So I've noticed that, no matter how much time I'm given to complete a task, I generally end up working ten hours non-stop and late at night on the day before the deadline. Is it a persistent inability to estimate the amount of time required to complete something? Chronic procrastination which is overridden by panic only in the final forty-eight hours? Or the fact that no work is truly complete, and given more time I simply make more edits up to the final minutes? I suspect the answer is a combination of all three.
However, now the toughest 20,000 words I've ever had to put together, accompanied by some twenty images, have been submitted and are presumably in the process of being marked. Meanwhile, I'm left with the final hurdle of my final talk, which will be given in front of the entire department. I'm still putting it together, but I feel better about this one than my initial talk about six months ago. Back then, it was ridiculous how little I knew about my own project. Now, I know every weave of it. I feel ready to defend it against questioning. I want to defend it.
This is not to say that all my days so far have been occupied solely by work-related matters (although that has been my main preoccupation). I've also taken the time to watch The Dollars Trilogy - previously, I'd only seen The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, which I now realise is a prequel to A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More (if Blondie's wardrobe is anything to go by). All three films are absolutely fantastic. They have a certain grittiness which seems to be lacking in modern films, even the "edgy" ones. Here, the violence isn't senseless; it seems completely natural, given the type of people and the harsh environments the film depicts. "Il Buono" himself is often self-serving and heartless, though to a lesser degree than the villains. Even Col. Douglas Mortimer, perhaps one of the most honorable main characters across all three films, illegally stops a train to get where he wants, nearly provokes a bar-fight in order to prove a point, and has no compunctions about gunning down men for money. But not all is grim, and the action is balanced with sprawling scenery, little instances of dry humour, and long scenes where almost nothing happens. It is like a reflection of life, really.
Also, now I want a green poncho so I can dramatically fling it over one shoulder.
I've also been shopping recently. While a poncho didn't feature among my purchases, I got both Hot Fuzz and 2001: A Space Odyssey on DVD, not to mention some really nice clothes. Also, the soles of my old shoes were starting to peel off, so I bought a lovely new pair from Skechers. While a little pricier than I'm used to, the shoes are ridiculously comfortable and I love them already. The box had an extra set of black shoelaces, so now the left shoe sports black laces while the right one has white. I wonder how long it will take for someone to notice.
The other thing I've been doing is baking. Recently we had a charity morning tea and I needed to bring something as a contribution, so I made cheese straws and caramelised onion dip. For the cheese straws I followed the recipe in the link fairly closely. I used Cracker Barrel's Extra-Sharp Vintage Cheddar cheese, and chili powder instead of cayenne pepper. I also didn't have any cookie sheets, so I lined my baking pan with aluminium foil. I twisted the sticks so they resembled drill-bits. This was a little tricky, because the dough had to be the right consistency. I think the best would be to take the dough out of the fridge and then leave it for about 15 minutes at room temperature before cutting and shaping the straws. I baked them for six minutes, then turned them over and baked them for a further seven minutes, which got them nice and golden-brown and baked through.
For the dip, I used half a cup sour cream and half a cup yogurt instead of a full cup of sour cream, mostly because I bought a house-brand sour cream which wasn't nearly sour enough. I didn't have balsamic vinegar on hand, so I used plain white vinegar. I have to say that while two large onions seems like an awful lot, both of them are necessary as the chopped onions shrink a fair amount during cooking. The caramelised onions were very good on their own, soft, dark golden-brown and very sweet. I can think of other uses for them apart from a dip component.
When serving them I placed a small Pyrex tub in the centre of a plate, and stacked up the cheese straws log-cabin style in a hexagon around the tub. It looked great, and people loved it. (One of my colleagues confessed to eating four of them.) I'll probably try making this again when I go home. Although someone else is going to grate all the cheese. Grating a 227 g block of vintage Cheddar - not fun!
You know, it occurs to be that within two months I'll be done with this Honours year and back home. My childhood will officially and truly be over. Seems funny, considering what I was blogging about precisely one year ago. That part of me hasn't changed, and I don't want it to. There's so much out there to experience, and I wouldn't want to miss out just because of some misguided idea of what adults are supposed to act like.
