Search This Blog

Showing posts with label My old emails. Show all posts
Showing posts with label My old emails. Show all posts

Monday, March 29, 2010

SPOILER ALERT – Lost Season 6 “Ab Aeterno”

WARNING: This blog posting contains mildly explicit language. Viewer discretion is advised.

OMG! OMG! OMG! I was right! “I am smart! I am smart! S-m-r-t! I mean s-m-A-r-t!”

I quote the great Homer Simpson because I was pretty much right about something huge! It’s rare that I display smartness, so I must gloat on these rare occasions.

Are you dying to know what I was right about? Well, if you read my blog and have seen this week’s episode of Lost, “Ab Aeterno,” where so many Lost questions were answered, then you would surely know.

As I postulated in a previous blog posting, Jacob’s job is to contain Evil on the Island in order to keep Evil from overtaking the Earth. This is why Man-in-Black (I gave up on calling him Guy-in-Black)/The Smoke Monster/Fake John Locke feels trapped and wants to escape; he is Evil, and he wants to escape so he and his evilness may roam free through the world, and as Isabella tells Hurley, all the world will be in Hell. Please note that I referred to this as “The Darkness” in that blog posting, as Jacob called it “The Darkness” in this episode. How awesome am I? How awesome are you for reading my blog? Very, on both counts. Very indeed.

I will provide more brilliant insights and predictions in the present blog posting. I am not conceited.

Some Background

First and foremost, if you don’t speak Latin or if you haven’t yet googled, “Ab Aeterno” (the episode’s title) means “From Eternity.” Obviously, it’s a reference to Richard’s immortality, as well as a reference to the Jacob v. Man in Black feud.

This episode answered questions Lost fans have been wondering about for an eternity, particularly questions about the oh-so-mysterious Richard Alpert. In April of 2009, I wrote an email to my Lost-pushing sister about Richard Alpert. You’ll see that I was quite insightful, and quite wrong in one respect, though I brilliantly and insightfully corrected myself. I’m so flippin’ smart.
I read Wikipedia's thing on Richard Alpert (the Lost character). It explains, "he plays a role in the group's hierarchy that has been compared to that of the Panchen Lama in Buddhism by the series' producers.” Clicking on that word reveals that that role is the second highest in Buddhism, just under Dalai Lama. This makes sense, since it seems that someone else is always the leader, like Ben, Charles Widmore, and it seems John Locke is supposed to be next. The first link says that Jacob is the leader of the Others, so maybe that's who Richard is really second to. Maybe Jacob is G-d (I just thought of that now). Jacob means “supplanter,” and Biblical Jacob was the one who fought G-d, and was then given the name Israel by G-d, which means "one who has been strong against G-d."

Getting back to Richard Alpert, the article mentions the person he was named after of the same name. The real Richard Alpert was a spiritual guy in the 1960s and 70s who had some association with a Hindu spiritual leader.
Wow, I’m smarter than I realized. I had forgotten about Biblical Jacob’s interactions with G-d because I was so focused on the Biblical Jacob v. Esau thing. Perhaps my earlier suggestion that Man in Black/The Smoke Monster was a divine leader before Jacob usurped him might in fact be accurate. The question is, then, is it a battle between Good and Evil, or is it a battle between two divine entities who simply have differing worldviews and differing views of human nature.

Evil from Within Lost

This episode was exhausting to watch, largely because of all the crazy drama and Lostiness, but also because I was rather distraught to discover that the producers of Lost blatantly lied to us. They very clearly stated on Jimmy Kimmel Live that Fake John Locke is not the Man in Black, but he is the Smoke Monster. “Ab Aeterno” clearly shows us what I believed whole-heartedly to be true before those evil producers lied to me – that The Man in Black is indeed The Smoke Monster, and since Fake John Locke is also The Smoke Monster, it follows that Fake John Locke is The Man in Black. Why did you lie to us, Lost Producers, why?! Maybe there will be a twist and they will have not been lying all along. Perhaps Man in Black is lying and is not The Smoke Monster. After all, he is an evil bastard, he would lie. Continue reading for more evidence that Fake John Locke is not Man in Black/The Smoke Monster in the section below entitled “Man in Black.”

