The Circle of… A Day In the… Final Four Words

The final four words of Netflix’s revival of the beloved TV show Gilmore Girls, which they subtitled A Year In the Life, are its creator Amy Sherman-Palladino’s culmination of the pop-cultural phenomenon.

Some fans are angry at them, almost demanding a second season in the reboot. As some fans noted, however, the words make perfect sense from the standpoint of the show. I lean more toward the latter interpretation.

Note, there are spoilers (and analysis) below.



I really enjoyed the show when it originally aired. It was funny, quirky, endearing and heartwarming. I also appreciated all the pop culture references. I’d forgotten how much I missed the quick-fire banter and razor-witted characters. The first scene of the reboot — split into 4 parts, each named after the season of the year in which it takes place — recognised that as well. Rory (Alexis Bledel) and Lorelai (Lauren Graham) sit in the gazebo in their beloved Stars Hollow, drinking coffee (always!) and talking about just that. The show itself may have ended in 2007 but the actors slipped so easily back into their characters that there was no awkwardness. It just felt like eight years had passed in their lives, same as ours. The fact that the original creators, writers producers and show-runners Amy Sherman-Palladino and her husband David Palladino, were back for the revival, after leaving before the disappointing season 7, made the show feel like slipping on a familiar pair of jeans or well-worn sneakers.

I laughed at the jokes and references, I teared up at the appropriate times and overall I loved it. The second and third episodes, ‘Spring’ and ‘Summer’, dragged a little too much — especially the extended musical sequence — but I also felt that ‘Summer’ was the emotional heart of the revival. Yes, it was great to have the dedication to Edward Hermann — who had played Rory’s grandfather Richard in the original run and who died of cancer in 2014 — in ‘Winter’, and to see Luke (Scott Patterson) and Lorelai finally get married in ‘Fall’. It was nice to have Emily (Kelly Bishop) finally stop being such a stick-in-the-mud, overcome the loss of her husband of 50 years (though I did feel this storyline was a bit out of character, actually) and reconcile with her daughter (for good?). Those were all necessary and satisfying. But the real emotional conflict, and sentiment, came to a head in ‘Summer’.

Though Rory claimed she had plenty of ‘irons in the fire’ during ‘Winter’ and ‘Spring’, and in fact worked toward writing a deeper biography on someone whom she had profiled in a well-received New Yorker piece, by ‘Summer’ this has all fallen through. She’s finally moved back to Stars Hollow, even if she thinks she’s not ‘back’ for good, and is encouraged to join the Thirtysomething Gang, a group of similar-aged people who graduated, went to work and yet have moved back to live with their parents after getting chewed up by real life. Despite her best intentions and hard work, her journalism career is effectively dead. She’s forced to try writing a spec piece for GQ about lines — queues — in New York. When that doesn’t work she takes up the editorial pen of the Stars Hollow Gazette, an unpaid position. She’s broke, doesn’t have a car, a valid license, a paying job or, apparently, underwear. She also, finally, decides to end her affair with Logan, even despite the presence of Lorelai, meanwhile, will be saying goodbye to her longtime friend, concierge Michel, as he feels the need to move to a bigger, more modern inn. Lorelai is also on the committee overseeing Stars Hollow: The Musical, a musical retelling of the history of the town. While at a dress rehearsal with the others on the committee, the others are entranced despite (because of?) the utter banality of the songs, while Lorelai furiously scribbles critiques.

The two women are understandably distraught and petrified that so much around them is changing yet they seem stuck in neutral. It struck a chord with me. Friends from school and university have good jobs, are following their passions (and succeeding) and settling down with beloved children. Life is progressing as they dreamed (or at least society tells us we should dream). Yet for me, and Rory, this isn’t what has happened. Despite our best intentions, qualifications and work we haven’t been able to do what we want.

It is this episode that sets up the finale, including the final four words.

For the record, those are:

Rory: Mom

Lorelei: Yeah?

Rory: I’m pregnant.

Fade to black. End of show. Cue Carole King’s theme song (finally!).


There have been numerous articles about the need to ‘talk about‘ these words, their ‘complications‘, why they might ‘make you angry‘ or if you ‘loved them‘.

They all point out how Logan is almost certainly the father, how he’s a proxy version of Christopher (Rory’s father, Lorelai’s ex), how Jess is her Luke (perhaps) and how the show has come full-circle. One even pointed out how different the context is had these been the final words of the original broadcast. gilmorelovemoreBack at the end of season 7 Rory was a recent Yale grad with dreams of being an international journalist and a job writing about the Obama campaign. In the revival she’s 32 (the same age as Lorelai at the start of the show), down on her luck and feeling lost. She’s no longer the precocious youth, but a seasoned woman. A very privileged, well-read woman who sometimes leads a fairy-tale Hollywood life, but a seasoned woman nonetheless.

Yet for as much sense and insight as the articles have, none talk about one of the other major issues. Everyone — outside of Jess, perhaps — has or will have a child. Children are the only measure of success. Michel and his partner Frederick are even adopting, and Michel hates children! What does it say about Rory’s feminism, ambition, writing skills or intelligence to be boiled down to her children? Yes, she is most definitely her mother’s child. But children don’t need to be the defining characteristic of someone’s life. There are plenty of people who can’t have or don’t want children who live full, productive and filling lives. Why aren’t they represented in the show? Why are children so important to someone’s self-worth?

The one good thing that could be said about the abysmal season 7 was that Rory rejected Logan’s proposal, went to follow her dream (and succeed!) and was a strong, independent, childless woman. While the show probably does end with the right words indicating the circle of life, or coming full circle or whatever cliché you want to use, it is still a sad comment by society.

Despite that critique, however, I felt the show ended well and doesn’t need a second revival. The stories have been told already in the original series. Stars Hollow supported Lorelai and helped her raise her child, that same cast of cooky characters will support Rory when she does the same.

