A LESSON BY CHANCE - my first 10-minute play as a playwright

So, there was this one time when I wrote a little play...(it was back in 2010, I think?)

It was written by me, memorized by actors, directed, and then performed in front of an audience ALL WITHIN 24 HOURS. Crazy, huh? But we did it!!

The purpose of a 24-hour/10-minute play project is to force yourself to get creative under pressure. We (the playwrights) all had to arrive punctually at a designated place to receive our randomly chosen prop(s) and be assigned to our team of actors. My prop was a ceramic pug! I knew right away that I wanted my play to be a zany family comedy with heart. The premise was about two completely different sisters - the older responsible one vs. the younger free-spirited one - and their lovably eccentric grandfather who raised them (at least until older sister took over.) At the center of the dysfunctional family chaos is Chance - their deceased pet pug who's been stuffed. The play alternates from heated discussions between the sisters to interludes of ceremonial eulogies (led by Grandfather) in honor of Chance, and in its own unique way, this quirky tradition holds the little family together.

It may not have been much, but it was the first time I wrote something creative to be performed in front of an adult group of thespian peers! I was fairly proud of it. Several people came up to me afterwards to tell me mine was the audience favorite! (SMILES) I've been trying for a while now to find the script that I wrote and have not as yet been successful, but I haven't given up trying! In the meantime, though, here are a few pics showing my brilliant cast performing, and lastly, a pic of me with them on stage during talkback! :)

Movie Review: ABRAHAM LINCOLN VS. ZOMBIES

Every now and then a movie will come along that you love to hate...(or hate to love?) For me, Abraham Lincoln vs Zombies is one of those films (Dir. Richard Schenkman, Perf. Bill Oberst, Jr., Hannah Bryan, Ron Ogden, Jason Vail, The Asylum, 2012). 

The movie is set during the latter part of the Civil War, and there is a zombie epidemic happening in the Deep South that Ole Abe commissions himself and 12 other Secret Service agents to contain. Along the way, they find a few ragtag citizens bunkered down in protection against the army of undead. Among these citizens is a town prostitute (who turns out to be Lincoln’s former love interest, jilted when he begins his political career), her daughter (played by someone you may recognize), and a very young Teddy Roosevelt, and the three of them join Lincoln and his men in black to fight their way through the city. Now, right there is where it gets confusing. Did the President and his 12 Merry Men go actually fight the zombies or fight their way out? Every thing seems to happen as they go along with no real plan.

The movie has constant scenes of people running, but there never seems to be a compelling reason for why. Even for zombies, these are the slowest zombies ever. Like, EVER. I swear that at one point during the movie, when a group of actors are running from a herd of glacial-speed moving zombies, the actors actually seemed to stop for a moment to wait for the zombies to catch up. Whether or not this was a glitch in editing for the action that was happening in frame, I’m not sure. Then there is a scene where the entire group of main actors is sitting inside some sort of lodge and sharpening tools for weapons. This was one of the most comical scenes for me to watch (and perform in.) You see characters languidly sharpening their tools, one of them (perf. Ron Ogden) actually sharpening his axe blade with a block of wood - WOOD! - as they exchange knowing glances at each other one by one. There was such a lack of urgency in the scene that it could have been a group of farm workers getting ready to go out into the fields to thresh wheat, rather than going out to fight a horde of undead.

Nearly every character gets killed, except Old Abe, of course, and the movie wraps with the President talking soothingly to his former lady love - once human, now zombie - who is on the floor in chains and gnashing her teeth at Lincoln. At one point, he can’t help himself and reaches out for a comforting touch and gets rewarded with a zombie scratch to his arm. If you like trainwreck movies, this film is a masterpiece just waiting for popcorn to be thrown at it.

Works Cited

Abraham Lincoln vs Zombies (Video 2012) - IMDb.
Adams, Jason. “Awfully Good: Abraham Lincoln vs Zombies.” JoBlo. 20 June 2012

;)

Why 12 ANGRY MEN Is Such An Important Film

A superbly told story, while entertaining, can also stimulate us to examine ourselves closely. One of the best ways to get a person to reflect upon themselves in such a way is to be relatable. 12 Angry Men is a very relatable film (Dir. Sidney Lumet. Perf. Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley. United Artists 1957).

No matter what your station in life - your gender, your nationality, your religion, your view on politics - you will find some aspect of yourself reflected back in one or more of the characters in this movie. You will see men who are fair, who search for facts, who rely on opinions, who are swayed easily by the crowd, who are prejudiced, who take things too personally. The film reveals how some of the men are moved to change their original viewpoints based on the facts and the realization that they have based their decision on personal feelings, while others’ apparent change seems based upon expectation by their peers.

One of the film’s most compelling scenes involves a man (performed superbly by Ed Begley) fervently imploring the other 11 to echo his opinion. One by one, the others rise from their seats and turn their backs on him. It is the first time we see the majority of the jurors unified for the same reason. The man’s race-based rantings, it is agreed, are not worth sharing and have no place in this room. Humiliated, perhaps ashamed, the lone man slumps into his chair. He utters not a single word again, save to give his last, and sincerely changed, vote of not guilty.

By the end of the movie, I was both satisfied and unsettled. I would like to think that I would be the kind of person to stand against something I feel is wrong, even if my viewpoint is not a popular one. As I watched the movie, however, I felt sympathetic to characters who were in conflict with the man who first stood up against the crowd (perf. Henry Fonda). I related to the few who seemed to want to do the right thing but who at first remained silent out of fear. I also questioned if I would stubbornly stick with the wrong sentiment, because it is influenced by my own personal feelings and experiences. One such example is the man who held onto his vote of “guilty” up until the very last, and we find out that the reason why is because the defendant reminded him of the heartbreak he had for his own estranged son (perf. Lee J. Cobb).

I feel that this movie is important for people to watch, because it compels us to reflect deep within and ask ourselves which man or woman would we be. Who would I be? Would I be the first person to stand up when I feel something is wrong, or would I be apathetic? Would I base my decision on what the facts are? Would I be moved primarily by others’ opinions? I believe these self-reflecting questions are important to ask ourselves and watching this movie is a good incentive to do that.

THE GLASS MENAGERIE: Examining How An Individual's Personal Identity and Dreams are Cultivated

People will often choose avocations that help them identify their perceived place in the world, influence how they cope with it, or even reflect an inner desire for an alternate lifestyle than the one they are living. Some enjoy leisurely pastimes, such as origami or knitting. Others may be drawn to more challenging activities, like sudoku. A particular high achiever may take up learning to fly an airplane, not with the intention of flying commercially, but for recreational purposes and even for the satisfaction of completing an elusive lifelong goal. In general aviation, it is not uncommon to meet physicians or engineers who have earned pilot’s licenses. These are people who consistently operate in high pressure settings and then will learn to fly an airplane, which requires sharp mental acuity and focus at all times. In Tennessee Williams’s The Glass Menagerie, there are statements and symbolic examples to be found that show how Tom, Amanda, and the enigmatic Laura could be living their lives vicariously through their hobbies or intense personal interests.

To begin with, there’s Tom, who frequently goes to the movies to stay removed from a world of reality that his family was "somehow set apart from” (121). Tom works daily at a warehouse in order to be the primary provider for the Wingfield apartment in this “dissolving economy” (121). However, he craves travel and adventure, which he does not “have much of at work” (136). He goes to the movies often to escape his dreary reality but becomes restless when he considers “those glamorous people - having adventures - hogging it all” (149). He makes a proclamation that he is “tired of the movies”, and is “about to move”, which he proves when he pulls out a paper showing his membership as part of “The Union of Merchant Seamen” (150).

