So the discussion raging around our place tonight concerned actors and whether or not they made the roles they are famous for or they were handed well developed characters that they made their own.
In other words, could any actor fill a particular role or are certain characters so well developed that any actor could play them?
Certain characters have been played by more than one actor and fans have their favourites. Some roles are so well developed that actors can be switched around and no one really sees a lot of difference except for the physical appearance. Comparing the written character to the one the actor brings to life we have to look at the physical description as well as the personality.
James Bond is one example. Fans are split on whether Sean Connery or Roger Moore played the best Bond with some fans holding out for some of the other actors. If you read the books, some of the actors match the physical description of Bond but the personality is just vague enough that each actor has been able to take the character and build as they see Bond. But the essence of Bond is his role as a secret agent and the stereotype associated with him - dashing, brave, inventive, a lover and a fighter, and asking for a martini, dry, shaken not stirred. Bond is a stereotype character and any actor can play him.
Captain Jack Sparrow is a character that is a bit stereotypical, the drunk pirate, but his personality is so lively and rich in detail that it is hard to see any one but Johnny Depp playing him. Yet that very richness of detail makes it possible for another actor to assume the role. Will they be as good at it as Depp is? Probably not just because he is a very talented actor and makes each role uniquely his in some way. Imitators can't seem to capture that easy flowing wit and movements that are so much a part of the character of Jack Sparrow. Johnny Depp was able to change his appearance to match the description of Jack so there's no discrepancy between the written character and the one portrayed by Depp. In this case the written character and the actor are perfectly matched and no other actor would be able to do as well in the role.
In the Harry Potter series, the role of Dumbledore was played by two actors because Richard Harris unfortunately died. Richard looked and sounded like Dumbledore as he was written. He was replaced by Michael Gambon who wasn't as tall and had gray hair and a shorter beard. Physically, Micheal did not match the character of Dumbledore and he received criticism because he didn't match the character. As an actor, he did an excellent job showing us Dumbledore's personality and spirit. Yet, because his physical appearance was so well defined and such an integral part of his character, he wasn't a good match for it. Richard Harris was and is considered the essential Dumbledore by fans. This is a character who can not be portrayed by any actor who can not match the physical description.
There was a series of TV movies done on the Richard Sharpe books written by Bernard Cornwall. His two main characters, Richard Sharpe and Patrick Harper, are well written and described in the books. Yet the actors don't match teh description. Sean Bean is taller and has lighter hair than Richard Sharpe while Daragh O'Malley is much shorter than Harper's seven foot height. Yet, having seen the actors in the roles, one can't imagine any other actors filling those roles. In this case the well written characters were taken by talented actors and made to fit them instead.
So what does this show? Judging by these examples (btw this is a bad thing to do, using a small sample base to form opinions), a well written character will be the standard by which any actor filling the role will be judged. Yet a talented actor can take any character and make it their own even if it is well written to begin with. Even if given a bad script and poorly written lines, a talented actor can still make the character he or she is playing stand out. Provided, of course, that the director lets them act and doesn't hold them to precisely what's written.
But then, most good actors learn to spot good scripts from bad ones so they can stay away from those roles once they get themselves established.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Colour Stereotypes
I often wonder when we developed the concept of stereotyping. While we seem to have always had a tendency to categorize people, places, and events, stereotyping has really exploded in the past century or so. All you have to do is look at history to see how things have changed.
Take colours for example. Although we have been trying to move away from stereotypes, certain colours are still thought of as gender specific choices. Pink is still a girl's colour and blue is still a boy's colour. Yet, there are more fashions utilizing blue as a colour of choice in female clothing than pink in male clothing.
Certain colour combinations make sense. I don't and never will like pink on a redhead. To me the colours clash. Yet I've seen some shades of pink that can work well with certain shades of red hair. So I will never tell a redhead not to wear pink. It simply isn't my choice.
There are few colours I don't like, mostly sickly looking colours or neons. I'm not a big fan of pink but I like little touches of it. My favourites tend to blues, greens, copper and golds. So my house decor tends more to those shades than any others. But if you look around, you'll find almost every colour represented someplace.
