And it begins:
There once was a little girl who didn't want to be pretty.
That is the opening line to a story I've been kicking around for just shy of 20 years. More like 18 to be precise. I say "opening line", but that is a lie.
Because I've never gotten to a second line.
As opening lines go it has a lot going for it. It's no "Listen." (Slaughterhouse 5) or "Lo. Li. Ta." (Lolita, duh!!) but it holds its own. It grabs the readers attention right off the bat (a little girl not wanting to be pretty? That doesn't sound right.) and raises questions for the body of the story to answer (Who? Why?). It also is emotionally compelling, especially if one already knows the story.
It is just about the saddest thing I've ever heard.
But like I said, I've never been able to write a second line. Not that I don't know the ending (imagine everyone lived happily ever after with a little bit of shadow blended in), but when you come right down to it I can't tell anyone how that little girl who didn't want to be pretty grew in to a woman able to accept that she in fact was. See, "Pretty" is not my story to tell. Looking just at practicalities I don't really have a handle on how we get from A to B. I know the protagonist does get there, but it is difficult to write something you don't know. Which is just the first difficulty, the first reason the story resists fictionalization.
A second difficulty lies in the very nature of fiction. I had a professor once who said (I'm pretty sure he was quoting some one, but I don't know who) "Fiction is the lies we tell to get at the truth." I'm not really comfortable telling lies about this story.
So you can see why I've never gotten to a second line. I'd have to be making up bits when I'm not even clear on what the reality was. Tall order. But you're probably wondering about some of the questions that first line raises.
Who? Fairly obvious someone I was close to. A former girlfriend. I've mentioned her before in this blog. That post might make a little more sense after reading this one.
Why? I know the broad outline more so than specifics. When she was FOUR YEARS OLD (that just feels right in caps) a male neighbor/"friend" of the family had her do things with, no, to him. I'm not clear on if physical force was involved, but it would explain things I would otherwise write off as personality quirks. One of the consequences: she started to believe that bad things wouldn't happen to her if she wasn't pretty.
She did grow out of this belief, which is really where I see the story. It's just not a story I can tell, directly at least.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Catching up
A little catch-up post here ...
Why? I haven't been posting much lately. I had gotten in the habit of posting in spare moments at work, but due to changes in the internet usage policy that isn't really an option anymore. Seems somebody was abusing the access and avoiding actual work. Or something. I'm not real clear on the reasoning. But whatever. I fill those spare moments reading cooking magazines or whatever, which is for some reason preferable.
But generally work is going as well as usual. I just won a $25 gift card as a reward for something. Not really sure what it was rewarding me for. Guess I'm doing an OK job :)
Watched the Netherlands vs. Russia quarterfinal from Euro 2008 today. I don't have cable, so getting a chance to see even a little international soccer on TV is a treat. We don't get much coverage on broadcast. Pretty fun game, too. If anyone is keeping track, Russia won in extra time.
Speaking of soccer, in an unofficial match timed to coincide with Euro 2008 Austria beat Germany 10-5. No, not the men's sides. Not the women either (although the teams were all-female). The game was contested by two 6-woman teams wearing only thongs. The Austrian side expressed hope that the men's national team would take the victory as a morale booster. Apparently not - in the actual tournament Germany beat Austria the next day.
Speaking of, well, the last two topics, I've stumbled across one of the more bizarre adult sites I've ever seen. I'm not talking gross or painful looking 'extreme' stuff - this was a fairly tame softcore site. With a theme. Reasonably attractive women in various stages of undress - the clothing being soccer jerseys. Or nude holding a soccer ball. Or standing in goal. Reminded me of the days when searching on just about any term in a search engine - even something decidedly unsuggestive like 'quadratic equation' - would turn up at least one adult site in the top 10 results. Ah, those were the days. Kids today have been spoiled by accurate and efficient search engines that return mostly relevant results.
And stumble across the site I did. I was searching for an online source for a jersey from German 4th (or is it 3rd?) division club SSV Ulm. I attended one of their matches in '86 when I was visiting Germany. That trip was my first introduction to soccer as a spectaor sport (I played the game - poorly - earlier in grade school). Sentimental interest in the club has lead me to search for a jersey many times over the past 20 odd years. I have as yet to find a source that will ship outside continental Europe. I look on and off regardless. I can be tenacious like that.