Amanda’s primary interest is to dominate and control her children so that she can vicariously live the life she felt she was cheated out of when her husband, Tom and Laura’s father, abandoned their family. She desperately worries that Tom will “jeopardize the security” of them all, if he were to lose his job (131). She obsesses about Laura either finishing business school or getting married so that neither of them will become “little birdlike women without any nest - eating the crust of humility all their life” (127).

Lastly, Laura’s preoccupation is her glass menagerie, a very passive hobby, which she polishes and when faced with uncomfortable facts of reality, will reach “for a piece of glass” (128). Perhaps Laura sees herself as part of a menagerie in this city community that is described as “one of those vast hive-like conglomerations” in one of the “overcrowded centers of lower middle-class population” (120). She is comfortable with animals and the “art museum and the bird houses” and pretty things, like the “glass house where they raise the tropical flowers” (127). She hides from reality behind glass, which is fragile and delicately pretty, very reflective of her own existence. Interestingly, her favorite animal in the collection is a unicorn, a creature that in mythical folklore is considered to be symbolic of purity, grace and love, characteristics that Laura herself possesses and desires to have. She likely sees herself as a unicorn in a “world full of common people”, as her love interest Jim puts it, or perhaps she even imagines Jim as the elusive unicorn who will be drawn to her purity and become her true love (159). When Jim dances with her and bumps into the menagerie, causing the horn to break off of the unicorn, Laura comforts herself by the idea that the unicorn “will feel more at home with the other horses, the ones that don’t have horns” (162). The horn breaking off is symbolic also of Laura’s impending loss of innocence and hope, similar to a unicorn being trapped by a dishonest virgin in order to lure it in for hunters who want it for its horn.

Tennessee Williams’s The Glass Menagerie is rich with examples and symbolism of how Laura, Amanda and Tom used their hobbies and pastimes as means of escape from reality and as extensions of the dreams they have of the life they want and of how they wish to be perceived by the world around them.

Works Cited

Williams, Tennessee. “The Glass Menagerie.” Literature: Reading to write. Ed. Elizabeth Howells. New York: Pearson, 2010. 117. Print.

BARBIE DOLL - a poem analysis on the objectification of women in society

Objectification of Women and Societal Influence on Beauty and Behavior

examined in Marge Piercy’s “Barbie Doll”

The Sixties was a fairly complicated decade for women. While it was a time for the emergence of the “Supermodel”, such as Twiggy, who inspired women to crop their hair into short blonde locks, wear heavy eye makeup and diet until they had the lithesome figure that Twiggy and other models had, there was also a strong feminist backlash against the prototype of typical female beauty standards. This was evident during The Miss America protest demonstration at the Miss America Pageant on September 7, 1968, one year before “Barbie Doll” was written, by about 400 feminists and civil rights advocates. As part of the protest, a collection of symbolic feminine products, including false eyelashes, were thrown into a trash can located on the boardwalk in Atlantic City. There is a dissonance of theme in “Barbie Doll” which suggests how our main subject was influenced by society and the peers around her into fitting a more objectified mold of what a young woman should act and look like and ultimately her own demonstration of how she discarded these outer physical values.

The first example of how the author views society as objectifying women is in the first stanza “This girlchild was born as usual/and presented dolls that did pee-pee (1-2). The use of the word “girlchild” seems very objective and almost as though she does not have a personal identity of her own but rather could have just come off the assembly line, similar to the way a doll would. Early on, she is influenced to be what is considered a proper little girl should be when given household items that are thought to be feminine, such as "miniature GE stoves and irons/and wee lipsticks the color of cherry candy.” (3-4).  Puberty is an especially sensitive time for young people, particularly girls, because they are so receptive to the criticism of society around them. “Then in the magic of puberty, a classmate said:/You have a great big nose and fat legs.” (5-6). This marks the beginning of the girl not feeling as though she measured up to what the standards of beauty were considered to be.

In the following stanza, we see important information that shows how the qualities that a man might have, such as intelligence, strength and sexual drive, are not considered to be as valuable in a woman: “She was healthy, tested intelligent,/possessed strong arms and back/ abundant sexual drive and manual dexterity.” (7-9). The term “manual dexterity” shows that, being quick and skillful with her hands, she could have excelled at being a surgeon, dentist, mechanic, or even a bomb diffuser (explosive ordinance disposal technician) - all highly skilled and noble professions which would not require one to be especially good-looking or possessing dainty manners and charm. Rather than pursue a course that would have tapped into the strong skills and resources she had, she relied on good manners and sweetness as a way of compensating for what she felt she lacked in society’s eyes regarding good looks, as examined when reading the lines at the end of the second stanza: “She went to and fro apologizing./Everyone saw a fat nose on thick legs.” (10-11). She discarded her own personal worth, because she felt society discarded the other values she had; they were canceled out by the physical features which were more prominent as shortcomings.

She further slipped down a sliding scale of moral ambiguity by trying to become the model perfect “girlchild” inside and out by listening to advice on how to flirt, charm, use feminine persuasiveness and continue to adjust her looks by diet and exercise to win approval rather than on merit of intelligence and hard work. This can be seen in the third stanza in the lines “She was advised to play coy,/exhorted to come on hearty,/exercise, diet, smile and wheedle.” (12-14).

Eventually, she breaks down and becomes the "perfect", lifeless Barbie doll that society influenced her to be, by losing the vivacious personality she likely once had and sacrificially offers up the vilified features she possessed that were unique to her: her nose and legs. “Her good nature wore out/like a fan belt./So she cut off her nose and her legs/and offered them up.” (15-18). Lying in the casket, with full makeup, a doll-like putty nose and a feminine dainty nightie, she finally fit the image everyone had of what she should be like. She possibly killed herself literally or died symbolically by letting the inner fire she had as a unique human being go out.  The very last lines, “Consummation at last./To every woman a happy ending/ (24-25), suggest that the final result was bittersweet, after a painful process and crossing over a boundary that could never be crossed back. Her transformation was complete and irreversible.

When examined closely, it is evident that Piercy shows that she recognizes how important physical looks and dainty manners were for women at that time but how she ultimately throws those values out by killing her main subject.

Works Cited

Piercy, Marge. “Barbie Doll.” Literature: Reading to Write. Ed. Elizabeth Howells.
New York: Pearson, 2010. 233. Print.

EMPOWERING WOMEN: Beauty vs. Intelligence

It is difficult to recall the day I began to think that being pretty was something many considered more important than being smart. I became a film actor around 2005 and officially joined an industry that places heavy value on young, beautiful people. In particular, young beautiful women. Concurrently with my acting career, I have also pursued training and careers in industries where learning and being taken seriously as an academic are important, like mathematics and aeronautics. I have experienced both sides and realize they are both challenging.

My parent’s opposing views of what is considered beautiful influenced my own polarized views. My mother was a fan of Hollywood's Golden Age of screen performers. Her expression while gazing at Vivian Leigh’s lovely visage as Scarlett O’Hara in Gone With The Wind could accurately be described as rapturous. Her praise and appreciation for screen greats like Gene Tierney and Elizabeth Taylor shaped my own perception of what is beautiful. My father, in contrast, was an aging undergrad student of astrobiology who instilled in me a fascination for space and aviation sciences. He passed on to me an appreciation for female astronauts, like Sally Ride who, when compared to a screen gem like Angelina Jolie, could arguably be called “plain” or even “unattractive”. However, in terms of sheer mental and professional accomplishments (a physics degree from Stanford and the first female astronaut to travel in space), she could hardly be called unimpressive. An interesting consideration came to me recently when I realized that, should Hollywood decide to dramatize Sally Ride’s life on screen, there is little doubt that the producers would find an actress who, though talented, would be cast more on the basis of her visual appeal than her physical resemblance to the real Sally Ride. After all, you would want the broadest audience to watch your film. And, it would seem, beauty is easier to recognize than intelligence.