Identifying Jacob

Jacob is good. I’m maintaining a tiny little bit of doubt just in case they’re still screwing with us, but I think it’s pretty clear at this point. Jacob might be G-d, or he might be some alternate form of G-d – a divine power. It seems like Jacob doesn’t view the words “Hell” or “Devil” as defining Evil, so perhaps he doesn’t view G-d as defining Good. It seems like Jacob views things in terms of Good and Evil in a broader sense that probably encapsulates the Good- and Evil-related beliefs of all the world’s cultures, rather than being restricted to the Christian view of things. I surmised all this from Jacob’s reference to “what [Richard/Ricardo] call[s] Hell.” Additionally, Dogen had also referred to Fake John Locke/The Smoke Monster/Man in Black as “evil incarnate” rather than calling him the Devil, so it seems that Jacob and his followers probably do not subscribe to any particular religious belief. Man in Black/The Smoke Monster blatantly claimed that Jacob is the Devil, although he did leave that to Richard’s assumptions regarding The Smoke Monster. He also blatantly told Richard he is dead and in Hell. Man in Black’s blatant Devil and Hell-centric claims further demonstrates Man in Black’s willingness to tell people exactly what they want to hear in order to get what he wants.

Jacob’s purpose has become clear. He or whoever holds his position exists to contain and detain Evil on the Island, to protect the Island from Evil, and therefore, to protect the world from Evil. Logically, then, Jacob is the Protector, not just of the Island as I suggested previously, but of the Universe. Jacob is G-d or some other form of Divinity representing Good, defined by some religions as G-d. Jacob represents Free Will; he believes people can and should make their own choices, and he believes he should not make those choices for people, even if people choose Evil. Jacob believes and hopes that people will ultimately choose Good over Evil. Jacob guides people, he helps them, he leads them, but he does not choose for them. Jacob hires Richard to guide people towards Good rather than Evil in ways that might be more direct than Jacob is willing to do himself. Jacob does not want to interfere with people’s choices.

Perhaps what Jacob intends and what Jacob does do not align perfectly. He does not intend to interfere with people’s decisions, yet it’s possible that he might have had profound effects on our special character’s lives, possibly in the new reality (flash-sideways) and without a doubt in the reality we are familiar with. Jacob brings people to the Island, and he touches people, providing them with special gifts; these things interfere in their decisions. These things might even force them to make particular decisions.

In my first Lost-related blog posting, I suggested that Jacob and Man in Black might both be evil forces, playing a game with people’s lives just for the sake of playing a game. Jacob provided evidence for this when he explained that he brings people to the Island to prove that people can choose Good over Evil. This is a subtle admission that he is playing with and interfering with people’s lives just to prove a point to a Man in Black, or to prove the point to himself. Jacob brings people to the Island where Evil lives to see if they will fall to Evil temptation. That seems rather evil of Jacob, though his intentions might be Good, and though he might otherwise be Good. Even Divine Good can be flawed.

In light of Jacob’s reason for bringing people to the Island, it’s interesting to think about and see how our special characters as well as our less special characters have faired in the face of Evil temptations. Most of our characters (such as Jack, Hurley, Sun, Jin, and Lapidus) have remained on the side of Good. Some characters have fallen to follow Evil (Fake John Locke/The Smoke Monster/Man in Black), either by choice (Claire and Sayid, sort of), by accident (Kate), or in a possibly hopeless and/or misguided attempt to con the Devil himself (Sawyer). Ben, a man who’s lived much of his life committing evil acts in the name of Good, came close to turning fully to Evil for power and acceptance, but Good (via Ilana) accepted him. One character almost fell to Evil from desperation and a sense of lost purpose (Richard), but was drawn back by the inherently Good Hurley.

While there is a plethora of evidence that Jacob is G-d or some other form of Divine Goodness, there is at least one piece of evidence that he might not be G-d. When Jacob and Ricardo/Richard were making their deal, Jacob informed Ricardo/Richard that he could not grant him absolution for his sins. If I understand the monotheistic religions’ views correctly, G-d is capable of providing absolution, either directly, such as in Judaism and possibly Islam (I don’t know very much about the latter), where one will never know if G-d has granted forgiveness, or indirectly, such as in Christianity, where a Priest can speak on behalf of G-d and grant forgiveness. I don’t know much about Buddhism, Hinduism, or other religions, but it seems they all have similar concepts of a Divine entity granting forgiveness. Therefore, if Jacob could not grant absolution for Richard’s sins, does that indicate that he is not divine? Perhaps, or perhaps it simply indicates that Jacob did not believe Richard was deserving of absolution, perhaps due to the nature of his murderous sin, or perhaps because Richard, who insisted the murder he committed was an accident, did not take full responsibility for his actions, and perhaps lacked sufficient remorse. Perhaps this is also why Richard is not a candidate. The six remaining candidates have also sinned I’m sure, but even Sayid, who arguably has sinned the most, took full responsibility for all the torturing he’s done, and clearly has tremendous remorse for it. Perhaps Jacob, as a Divine entity, feels that repentance is more than asking for absolution.

