Sunday, August 28, 2011

Live-Blogging the 2011 VMAs

It's been way too long since I last did this. Giving it the ol' college try. GO!

Lady Gaga: Go girl (er, Jo! Although "Jo" is a female spelling) I loved this. Compared to last year's 50 costume changes, this is easy. Also must be her audition for a movie we will find out about in a few months.

Kevin Hart: Ah, comedians that are breaking. Too much on the fly. The jokes are funny on the page, but not out of his voice. YSL belt is all that I'm paying attention to.

Waiting for Irene comments.

9:12: Nicki Minaj & Jonah Hill: So he's still gonna rock the nerdy look, eh? And pop stars today just have to be weird. Chains, blow up multicolored pastel stuff things she's carrying.

Best Pop Video: "Last Friday Night (TGIF)", Adele "Rolling in the Deep" (not a good video, it's just because it's the song of the year), "Grenade," "Til the World Ends," Pitbull --Katy Perry should win, no contest. Funny video, storyline, humor, etc. No contest.

Britney -- They just want to award her because she's Britney and they want to give this "princess" her dues, cause they didn't years ago.

9:22 Long stage...leading up to Jay-Z and Kanye. Odd no introduction, that it was just squeezed it. Good stuff though.

Miley -- you were born when Nirvana was big, so...not gonna deny that you grew up listening to them...but yeah.

Best Rock Video: Black Keys, Foo Fighters "Walk," Foster the People --too new, didn't this come out a few weeks ago? Mumford & Sons "The Cave" This played on MTV? Cage the Elephant. Huh. Thought I knew them from somewhere. Foo Fighters, because it's the only band most people know from the list. It's a shame that both Chicago and New York don't have rock stations anymore. Very appropriate speech, Dave Grohl. Rock will always find a way.

9:33 Interstitials: Rebecca Black sure knows how to milk this.

All the Best New Artists this year suck.

9:34 I like this stage.
9:35 "Beasties" aka Will Ferrell, Jack Black and Seth Rogen, followed by Odd Future, which is quite large. Very predictable shit, if you ask me.

Best Hip-Hop Video: Lil Wayne "6'7'", "All of the Lights," (my song), Lupe Fiasco, Nicki Minaj, "Super Bass," Chris Brown "Look at Me Now."

I'm partial to "All of the Lights", Lupe, Nicki -- I thought he said "Look at Me Now," but Nicki gets up. Definitely oddest shoes ever. Flats with knee socks! Like a 5 year-old. I give her props. She has an ice cream necklace.

Best Collaboration, with two people I don't recognize becaue I'm old. Pitbull, Chris Brown, Kanye, Katy Perry, Nicki Minaj...I think Pitbull/Chris Brown are the real collaborations...Kanye is the architect of "All of the Lights," so no, and Nicki Minaj's song just has Drake guesting, not a real collabo.

Katy Perry-- haha, oh, poor Kanye. I really like Katy's outfit of blue and pink pastels, but I'm sure that's an unpopular opinion.

9:46 Rick Ross! Dumb "banter". Shut up Paul Rudd, get to...Pitbull. Ugh. I respect Pitbull (I want to read how he turned his life from negative to positive...) hey look at the chick in the center. I'll take that outfit, black lace bodysuit. Oh, she actually sings, so I should know her name. Or rather, her name should be known. Have to check if it's actually on the official song credits.

It's fitting that Pitbull is from Miami, because that's one of the few places that he can get away with that outfit. Ne-Yo looks like Ne-Yo.

MTV has said that Adele has been heard all year, but not seen, so they're marketing her performance that way. Totally accurate?

I am also surprised that certain people get MTV play, like Adele. Yes, she's young, but she's bluesy, she doesn't dance, she's not showy, or loud, or "cute", and she's very appealing to older crowds. Like Mumford & Sons, which gets plays on indie/adult alternative/college radio. How else to classify WFUV?

"I Just Want My Pants Back" is a name of a show?

Dove DJ Who? The older I get, the less I know.

The "intern" in these interstituals looks familiar. The rappers (which make up four-fifths of this category) have the edge.

9:57 Katy Perry still looks good.

9:58: Adele: She always looks the same. And she likes her nails long. I wonder what it's like to perform a very personal song constantly, that the story of your life -- a story of your life -- becomes so public in a way it's no longer yours. I thought, watching an interview with Adele a few weeks ago, how difficult it is to sing and talk about such a personal, painful experience, in this case a breakup. I couldn't do it.