So anyway, that concludes the October update. Laters.
Monday, 12 October 2009
Sunday, 30 August 2009
On Internet Opinions
Let's start from a corner here. Reviews. I use the term defined as an evaluation of some sort of publicly-available material or performance, such as a book, movie or audio compilation. Back before the Internet turned into a superhighway, these would have been available chiefly in print form, in newspapers, magazines and journals. While these circulars would have had an audience, even a large one, it certainly would not be at a level comparable to that of online reviews today.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. Reviews. They are, if you think about it, a rather presumptuous means of communicating an opinion. While an evaluation of a creative work can be relatively objective - "This movie earned $60 million on its opening weekend" - reviews tend to include an opinion to mesh the evaluation together - "This movie is excellent." Or several opinions, if the review goes into more detail. However, in spite of being a collection of opinions, reviews also include a instruction, either implicit or explicit - "Therefore, you should go watch this movie" - they have to, otherwise there would be no point in writing the review in the first place. In other words, I say reviews are presumptuous because not only do they state the opinion of the writer, the reader is expected to agree with the recommendation of the reviewer.
This is not necessarily true, of course. Since the review is made up of opinions, it is perfectly acceptable that there would be people who disagree with it, perhaps even strongly enough to communicate this to the reviewer. For a review published in print however, it is possible that the reviewer would know their audience well enough to anticipate their reactions to the creative work. It is also possible, especially when communications were more limited, that readers would have been more willing to accept a single review of a work and take that as the truth, instead of buying more magazines and newspapers to see what other reviewers thought of it, or even going to look at the creative work to judge for themselves. Thus it would appear, in the era before the Internet, that dissent towards a reviewer's opinion would, while present, have been limited in most cases.
You see where I am going with this. The Internet. Oh, the Internet.
The Internet revolutionised communications - not only did it enable people from opposite sides of the globe to talk to each other, it enabled them to do so rapidly, in real time even. Suddenly, people with niche interests could find other people with the same interests. Communities based off the smallest, quirkiest things were able to take off. And with the ease and anonymity of communication over the Internet, suddenly far more opinions would have been available to a wider audience.
Reviews, of course, found their place on the Internet. But now it wasn't just reviewers who got paid for their work - someone typing a review out of their bedroom could potentially gain an audience of millions. And someone looking for a review for a particular work would be able to find hundreds for all but the most obscure of productions.
In spite of being available on an entirely new medium, reviews haven't changed in form very much. They are still collections of opinions, sometimes with a logical, reasonable basis and sometimes just pure personal judgement. They still contain that implicit instruction - "If I say it is good it is good and you should go look at it, but if I say it is bad you should not, otherwise you have wasted your time reading this review."
However, since the audience for any given review on the Internet is potentially massive, and would consist of people with wildly varying opinions of their own, the possibility of a clash is not just incredibly large, it is a certainty. Think about it. Reviews consist of opinions. They are written in such a way that you, the reader, are expected to agree with them, at least partially. They can be written by practically anyone and about any creative work including video games, webcomics and fanfiction. And since this is the Internet, almost anyone from any background can access them.
Look up the reviews for any movie or book. No matter how incredibly good or bad it seems, there will always be those who consider it the exact opposite. Furthermore, they are entirely sure that they are correct, that you are an idiot if you disagree with them, and they are willing to use profanity or threaten to kill you if that's what it takes to convince you. Indeed, it appears to be standard now to be arrogant and rude when defending one's views over the Internet. A by-product of anonymity and a lack of accountability, perhaps?
Whatever the reason, it leads to often brutal arguments wherever such arguments can feasibly occur, be it tagboards, comment boxes or forum threads. Bad arguments lead to flame wars which may even spill beyond words and into downright malicious behaviour. Clearly, opinions deeply matter to people, certainly enough to induce violence against other people from an entirely different part of the world whom they'd never meet in person.
All of this brings me to freedom of expression.