Worst Episode Ever, or Not

In the beginning of the episode, when Richard said they are dead and in Hell, and then again when Man in Black said the same thing to Ricardo/Richard, I was very tempted to write my blog in three words: “Worst episode ever.” Fortunately, Jacob saved me from having to make such a proclamation, proving to Richard that he (Richard) is alive (unless that was an evil illusion, so sneakily evil that only the Devil could pull it off). It would be tremendously unsatisfying if it turned out that the island was Hell and everyone was dead all along. Sure, it would be an interesting view of Hell, and in that sense, it would be far from unsatisfying. Um, so, I guess “unsatisfying” wasn’t the right word. Unsettling – it would be tremendously unsettling. It would also, for some reason, bring to mind the Robin Williams movie that I like a lot, What Dreams May Come. Anyway, since I’m going to assume they’re not in Hell, this was a great episode.

Mea Culpa (Latin for “My Bad”)

While I was right about some things, other people were wrong about some other things, and I propagated these falsehoods in a previous blog posting. Richard did not come to the island from England on his way to Australia, he came to the Island from the Canary Islands on his way to America, but it is true that he was a convict. We learn in this episode that he had been sold into slavery to avoid being hanged for murdering a man in hopes of saving his wife. If I’m remembering correctly, it was also suggested that the Others’ ancestors came to the island with Richard, but it looks like they came later somehow. Perhaps they came from England and perhaps they were also convicts. Who knows.

Evil Possibilities

I wondered previously if Richard had sold his soul to Jacob to obtain his gift of immortality and not aging. It appears that he did not sell his soul, though he did agree to do something for Jacob in return for it. One could argue that that is a form of soul selling; after all, he gets to live forever without aging, but it looks like he must live on the island for eternity as Jacob’s liaison. However, this deal was in no way obscured – it was clearly laid out, and Jacob’s proposition that Richard be his liaison initiated it, rather than Richard’s desires for immortality. It was a friendly exchange, where Jacob was providing payment in the form of a gift in return for Richard’s service. Furthermore, Richard’s new job involved helping people to choose good over evil, an inherently non-evil endeavor. A Devil’s advocate might suggest however that perhaps Jacob sneakily led Richard into a trap; that Richard did sell his soul to Jacob without even knowing it. Yes, I know, this is very unlikely, and as I said, that is only what a Devil’s advocate would say. Puns are fun.

While I don’t want them to be in Hell, there is some evidence that they are. Isabella (Ricardo/Richard’s wife) was on the island with Richard before The Smoke Monster killed her or consumed her soul or did whatever it is he does to people. If she is not dead and in Hell, how did she get onto the island? Perhaps the priest snuck her onto the Black Rock.

Man in Black

Man in Black and Fake John Locke both complain about Jacob trapping him and holding him captive on the island, and both mention having been a regular person before. Fake John Locke gave us insight into the life he led as a regular person when he told Kate in “Recon” that he had a crazy mother. As I’ve suggested before, perhaps Man in Black/Fake John Locke/The Smoke Monster isn’t evil; perhaps he was wrongly captured and detained. Of course the evidence for his evilness ha been illuminated rather thoroughly, what with all the killing and so forth, but perhaps he didn’t start out being evil – perhaps he was driven to evil by being held captive for so long. Alternatively, maybe, like Lucifer, he fell from grace and became evil via his own choosing. If that is the case, it is rather interesting that he believes people are destined to choose evil, the very thing Jacob has been trying so hard to disprove.

I find it strange that Richard didn’t recognize Fake John Locke as Man in Black. Fake John Locke speaks and acts very much like Man in Black, with very similar intonational patterns and mannerisms. I wonder if Richard’s lack of recognition might in fact be evidence against Fake John Locke being Man in Black. Maybe those Lost producers aren’t evil liars after all.

