and daydream. it was a necessity, really, otherwise i would have gone mad. i daydreamed about people, a scene with a dog i'm thinking of adding to a story, etc. in one particular instance, my mind wandered into two scenes from two different movies. they were Munich and The Prestige. in Munich, i recalled the scene where Eric Bana is walking down the street in New York with his baby in his arms. in The Prestige, i recalled when Christian Bale takes his baby into his arms while Hugh Jackman watches on enviously. those two scenes started me off and i ask you now: what is it about men holding babies that is so...moving? i don't mean to use this word in a deep, philosophical sense, but simply. people are moved by many trivial things--i mean for it to mean feeling affection, or feeling affected. i don't know what it is. i think it's the way they hold the child, how they are fully capable of holding the child with one arm. i think it's the combination of the man's strength and the child's vulnerability. i think it's the fact that a man must use a small amount of physical strength to carry the child, but every other type of strength they have is...poised, suspended, ready to protect the baby but at the same time, restraining itself so as not to be too harsh. maybe that's it. the potential energy, the potential strength you see in a man as he takes a baby into his arms. how he must be gentle, but at the same time ready. so gentleman. if you are to use a baby to gain the affections of a woman, do not simply push the unknown baby in a stroller. hold the child in your arms, and she will be mush. at least i would be.

and i think that will do it for now. now i must go and enjoy my freedom. happy holidays!