Posted in Academia, Popular Culture, Reviews, Television | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Strange Times, Mister Doctor

Having finally gotten around to seeing the latest addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I have some thoughts on Doctor Strange.


The Good

The basic requirement of any medium of entertainment is entertainment. If you get bored during a movie or song it’s failing to entertain you. So far, I’ve yet to be bored during any of the Marvel films, and Doctor Strange is no different. It has a nice blend of action, humour and mind-boggling special effects to keep me and other viewers watching. Those are definitely some of the best things about the film, actually.

While not as funny as Guardians of the Galaxy there are definitely still some comic elements to the movie. Benedict Cumberbatch may be known for his Shakespearean oratory and stoic portrayal of Sherlock Holmes, he still has wit and charm when necessary.

The special effects are stunning, and, were they actually real things, would have massive implications for the world and universe at large. By that I mean that the movie shows a more mystical, magical element than has previously been available in the MCU, so opens the MCU to new wonders. The mysticism and multiple universes had been hinted at in some of the other films, particularly the Thor series, and even a bit in Ant-Man, but this new film takes it to a whole different level. Having Doctor Stephen Strange start as a ‘man of science’ before transforming into a ‘man of magic’ means that other characters could also have change their points of view. Hank Pym has some weird ideas already that show he might come around, for example. Thus, the movie does and excellent job of setting itself up for a sequel and still fitting within the wider aspect of the MCU.

The special effects were very reminiscent of The Matrix and Inception. In some ways I actually felt like I was watching those movies during Doctor Strange because of the visual twists and turns. No other Marvel film has used that style of filming before, but it worked well. It really made it feel like reality was distorted and that we all, in many ways, live in our perception of the world.

The Bad

Despite the fact that I did thoroughly enjoy the film, there are still some contentious issues in it. It felt like a standard origin story film that has become so familiar. Arrogant, successful man (almost always a man, especially in the MCU) has something bad happen to him that changes his point of view, he has to learn to use some new ability to defend both himself and others from the big bad. That fits the Tony Stark/Ironman story to a T, describes Bruce Banner/The Incredible Hulk, Thor and, other than ‘arrogant’, Steve Rogers/Captain America. Having a portion of the movie be the origin story would have been okay, but the entirety of it felt reused and rehashed here.

Along that same note, the script itself seemed almost a ‘write by numbers’ sort of movie. I’ve been reading quite a bit about screenwriting recently (in the hopes that I can finish and sell my own screenplay), and one of the resources I’ve been using noted that all successful screenplays have common elements. The basic three act story has a set-up, obstacles and resolution. Within that three-act story can be anywhere from five to eight (depending on the source) ‘plot-points’, the two big ones being ‘the big event’, which moves from Act 1 (set up) to Act 2 (obstacles), and the ‘the crisis’, moving from Act 2 to Act 3 (resolution). There’s also often a catalyst that sets up the big event, some mid-point or ‘point of no return’, a climax and a resolution. As I was watching the film I kept thinking to myself, ‘there’s the catalyst’, ‘there’s the point of no return’, ‘there’s the big event’. The movie was hitting all the boxes a successful screenplay hits but didn’t seem to be adding much creativity in the way it went about it. It felt very much ‘by the book’ for a super hero film. What made the first Iron Man and Captain America films were their bit of social commentary and slight twist on the typical story structure. Doctor Strange didn’t have that; or at least not as well-done as the others.

My biggest issue with the film was the Hollywood whitewashing. It’s a problem that dates back almost to the invention of film, and continues to show a legacy of racism. Doctoral theses could be (and perhaps have been) written about the matter, so I won’t get too much into it from an academic perspective. But even having the fantastic Chiwetel Ejiofor and Benedict Wong in supporting roles the rest of the main cast was white. Strange, white; his teacher, ‘The Ancient One’, played by Tilda Swinton, white; Strange’s love interest, Dr Christine Palmer, played by Rachel McAdams, white; his enemy, Mads Mikkelsen as Kaecilius, white. Even though much of the movie was set in Asia Wong was the only prominent Asian character. Even though Strange lived in New York, a city that has a very diverse population, he worked with and dated white people. Why couldn’t Christine be Puerto Rican, or Dominican? Why couldn’t the Ancient One be Asian? Marvel’s tenuous explanation was that they didn’t want to be stereotypical showing a wizened old Asian person teaching a white person martial arts and magic, but that hold little water. Asia is not just China, Tibet or Japan — the stereotypical connoisseur’s of martial arts. The Ancient One could have been Vietnamese, Turkish or Indian (or some other Asian nationality) and not been the ‘stereotypical’ example.

Thscarlett-johansson-ghost-shell-asian-cgi__opte recent casting of Scarlett Johansson as the lead in the live-action adaptation of the manga/anime series Ghost In the Shell merely perpetuates the problem. Are there really no capable Asian actors or actresses in the world? I find that extremely hard to believe. Yet, by continuing to whitewash the movies Hollywood is failing to further appeal to a huge percentage of the population. The world is a diverse place, filled with all sorts of people. Wouldn’t it be in Hollywood’s best interest to accept that fact and make their product more reflective?

Despite these problems Doctor Strange was an enjoyable film. It widens the whole scope of the MCU and lays the foundation for many, many more types of films. I look forward to seeing how Strange will fit into the Infinity War arc that’s building for 2018/2019 (and beyond?). In the meantime I’ll have to make do with Thor: RagnarokGuardians of the Galaxy 2 and Black Panther before then. Perhaps they will be less formulaic and whitewashed. To be fair, it’s hard to be whitewashed with Idris Elba, Chadwick Boseman and Zoe Saldana in leading roles.

Posted in Academia, Films, Popular Culture, Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

For the Health (Care) of America

Some of the current political climate in America, and, to be honest, Britain, has involved healthcare. In the US there has been a lot of railing against ‘Obamacare’ because it costs too much; while in the UK a lot of the Brexit talk focused on money spent (or not spent) on the NHS.