And thus ends this little rambling post. I often natter on about the more depressing bits of my existance. Figured we could use some light happy posts. Especially since the next is pretty.
I have this feeling that word has different resonace for me than for many other folks ...
Why? I haven't been posting much lately. I had gotten in the habit of posting in spare moments at work, but due to changes in the internet usage policy that isn't really an option anymore. Seems somebody was abusing the access and avoiding actual work. Or something. I'm not real clear on the reasoning. But whatever. I fill those spare moments reading cooking magazines or whatever, which is for some reason preferable.
But generally work is going as well as usual. I just won a $25 gift card as a reward for something. Not really sure what it was rewarding me for. Guess I'm doing an OK job :)
Watched the Netherlands vs. Russia quarterfinal from Euro 2008 today. I don't have cable, so getting a chance to see even a little international soccer on TV is a treat. We don't get much coverage on broadcast. Pretty fun game, too. If anyone is keeping track, Russia won in extra time.
Speaking of soccer, in an unofficial match timed to coincide with Euro 2008 Austria beat Germany 10-5. No, not the men's sides. Not the women either (although the teams were all-female). The game was contested by two 6-woman teams wearing only thongs. The Austrian side expressed hope that the men's national team would take the victory as a morale booster. Apparently not - in the actual tournament Germany beat Austria the next day.
Speaking of, well, the last two topics, I've stumbled across one of the more bizarre adult sites I've ever seen. I'm not talking gross or painful looking 'extreme' stuff - this was a fairly tame softcore site. With a theme. Reasonably attractive women in various stages of undress - the clothing being soccer jerseys. Or nude holding a soccer ball. Or standing in goal. Reminded me of the days when searching on just about any term in a search engine - even something decidedly unsuggestive like 'quadratic equation' - would turn up at least one adult site in the top 10 results. Ah, those were the days. Kids today have been spoiled by accurate and efficient search engines that return mostly relevant results.
And stumble across the site I did. I was searching for an online source for a jersey from German 4th (or is it 3rd?) division club SSV Ulm. I attended one of their matches in '86 when I was visiting Germany. That trip was my first introduction to soccer as a spectaor sport (I played the game - poorly - earlier in grade school). Sentimental interest in the club has lead me to search for a jersey many times over the past 20 odd years. I have as yet to find a source that will ship outside continental Europe. I look on and off regardless. I can be tenacious like that.
And thus ends this little rambling post. I often natter on about the more depressing bits of my existance. Figured we could use some light happy posts. Especially since the next is pretty.
I have this feeling that word has different resonace for me than for many other folks ...
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Work
So, what do I do job wise? After all, I spend a considerable portion of my life either at or getting to work. But I rarely talk about it.
There are several reasons for that. The first being that you've probably had contact with my employer. If you live in the US (although the company is internationally active) that is. I hope that contact was positive, but I'm not naive. It may not have been. There is a tendency on the net to take anyone with a connection to a corporation and declare them a representative of said corporation. I'm not such a representative and do not want to be. I probably have different opinions from my 309,000 odd coworkers and they different from mine.
The second reason is the greater amount of freedom I have to discuss work if I leave exactly who I am working for nebulous. For the most part I haven't needed to vent, but it is nice to leave the option open. Never know when I'll wanna kvetch.
That being said, I still haven't answered the question of what I do. This is partly because my actual job duties are kind of a shifting target. My team often is given responsibilities only somewhat connected to what we theoretically do. Most of us are happy with that, being the types that frankly get bored with routine. We are given a fair amount of freedom to get things done, often without much of a guideline as to how. Of course we are expected to be mindful of company policy but we are also given a fair amount of trust that we will be able to reconcile the policy with the end goal.
The department I am with is called SPS - sustainment (not a real word) and production support. A coworker characterized what we do as "internal tech support", which is as accurate a description as any. Basically, when other employees (either reps within our call center or sales reps in our division of the company) have difficulty with the systems used to fill orders we either complete the order or assist them in doing so, whichever is appropriate.
Very often this involves reminding the rep of what they already know. One thing many of the folks we come in contact don't realize is that we really have very little access to resoueces beyond what they themselves do. The only real difference is in expertise and the ability to leverage that.
In real life terms I spend a considerable amount of time either on the phone or waiting for a call. I field around a dozen calls a day (but have had as many as 40!) from sales reps as well as take a few calls and resolve a few trouble cases from within my call center. Formerly this included work from a call center in Louisiana as well, but they focus exclusivly on smaller businesses now, whereas we deal with larger companies.