10:06: there are commercials for Plan B???

10:09: Ugh, Beavis and Butthead. No.

Jessie J-- You know how some girls have it and others don't. She doesn't. Just don't know why.

10:10: Kim Kardashian does have a great body. With that sweet baby voice all the boys love.

Best Male Video -- Cee-Lo, Kanye "All of the Lights," Bruno Mars, "Love the Way You Lie" (not technically a male video), Justin Beiber. Give it to Cee-Lo! Come on, the beeb. I always think "Pandering to the tween constituency. We need them to watch and tweet." Also, only Justin Beiber can rock those glasses. I wore glasses like that and no, no cool for me.

Vitoria Justice? Must be one of those girls in one of those MTV shows.

10:12 Chris Breezy yep. How much is he sweating under there? Guys, I hope y'all know he's not singing...Nirvana...? We all must give props to this, still? House music...he's lipsynching, but because we now he's not supposed to sing, it's ok.

Jay-Z and a lot of others are so not feeling this. But Kanye is giving props.

Chris Brown is wearing a mike to cover his bases. I appreciate the flying. That's got to be a cool experience. How can I get on that?

They did bill it as a dance-off, not technically incorrect...

"No Scrubs?" Odd choice. How about an Aaliyah tribute?

I like the interactive map of Tweets from inside.

Are the Joisey Shore guidos and guidettes gonna hit the stage? We saw Ronnie and Sammi (still together) sittin' pretty.

10:22: Britney Tribute. Ohh, Gaga is Jo again! Coolness. True on the industry part. I don't consider Britney fearless, though -- that would go to Madonna, even Lady G herself.
Video vangaaard award. Love the accent.

Britney looks so uncomfortable with "Jo." I feel for her; I'd have the same expression on my face. But this reading -- ugh.

10:29 Beyonce I have never seen Beyonce wear pants. She looks good. Personally, I would have preferred Beyonce to sing own of her own songs. Oh! Nice! I nearly missed it! Not unexpected, though.

Selena Gomez and Taylor Lautner for Best New Artist. Forgettable or Fantastic? Rappers + Foster the People. Wiz Khalifa, Kreashawyn, Tyler the Creator, Big Sean. I've only read about Tyler the Creator/Odd Future, never actually heard them...There's a guy drinking water behind him.

Jared Leto being too cool for school and Zoe Saldana. Triangles on his arms?

Young the Giant: I've NEVER heard before a commercial two days before.

10:47 "Somewhat surprising" performance of Jay-Z and Kanye.

10:52: Cloris Leachman? As my father would say, where did they dig her up from? Oh, old women saying slutty things if FUNNY! Haha! Not. But the Jersey Shore girls are all natural.

Best Female Video: Adele, "Firework," Run the World" (too new?) Nicki Minaj "SuperBass," "Born this Way" -- all decent. Lady Gaga. Katy Perry is wearing a cheesehead.

Cloris Leachman is losing it.

I'm enjoying Lady Gaga as Jo. Lovin' the accent. Wow, Deena's got enough makeup on for all of 'em.

On "Video With a Message" -- I see why they put it in place this year; they certainly had enough applicants. A regular feature? No on air? Lame. However, I agree with Gaga; a lot of songs *do* have messages, even if they're not expected. Weezy's telling us how to love. Adele is saying that heartbreak is hell. I can come up with a zillion of these (and better examples when I'm not overheating because of my laptop).

11:02: Russell Brand. He hosted in ...2009. Amy Winehouse. His tribute is decent. I'm not quick enough to type the lines I like. More messaging -- alcoholism. He is the right person to say that, though, and I think that it's important to bring that up, for people to remember that these are real issues and they aren't fun. I would have liked Adele to speak, as she knew her, too.

11:09: Bruno Mars is so '50s cute.

They have not mentioned Irene once. And where's my boy Drake?

11:13: No, I'm fine without seeing The Hunger Games. Really.

11:18 I saw Katie Holmes in the audience and wondered what she was doing there. Why is she introducing Video of the Year? Promote a movie that is not mentioned nor advertised?

Video of the Year: Adele, Tyler the Creator (he won't win, not well known) Katy Perry "Firework," Beasties (no, not a big hit), Why was "Grenade" chosen for Bruno Mars? Adele will win, either her or Katy. Katy.


She'll give good speech. "Firework" is the song of my last year, that's for sure.