The ideals of what is considered attractive have changed throughout history and civilizations, but there is little debate that physical attractiveness has always had a dominant appeal in society. The practice of enhancing or altering one’s physical features to fit the current standard of beauty has long been prevalent. Cleopatra is noted for using crushed carmine beetles to color her lips (Valdesolo) and Queen Elizabeth I for having thick white makeup applied to cover up the scars on her skin left by smallpox (Skerrett.) Though these were two of the most politically powerful female figures in history, each felt compelled to put their best face forward. A small but curious consideration.

Jumping forward to modern times, we see various pop culture celebrities peering flawlessly back at us from magazine covers. The majority of them share some great levels of success in careers creating and promoting films, music or, in most cases, beauty itself. Yet, each could scarcely represent a larger cross-section of ages and nationalities. For some, it is easy to think of these people, as the cliche goes, as nothing but pretty faces. Such as Natalie Portman, a published Harvard psychology graduate. Or Geena Davis, a long-time member of MENSA. But few of these articles or ads are created to encourage readers to pursue an academic career in psychology or join a national group dedicated to bring awareness to intellectual enhancement, but rather to buy the same cosmetics or beauty tips as each of them have endorsed.

There seems to be a revolution of sorts building in recent years against the use of digital editing, evidenced by celebrities and musicians being more transparent about their skills and techniques. In Meghan Trainor’s hit song, “All About That Bass," she sings “I see the magazine workin’ that Photoshop...c’mon now, make it stop.” To that point, it seems and more celebrities, like Kate Winslet and Jamie Lee Curtis, have begun speaking out against the unrealistic standards of beauty that such manipulation allows. In 2014, Keira Knightley posed topless, sans makeup or hairstyling. Rather, she highlighted her naturally small breasts and rather simple shape. Her point was to cast contrasting visuals to how her body had been augmented and presented so many times in the past (Dokterman.) In a sign of how public opinion may be shifting, the great majority of social and media response praised her for so cleverly designing and presenting an easy to understand commentary about the corporate sales of beauty products, while also expressing the genuine appeal of her beautiful natural form.

In keeping with this shift of beauty vs. brains, there is a growing list of celebrities such as Tiny Fey and Mindy Kaling who are known more for their shrewd intellect and wit first, while also highlighting their attractiveness. Equally, renowned beauties such as Angelina Jolie seem to be taking a genuine interest in promoting their humanitarian and leadership efforts rather than overly touting their interests in beauty. But overall, it is somewhat evident that pointing out such intelligence is meant mainly to enhance and support physical beauty, first and foremost. I think of the media surrounding superstar George Clooney’s wife, Amal Alamuddin. Her impressive resume includes being a human rights attorney, former clerk for a Supreme Court Justice, and fluent speaker of three languages. Yet, a Google Image search of her name results in her top photo groupings being of her wedding dress and her fashion shots. To find any photos of her in her day job (prior to being Mrs. Clooney), one will have to be more specific about their search.

It is refreshing to think that a genuine shift in favor of a woman’s beauty complimenting her intelligence rather than her intelligence complimenting her beauty could in fact take place. Perhaps it could even happen within my lifetime. So much that we are seeing socially suggests it is possible or at least conceivable. However, it is also difficult to conceive a throwback leading man such as Clooney marrying a junior version of Margaret Thatcher. Perhaps this is because beauty is simply something that mentally takes priority when it comes to our own intelligence. But then, it may just be awkward hooking up with a mate who you not only consider smarter than you but that eventually to whom you may have to pay taxes.

Works Cited

Dockterman, Eliana. “Keira Knightley and 7 Other Celebrities Who Protested Photoshop and   Won.” Time, 7 November 2014. Web.
Skerrett, Victoria. “The Death of Queen Elizabeth I." Tudor Stuff: Tudor History From The Heart of England. 3 November 2009. Web.
Valdesolo, Fiorella. “The Red Army." The New York Times, 27 August 2006. Newspaper.
Fey, Tina. Bossypants. 5 Apr. 2011. Autobiography.
Trainor, Meghan. “All About That Bass.” 2 June. 2014. Song.

AMERICAN HISTORY X and PRECIOUS - comparing media to analyze factors contributing to the self-identity of urban youth

Two movies that are useful for analyzing specific examples of the socio-economic factors which shape the formative identity of youths growing up in large cities and how they ultimately are transformed are the independent films, AMERICAN HISTORY X (Dir. Tony Kaye. Perf. Edward Norton, Edward Furlong, Beverly D’Angelo. 1998) and PRECIOUS (Dir. Lee Daniels. Perf. Gabourey Sidibe, Mo’Nique, Paula Patton. 2009.)

An important historical context given in AMERICAN HISTORY X is the Rodney King Riots which happened in South Central Los Angeles, circa spring of 1992, in which ethnic minorities made up the majority of the victims. In the film, we see Danny Vinyard (the younger brother of a skinhead living in a suburban area of Los Angeles) whom he remembers leading a small mob of rioters into vandalizing a business owned by an Asian man who employs Hispanics. In comparison, PRECIOUS (adapted by Sapphire’s novel, PUSH) portrays an overweight black teenage girl named Claireece Jones, (Gabourey Sidibe), who goes by her middle name “Precious” and lives in a low-rent apartment in New York City. They both have been victims of extreme violence (Danny’s father having been killed by a minority while on the job and Precious attacked by young men while she is walking down the street.) With the loss of his brother (who is imprisoned for 3 years due to a hate crime witnessed by Danny) and his mother (Beverly D’Angelo) in increasingly frail health, Danny turns to Cameron (Stacy Keach), the leader of the Neo-Nazi gang his brother formerly belonged to for guidance. When Derek is released from prison, he rescues Danny from a rally, confronts Cameron and then compels his brother, Danny, to leave that way of life by telling him what happened to him in prison (being raped by a gang of Neo-Nazis and befriended by his laundry partner, a black male) which led to his transformation of thinking. The image of the two of them stripping away the White Nationalist paraphernalia that decorates the walls of Danny's bedroom, as though they are removing layer after layer of dead useless skin, is a powerfully visceral one. At the end of the scene, they are both standing together silently staring at the now clean wall with an unknown identity that has not yet been cultivated and, like new skin after an old scab has been removed, both are left feeling uplifted yet more vulnerable as a result.

As for Precious, one of the most moving scenes is also one without dialogue. On her way out to school, she views herself in the mirror and the reflection we see looking back is that of a slender blonde white female dressed identically to Precious, down to the single hair curler resting on her forehead. Precious gazes at this imagined alternative identity, gives a sigh, and then walks out. Her transformation is encouraged by the feeling of love she gets from her teacher (Paula Patton) and the emotional support of her fellow classmates in the alternative school she is sent to, where there is a feeling of solidarity among this talented, albeit misfit, group of young women. She begins to have confidence in her imagination and storytelling skill and knows that if she continues her education and learns to write, she can improve her life and progress beyond her given circumstance. In similarity, both the Vinyard brothers are encouraged by their professor (Avery Brooks) for being intelligent students with a gift for writing and having the right charisma for leadership, which should be used for positive influence.

