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...

So Courtney has pointed out that I didn't do Emma Watson very much justice in the picture I chose because, yes, I wasn't being particularly discerning beyond making sure they didn't look bad. In my defense, I wrote that post at like 2 in the morning so I wasn't in the mood to do extensive searches. Feeling a prick of conscience, I'm going to rectify this.

There you go. She really has turned into quite the beauty.

Incidentally, since we all seem to be hellbent on making more Spider-man films, I thought I'd mention that I know who I would want as a Mary Jane Watson. See, the problem with saying that Kirsten Dunst was a terrible Mary Jane - which she was - is that people will always want to know who you'd rather have in her place. And until recently, that was a sticking point. But now I've decided that I would like to have seen Isla Fisher as MJ. I think she'd be good in the role, and not only because she is (I think) a natural red head.


Eh?

Incidentally, I think I might have accidentally snubbed both Isla Fisher AND Rachel McAdams on my top 10 list of beautiful actresses (their association with Wedding Crashers must have triggered my gag reflex). You'd have to ax Anna Paquin and Larisa Oleynik but I think that's reasonable. You'd have to ax Emmanuelle Chriqui too if you were to include Emma Watson (who I snubbed originally because it's hard to remember that she's no longer 11 years old). In fact, I think it'd be almost safe to say that 2 out of the 3 would have cracked the top 5, which would mean that my list should be reshuffled to resemble something like this:

Jessica Alba
Katie Holmes
Emma Watson
Isla Fisher
Martha MacIsaac

Rachel McAdams
Vanessa Anne Hudgens (who I believe is the same age as Emma Watson so I don't know what I was smoking the first time I decided to snub her)
Mandy Moore
Jena Malone
Sophia Bush

Maybe Christian will be happier with this list. He wasn't very impressed by my tastes the first time around. I'll save you the trouble of google imaging:

I haven't been posting much lately. In my defense, I am working on a post to end all posts! It will be epic so make sure you have a least a good chunk of time your hands before embarking on the reading. But I figured, why not post something in between?

So a few years ago, I bought a book. It's black and leather-bound, has an embossed title and gold around the edges of its pages, and also comes with a red bookmark string that's attached at one end to the spine.

Sound familiar?

No, it's not the bible. But I don't think it's a purely coincidental fact that Neil Strauss' The Game bears such a strikingly similar resemblance - as far as construction/design - to the holy writ. I remember it being paraded around as a sort of "Bible," for guys on how to act at a club or a bar so that you could maximize your chances of hooking up. And I remember being so intrigued by this idea (there was a point in time where I couldn't turn a corner without running into some poor shmuck rambling about this book) that I picked up a copy for myself.

Now, let me get one thing straight - this is not a book you read in plain sight at the student center (a.k.a. Deutsch Centre for us Queen's folk). That was the first thing that piqued my interest - it seemed to be a book that everyone (or every guy) was reading, but it wasn't a book you would ever read in plain sight or put on your "favorite book" list on facebook. It was like something that everyone had read but no one would admit to be reading. Of course, when I began perusing it for myself, I quickly realized why - and it turned out to be one of the saddest reading experiences of my life. And this is why...

A few years before Neil Strauss even published his "Bible," I once knew of someone who embodied everything The Game would eventually come to be. He was a kid who went to our school named Jesse. Grant knew him personally. I knew him a little through Grant, but more through the fact that I knew several girls who eventually wound up in his "clutches" to use a cliched term.

Let me get another thing straight - I hated Jesse. Not him as a person, but everything he stood for. At the same time, though, I was almost forced to admire just how absolutely slick he was at doing what he did: and that was picking up girls. Jesse could get any girl he wanted. And I mean, literally, ANY girl he wanted. He was just that good. In fact, he once dated a friend of mine and broke up with her. She ranted about him for months, telling me about how she realized what a sleazebag he was. And this friend of mine was a good girl. She really was. And I guess that was when I first learned to resent Jesse - kind of on behalf of this girl. Imagine my surprise, then, when I found out yet a few months later that he had managed to convince her to give him another chance and they started going out again! And this would happen with another friend of mine. And as I would learn from Grant, the same thing would happen with countless more.