I’m of the opinion that the ‘life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness’ line spoken about in the Declaration of Independence includes, you know, actually living. That includes not living in fear of going bankrupt because of sickness or some accident. Thus I believe government-provided healthcare, like the kind provided by the NHS and which has an equivalent in almost all Western countries except the US, is necessary for the pursuit of happiness. And, you know, that whole ‘life’ bit, too.

The Case for Insurance

Both the US and UK (and many other places) use private insurance companies to provide and/or supplement healthcare. This is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. Insurance companies employ thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people. They, in turn, contribute to the economy and help keep others employed. Without their jobs they would either be unemployed and potentially living off benefits or working elsewhere that doesn’t necessarily pay as much. Thus insurance companies play a vital role in keeping the whole system afloat.

In the UK insurance is used either to supplement the NHS or for some people bypass it completely. I posted a link to an article before about how great the NHS can seem for outside observers, which for the most part I agree with. But it is also exceedingly slow for anything that’s not an immediate emergency.  I found getting an initial appointment quite easy and simple — usually I could schedule for the next day or within the week. When I needed a referral, however, I could wait for a long time. Then wait. And wait some more. Often it takes months once the referral is made to see the specialist. For those who have private insurance, however, the wait time is much quicker and can, sometimes, remove the need for a referral in the first place. If you need to see a neurologist you can schedule an appointment with a neurologist directly instead of seeing your GP and getting referred to a neurologist, for example.

It’s stressful, tiring and annoying having to wait and not knowing what’s going on. Private insurance can help ease that time, though obviously can’t eliminate it completely. Modern medicine just doesn’t have the ability to instantaneously give diagnoses. Even in the best sci-fi shows they haven’t cured every disease or ailment in the known universe. So insurance does have some benefits, potentially.

The Case Against Insurance and for Universal Health Care

The number one cause for bankruptcy in the US is medical expenses. As the Huffington Post pointed out about a recent Harvard Study, medical bills cause 62 percent of American bankruptcies, equalling about 2 million people a year. Of those people, nearly three-quarters of them (72 percent, or 78, depending on the article you read) actually had insurance. What’s the point of paying hundreds or thousands of dollars every year if it’s not going to be worthwhile? If you spent $5000 on car repairs only to have it break down as soon as you left the mechanic wouldn’t you demand your money back? If having health insurance doesn’t actually pay for health care, what’s the point?

In addition, health insurance plans are confusing. The general basics aren’t mind-boggling, necessarily, but knowing all the intricacies of what treatments are covered, which ones aren’t covered, if you’re ‘in network’ or ‘out of network’ and all sorts of specialised details makes the whole situation mystifying. Even the (aka ‘Obamacare’) official website has a whole glossary of terms to help people understand what it is they’re buying and receiving. It may not be like getting a PhD in rocket science but it sure isn’t basic arithmetic, either. Wouldn’t it be much easier if you went to the doctor and said, ‘I’m sick’, and that’s all you had to worry about in your health care decision?

There are a lot of critics and criticism against single-payer, ranging from doctors not having choices, the cost would be too high to long wait times (okay, that’s valid, as I pointed out). Some people don’t like the idea of ‘socialism’ or government-mandated anything, or more money for taxes. Those criticisms are mostly rubbish. The next part will be technical and include a lot of math and statistics, so be warned now.


According to a 2015 Time article, on average Americans spend $89 a month on health insurance, or $1318 a year (although one post had that as high as $386 a month for single coverage, or $4632 a year, and even higher with plans that covered families). That’s before any deductibles, co-pays or other out-of-pocket expenses. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that a little less than half the of the American population (say roughly 150 million) pays for healthcare, that’s almost $200 billion a year, or $700 billion if using the higher number. Either way, that’s a ton of money spent on health insurance for private companies each year. Imagine if that went to the government instead.

The US spends the most per capita on healthcare of any country in the world. According to the World Bank, the US spends more than 17% of its GDP on health costs. The next closest Western country is Sweden, at nearly 12% of GDP. Most of the countries that have national health systems, including Canada, Australia, France and the rest of Western Europe spend anywhere between 9-11.5%, often hovering about 10%. The UK only spends 9% of its GDP on healthcare. Obviously, somewhere along the way, America got a little out of hand. Having a national health system will lower those costs.

According to the US Census bureau, the median income in the US is $55,775, and the average tax rate (federal, state, Social Security, etc.) is roughly 15% at that income. The Tax Policy Center has the effective tax rate (as a measure of percentage of GDP) at 24%, which is well-below the world average. Raising the average tax rate from 15% to 17% is, lo and behold, about the same amount the average person pays in health care costs already. So, effectively people can pay the exact same amount of money as they already are, have complete coverage from childhood til death and not have to worry about going bankrupt. Why is that a bad thing?

Why Nationalised Healthcare Is A Good Idea

Aside from not going bankrupt, there are plenty of other reasons to have nationalised healthcare. The Physicians for A National Health Program (PNHP) have created a chart highlighting some of the benefits of such a thing, including lifetime coverage, lowered administrative costs and plenty of patient choice (everything is ‘in network’, so patients can choose to go wherever they’d like). Other sites offer different viewpoints about the pros and cons, though the ‘cons’, I find, tend to be rather flimsy.

Even some typically right-leaning groups and publications have argued in favour of universal health care. The Economist, for example, wrote in a 2009 article that it’s a ‘common good’. It points out that Americans already also consider it a form of ‘common good’, since the US does already provide healthcare for the poorest group of people through Medicare and for veterans through the VA. So the US already has government-run systems. Why not expand upon those to include everyone? In the immortal words of Bon Jovi, ‘we’re halfway there’… And, in Star Trek it seemed like every species had free, universal health care. You never heard them complain about the lack of competition or some other illogical, murky statement. They just enjoyed getting healed.