In the final scene of American History X, Derek’s brother, Danny, is shot and killed by a young African-American male, so it could be reasoned that Derek might revert to his former skinhead way of thinking, but most likely he recognizes his own role in the fallout of these events and can choose to influence the future by his own thinking and actions. Likewise, we see Precious leaving her domineering welfare-abusing mother (Mo’Nique) and walking away, holding her childrens’ hands, determined to continue her education so that she can get a job and provide for them.

Works Cited

“Identity and Inner-City Youth: Beyond Ethnicity and Gender.”
  Heath, Shirley Brice, Ed.; McLaughlin, Milbrey W., Ed
“Urban Youth Culture: Forging a New Identity”
Youth Supplement. Growing Up Urban. www.unfpa.org/swp/2007
“American Politics and Pop Culture”
Lung, Katherine, April 24, 2008
“Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Child Development”
McLoyd, Vonnie C. American Psychologist, Vol. 53 (2) Feb. 1998 185-204
“Globalization, Culture, and Neighborhood Change”
Mele, Christopher. State University of New York at Buffalo

THE YELLOW WALLPAPER - analysis of mental health treatment for women of 19th Century

Analyzing Oppressive Treatment of Women in late 19th Century Psychiatric Medicine

in Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s “The Yellow Wallpaper”

I have heard psychiatry be referenced to as the “baby” of medicine. New treatments and medications are being presented for evaluation every day, and often the efficacy of these treatments are up for subjective opinion, both on the part of the patient and the physician. The power dynamic is often shifted in favor of the physician, or other care giver, to decide if the treatment or therapy prescribed is benefiting the patient. The possible dangers of such an approach to treating psychiatric maladies, particularly towards women in the late 19th century, are explored in “The Yellow Wallpaper”, and examples can be found for how the primary character longs for liberation from an oppressive psychiatric therapy.

The main character has been diagnosed as having a “temporary nervous depression - a slight hysterical tendency” by a physician of high standing (310). It should be noted that this condition was primarily designated for females around the time this story was written. The fact that this physician is her “own husband” is the first troubling example, which is even pointed out when she mentions that “perhaps that is one reason I do not get well faster” (310). His diagnosis is backed up by her brother, who is also a physician. While seemingly loving and attentive enough, we get the sense that her husband is a domineering and controlling man, as shown by the statement that she is “absolutely forbidden to ‘work’ until I am well again” (310). There are several questions that arise from this statement. The first one that comes to mind is what exactly constitutes “work”? The fact that the writer has put this word in quotes within her statement suggests that she does not agree with the idea that, in her case, writing or painting or anything else artistic or intellectual to freely pass her time, should be considered work. The second question that arises is who decides when she has gotten “well again”? She herself? Or her husband/physician? To expand on that, how and who was it that decided she needed treatment in the first place?

The main character/patient is secured in the “nursery at the top of the house” (311). The room is described as a “big, airy room” with lots of windows facing all directions, letting plenty of fresh air and sunshine in, but which also have bars on them. This gives the feeling that although she is allowed a sense of freedom, it is measured and controlled. The object of focus for her, to the point of obsession, is the yellow wallpaper in the room. At first she finds it “repellant”, then she slowly begins to tolerate it, and then finally towards the end, she is fascinated by it and spends most of her time studying its “sprawling flamboyant patterns committing every artistic sin” (311). She tries to get her husband to take her away from the place, but he persuades her to stick it out. Then he has her believe that he will “repaper the room” only to change his mind with the reasoning that she was letting it get the better of her, “and that nothing was worse for a nervous patient than to give way to such fancies” (312). She “tried to have a real earnest reasonable talk with him” to tell him how she wished to visit cousins, whom she felt would be a positive influence on her. He refused, causing her to break down in tears, which she felt weakened her own case, not his (315).

It is possible that the wallpaper is a reflection of the patient’s own mind, which eventually gives way to delusion. She describes it as being “dull enough to confuse the eye in following, pronounced enough to constantly irritate and provoke study, and when you follow the lame uncertain curves for a little distance they suddenly commit suicide” - plunge off at outrageous angles, destroy themselves in unheard-of contradictions” (311). I find this statement curious, because I wonder if she considers herself “dull” (low self-esteem, perhaps) but knows that she has a mentality that can at times be “irritating” and provokes her husband to “study” her. One might wonder if her husband diagnosed and instituted this treatment on her so that he could control the degrees of interaction he would have with her, thereby keeping the power dynamic pendulum swinging in his favor. The patterns destroying themselves in unheard-of contradictions is foreshadowing of her own imminent transformation at the end of the story, to the horror of her husband.

Nearing the end of the narrative, we begin to see evidence of her liberation from, and even defiance of, her husband by means of the wallpaper. One example of this is when she notes that John is pleased to see her improve, and that he “laughed a little the other day, and said I seemed to be flourishing in spite of my wallpaper”. She then reveals to us, almost smugly, that she “had no intention of telling him it was because of the wallpaper--” (317). She begins to imagine a woman “trying to climb through” (318.) I feel she is transferring her own emotions into the wallpaper and imagining herself as the woman, because she feels “nobody could climb through that pattern--it strangles so” (318). Perhaps she feels that her situation is impossible to escape from, even though she longs for liberation.

She eventually does get some form of liberation when she imagines herself getting up to “help” the woman escape from the strangling pattern of the wallpaper, which she tears from the wall (319). Finally, her liberation is complete when she becomes the woman and can “creep around” as she pleases, and the visible result is such that it causes her husband to cry out and faint, which could be considered a feminine act, thereby reversing the roles of gender and the power dynamic, since he is now helpless on the floor and she is able to creep over him.

Work Cited

Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. “The Yellow Wallpaper.” Literature: Reading to Write.
Ed. Elizabeth Howells. New York: Pearson, 2010. 6873. Print.

THE YELLOW WALLPAPER - A research paper examining the legacy of Charlotte Perkins Gilman

Early Feminism vs. 19th Century Medical Patriarchy: 

A Closer look at “The Yellow Wallpaper” and the Legacy of Charlotte Perkins Gilman

When looking to gain perspective about the proto-feminism that existed in 19th century literature, such as Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s “The Yellow Wallpaper”, it is important to evaluate the patriarchal systems that existed in Gilman’s time, the medical attitudes toward women which influenced her work and even examining Gilman’s own life that shaped the legacy she would leave as a benchmark for advancing the women’s rights movement.

Patriarchal themes resonate throughout Gilman’s “The Yellow Wallpaper.” The first example of the patriarchal system that is evident is the narrator’s acquiescence to her husband and brother’s medical diagnosis and recommended cure treatment, even though she does not agree with it. She states her opinion of what would be best for her recovery by beginning with the word “Personally” but is even more so repetitive with the question “what is one to do?” (310). She repeats this latter phrase three times on the first page but the assertive term “personally” twice, which shows that her deference to the patriarchal order outweighs her own ideas of how her health care should be handled. Prior to the 20th century, men assigned and defined women’s roles and expected submission on the part of women to imply “vulnerability and dependence on the patriarchal head”, which would apply also to accepting a prescribed cure from an authoritative medical figure (Thomas). The concept of diagnosis is a verbal formula representing a constellation of physical symptoms and observable behaviors. It is a powerful and public male voice that privileges the rational, the practical, and the observable. It is the voice of male logic and male judgment which dismisses superstition and refuses to see the house as haunted or the narrator’s condition as serious (Treichler). The typical neurasthenic patient’s symptoms might include fever, exhaustion, nervousness and pallor, and these were therefore assembled to produce a “diagnosis.” In contrast to her husband’s rigidly mannered and socially accepted behavior, the narrator’s energetic imagination is a “sprawling flamboyant pattern” (311). Rather than validating his wife (patient’s) voice on how serious her condition is, she is silenced, which sheds light on how women’s voices were censored regarding mental health issues during this cultural time (Green).