Like I said, Jesse was just that good. He was SO good, in fact, that he managed to make guys like him too. I talked to Christian about this once - about how sometimes, a sleazy guy could push the right buttons with a girl, but other GUYS - genuinely nice guys - would always recognize just how much of a creep he was. Not so with Jesse. He was the kind of guy who could steal your girlfriend and then make you feel like he was doing you a favor.

In a lot of ways, to fall victim to Jesse's charms was proof that you were human and operated within the norms of society. He recognized that deep down, we all have certain buttons that could be pushed, and he was so good at exploiting that that you always found that Jesse was telling you exactly what you wanted to hear. The only people I've ever known who were immune to Jesse's charms were people who were socially underdeveloped in a lot of ways. And I don't mean socially underdeveloped in the way that I'm socially underdeveloped, I mean in a way where they simply didn't see/operate with other people in the way everyone else in society did. I am socially underdeveloped only to the extent that it takes me a lot longer to learn the ropes... but even I eventually learn to settle into what is prescribed as a "social norm".

So that was Jesse. And when I read The Game a few years later, it basically felt like I was reading about Jesse. I didn't fully realize this until Grant drew my attention to the fact that he didn't need to read The Game because he had hung around Jesse for so much of his life (Grant, fortunately, did not become the next Neil Strauss). But that's what The Game was: a guide to how and why women behave and how you were supposed to use this to your advantage.

As I read The Game (I confess, I didn't finish it and I still haven't but I got through a good 85-90%), I realized 2 things. The first thing was ugly. The second... even uglier. The first thing I realized was that Neil Strauss was right. Jesse was living proof of this. He illuminated a lot of truths about how we interact socially and why certain gestures, words, and behaviors were always bound to elicit the same responses (good and bad). I remember reading about being the "Alpha Male of the Group" and how you need to make yourself look better than every other male in the immediate vicinity and that putting them down was fair game. I remember reading about how teasing (a.k.a. "negging") was important because if you complimented a girl, you've put her in the "driver's seat". I remember reading about all sorts of things that someone like Jesse seemed, innately, to understand. And I remember feeling disgusted by the fact that THIS was how society operated... that traditional symbols of good character like dependability, compassion, chivalry, and kindness had become warped, contorted, and branded as "boring"; and in their place, "negging," slickness, flash, and style rose to prominence as being cool, sexy, and exciting.

When I put it this way, it all sounds quite over the top and some of you might be saying "That's not how our society works!" But actually, I think if you really look at the fundamental "rules" of social interaction, I think you'll find that it's more true than you realize. They find their way into almost everything we do, even if it's only on a micro-scale. I remember talking to some friends years ago when MSN was still in vogue and someone mentioned how you shouldn't message someone as soon as they come online because it makes you look like you were sitting there waiting for them to sign on just so you could talk to them. And even if that wasn't the case, you waited 5 minutes anyway just to "show" that you were "doing something else and only just realized that they had signed on". I'm willing to bet that every one of you did this. I also remembered thinking, "What's wrong with messaging someone as soon as they sign on, even if it DOES make you seem eager to talk to them? Maybe I AM eager to talk to them." But no no no, you can't do that... you don't want to make it seem like you WANTED to talk to them, god forbid. You had to make it seem like talking to them was just no skin off your back. You had to play it cool; like they were no big deal... even if you would have cried yourself to sleep that night if they didn't respond.

So that's the first thing. And yeah, it's ugly. But you know what's uglier? This second thing. I was HORRIFIED - actually and honestly horrified - to find out that instead of reading The Game and saying, "Wow, we are a bunch of fucked up and disgusting creatures," guys were saying, "Wow, now I know how I should act around women!" Instead of being a social commentary that could be used as a jumping off point for rectifying these flaws in our society, guys were actually buying into Neil Strauss' philosophy! I remember some of my friends - kind, solid guys with good hearts - reading The Game and thinking that the book was a signal to them that they had to change; that they had to start ignoring women and become the Alpha Male of their Groups; that they had to start treating women like they (women) weren't important because that's how you could be "successful" at "the game".

