The Celluloid Closet

Thanks to the wonder that is Tumblr, my attention was recently brought to the amazing film The Celluloid Closet. A documentary based off the book by Vito Russo, it analyzes the portrayal of gay characters throughout the evolution of film. (And it is pretty much just gay characters, not LGBT - there's maybe one ambiguously bisexual character, and no trans* people.)

I thought it sounded interesting, and I was not  disappointed. A thoughtful look at many different kinds of films that all have their own problems or advantages. It's incredibly disheartening for the first half or so, of course - but don't worry, there's always a happy ending.

What I like about this documentary is the truthful commentary that comes along with presenting certain clips. I found myself agreeing with most of the things that were being said - for example, that gay audiences are so used to looking for tiny crumbs in media that we'll watch a terrible movie just for the possibility that a character might be gay.

This also put quite a few movies on my to-watch list. I can't believe I'd never heard of some of these. Overall, it's an incredible film, and I'm very glad I saw it. Why don't you take a look too?

Good News, Except Not

The saga of my ever-deteriorating physical health continues! After suffering from a severe throat-killing  chronic cough for a whole year-and-a-half, I finally had an appointment with an ENT. The "normal" doctor's diagnosis of an acid-reflux disease seems to have been off, since the medication I took for a month made practically no difference.

The good news? I'm not suffering from some life-threatening condition that manifests itself as a cough. The doctor didn't stick that infernal scope down my vocal cords and freak out about what she saw there. It appears that there's really nothing wrong with me.

The bad news? Nothing wrong...EXCEPT THE COUGH. It almost would have been better if she had found something, because then there would be a definitive reason, and it could be treated. As it is now, the only explanation she can offer is that I just started coughing for some reason, and since then my body has self-perpetuated the irritation of my throat.

That or I have some form of asthma.

Well, I'll be taking some cough-suppressing pills to see if that will work. (I absolutely refuse to drink liquid medicine. I don't care  if I'm 15 and should be "over this", I positively will not drink anything that tastes that icky.) If all else fails we'll probably try an inhaler to test the asthma theory.

The human body: Finding unique ways to screw you over since the beginning of time!

The best place to find scary story books "for kids"?

I'm lucky enough to be within walking range of at least two bookstores and a library, and in driving range of many more, from small independently-owned stores to chains like Barnes & Noble and (formerly) Borders. (Rest in peace, my beloved Borders.) Being an avid reader (some may say "obsessive", and I will not disagree with them), I've spent plenty of time determining the best places for specific genres. Each store and library has its own strengths and resources when it comes to what they stock.

Personally, I'm always on the look for dark and Gothy books aimed at younger audiences. A lot of parents have trouble wrapping their heads around the idea that not all horror books are gorefests and wildly inappropriate for anyone under 13. Goosebumps aside, that is. Goosebumps are amazing, but when I was spending hours in my school library, I certainly wanted more than that one series that could satisfy my darker reading side. And in fact, I've discovered that the best place I've seen to buy scary story collections aimed at young readers is: Goodwill.

Seriously. I live in range of about three Goodwills, and have been to several more. Every one I've been to has four or five bookcases of haphazardly organized used books, which I always raid with enthusiasm (even though my parents brought me there to buy clothes...ooops). And every single time I've looked, I've found "children's" scary stories books. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I mean a collection of short stories made to be a little creepy but nothing overly scary - the typical book has about 8-15 stories, none more than eight or so pages. The most famous one is probably Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark, though don't worry, no other collection/series has those mentally scarring illustrations.

(Oh yeah, have I mentioned that while I've never been scared of a movie or book, but five months ago when I saw the picture for The Dream, I flipped out and refused to touch those books because I was so paranoid there would be more terrifying pictures? Seriously, that Dream illustration, as well as the one from The Thing, made sleeping difficult for WEEKS.)

Anyway. So, if an entertaining short story collection for people under 13 is what you're after, don't waste your time at a normal bookstore. Just browse through the shelves at the nearest Goodwill.

(I put "for kids" in quotations, because I will still be reading these books when I'm 50. The stories are good, darn it!)

(Also, if you have a bunch of old books that you never read anymore, please consider donating them to Goodwill! Just like any other toy or piece of clothing - you may not want or need it, but I can guarantee you a person somewhere would LOVE to have a nice book to read.)

Review Of The 2009 Roméo Et Juliette Cast CD - Part 3

I know it's taken me forever  to finish this up, but I finally got around to it. Here's the final part of the CD itself, though later I may talk about the bonus DVD (which I finally realized I could play in my computer regardless of the region...)

Anyway, let's finish up Act 2.

11.Avoir Une Fille - This is definitely my favorite arrangement of this song. A nice balance of the delicate piano, strong guitar, and Arié Itah's rough voice. I have to admit that this was another song it took me a while to warm up to. Here, you can really feel all the emotions that a father is going through. Overall, excellent!

12.On Prie - Aaaand another new song. I was a little suspicious of this at first - after all, the second act is already bogged down by too many ballads, and with this addition, we have eight slow songs in a row.  But if you ignore the slow pacing it adds to, this is a nice song. Not an amazing song, but a nice one. Daniel sounds...odd, I don't know how to put it. He's not strained, but his voice doesn't always sound comfortable with what he's singing. Also, at several points it's nearly impossible to hear Joy's upper harmonies. Overall, a good song, but the show could do without it.

13.Le Poison - Confession: I never liked this song. And it's not one of the ones I've warmed up to - I still don't like it. But as far as I can appreciate it, the instruments are lovely, and Joy sounds delicate and fragile in the best way possible. She sounds like a beautiful glass vase that's about to shatter - very emotional. There's also a lovely subdued choir in the background. Overall, it's an amazing version of a song I just can't come around to loving.

14.Sans Elle - The only reason I've heard the melody of this song as much as I have is that I kept playing the German version on the piano. But, unfortunately, it's another song which I think could be poked out of the show and I wouldn't mind at all. Daniel and Joy sound great, and I love the guitar in the background, but overall I'm just not fond of the song itself or this particular arrangement.

15.Vérone 2 - When you first hear this, it might be difficult to even realize that this is a reprise of Vérone. It is, and it's GREAT. I think I've mentioned before that Stéphane Metro is my favorite Escalus, and this song just cements that opinion. So much emotion - and he goes in seconds from shrieking in anger to barely whispering in sadness. This song shows both the range of emotion in his vocal acting as well as his vocal range itself. Overall, bloody fantastic!

16.Comment Lui Dire - And we finally get a solo from my favorite Benvolio! This is another wonderful arrangement with another wonderful singer. There's the faintest hint of plucked strings in the background along with the guitar and synths, and along with Cyril Niccolai's soaring voice, it's a beautiful effect. Overall, just amazing.

17.Mort De Roméo - Another confession: This might as well be the first time I'm hearing this song, for all the times I've listened to it. I think I heard it once before. Because I'm used to the Hungarian ending, which has a reprise of J'ai Peur replace this song. (I like that way better.) I mean, this is a good song - I like the woodwinds, and Daniel sounds lovely as always - but it's just so...monochrome musically. Overally, nice singer but meh.

18.Mort De Juliette - I have  listened to this song often, though, and I'm torn on this arrangement. On the one hand, the instruments are beyond fantastic. Great guitars, nice strings. On the other hand, Joy's voice sounds incredibly weak. I want to hear a stronger angst. There should be a little anger. Instead, all I get is a delicate little voice singing without all too much emotion. Overall, it would've worked better as an instrumental.

19.J'sais Plus - Another song which I must confess to skipping typically when I'm listening/watching. But I can find nothing to complain about here, strong voices and strong instruments, with a nice lamenting choir. Overall, while I might not be too fond of the song itself, a great arrangement.

20.Coupable - Yay, we get to hear more from Lady Montague! I remember this song as being arranged differently in just about every single version, and this is one of my favorites. A neat little string beat makes a nice background to the legato voices of the Ladies and the choir. I did really love the German version where they worked a reprise of Einmal in, and I wished they had done that here, but it's so lovely that I can't really complain.

21.Avoir 20 Ans - Aaaaand this song. This song was actually half of the reason I wanted this CD in the first place - after only hearing some very low-quality live recordings of the song, I was insanely curious as to how the recorded version sounded. And it did not disappoint me at all! I completely adore this song, everything about it. It's nearly as catchy as Les Rois Du Monde, and wormed its way into my head for days afterwards. It's just a fun, feel-good song with great singers. Overall, I beyond love it.