The narrator at first attempts an “artificial feminine self” (Treichler) by speaking in quiet reserved tones and refraining from crying around her husband. She keeps her language structure in a very feminine context by deferring to her husband and brother’s medical judgment, even though she disagrees: “So I take phosphates or phosphites...Personally, I disagree with their ideas. Personally, I believe that congenial work, with excitement and change, would do me good. But what is one to do?” (310)

The fact that she makes a casual referral to the ugliness of the wallpaper - being observant of the room decor - seems an inherent and acceptable feminine thing to do. Ripping the wallpaper from the wall is a metaphor for the narrator to escape from the patriarchy, which embodies the patterns that the patriarchal order ignores, suppresses, fears as grotesque or fails to perceive at all (Treichler). The color “yellow” seems to represent a variety of denigrating context for Gilman’s cultural time: it not only applies to ethnic groups such as Chinese and light-skinned African-Americans and connotes ideas of “inferiority, strangeness, cowardice, ugliness, and backwardness”, but also alludes to the color of disease and even the British-American fear of aliens (Lanser). Women in early feminist literature are portrayed as having secondary roles in their patriarchal and social systems, as seen in “The Yellow Wallpaper”, in which the main female character is denied “a voice, an identity, and even physical freedom” (Alfadel). The minor female characters, such as Jennie and Mary, have their accepted roles in the patriarchal system: Jennie, the house servant and the narrator’s attendant (her name possibly being a euphemism for a “Jenny-mule”, a beast of burden) and Mary (which rhymes with “marry” and whose character seems befitting of a proper would-be wife in that time period of society) who “is so good with the baby” (312).

It seems reasonable to believe that Gilman based “The Yellow Wallpaper” on her own experience with depression and the subsequent rest cure treatment by Dr. Silas Weir Mitchell, a prominent neurological physician of her time. She “became a commentator on the evolving social order” and was an early voice in the advancement of the women’s movement before the ideology of feminism was even an accepted or recognized concept (Beekman). Her father’s departure from the family in 1859, with limited contact and support, as well as her mother’s decision to withhold affection in order to harden her up, likely left a lasting emotional impression on Gilman and her approach to marriage and child-rearing. She inherited a strong sense of feminine pride in asserting her own viewpoint and maintaining independence from both parental sides, albeit with a softer more feminine heritage from her mother’s side. Following the birth of her child, she fell into a deep depression due to motherhood consuming her time and restricting her writing aspirations. Not long after, she realized that for her the traditional domestic role was at least in part the cause of her distress. She left her husband and took her baby to California to fulfill her aspirations of being a writer. She eventually surrendered the care of her daughter back to her husband and his new wife, who was also Gilman’s best friend. It was in this subsequent period that she became a socialist, activist and humanitarian, and wrote several published pieces of writing, including her most well-known story, “The Yellow Wallpaper”. Further evidence of her abdication of her socially accepted female role is her failed marriage and intimate relationships with females, notably Mary A. Luther and Adeline Knapp, known as “Dora” (Hill). This brings reference to her repeated use of the word “queer” throughout the story (310 and 317), which is synonymous with “strange” and “peculiar” and is even suggestive of homosexuality (Crewe).

Her decision to tear herself from the role of wife and mother is reflected at the end of “The Yellow Wallpaper” when she frees the woman (her alter-ego) who is hidden within the wallpaper, representing her liberation from the entrapment of patriarchal society. She remains tethered, however, by her “well-hidden rope”, which for her primary narrative character means that she still is to be dependent on her husband who has merely “fainted” and will undoubtedly be strongly responsive to his wife’s more extreme condition after he regains consciousness (320). Likewise, despite her defiance and freedom from the rest cure treatment and dependence on men, Gilman, herself, remains tethered and dependent on Dr. Silas Weir Mitchell, by her desire to have his acknowledgment and response to the story he most influenced. Ultimately, she is also bound to her troubled emotions when she succumbs to suicide due to diagnosis of cancer.

“The Yellow Wallpaper”, as an ecriture feminine work, is full with examples of patriarchy, both within the medical profession and the marital structure, and as an early benchmark of feminine voice in literature, whether used in a journal or with the use of an alternate ego, as exemplified in this story. It also serves as a “symbol of the paternalistic nature of 19th-century medicine and the suppression of female creativity” (Martin).

Works Cited

Alfadel, Maria R. “Women’s Image in Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’ and Fadia Faqir’s ‘Pillars of Salt’: A Feminist Approach”. Middle East University for Graduate Studies. 2010. Web.

Beekman, Mary. “Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1860-1935): Her life and work as a social scientist and feminist." Women’s Intellectual Contributions to the Study of Mind and Society. Web.

Crew, Jonathan. “Queering The Yellow Wallpaper? Charlotte Perkins Gilman and the Politics of Form.” Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature. 1995. Print.

Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. “The Yellow Wallpaper”. Literature: Reading to Write. Ed. Elizabeth Howells. New York: Pearson, 2010. 310-320.

Green, Shelley. “Women’s Encounters with the Mental Health Establishment: Escaping the Yellow Wallpaper.” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 2003. www.highbeam.com

Hill, Mary H. “Charlotte Perkins Gilman: The Making of a Radical Feminist.” The Journal of American History. December 1980.

Lanser, Susan. “Feminist Criticism, ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’, and the Politics of Color in America. Feminist Studies. Vol. 15, No. 3. Feminist Reinterpretations/Reinterpretations of Feminism. 1989. Published: Feminist Studies, Inc.

Martin, Diana. “The Rest Cure Revisited.” The American Journal of Psychiatry. Vol. 164, Issue 5, pp. 737-738. Published by: American Psychiatric Association, May 2007.

Treichler, Paula A. “Escaping the Sentence: Diagnosis and Discourse in ‘The YellowWallpaper’.” Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature. Vol. 4, No. 2. 1985.

THE PURPLE TRIANGLE - what did the symbol represent during The Holocaust?

Before I go into this, I just want everyone to be mindful that I don't normally post these kinds of things. I leave the political/religious/social semantics and diatribes for others to tackle, so please allow me this one time to get some things off my chest that have been with me since, oh, I don't know...childhood? It's been awhile since I've blogged or journaled anything, and I don't consider myself a professional writer, so I'll probably be lacking a certain savoir faire as I communicate my feelings on certain issues. However, I'll do my best to just be honest and from my heart.

Over the years, particularly since the advent of social media, I've absorbed more information and opinions on issues of political and social standing than I even know what to do with sometimes, and for the most part, I keep silent about it, unless I'm talking one-on-one or in very small groups. I have my social circle of friends and theatrical/film acquaintainces on one side of me - most of which are of the liberal Democratic leaning - and then my business "bread n butter", some of whom are also very good friends - predominantly of a Republican-Conservative grouping - and yet, my own personal background is one that is politically neutral. NOT apolitical. That suggests no interest, regard, or concern to politics whatsoever. No, I can absolutely say that I pay very close attention to today's political climate and the world's overall general condition but not always for the same reasons that others do. It's mainly because I'm looking for parallels on how closely things may start shaping up to resemble events that happened in the former century's history which influenced my own personal beliefs on things.