This episode delineated more similarities between Jacob and Man in Black/The Smoke Monster/Fake John Locke. Man in Black told Richard to kill Jacob in the same way that Dogen told Sayid to kill Fake John Locke. When Sayid did as he was told, Fake John Locke was unaffected and definitely not (re-)killed. Was this a result of Sayid’s new infection? Are Jacob and Man in Black different kinds of beings? Does this provide another piece of evidence that Fake John Locke/The Smoke Monster is not Man in Black after all? Perhaps if Fake John Locke really was the Man in Black, perhaps Sayid’s murdering of him would have been successful.

Both Sayid and Richard were told to kill Fake John Locke and Jacob before the respective entity spoke, for if he spoke, it would be too late. I imagine this not speaking clause might result from both of their abilities to talk people into and out of things, perhaps in a manipulative, Devilish way. This suggests that both Fake John Locke and whoever he represents, as well as Jacob might be evil – or it suggests that Dogen and Man in Black perceive Fake John Locke and Jacob respectively as Evil.

My Brilliant Prediction

I believe that Hurley will be the candidate to take over the role of Jacob. As I mentioned before, his last name, Reyes, means Kings, suggesting that he is destined to be King of the Universe. I have also discussed his genuine kindness, and other Good qualities. He genuinely wants to help his fellow man, and would do no harm. Speaking of doing no harm, I believe that if Hurley is not going to be the new Jacob, then Jack will be (he’s a doctor, so he took that do-no-harm oath, hence my segue). Jack Shephard, a born leader, is also genuinely kind and also has lots of Good qualities (well, all the candidates do), and Jacob made a point to protect Jack and Hurley in “Lighthouse.”

Anyhoo, getting back to Hurley, I further believe that he has already taken over the role of Jacob in the new reality/flash sideways. Everyone’s lives have improved in that new reality, and I can’t help but think Hurley has more to do with that then simply hiring a bunch of his friends in another reality. Perhaps Hurley is re-writing their lives so that they can be improved, as he attempted to rewrite Star Wars, so that it might be improved, when he was transported to the 1970s. Perhaps they were foreshadowing his Jacobian take-over.

It’s possible that I’m wrong, of course, and one piece of evidence for my potential wrongness is Hurley’s presence, presumably as a mortal, in the new reality. It could be that whoever takes the Jacob role wouldn’t have a mortal life anymore, but then again, perhaps he or she can. Perhaps, in a Christ-like way (let’s pretend we’re all Christian for a second), the new Jacob could exist both as a divine being on the island as well as a mortal being in LA. If, however, this is not the case, and if I am correct in my prediction that the new reality/flash-sideways is the result of the new Jacob, then the new Jacob must be someone who we have not seen in the new reality. However, I believe we have seen all the six non-crossed-off candidates in the new reality. Therefore, my assumption that the new Jacob can exist, whether mortal or not, off the island is very likely accurate. Of course we know that Jacob could leave the island; I wonder if he still existed on the island when he left, or if he simply sojourned off the island. Anyway, my point is, I don’t believe that Hurley’s presence in the new reality is evidence against my prediction that he is the new Jacob, and that the new reality is what Hurley as the new Jacob has woven.

We shall wait and see if more of my predictions end up being correct. It’s fun to be right about stuff, but it should be noted that it’s easier to be right when one suggests every possibility one can think of, thereby increasing the chances of accuracy for at least one of those possibilities. See, I told you I’m not conceited.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

SPOILER ALERT – Understanding the "Lost" Season 5 Finale (Or Trying To)

[Updated at the end, after seeing the Season 6 premiere and Lost producers on Jimmy Kimmel Live.]

[Originally an email on May 30, 2009

The following things are either my original thoughts or things I read, sometimes both. I'm not sure which for some of it, but I’ll note when I do know the source for what I say. There were things I read that I neglected to cite here, and for that I apologize, because I can’t seem to re-find everything I read. ]

Some Random Plot Points and Articles that Explain Things Nicely

The best show ever, Best Week Ever, has someone (Dan Hopper and maybe others) writing all about the other best show ever, Lost. This is a very nice recap of the Lost Season 5 finale, with some interpretations and explainings of stuff! It's wonderful!

You can also watch the full episode of Best Week Ever from the week of the Lost Season 5 finale where they talk about the finale at the beginning.