My boy Drake!

Lil Wayne ends the show. With his ballad. He'll probably segue into a rap.

I do like this song, even though I think of it as all auto-tune and how rappers shouldn't sing. (See Eminem). Ohhh, I was right. From "How to Love" to ohh, they're just pumping the music through the stereo and letting him run around and run his fingers over a guitar.

11:29 So not paying attention to this MTV show clip with a fake Andy Samberg, generic pretty brunette, making out, Star Wars and smoking references. Another male fantasy. Oh. The show's over. Huh.


Monday, November 15, 2010

This Is a Total Tumblr Post

"...People are always asking me why don’t I write protest songs, political
songs. Well, love is a serious business.”

The righteousness of that last stance seems a bit extreme; the number of pop songs that aren’t love songs is statistically insignificant.

--Eli (Paperboy) Reed/Rob Hoerburger

(Emphasis mine.)

From "Can a Nerd Have Soul?"

Monday, July 19, 2010

About Those Hideous Men...

...None of them seriously led on a woman, for years, over their interest. They dated the women, had relationships or encounters with them, but they were never stringing them along in some nefarious "situation" while the girl wanted to be with them.

Something I noticed that happens far too often, and is considered quite a grave sin, yet not represented here.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Men Behaving Badly…And Then There Are the Women

The last post I wrote was about the Sex and the City movie. I did see it, finally, although in a much different environment than the last one. I expected to hate it, I really did. But I found that even though it is many things the critics say it is (long, ridiculous, heavy-handed), it is also very, very enjoyable, and quite funny. And of course, I was captivated by all the articles denouncing the terrible reviews, defending the movie, even as they acknowledged it wasn’t good.

But time passed. I watched two movies I actually had wanted to see for awhile, and planned to write a joint post on: I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell and Brief Interviews with Hideous Men, both stories based on books about terrible, awful men and their terrible, awful behavior. No apologies were given. Both books were bestsellers.

And then I realized, even though I have seen all three of these movies spaced out over the course of the last month, that all three were touching upon the same issues. Here I try, not very well, to make sense of it all.


I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell
is marketed as the raunchiest, craziest bacchanal, a road trip/buddy movie to rival The Hangover. Based on a true-life account of a womanizing law school grad, the movie tries to give shape and story to the book’s outlandish episodes, including redemption for the movie’s central character, Tucker Max. It’s not funny, though trying to figure out why is tough. It’s not a bad movie; it’s certainly watchable, but no, it’s not even remotely close to The Hangover, save for plot.

Matt Czuchry is the quintessential charming rogue, always with an answer for the ladies, yet back with his friends, he can charmingly degrade ‘em all. He’s always on the lookout for the next lay, the next sexual experience, ready for a new story. His appeal is his outlandishness, as girls are always ready to nail his sexist attitudes to his face. His comeuppance in the film is supposed to be gratifying for the audience—he’s not supposed to get away with calling a girl a “cum dumpster”—but instead it’s trite, predictable. Let the guy roam free; nobody believes he’s real anyway.

Czuchry was Logan on Gilmore Girls, a deceptively similar character to the one he plays here: another charming, rich playboy, who glided through school despite all his professors wanting to strangle him. What’s glaring obvious in the movie is his pedigree, though it’s not mentioned: Tucker is able to toss money at everything. If the stripper, girls or his friends have problems, he throws money at it. A row of 10 special shots is $80? No problem. He doesn’t flinch, and while his buddies, being law students, are conscious of money, he isn’t. Nothing fazes him, and he has the smarts to outwit anyone. He is a lawyer.

What was realistic was the dialogue with his friends. The stories are lifted from the book, and possibly some of the dialogue, but while Czuchry isn’t funny, I did believe that a law student like him, who had a comeback for everything, would talk as intelligently and offensively as he did. The movie sags as the movie reaches its denouement, since we know where this is headed. Of course, things end well—the bitter buddy has found a new love, Tucker learns his lesson. The biggest, and what’s supposed to be the funniest scene, completely falls flat in a way that’s appalling; it’s so much better in the book. It’s kind of sad to see I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell bow down to generic story, missing the no-holds-barred tone of the book, to try to garner an audience that didn’t materialize.