WHAT?!

No! That's wrong! Completely and utterly backwards! And I'll tell you why. I mean, we know the most obvious reasons why this is wrong: it objectifies women. The Game is one of the most patriarchal, misogynistic pieces of literature I have ever read. In fact, it is probably THE worst piece of anti-feminist literature I have ever read because not only does it reduce women to "prizes," it actually ventures to assert that that is what women WANT.

But I'll tell you the other, more latent, reason behind why The Game is terrible. Guys who learn the rules of The Game rarely ever end up being happy. And this is something that many guys don't realize when they buy into its philosophy. The Game only promises you sex; it says nothing about love, happiness, or fulfillment. And it wouldn't be so bad if only guys who wanted sex read The Game. The problem is that a lot of guys who read The Game and hail it as their Bible... are, deep-down, simply lonely and tired of being single. And the most ironic thing is that in order to play The Game, you MUST be single; everything The Game is about revolves around staying single so you can practice and perfect your "craft" that is being a really good pick-up artist. It's not ABOUT finding a girlfriend and yet, so many guys read it because deep-down, having someone to love is all they really want.

This has been a long post. It's all I really have to say about Neil Strauss. My next post is probably, originally, going to sound incredibly contradictory, but trust me, it isn't. In fact, it is, in a lot of ways, an antithesis of Neil Strauss' philosophy. Maybe I should write a book. Oh wait...

This just in. Thirteen Reasons Why is the most powerful and affective book I have read since The Perks of Being a Wallflower. Ever since I started working on my informal writing project, I do this sort of litmus test for books I read... basically, if I worry that my own book won't turn out to be as good as the one I've read, it gets the Jon Wong seal of endorsement for amazing books. A really pompous way of doing it, I know, but the point is that it IS a significant indicator of a book that I think is really really good/powerful/worth-reading.

Thirteen Reasons Why really is very good. You should check it out sometime.

For those of you who read my blog, I would like your opinion on this. It's a good example of how people can reach completely different conclusions from the same line of thought.

I was talking to my mother earlier in the day about the dinner we're going to on Christmas Eve. We all agreed that the restaurant we're going to isn't very good and more than that, is also quite expensive. So-so food at an exorbitant price - not the best combination. And on top of all that, the family friend who arranged it chose the 4:30 time rather than the 6:30 time (for whatever reason - maybe he gets hungry early, maybe the 6:30 times were full... we don't know). So me being me, I was somewhat annoyed at this (not too annoyed, mind you - that would require that I actually cared about what I eat; which I don't as long as I'm not hungry when I'm finished). But here's the conversation my mother and I had:


Mother: Well, you know that (insert name) doesn't host/plan a lot of events. Christmas Eve is pretty much the only thing that he takes the intiative on planning each year...

(Then, in unison)

Mother: ... so we should just go along with whatever he decides.
Jon Wong: ... so he should make sure he does it right!


I can't decide on who had the more reasonable response.

When I feel under the weather (as I do now), I think the only bright spot in my day is taking a hot shower. I mean, I like hot showers in general but honestly, if it weren't for the fact that water (especially of the hot variety) costs money, I would just spend my entire sick days taking hot showers.

Seriously, all I want for Christmas is a year's supply of Powerade or some equivalent thereof.

After lurking around Christian's blog and participating in this...

http://www.elizabethesther.com/threes_a_crowd/2009/12/the-saturday-evening-blog-post-vol-1-issue-4.html

I love this idea!

My laptop has exploded. This means that until I get a new computer (probably not for another 2 weeks or so), I probably won't be posting a great deal on anything that has any depth to it. This is not because of a lack of access but rather, because I am now obliged to use the computer downstairs and it's rather hard to think deeply when my parents are watching "G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra" at a house-shaking decibel. Rise of Cobra, by the way, is a very slick action film; well worth the watch if you're into that kind of stuff - but hardly conducive to posting.

That being said, I am going to make an attempt anyway.