I was reading a review of a webcomic which the reviewer considered to be atrocious beyond belief. For that matter, I considered it atrocious beyond belief, and completely irredeemable. It seemed impossible that anyone could defend it. Indeed, most of the comments on that article were some variation of disbelief that the webcomic creator had not been struck down by lightning for his crimes. And then there was one comment which defended the webcomic creator's right to freedom of expression, even if most would find that expression repulsive. Said commentator was immediately shot down for disagreeing with common opinion.
As you can see, it got me thinking.
Because reviews have that implication that the reader should agree with them. Because reviews act as an instruction, to tell someone whether they should or shouldn't sample a particular creative work. But reviews are, at the end of the day, opinions. And they are never representative of everyone's opinion. No matter how bad a book or webcomic or video game might be, there is probably someone, somewhere, who would enjoy it.
But what if the review includes critique intended for the creator of the work? It's the same thing. This time the instruction is to the creator, whether they should change what they are doing or simply keep it up. Again, it is still an opinion. And even if a hundred readers tell a webcomic author that they are terrible, there are probably at least another hundred who enjoy the webcomic thoroughly. Does this give either group of a hundred the right to think that the other group consists of idiots? Certainly not. Does this give the webcomic author the right to consider either group idiots? Certainly not, not that it's going to stop them. Should the author break down weeping at the fact that a hundred people think they are terrible? Well they could, or they could continue pandering to the other hundred people who actually like them. Their choice. It is the right of the author of the work to choose what they do with their art, especially on the Internet where there are few to no laws limiting the expression of such art. Should the hundred people who consider the author an idiot, act in a disdainful manner if said author does not alter the work to suit them? They could do that, but it would make them ridiculous for even expecting the author to accede to their demands in the first place.
I suppose what I'm saying here is that it is certainly alright to express opinions of creative works on the Internet. It is definitely acceptable to write reviews and explain in detail why something is good or bad. And there is no crime inherent in reading such opinions or reviews and either agreeing or disagreeing with them.
But calling someone an idiot (or worse) because they don't agree with you? Demanding that a particular work be taken off the Internet just because you and your friends find it offensive? Threatening other people for having an opinion which just happens not to be the one you possess? That is not fair at all.
I'm afraid the tired old "don't like, don't read" directive appears to be the best approach. Yes, one may find something horribly offensive. The fact that it exists in a location where others of a similar opinion may run into it and, in turn, be offended in themselves, may irk someone beyond belief. But really, all they can do is avoid it and the people who like that sort of thing, and perhaps write a review to warn others about this abomination to their principles. However, in the interests of fairness, if someone else describes a favourite work as an abomination to their principles, one has to be able accept it too.
Unless of course, one manages to become Supreme Overload of the Internet, in which case one may do as one pleases. And, uh, disregard this post. Er, Mighty Overlord. Sir.
Please don't put me in the Internet Dungeon.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. Reviews. They are, if you think about it, a rather presumptuous means of communicating an opinion. While an evaluation of a creative work can be relatively objective - "This movie earned $60 million on its opening weekend" - reviews tend to include an opinion to mesh the evaluation together - "This movie is excellent." Or several opinions, if the review goes into more detail. However, in spite of being a collection of opinions, reviews also include a instruction, either implicit or explicit - "Therefore, you should go watch this movie" - they have to, otherwise there would be no point in writing the review in the first place. In other words, I say reviews are presumptuous because not only do they state the opinion of the writer, the reader is expected to agree with the recommendation of the reviewer.
This is not necessarily true, of course. Since the review is made up of opinions, it is perfectly acceptable that there would be people who disagree with it, perhaps even strongly enough to communicate this to the reviewer. For a review published in print however, it is possible that the reviewer would know their audience well enough to anticipate their reactions to the creative work. It is also possible, especially when communications were more limited, that readers would have been more willing to accept a single review of a work and take that as the truth, instead of buying more magazines and newspapers to see what other reviewers thought of it, or even going to look at the creative work to judge for themselves. Thus it would appear, in the era before the Internet, that dissent towards a reviewer's opinion would, while present, have been limited in most cases.
