So I’ve put a post or two behind me, because I’m trying to move forward. The past year has had a tendency to keep me paralysed, feeling isolated in a world I barely recognise. The more I look at it, the more I’m sure that I don’t recognise it because it doesn’t exist.
(and anyone else who thinks abuse victims need to ‘grow up’)
Stephen Fry, I neither want nor care about any part of your sympathy.
Nor that of your horde. I’ve lived just fine for most of my adult life not giving any part of a rat’s anatomy what you think. What I do care about, however, is the way you constantly target vulnerable people and attack them.
We can set aside the extreme hypocrisy of your wanting sympathy for your depression– a real illness that certainly does deserve compassion– yet completely dismissing the effects of trauma on a developing mind. You resent people telling you to ‘cheer up’, then go ’round telling people dealing with the aftermath of abuse to just ‘grow up’. It’s clear that you don’t comprehend that juxtaposition, as it has been pointed out to you many times by now. I don’t need you to comprehend it. I will just ask you, as have many others, to stop.
Paranormal Activity is, as Honest Movie Trailers puts it, a movie featuring a hell of a lot of nothing. The entire movie contains fewer special effects than most chewing gum commercials these days. Yet it beat Saw VI into the ground, and effectively ended the (*mutter* sanctimonious torture-porn) series. People who are jaded with spilled guts and blood were fleeing the theater in terror, and seasoned movie veterans couldn’t watch it at night.
Why does a movie which is essentially a whole lot of nothing inspire so much terror? Because what we see is never as terrifying as what we imagine.
Last night I got into an idiotic discussion, and by that I mean I was an idiot trying to have a discussion with what were clearly just pronouncements. I wish there were a -dar for pretentiousness, because I am clearly lacking that particular means of detection. I mistake posturing for an audience for an actual attempt to open a topic far too often.
The topic in question is a perennial resentment for Shakespeare that crops up now and then from people who have this odd idea that there is some sort of parcelling out being done in which Shakespeare takes the lion’s share of resources, leaving all independent work out in the cold. This is such a backwards view of how theater works, honestly, and yet people buy it. Why? Because it’s become second nature for people these days to blame the successful and widely accepted for our own lack of success and acceptance.
Shakespeare doesn’t stifle theater, it revives it.
I grew up in the theater– when I was a child, I played faeries in Shakespeare and the Nutcracker, when I was older I had roles in Noh plays and independent works, and did backstage work for the university. I found I liked backstage far better, though I would still end up filling in roles when needed. Eventually I did some work as assistant to a producer in local theater. Never once in any of those years did I hear anyone say, “Well, we can either do this independent play or put on another Shakespeare.” It simply did not happen. The reason? The success of a well-worn title was WHY we got to put on the independent work.