This fantastic article from Entertainment Weekly explains the book (Everything That Rises Must Converge) I was curious about from the finale – the one Jacob was reading before he touched John Locke after the latter fell out of the window. Jeff Jensen (or Doc Jensen as people seem to call him), the writer of the article, was mentioned in the Best Week Ever thing, so that’s how I discovered it.

If you don't want to read that whole EW article (or even if you do), this blog quotes from it and adds other stuff too! It's really good!

The Latin phrase that Richard says in response to Ilana's question "What lies in the shadow of the statue" is "Ille qui nos omnis servabit." which means "He who will save us all." The thing that told me that looks interesting and explain-y. I think some of the other articles above might have been better but this one is nice as a summary of the whole episode and some of the mythology (very nice brief descriptions of mythology actually). It also mentions the significance of Juliet's name (Shakespeare), and Penelope (Desmond's wife Penny; it says that Penelope (of The Odyssey) would weave tapestries by day and unravel them by night to stall for time while evading suitors while she waited for her Odysseus to return, by telling those suitors she would make her decisions after she finished her tapestry.


However, I don't know if I agree with what the author says about Ben and Jacob, where she says that Jacob views Ben with contempt. In one of the other articles above (or maybe somewhere else), it had said that Jacob might not have meant "why not you" with contempt as Ben perceived it, rather, he might have meant it as a way for Ben to self reflect or something. I think I agree with the latter – I didn’t feel like I heard contempt in Jacob's voice, although I think contempt is still a possibility; Jacob is still such a mystery. I think the self reflection thing might make sense, or maybe Jacob doesn't know why not Ben and was verbalizing (ok, that one's probably not the case)

I read somewhere (where fans write things, it’s gone from the internets now) that perhaps the white flash at the end was not the hydrogen bomb detonating, but rather another time flash...That seems like an interesting possibility....

Someone (I think the EW writer) noted that Jacob physically touches each of our Losties (as people seem call the main characters), but he is not present in Juliet's flashback. Additionally, Juliet seems to be the "variable" Daniel Faraday was talking about maybe, because she "changed her mind" as someone noted somewhere. She used her free will, and free will is something Jacob seems to be a really big fan of ("it's your choice"). My thought of why she wasn't touched by Jacob might be that she spent time living on the island as an Other, and I’m not sure but I think all the people who weren't touched by Jacob lived on the island at some point, so maybe they didn't need touching because they might've "felt" his presence by virtue of being on the island.

I couldn't hear this part, but I read that while Ben is killing Jacob, Jacob says "they're coming"...and then Evil/Fake John Locke (Guy-in-Black masquerading as John Locke) looks really angry and pushes dead Jacob into the fire...Someone explained that "they" is probably our Losties, and they're probably coming because of the white flash, whatever it was (most likely H-bomb detonating). And maybe their arrival will undo what Guy-in-Black did; maybe it will undo the loophole he found...


This thing explains The Black Rock, which I was confused about after reading the Best Week Ever thing.

Apparently, the ancestors of the Others came to the island sometime in the 1800s via a ship called the Black Rock which appears to have set sail from England and was probably carrying convicts heading for Australia (I gathered al this from reading, I don’t know what of it is theoretical and what is Lost fact, since I’ve been known to miss large chunks of Lost seasons). Richard, in a previous episode, was apparently making a Black Rock in a bottle, so perhaps it is the ship he came over on as well, as someone says in a blog or article (or is he part of the island? That might be my thought, I’m not sure, but I think it makes more sense in light of someone saying that the Latin the Others speak might not fit well with England in the 1800s). The Black Rock is probably the ship that Jacob and Guy-in-Black are watching approach the island in the beginning of the finale, as they debate about whether the people will self destruct or achieve something greater or something (I don’t know, I need to re-watch that). We learn there that Jacob views everything as progress, and seems to have faith in humanity and free will, while Guy-in-Black seems to not have faith in humans, and seems to feel that humans are doomed -- destined to fail. And then of course Guy-in-Black says he wants to kill Jacob and that he wants to find a loophole in order to accomplish that.

The Jacob vs. Nameless-Guy-in-Black Dichotomy

I think the biggest source of confusion about this episode (other than what the white light at the end is of course) centers on Jacob, Guy-in-Black, who they are, and who or what they represent. I’ve had some theories, and I read about most or all of the ones I thought of, as well as ones I had not thought of. I think each theory can be expressed as a dichotomy, and most of them are some form or other of the dichotomy of good vs. evil. I will discuss (or at least state) several of them here.