I've heard a lot all my life about which racial and religious groups were persecuted - which ones were victims, which ones were perpetrators - but it's not very often that I hear about any one particular group that made the ultimate sacrifice to stand against prejudice and sectarianism which has led to wars. Not just individually, but as a WHOLE. There is one that does come to mind. I wanted to point out what this particular group stood for during one of the blackest periods of racial and social hatred known to mankind:  The Holocaust.

This group was identified as the Purple Triangles.

The Purple Triangles were a group of Bible Students, or the "Bibelforscher", as they were called in Germany up until around 1931. In the late 1920s and early 30s, brown-shirted Nazis regularly broke up religious meetings of these Bible Students, vilifying them in the Nazi and religious press as a dangerous, subversive sect, seeking to undermine the German government and charged with having ties to supposed Jewish-Bolshevist world conspiracies. The fact that many of these Bible Students held on to Hebrew scripture as a fundamental part of their faith, including calling on the Hebrew name of God (Jehovah), which was used frequently in their prayer and studies, made them that much more of a target by the swiftly hardening administration of Hitler's totalitarian machine.

On January 20, 1933, Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, and on February 28, 1933, the Decree for the Protection of the People and State provided legal basis to suppress all who were considered Hitler's enemies. Among those listed as enemies were these Bible Students, by then known as Jehovah's Witnesses. Despite their insistence of political neutrality and refusal to take up arms, the Nazis viewed them as seditious and insubordinate, and they quickly found themselves pitched directly against the Nazis, who expected absolute loyalty, subservience and silence from the churches.

The Witnesses were anything but silent. And they were not secretive about their resistance. They spoke out vigorously against all basic points of Hitler's fascist regime: racism, ultranationalism and the deification of the State and its Fuhrer. Although the Witnesses believed in obeying the laws of the state and living as honest citizens of the country, they held theocratic allegiance only to Jehovah God and to His appointed Son, Christ Jesus, who set the example during his time on earth of demonstrating political neutrality, even refusing earthly kingship when it was offered to him. Due to this tightly held religious belief, based on their personal studies and interpretation of the Bible, the Witnesses were thrown into a spiritual battle against the Nazi regime, and fierce persecution became a result.

Because of the Witnesses' daily refusal to offer up the Hitler salute, a symbol translated to mean "Salvation comes from Hitler", they suffered beatings, destruction of property, job loss and prison sentences. Out of love for their neighbors, they did not join the Nazi party, Hitler Youth, nor take any part in elections, observe Jewish business boycottings, neither did they take part in the military or support it in any way, even refusing to work in munitions factories. While other German citizens took part in picketing and defaming Jewish businesses, Witnesses sought to help their Jewish neighbors by offering patronage and even providing food and milk, asking nothing in return. In June of 1933, the religion was officially banned and outlawed; the printing presses that Witnesses used to produce literature for distribution were shut down. Dozens of truckloads of biblical literature were destroyed. Witnesses became virtually unemployable, and businesses, pensions, social security benefits and wages were seized. They were sometimes paraded through the streets and made to wear signs around their necks saying they did not vote, forced to be on public display, often against angry patriotic mobs. Even being married to a Witness was a lawful ground for divorce. Witness children were expelled from schools, with some 500 of them sent to penitentiary reform schools.

The next time you may be tempted to denounce or criticize a Jehovah's Witness for their refusal to salute the flag, pledge allegiance regardless of the country they live in, join in patriotism, vote, or take up arms in the military service with the thought that they are cowardly, apathetic and would rather "bury their heads in the sand", please research for yourself the accounts documented of how the Jehovah's Witnesses of that time boldly opposed the Third Reich, waging a spiritual warfare against Hitler and those who followed him. Stories of relentless courage and stalwart opposition in the face of persecution and death will abound. They did not wait until after the fact when it was clear to everyone else just what a powerhungry monster Hitler had shown himself to be. Because of their already spiritually ingrained views on rejection of patriotic nationalism, refusing to give allegiance to Hitler was an easy choice for them - and the reason why Hitler named Jehovah's Witnesses very early on as "enemies of the State" and targeted them for annihilation. Many of them were imprisoned, beaten, and tortured for their refusal to support Hitler. They lost friends, family members, businesses, livelihoods, and even their lives. Yes, many were beheaded by guillotine and executed by firing squad for their refusal to give in. Others died of starvation and illness in the camps. And unlike their Jewish and Polish neighbors and other countrymen who had no choice because of their heritage, all that most of the Witnesses rounded up would've had to do was sign a piece of paper, renouncing their faith, and they could've walked away and went back to living their lives, as long as they kept silent.

I am reposting a comment made a while back by my friend, R.C., which he posted underneath a link to an article that he shared on his page, entitled "Seduced by Hitler: The Choices of a Nation and the Ethics for Survival." The article contains information about the various major Christian churches which did not take a stand against Hitler for his cruel treatment of the Jews and others who were targeted. I commented under his link that there were some Bible followers who did not cooperate with Hitler's regime. (I did not mention the religion I was thinking of nor the emblem they were assigned to wear on their uniforms while in the concentration camps.)

This was his response:

R.C.
"‎@ Hannah, Yes, there were plenty of religious folks who took a principled stand against the changes in Germany during the pre-war years. One of the groups who really put themselves out there was the Jehovah's Witnesses who actually were rounded up & sent off to concentration camps and were murdered for their faith-based opposition to the acts of the Nazis against the Jews, Gypsies, mentally ill, and all of the other targeted "undesirables." When I was in St. Pete last Fall I went to their Holocaust Museum and they had a great exhibit on the role of the Jehovah's Witnesses during that dark time." (Side note to my friend's comment: There is an area dedicated to the JWs in the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C. also.)

There were many non-Jehovah's Witness people who were targeted by Hitler and the Nazis. There were also many other people who bravely stood up against the Nazis on at least one issue or another, quite a few of these likely being members of various Christian sects, and some churches also opposed parts of the Nazi policy and received backlash for it. The New Apostolic Christian Scientists were banned in 1941, and the Seventh Day Adventists experienced intermittent harassment. Some Mormon groups were ignored and maybe were even viewed with partial favor, apparently because of genealogical records tracing back the majority of its members to be of Aryan descent. There are individual Mormon members recorded to have been executed for harboring Jews. The Pastors' Emergency League and the Confessing Church of the Protestant Clergy represented a minority of Protestant pastors who exposed pro-Nazi "German Christianity" but not Nazi racial or social policies. The Catholic and Protestant churches together protested strongly against the Euthanasia Program, which impacted the Nazis enough to reduce the "visible" element of the program, but did not stop it secretly. The churches generally spoke up for converted Jews and Jews married to Christians. Neither major church group is recorded to have officially protested the persecution of Jews or the horrors of the Final Solution. Virtually all Christian sects were at some point accused of harboring Marxists or "enemies of Germany".

However, no other religious group, other than Jewish, was given a uniform emblem identifying who they were when assigned to concentration camps. Individuals of various other religions who resisted strongly enough to be arrested and sent to camps were given the same purple triangle symbols that were primarily used to identify the Bibelforscher, or Jehovah's Witnesses. They were the most persecuted religious group throughout Europe during this time and the only one to ever be brought before the Special Fascist Court.