One of the arguments against single-payer is that because there is competition amongst providers costs remain low. But because there are actually so many different companies and no coherent plan amongst them — and so many different places where they ‘compete’ — the reality is that there is no real competition. It’s like saying that because three pizza chains in California compete for customers then people who want to eat pizza in Michigan get lower prices. It’s false equivalency, the competition argument.

Though there are plenty of other arguments, I’ll leave off with this. Would you rather have your health choices in the hands of a private company concerned with making profits above all else, or a government charged with taking care of its citizens?

Heath insurance providers are businesses. Like all businesses their main goal is to make a profit. You are a consumer of a product for them and though it may seem like you have other choices in getting providers in reality your options are fairly limited. Especially if your workplace is providing health insurance (how many companies, plans or options do they offer you as an employee? I would think not many). So, since the providers have basically a monopoly over you they can charge whatever they want to make more money for themselves. There is no reason for them to actually provide services if it means losing money and profit. That’s why there have been so many insurance claims denied for things like ‘pre-existing conditions’ (which is an oxymoron since something either exists or it doesn’t; there’s no such thing as ‘pre-existing’. But that’s a philosophical and semantic argument). There’s a reason there’s have been findings that business behave like sociopaths. It’s because businesses basically are sociopaths.

Governments, on the other hand, have social contracts with their citizens. A healthy, productive, engaged populace is good for the government. If the citizen workforce is sick and not working, therefore not making money, the government gains no taxes because there’s no income. It’s in the government’s interest to make sure its citizens can work.

I for one trust the government more than a private corporation. Besides, I have other things I would rather (or need) so spend money on, like school loans. But that’s a post for another day.

Posted in Academia, Teaching | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Art of Job Hunting

Go to any website offering job advice and they’ll most likely say very similar things. Your resume, or CV depending on part of the world and/or job experience, should have active verbs with results-driven content. It shouldn’t be more than 2 pages, should look tidy, be in a readable font and yadda, yadda, yadda. The same goes for the cover letter, which you should always write for a job application. Do some research on the company (or individual), ideally address it to the hiring manager and include why you would be an excellent fit for the job and how you will help them.

The problem with these sites and the information available is that they almost all tell you the same stuff. Which means everyone is doing the same thing. Nothing stands out — at least on an initial eye test. Sure, there will be some aesthetic differences, but for the most part they’re the same.


Which is probably why most hiring managers and recruitment agencies run resumes through software programmes that search for key words and phrases. If you don’t tailor your resume to fit the keywords and data points you’ll get immediate rejections (often without even an email saying you haven’t got the job).

If you do pass that initial test then an actual human will read your resume. Maybe, if you’re lucky, at that point you’ll get called in for an interview. I’ve talked about interviewing and feedback in previous posts, so I won’t go over that now. If you can make it to the interview stage congratulations.

I’ve been having trouble even doing that. I’ve been applying for writing, editing, marketing and media jobs. I’ve got quite a bit of experience doing all those things, having worked in marketing for a media company for a few years, writing a thesis and editing a journal. I also do some volunteering in similar fields.

But for some reason my resume isn’t sticking out. I hope it’s only a momentary lapse. There’s definitely an art to applying for jobs. You need somejobsearchthing to stand out. Hitting the keywords is the first step, but there needs to be something else. There was a guy who got hired at GQ by creating a GQ-style resume. There have been other similar stories about really creative people going above and beyond for their dream job. Obviously it can work in some instances. But for most of us we either don’t have the inclination, skill to create that type of thing, time or knowledge on how to do it. So we go with the standard cover letter and resume applications.

In the meantime, I kind of feel like this meme.


Posted in Academia | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

In the Criminal Justice System…

Found guilty — at least in the press — of a crime they didn’t commit. Vilified in the media and public. Falsely accused. It makes for gripping drama. It also makes for tragic reality.

I could just as easily be talking politics — the joke that is the 2016 election — as recent television shows. In this instance I’m talking about Netflix’s documentary, Amanda Knox, and HBO’s The Night Of.

One is the true story of an overzealous police detective, prosecutor and frenzied media hungry for a compelling story, the other is, well, a drama about the same thing.

Amanda Knox

amandaknoxAmanda Knox was an American student studying in Italy in 2007 when her British housemate was killed. The police detective and prosecutor almost immediately focused their investigation on her because she was ‘acting funny’ at the scene. By that they meant that she kissed her boyfriend at the house while the police were there and then later posted something on social media about how they were going to have sex that night, just a few days after her housemate was murdered. Strange, perhaps crass? Yes. Evidence of committing a crime? Not at all. Apparently, though, it was enough of an anomaly for the detectives investigating the murder. With her guilt already presumed, the police, prosecution and even media made sure to get the ‘evidence’ to convict her of the crime.

As a young, attractive woman accused of the crime the media was quick to jump on Knox, who had once posted on a social media account the nickname ‘Foxy Knoxy’, as a sex-crazed maniac who got caught up in a sex-game gone wrong. Stories emerged daily showing Knox posing with a gun (probably in a Halloween costume or perhaps a paintball gun, but definitely taken out of context no matter what) and her boyfriend at the time dressed in similarly inappropriate attire. Despite both photos obviously taken out of context and actually indicative of nothing, the media hoopla continued. Foxy Knoxy sold headlines. Later, after her arrest and imprisonment, she was lied to by being told she was HIV positive. Obviously, it had profound psychological effects on her. She kept a diary in prison which was, mysteriously, leaked to the press. Which, of course, drew more headlines and helped convince people of her guilt.

Though she was eventually found guilty in the Italian courts she appealed based on corrupted evidence. The appellate court exonerated her and set her free. Another court found her guilty and eventually went to the Italian Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found her innocent. The ‘evidence’ the police had on her in the first place was circumstantial and tenuous, at best. There was, theoretically, a knife that had her DNA on the handle and the DNA of the victim, Meredith Kercher, on the blade. An independent review of that knife found the DNA was corrupted in the lab an unusable.