And thus ends the show! As a whole, any fan of the musical should have this recording. With an amazing cast, powerful orchestra, and some new songs, it's a must-have, and probably one of the best recordings out there. The only weak point of it is the occasional weak arrangement or unemotional singer, but those are easily overlooked in what is simply a wonderful CD.

Review: School Of Fear: Class Is NOT Dismissed, by Gitty Daneshvari

Because I loved the original School Of Fear so very much, I was eager to get my hands on the sequel. I was delighted to find a copy in the children's section of my local bookstore. (My funds, however, weren't so happy, given that it was hardback and I already had four other books in my arms.)

I finished it much quicker than I expected, but it took me a long time to write a review, because I was stuck trying to convince myself that I enjoyed it more than I really did. Before I explain my feelings on the book, I suppose I should give a summary.

It's everyone's second summer at the School Of Fear, and Madeleine, Garrison, Lulu, and Theo are excited to be back. Well...sort of, anyway. But problems have been plaguing the residents of Summerstone - numerous break-ins and thefts have left everyone paranoid. On top of that, a new student joins the four. Hyacinth (or Hyhy, as she prefers) is an awkward ferret-loving girl with a crippling fear of being alone.

Frankly, I was disappointed by this book. Badly disappointed.

It had it's good points. Abernathy's backstory was excellent, and the reveal of Mrs.Wellington's motives for opening the school added an important depth to her character that was desperately needed.

However, it seemed like Daneshvari got tired of the story halfway through. There's no satisfying climax. The reveal of the "villains" is weak and somewhat forced. The fact that the author kept pushing the characters out of Summerstone whenever possible didn't help - as a result there's none of the wacky fear-solving techniques that were a treasure of the first book.

Basically, the book seemed like one long trailer - just a way to get to the third book.

Speaking of the next book, I know that you need to have a mild sequel hook, but the ending here was simply pathetic. Practically nothing got resolved. I felt cheated.

So yes, I was incredibly sad that such a fantastic book had such a weak follow-up. I'd say that if you want to get the best School Of Fear experience so far, just read the first book, maybe find some spoilers for this one, then go to the third.*

*Which I will be reading once I go through the crapload of books that are piling up on my bed because my bookcase in overflowing. Never let me loose on used book sales, people.

Student Calls Out Rick Santorum's Bible Bullshit

I SO want to be this girl when I get to college.

There are a couple of things to notice in this video:

1.More of the "Religion = Always right but science = just silly" argument that Christian bigots just love to make. Gawker said it best: "Yea, a bunch of centuries-old bullshit from withered old men in robes and a magic book...is unassailable fact about the evils of homosexuality, but scientific findings about it are just so much silliness." I made the title about this line of argument because it pops up so frequently, that it just needs to be KILLED WITH FIRE whenever possible.

2.Notice that Santorum does exactly what a lot of adults do - it's one of the things that annoys me the most about them: He consistently interrupts the younger woman, but then, when she tries to speak again, starts whining about being interrupted. Then he gets even more hypocritical by saying "I've given you a chance, now give me mine." (Uh, no dude. You didn't. You interrupted her, basically saying "She's using actual reason to discredit my see-through arguments! This must be stopped at once!" Not to mention his completely patronizing use of "Time out!"

But what I am really wondering is...why the fuck was this man invited to speak at a college? How is a heterosexist religious fanatic EVER a choice for appropriate guests? If my school suddenly brought in a hate speech politician to present to us the reasons he is such a bigot, I would have protested the hell out of it. I'm imagining LGBTQ students in this class, closeted, and having the reasons for that being all wrapped up in this jackass that their school brought in. 


Someone PLEASE tell me that I'm missing some context here, and this isn't a case of a school bringing in a hateful person to be hateful...please.

Study Finally Tells Adults The Damage Schools Have Been Doing To Creativity

(First things first, sorry for the long title. I try to be concise, I really do. Whether I succeed in that respect is another, less likely, matter entirely.)

Well, this new study has been getting some attention in the blogging field. Findings suggest that modern society has been reducing children's creativity, with schools as the primary suspect.

My response when I read that?

What, now  you realize that?


How can people be surprised by this?

With preschools and earlier grades cutting recess and free time, how can this come as a surprise?

With music and art programs being cut and removed entirely from schools, how can this come as a surprise?

With focus being directed more and more only at math and science - where there is no room for actual thought and individuality, there is only one correct answer - how can this come as a surprise?

With school boards deeming drama and theatre classes "unnecessary", how can this come as a surprise?

With growing class sizes and crowded schools, where no attention can be paid to a child as an individual, and they are seen simply as a monolith to be lectured, and punished for failing, not helped, how can this come as a surprise?

And, most of all, with the focus of everything being on testing - making your school the top in standardized tests, and judging a students intelligence by how well they do on tests - how the bloody hell can this surprise people?!


Students, in the past decade, have been feeling the effects of these awful changes every single day. The testing approach, especially, is one of the worst culprits for limiting our thinking. For example, in Algebra class at the school I attended last year, every single day, the routine was the same: We would be ushered into our seats and do practice on whatever subject we learned yesterday. As soon as all the answers for that were correct, we would immediately switch to a completely new subject and furiously take notes on that. It was just a lecture, there was no proper interaction with the students. How could there be, when schools are cramming people into classes of 40?

If you had a question, there was no time for it to be properly addressed. Because that would take too long - the teacher had to cram in one new concept every day of the week, to lead up to the test on Friday. The lecture would take up the whole class - and as the bell rung, we were assigned about two hours worth of homework from our textbook.

This is a good model of what a high school class in a public school looks like today, in America. My contact with other public high school students across the states gives me pretty much the same results - there's no room to be creative when it's all about grades.

So, school leaders cry, what the heck are we supposed to do?

It's not that complicated. Perhaps it may be difficult in your eyes, but it is really quite simple. Look, I can even give a few helpful suggestions:

*Treat art, music, drama, and other creative classes like they should be - just as important as math, science, and other "important" classes. There are so many students, me being one of them, who don't have natural talents for things like math and science, but have an aptitude - and more importantly, a passion  - for creative subjects. What do you think you're doing when you cut out all opportunities for us to improve on our skills? You're lowering our chances of getting a career in out desired field. Adults complain about how "kids these days" are lazy, with no motivation to do anything. But here's the thing - we are motivated. But not to the subjects you want us to be. Having skills in a particular area =/= laziness.

*Stop treating all students like they're the same. We are not a monolith. Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses. Schools, right now, are focused on punishing a student if they get a bad grade, instead of actually helping them when they clearly don't understand something. More individualized attention would not only be better for students' mental health, but guess what - those stupid test scores you care so much about? It would raise those up. I know, shocking, right?

*Cut it out with the "Shut up and listen to the teacher, now here's your homework" model of teaching classes. It is helping absolutely no one.


*Reduce class sizes. This is attached to the individualization thing - how on earth do you expect us to learn when we're invisible in a sea of other people? Where we know we're worth nothing in the long run?

And those are only a few.

And another thing about this study: Creativity isn't the only thing that the modern public school system has been crushing. Let me go back to that "motivation" point for a minute. I certainly had no desire to go out and do things when I got home from a schoolday. What, with hours of homework and a day that exhausted me, mentally and physically? Hell no. And when schools cut the only classes we like or are talented at - the ones we have motivation to do - what does that tell us? It tells us that motivation doesn't matter in the long run.

So how in the hell do schools expect to help a generation of young people go out and live productive lives, when all they teach us is that test scores are the only things that matter, our individual talents mean nothing, and that we're worthless in the long run?

Secret: Vegetarianism Really Isn't A Big Deal. At All.

No, seriously, it isn't.

Why such a simple statement from me? Well, it seems every time I talk to someone about being vegetarian, if they're not being assholes about it, then I usually get a response similar to "I would  go vegetarian, but it's so hard.  I mean, NO meat? No way, I love hamburgers/chicken/steak/etc. And how do you get protein  and blah blah etc."

Now I seem like I'm making fun of people who say these things, and I'll admit that I pretty much am. Because now I find that ridiculous. And I'll talk more about that later. But now, I feel like I need to confess: I used to think that way too.