Colour preferences are very personal but I've known people who won't wear certain colours because they aren't "girl colours" or "boy colours". Kind of silly, in my opinion, but it's something they take seriously. So I try to remember that.
But, still, I wonder how the current stereotypes got set in place. Pink used to be a popular colour worn by men before it became known as a "dandy's choice" and eventually became acceptable for women only. Blue has always been popular for both sexes yet somehow it became a boy's colour.
I can understand certain shades becoming associated with the two genders as well as they are extensions of the colour chart from the base colour. Yet red has been considered a boy's colour more than a girl's despite how close to pink it is. Which simply shows once again that logic does not apply to the actions of humans.
Personally, I like the fact that we're moving away from at least one stereotype in life. Although, it still is a bit of a surprise to see men wearing pink it is also nice to see it happening more often. Especially since some of the shades being produced are so gorgeous. It almost makes me willing to wear pink shades. Almost.
Take colours for example. Although we have been trying to move away from stereotypes, certain colours are still thought of as gender specific choices. Pink is still a girl's colour and blue is still a boy's colour. Yet, there are more fashions utilizing blue as a colour of choice in female clothing than pink in male clothing.
Certain colour combinations make sense. I don't and never will like pink on a redhead. To me the colours clash. Yet I've seen some shades of pink that can work well with certain shades of red hair. So I will never tell a redhead not to wear pink. It simply isn't my choice.
There are few colours I don't like, mostly sickly looking colours or neons. I'm not a big fan of pink but I like little touches of it. My favourites tend to blues, greens, copper and golds. So my house decor tends more to those shades than any others. But if you look around, you'll find almost every colour represented someplace.
Colour preferences are very personal but I've known people who won't wear certain colours because they aren't "girl colours" or "boy colours". Kind of silly, in my opinion, but it's something they take seriously. So I try to remember that.
But, still, I wonder how the current stereotypes got set in place. Pink used to be a popular colour worn by men before it became known as a "dandy's choice" and eventually became acceptable for women only. Blue has always been popular for both sexes yet somehow it became a boy's colour.
I can understand certain shades becoming associated with the two genders as well as they are extensions of the colour chart from the base colour. Yet red has been considered a boy's colour more than a girl's despite how close to pink it is. Which simply shows once again that logic does not apply to the actions of humans.
Personally, I like the fact that we're moving away from at least one stereotype in life. Although, it still is a bit of a surprise to see men wearing pink it is also nice to see it happening more often. Especially since some of the shades being produced are so gorgeous. It almost makes me willing to wear pink shades. Almost.
Saturday, May 24, 2014
Perspective
One of my favourite quotes is "Perspective is everything." Because it truly is.
We have to be aware of the fact that we see everything, and I do mean everything, through our values, our opinions, our expectations, and especially our experiences. One factor that few people consider is how our culture and language affect our values and our perceptions of what is important.
A person from a Third World country views the standard of life very differently from a First World country and for a good reason. To a person from a country where living on a few hundred dollars or less a month is considered to be living well the amount of money a person in the First World country is phenomenally wealthy. Whereas the person from the First World country is amazed at the absolute poverty the people in the Third World countries live in.
I heard of a family that saved for five years, yes years, to buy a bicycle. A bicycle. One that cost the equivalent of fifty dollars. To anyone in the First World countries a bicycle that costs a hundred dollars can be saved for in a couple of weeks to a few months maximum (thinking allowances saving here for this time period). To us that bicycle is a luxury item. To that family, it allowed the father to take three times the amount of goods to market in one-fifth the time so he was able to increase the standard of living for his family.
There is literally a world of difference in the thinking of people in the First World countries from people in even the Second World countries let alone the Third World countries. We can afford to concern ourselves with issues of ethics and religion and human rights. Even the poorest person makes more money and, in countries with universal health care, have access to better health care than the upper middle class of the Third World countries. Their rich class is comparable to our rich class unfortunately. At least on the lower and middle levels.
So it's no surprise that conditions that we wouldn't stand for in the First World countries are accepted as part of the working conditions in Third World countries. But what we don't look at is the fact that people survive on less money in those countries better than our citizens survive in our countries. Yes, the quality is lower but the people actually living below the poverty lines are fewer in those countries. That's using a poverty line that takes into effect the health of the family unit as well as it's income. The poverty line for a First World country is a higher financial figure than for the Third World country.