True courage is knowing you can be destroyed, and despite having a way out, choosing to stand against evil anyway. No one wants to be victimized. And far fewer of us, I think, would ever want to be the perpetrators. But I imagine that most - if not all of us - would like to believe that we would be brave enough to stand in between both. This seldom told story of a small band of nonviolent people refusing to be shaken from their deeply held spiritual beliefs and choosing to join the persecuted rather than stand by doing little to nothing to oppose the persecution, or even worse, join the persecutors, is proof that such courageous examples existed and still do.

I had a friend of mine - a good one - but one who is very jaded toward religion tell me a while back that he thought religions should just keep their beliefs to themselves and in their own church. Well, those Witnesses could've felt the same way prior to and during World War II in Germany and throughout Europe, but most of them didn't. And quite a few paid the ultimate price for it. If you have a Jewish friend or neighbor, or know someone who is a descendant of a survivor of The Holocaust, please reflect for a moment about the sacrifices many courageous people made to help them, directly or indirectly - and how one of them might have even been aided in some way by one of Jehovah's Witnesses at that time.

Their deeply ingrained beliefs to help and protect their neighbors and the foreign ones among them have not changed, and they would do the same if anything like it were to ever happen again. If it does - no matter what has happened in my own life - I hope I will be counted among them.

LOVE & FORGIVENESS

I've been thinking about various issues to do with myself, my family, my friends, and the larger national community. Many conversations and thoughts have come up about love and forgiveness. I'm reminded of this Latin tattoo that a certain celebrity has on her stomach, which when translated means "that which feeds me, destroys me". Now while that was esoteric to me at one time, more recently it has started to make sense. I think love could be quantified at the top of the list of things that while it does feed us, it can also destroy us.  Love is patient - yet, not always tolerating.  Love is forgiving - yet, not forgetful. Love protects - yet, controls. Love gives - yet, takes. We have all at some point in our lives either betrayed love or been betrayed by it. Maybe both. And while it hurts incredibly to be betrayed, there is a lifelong scar instilled in our hearts when we've become the betrayer. I don't necessarily mean in a romantic relationship, though I imagine this is the first situation that comes to mind. It can also happen among friends. It can happen within an organization, like one's employment company, or more importantly for others, their religion. When someone has betrayed you, you have the power. The power to forgive and maybe - just maybe - do the nearly impossible and forget. The person you once trusted was like a white wall, and when they betrayed and wronged you, it was as though mud was slung on that white wall. Eventually, the mud will come off, but the stain of it will always be on that once pure white wall. The more you forgive, the whiter it becomes again. Only you can cleanse that person of the spot. Ultimately, our universal God and Creator (on the assumption you believe in God and that He cares) has the power to do that for us all. However, on a personal basis, we can each do that for one another when given the opportunity, albeit painful. In a sense, you can be like God, when you are faced with the circumstance of having to forgive someone for betrayal. But when you have done the wrong, it is not just a spot. It is a dent forever on your heart. If you slam a hammer into an oak table and cause a dent, that blemish will always be there. You can polish and polish and polish and refine, but it is nearly impossible to have that dent removed. It eventually becomes part of the character of that piece of furniture, and the owner will eventually become accustomed to that dent and forget about it...but from time-to-time, they will be reminded: that dent is still there. THIS is what it is like for someone who is unable to forgive themselves.

I am reminded of a valuable piece of art (I believe it was a work by Vincent van Gogh but not completely sure) that was indemnified after almost being destroyed. Was it thrown away? No longer considered valuable because of the flaws that had become a part of it? No! Art lovers saw this tragic piece of work for the invaluable treasure it was and large amounts of money went towards its restoration, and it is now on display at the Louvre in France for others to continue to enjoy.

Another example. Which would you find more fascinating and worth holding onto: a piece of gold that had already been refined and polished and shaped into fine jewelry and then given to you as a gift or a rough gold nugget found while panning a river, that you discovered yourself, and could truly call all your own? Sure you'd have to get rid of most of the rock and gravel and dross that came up with the gold. In fact, there would likely be more of that refuse than actual precious metal, but would you dump the whole pan out, gold nugget and all, just because of the garbage you didn't like that came up with it? Or would you pick out that dull, rough piece of metal and refine it and polish it with the love of your heart until it became the beautiful element you knew it could be? Well, this is what it should be like when we view someone we love! Don't look at the person with the expectation that he or she should always be shiny and clean and dent-free, but rather look at that person with the view that potentially this is what that person can eventually be for us with the endurance of love! And more importantly, this is how we should see ourselves.

No one ever applauds the mountain climber who falls and then just climbs all the way back down to first base without trying to finish the fight. We applaud and cheer the climber who has fallen - near to his death - but struggles to get up, scratched and all, and finishes!

Never quit. Despite what critical expectations others may hold us to. Despite what impossible expectations we hold ourselves to.

You are that original work of art too valuable for price. I am that rough, unhewn gold nugget encrusted with refuse that I cannot break away from without help. We ALL have the potential to be that climber who has fallen but gets up and finishes. God has given us that opportunity. Use it and enjoy it.

SO IF YOU'RE EVER IN MIAMI'S SOUTH BEACH...

Here are a few recommendations to check out:

1) David's Cafe - a charming Cuban eatery located on Collins & 11th Street - fantastic cafe con leche (Cuban version of a latte), which was voted in Conde Nast magazine for being the best offered in the country,
2) Norkies Peruvian Cuisine on Washington Ave (meals cost as little as $3.75) and
3) Hosteria Romana tucked inside Espanola just off Washington Ave - incredibly authentic Italian with the most gorgeous ceviche salads I've ever seen - giant sized calamari, baby octopus, raw clams, lobster, (large pickled octopus tentacles can be ordered separately) - and other exotic seafood items, like langostino (kind of a cross between a small lobster and a prawn.)  The burly chef will hug you and kiss your hand laughing with gratitude at you being there, and the servers shout with lovable Italian gusto for diners to finish their food. Ay, paisano!! :)

(Also...you probably don't need to bring a carry-on if you ever travel here...just stuff a bikini, shorts, t-shirt and some flip-flops into a small bag, and you'll fit right in.  I walked around the main promenade shopping areas in my standard jeans and small shirt and actually felt like I stood out for being overdressed.  Just fyi.)

THE BRYANGAL TIGER

(This was written for me years ago by someone close to me who knows I love tigers. I always thought it was so funny and creative! -HB)

THE BRYANGAL TIGER (research entry from the WikOpiedia)

The Bryangal tiger or the Royal Bryangal tiger (Hannthera tigris tigris) is the most unique subspecies of tiger and is found primarily in Honda Parkedcarinlot.[29] It lives in varied habitats: grasslands, subtropical and tropical rainforests, McComb, wet and dry deciduous apartments, and Opiearms. The average female will weigh about 71 kg.[30] However, the Southern Mississippi and European-mixed tigers are a lot leaner and have perfect boobs, even though they may think they need to be bigger. While conservationists already believe the population to be below 2,[31] the most recent audit by the Opiean Government's National Tiger Conservation Authority has estimated the number at just right. Since 2005, there has been a massive wildlife conservation project, known as Operation Preserve Innocent-tiger Existence , to protect the Bryangal tiger from itself and those who want to have it to themselves. Despite increased efforts by O.P.I.E., tiger theft remains rampant and at least one person has tried to take the Bryangal tiger from its rightful home.[33] The creation of the Savannah Preservation Initiative  by O.P.I.E. in 2011 has so far not been able to yield or contain the Bryangal Tiger, though all efforts to make it feel at home and comfortable are being attempted. However, a recent census by O.P.I.E. in 2011 using better attention and understanding methods showed a rise of 60% in Tiger interest. Hopes are still high for the Tiger’s preservation and permanent placement.[35]

25 Random Facts About Me

Here are about 25 facts of interest about me - this list was created in 2009; I'll update to a new list soon:

1. I used to float cups with my dad after a big rain in a creek we'd call "The Mini-Mississippi". I used to love rainy days, because it meant an outing with my dad to go race paper cups.