However, Brief Interviews with Hideous Men is what the title promises—a depressed, mopey grad student (Julianne Nicholson) conducts brief interviews with men about sex, love, and relationships. It’s all dark and cruel. She says almost nothing throughout the movie, recording these monologues. She is constantly followed by men telling tales of conquest and lust, or they just happen upon her as she’s studying in Starbucks, and her tape recorder is always present. The story is told nonlinearly, and we find out her reasoning for conducting this research—all in the name of feminism, she says.

This movie is largely lifted from the novel, with entire sections of the movie nearly word-for-word. Some of the editing and setups are very postmodern, in fitting with David Foster Wallace’s work, with odd jump-cuts and characters in and out of scenes they’re narrating. It’s very arty and quite pretentious, with a lot of preeny intellectualism that each character affects. Partly because of the setting (and the fact that the book was published in the ‘90s), it doesn’t feel contemporary; there’s talk of rape and love and fantasies and the cruel way that men treat women, but nobody talks like this, in long, artfully constructed sentences.

I’ve read both books, and the wide spaces both stories occupy seem to posit men as these awful creatures. Brief Interviews is not a story that should be seen when in a bad mood, like after a breakup. Nor, really, is Beer in Hell, as both will give ammunition to the phrase “men are cowards”, uttered in the former film. Both stories namecheck feminism, and the men go out of their way to talk about it, how they view it, how they view women—trying to discover what they want, give them what they want. It’s all syntactical gymnastics, and following the logic of most of the monologues gets a little confusing at times. All the men purport to be “honest” in the films, but in Beer in Hell they’re routinely emasculated (especially the groom at the center of the story, but his was the weakest plot), while the men in Brief Interviews are aggressive and gregarious. Sara, the grad student, just takes it all in.

She barely reacts, and her passivity works against her. It’s hard to watch her, especially in some of the more confrontational moments when she is hijacked by monologues by her ex-boyfriend and an interview subject on rape, and not wish her to say something, to scream out in anger. At least in Beer in Hell, the women have their say. They all routinely attack Tucker, spouting off how sexist he is. Tucker will perform his own syntactical gymnastics, but with less snooty intellectualism. And they do have their comeuppance, since the audience is meant to understand that Tucker does really care, that he just wants to have fun, and that (by the end) he’s slowly learning to grow up. That’s not the pat ending in Brief Interviews: Sara is still sad, and her project is merely reinforcing the terribleness of the world, the awfulness of men—even when they care, it’s all wrapped in layers and layers of self-loathing and fear. These men just need to get a grip on themselves. Nothing much really “happens”; the movie is an excuse for a lot of excellent actors to act, though the dialogue often sounds stilted and too actor-y. John Krasinski, the director, is also Sara’s ex, and he is very much the opposite of his nice-guy persona on The Office. Frankly, even he saying the word “bitch” just sounds unnatural.

Both these movies about men behaving badly were supposed to be fun, in a way, just a general romp through awful actions we’d never dare to do ourselves. That’s the selling point. But the Sex and the City movie, also marketed as a fun romp, actually was—though you wouldn’t believe it from the press.

I loved the movie. Yes, I did. I laughed. I had a smile on my face nearly the entire time. It’s ridiculous, sexist, and most definitely offensive. And yet, I enjoyed it mightily.

It is not the Sex and the City of the television show, but I knew that already. The emotional stakes were low, and the Aiden storyline was stupid. Carrie herself was dumb—and most of her storyline could have been avoided had she just told Big outright how she felt. But the nibbles were there—Carrie’s struggle to find a way to make marriage work for her, done her way, felt true. All of the other women were as one-note as possible. I cringed at Miranda being the peppy tour guide, at Samantha loudly being as crass as possible, and at Charlotte because she had nothing better to do. Surprisingly, what none of the reviews mentioned, in between lambasting the movie for every possible offense, was that the movie did try to put the story in context. One of Carrie’s friends gently reminds her of the days when she couldn’t even get Big to stay over, and now she’s mad that he’s always around (“A little perspective is always good”). They do mention the recession, how things have changed since the last movie, and refer to events in both that film and in the canon of the television show. That meant a lot. I also appreciated how the movie tried to bring home the message that life is always hard, no matter the stage. This, unfortunately, was largely lost through the ostentatious outfits and accessories, and the silliness of the plot.

I found the movie beautiful. All the actresses looked fantastic. The colors! The clothes! They looked like what they were—women in their 40s and 50s, well-dressed, with money. Comparing them to younger versions of themselves is unfair. Yes, the movie went over-the-top, but that was part of the show; it was just more of it in the movie, just like the screwball sensibilities that have always underlined the humor of the series.