Which goes to show just how messed up the economics of our planet are. Well, along with several other factors. But, try to imagine it, a family can afford to buy enough food to feed them for a year in the Third World country for less money than a family in the First World country spends in a month.
Perspective, people. Perspective.
We have to be aware of the fact that we see everything, and I do mean everything, through our values, our opinions, our expectations, and especially our experiences. One factor that few people consider is how our culture and language affect our values and our perceptions of what is important.
A person from a Third World country views the standard of life very differently from a First World country and for a good reason. To a person from a country where living on a few hundred dollars or less a month is considered to be living well the amount of money a person in the First World country is phenomenally wealthy. Whereas the person from the First World country is amazed at the absolute poverty the people in the Third World countries live in.
I heard of a family that saved for five years, yes years, to buy a bicycle. A bicycle. One that cost the equivalent of fifty dollars. To anyone in the First World countries a bicycle that costs a hundred dollars can be saved for in a couple of weeks to a few months maximum (thinking allowances saving here for this time period). To us that bicycle is a luxury item. To that family, it allowed the father to take three times the amount of goods to market in one-fifth the time so he was able to increase the standard of living for his family.
There is literally a world of difference in the thinking of people in the First World countries from people in even the Second World countries let alone the Third World countries. We can afford to concern ourselves with issues of ethics and religion and human rights. Even the poorest person makes more money and, in countries with universal health care, have access to better health care than the upper middle class of the Third World countries. Their rich class is comparable to our rich class unfortunately. At least on the lower and middle levels.
So it's no surprise that conditions that we wouldn't stand for in the First World countries are accepted as part of the working conditions in Third World countries. But what we don't look at is the fact that people survive on less money in those countries better than our citizens survive in our countries. Yes, the quality is lower but the people actually living below the poverty lines are fewer in those countries. That's using a poverty line that takes into effect the health of the family unit as well as it's income. The poverty line for a First World country is a higher financial figure than for the Third World country.
Which goes to show just how messed up the economics of our planet are. Well, along with several other factors. But, try to imagine it, a family can afford to buy enough food to feed them for a year in the Third World country for less money than a family in the First World country spends in a month.
Perspective, people. Perspective.
Friday, May 16, 2014
Fads
There just seems to be something in our natures that makes us want to jump on the bandwagon when something starts to be popular. Luckily, most fads are short-lived but the more technological we become, the wider spread and longer lasting fads are becoming.
Yes, the Internet is at fault. *humourous sarcasm*
Seriously, though, the Internet is responsible for the spread of fads at the world-breaking speeds they now travel. Before it could take months or even years for a fad to travel around the world. Now, it's instantaneous. Or as close as we can get.
Some fads are obvious and people get involved just to be a part of something funny and light-hearted. Other fads take on a life of their own for no reason anyone can explain. They will be wildly popular and then when their fame breaks, everyone will deny being part of the fad, despite evidence to the contrary. Which doesn't make sense unless you consider how much some people need to be considered "cool", "hip", or whatever term currently means part of the popular group. And no, I don't know the current slang. :P
I can understand not wanting to be reminded of a fad that has lost it's appeal. What I don't understand is the backlash that usually goes against the fad when it falls. While something or someone is popular, I hear how much people "love" it/them. When the fad is falling out of favor, I hear how people "hate" it/them. If I liked a fad enough to be part of it, I'll admit I was. I had liked it after all and I see nothing wrong in liking something that is not popular.
But I appear to be a minority.
Of course, I also seem to be in the minority for liking fads. There are very few that I have liked and usually have involved songs. I'm not usually attracted to singers, although I appreciate a good looking man and a deep voice will make me melt. But I've never been prone to crushes on people. I don't know enough about them to really have any feelings for them. I look at the fact that their job is to entertain me and judge them on that. I will be sad when a celebrity I liked dies because that means I can no longer see them act or hear any new music from them. I'm also sorry that their families are not grieving for their loss but it's not my personal loss.