Yet despite the lack of physical evidence Amanda Knox was almost from the beginning the only person investigated. Another person with a history of breaking into houses, Rudy Guede, was assumed to have been part of the sex-game gone wrong and convicted as well, but the media rarely touched upon his story. A known criminal committing another crime? Where’s the story in that? But Kercher’s family, and a lot of other people, still believe Knox, her boyfriend and Guede killed Kercher. Knox, in the documentary, said it best. You either believe she’s guilty or she’s innocent, there’s no in between. As she said, ‘Either I’m a psychopath in sheep’s clothing, or I am you.’ She’s you because the same situation could happen to you.

The Night Of

night-ofJust like it did to Nasir ‘Naz’ Khan, the protagonist of the HBO limited series The Night Of, which had a similar premise. Naz was accused of killing a woman, Andrea Cornish. There were a lot of drugs involved, he’d had sex with her and he fled the scene upon discovering her body. But he swore that during the time of the murder he was knocked out in the kitchen on a drug-infused high, so that he can’t remember what actually happened that night.

It’s a horrible defence, especially based on the preponderance of physical evidence, but the detective involved in the case again focused in on only the one suspect. Since Naz was Muslim the media, too, was quick to assume his guilt, the victim of racism and headlines. That he had no motive or history of any crime didn’t matter. It wasn’t until the trial that the police began investigating anyone else, mostly because the defence started presenting evidence that could point to reasonable doubt. Was any of it conclusive? No. Was any of it compelling and did it offer a motive for others? Most certainly.

What We Learned

What struck me about both the documentary and the drama was how similar they were. The guilt or innocence of both people is still in doubt. The media formed their own opinions rather quickly and basically played out a trial in the press. Both people may have been falsely accused, but definitely spent time in jail. I’m inclined to believe that neither Knox nor Naz actually committed the crimes of which they were accused; others disagree. The reality of their situations didn’t actually matter to the perception of them. They were unfairly abused by the very system that was designed to protect them. Some level of corruption or incompetence played into their trials. One day forever changed their lives.

In both things I’m struck by certain aspects of the justice system. Prosecutors, in particular, must be convinced of the defendant’s guilt. There must be a lot of mental gymnastics sometimes to go to trial. Sometimes, too often, people can be wrongly convicted. People are very much able to convince themselves of anything. Part of me is somewhat amazed that twelve people in a jury can actually agree on anything. There’s a reason there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of different religions, political parties, TV stations and restaurants that all claim to be ‘the best’ or ‘the only’.

Humanity has a great ability to delude itself. But humanity also has a great propensity for following a leader. On a jury it only takes one strongly convinced person to swing the rest of the jury to their belief. This sort of delusion, ability to convince others and strongly held belief can make for fantastic drama in movies and television when it does, but can also lead to untold tragedy in real life. Truth matters, but who has the time to go find it.

Posted in Popular Culture, Reviews, Television | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Only Difference Is Everything

I’ve been back in the US for almost two months now. I’m not quite over my culture shock (or reverse culture shock), which I wrote about earlier.

I’m driving now, which is a bit strange after taking public transport for the past five years. I’ve spent part of today (more than I’d like, really) looking into the best and easiest way to get from my place into DC proper via public transport. Even though I’m only about 25 miles away from DC it’s going to take me about an hour and a half door-to-door. That feels ridiculous to me, and ridiculously inefficient. But it is what it is, so I have to cope.

One thing that I was really looking forward to upon moving back was donating plasma. For some reason the UK and NHS doesn’t accept plasma donations. They can do platelets and whole red blood, but not plasma. There are many places in the US where you can do it, though, and some even will even pay you for it. That’s a decent way to make some extra money, I suppose, though I would feel a bit strange doing that. Other places like the American Red Cross don’t pay you, nor do they accept plasma donations as often, but have more reach as a non-profit. The problem I have now, however, is that I cant’ donate. Not blood or plasma. Apparently having spent more than five years in Europe disqualifies me. Seemingly forever. I have to say, I’m more than a little upset about this. Blood is blood. My blood was good enough to use in the UK, it should be good enough to use here. What’s changed, other than my living situation? It’s bollocks, is what it is.

Another thing that’s bollocks is the amount of sugar in, well, everything. Why is there sugar in bread? Why is it so hard to find bread without sugar? Even when I can find it, sugarless bread is insanely expensive. I don’t understand why it’s such a problem. The incessant sugar, which has no health benefit whatsoever, could help explain why Americans have troubles with weight, diabetes and other health issues, though there are of course many other reasons). It shouldn’t really be surprising about a recent story concerning the sugar lobby, which years ago paid scientists to push health issues towards fat. One more example of money corrupting whatever it touches.


Another difference which I have found annoying is the inability to plug in a new sim card into my old British phone. In the UK I had an iPhone 5C. It’s a model that is made around the world, including the US. I had specifically unlocked my phone so that I could use it in the US. But US phone companies don’t use the same carrier networks or frequencies as those in the UK (or the rest of the world, actually). So even though my phone would work in literally any other country, it wouldn’t work in the US. For no other reason than American companies have to be different. Someone at one of the major carrier companies tried to explain why sim cards aren’t as prevalent here — something to do with potential theft and identity fraud — but that makes no sense. Smart phones are so ubiquitous that sims should be common. Not to mention that sims themselves don’t actually carry much, if any personal information which would make identity theft easy or common.

One more striking difference between the US and UK that I’ll be pointing out today is charity shops. Having moved into a new apartment and needing, well, pretty much everything you need to make a home, I’m a little disappointed with the lack of charity shops. Yes, the US has Goodwill. But those are few and far between. Alas. Back in the UK it seemed like there were charity shops on nearly every street corner. That could, perhaps, be a bit biased since there were, literally, four on one road just around the corner from me and a few more throughout town. But other places I visited had them as well. So they were all around. Since the shops were mostly, if not wholly, stocked with donations, the UK has definitely taken the approach that ‘one man’s junk is another man’s treasure’. On the other hand, the UK had far fewer swap meets and garage sales. They have their own positives and negatives, then.