There seems to be this perception that simply stopping eating meat is this monumental hurdle to scale - some massive life event where it's survival of the fittest...or something. In general, going vegetarian is seen as both difficult and a BIG DEAL.

But really...it's not. At all. Oh sure, it'll seem like it the first few months. You're so used to eating meat that all you think about when eating is trying to avoid  meat. I was a little paranoid - I started to fear eating out, because a little nagging voice at the back of my head was saying "But what if they used chicken stock in the sauce?!?" for pretty much everything I ate. At that point, vegetarianism seems like it's about what you can't  eat.

But the truth is, vegetarianism quickly becomes about what you can  eat. The amount of diversity in my diet multiplied exponentially when I stopped looking at meat and seafood as default meals. I gained appreciations for unique and interesting foods. I tried things that, before, I wouldn't have even looked at, because then I would have simply eaten a simple meat/fish dish.

And here's the thing: Eventually, you easily forget that you're a vegetarian. I have gone through weeks where I don't even think about what I'm eating, and the only time that my mind registers the fact that "Oh yeah, I don't eat meat or fish" was when I started absentmindedly skimming the steak section of a menu.

And you don't worry about what you're eating. What people just need to recognize is that there's nothing difficult intrinsically about going vegetarian - the difficulty comes from other people. People thinking they can insult you for your choice, "helpful" people insisting that "you'll never get enough protein blah blah", school cafeterias that seem to think meat, not grain, is at the bottom of the food pyramid. And if, like me, you're a child who decides to be the only vegetarian in a meat-eating family, you'll most likely have to deal with some initially unsupportive parents. (Don't worry, they get better. Because soon they, too, realize that your diet is not a BIG DEAL.)

But really, there is the simple truth: Unless you have economic circumstances which inhibit access to good foods (and I know that many people do), vegetarianism is really a very simple, and small, deal.

But Do Your 'Friends" Know About It? (The Social Model Of Success And Worth)

If anyone has not yet heard of the incredible website Freerice, go there now. Really, just do it. It's a website which, through sponsors, donates rice to the World Food Program. And all you have to do is have a little knowledge.

When I was first introduced to this website three years ago, it was an incredibly fun experience for me. Since then, I've been going on daily, though recently time constraints have stopped me from keeping up my former quota of 500 grains (50 questions) per day.

And there was a feature I really liked about it: It was something you could do on your own. Even back then, before social networking was as far through the roof as it is now, so many websites relied on forcing a user to interact with others (which means having others to interact with) to actually have an effect/get the full experience of the website. But Freerice, you could go in and do by yourself. You didn't even have to make an account and log in. It was a measure of your knowledge. The little bit you were trying to help.

However, that changed months ago when "Freerice 2.0" came and completely redesigned the website. It is now no longer really a charity website - it's a social network with a theme of helping donate food.

Sounds like I'm exaggerating? Well, let's take a look through Freerice 2.0.

You now have to create an account to save your totals. (Not to mention that the total I had accumulated before was erased. Damn.) So, I go ahead and create an account. Now, there is a graph across from my avatar showing the ups and downs of how much rice I donated that month. I wonder what juicy secrets led to someone missing a day of rice, hmmmm? It's odd, even though I know that no one really looks through these profiles, to see things visualized like that. Why?

Now, below that, there's a list of my "Friends". Um, I thought I was on Freerice, not Facebook? But the similarities don't end there: After the list of "my friends' latest activity", there's a list of the groups I've joined. Yes, groups. When you join a group, the rice you earn is 'pooled' with the other members of the group to represent the group. The groups are things such as "Finnish Free Ricers" and "Muslims Fighting World Hunger".

But the changes extend beyond the user profiles into the actual 'play' for the rice itself. Now, in the original version, after you would reach a certain total (for example, 1,000 grains or 100,000 grains), there would be a cute little message thanking you for donating, and it would change based on the number of grains. That is no more. Instead, after every 10 or 15 questions, a message appears that says "You've just answered 20 questions in a row", then invites you to "Share" this on Facebook and Twitter.

I've probably made it clear that I don't like the redesign of the website. It's because it enforces what I've taken to calling the Social Model Of Success - achievements don't matter unless a bunch of people know about them. Instead of letting you be content with knowing that you're helping just a little tiny bit in the world, it says "Make sure you join a bunch of groups, so your successes can look even more insignificant!" (Okay, so, they don't say that last part. But you probably guessed that.) I liked getting that little message that admitted that you were doing something. Now, it's "Show it to your friends!" And of course, the concept of "friends" online has been long discussed by many others, so I won't go into it now, but it's another use of language to be pointed out.

And on the other end of this model, there's the narcissism that this social model encourages. Noticed that I mentioned that you're only helping a tiny little bit when you're using this website. But every few questions, the "Share this with your friends!" message encourages you to think that everyone else must be made aware of things that, really, aren't too big. Especially because so many other people are doing them. Think about it: If you 'share' the fact that you've answered 20 questions right on Facebook, you're essentially saying "GUISE! HEY LOOK GUISE! I KNEW THE DEFINITIONS OF 20 WORDS U GUISE!"

So there are many things wrong with the social model of the new Freerice, two of the main ones being almost opposites: 1.You should be able to fully experience a success without its worth being defined by how many others know it, and 2.You should be able to realize when things aren't significant enough to "share" them.

I hope I'm not discouraging anyone from using the website. Despite the design, it is doing great things, and deserves everyone who knows about it using it. But that doesn't change the fact that it has fallen into the trap of reinforcing the social model of success.

Shocking News: I Am Not PETA

I have an earth-shattering secret to tell some people. It might just disrupt their perception of the world forever: Just because I am a vegetarian, does not mean I'm a member of/support PETA.

This seems to be an incredibly  difficult concept for many meat-eaters to grasp. Apparently, in their minds, one radically offensive organization represents the whole of an enormously diverse group of people. Maybe this is because their only experience with vegetarians and vegans is news about PETA's latest screw-up. Maybe they're just jerks.

Whatever the reason, it seems to be a widespread opinion that, when someone tells you they're vegetarian, you are absolutely obligated  to reference PETA in some way. I have been told the "People Eating Tasty Animals" joke more times than I can count (and often two or more times from the same person). I have been asked "Oh, so you call fish 'sea kittens' and all that crap?" (Oh boy did my lunch table love  to bring that one up.) On the rare occasion that I meet with someone who shares a feminist outlook, I can expect to immediately be called a hypocrite because of PETA's overwhelmingly sexist ways.

Only, of course, I hate PETA. As does, oh I don't know, every single other vegetarian I've met. And I think I can accurately say, most of the ones I haven't  met. And I don't know why this is so difficult for so many meat-eaters to understand.

This also happens in a sense even outside of just PETA: People will often feel the need to tell me about other ways that not-so-positive vegetarian groups or people have been offensive/violent/what have you.

Here's the thing: I don't give every Christian I meet a history lesson on the Crusades.

I don't tell every white person I meet "Oh, you're white? You know, I heard a lot of white people did this horrible thing called 'slavery'..."

I don't inform every male person I meet about the shitload of sexism that is the world.

And why? Because not all vegetarians are the same, just as not all men are the same, not all white people are the same, and not all Christians are the same.

And let me repeat for the record: Just about everybody hates PETA. We clear? Good.

Review Of The 2009 Roméo Et Juliette Cast CD - Part 2

And now we move on to Act 2! Or, well, the first 10 songs of act 2. I have to warn you: Though I've listened to/watched act 1 more times than I can count, as well as On Dit Dans La Rue, C'est Le Jour, and Le Duel, I have a very bad habit of stopping after La Mort De Mercutio. (After all, my two favorite characters in the show are dead!) So, the reviews might not be as detailed after that point. That doesn't mean they won't be reliable, just not as thorough as the ones before them. Anyway, here we go!

1. Le Pouvoir - And we start off immediately with a completely new song. This song is a solo for Escalus, and it really does grow on you after a couple of listens. The melody isn't all too impressive - it seems like they took the main melodies of Et Voilà Qu'elle Aime, Mort De Mercutio, and C'est Le Jour and threw them in a blender, then slightly tweaked what came out. But the instruments are fantastic - the ways the chord progressions were arranged made up for the mediocre melody, and again there's a perfect balance of electric and symphonic instruments. (If you like militaristic drums as much as I do, this song is a gold mine of them.) And Stéphane Métro - while the way he uses his voice here (very growly) is not necessarily "pleasant", it really suits the character, so it's nice.
I think the main problem I had with this song is that I have absolutely no fucking idea what its purpose is. What is he so angry about? No one's died yet... See, I suppose this is one time where I wish I could understand French. Overall, very good. I have no idea why this song is here, but it's good so I don't care.