Mostly what I wonder at is why a fad becomes popular. Sometimes it's easy to figure out. A song or dance will be fun and upbeat and make people feel good to sing along or dance. But fads like copying someone's hair style or fashion sense don't make sense to me. My colouration won't let me wear the same clothes or colours as somebody else. I might not really like the hairstyle or it might be completely wrong for my face and hair. Yet, I see people copying the look no matter how good or bad it is on them.
Then again, they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I've never been good at giving or receiving flattery.
Then there are the fads like the current one - selfies. I remember growing up and people being on vacation and getting someone to take their picture so they have a solid memento of their trip. They were called vacation pictures. Or family photos. Even if you ended up trying to hold the camera and catch yourself in the picture it was still considered to be normal pictures. Now they are called selfies and are hugely popular, especially if you can get a group together for it.
Um, wouldn't having a group in it make it a group picture and not a selfie? *shakes head* Silly me, of course it's a selfie of whoever took the picture. Unless, the person taking the picture isn't in the picture or is holding the phone for the person who owns it, right? No? Well, then, I guess I really don't understand selfies.
What I do know is, you won't catch me doing it. Aside from the fact that I don't like having my picture taken, if I want a picture of me then I'll be getting someone else to take it.
I guess I just fail at following fads. I think a good percentage of the reason is that I don't just follow mindlessly. I'm also not really a leader so I kind of stand to the side and make my own decisions. At least I can get a good chuckle from most fads. That's just my sense of humour again.
Yes, the Internet is at fault. *humourous sarcasm*
Seriously, though, the Internet is responsible for the spread of fads at the world-breaking speeds they now travel. Before it could take months or even years for a fad to travel around the world. Now, it's instantaneous. Or as close as we can get.
Some fads are obvious and people get involved just to be a part of something funny and light-hearted. Other fads take on a life of their own for no reason anyone can explain. They will be wildly popular and then when their fame breaks, everyone will deny being part of the fad, despite evidence to the contrary. Which doesn't make sense unless you consider how much some people need to be considered "cool", "hip", or whatever term currently means part of the popular group. And no, I don't know the current slang. :P
I can understand not wanting to be reminded of a fad that has lost it's appeal. What I don't understand is the backlash that usually goes against the fad when it falls. While something or someone is popular, I hear how much people "love" it/them. When the fad is falling out of favor, I hear how people "hate" it/them. If I liked a fad enough to be part of it, I'll admit I was. I had liked it after all and I see nothing wrong in liking something that is not popular.
But I appear to be a minority.
Of course, I also seem to be in the minority for liking fads. There are very few that I have liked and usually have involved songs. I'm not usually attracted to singers, although I appreciate a good looking man and a deep voice will make me melt. But I've never been prone to crushes on people. I don't know enough about them to really have any feelings for them. I look at the fact that their job is to entertain me and judge them on that. I will be sad when a celebrity I liked dies because that means I can no longer see them act or hear any new music from them. I'm also sorry that their families are not grieving for their loss but it's not my personal loss.
Mostly what I wonder at is why a fad becomes popular. Sometimes it's easy to figure out. A song or dance will be fun and upbeat and make people feel good to sing along or dance. But fads like copying someone's hair style or fashion sense don't make sense to me. My colouration won't let me wear the same clothes or colours as somebody else. I might not really like the hairstyle or it might be completely wrong for my face and hair. Yet, I see people copying the look no matter how good or bad it is on them.
Then again, they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I've never been good at giving or receiving flattery.
Then there are the fads like the current one - selfies. I remember growing up and people being on vacation and getting someone to take their picture so they have a solid memento of their trip. They were called vacation pictures. Or family photos. Even if you ended up trying to hold the camera and catch yourself in the picture it was still considered to be normal pictures. Now they are called selfies and are hugely popular, especially if you can get a group together for it.
Um, wouldn't having a group in it make it a group picture and not a selfie? *shakes head* Silly me, of course it's a selfie of whoever took the picture. Unless, the person taking the picture isn't in the picture or is holding the phone for the person who owns it, right? No? Well, then, I guess I really don't understand selfies.