Good, maybe G-d (Jacob) vs. Evil, maybe Satan (Guy-in-Black) – This is probably the most obvious, and perhaps the most likely dichotomy.

Evil, Lucifer, the shiniest angel that fell from the heavens (and became Satan?) (Jacob) vs. Good (Guy-in-Black)

Biblical Jacob, Good (Jacob) vs. Esau, Biblical Jacob's "evil" twin (Guy-in-Black)

Update as I post this blog: Oh, but wait, was Biblical Jacob really the evil one? He stole Esau’s birthright – he tricked their blind father into thinking he was Esau to get the blessing of the first-born. The ambiguous dichotomy exists even in the Torah (Old Testament)! This leads to another potential dichotomy:

Evil, deceitful Biblical Jacob (Jacob) vs. Esau, Biblical Jacob's "good" twin (Guy-in-Black)

Some have suggested that Guy-in-Black is the Smoke Monster – I think that makes so much sense. But that begs the question again: is Guy-in-Black good or evil? Does he only eat the souls of evil people (as the blog above suggests) or does he eat all souls? Is he the protector of the island?

I just had a thought while typing [the email]:
Protector of Island (Guy-in-Black) vs. Protector of People (Jacob)

This goes well with other thoughts I've had before, which may or may not have been original.

Good vs. Good
Evil vs. Evil

Starting w/ evil vs. evil (because it's shorter), perhaps they are simply playing a game for the sake of a game; perhaps neither really cares who they hurt.

Good vs. Good
Island (Guy-in-Black) vs. People (Jacob)
Fate/predetermined destiny (Guy-in-Black) vs. Free Will (Jacob)

Back to good vs. evil:
The statue that Jacob lives in appears to be some Egyptian g-d or something (from what I’ve read) and if you google (ABC confirmed that the statue is the Egyptian goddess Taweret), it seems you'll get some people saying that it's evil and others saying it's good. It's evil in that it's parts of animals that kill humans (alligator, lion, stuff like that). The good side is that it's all animals that somehow represent fertility, and female animals that protect their young. Jacob lives in this dichotomous statue – that is interesting. Maybe he is simultaneously good and evil...Maybe he is G-d in that G-d is supposed to be "good" but is also destructive, and bad things happen under G-d's control (someone pointed that out, I think the EW guy maybe). I think the EW guy notes that Jacob apologizes and/or is sympathetic about bad things that happen (he says to John Locke after he falls out of the window, "I'm sorry this had to happen to you").

Update while posting this: I tried to find what I found when googling when I wrote this email, but I can’t find those things. Interestingly, I’m not finding much about Taweret being evil, but this is as close as I can find. There’s plenty out there about how Taweret is good.

This little thing tells of something I totally missed, Ben apparently saw a hieroglyphic thingie of the statue fighting the smoke monster when he was being told by the smoke monster to do as (fake) John Locke says. Is this good fighting evil? Is it evidence that Guy-in-Black is the Smoke Monster?

My little thought, probably of no actual significance: Jacob lies in the shadow of the statue, and he lives in the foot (ewwww, feet are gross). These seem like bad things, shadows, and the bottom...Are these suggestive of evil? Doesn’t the Torah say, “You shall be a head and not a tail”?

This was quite an episode...

I miss Lost. Is it 2010 yet? Best Week Ever isn't coming back until 2010 either. I think it's a conspiracy, clearly.

Update: I heard somewhere that Best Week Ever isn’t coming back at all. What kind of world are we living in, with no Best Week Ever? I hope it comes back.

Sunday, November 8, 2009

The Arrogance of Shinedown

(Originally written as an email on April 25, 2009)

I was watching the VH1 Top 20, and the annoying man who hosts it [Jim Shearer, who’s become less annoying since this was written] was introducing Shinedown’s “Second Chance” video. He says that the lead singer [Brent Smith] has said that their newest CD (The Sound of Madness) is not only the best CD Shinedown has made, but it also compares favorably to any other album in musical history.