2. I used to do gymnastics and still have some chronic back-related issues due to the constant impact of round-offs and backflips.

3. I'm close with a lot of people, but I'm probably most at ease with being myself around my little brother.

4. I worked for Continental Airlines from 2002-2003, preparing flights for arrival & take-off. I loved being around planes, ever since I was little. Whenever I hear an APU fire up, it gives me chills.

5. I started taking flight lessons around 2003. I haven't flown for about 3 years, but I only have about 16 hours left to go. Won't take much to get that last bit done and get my FAA-approval.

6. I'm the only kid in my family with a feature that reflects a recessive genetic trait from my parents, and that's my eyes. People will stop me in my tracks, literally, to look at my eyes. My dad's eyes are an olive shade of brown, while my mom's are a very pale blue. My younger sister, Leah, has olive green colored eyes, my youngest sis & brother, Lydia & Vincent both have blue eyes, but I have combinations of all three. Immediately outside of my pupils, there's a light olive color, with the larger part of my iris being a crisp, jade color green. The very outer edge is a shade of blue. When I wear tinted blue contacts, it picks up the outer-edge blue and combines with the center green to make a pretty unique color, when the light hits them right. Or at least I'm told.

7. I'm of Italian descent (Sicilian and Napolese on my mom's side) and French, Irish and Scottish on my dad's.

8. I've toured the Hoover Dam.

9. I love all animals, especially cats.

10. I've invented two things: QuickCool, a personal cooling device with ionic technology, in 2003. I had a research & development book put together with all of the diagrams and mechanical logistics, which made it to the Underwriters Laboratories. I haven't completely given up on the idea, just need to fine-tune some of it and team up with an engineer - and someone with money for a working model prototype. I also have a product I want to create called Waterlites - something I thought of in 2005. I haven't done as much on that one as the QC, but I haven't seen anything exactly like it on the market, either, so maybe I can still work that one out. It would probably be easier & cheaper to build.

11. I'm genuinely not afraid much of anything, except being forgotten. The idea of the memory of me being lost forever in the universe is pretty chilling. Every other kind of fear can be faced & conquered, I think.

12. If I had to come up with at least two mortal, earthly fears, I guess it would be that of heights and spiders, which I've forced myself to face down both. As far as heights, well, I've taken flight lessons, as aforementioned, and I've laid face-down on the glass floor of the CN Tower in Toronto at 1,122 feet, as well as peering over the Hoover Dam and going on the rides at the top of the Stratosphere in Vegas. As far as spiders, I let a domestic pet tarantula be placed on my face. It wasn't so bad. They're like slower-moving, 8-legged hamsters.

13. I was able to perform on the legendary Vanbrugh Theatre at RADA where several of my theatre idols (Vivian Leigh, Peter O'Toole, and Alan Rickman) have trained. It made me feel part of a legacy. Despite my love of theatre, I haven't yet been to a Broadway show. Go figure.

14. I have a penchant for losing things of great sentimental value. For instance, a portfolio of almost ALL of my artwork, like sketches, paintings (including my Silver Hallmark awarded water color of persimmons) & comic books I'd created & collected up since 6th grade, a personal journal I wrote in for 11 years, the emerald ring my mom's eldest sister was given by her future husband in Italy and my baby hair, that was kept in my baby album. My dad's 60, and he still has his baby hair.

15. Partly due to the fact that I've lived near the country, and to the fact that my family couldn't really afford to buy animals (plus, there were too many that needed rescue & adoption), I've had the following wild & domestic animals as pets throughout my life: besides a variety of dogs, cats & hamsters, I've cared for a baby owl til it was grown, a squirrel, turtle, ferret, dwarf bunny, lizards, snake, scorpion (freakiest thing ever), 3 baby skunks (had for about a week), 2 baby ducks (also about a week), guinea pigs, salamander, several types of fish, including my most recent, a Betta fish, and a miniature horse that stayed on my friend's property in the country. We shared him.

16. I've never kept photos up of anyone my entire life. Not in my bedroom, in any of my apts and not in a wallet. I guess I just never got into the habit of doing it. Plus, if I love you and you've touched my life in some way, you're likely to pop up frequently in my thoughts, with or without a picture.

17. I fear that because of modern communication technology (text msgs, emails, etc.), there are too many shortcuts allowed, and I'm losing my grammatical sharpness. My handwriting is looking increasingly sloppy & unattractive, too. I don't like that so much.

18. Despite being born of globe-trotting parents, I feel a bit under-traveled myself. I've been to Canada, London, NYC, Texas, Southern CA, Las Vegas and all throughout FL, as well as most of the Southern States, but that's about it. Need to change that.

19. Stayed in Key West for a few days. Very cool place. I got to visit Ernest Hemingway's house with the twenty or so famous "Hemingway cats" - they have 6-digit paws. Relatively petite felines with huge feet. I also snorkeled North America's only Living Coral Reef while there, about 60 miles from Cuba.

20. I used to be extremely OCD. It's still with me a little bit. I'm constantly counting things in my head, I type with my toes (not on a keyboard, but there's an explanation), and I have to make touch contact with something if it catches my eye as I'm walking. If I miss stepping on a leaf, after I've noticed it, I have to run back and step on the leaf before continuing my way, or it will drive me crazy. Like I said, I'm getting better.

21. I cried hysterically all day on 9/11. My mom & her family are from NYC, and it's where my parents were married.

22. I played piano for about 14 years and won several guild awards for it. I performed once at a Bach festival for an audience close to 6,000 people when I was 12.

23. I know what it feels like to genuinely melt in a man's arms. It isn't sexual, fatherly or friendly. It's just that unique type of hug where I felt I was at home and could stay forever.

24. For a quick description of my type of humor, I have one word: Shadenfreude. (But not to a malicious degree! Only mischievous and relatively appropriate.) I welcome you to laugh at me, too! :p

25. I was inspired and moved by the films, MILK and MILLION DOLLAR BABY. Mainly because they impressed upon me that no matter how old you think you are, you're never too old to help change people's lives and do something you're truly proud of. I'm also inspired by APOLLO 13, because it shows that anything is possible if you persevere and remain positive.

525

That number combination is my favorite. Wanna know why? Well, first of all, it's the number order of my birthdate - and that of a few other really cool people, like philosopher, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and famous puppeteer, Frank Oz! (Little wonder that I have such a penchant for doing "muppet face" in photos!)

Secondly, it's the date of some pretty awesome events and happenings significant to history. Take for example the announcement by President JFK that the USA would be the first country to bring a man to the moon! Oh, and along that line of thought, it was also the premiere date of a little movie called STAR WARS! (Is that maybe why I'm such a fan of aviation and the advancement of space exploration?? I did travel to see four NASA shuttle launches, after all!) Shuttle Launch <--more opportunities to look for the goofy "muppet face", seen right at the beginning of the video...

And lastly...it's a palindrome! Like my name! Can you believe that?? How cool!!!

Ok, that's all for now! Just wanted to point out those cool little facts as an introduction to myself! Take care and bye bye for now!

No, really...that's all I have right now...more blogs coming soon! :)

...

Seriously...why are you still here?? I don't have anything new, yet, so GO! Get outta here!! Oy...

(Lingerers...jeez...)