"Companies" being a key word. The division I work in deals with businesses and their enployees. The structure recently changed, and I don't quite have a handle on it. How it breaks down is roughly this: you have a large (if you weren't paying attention 309,000 employees) corporation. Within that corporation is a division that deals with business. Within that division is a group dealing with wireless communications. Within that group is a division serving large business. That division has a group dedicated to ordering and customer care, which has the SPS department, which has ... me.
Phew. See why I don't talk about work much? Too difficult :)
There are several reasons for that. The first being that you've probably had contact with my employer. If you live in the US (although the company is internationally active) that is. I hope that contact was positive, but I'm not naive. It may not have been. There is a tendency on the net to take anyone with a connection to a corporation and declare them a representative of said corporation. I'm not such a representative and do not want to be. I probably have different opinions from my 309,000 odd coworkers and they different from mine.
The second reason is the greater amount of freedom I have to discuss work if I leave exactly who I am working for nebulous. For the most part I haven't needed to vent, but it is nice to leave the option open. Never know when I'll wanna kvetch.
That being said, I still haven't answered the question of what I do. This is partly because my actual job duties are kind of a shifting target. My team often is given responsibilities only somewhat connected to what we theoretically do. Most of us are happy with that, being the types that frankly get bored with routine. We are given a fair amount of freedom to get things done, often without much of a guideline as to how. Of course we are expected to be mindful of company policy but we are also given a fair amount of trust that we will be able to reconcile the policy with the end goal.
The department I am with is called SPS - sustainment (not a real word) and production support. A coworker characterized what we do as "internal tech support", which is as accurate a description as any. Basically, when other employees (either reps within our call center or sales reps in our division of the company) have difficulty with the systems used to fill orders we either complete the order or assist them in doing so, whichever is appropriate.
Very often this involves reminding the rep of what they already know. One thing many of the folks we come in contact don't realize is that we really have very little access to resoueces beyond what they themselves do. The only real difference is in expertise and the ability to leverage that.
In real life terms I spend a considerable amount of time either on the phone or waiting for a call. I field around a dozen calls a day (but have had as many as 40!) from sales reps as well as take a few calls and resolve a few trouble cases from within my call center. Formerly this included work from a call center in Louisiana as well, but they focus exclusivly on smaller businesses now, whereas we deal with larger companies.
"Companies" being a key word. The division I work in deals with businesses and their enployees. The structure recently changed, and I don't quite have a handle on it. How it breaks down is roughly this: you have a large (if you weren't paying attention 309,000 employees) corporation. Within that corporation is a division that deals with business. Within that division is a group dealing with wireless communications. Within that group is a division serving large business. That division has a group dedicated to ordering and customer care, which has the SPS department, which has ... me.
Phew. See why I don't talk about work much? Too difficult :)
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
isolated, unsocial, and introspective
Or at least according to the Beijing Olympic Committee. I look forward to the summer games every 4 years. Here's hoping the TV coverage is better than last time. I saw NO coverage of combat sports, 4-5 minutes of fencing (and that only because of the first US gold medal since the beginning of the [20th] century!), almost no soccer, NO rhythmic gymnastics (as opposed to artistic or just adjectiveless) ...
But still every four years I feel compelled to stay up until 2AM each night watching water polo :/
This time round I have an extra stake in the performance of some teams in the US squad. Some of the competitors are being sponsored by my employer. I even have a "Beijing - 1 Year To Go!" pin (obviously they were a bit slow in getting it to me.) Next time I talk about why I don't really talk much about who my employer is and what exactly they employee me to do.
The title of this post comes from BOC training materials. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article4009610.ece for details. Speaks for itself, really.
But still every four years I feel compelled to stay up until 2AM each night watching water polo :/
This time round I have an extra stake in the performance of some teams in the US squad. Some of the competitors are being sponsored by my employer. I even have a "Beijing - 1 Year To Go!" pin (obviously they were a bit slow in getting it to me.) Next time I talk about why I don't really talk much about who my employer is and what exactly they employee me to do.
The title of this post comes from BOC training materials. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article4009610.ece for details. Speaks for itself, really.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
New link
Yeah, yeah, I know. Been a month since I posted here. So sue me. I've updated the music blog at bboms.blogspot.com a little more frequently.