Wow, I can't believe I own the greatest CD ever recorded; that's pretty amazing haha. It sounded like Jim Shearer might've been exaggerating what the shiny man said. I hope he was, because really, that's a little bit arrogant. As Jim Shearer sarcastically said, The Sound of Madness is clearly better than albums of artists like The Beatles, Michael Jackson, etc (I’m loosely paraphrasing).

Omg, Jim Shearer was not exaggerating at all. Brent Smith did say those things. Maybe he was just really excited about their shiny work.

I think I do agree with Brent Smith in that The Sound of Madness probably is the best CD Shinedown has made thus far, and it is a really good CD in general. But clearly the greatest CD ever recorded is either Fallen (Evanescence), 21st Century Breakdown (Green Day), American Idiot (also Green Day), Breakaway (Kelly Clarkson), The Black Album (Metallica), S&M (also Metallica), or The Fifth Symphony (Beethoven)…

Pink’s Abusive Lyrics

UPDATE: December 5, 2009
Thanks to Tiger Woods and his wife, this blog posting has more relevance now! See what I write here for why.

(Originally written as an email on August 12, 2009)

I was kind of liking that Pink song, "Please Don't Leave Me," although I vaguely noticed something a little abusive about the lyrics. So today, I listened to the lyrics, and holy crap, either Pink is an abusive POS, or maybe she is singing from the voice of an abusive POS. But the lyrics are clearly the words of an abusive POS.

I was kind of thinking at first that maybe she's just reacting to an abusive POS, but she says things like "I don't know why I’m so obnoxious, something about you makes me act that way" and "You're my perfect little punching bag"....What an abusive POS.

I hope she's just singing from the abuser's voice...I like a lot of her music, including that song, lol. Also, I like her, or I did anyway.

(I wrote another email about a half hour later)

Um, so maybe Pink is not an abusive POS. Someone told me to watch the video, which shows her trying to kill her boyfriend but then sings all sweetly, "Please don't leave me.” I know this description sounds just as terrible as I thought the lyrics were, but it's funny-like, and very clearly showing the irony of it.

A couple of people informed me that it’s an homage to a movie called Misery, which I have not seen. As one of those people notes, Pink is a funny girl, and so the lyrics and video are intended as humor. I probably should have realized that.

In this video, Pink explains the meaning of the song, and here she says that she and her mom are both a**holes, but they're also loveable, and have the whole "go away...no come back" kind of personalities.

Anyhoo, the lyrics are still the things abusive people would say, but I do like Pink and her music, and that song is good, and she is a funny girl, and I do see the intended humor.

Hmm, here's an interesting thought: If a man were singing it (let's say Chris Brown, i.e. a known abusive POS), and Pink (or Rihanna, or any other woman) was the recipient of it, I wonder if anyone would say it's funny...So yeah, while I see the humor and I still like Pink and while I’m no longer feeling that she's an abusive POS (because of the humor and obvious irony in the video), I’m still a bit uncomfortable with the lyrics. Maybe I should see this movie Misery...

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Fox News Creates Britney Controversy (EXPLICIT LANGUAGE)

(Originally written as an email on March 29, 2009)

The following contains explicit and/or suggestive language, references to illegal drugs, and may contain animated nudity. Viewer discretion is advised.

I think this is funny....You know that Britney Spears song "If U Seek Amy"? I learned yesterday from the VH1 Top 20 and from Fox News that it's meant to be "IF u see ka(y) me" --> "F * C K Me." (That’s right -- I’m censoring the explicit language even though I warned you about it.)

It's rather funny that Fox News brought my attention to this, because I certainly wouldn't have noticed and when they did bring it to my attention, I had to think about it to get it. The people on Fox News didn't notice it either until it was brought to their attention, and they also had to think about it to get it.

If it takes these presumably intelligent adults on the TV and a slowly sharp-witted linguistics major like myself so much effort and attention-bringing to get it, why would they think innocent kids will get it? They actually say on there that kids are more savvy and will get it...I feel like that's not true, I think the innocent kids and innocent teens wouldn't get it, but the slutty teenagers who are already screwing each other or the kids who are already familiar with the cursed and evil f-word might get it, maybe.

I think it's pretty stupid for them to bring so much attention to it, since they're defeating their own purpose really. Furthermore, I think it's stupid to complain about this song's cryptically and barely verbalized explicit language rather than its slutty messages -- I mean, if they're going to complain about something.