So I have struggled to adapt. The differences, which seem so minor, make reintegration hard. I’m used to having and doing things a certain way, and I just can’t get those anymore. Shame.

Posted in Academia | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Latest In Geekdom

I’ve been busy moving and not having consistent internet for the past few weeks, hence the delay in posting. There’s a lot of pop culture and geek news to catch up on since I’ve been away.


The 68th Annual Emmy Awards took place over the weekend. Congratulations to all the nominees and winners. I’d especially like to say well-done to Game of Thrones and Tatiana Maslany. GoT has now become the most awarded scripted television show of all time with its 38 wins (and an amazing 106 nominations!) over its 6 year span. With two more seasons planned, that number is only bound to go up, too. For Maslany, I’m happy that the Emmy’s are finally recognising her varied and impressive work in Orphan Black. orphan-blackIf you’ve not seen the show, she plays a number of clones, each with their own personality and characteristics, often in the same scene. She can go from an uptight, drug-abusing soccer mom one second to a trained assassin the next. She does it all seamlessly, too, as the quirks of one clone never appear in another. Basically, she can play up to 10 characters a single episode. It’s a sci-fi show that hasn’t gained the mass national attention of a show airing on HBO or Netflix — it airs on BBC America — so has limited exposure. But it’s great to see the Emmys daring to go outside the norm for their awards; especially considering the show opens up many, many questions about identity, autonomy, agency, sexuality and female power (amongst other thought-provoking social questions). As the LA Times wrote, ‘Geekdom Wins at the 2016 Emmy Awards‘. Yes, geekdom has definitely gone mainstream.

Star Trek

Fifty years after it’s premiere on television, Star Trek is once again in the news. I might be one of the few people happy with the announcement that Star Trek: Discovery, has pushed back their release date until May 2017. Showrunners Bryan Fuller and Alex Kurtzman felt like they needed more time to make a quality show that would live up to the writing, acting and production standards that had inspired them since childhood. I totally understand that. Yes, I’m disappointed I won’t have new Trek until May, but I’ve waited over a decade already, so what’s a few more months? I just hope this means they can actually get the quality show they want. I’ll be even more disappointed if the show turns out to be horrible despite the delay. In the meantime, I have plenty of other Trek available on Netflix to keep me busy.


Speaking of Netflix, the latest MCU (more geekdom gone mainstream) addition, Luke Cage, is available in a little over a week. It looks excellent and I’m sure it will keep me enthralled for its duration, as have the other shows.

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”; frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen><!–iframe>

And Finally…

With that, I leave you with this video from Joss Whedon on the importance of voting from It’s got a lot of famous (and not so famous) people in it, including Robert Downey Jr, Scarlett Johansson and Mark Ruffalo (with a teaser for him getting nude, if that interests — I found it hilarious). Voting is important, because I, for one, don’t want the US to have its own ‘Brexit’-regret type feeling come 9 November if they (we?) elect a fear-mongering, con artists, homophobic racist. I don’t normally get political on here, and I don’t necessarily endorse any candidate, but the sentiment is important nonetheless.


Posted in Popular Culture, Television | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Summer of Change

GlobeI spent a beautiful day yesterday at the US Open with my wife and father-in-law. It was clear skies, not terribly hot and filled with some excellent tennis. It was a great way to end summer. And it’s been an especially strange summer for me.

I started off in the UK, have recently come back to the US for the first time in a number of years, and will be moving once again to a different city in the US after a month of my current situation. I was happy living in the UK but as it was becoming more apparent I would likely be leaving I started looking for work. My wife also began looking for work.

Arthur Ashe

Looking for jobs is hard. Looking for jobs while living in a foreign country is even more difficult. We were looking up and down the east coast, from Atlanta up to Boston, with most of the focus in North Carolina and a little in the DC area. We don’t know anyone in North Carolina, but Oxford University Press has an office there, so I was hoping to get some sort of work with them. It’s also one of the fastest growing states in the country that’s supposed to have good job opportunities, a relatively good climate and decent cost of living expenses. Other than that whole ‘Bathroom Bill’ fiasco, it’s is supposed to be a nice place to live. When we left for the UK we lived around DC, so we still had contacts in the area.

That’s good for my wife, as her contacts included the manager for the company where she worked before we left. That company was hiring, she managed to get an interview soon upon our return and quick as that, she has a job again. I’m, of course, still looking. It is slightly easier now that we have a US address and phone number — at least I think and hope it will be — so I suspect it won’t be much longer until I get something.

When I’m not busy applying for jobs I’ve been busy trying my hand at writing. I’m reading about writing a screenplay. I figure that I watch enough movies and television shows I ought to be able to write one as well. I’ve got an interesting idea (I think) but I’m not sure how to make it work into a decent screenplay. I’ve always actually dreamt of being a writer, I just need to go do it. I’ve done a lot of different types of writing in my life so now it’s a matter of learning the style and formatting of screenwriting.

Part of my learning process is watching television and movies. Not merely for entertainment — which they often are — but studying them for what works and what doesn’t work, characterisation, plot development, storytelling technique and everything else that comes into the process. It’s not the same as writing, but it is giving me ideas. Maybe one day one of those ideas will help me get published (or bought and produced in this instance). I’m fascinated with the different perspectives and time-frames in things. I really enjoyed how the first season of True Detective moved back-and-forth in time to tell the story. It’s not the same at all, but I liked how the mechanics of How I Met Your Mother worked. Currently, I’m fascinated with the different perspectives of The Affair — how the same event told from two different viewpoints changes the implications of that event. It’s hard to sustain or do properly, but is appealing when done right.