You see where I am going with this. The Internet. Oh, the Internet.
The Internet revolutionised communications - not only did it enable people from opposite sides of the globe to talk to each other, it enabled them to do so rapidly, in real time even. Suddenly, people with niche interests could find other people with the same interests. Communities based off the smallest, quirkiest things were able to take off. And with the ease and anonymity of communication over the Internet, suddenly far more opinions would have been available to a wider audience.
Reviews, of course, found their place on the Internet. But now it wasn't just reviewers who got paid for their work - someone typing a review out of their bedroom could potentially gain an audience of millions. And someone looking for a review for a particular work would be able to find hundreds for all but the most obscure of productions.
In spite of being available on an entirely new medium, reviews haven't changed in form very much. They are still collections of opinions, sometimes with a logical, reasonable basis and sometimes just pure personal judgement. They still contain that implicit instruction - "If I say it is good it is good and you should go look at it, but if I say it is bad you should not, otherwise you have wasted your time reading this review."
However, since the audience for any given review on the Internet is potentially massive, and would consist of people with wildly varying opinions of their own, the possibility of a clash is not just incredibly large, it is a certainty. Think about it. Reviews consist of opinions. They are written in such a way that you, the reader, are expected to agree with them, at least partially. They can be written by practically anyone and about any creative work including video games, webcomics and fanfiction. And since this is the Internet, almost anyone from any background can access them.
Look up the reviews for any movie or book. No matter how incredibly good or bad it seems, there will always be those who consider it the exact opposite. Furthermore, they are entirely sure that they are correct, that you are an idiot if you disagree with them, and they are willing to use profanity or threaten to kill you if that's what it takes to convince you. Indeed, it appears to be standard now to be arrogant and rude when defending one's views over the Internet. A by-product of anonymity and a lack of accountability, perhaps?
Whatever the reason, it leads to often brutal arguments wherever such arguments can feasibly occur, be it tagboards, comment boxes or forum threads. Bad arguments lead to flame wars which may even spill beyond words and into downright malicious behaviour. Clearly, opinions deeply matter to people, certainly enough to induce violence against other people from an entirely different part of the world whom they'd never meet in person.
All of this brings me to freedom of expression.
I was reading a review of a webcomic which the reviewer considered to be atrocious beyond belief. For that matter, I considered it atrocious beyond belief, and completely irredeemable. It seemed impossible that anyone could defend it. Indeed, most of the comments on that article were some variation of disbelief that the webcomic creator had not been struck down by lightning for his crimes. And then there was one comment which defended the webcomic creator's right to freedom of expression, even if most would find that expression repulsive. Said commentator was immediately shot down for disagreeing with common opinion.
As you can see, it got me thinking.
Because reviews have that implication that the reader should agree with them. Because reviews act as an instruction, to tell someone whether they should or shouldn't sample a particular creative work. But reviews are, at the end of the day, opinions. And they are never representative of everyone's opinion. No matter how bad a book or webcomic or video game might be, there is probably someone, somewhere, who would enjoy it.
But what if the review includes critique intended for the creator of the work? It's the same thing. This time the instruction is to the creator, whether they should change what they are doing or simply keep it up. Again, it is still an opinion. And even if a hundred readers tell a webcomic author that they are terrible, there are probably at least another hundred who enjoy the webcomic thoroughly. Does this give either group of a hundred the right to think that the other group consists of idiots? Certainly not. Does this give the webcomic author the right to consider either group idiots? Certainly not, not that it's going to stop them. Should the author break down weeping at the fact that a hundred people think they are terrible? Well they could, or they could continue pandering to the other hundred people who actually like them. Their choice. It is the right of the author of the work to choose what they do with their art, especially on the Internet where there are few to no laws limiting the expression of such art. Should the hundred people who consider the author an idiot, act in a disdainful manner if said author does not alter the work to suit them? They could do that, but it would make them ridiculous for even expecting the author to accede to their demands in the first place.