2. On Dit Dans La Rue - One of my favorite songs from the musical. And with John, Cyril, and Damien singing together again, you'd think I would love it. Except...the arrangement was pretty disappointing. The Montagues' voices during the chorus are incredibly weak, and their part is just about what makes the song for me. And the instruments just don't pop out at you like they do in so many other versions. Overall, the individual singers are great, but the arrangement really made this song a let down for me.

3. C'est Le Jour - Another favorite. Let me say that I know every version is going to be slightly disappointing when I'm used to the awesomeness of Ez A Kéz Utoler. However, this is probably the best non-Hungarian arrangement I've heard. Tom Ross really has improved, and this song really shows it. Overall, great!

4. La Folie - I jumped with joy clapping my hands when I first realized that this song had come back. Literally. So, it's not like the original - it's much shorter, only a small part is actually sung (most of the lyrics are spoken), and it's a Mercutio solo without Romeo and Benvolio. But guess what? It's STILL AWESOME. Again I have to praise John's skills at being endearingly annoying that can come through from his voice alone. Overall, simply amazing, and incredibly catchy.

5. Le Duel - Heeere we go. This song is, without a doubt, the song I have listened to most from this show. I've listened dozens of times to every version I could find, and it is not exaggeration at all to say that I've heard  it at least 150 times. So I knew I was going to be especially critical of any arrangement. And I was right. Let me state that this is not a bad arrangement, per se, but like On Dit Dans La Rue, it's a let down. A song this strong needs a powerful arrangement, and this version just turned out weak.
First no-no: In the chorus, the choir was pushed to the background, and John and Tom's voices pushed to the front. No! It weakens the strength and emotion of the song.
Second no-no: Also in the chorus, I could not hear any of the beautiful harmonies.
Third no-no: Oh gosh, this is hard to say. I mentioned that I'm not a big fan of Tom's Tybalt before, and this song just strengthens that. His voice simply does not work with this music, and he doesn't sound really emotional at all. Annoyed, yes, but I don't hear any of that deep hate that should really be expressed. And he sounds very nasal. Sorry Tom, but...no.
Overall, such an amazing song, it just needs an equally great arrangement to do it justice, and this one fell short. (I should emphasize that if you actually watch live videos of this cast, it's much better. It's breathtaking live.)

6. Mort De Mercutio - I'm not going to lie: I cried the first time I heard this song. Just wept. If done right, this song is a gorgeous tearjerker. And I teared up again listening to this version. This is the best, most emotional version I've heard of it. (Yup, right on the heels of my least-favorite arrangement is my favorite.)
John really shines in this, again. Perhaps because you can hear that Mercutio is trying to sound like the carefree person he'd always shown to others, but can't quite do it. And the choir comes in lightly behind Damien near the end - it really is heartbreaking. Overall, wonderful, and tugs at your heartstrings like no other version I've heard.

7. Quel Est Le Prix - I haven't heard a particularly "bad" arrangement of this song, and this one doesn't change that. Great, but there's nothing really special about this version compared to any others. Although, you can hear the drums a little more. Overall, great but not remarkable.

8. Duo Du Désespoir - I had forgotten how nice this song could be. Frédéric Charter doesn't have an amazing voice, but it gets the job done. Here is where Ida Gordon really shines, oddly enough. Overall, very good!

9. Le Chant De L'alouette - This is one of those songs I don't normally listen to, because, to be honest, I think it's pretty tedious. So I don't have much to say about it, other than that Damien and Joy are great as usual. Overall, meh.

10. Demain - This song I have listened to a lot, and this is probably my favorite non-Hungarian arrangement. The instruments, singers, and arrangement are great. My only complaint is that Joy doesn't sound too emotional, either with her singing or her "No!" But I understand that this is a recording and not a show, so acting wasn't really the point. Overall, wonderful!

And I'll be posting part 3, with the second half of act 2, soon.

A Review Of School Of Fear By Gitty Daneshvari

Sometimes, the best things can be found in the oddest places.

I first discovered this book when I was bored out of my mind at a TJ Maxx store. I detest shopping for anything that's not books or music with a passion, but my parents had insisted, and so I found myself wandering listlessly around the store after pointing out that they didn't stock shoes over a size 9. (And this, friends, is why I wear men's shoes. Because finding women's size 12s, let alone ones that are actually practical and not stiletto heels, is next to impossible.)

Anyway, so I passed by a small ragtag bookshelf in the middle of the cooking aisle. Among all the Bibles, cookbooks, and self-help manuals, I noticed one title that stood out at me in a large spidery font: SCHOOL OF FEAR.

That certainly got my interest. It sounded like a B horror movie. I could imagine a poster with a big looming school building (which would almost certainly turn out to be haunted) and the title creeping across it. Intrigued, I fished the book out from under 200 chicken recipes. The cover was curious: A stylistic, sharp drawing of four young people surrounded by carnivorous-looking plants, with the subtitle "Everyone's afraid of something..."

Turning it over, I instantly knew I wanted to buy this book. A story of a bizarre school meant to help people get rid of their phobias? I'm in. And one of the main characters is claustrophobic (which I am), another is afraid of bugs (which I DEFINITELY am). So I did buy it.

The book tells the tale of Madeleine, Theodore, Lulu, and Garrison, four people sent off to the incredibly mysterious "School Of Fear" to try to eliminate their individual fears. But the school isn't exactly up to state standard, as it's filled with the most bizarre things and locations (including a library of horrible-smelling items and a room completely covered in doors that lead anywhere, or nowhere). The eccentric teacher/headmistress Mrs.Wellington only contributes to the weirdness - from her insistence on the importance of vanity, to the fact that she doesn't seem to actually be helping her students at all, the four students get more and more confused as their session runs on. And when a tragedy occurs, they're forced to go on a rescue mission just as odd as the school itself.

From the first paragraph of the book, I knew I liked the writing style:

A bell is not a bell. While undeniably constructed out of metal and heralded for its ability to ring, it is actually a great deal more than that. It's the taste of barbecue, the feel of sunburned skin from playing outside all day, and the smell of chlorine from freshly cleaned pools. It's the promise of football games, sleepovers, and video-game tournaments, all without the interruption of homework. In short, the bell is the gatekeeper of summer.

And I was not let down by the rest of the book. Daneshvari is one of the few authors I know who has an incredibly natural writer's voice. Her descriptions are vivid, and create a wonderful mental picture, but she never does so much that you're distracted from the story itself.

To be frank, I loved this book. It was entertaining, and it actually did keep me wanting to turn the page, wanting to know what happened next. The characters are believable, if not 100% likeable, but that only adds to the realistic nature of a story that is otherwise so weird. Pacing was perfect for the most part, though I do wish there was more detail towards the end of the book.

Speaking of the end, I was a little surprised at how dark this book got for a children's story. It certainly never became horrific, but there were some things you don't usually expect to find in the YA section. But that only made me appreciate it more, me being me.

Overall, this is just an amazing book. Good story, great writing, and quite unique. I'll see if I can get my hands on the sequel.

Morality In Tanz Der Vampire: An Essay

(I know what you're thinking: More  essays about this musical? Yep. This was also written for a school project, so at some points it may seem like I'm telling you things you already know. I did my best to edit most of the parts out, but some might still remain - especially in how the general tone of the writing sounds. But anyway, this is a debate over the messages of morality in Tanz, about life, killing, and greed.)

            I will be perfectly honest: The first couple of weeks after I had gained a sizeable appreciation for Tanz, my appreciation really only extended as far as “Ooh, pretty music!” This was partly because it’s easier to listen to music in my busy life that it is to sit down and watch a story, and partly because the music is just that good. Also, as much  as I’m an advocate for cross-lingual understanding, I can’t lie and say that my inability to understand German apart from a meager vocabulary wasn’t a major factor to my hesitance to think about the plot and characters.

            Soon, though, I realized that there was a depth in this story, a statement behind the sweeping music and dark humor. Or, as I came to understand after working hard to overcome the language barrier, it wasn’t exactly a statement. It was a question. Several questions, actually.

