Have you ever been alone in a crowded room when I'm here with you?

Have you ever been alone in a crowded room; well I'm here with you...

“He jumped off a cliff and landed in a tree, which stabbed him several times… or rather, stabbed him in several places… simultaneously”
-- Dave Disher (on Elliott Smith)

Why does my sociology professor have facebook? Now, granted, he's the nicest man ever to inhabit the planet but it raised my eyebrow nonetheless.

All of Kingston's sidewalks are covered with snow and slush, which have all congealed into one big path of ice.

I've concluded that facebook, while having its social benefits, has also had the effect of making random friendships too effortless and sometimes, less meaningful than they used/ought to be. So that was me trying to squeeze two ideas into the same sentence, which as an English major, is probably a deplorable thing to do so let me break it down. The presence of facebook means:

1. People like me and Omair can no longer boast as feverently about knowing each other since kindergarten. I mean, the fact that we're still good chums and have been for the past 14 years no longer generates the awe that it used to. Cause let's be honest here, it's become so easy to stay in contact with people via facebook because it takes so little effort. On a related topic, permit me to cite that I am currently friends with Catherine Doris, Shane Bradwell, Kate Bolter, and Andrew MacMillan. Up until this year via facebook, I had last spoken to Andrea 3 years ago; Kate, 6 years ago; Shane, 9 years ago; Catherine... 13 years ago.

2. I suddenly "know" a large throng of people I have merely brushed up against in the past. Now, this is not because I add them... in fact, I can count the number of times I've added people to facebook on 1 hand. It's because a lot of people, for some reason or another, seem to add you as a friend for really no good reason other than the fact that they're semi-acquainted with you. The best example of this that I can cite is Tyra Visram. Now, I have nothing against Tyra... but that's the thing; I have nothing against her because I don't know anything about her beyond the fact that she went to TCMS. I don't recall ever having spoken to her. Ever. And she doesn't even book my face... but it's the same with a lot of people.

3. The number of people who have added me to MSN in the last year: 5.
The number of people who talk to me on MSN: 3.
The number of people who have my phone number: 8.
The number of people who I ever talk to on the phone for longer than a minute: 1.
The number of people who have visited me: 4
The number of people who I get emails from: 4
The number of people who have added me to facebook in the last year: 124.

Facebook, you've made a cold world an even colder place. Way to kill off all signs of meaningful conversation. People don't really treat facebook all that seriously. It's hard to simply because you know that you have 124 random people who can see everything that happens on facebook. So let's say (hypothetically) that I decide to confess my feelings for a girl. The best way to do it is in person. But let's say I prefer not to. I might consider calling her; I could send her an email. Am I going to write it on her facebook wall? Please. But even discounting that scenario, people have just become much more lazy with regards to keeping in touch. Everyone assumes that facebook is good enough. I know people will say that if your friendship really means something, MSN, emails, and phone conversation still exist and you can still use them. But let's be honest, people are lazy. Even the people who care about you the most; your best friends, are lazy. It sounds like a horrible thing to say but before, people would guilt trip themselves into calling their best friends. Or ok... let's put it in a less horrible way:

Before facebook, I don't see Courtney for 2 weeks. After two weeks of not seeing her, I start to miss her. And the saying that absence makes the heart grow fonder is true to some extent. But see, here's the thing. After I don't see Courtney for 2 weeks, when I *do* see her, it's a much greater experience. We have so many things to talk about and I reach a new high on the trampoline of life. Missing someone makes seeing them again so much more fulfilling. But now with facebook, I don't really get that chance to miss her because she's always there to a greater or lesser extent. I mean, I still may not see her for 2 weeks, but we have little bits of random exchanges here and there on facebook. What this means is that I no longer miss her as much as I used to, meaning I no longer set myself up for that jump on the trampoline. It's harder to reach new heights because you don't really hit the bottom.

Or to use a real life example, which always worries me because I always have to be so careful with real life examples. So let me put forth this disclaimer - Grant, I am not condemning your actions in anyway, nor is this any kind of subtle jab that I think you are lazy/unworthy/anything unpleasant. I am merely getting a point across. On the topic of correspondence, if he harks back to the days before facebook, he'd probably recall that they were much more frequent *before* the both of us, under Courtney's influence that one faithful weekend, got facebook. I mean, we can put it down to a lot of things but he once spoke about how he was trying to use facebook like blogger because facebook had become the general replacement for any kind of social networking. And it's true. Before, I had no idea what in the hell was going on at MAC until he told me, and he probably had no idea what in the hell was going on Queen's either. But he could probably hazard a guess at this point, the general events at Queen's and I could probably hazard a guess too, at the general events at MAC. But see, it makes it much easier for correspondance of any kind other than booking face to slacken. And it isn't either of our faults; it's just something that has become a norm because of facebook.

That being said, I am also on facebook practically all day so as much as I condemn it as the cause of real, meaningful social disintegration, I also know that sometimes, you gotta know when to stand up to the world, and when to lie back and take it or get blown off the planet. This is just a rant; nothing more.