I completely understand the anger. If I was a mother, the scene between Charlotte and Miranda discussing parenting (“How do they do it without help?”) would be ridiculously condescending and offensive, even more so than it is. Yet I felt that that line was supposed to be a sendup, as sometimes the over-the-top hysterics of nearly every character was portrayed. Maybe it was on us because we took it so seriously.

Maybe that’s another failure of this genre. The backlash to the backlash repeatedly pointed out that some of the vituperative criticisms were unfair, that men’s movies do this all the time…not just The Hangover and Hot-Tub Time Machine, but James Bond. Frankly, The Hangover is an apt comparison to both I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell and Sex and the City 2. It too was filled with a stupid plot, slapstick humor, and a helpful heap of sexism, in both obvious and not-so-obvious ways. Yet because Sex and the City 2 had the balls to showcase a completely different side—and do it on their terms—it raised a lot more ire than the usual entries in the genre.

All three of these movies—Sex and the City 2, I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell, and Brief Interviews with Hideous Men—are variations on a theme. Yes, two are supposed to be popcorn, but all three purport to have Statements. All three movies were written and directed by men, a not-insignificant fact. It’s a tossup whether Brief Interviews is supposed to be revelatory about men, or just another dark comedy on the subject, or even trying to make a statement about women. It’s clear, though, from watching these movies, even as they claim to be about (and for) one sex, it’s impossible not to include the other in some form. Sometimes it’s trite, or boring, or pretentious, or so ridiculous that it’s impossible to believe anything. But all know there is humor in the subject.

Further reading:
What Went So Horribly Wrong with Sex and the City 2? A Critic and Fan Debate the Demerits
Now, In Defense of SATC 2
Un-Innocents Abroad: The Drubbing
Why the SATC 2 Reviews Were Misogynist
All of the reviews I read of Brief Interviews (three, after I watched) were very accurate, but this one's perhaps the best.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Not So Sexy Anymore

I'm going to see the Sex and the City movie. It's one of those things. It's not that I'm dying to see it, not that I expect it will be great, it's not that I think it's worth the $10+. I'm going because, I guess, it's one of those "events" things, though I'm really looking forward to seeing a bunch of friends I don't see that often.

I was (am) a big fan of the television show. I wrote a paper focusing on the season finale, and then retooled it a year later for a conference that I ended up submitting something else to. And when the first movie came out, I was super excited, and I went with a big group of girls, and we laughed and gasped and took it all in. It wasn't until later, on rewatch, without the audience and the expectations, that I realized that the film truly was not good.

I've seen the trailer for the sequel. There's not much to it. I've seen the ads, and the critiques with the photoshopped arms, legs, and hips. I kind of dread where the story will go, but I had that feeling when the movie was over--where else can they go? Women's lives, at least in story form, seem to follow the same trajectory of men and kids, and I didn't want to see Carrie pregnant. But what else will they do? I lamented to a friend, and we bitched. I don't want the movies to be part of my memory of the series.

Neither does Hadley Freeman, who posted her own response to the movies (Spoilers):

But the truth is, the show was fantastic: smart, funny, warm and wise, a far cry from the "middle-aged women having embarrassing sex with various unsuitable partners" cliche that the above writer used. It was about four smart women, three of whom had no interest in getting married. Candace Bushnell's original book on which the show was based was good, but the show was great.

But unlike in the films, that's not all there was, and that wasn't all the characters cared about. What elevated the show way above the normal chickflick tat, and way above the films, was that it had genuine emotional truth. It sang with lines that you knew had come from real life ("How can I have this baby? I barely had time to schedule this abortion" being quite possibly my all-time favourite) and plots that went beyond the limiting convention of cliche. Samantha's breast cancer, for example, showed not only how scary and sad cancer (obviously) is, but also how boring, sweaty and plain inconvenient it is, too.
My thesis in my Sex and the City paper was that the show was so successful because it stuck to this emotional truth. The movie, despite trying for it with Miranda's storyline, completely missed the mark. The men were barely involved, and when they were, they were out of character. The movie was just plain bad; there was nothing there, and spent too much time on things no one cared out (Mexico) and drew out what was unnecessary (Big and Carrie's roller coaster wedding).