            After thinking for a while, I gathered up my analytical skills, and extracted the three main questions asked to you, the audience, in the show. They’re all related, and all very dependent on personal values:
            1.Is it better to be cruel to prevent harm to yourself, or be a “good guy” and be victimized?

            2.Is it morally alright to kill human beings if it is necessary for your own survival, and if you only kill as many as it necessary?

            3.Is it morally alright to kill those beings that kill humans, even if they do it out of necessity, and are otherwise peaceful, and have families and emotions? Are human lives worth more than other species’?

            These questions are the driving force of the plot. The two main characters (Alfred and Sarah) have to make the decision of whether to gain invincibility, immortality, and the ability to whatever they want – at the price of having to kill humans. They both have different opinions about it. And the second and third are also what our villains struggle with.

            Let’s look at that first question. This is the primary thing that the vampires (Krolocks or not) use to try to convince people to join them. When Alfred first enters the castle, the very first thing the count does is start offering him things – knowledge, freedom, but most importantly: Protection through power. He argues that life (or un-life, if you want to be technical) cannot be lived to the fullest if you live in fear, and the only way to get rid of the fear is to become predator instead of prey.

            The other vampires agree with him on that: It is better to be the killer than the victim. The opening lines of the finale translate as follows: “Take what you want, or it will be taken from you…show your fist, or you’ll be hit. Push yourself forward, or you will be overlooked.” *

            The song “Carpe Noctem” is Alfred’s nightmare, a look into what exactly he fears will happen if he takes control and becomes the predator. At first, he sees the world the other vampires try to tempt him with: He gets anything and everything he wants, is powerful, happy. Then, of course, comes his problem: Killing. And along with the killing, another big fear of his seems to be his fear that he won’t care about those killings – after the dream-embodiment of Sarah is killed, Alfred’s dream-double simply drags her body to the front of the stage, dumps it there, grins to himself, and walks off.

Alfred spends the show as the assistant to a vampire hunter – already we’ve got something going here: The prey (human) is trying to reverse the set-up of predator and prey, making the hunter (vampire) the hunted. Kill before you’re killed. He doesn’t seem to question whether what he’s doing is moral or not. When he later has to actually kill who he’s been hunting this whole time, it turns out he can’t bring himself to do it – he’s on the “thou shalt not kill” side. This is important because of how he sees the first question – he’s so opposed to the vampires’ killing, yet he himself is on a mission to kill. Technically, he’s a rather hypocritical figure to the audience up until that revealing point.

And in the gray-upon-gray morality of Tanz, this moment is where we can finally decide that Alfred is a “good” (i.e. moral) hero. But what about Sarah?

Sarah is an incredibly complex character. But what I want to focus on here is her opinion of the first question. The whole entire reason she runs off to the castle is that she wants to be free, and she sees becoming a vampire as the way to do that. She wants to be powerful – after a lifetime of being locked up and bossed around by those more powerful than her, she wants to become the most powerful of them all. But you can look at it two ways, and each way creates a very different view of Sarah’s character:

1.She wants to be powerful not for protection (like Alfred), but simply to be the most powerful creature. No one can boss her around. Looking at her this way, she can seem like an incredibly selfish person.

2.She wants that security and protection that comes with power. She knows that becoming a vampire means that she won’t have to deal with problems that could plague her otherwise, whether they’re from the adults who try to keep her from doing what she wishes, or anything else. To quote commenter Valancy from a Tanz  discussion board: “There's thing big, scary yet enticing adult world on the one hand, and there are vampires: to Alfred they're everything that's scary about the adult world, to Sarah they're a way to be strong, to be a beast yourself so that nobody can scare you and lock you in. Sarah accepts this scary side of the world and wants to be in it…”

And really, I think that’s her biggest motivation: She’s a child, under everyone else’s control, and this is her way to take control of her own life. To Alfred, who is also a child but has a completely different outlook on freedom (he’s scared of it), the transformation from human to vampire is forcing him to be independent – which is the last thing he wants. And that’s why the vampires are so enticing to Sarah, and so frightening to Alfred.

Now, where does this fall on the moral spectrum? I know there are many people who would say that Sarah is selfish for giving herself to a life that will force her to kill humans. Is she selfish? It really is all up to you.

Interestingly, on the note of the second and third questions, Count von Krolock himself seems to have a stronger opinion than any of the protagonists. He is of the mind that he’s immoral, a monster. I don’t think it’s a far cry to say that, if Alfred or the Professor had actually succeeded in killing him, he would have welcomed death rather than fled from it. He clearly doesn’t like  killing.

So, does this mean that he’s still a monster? He has no choice in the matter – he has to kill humans to live. In my opinion, he’s actually better than humans who eat meat – humans don’t need meat to live.

Am I being rude in saying that you can’t call a vampire a monster if you’re not a vegetarian? Perhaps. But it’s a moral feeling I hold strongly, and that’s what these questions are about.

One of the easiest arguments for people to make about hunting is that “Animals don’t have emotions.” (That’s ridiculous, but that’s a subject for another essay.) Can we apply this to the question of is-vampire-slaying-okay? Of course. The most powerful moment in the show, for me, is just after “Die Unstillbare Gier”. The song is where he laments to himself that he will never be able to exist without doing harm to others, a scene that clearly puts a damper on the “He wants to kill, so we can kill him” argument. The moment is: After the song is over, Alfred, who was eavesdropping, whispers to himself, “They…have feelings. Like us.” There’s the completion of the effect on the audience: The hunters cannot simply kill anyone now and still be considered heroes.

            And to further the humanization of the “monster”, he has a son. Families are perhaps the most recognizable feature of human civilization, a social construct that, though it belonged to other animals first, we have come to clearly associate with human compassion and care. And when these villains are revealed to be compassionate enough to have children, it’s once again asking you “How evil are these guys, really? Is the killing a deal-breaker for you?”

            Speaking of humanization, I want to draw on one last point before closing this essay and leaving the questions open. It’s one of the biggest elements of the show. It is: Parallels between the human and vampire world in the show. “Die Unstillbare Gier” is not simply about bloodlust. The lyrics address all sorts of human sins: Greed, lust, the hunger for power, wealth, everything. The last lines address the audience directly. To quote from the fan translation: “Many believe in humanity, and many in money and glory. Many believe in art and science; in love and in heroism. Many believe in gods of many different kinds, in miracles and in signs. In Heaven and Hell, in sin and virtue, and in the Bible and breviary. But the true power that rules over us is the disgraceful, endless, consuming, destroying, and eternal, insatiable greed. You mortals of tomorrow, I prophesize here and now: Before the next millennium begins, the only God whom everyone serves will be the insatiable greed.”

            And there are many parallels even more subtle than the “They have feelings like us” line. For example, Chagal is honest about being just as greedy as the other vampires in “Geil Zu Sein Ist Komisch”, in which he says that everyone always wants more than what they have. (Vampire or human.)

And take another look at the families – from what little we see of each family, the vampire is a better parent to his son than Sarah’s father is to her. Also, as mentioned a while back in Valancy’s quote about Sarah, the whole musical is a parallel to growing up: Is the human adult world, full of competition and greed, any better than an eternal world?

            Overall, the questions are all up to you. But Tanz der Vampire  certainly has some of its own opinions about monsters.

           

            *Also taken from the fan translation.

Useless Number

So I turned 15.

Nothing about me changed.

I didn't suddenly become nicer or smarter. I didn't suddenly improve my manners or speak more formally. I didn't have a revelation that showed me my path in the world. I didn't become more competent at any skill I had.

And the same thing will happen when I turn 16. But society doesn't seem to think so. When that insignificant day ratchets my time on this earth up one number, society suddenly decides that now I am responsible enough to handle the privilege of driving. Now I am responsible enough to be legally employed.

And when I turn 18 it will be the same thing - very little will change about my judgement, ability to handle responsibility, my intelligence. But society as a whole refuses to believe that you are a competent enough person to handle something like voting until a useless number goes up. And until you're 21, it's telling you that you don't have good judgement then either. Until that useless little number says "Okay, we now pronounce you a competent, intelligent, responsible human being!"

It's just more of the "maturity" tripe. Yet again my skills and intelligence are not attributed to my working to achieve them, but rather to how long I've been alive. And that is very, very wrong.