What I do know is, you won't catch me doing it. Aside from the fact that I don't like having my picture taken, if I want a picture of me then I'll be getting someone else to take it.
I guess I just fail at following fads. I think a good percentage of the reason is that I don't just follow mindlessly. I'm also not really a leader so I kind of stand to the side and make my own decisions. At least I can get a good chuckle from most fads. That's just my sense of humour again.
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Imagination
Part of being human is being creative and using your imagination. Watch kids and you'll see that the ones that use their imagination and make up new rules for games and new games as well are the kids who will be having the most fun and sparking the others. Kids who don't use their imagination end up doing the same things over and over and end up bored with life.
Yet, as adults, we rarely encourage kids to use their imaginations. Society tries to crush the creative spark because creative people don't conform. There's been a movement in society over the past decade or so to allow people to be more creative. Parents are becoming concerned over how much time their kids spend on computers. Teachers are concerned over how much information has to be taught and how little interest kids have in learning it. Even businesses are starting to realize that they need innovative people or else their businesses won't grow.
But you can't teach people to be imaginative. It can be encouraged with games and getting kids and adults to free form play time. Arts and crafts can help encourage the use of imagination as well. In fact, encouragement is the biggest factor for people using their imagination. If they are in an environment where they are encouraged to be creative, their imagination will blossom. If they are in an environment where rules are enforced strictly and truth is emphasized in all things (or at least wild imaginings are discouraged) then their imagination is stunted and their creativity is killed.
I started making up stories as soon as I figured out what they were. Mom used to read to us every night until we learned to read. So by the time I was 5 I had been reading and making up stories for over a year. I was still learning to write at that age but I knew my letters and could form simple sentences. By the time I was 9 I had several scribblers filled with poems and stories.
I was lucky, my imagination was encouraged because I had also been taught the difference between imagination and reality. So naturally, I was attracted to a creative person for my mate and we both encouraged our daughter to use her imagination. But we also knew one important fact - imagination actually needs information to feed it.
Any creative person knows that the more you know and experience in life, the more you're able to imagine things that might be possible or are completely improbable. People that aren't very creative or don't want people to be creative, try to restrict information. There are a few reasons for that. One, not realizing that imagination needs information, they think people don't need to know more than what is absolutely necessary to do their job. This is changing as more and more jobs require more information to handle the technology used in those jobs. Second, they don't want people to be individuals because individuals are harder to control. For people who rely on controlling the people under them, ensuring that the only information they get is what is "approved" means they can control how their subjects think, act, and react. Third, people without imagination think that the way they got raised is fine for the next generation and so enforce the same restrictive behaviour.
Teaching children the difference between reality and imagination without destroying their imagination isn't really as hard as some people think. It starts with talking to your kids about everything they read and watch. When your kids sit down to watch cartoons (and later live action shows), talk to them about how it isn't real and why people can't really do the things the cartoons are doing. When they read stories, talk about how a person used their imagination to make up the story to share with others. Explain the difference between fiction and non-fiction. In essence, talk with your kids.
When my daughter was young, her friends used to come over to our place after school until their parents came home. My rule was simple: homework first then play. It took a few days to get into the routine but then they did and they found out that they had more time to play in the late afternoon and evening. Their parents were also pleased because they didn't have to fight to get homework done before bedtime and their kids marks came up. That was because I tried to make doing homework fun as well (it can be done) and encouraged imagination play.Of course, that was also before computers became such an integral part of every home and life.
If asked, a lot of people would say that kids seem to enjoy computer games rather than playing games like the ones we used to. This really isn't true. Kids like playing and if you encourage them to play non-computer games by playing with them, they have as much or more fun. But you have to play with them. For a lot of parents, they don't have the time or energy to play or they also sit at the computer and play games. As a result, we are seeing more and more kids that are socially awkward and inept, withdrawn, and more interested in computers and electronic devices (*cough* cell phones *cough*) than in interacting with other people.
Which is a great disservice to our upcoming generations.