"Do you remember in kindergarten, how you'd meet a kid, and know nothing about them, then 10 seconds later you'd be playing like you were best friends, because you didn't have to be anyone but yourself?"

"Hey, hey, hey. Look at me... right at me. Like the first time together, remember? Like kindergarten"

"All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be I learned in kindergarten:

Share everything.
Play fair.
Don't hit people.
Put things back where you found them.
Clean up your own mess.
Don't take things that aren't yours.
Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody.
Wash your hands before you eat.
Flush.
Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
Live a balanced life - learn some and think some and draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day some.
Take a nap every afternoon.
When you go out in the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands and stick together.
Be aware of wonder.
Remember the little seed in the Styrofoam cup: the roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that.
Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup - they all die. So do we.
And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first word you learned - the biggest word of all - LOOK.

Everything you need to know is in there somewhere. The Golden Rule, love and basic sanitation. Ecology, politics, equality and sane living.

Take any one of those items and extrapolate it into sophisticated adult terms and apply it to your family life or your work or government or your world and it holds true and clear and firm. Think what a better world it would be if we all - the whole world - had cookies and milk at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon and then lay down with our blankies for a nap. Or if all governments had as a basic policy to always put things back where they found them and to clean up their own mess.

And it is still true, no matter how old you are, when you go out in the world, it is best to hold hands and stick together"

So we were talking about small talk today (again) and how I (still) suck at it. But nothing's changed. I still don't like it, I still think it's artificial. You know it's small talk when the answers don't really matter; it's just an excuse to talk to someone. But if you're going to talk to someone, why not talk about something meaningful? Why is everyone under the impression that you absolutely must distrust everyone you meet until they've proven themselves to be trustworthy? And what makes you think that small talk will tell you ANYTHING about whether or not someone is or isn't worthy of your trust?

And when I say meaningful, I don't mean talk about something profound that necessarily requires deep thought. I just mean talk about things you actually care to know the answers to. I mean, that's why I don't like going to clubs to meet people. I can't meet people who only make small talk and I come off as being cold because I don't make it. I just can't do it because it's not real.

"How could you have not seen the signs for 2 weeks?! Oh wait, that's right... YOU FORGOT YOU LIKED GIRLS!"
-- Aliya (to Genin)

My housemates like to hold late-night discussions in my room now that I've created an atmosphere, what with the neon mud-flap girl, fire rock, and traffic light. I don't get nearly enough visitors to warrent the amount of effort it takes for me to organize the room the way it is now. I think I just do it to make myself feel good. It also makes for a half-decent environment to read in.

"You know the world can see us, in a way that's different from who we are"
-- Breaking Free

So I ask myself, how would I go about raising my marks if I wanted to. The answer I've reached... I can't really. Tests, exams, assignments, participation (where applicable) are no problem to me. The one thing that pulls my mark down are my essays. Always my essays because Queen's T.A.s are pricks about giving 70%+ marks on essay. It's not like I don't spend enough time on them or put enough effort into them. I make like 5 drafts and I swear to god, my finished product could not have gotten any better even if I had an extra month. As far as I am concerned, my essays are error free and as good as I possibly make it. Then I hand it in and I get it back with a mediocre mark. I swear, I've not broken the 75% mark on a single essay yet this year. What the deuce?! I know the old adage, you can always improve on an essay but seriously now, this is getting ridiculous.

My life, over these past few days in Hamilton, have descended to this point where I am eating shredded cheese with my hands, from the bag, in a basement at 5 in the morning while drinking flat coke in the company of two pot-heads (Grant and Nathan).

I've discovered two (more) things that bother me.

1. I cannot stand it when people get your attention and you say "hold on a minute," and then they proceed to call/message you again 30 seconds later as if you'd finished your task and are sitting idly around not answering them. Goodness, if I've not responded, it means I'm just not quite finished whatever I was doing when you interrupted me. Interrupting me again to reaffirm your demand for my attention is not going to speed up my task-finishing process.

2. When I ask people what music they listen to, they say "Everything except..." and proceed to name some grand, over-arching genres like "rock or any of its variation" or "rap/reggae/R&B" or "country and classical". Do you have any idea how much music you're excluding when you say "everything except rock or any of its variation?" Clearly then, you don't listen remotely close to the amount of music known as "everything". Whenever someone says "everything except..." it's reasonable to presume that whatever follows "except" is an EXCEPTION, meaning it's something small and/or somewhat negligible, but invalidates the term "everything". If you say "everything except Elton John" for example, then ok, that makes sense; you don't like the sound of Elton John's songs. But when you say "everything except rap/reggae/R&B" you know what that tells me? That a. you've used the term "everything" to try to make yourself sound more music-savvy (which you obviously are not), and that b. you've probably heard 1 or 2 bad rap/reggae/R&B song and concluded that all other rap/reggae/R&B song will sound exactly like the 1 or 2 bad ones you heard, thus justifying your rejection of every single song ever written in those grand, over-arching genres.

Having seen Donnie Darko twice and taking Grant's suggestion to look up theories about the story line, I have concluded that there are 2 basic ways of looking at the movie. I am going to expound them so if you've not seen the movie, watch it first because there are enough spoilers here to destroy the movie-watching experience if you've not already seen it.