I suppose what I'm saying here is that it is certainly alright to express opinions of creative works on the Internet. It is definitely acceptable to write reviews and explain in detail why something is good or bad. And there is no crime inherent in reading such opinions or reviews and either agreeing or disagreeing with them.
But calling someone an idiot (or worse) because they don't agree with you? Demanding that a particular work be taken off the Internet just because you and your friends find it offensive? Threatening other people for having an opinion which just happens not to be the one you possess? That is not fair at all.
I'm afraid the tired old "don't like, don't read" directive appears to be the best approach. Yes, one may find something horribly offensive. The fact that it exists in a location where others of a similar opinion may run into it and, in turn, be offended in themselves, may irk someone beyond belief. But really, all they can do is avoid it and the people who like that sort of thing, and perhaps write a review to warn others about this abomination to their principles. However, in the interests of fairness, if someone else describes a favourite work as an abomination to their principles, one has to be able accept it too.
Unless of course, one manages to become Supreme Overload of the Internet, in which case one may do as one pleases. And, uh, disregard this post. Er, Mighty Overlord. Sir.
Please don't put me in the Internet Dungeon.
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
Wind and Rain
I stayed at home to do some work instead of going to the lab as I usually do.
Am I ever so glad I did. This is the time I'd normally walk back and it's raining heavily. Not just that, but we've had heavy winds today. Put that together with the unusually early sunset and it looks like we're caught in a cyclone here.
Wondering how everyone else is planning on getting home.
Am I ever so glad I did. This is the time I'd normally walk back and it's raining heavily. Not just that, but we've had heavy winds today. Put that together with the unusually early sunset and it looks like we're caught in a cyclone here.
Wondering how everyone else is planning on getting home.
Thursday, 20 August 2009
Friday, 31 July 2009
A Letter to an Important Person
Hi.
So. Um. I don't quite know where to start. You're really weird and, to be honest, fairly scary. I don't know how you get to be as sneaky as you are, because you are not particularly silent. Somehow you have mastered the art of fading into the background, such that you are completely undetectable until you make yourself known, generally when located behind us just as we start talking about you.
That said, I don't fear you. No, I don't care what she says. She doesn't know a quarter of what she thinks she does. I'm not convinced that you would hurt me, on purpose or otherwise, and therefore I'm not afraid of you, personally. What I do have for you is intense respect, for the strange balance of razor-sharp intelligence, authority, and gentleness, that is your personality. Inconveniencing you in any way is the last think I want to do. Therefore I stay out of your way, because I don't quite know what to do to avoid offending or annoying you. You're such a closed book, I can't judge what you prefer and what you hate. It's just been easier to avoid you altogether and therefore avoid the question of how to actually interact with you.
This wasn't right. I'm sorry. It was not until today that I realised I've been as much a closed book to you as you have been to me - that where I thought you were stoic and reserved, you were actually shy and unsure. I thought you didn't want to talk to me, but in reality you didn't know how. I didn't mean to ignore you. I just thought it simply didn't matter to you.
I won't let that happen again. I promise I'll make an effort to get to know you better. I'll share my silly little adventures with you even if I think you won't be interested, just to let you know how I'm going. I'll treat you as a person and not an obligation. I'll stop worrying about how anything I might say or do would result in a backlash from you. I'll stop being so selfish. Because I realise that's what I've been all along. I've been so careful to avoid annoying you because, ultimately, I didn't want to have to face any kind of negative consequences. I've been acting as if I've been thinking about you when, in fact, it's all been about me. And with my cowardice I've been hurting you.
You are important to me, you know. Your opinion, your insights, the things you say which I don't want to hear. And because you matter, I'm going to start putting you ahead of my need to maintain an image. I think you deserve that much, even if it is a poor return for everything you've done for me.
Thanks, and cheers.
So. Um. I don't quite know where to start. You're really weird and, to be honest, fairly scary. I don't know how you get to be as sneaky as you are, because you are not particularly silent. Somehow you have mastered the art of fading into the background, such that you are completely undetectable until you make yourself known, generally when located behind us just as we start talking about you.