Since I’ve been home I’ve been watching sports on TV as well. It’s not a screenwriting learning exercise, but it is entertaining. First it was the Olympics — which wasn’t really as interesting as I would have liked. Then it was American football. As you may remember from other posts, I’m a big fan of NFL football. Summer is the start of pre-season practices. For the first time in ages I’ve been in the US to actually watch games on TV. A live football game shouldn’t be exciting to me, but it is. But it’s just one more thing that’s different from what I’m used to. One more thing that’s changing.

Yet for all the change, some things remain the same. One of my best memories with my wife was our first trip to the US Open. That was the weekend I proposed all those years ago. While we again went to the Open, this year’s trip to the Open symbolically marks the end of the summer of change for me. My wife starts her new job next week, so we’re moving (again), I should be getting a job soon and perhaps life can return to some semblance of normality. I’m not sure I know what that is anymore.

Posted in Films, Popular Culture, Television | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Tale of Two Countries

I’ve been back in the US for a little over two weeks now. I had left almost 5 years ago to study in the UK and now return back to the country where I grew up and have spent the majority of my life. When preparing to come back I was reading about the possibility of having reverse culture shock upon returning. I seem to be experiencing it.

Little Things, Big Differences

When I was an undergrad I received information from my university’s Study Abroad office listing all the places where I could spend up to a year overseas. UC Irvine had quite an impressive list of places, having developed relationships with well over 50 universities and countries.

Some of the places where I could have gone were immediately out. Having taken Latin as my foreign language at university there was no way I could study in a country where they taught in a language other than English. That lone requirement made studying in almost any Asian country impossible, most of South America and a huge portion of Europe (I don’t remember how many African universities were available). From that point I had a list of about half a dozen countries where I could potentially study.

Initially that included the UK, Australia, South Africa, at least one Nordic country for a semester, and the Netherlands. I knew I wanted a full year and didn’t really want to go to South Africa (at the time, though now I would love a chance to visit). At the time I thought that both the UK and Australia would be much too similar to the US and so, kind of by default, settled on studying in the Netherlands. It was one of the best decisions of my life and has greatly influenced my future.

Having now spent the last 5 years in the UK (and 6 of the last 12) I have found those initial reservations that the UK would be too similar to the US to give me a sense of ‘foreign country’ were completely wrong. Yes, there were many similarities, but there were many, many differences.

Bigger Is Better?

Almost everything in the US is bigger, from politics to TV shows to societal concerns. I had almost forgotten that.

Even though I wasn’t in the US I still kept abreast of current events there. So I’ve been following politics with a distanced view. Whereas in the US the presidential election has been proceeding full-steam for well over 18 months now, the longest I ever saw anything political happening in the UK was roughly 6 months during the ‘Brexit’ campaign, and even that didn’t start getting heated until March or April (at least in my view). Having lived through very little political posturing in the UK since I wasn’t allowed to vote, the entire ‘Brexit’ campaign felt long and drawn out. I was tired of it long before the vote. I’m even more tired of this American campaign season. I’m very, very ready for it to end.

Outside of politics I closely followed American TV. Through the ubiquity of the internet I was able to continue watching some of my favourite shows and discover new ones. Over the last 50 years American TV shows have been getting shorter — both in content per episode due to commercials and episodes per season — but both still remain significantly longer than British shows. Most American network drama shows will be slotted for an hour but have anywhere from 40-45 minutes of actual content. They’ll usually run about 22 episodes per season. This has changed somewhat with the rise of serialised shows (Fargo, American Horror Story and True Detective, for example) and some shows on premium networks (notably Game of Thrones), but even the 10-13 episodes for those shows are more than the 3-6 that air for British shows that air on the BBC or ITV or the like. Both types have their strengths and weaknesses which I won’t go into here, but America seems to live by the adage that bigger is better.

The same could be said for architecture, shops, cars and distances. In the US, something is ‘close’ if it’s a 10-15 minute drive away (though having grown up in California, ‘close’ was actually more like 20-25 minutes). In the UK at 10-15 minute drive often puts you in a completely different town, village or city. Everywhere I lived or visited was relatively walkable and had good public transport options for things that were a bit further afield. Having a car wasn’t a necessity for everyone, though it did often make things easier. There are very few places in the US where having a car is a luxury. My partner and I have been apartment hunting this week. We’re moving to the Washington, DC metro area. DC is one of the American cities with a decent public transportation infrastructure, but even the areas where we were looking were far away from public transport or took multiple transfers and long times to get anywhere. The closer we were to central DC meant everything got more expensive, so it’s a fine balancing act. So of course we’re going to have at least one car and live in a relatively large place, because that’s just how America works. We went shopping at one of the local grocery stores to where we’re staying. They said it was a ‘small’ store but was as big or bigger than pretty much every grocery store we used in the UK. It was a strange feeling to think that store was ‘small’.

Cost of Living and Expenses

What has struck me most and given me the most reverse culture shock, however, is just how damned expensive the US is. Common amenities that I could get for £1-2 were now going to cost $6.99 or more. Even taking into account the exchange rate, that’s double the price. That was for simple things like toothpaste or common household goods. When I wanted things that were more ‘exotic’ in the US but common in the UK, the price skyrocketed. Take tea, for example. Even the cheapest variety of some sort of black tea, the store brand, costs $4 for a package of 25. Each bag, of course, is individually wrapped, too. As if my tea will get infected with the flavour of the other tea bag if it touches it. So wasteful, and so expensive! Want milk to put in it? The smallest size I can find at this local ‘small’ store is a quart; much larger than I’m used to, and more expensive to boot.