Recently came across a very interesting blog, Polyglot Vegetarian. It's about linguistics. Of food items. That a vegetarian would use.
I figure maybe 3 dozen folks worldwide are as jazzed about that combination of topics as I am.
Recently came across a very interesting blog, Polyglot Vegetarian. It's about linguistics. Of food items. That a vegetarian would use.
I figure maybe 3 dozen folks worldwide are as jazzed about that combination of topics as I am.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
3 Years
Not to break in (I keep putting off the post that was supposed to go here), but when I got to work today I had a bunch of email congratulating me on my 3 year anniversary with the company. I wouldn't have known otherwise. I mean, I know I've been coming here every workday for awhile, but 3 years?
This is especially cool because 3 years ago I had people who should have known better telling me I was lazy and didn't know how to work. Because I wasn't killing myself groveling for any crappy job.
So not only did following my OWN path instead of panicking end up with me working for one of the world's best-known communications companies, they have appreciated how I do my job enough to keep me around for awhile.
Not that this was a contest, but I WIN.
This is especially cool because 3 years ago I had people who should have known better telling me I was lazy and didn't know how to work. Because I wasn't killing myself groveling for any crappy job.
So not only did following my OWN path instead of panicking end up with me working for one of the world's best-known communications companies, they have appreciated how I do my job enough to keep me around for awhile.
Not that this was a contest, but I WIN.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
The Discomfiting Case of Ellen Stohl
Don't Google it. Not yet.
In due time. But doing it first is sort of like reading the last chapter of a book before the beginning. Really blows the story.
Don't worry. I'll tell you what you need to know to understand the title of this post. Right now you're probably wondering a few things from the title. Who is Ellen Stohl? Why is there a case? And why is it discomfiting?
First things first. Ellen Stohl is an actress, model, lecturer, and owns and operates Chasing the Moon Productions, a media company. That's a start. Has to be more, right? From Stohl's website:
But we're not setting up a feel-good Reader's Digest bravery in-the-face-of adversity type story here. Not intentionally anyway. We still have 2/3 of the title left to explain! So we should move on.
Which is exactly what Stohl did. A few years after her accident she wrote a letter. A letter many aspiring actressess/models write. The recipients of the letter expressed concerns about the services she offered, but ultimately a decision - and history - was made.
Ellen Stohl appeared in a 8-page layout in the June 1987 issue of Playboy.
Now you can see where discomfort enters this story.
Not for the reasons folks likely guess given the story so far. 5 or 6 dozen women do nude or semi-nude spreads in Playboy each year. Not something that grates on me at all. Some others do feel uncomfortable with this. Whatever. I'm willing to listen to why, and certainly allow for a diversity of opinion, but that being said I don't see myself jumping on that train anytime soon.
But still I'll admit to discomfort. Discomfort not so much with the questions asked, but with the very fact that a question exists. Why is "should Ellen Stohl have posed" asked specifically? The question - the asking of the question - reeks of the same assumptions as infantalization and desexualization of the disabled.
There are specifics here, though, that I'm not comfortable with. It's all about the image being presented. The layout included photos from everyday life. In these photos she is using her wheelchair. Makes sense. Ellen uses a wheelchair in her normal activities. She is also fully clothed. Again, makes sense. Most of us do our everyday activities while being clothed.
The 'sensual' or 'sexy' photos are different, though. No wheelchair in sight. This was a concious decision on the part of the folks designing the layout. Hugh Hefner was asked about this by an Ability magazine interviewer:
Hef fell into the trap himself. The wheelchair's absence as even an incidental background prop reinforces the false perception he talks about. The viewer has to choose which image to look at. Ellen as someone who uses a wheelchair, or Ellen as "a human sexual being". I'm uncomfortable with there being a seperation between the two.
And I'm uncomfortable with being uncomfortable. What exactly am I looking for in the images?
I don't really have an answer. I'm not sure I'm really looking for anything. The layout is what it is. Whether one thinks Stohl appearing in the playmate context is good or bad (or none of the above) the fact remains that she was the first person with obvious physical disability to appear in that magazine in that context. 21 years have passed and I'm not sure we have answers to the questions raised. Or even know what the questions are.
At this point in a post I usually try to segue into the next. I've attempted several times to craft an elegent way to transition between this post and the next, but trashed them all. Pity, because there is a common thread, of sorts. Some things I mentioned here are realized in the next story I have for you.