Imagination needs to be encouraged and a healthier balance struck between electronic life and real life. I wish teachers had the time to give students a chance to be creative every day at the start of classes. Simply by assigning a daily project - write or draw or compose a song about a random subject to be presented in class the next day. Nothing long, just something to take up a few minutes of class time at the start of the day to get the kids actively creative and interested in learning. By letting the kids do their own project on a subject chosen by the homeroom teacher, every kid has a chance to use their imagination and try out different ways of being creative.
But teachers don't have the time to do that. Even though it's something they aren't marking, just displaying where kids can look at them, it takes up time that is already overfull with the information needed to be taught. So our kids lose out by not having their imagination encouraged at home or in the school system.
But we can change that. If we're parents or even aunts and uncles, we can encourage the kids we know to be creative and we can also encourage our own creativity. Do it every day. Go ahead, try it.
Ask someone randomly for a subject and then see what you can think of doing up with that subject.
Yet, as adults, we rarely encourage kids to use their imaginations. Society tries to crush the creative spark because creative people don't conform. There's been a movement in society over the past decade or so to allow people to be more creative. Parents are becoming concerned over how much time their kids spend on computers. Teachers are concerned over how much information has to be taught and how little interest kids have in learning it. Even businesses are starting to realize that they need innovative people or else their businesses won't grow.
But you can't teach people to be imaginative. It can be encouraged with games and getting kids and adults to free form play time. Arts and crafts can help encourage the use of imagination as well. In fact, encouragement is the biggest factor for people using their imagination. If they are in an environment where they are encouraged to be creative, their imagination will blossom. If they are in an environment where rules are enforced strictly and truth is emphasized in all things (or at least wild imaginings are discouraged) then their imagination is stunted and their creativity is killed.
I started making up stories as soon as I figured out what they were. Mom used to read to us every night until we learned to read. So by the time I was 5 I had been reading and making up stories for over a year. I was still learning to write at that age but I knew my letters and could form simple sentences. By the time I was 9 I had several scribblers filled with poems and stories.
I was lucky, my imagination was encouraged because I had also been taught the difference between imagination and reality. So naturally, I was attracted to a creative person for my mate and we both encouraged our daughter to use her imagination. But we also knew one important fact - imagination actually needs information to feed it.
Any creative person knows that the more you know and experience in life, the more you're able to imagine things that might be possible or are completely improbable. People that aren't very creative or don't want people to be creative, try to restrict information. There are a few reasons for that. One, not realizing that imagination needs information, they think people don't need to know more than what is absolutely necessary to do their job. This is changing as more and more jobs require more information to handle the technology used in those jobs. Second, they don't want people to be individuals because individuals are harder to control. For people who rely on controlling the people under them, ensuring that the only information they get is what is "approved" means they can control how their subjects think, act, and react. Third, people without imagination think that the way they got raised is fine for the next generation and so enforce the same restrictive behaviour.
Teaching children the difference between reality and imagination without destroying their imagination isn't really as hard as some people think. It starts with talking to your kids about everything they read and watch. When your kids sit down to watch cartoons (and later live action shows), talk to them about how it isn't real and why people can't really do the things the cartoons are doing. When they read stories, talk about how a person used their imagination to make up the story to share with others. Explain the difference between fiction and non-fiction. In essence, talk with your kids.
When my daughter was young, her friends used to come over to our place after school until their parents came home. My rule was simple: homework first then play. It took a few days to get into the routine but then they did and they found out that they had more time to play in the late afternoon and evening. Their parents were also pleased because they didn't have to fight to get homework done before bedtime and their kids marks came up. That was because I tried to make doing homework fun as well (it can be done) and encouraged imagination play.Of course, that was also before computers became such an integral part of every home and life.
If asked, a lot of people would say that kids seem to enjoy computer games rather than playing games like the ones we used to. This really isn't true. Kids like playing and if you encourage them to play non-computer games by playing with them, they have as much or more fun. But you have to play with them. For a lot of parents, they don't have the time or energy to play or they also sit at the computer and play games. As a result, we are seeing more and more kids that are socially awkward and inept, withdrawn, and more interested in computers and electronic devices (*cough* cell phones *cough*) than in interacting with other people.
Which is a great disservice to our upcoming generations.