Review Of The 2009 Roméo Et Juliette Cast CD - Part 1

Yesterday, I was absolutely giddy with musical-fan ecstasy as I found not only the original Vienna recording of Elisabeth in my possession, but also the 2009 cast album of Roméo Et Juliette! (There was jumping up and down involved. Be sure of it.)

The recording is just about whole. Acts 1 and 2 are on separate discs. What struck me first about the song list was how many new songs there were - "A La Vie, À La Mort", "Tybalt", "La Reine Mab (Je Rêve)", "Les Poupées", and those are just in the first act.

I was definitely excited to listen to it because, from what I'd seen and heard online, I really loved the Asia Tour cast already. (I was particularly taken with the trio of Damien Sargue, John Eyzen, and Cyril Niccolai).

Now that I've listened all the way through it, I think it's time for a review of the individual songs and arrangements. Before anyone asks, the songs were studio-recorded, not taken live. And of course, this can be both a blessing and a curse. But let's get on with my opinion.

1.Ouverture - There isn't too much to say about this song, as it doesn't particularly change cast by cast. It's pleasant as always, but I still think the show overall could do without it.

2.Vérone - Aw yeah, now we're talkin'! I actually like this arrangement better than the original French one. It amps up the harsh, rock feel of the guitars (closer to the German arrangement), and the percussion is more staccato and emphasized. Stéphane Metro comes in as the Prince. At first, you might think he's a little overdramatic - but I think he's perfect for the role. He sounds rightly angry and frustrated singing about how hard it is to rule Verona, and has a nice strong voice at that. And the chorus, well - it's freaking Vérone, how can it not be awesome? Overall, this is so far the best version of the song I've heard.

3. La Haine - I'm in the camp that thinks the Hungarian production did right by putting this song before Aimer - otherwise, it's just another "Everyone in Verona hates each other!" song, even after we've just heard a whole song singing about that. But, that's not the point. I'm neutral on Stéphanie Rodrigue's performance as Lady Capulet - she has a nice voice, but it's nothing particularly amazing or suited to the role. She could sound just a bit more emotional as well. Then Brigitte Venditti comes in as Lady Montague, and I am damn impressed! She does perfectly, bringing the right amount of feeling to the song. She has a rougher voice, but it works with the song. Then the chorus comes in - I must say that I wasn't fond of how they seemed to just have men and women with very low voices singing in the background. It doesn't have that same full sound, leaves you feeling like you wanted more. The orchestration was pretty much the same as it was originally. Overall, very nice!

4.A La Vie, Á La Mort - This is where I start to really wish I could see what was going on on stage during this song. Because I really have no idea how this fits into the overall musical - what are Romeo, Mercutio, and Benvolio doing? But, that doesn't stop it from being a pleasant song. Note that I said pleasant, not wonderful, because I'm not overly fond of it. I just doesn't hook you like so many of the other songs in this show do. This is also the introduction of John and Cyril for new listeners. If this is the first time you heard them, you might be disappointed. But don't! This song doesn't showcase how great their voices can be - and they can be really great, as I'll talk about later. Overall, a fluff song. Nice fluff, but still fluff.

5.La Demande En Mariage - What is there to say about this song? I noticed that it uses the chorus much more than any of the other arrangements. I'm frustrated because I can't find out who plays Paris, but oh well. Overall, not better or worse than any of the other arrangements.

6.Tybalt - I'm all for Tybalt's character having more songs, and more screentime. But I can't say that this was a good way to do it. I mean, give him a whole sparsely orchestrated song that could be used for all sorts of character development - and then have him just repeat "Tybalt, I am Tybalt!" for most of the time? Not a good idea. And Tom Ross...let me explain that I don't dislike his Tybalt. But I can't say I really love him either. It might be his voice, or how he seems to play the character slightly flat (C'est Pas Ma Faute seeming like a whiny attempt at gaining sympathy, C'est Le Jour seeming to be just wanting to get Juliet, etc. Actually, that's probably more the fault of the writers than it is the actor. So I can't blame him for that. Never mind...) Overall, not impressed. Not impressed at all.

7.Tu Dois Te Marier - Another song I don't have much of an opinion on. I think I should say it again Stéphanie Rodrigue has a very nice voice, but doesn't seem to use it to express her character that well. I like that the violins and piano were put more in the foreground of this arrangement, though. Overall, pretty but not much more than that.

8.Un Jour - It's funny. I hated this song the first time I heard it. Then I grew to tolerate. And now I actually like it. But - and this goes for all versions of this song, not just this one - I like the instruments more than I like what the singers are doing. Going back to those singers, we've got the duo of Damien Sargue and Joy Esther. Of course I love Damien, so I wasn't worried about him, but I'm historically quite picky about my Juliets. And Joy surprised me with how much I actually like her. She sounds dreamy, but not head-in-the-clouds optimistic, and has a naturally nice voice without straining to sound pretty. Overall, very good!

9.Les Rois Du Monde - Aaand now, for the song we've all been waiting for. It's so funny - what is probably the most well-loved song in the show has had a history of being very badly arranged on cast recordings. (*Cough* AUSTRIA I'm looking at you *cough*) But this managed to capture a pretty awesome orchestration. The instruments, especially the bass line, get more attention during the verses. And I'll say this quite a bit, but I really love John and Cyril. In this song, they sound like they really mean what they're saying. I really believe that they believe all this about the kings of the world - add that to the fact that all three of The Boys have great voices, you get awesomeness. Overall, love it, and incredibly arranged!

10.La Reine Mab (Je Rêve) - My reaction when I learned that Mercutio got a new solo song: YES! My reaction when I heard that solo song: HELL YES! First of all, the song itself is both beautiful and incredibly catchy. And now this turns into the Eyzen-fangirl-fest: I really love this man's Mercutio. He extends that carefree feeling heard in Les Rois Du Monde into this song, and amps it up. He laughs in the face of everything (it's worth noting that you can find a video of him during Le Duel where he's laughing even as Tybalt tries to choke him), and this song shows that. And GODS HIS VOICE. WHY DO I LOVE IT SO? Overall, loveloveloveawesomeyay. 


11.J'ai Peur - This is another song that I hated the first time I heard it, and now love. It's also one I'm quite picky about - I hadn't found a version of the song I really, really thought was great. Until now. First, the orchestration is wonderful. They don't let the violins or guitar take over everything, and there's actually more electric instruments than in the original arrangements, and that really works. Towards the end of this song, Damien sings a slightly new melody (with the words "Que nos ombres si légères, demain se changent en pierre, que le vent du hasard se prenne dans nos guitares"), and it is absolutely gorgeous. And slightly sexy. (Yes, I have thing for voices. Sue me.) Overall, wonderful in every way, and the best arrangement I've heard so far!

12.Bal 1 - I think whoever was responsible for the arrangements has been spending a lot of time in dance clubs. Because this is a full out techno dance song. Looping beats which are given more focus than in any other arrangements I've heard, and lots of distortion and effects. Overall, this probably is not how the song sounded on stage, and you would absolutely not think it came from a Romeo And Juliet musical, but still very good.

13.L'amour Hereux - Let me let you in on a secret: I hate this song. Not just this arrangement, not just any version - I hate every single version I've heard of it. Because it's the song itself I don't like, not the singers. So I couldn't objectively measure this particular version. So..... Overall, I guess it has Damien and Joy, so yeah.

14.Bal 2 - For a brief moment the audience was reminded that this is Romeo And Juliet, and now they're transported back to the 2009 Dance Rave. Overall, just as fun as Bal 1.

15.C'est Pas Ma Faute - Again I'm the picky Hungarian-version lover, because no Tybalt so far has managed to beat Szilveszter's awesome interpretation of the character. But that doesn't stop me from liking this version. The one thing that threw me off in this arrangement is that, for the first half of the first chorus, they cut of most of the electric instruments, so it's just Tom Ross's voice, an acoustic strumming guitar, and the background guitar line. It sounds like something that could have been on MTV unplugged. Now, as much as I love sparse orchestration - that choice sort of left Tom's voice alone up there, and put too much emphasis on it. And let's face it - he does not have a strong voice at all. So that little bit was a bad choice, but otherwise the rest of the song was great. Overall, wonderful, but with a bit of a "huh?" moment.

16.Les Poupées - Honestly, when this song came on, I checked to make sure I had the right CD in the CD player. I thought I had accidentally put in a Midnight Syndicate album. Because that is what it sounds like, completely. Of course, that's why I love it. It's gloriously creepy, and catchy. But again, I really wish I could know what the hell is happening during this song. Because I absolutely cannot think of anything in the Roméo Et Juliette I know that would have this song accompanying it. Overall, slightly out-of-place in the show, but that doesn't stop it from being awesome.