That said, I don't fear you. No, I don't care what she says. She doesn't know a quarter of what she thinks she does. I'm not convinced that you would hurt me, on purpose or otherwise, and therefore I'm not afraid of you, personally. What I do have for you is intense respect, for the strange balance of razor-sharp intelligence, authority, and gentleness, that is your personality. Inconveniencing you in any way is the last think I want to do. Therefore I stay out of your way, because I don't quite know what to do to avoid offending or annoying you. You're such a closed book, I can't judge what you prefer and what you hate. It's just been easier to avoid you altogether and therefore avoid the question of how to actually interact with you.
This wasn't right. I'm sorry. It was not until today that I realised I've been as much a closed book to you as you have been to me - that where I thought you were stoic and reserved, you were actually shy and unsure. I thought you didn't want to talk to me, but in reality you didn't know how. I didn't mean to ignore you. I just thought it simply didn't matter to you.
I won't let that happen again. I promise I'll make an effort to get to know you better. I'll share my silly little adventures with you even if I think you won't be interested, just to let you know how I'm going. I'll treat you as a person and not an obligation. I'll stop worrying about how anything I might say or do would result in a backlash from you. I'll stop being so selfish. Because I realise that's what I've been all along. I've been so careful to avoid annoying you because, ultimately, I didn't want to have to face any kind of negative consequences. I've been acting as if I've been thinking about you when, in fact, it's all been about me. And with my cowardice I've been hurting you.
You are important to me, you know. Your opinion, your insights, the things you say which I don't want to hear. And because you matter, I'm going to start putting you ahead of my need to maintain an image. I think you deserve that much, even if it is a poor return for everything you've done for me.
Thanks, and cheers.
Sunday, 28 June 2009
Update XXIV: Snow
I'll go chronologically, since that makes the most sense.
As may be inferred from the previous post, I went with some friends to watch Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen on opening night here. Subsequently I've read a number of reviews by both professional and casual critics, and they have been overwhelmingly negative. Personally, my verdict is that if you like giant robot fights, vehicles and explosions, are willing to overlook silly humans and a few vulgar jokes, and are a fan of Optimus Prime, watch this movie. Otherwise, set your expectations low and/or don't bother watching it. I'll say this much, though - it was a far better sequel than Dead Man's Chest. I enjoyed it as a mindless action movie with sprinklings of good characterisation and stunning visuals, and will probably pick up the DVD when it comes out.
Over the weekend another friend took us to a ski trip to Mt. Buller. It was a good three-hour drive, but I enjoyed all of it, especially at one point where we were far enough from civilisation for the night sky to fill with stars - and not just the major constellations, but the spraypaint-like distant stars as well. It was magnificient. We stayed a delightfully rustic lodge at the base of the mountain, and drove up in the morning to the ski resort. Skiing, I must say, is a tiring activity and requires physical strength (especially in the knees and thighs) as well as coordination, balance and pure recklessness. The ski-lifts were fun though (except the part when I got off and promptly fell on my rear) and I loved the snow. It is unlike any other material on Earth. Being the massive nerds we were, we made a snow PCR machine and subsequently took a stab at a Snow Optimus.
At evening we headed back down for a pasta dinner and some relaxation. We had mulled wine over a wild game of house-rules UNO - and let me tell you this, there is nothing like playing UNO with six people, especially when the rules have been tweaked to make the game faster-paced. The game made us properly tired for bedtime. I had previously called dibs on the loft bed, and retired well-buried under a pile of blankets, pillows and a stuffed shark.
By the next day my muscles were aching and my feet hurt where the ski boots had pressed against them, so I stayed back and explored the small settlement around the lodge. I found a beautiful little creek, and managed to get a photograph of a rather bold kookaburra. I'd have made Anzac cookies too, but was defeated by a lack of baking soda in the otherwise well-stocked kitchen. I did explore the interesting collection of books in the house, which included recipe books, Agatha Christie's autobiography, an embroidery reference book and a collection of essays in the area of life sciences, such as the Gaia hypothesis and selfish genes. It was a pleasant holiday, and I was rather sad when it ended.