Imagination needs to be encouraged and a healthier balance struck between electronic life and real life. I wish teachers had the time to give students a chance to be creative every day at the start of classes. Simply by assigning a daily project - write or draw or compose a song about a random subject to be presented in class the next day. Nothing long, just something to take up a few minutes of class time at the start of the day to get the kids actively creative and interested in learning. By letting the kids do their own project on a subject chosen by the homeroom teacher, every kid has a chance to use their imagination and try out different ways of being creative.
But teachers don't have the time to do that. Even though it's something they aren't marking, just displaying where kids can look at them, it takes up time that is already overfull with the information needed to be taught. So our kids lose out by not having their imagination encouraged at home or in the school system.
But we can change that. If we're parents or even aunts and uncles, we can encourage the kids we know to be creative and we can also encourage our own creativity. Do it every day. Go ahead, try it.
Ask someone randomly for a subject and then see what you can think of doing up with that subject.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Now Appearing...
It's always fun to see a sign and deliberately take it as posted. For instance we passed a store advertising the following
INFANT
TERRY SLEEPER
2
Well, obviously any parent knows they are selling the terrycloth sleepers for infants at $2 each.
However..
Taking the sign as posted it can be taken several ways.
First, as a horror movie - It creeps, it crawls, it uses it's cuteness to disarm you. It's the Infant Terry Sleeper...2
Second, as a birth announcement - of an infant called Terry Sleeper the Second.
Third, as an announcement - that there are two infants called Terry Sleeper.
Fourth, a sales ad - Having trouble getting your infant Terry to sleep? Worry no more with these patented Terry Sleepers, guaranteed to get your little ones to sleep in no time. Now for only $2. Disclaimer, will not work on infants not named Terry.
Did I mention I have a weird sense of humour? Although the first one was my husband's contribution. :)
Signs are really fun when they use abbreviations. Because whoever puts them together just doesn't bother reading them. Especially when using Assorted because they always use just the first three letters. That's right, anything assorted becomes an ass.
It gets really fun when the same abbreviation can mean more than one word. Most of us understand what is meant and automatically interpret correctly. But now, imagine English is not your first language and you're trying to interpret abbreviations. It's no wonder people who learn English as a second language have trouble with it.
This is one I saw the other day
Ret. Most common meanings are retired, returned, and retro(active), But I've also seen it used for retail and retainer. In this case it was for a retainer since it was listing a service and ended Ret. Req. meaning retainer required.
Req is another confusing one since it can mean required or requested. It helps that in either case it means something is needed and can usually be figured out from the rest of the sign or advertisement.
But I think the sign I'll remember for a while was this one:
Ass Breath Mints 1.99
I just walked away trying not to giggle.
INFANT
TERRY SLEEPER
2
Well, obviously any parent knows they are selling the terrycloth sleepers for infants at $2 each.
However..
Taking the sign as posted it can be taken several ways.
First, as a horror movie - It creeps, it crawls, it uses it's cuteness to disarm you. It's the Infant Terry Sleeper...2
Second, as a birth announcement - of an infant called Terry Sleeper the Second.
Third, as an announcement - that there are two infants called Terry Sleeper.
Fourth, a sales ad - Having trouble getting your infant Terry to sleep? Worry no more with these patented Terry Sleepers, guaranteed to get your little ones to sleep in no time. Now for only $2. Disclaimer, will not work on infants not named Terry.
Did I mention I have a weird sense of humour? Although the first one was my husband's contribution. :)
Signs are really fun when they use abbreviations. Because whoever puts them together just doesn't bother reading them. Especially when using Assorted because they always use just the first three letters. That's right, anything assorted becomes an ass.
It gets really fun when the same abbreviation can mean more than one word. Most of us understand what is meant and automatically interpret correctly. But now, imagine English is not your first language and you're trying to interpret abbreviations. It's no wonder people who learn English as a second language have trouble with it.
This is one I saw the other day
Ret. Most common meanings are retired, returned, and retro(active), But I've also seen it used for retail and retainer. In this case it was for a retainer since it was listing a service and ended Ret. Req. meaning retainer required.
Req is another confusing one since it can mean required or requested. It helps that in either case it means something is needed and can usually be figured out from the rest of the sign or advertisement.