I've always talked about how great it is to be young and every so often, I make an attempt to explain why this is so. And I do this on a fairly regular basis because I think there are many many things that make being young better than being old. I mean, I understand most of these things on a subconscious level, but to encompass all my feelings on the subject in one post is a fairly tall task and one that I can never seem to do. Recently, my mind, for some reason or another, has been slowly zeroing in on one point that I think I can now express clearly enough to turn into a blog post.

Actually, I think I know how I came about this realization. I was thinking about what I am going to say in my University Master Class next Thursday and I wanted to bring out the concept of finding out what's important to you. And as I thought about this idea, I also thought about this quotation by Alec Baldwin about music:

"Popular music has an emotional-intelligence quotient that's geared much toward younger people. It's all about 'You left me. Why did you leave me? I still love you. I tried so hard to stop loving you.' And it's like, well, I relate to that, I just don't want to think about that. When you're younger, you want to wallow in it. When you get older, you still love the person, and wonder why they don't love you. You just have other things to do."

Alec Baldwin is being a realist. But I realized, after reading this quotation, exactly what it is about growing old that makes me so depressed. Not coincidentally, I've also been thinking a lot about my future lately and how I'm not 100% sure I want to be a teacher.

You see, for much of our young lives, we have the great privilege of CHOOSING what's important to us. I once talked to Grant about putting things in perspective and how when you were in grade 5 and you had a crush on that cute girl in your grade, that was the most important thing to you, at the time. And we have this tendency to "put things in perspective" by feeling like in "the grand scheme of things," that silly little crush wasn't very important. But that's simply not true! It's one of these great ironies of life that when we attempt to put things in perspective, we very often ended up skewing them OUT of perspective. Maybe in the grand scheme of your life, that crush wasn't very important, but AT THAT TIME, it was the most significant thing in your life! That girl in your class - she was alpha and omega. And just because it seems insignificant to your current self doesn't mean that it was any less important to you when you were 10.

And that's the thing about being young! At every point in your youth, you have the freedom, time, and energy to not only realize what's important to you, but to pursue them as well. When I was 7, I loved baseball; so I played baseball. When I was 16, girls were central to my life; so I spent a lot of my free time doing things that related to that department. And Alec Baldwin is absolutely correct. When we're young, we get to wallow in the things that are important to us. We get to live them; experience them; devote all our energies to them - because those were the things we cared about and we were free to make them central to our lives.

As we grow old, however, we no longer have this freedom. In Alec Baldwin's words, we have "other things to do". Other things, such as paying the rent and putting food on the table - basic needs that we are now forced to consider "important". And unlike years of our youth, these things will never go away. Once you become an adult, "economic survival" will always be the most important thing to you - but not because that's what you truly want to do or what fulfills you spiritually/emotionally, rather, because you have no choice in the matter. If you want to pursue something else that's truly important to you, you can't devote all your time to it like you do when you're young. Hell, you might not even be able to devote any time at all, depending on the type of job you have.

When you're young and you don't have to worry about feeding yourself and putting a roof over your head, you have the freedom to devote your life to something that you love or that you consider important. Alec Baldwin is trying to be a realist about the whole thing and while I understand his sentiment, it actually depresses me horribly. Can you imagine being so worn out and drained by the daily rigours of adult responsibility that things like love, music, and revolution lose their ability to move you? Can you imagine being rejected by someone and thinking "Well, at least it's not like I got fired from my job" instead of, "The first star you see may not be a star; I'm not your star"? Or meeting someone and having to put him/her on the sideburner while you focus on getting your lesson plans done instead of letting yourself be enveloped by the feeling of, "When I'm with you, I feel like I could die and that would be alright... alright." How can people bear sacrificing things that move them for the sake of staying alive? I mean, I get that staying alive (roof over head, food on table, etc) is important but - how can that be fulfilling?

I worry about this. Constantly. Especially in relation to my profession. I thought to myself, "I don't know if I truly want to be a teacher," and then realized, "As of right now, I don't really have a choice." Because it's getting to the point where what's important to my life might have to be put on the backburner to make room for what's necessary for my survival. And once "survival" becomes the main theme in life, cue existential crisis. I'll be sure to post details about that crisis when it happens so check back with me in a year or so.