Also, if they are complaining about the slutty messages, then they should complain about countless other things too -- things that are a lot more explicit than that -- because those are a lot less cryptic. It's also funny how they don't even mention what I think is an explicit drug reference, where Britney sings, "Is she smoking up outside?" Doesn't "smoking up" refer specifically to smoking the weed? In my day it did. That seems a lot more wrong to me.

Regarding my not getting of the F-*-C-K Me thing, I did actually sense that there was something sexual in the phrase "if you seek Amy," I just couldn't figure out what it was. I definitely noticed the weird/wrong grammar of "All of the boys and all of the girls are begging to if you seek Amy."

It really is pretty funny, once you get what she's saying, particularly the whole big section where she says "If you seek Amy tonight" repeatedly.

Anyhoo, I really don’t think kids would get it, and if they do get what the word is, I think there are far worse things they could hear. Regardless, I think it’s a great song.

While on the topic of music and lyrics, but otherwise completely unrelated, I think that Katy Perry and the man from Hinder should marry each other....They both sing about still being in love with an ex when they're with someone new ("Thinking of You" and "Lips of an Angel").

I hope you're not disappointed in the lack of animated nudity...I said this "may" contain it, like the disclaimers all the fox cartoons had for a while after that whole brouhaha Janet Jackson’s booby caused.

(On April 16, 2009, I wrote another related email)

Omfg! I f'ing heard “If U Seek Amy” on the (FM/terrestrial) radio, and they f'ing bleeped the "If U Seek Amy" part!!! Holy mother-f'ing sh*t, how the f are they bleeping the cryptically encoded cursing, but not bleeping the very obvious and clear drug reference, "Is she smoking up outside"?! That is so f'ing f'd up!

So it's wrong to publicly broadcast a barely understandable curse word, but it's perfectly okay to make smoking weed sound cool? I mean, the whole song is overtly and non-cryptically about how awesome Amy is, and the song suggests that Amy smokes weed, so obviously it's really cool to smoke the marijuana. You know that's how stupid kids (and stupid adults) will think. (Yes, I am suggesting that people who think it’s cool to do drugs are stupid.)

Furthermore, how the h*ll is it okay for that Christina wannabe Lady Gaga to sing (in "Just Dance") all about being so drunk on red wine that she doesn't know where she is or how her shirt got turned inside out? So the FCC apparently thinks it's good to encourage stupid kids to smoke the weed and get drunk enough to be date raped, right? But it's not okay to creatively and cryptically spell a profane word, so cryptically in fact, that reasonably intelligent adults don't get it even when it's brought to our attention, because even then we have to really think about it to get it. Britney is essentially censoring herself; it’s excessive for the radio to further censor her. Ironically, bleeping it really just draws attention to the profanity; it draws as much attention as Fox News complaining about it does.

Grr, this makes me so angry. I should smoke weed and get drunk and then tell people to if you seek Amy, because that's what the radio told me to do, and Britney, Amy, and Wannabe Christina are cool and I want to be just like them.

F*ck!

[It should be noted: I have never, nor will I ever part-take in any illegal drug use.]

[Please see my next blog posting about Lady Gaga and why I was wrong about her regarding my statements implying that she is a wannabe Christina Aguilera.]

Monday, September 7, 2009

Introduction to My Blog

Hello, and welcome to my blog!

I never thought I would be a blogger, beyond the little Myspace blog that I almost never use, but alas, here I am!

I decided to start blogging because I occasionally have thoughts about things, and I then feel compelled to write those thoughts. I’ve previously shared those thoughts with a handful of friends, via fun and interesting emails (well, I find them fun and interesting anyway). So I’ve decided to share them with the world! Yay! :-)

To begin, I thought it might be fun to post a bunch of out-dated things – things that were not out-dated when I wrote them. Don’t worry, after that, things won’t be quite as out-dated as I post them (assuming I continue with the blogging). These first out-dated postings will come from my Myspace blog and from emails that I’ve written. I will try to post them chronologically, but try not to be sad if that doesn’t happen.

I realize I’m a bit late joining this blogging bandwagon, but I guess that’s my style :-) Next, maybe I’ll join Twitter!

I hope you enjoy my blog! Do you think I said “blog” enough? Blog!!!


UPDATE January 27, 2010
I finally joined Twitter! I probably won't tweet anything, but Conan O'Brien is now on Twitter, so obviously I had to join just so I could follow him!