But I think the sign I'll remember for a while was this one:
Ass Breath Mints 1.99
I just walked away trying not to giggle.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Blog Hopping
So, like many people, I have a group of blogs I check on a regular basis. Some are checked daily and some are checked once a week. Because by now I know how often they tend to get updated.
But this can take a lot of time. Luckily, I have the time to spare since I'm retired. Although I keep thinking about starting a home-based business. Some days though I have other commitments so I don't have time to do a lot of blog reading.
I've also dropped blogs and picked up new ones over the years. Sometimes it's because the blogger has stopped updating regularly, sometimes it's because I've lost interest, and sometimes it's because the subject matter has become something I don't agree with or find disturbing. Granted, that's actually been a rare case.
Usually, I drop a blog because the blogger has stopped updating all together or else so sporadically that it's months between posts. One person actually switched to FaceBook so I was able to add her there and be advised when she did update her blog.
Some people use feeds to keep track of the blogs they follow but I've never bothered. I get enough email as it is not to include feeds from blogs. I tend to prefer having to actually check blogs as I can figure out which ones I like by how often I'm willing to check them out. Sometimes a new blog starts interestingly but then something turns me off it. It could be the writing style, it could be the posts themselves.
Writing style is definitely a huge factor in how well I like a blog. The most interesting subject in the world can be butchered by poor writing. That's one of the reasons I try to keep my blog's style light and breezy. It doesn't always work because there are some subjects I take very seriously and find difficult to write about in anything less than a serious manner.
Then there are the days when That Mood strikes. When I can't be serious and have to be smart-alecky, sarcastic, and engage in all manners of puns. Luckily or unluckily, it's been a while since That Mood has struck so I can keep to my usual weird, twisted sense of humour. I'm not sure if it's lucky or not when That Mood strikes because while I enjoy it, I'm not sure how funny other people find it.
One thing I do find is that it's hard to find a good humourous blog. Writing humour is vary hard and it has the potential to fall flat so easily. Comics make a good substitution and I have a long list of comics I check just as regularly as the blogs. In fact that's how I start, by checking comics first to get in a good mood if I'm not already there. Which, of course, adds time to my reading.
But then again, isn't that why people blog?
But this can take a lot of time. Luckily, I have the time to spare since I'm retired. Although I keep thinking about starting a home-based business. Some days though I have other commitments so I don't have time to do a lot of blog reading.
I've also dropped blogs and picked up new ones over the years. Sometimes it's because the blogger has stopped updating regularly, sometimes it's because I've lost interest, and sometimes it's because the subject matter has become something I don't agree with or find disturbing. Granted, that's actually been a rare case.
Usually, I drop a blog because the blogger has stopped updating all together or else so sporadically that it's months between posts. One person actually switched to FaceBook so I was able to add her there and be advised when she did update her blog.
Some people use feeds to keep track of the blogs they follow but I've never bothered. I get enough email as it is not to include feeds from blogs. I tend to prefer having to actually check blogs as I can figure out which ones I like by how often I'm willing to check them out. Sometimes a new blog starts interestingly but then something turns me off it. It could be the writing style, it could be the posts themselves.
Writing style is definitely a huge factor in how well I like a blog. The most interesting subject in the world can be butchered by poor writing. That's one of the reasons I try to keep my blog's style light and breezy. It doesn't always work because there are some subjects I take very seriously and find difficult to write about in anything less than a serious manner.
Then there are the days when That Mood strikes. When I can't be serious and have to be smart-alecky, sarcastic, and engage in all manners of puns. Luckily or unluckily, it's been a while since That Mood has struck so I can keep to my usual weird, twisted sense of humour. I'm not sure if it's lucky or not when That Mood strikes because while I enjoy it, I'm not sure how funny other people find it.
One thing I do find is that it's hard to find a good humourous blog. Writing humour is vary hard and it has the potential to fall flat so easily. Comics make a good substitution and I have a long list of comics I check just as regularly as the blogs. In fact that's how I start, by checking comics first to get in a good mood if I'm not already there. Which, of course, adds time to my reading.
But then again, isn't that why people blog?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)