But I'm just too angry for elegance.
-----------------------------------
I started off talking about search engines. Let me save you some time if you're curious about things mentioned in this post. Here are some links:
Ellen Stohl
Article in New Mobility
Another Stohl interview
Nadina LaSpina speech - only mentions Stohl tangentially
Ability Magazine interview with Hefner and Stohl
NY Times article
In due time. But doing it first is sort of like reading the last chapter of a book before the beginning. Really blows the story.
Don't worry. I'll tell you what you need to know to understand the title of this post. Right now you're probably wondering a few things from the title. Who is Ellen Stohl? Why is there a case? And why is it discomfiting?
First things first. Ellen Stohl is an actress, model, lecturer, and owns and operates Chasing the Moon Productions, a media company. That's a start. Has to be more, right? From Stohl's website:
Ellen Stohl was injured in car accident in 1983. She sustained a C-8/T-1 spinal chord injury that left her an incomplete quadriplegic. Ellen functions primarily as a paraplegic and uses a manual wheelchair from Quickie for mobility.
But we're not setting up a feel-good Reader's Digest bravery in-the-face-of adversity type story here. Not intentionally anyway. We still have 2/3 of the title left to explain! So we should move on.
Which is exactly what Stohl did. A few years after her accident she wrote a letter. A letter many aspiring actressess/models write. The recipients of the letter expressed concerns about the services she offered, but ultimately a decision - and history - was made.
Ellen Stohl appeared in a 8-page layout in the June 1987 issue of Playboy.
Now you can see where discomfort enters this story.
Not for the reasons folks likely guess given the story so far. 5 or 6 dozen women do nude or semi-nude spreads in Playboy each year. Not something that grates on me at all. Some others do feel uncomfortable with this. Whatever. I'm willing to listen to why, and certainly allow for a diversity of opinion, but that being said I don't see myself jumping on that train anytime soon.
But still I'll admit to discomfort. Discomfort not so much with the questions asked, but with the very fact that a question exists. Why is "should Ellen Stohl have posed" asked specifically? The question - the asking of the question - reeks of the same assumptions as infantalization and desexualization of the disabled.
There are specifics here, though, that I'm not comfortable with. It's all about the image being presented. The layout included photos from everyday life. In these photos she is using her wheelchair. Makes sense. Ellen uses a wheelchair in her normal activities. She is also fully clothed. Again, makes sense. Most of us do our everyday activities while being clothed.
The 'sensual' or 'sexy' photos are different, though. No wheelchair in sight. This was a concious decision on the part of the folks designing the layout. Hugh Hefner was asked about this by an Ability magazine interviewer:
Chet Cooper [Ability]: At the time of the photo shoot was there a conscious effort not to have the wheelchair within the pictorial?
Hugh Hefner [Playboy]: The decision was consistent with not associating her disability. It is down that road that takes you into a exploitative kinky type of thing. In other words, a part of what this is all about is her disability and the chair began to define who she was, and that she was not perceived as a human sexual being. Therefore, if the pictures connected the two, we would fall into the same trap.
Hef fell into the trap himself. The wheelchair's absence as even an incidental background prop reinforces the false perception he talks about. The viewer has to choose which image to look at. Ellen as someone who uses a wheelchair, or Ellen as "a human sexual being". I'm uncomfortable with there being a seperation between the two.
And I'm uncomfortable with being uncomfortable. What exactly am I looking for in the images?
I don't really have an answer. I'm not sure I'm really looking for anything. The layout is what it is. Whether one thinks Stohl appearing in the playmate context is good or bad (or none of the above) the fact remains that she was the first person with obvious physical disability to appear in that magazine in that context. 21 years have passed and I'm not sure we have answers to the questions raised. Or even know what the questions are.
At this point in a post I usually try to segue into the next. I've attempted several times to craft an elegent way to transition between this post and the next, but trashed them all. Pity, because there is a common thread, of sorts. Some things I mentioned here are realized in the next story I have for you.
But I'm just too angry for elegance.
-----------------------------------
I started off talking about search engines. Let me save you some time if you're curious about things mentioned in this post. Here are some links:
Ellen Stohl
Article in New Mobility
Another Stohl interview
Nadina LaSpina speech - only mentions Stohl tangentially
Ability Magazine interview with Hefner and Stohl
NY Times article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