Theory 1: Donnie Darko saves the universe.
This is believed to be the true theory regarding what the movie is about... and a theory that I find profoundly unsatisfactory (possibly due to it conflicting with my need for a more romantic theory). But the director himself says this is more or less how the movie should go (even though he also claimed that he intended for the ending to be open ended... wtf?!). Note also that this a very watered down version of the actual theory itself but contains what I believe to be the essential points.

Premise
The jet engine from the beginning of the move does not arrive through a time portal, it comes from a "corruption" in the fabric of time (the future). It is a "corruption" by virtue of the fact that there is no reasonable, logical cause for the engine to travel from the future to the past; some "mistake" caused the engine to be thrown from the future to the past in the blink of an eye, creating an alternate future, and ripping open the fabric of space and time (because it's something that is not logically possible, hence it being a "mistake"). At the end of the future (28 days later), the world will literally come to an end as the corruption causes the universe to collapse unto itself. The movie we see is what happens in the alternate, corrupted future.

The World Ending
By this theory, it is literal.

Notes
Donnie Darko's job is to literally save the universe from distruction and every single character and nuance in the movie is designed to direct him towards this task.

The Story (or how it ends anyway)
Donnie, after making love to Gretchen (or so the theory goes... we don't know for sure but it would be nice to think that they consummated their love for each other before the end of the universe), realizes that it's been 28 days, the world is about to end, and he really hasn't done jack to prevent it, hence his panic attack and he rushes off to Roberta Sparrow for help on how to stop the universe from collapsing unto itself. That final scene, culminating in Gretchen and Frank's death, happens, all hell breaks loose, but the important thing is that by some epiphany or another, he manages to create a time portal at the exact same instance that the "corruption" occurs (this I guess happens when he's sitting in the car next to his soul mate's road-killed corpse... creepy). But now, it is the time portal that sends the engine back in time. Therefore, there is a reasonable and logical cause for the engine to travel from the future to the past (through said time portal) and the universe is thus saved because the corruption doesn't cause something inexplicable to occur and destroy the fabric of space and time. Donnie Darko, giggling hysterically in his sleep for some reason, doesn't get called out of the house by Frank (Frank, as mentioned in the "Notes" section, only called him out of the house at the beginning of the movie because Donnie needs to live and save the universe. Now that the universe is saved, I guess Frank decides to just leave him in his room). Donnie Darko himself, does no time travelling. His death scene is merely the past although there is also a theory that all the characters in the story can see the alternate future in their dreams, hence Gretchen and Mrs. Darko pseudo-recognizing each other while Donnie is being wheeled out.

That is the first, supposedly true theory about how the movie ends. And like most theories, it is filled with holes. Onto my theory (i.e. the way I thought the movie went after seeing it twice, before I consulted external sources).

Theory 2: "I don't want to die alone"
This is my interpretation of how the movie goes, after giving it some thought after the second screening. In my opinion, this makes more logical sense than the world-coming-to-an-end theory, but I am, of course biased. This is, I think, a slightly more straightforward interpretation of the movie, without the "corruption in the fabric of space and time" mentioned in the one before.

Premise
IF God exists and has preordained time and destiny (fate), then logically, one should be able to jump from one point in time to another because everything (including the future) already exists. Think of your life as a timeline. You don't make it as you go, it's already there... you just need to walk it. But this is only true IF God exists and has created this path for each of us to walk (it's the opposite of existentialism... where we write our future as we go and there isn't a preordained path for us to follow). But does God exist? Because if not, we all die alone.

The World Ending
According to my theory, the end of the world is metaphorical; i.e. the world ending = his death

Notes
The liquid things that come from people's chests seem to indicate that they are the materialization/manifestation of the immediate future. But is that enough to say for sure that God has given us a preordained path?

The Story (or my interpretation of how it ends anyway)
At the party, Donnie Darko makes love to Gretchen (again, unproven but he dies in my theory just as he dies in the first theory so it's still nice to think that they've consummated their love), and concludes that she is his soul mate. But to him, that won't matter if he dies alone. So he goes to the only person he thinks has the answers; the person who told him everyone dies alone in the first place: Roberta Sparrow. The death scenes happen, he sees the portal sucking the jet engine into it, and wakes up, realizing that he's seen the future in a dream. He stays in his room knowing that if (when) the engine crashes through his room, killing him, not only will he save Gretchen, but it will be proof that the future already exists (since the engine comes from the future showing that there is already a preordained path and he's working within God's channel). Therefore, God exists, therefore, he won't die alone.

That's Jon Wong's theory. It makes much more sense to me to look at the movie from that point of view simply because it's an ending you can envision without having to look up details. The first theory presupposes knowledge that the jet engine that crashed through his room the first time was due to a "corruption" and was due to a time portal the second. Oh yeah, and I also thought my theory ran more thoroughly with the quotation: "...what if you could go back in time, and take all those hours of pain and darkness and replace them with something better?"

Thoughts?