EDIT: I found a video of this song. Apparently, it's a sort of "Bal 3" where everyone just dances around like robotic puppets and Mercutio and Tybalt have a brief dance-off. Actually pretty fun! It takes place after C'est Pas Ma Faute, which was moved to the place it is in the German production (everyone freezes and Tybalt knocks them over like dolls.)

17.La Poète - I know I'm jumping on the fan bandwagon by saying this, but...why? Honestly, I just can't think of what purpose this song serves. And unlike other useless songs I'm willing to forgive because they're still great songs, I can't say the same for this, because I also don't like the song itself. Serge Leborgne has a nice voice as the poet, and of course there's Joy, but....seriously, why? Overall, nice singers, useless song.

18.Le Balcon - Hey, another song I hated then loved! I have to start out by admiring the guitars in this song - the arrangement let them come out a little more, and the acoustic picking really gives Joy's voice a beautiful floating effect. And interestingly, there's a small moment before the last chorus where the piano is made the only instrument - a nice touch! Overall, pretty song , pretty arrangement, and pretty singers.

19.Par Amour - Oddly, I think that Frédéric Charter's voice is almost too strong for Friar Laurent. Other than that, nothing much to say about this song. Overall, another one without much to comment on.

20.Les Beaux, Les Laids - I love this song so much. This is one song where I love every version I've heard equally, actually. Including this one. I think that the only complaint I have is that Ida Gordon doesn't sound pissed off enough at the beginning - tear into 'em, Nurse! (And again, I must praise John's ability so sound so annoyingly cocky while still making you love him. That is very hard to do when you're as picky as I am.) Overall, great song, good arrangement.

21.Et Voilà, Qu'elle Aime - Awwwww. No, that's the reaction I always have to this song. Ida Gordon is another member of this cast with a fantastic voice. However, she doesn't use it as well as she could on this song. And I really miss the belting. Really, this is one song where belting is right at home. And Ida seems concerned with sounding pretty (ah, remember that post?), which sounds like it's holding her back. Overall, beautiful, but not as powerful as it could be.

22.Aimer - It might come as a surprise that this is another song I don't know what to say about. Um. It's pretty? Okay, I have to do more than that - I don't really like how Joy uses her voice in this song. Another time where I feel like telling her "Sing out!" The song is supposed to be passionate, and instead I just hear (from Damien too - don't think you're getting off scot-free, man!) "Must...be...pretty". Overall, nothing special.

And so ends the first act. Next I'll be taking on the second act - I love this recording SO MUCH.

Whoops. (And An Explanation)

So, I've obviously been quite absent here lately. I would write out a whole long explanation, but I think these two words will both explain everything and evoke a twinge of empathy from every other high school student out there:

Final exams.

I'm almost done with them, and after that I'll get back to my (semi sort of) regular posting schedule. However, there is one thing I should explain.

Remember my "the worst health textbook in history" series? I really did intend to continue it, because there is so much more wrong with that book, but unfortunately I had to return the textbook on the day of the health exam. Which was yesterday.

Whoooops.

I don't want to pay money for that piece of offensiveness, so I can't do more than one more post about the book. Because I had one drafted out, which I'll try to complete soon.

I'm In Luck!

Great news I found a while ago over at Sociological Images - a graph of the gender compositions of different academic areas, from 2009. Check out Linguistics (click and then zoom in for full size):

About 61 % women in one of my dream professions? I'm there!

(It does sadden me to see how few women are represented in Physics, Computer Sciences, and Engineering. Oh well - take small victories when you can get them.)

What Would Happen If A President Said He* Didn't Believe In God?

There have been many, many things written about how people will use the fact that America has a non-white president to "prove" that racism is "over" in America, or no longer an issue, and how that's wrong as hell. When I heard these arguments almost every day, and shaking my head, I was later thinking about what other things we need represented at the forefront of politics. We still need:

1.A female president. (See, this is what the * is for.)
2.A transgendered president.
3.An openly  non-heterosexual president.
4.A president of all the other races we still have not had yet.
5.An atheist, agnostic, or nonreligious president. (Or even an openly non-Christian president.)

Most people I've mentioned this to agree with me on only one and four. Unfortunately, most people say either "No" or "Maybe...I'm not so sure" to two and three. But the one that gets outright opposition everywhere? Five.

When our history teacher was having a discussion about the "Obama is president - racism is GONE!" argument in class, I mentioned my little list to her. She asked the rest of the class "Ooh, yeah - could you imagine what would happen if our president said he didn't believe in God?"

The reaction from the class astounded me. I heard at least five people mutter "I would never vote for him", or some variation thereof. There was a general "*Hiss* Ooh, no..." reaction, but it was hard for me to tell if that was from people thinking they would react badly if the statement was made, or from their acknowledgement that most of the population would react badly.

The conflation of religion and goodness - the "good Christian" law, as I like to call it. We have a positive reaction to our black president, so long as he's Christian. (I don't have to mention the stupidity of the idiots insisting he was Muslim, right? Good.) The thing is? I think everyone knows exactly what would happen if a presidential candidate said "I don't believe in God" - they would have no chance whatsoever. Because, for too long, religion has been good, and nonreligion bad. I imagine the smear campaigns against the nonbelieving candidates would use the word "heathen" or "godless" like it's goin' outta style. Don't believe it? I have an upcoming post about a political campaign against a (religious) woman who *GASP* had the support of the majority of the atheists in the area that actually used the phrase "godless Americans".

Because being godless is such a bad thing...

Some Happiness About Female Vocalists

I'm a huge metalhead, so of course I'm familiar with the latest metal craze of "female-fronted metal". For those who don't share the headbanger way of life, it's basically, all the music is played and written by guys, and the women only sing.

And the thing is? They sing in one way: Pretty. It was initially defended by the fact that the uniqueness of symphonic metal and opera metal was coming from the juxtaposition of heavy metal music and delicate vocals. But, as it's been almost 15 years since the most popular symph. metal bands have gripped audiences, things are becoming more and more clear that there's still a huge double standard about singing.

To explain the whole thing would be time-consuming, and I cannot say it any better than this post. It explains excellently how men have the privilege and freedom in music to do whatever they want, to not be confined to one genre or subjected to rigid standards, while women are only allowed to be one thing: The sexy, sweet-sounding frontpiece.

"The prettiness problem excludes women from rock ‘n roll in a three-phase process.

1. The prettiness imperative is self-inhibiting. I can only speak from personal experience here, but I’m guessing a lot of women agree: not-pretty is hard. I’m a trained singer with an incredibly versatile voice. I can imitate just about anyone’s singing style. But my own voice, my own sound? It’s pretty, and therefore boring. I can imitate non-prettiness, but I can’t come up with it on my own. Making music is a physical act, and it’s very difficult to let your body do things that aren’t pretty when you’ve spent your entire life trying to make your body be as pretty as possible. Especially because (and I can’t find a link for this, so you’re gonna have to take my word on it) women artificially raise their voices around the time of puberty, limiting their vocal range and depriving themselves of full use of their from-the-gut voice. Ever known a woman who seemed to find it literally impossible to speak loudly enough to fill a room? It wasn’t a physical problem. Also, the thing that teens start doing where you are constantly sucking in your stomach? Not good for talking loud and singing in interesting ways.

2. Defying the prettiness imperative gets you punished. If you can manage to do something that’s experimental, interesting, and against the prettiness imperative (or, even crazier, subvertsthe prettiness imperative, see, e.g. Joanna Newsom) then, you are ridiculed, your music is weird, and you are a fairy/witch/slut/whore/weirdo. Or it’s just simply not good. Because people don’t like the way it sounds, since they are not used to women doing things that are not-pretty, and they don’t like it.

3. Not defying the prettiness imperative is boring. See how that works? You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Because if you violate the standards, go outside your comfort zone, and do something really new and interesting, people don’t find it palatable. But if you don’t, then what you’re doing isn’t noteworthy."