There's been a lot written how the show increasingly focused on fashion and the "luxe life" in its later years, especially in the movies. Michael Patrick King, as a response to both the recession and the first movie, has purposely made the sequel light and airy, with the escapist trip to Abu Dhabi the centerpiece of this theme. Yes, it made it easier to shoot, and was different. But it was also a big "huh? ...ok" for the audience.

The fashion was fun, sometimes. But I always maintained it wasn't about that for true fans--they connected to the emotional issues the show brought up, the questions, no matter how serious or frivolous. They could connect to the women's tribulations, no matter what their actual lives were like.

Hopefully I will enjoy the movie, and it won't be a total waste. But I wonder: Do all women's entertainments have to be this way? Do they have to be like Eat Pray Love, an escapist journey, a fantasy that most of us won't be able to experience?

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Another Reason Why Lady Gaga Is Awesome

I love a lot of things about this picture of Lady Gaga. I love her hair, the waves, and the color. I love the dark lipstick, the open mouth. I love her crossed arms. I love the metallic contraption “top” she’s wearing, the sparks flying from her nipples. But most of all, I love the fact that Lady Gaga has arm hair.

It’s subtle. It’s noticeable in the full picture in the magazine (Time 100 Most Influential People), the faint brown hairs. I love that Lady Gaga, who is a very Italian brunette when she is/was Stefani Germanotta, did not get rid of her arm hair. I love that she didn’t feel forced to wax it off or bleach it or otherwise hide the fact that’s what her arms look like.

To me that’s what’s most remarkable about this picture, not that she has sparks flying out of her nipples or that the contraption looks cold and uncomfortable, not even wondering how in the world that thing was made or how it works. I’m not shocked by that, nor her orgasmic expression. All of these things have been seen before, whether on her or by other pop stars. It’s the fact that we see what her arms normally look like—no artifice—in a picture promoting artifice. Lady Gaga’s mode, throughout all the wacky, weird costumes, is to show off who she is, that people should uniquely be themselves, and she makes statements through her art. Having her arm hair just existing, not photoshopped out, is just another way of saying, this is who I am, and don’t try to change me. Don’t try to make me conform to unrealistic and silly and costly beauty standards. I am who I am, and I happen to have hair on my arms.

Live Like We're Goners? I Don't Think So

Rachel Maddow has it right.

I’ve always hated the idea, personified in Kris Allen’s “Live Like We’re Dying” and Jordan Sparks’ “Tattoo”, that we must always live like every day is our last. These sentiments, these platitudes, are meant to goad us into action, to live bravely, to do risky things like go for that opportunity, to proclaim our love, those moments that we’re scared of that form the climax of the plot in any cheesy, predictable story.

We should absolutely not live every moment as if we’re dying. First, we simply can’t. There are moments in life where we have to do boring things—run errands, go to the bathroom, do homework, clean. These are not earth-shattering moments, and while they might lead us to pursue our dream, they are the necessary drudgework that is part of life. We can’t pretend these moments don’t exist, or consistently infuse them with meaning. We feel sick, we want to sleep in, we spend too much time online or on video games. Not every moment is meant for meaning; it is everything added together that becomes something more. Two, if we tried to live every moment as if it was life or death, we’d be in a constant state of anxiety and heightened emotions, and a person can’t live like that. Necessary things, like sleep and food, would get pushed out, because we don’t have time for petty things if we are dying!In that mindset, everything is short term; there are no considerations for consequences. Yeah, that opportunity might be amazing, but is it worth it after tomorrow? After next year? Is it harmful? Proclaiming your love is always viewed as this thing that, while scary, will always work out…but what if it doesn’t? What if everything goes to pot, and you were better off not doing it? But it doesn't matter, because you have to live every second like it's your last one!

There’s an episode of House where Wilson, after telling a patient that he only a few months to live, realizes that his disease is in remission and he will be fine. The patient is angry and wants to sue Wilson—the expectation that he was dying made his life fun for the short-term, and he was showered with parties and accolades. Now he has nothing to live for. He had lived for the present, and now that it was extended, there was nothing left. If we lived every day like we were dying, we would also feel this way. We told all our loved ones how we felt (nauseatingly), we took our risks, we said FU when it didn’t work out...and eventually we’ll be left with a shell of who we are, since we didn’t listen to anyone and didn’t prepare for the consequences.

So for the love of God, don’t tell me to live my life to the fullest, how I need to constantly run on all cylinders, to make sure that every moment counts. Because not every moment does, and not every moment can.

I’m too busy just trying to get by.