Naturally, living away from civilisation with no television or internet does tend to remove one from current news. But we did have a working radio, and it was from this ancient machine that we learned Michael Jackson had passed away.
Jackson has been a controversial character in recent times. But if we look impassively at his work, especially his early songs, it cannot be denied that he was a superb dancer, and that many of his music videos contained ground-breaking ideas. Furthermore, it is clear that he has contributed greatly to popular culture. I'm sad that things happened the way that they did, and I mourn the loss of another brilliant singer. Rest in peace, Mr. Jackson.
Today was a working Sunday, an attempt to restore normalcy after two days of holidaying, to let the muscle aches subside, and more importantly to get some much-needed grocery shopping done. Chocolate was purchased, music was listened to, the day wound down back to reality.
Tomorrow will be another day.
As may be inferred from the previous post, I went with some friends to watch Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen on opening night here. Subsequently I've read a number of reviews by both professional and casual critics, and they have been overwhelmingly negative. Personally, my verdict is that if you like giant robot fights, vehicles and explosions, are willing to overlook silly humans and a few vulgar jokes, and are a fan of Optimus Prime, watch this movie. Otherwise, set your expectations low and/or don't bother watching it. I'll say this much, though - it was a far better sequel than Dead Man's Chest. I enjoyed it as a mindless action movie with sprinklings of good characterisation and stunning visuals, and will probably pick up the DVD when it comes out.
Over the weekend another friend took us to a ski trip to Mt. Buller. It was a good three-hour drive, but I enjoyed all of it, especially at one point where we were far enough from civilisation for the night sky to fill with stars - and not just the major constellations, but the spraypaint-like distant stars as well. It was magnificient. We stayed a delightfully rustic lodge at the base of the mountain, and drove up in the morning to the ski resort. Skiing, I must say, is a tiring activity and requires physical strength (especially in the knees and thighs) as well as coordination, balance and pure recklessness. The ski-lifts were fun though (except the part when I got off and promptly fell on my rear) and I loved the snow. It is unlike any other material on Earth. Being the massive nerds we were, we made a snow PCR machine and subsequently took a stab at a Snow Optimus.
At evening we headed back down for a pasta dinner and some relaxation. We had mulled wine over a wild game of house-rules UNO - and let me tell you this, there is nothing like playing UNO with six people, especially when the rules have been tweaked to make the game faster-paced. The game made us properly tired for bedtime. I had previously called dibs on the loft bed, and retired well-buried under a pile of blankets, pillows and a stuffed shark.
By the next day my muscles were aching and my feet hurt where the ski boots had pressed against them, so I stayed back and explored the small settlement around the lodge. I found a beautiful little creek, and managed to get a photograph of a rather bold kookaburra. I'd have made Anzac cookies too, but was defeated by a lack of baking soda in the otherwise well-stocked kitchen. I did explore the interesting collection of books in the house, which included recipe books, Agatha Christie's autobiography, an embroidery reference book and a collection of essays in the area of life sciences, such as the Gaia hypothesis and selfish genes. It was a pleasant holiday, and I was rather sad when it ended.
Naturally, living away from civilisation with no television or internet does tend to remove one from current news. But we did have a working radio, and it was from this ancient machine that we learned Michael Jackson had passed away.
Jackson has been a controversial character in recent times. But if we look impassively at his work, especially his early songs, it cannot be denied that he was a superb dancer, and that many of his music videos contained ground-breaking ideas. Furthermore, it is clear that he has contributed greatly to popular culture. I'm sad that things happened the way that they did, and I mourn the loss of another brilliant singer. Rest in peace, Mr. Jackson.
Today was a working Sunday, an attempt to restore normalcy after two days of holidaying, to let the muscle aches subside, and more importantly to get some much-needed grocery shopping done. Chocolate was purchased, music was listened to, the day wound down back to reality.
Tomorrow will be another day.
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)