I actually can speak to that artificial voice-raising thing: Having been in choir all my life, when I turned 11 and was finally recognized by those around me to actually be in puberty (I had been in it for about a year and a half, actually, but no one had noticed until then), my choir teachers immediately threw us all into higher music. In warmups, we stopped going below a middle C, and went up to treble As regularly. Despite my status as an alto-verging-on-contralto, I was just told to go higher, go sweeter, go prettier, go softer, stay away from those ugly masculine low notes. I was the only girl to step up and say "I'll do this solo", that went down to a (*GASP*) G, and the teacher repeatedly told me "You're crazy!". People told me that singing too low "hurt my vocal cords". (I know: What? I can't see how singing in my natural range would hurt any more than going unnaturally high for myself.) And now, two years later, I realized something. I was looking at a baritone solo in our choir (that I was told would be too low for me to sing.) It went down to a low E, generally staying above the F mark.

When I first tried singing all of it, I couldn't. My voice sounded to quiet and weak.

So, I threw it all out. For those minutes, I threw out the "sweet" tone I had been taught to aspire to, the "feminine" voice quality I was supposed to "naturally" have. I sang as naturally as I possibly could.

And guess what? It was easy.  I reached the E with no problem. I sounded like a singer,  as opposed to just "a woman".

So yes, there is definitely an inhibiting value instilled in female singers that prevents us from singing in our natural ranges.

Anyway, back to the prettiness in metal thing. It's incredibly frustrating to me to see how the metal is left to the guys, and the prettiness is left to the one woman. There are a couple bands that have harsh female vocalists (the best known are probably The Agonist, Arch Enemy, and Cadaveria), but there are two problems with them: The musicians are still all male, and the women still have to be pretty - if not vocally, then physically.

Look at the singers of these bands:

They are still conventionally sexy.  And they promote their image too, not personally - their advertisers do it. Because hey, who cares if they're good unique vocalists, so long as they're hot, right?

There are two bands I have found which break this all-male except the singer mold: Astarte and Kittie. (Very awesome) all-female black metal bands. However, still...they have to promote their images in order to be taken seriously. Because these groups refuse to do this as often as other bands, they have reached virtually no popularity. 

And on singing "not pretty" - so far in metal, I've seen the two opposites: The pretty symph. metal vocalists, and the growlers. There seemed to be no in between - and that is what guys can get away with doing. They can whine-sing, shout without growling, nasally drawl, sing however the hell they want to and still be considered good.

However, I discovered a band recently. Ebony Ark. The musicians are all male, which of course disappointed me. But, the vocalist actually has a strong, aggressive, unique  voice that is awesome, while not being conventionally pretty. Ebony Ark is not perfect in this regard - she often switches to a "pretty" voice in the middle of songs. But still, they're a step ahead.

Because Religious Whining Is SO Much More Important Than Women's Lives

So, lately I've been more and more concerned with how much power anti-choice is getting in government and legislation, and how fiercely they're limiting women's rights. (A quick search for the "War On Women" or "Cutting funding to Planned Parenthood" can give a quick idea of how disgusting these people are.) But, perhaps the thing that has shocked, angered, and simply disgusted me the most is the fact that hospitals can refuse to perform abortions, even if they are completely legal in the state, because...wait for it...they have moral objections to it.


For example, an excerpt from this LRB brief from 1999 (I can't find any information that says the law has changed since then), "Hospitals and Medical Staff Not Required to Perform Abortions. Section 253.09 (Chapter 159, Laws of 1973) states that hospitals may not be required to perform abortions and they are not liable for civil damages or discrimination complaints for refusal to do so. Physicians and other medical providers who work in a hospital in which abortions are authorized may not be required to participate in abortion procedures if they have stated in writing their objection to the procedure on moral or religious grounds. Medical staff may not be subjected to employment discrimination on the basis of their beliefs regarding abortion."


Before I even begin my rant, what I have to point out is the part that really scares me: Hospitals can't be complained about discrimination...after discriminating against a woman. That's really, really scary.

Now, the rant. I'm going to try to keep this short, because honestly, Jill says it best. "Ah yes, the cruelty of forcing someone to violate their religious objections. So much less cruel to make an emergency patient sit and wait for six hours as she faces possible death or serious bodily harm!"


Here is the thing. It is not a complicated thing. It is an obvious thing. It is an understandable and easy thing. Ready to hear it?


You are a goddamn medical professional, and it is your job to save people and provide medical help. It is your job, and your religious whining should not matter when it comes to saving a woman's life, or providing her an abortion even when she is not at risk of dying.


Remember my vegetarianism. Now, let's say I got a job as a chef at a non-completely vegetarian restaurant. What would happen if I whined "I HAVE MORAL OBJECTIONS TO MEAT! I'm not making these morally-objectionable dishes, even though it's my job!", then sued the restaurant for forcing me to cook meat. You know exactly what would happen: I would be dismissed as whiny, unrealistic, and selfish.


And yet this woman is doing that exact thing: Crying "I HAVE MORAL OBJECTIONS TO ABORTION! I'm not saving this woman's life, even though it's my job!", then suing the hospital. And anti-choice people are sympathizing  with her.


If religious people are so damn selfish that they will not perform their job because of "moral objections", and hospitals aren't required to perform abortions if they have those objections, and then can't get sued for it, I am really, extremely worried.


Listen, lawmakers: My health should not be in the hands of someone's religious morals. I should be able to get an abortion without worrying that some idiotic hospital turning its back and saying "Nope, RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS!" What if these laws said that hospitals could refuse to treat cancer patients because they object to helping people with cancer? People would be up in arms immediately, crying discrimination. And yet these laws are allowing discrimination against women.


...Can you tell I am not happy with religion or government right now?

Bible: God. Personal Relationships: God. Everywhere Else: God. Church: Jesus...?

I found the Community Christian Church's website yesterday. It's been a long time since I set foot in a church (being in choir = having to sing as guests in churches which = having to listen to sermons), so all the capitalized 'He's and 'Him's were a little overwhelming to read. The thing I found most...interesting, I suppose is the right word, was the "What We Believe" page.

There's a lot to talk about here. First, I can't resist being a little snarky. There's a section called "About a Relationship with God", which is naturally about a relationship with God (and, weirdly, Jesus - I'll get to that in a minute). Then, there's a section called "About the Christian Life" which is about...a relationship with God. I don't see why they couldn't have merged those two things, seeing as they're telling you to do the same thing (worship God and Jesus - again, coming back to that).

And to be honest, I'm a little worried. Because I've seen this in a lot of other Christian writings - telling people that they should not only worship God, but dedicate their entire lives  to pleasing him. This is not a "Wow, those Christians are batshit crazy" expression - it's one of honest worry. I would not want to live for a single (dual?) abstract concept. Churches like this are telling Christians that your entire world should revolve around God - what about, I don't know, yourself, other humans and animals, the environment? I think it's a little dangerous that people are told to not do things for themselves, rather only for God. What if, for example, a woman has grown up in a church that tells her that abortion is "immoral" "a sin", etc. (we all know what assholes Catholic churches are when it comes to THE ALMIGHTY FETUS!) Now, that woman is pregnant and suffering from complications, and she needs an abortion to save her life. Since she's spent her life being told to do things not for herself, but for God, and being told what God "wants", she will most likely not get an abortion, and die.

This is, I think, one of the biggest reasons I am against religion as a whole. Because I feel it is dangerous to tell people they don't belong to themselves, but to some abstract god(s).

And on that thing I wanted to get to later: This is where I have to ask for help. Because, if there is one thing that has mystified me about Christianity since I can remember it, it is this: You call yourself a monotheistic religion, you worship God, say that he is the only god....but then you also worship Jesus. I just...don't understand it, honestly do not get it. If you classified yourself as polytheistic, I would get it - there's God and there's Jesus, and you worship them both.

But the way I see it over and over again, I hear the same message: "God is the only true savior...now let's worship Jesus!"

For example, take this quote from CCC:


Our inability to re-establish our relationship with God leaves us dependent on God's mercy. God graciously provided the means to reconcile this relationship through faith in Jesus Christ.


Hooooold up here... you're telling people to form a relationship with God (which you just said THEY CANNOT DO), and worship Jesus Christ...and then saying that that relationship with Jesus is a relationship with God?


I am, in all serious, confused as to how Christians can find their way around in this confused, paradoxical, faith doctrine. If any Christians could help explain, I would appreciate it.


...Isn't Norse Paganism so much simpler? (Sorry, couldn't resist that, because people around me keep saying that Paganism in general is "So complicated", when they're Christian.)