There are only two things that I can think of that are actually cheaper in the US than in the UK — petrol gas and cars. The current average price of gas in the US is $2.20 per gallon. As that’s almost 4 British litres, that’s very cheap (about £0.58p per litre if my maths are right). It’s hard to do a price comparison for cars as many of the makes available in the US aren’t available in the UK and vice versa (I rarely saw an SUV in the UK, for example, and almost never see Peugeot’s in the US). But because they’re so ubiquitous, cars are cheap. They have to be for 16 year-olds to get and drive them…

The cost of health care is another looming cost that is bigger in the US. Without going into too much detail (since I’ll likely do this as a whole other post in the future), whereas healthcare is free at point of service in the UK thanks to the NHS, in the US it is not. One recent American doctor touring the UK commented on this recently. The short of it is I already miss the NHS and I am a healthy individual who almost never needs it. I’m not looking forward to diving into the tangled, murky waters that make up the American health care system. Though it will be nice to donate plasma again instead of only whole blood.

Posted in Academia | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

When School Meets Football

Apologies for the long delay. I’ve been packing and moving. It’s a huge task in the best of times and I was leaving one country for another, making it even harder. Suffice it to say I had little time for writing. I’ve now settled in to my (temporary) lodgings and shall (hopefully) be commencing upon regular posts again.

Today I return to one of my favourite pastimes — American football. The regular season for the NFL is less than a month away, which means training camps are underway and games are getting played (and televised). It also means the return of HBO’s ‘Hard Knocks’ series, which follows one of the 32 NFL teams for a few weeks chronicling training camp. It’s like a football version of ‘Big Brother’ I would say.

LARamsLogoAlternateThis year the show follows the Los Angeles Rams. The team was based in LA for decades before leaving for St Louis in the mid-1990s, returning just this year. When I was growing up I remember actually going to see the team play in LA on at least one occasion. The first episode aired this past Tuesday, and will air each Tuesday for six weeks. The episode captures the excitement of having a professional football team back in LA after more than two decades without having one. Fans of the team were happy to have them return after such a long absence.

I’m intrigued with the show for multiple reasons. I love football so it’s interesting to see a behind-the-scenes view of it. As I mentioned earlier, I remember the team from my childhood, so having them back in southern California brings back memories — even if I’m no longer in southern California. The team is practicing at the University of California, Irvine campus, which is where I studied as an undergraduate.

The first thing that struck me about the show this year was how little of campus I recognised (or perhaps remembered). When I was attending I don’t recall there being a football field at all. It turns out there’s not, just a re-purposed section of a facility called Crawford Field. Some of the other buildings they show either weren’t there when I was or have changed dramatically since I left. The student centre, for example, was greatly expanded soon after I graduated. When I do recognise a building or section of campus I get a small tingle of excitement — for no other reason than I find it amusing, really.

The second thing that struck me is that UCI is in Orange County, which is not Los Angeles. While UC, Irvine is part of the University of California system of schools, it’s not even the closes campus to Los Angeles. That honour, of course, falls to the University of California, Los Angeles, better known as UCLA. The two campuses are roughly 50 miles distant from each other.

However, it’s common both in sports and television to classify Orange County as part of the greater Los Angeles area. In baseball, the Angels are known as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. They’re two totally different places, yet get subsumed into the LA region. I find it a bit annoying since the distances involved are often very large and the places aren’t necessarily near each other despite what is shown on the screen. The first episode of the series showed players lifting weights at a place called Muscle Beach, and going swimming in Huntington Beach. Muscle Beach is in Santa Monica, near UCLA; Huntington Beach is in Orange County near UCI. If you didn’t know southern California geography, however, you might think they were relatively close (though, obviously, ‘relatively’ is, ironically, a relative term). It’s a minor point, for sure, but somewhat ties into my next issue regarding knowledge.

The Rams used their position as the first team to pick a player in the annual NFL Draft to chose a quarterback named Jared Goff, who played at another UC school, Berkeley, known in sporting circles as Cal. Berkeley, like the other schools in the UC system, is known for its academic rigour and national prestige. It’s a hard school to get in to, usually requiring good grades, some sort of community service and high test scores. The US News and World Report Education section ranks Berkeley as the 20th best school in the US; whereas Times Higher Education ranks it as 13th in the world; the Academic Rankings of World Universities said it was number 3 in the world; and Forbes gave it the number 6 in public universities. No matter who is doing the surveying, it’s a good school.

It surprised me, then, that Goff didn’t know the directions in which the sun rose and set. At least one other new player didn’t know either, thinking the sun rose in the west. Now, I can understand not knowing which way is west or east if you can’t see the sun. Modern technology has made needing to know directions like that almost obsolete. But this simple tidbit of knowledge that I would expect primary school children to know? How can a man who attended one of the most prestigious institutions of higher education in the world not know this simple fact? How could he have passed any basic science class without knowing that, let alone enough of them to attend university?

There’s obviously a huge flaw in the system. Somewhere along the way his talent as an athlete began to overshadow his academics. I don’t know if his teachers let him slide a little due to his talent, or he was sick the day the rest of the class learned about simple physics like that, or some other reason. But it’s an indication that, for some, a premium is given to their non-academic talents. Football, in particular, is big money for universities. There are plenty of players who get partial or full scholarships to attend a particular university to play football. Those same scholarships apply to other sports, but often to a lesser degree. Yes, there are even some ‘full ride’ academic scholarships at many universities, but these are decidedly few and far between. Obviously it’s hard to get any of those ‘full ride’ scholarships that pays for university; it’s hard to get even partial scholarships. The competition is intense, in part because tuition is so high now.

But should a student’s athletic prowess outweigh their academic needs? Should some students, who obviously train very hard at what they do, be given preference over others? Would the system be better served if attending university were free for students, as it is in many Scandinavian countries (and was proposed by at least former American presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and, to a lesser extent, Hillary Clinton)? The system is obviously broken. Football players highlight just one aspect of the flaws (and I won’t even start on the NCAA). Something needs to change.


Posted in Academia, Popular Culture, Television | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment