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...

There is something terribly wrong with being at Queen's and not knowing who lives in 31 Clergy Street.

Kingston!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I haven't posted about trust and knowing someone and suchlike for awhile. In part because a lot of that will be included in my informal writing piece so there are times where I've thought of something and saved it for that. But you know, every so often, something comes up that I probably won't go into as much depth about as I will in my writing project. So here's one. This will surface in my writing project but I thought I'd post it anyway (to keep my readers interested), just in case you're all tired of reading about why you can't reasonably insist that vampires don't sparkle.

As a side note, it just struck me as ironic that I am going to post about Pearl after mentioning that you all might be tired of reading about vampires... as if I talked about the latter so much more than the former. I hope you're not all tired of hearing about this girl. And if you are, well, you can skip this post.

I recently had this conversation with Courtney about Pearl's boyfriend:

"What's he like?" - Courtney
"He's... ok, to be very fair to him; honestly, not a bad guy at all. He's just... not very interesting. I've tried to engage him twice without much success [at finding his shining merits]"
"Oh dear. Brb, gotta run to campus to get Goddard some money" - Courtney

That was it. I haven't figured out the kind of situation that involves Courtney running to campus to get Goddard money but I'm sure it... exists.

Anyway. I expanded on this conversation with Karen earlier today and she suggested I post about it. So I am. During the few times that I have encountered him and the few times when I'm obliged to dwell on the fact that he's Pearl's boyfriend, part of me is, of course, unhappy about the situation... for obvious reasons. It's not so much that I have any resentment against him so much as that I'm not thrilled about my situation where I have - somehow, despite my best efforts - managed to develop feelings for a girl that are not reciprocated, in part, because of this very person. Also, as a guy, it's a little deflating to your ego when a girl you like is dating someone who doesn't impress you. I spoke to Grant about this once - about how it's not always the fact that a girl is dating someone; sometimes you meet the guy and you're like "Ok, you know what, he seems like a great guy so... I tip my hat to him." And I was fully prepared to do this, this time around too. I just... kinda came up empty in my search for his shining merits.

So there's that part of me. But there's another part of me that always manages to somewhat override (or at least, balance out) this. And it's this simple thought: "She chose him." And that, to me, is amazing. I mean, not exactly the fact that she chose him, but that in choosing him, she must see something in him that I can't see. I always have some version of this thought:

"Ok, he's about average looking, he's a friendly guy, but seems rather uninteresting. There doesn't seem to be anything impressive about him... except that this girl likes him."

And it is an amazing, amazing thing about... being human that no matter who you are, there will be someone who has the capability of seeing and bringing out the best in you. That this girl who, as far as I'm concerned, IS amazing and could have the pick of any guy she chooses, should see something in a guy who, frankly, seems rather unimpressive. And that is as much in his favor as me actually deciding that he's a great guy. I mean, I don't know him. But I do know her. And she chose him. I don't know enough about him to even wonder about whether she made the right choice but as far as HER judgment goes, I trust her. It's not, I guess, crazy that there's something about him I just can't see, even though I've looked. It's just... in some ways, I really do find it very reassuring to know that, no matter who you are, there will always be someone who sees the good in you. It's one of the best parts of being human and thinking about that, as a principal, takes the edge off the more banal feeling that the girl you like is dating someone who doesn't impress you. Because I do, at the end of the day, believe that most people are fundamentally good and have their own set of redeeming features to go along with their flaws. As an egocentric creature, it strikes an odd chord with me that I can't see them in this guy. But she does. She must. Or else she wouldn't be dating him in the first place. And if she vouches for him, that, in the end, is good enough. Because I know the kind of person I become when she vouches for me.

I won't get into how one of the more irritating parts of being human is that you can't control who you have feelings for. Another post for another time.

"Out of the blue, into the black" - Neil Young

Ever since David picked up my copy of Stephen King's IT and read that line aloud last week, it has resounded to me repeatedly. For some reason, I woke up from an afternoon nap just under an hour ago and kept thinking "I need to get out of Toronto". There's something unsettling about the routine I'm living right now and I think it has to do with waiting. Ever since my cousin left (coincidentally, almost exactly around the same time the strike ended), I have been conscious that my life has revolved around waiting for things to happen. Some of it comes from having planned something and then waiting for the plan to come to fruition; some of it comes simply from living a routine life. And I can't stand waiting. I don't like the feeling. Some people like the feeling of anticipation. I do as well... every once in awhile. But I don't like it on a daily basis. I have a very hard time doing anything else when I'm waiting for something to happen.

This, I think, is partly why I used to hate it when people were late for appointments. I don't hate it anymore, probably due to plain maturity more than anything else. But I remember back when I hated when people were late, not because I disliked the actual fact that they arrived after they said they would, but because, say someone was supposed to arrive at 5 and he/she doesn't arrive until 5:20... those 20 minutes were the epitome of being unproductive. It's like my life stopped at 5. And it wouldn't start again until what was supposed to happen at 5 happened.

Anyhow, I always feel like I lose control over my life when I'm always waiting for things to happen. And that, I feel, is what my life in Toronto has become. So I think that, despite my less than stellar anticipation of Kingston this year, I will at least be happy with the fact that it's a change of scenery. I just hope I can keep myself occupied while I'm there.

A former classmate of mine from high school is a mother. She is the first person I've known from my generation to have a child. Hm... it doesn't seem very long ago when "I got my license" was the big thing among my friends.

I've decided to rant about something in response to something Christian said in one of my comments. I experienced this once before when watching 30 Days of Night but thought, maybe it's just that one film. Apparently not. And it has to do with how people respond to seeing vampires/werewolves/other mythical creatures in film.

Just to quote Christian, apparently, one of the complaints about Twilight was, "The vampires SPARKLE! Vampires DON'T sparkle!"

Now, I'm going to leave aside the fact that the vampires sparkled in the books so really, faulting the film for adapting this particular feature is inane in and of itself. But let's say we were to equate the same criticism to the book too...

I love it (and alternately hate it) when people get up in arms about what mythical creatures "should" be like. There were similar things being said about 30 Days of Night... something about the vampires behaving more like werewolves and not "like" vampires. Of course, in this case, there is this criticism about the vampires sparkling in the sun. And I always feel the urge to say, "Thank you for your undoubtedly infallible knowledge on whether or not vampires sparkle. I suppose you've met one? Oh, a first cousin? Well, I guess you really are equipped to talk about it."

Artists should be allowed to take creative license with things that don't have exact parameters... because the pressure to be "realistic" about the things that are actually real is great enough. Just because their interpretations of a fictional creature doesn't match your interpretation doesn't mean they're wrong. You can disagree with it, but you can't fault them for it... as if you knew better.

Honestly...

I was talking to Karen recently about how, for the most part, I have no desire whatsoever to meet my friends' other halves until they are engaged/married. It's not a question of being snobby; I just have had bad experiences with it in the past.

I just had a dream that REALLY hammered home why I avoid this. It's actually an interesting occurrence from a strict, dream-analysis viewpoint. Because while the scenarios in dreams are obviously not actually realistic (insofar as they're not actually happening), my reactions to them feel frighteningly so (realistic) when I wake up. And it's interesting because it's like it allows me to say "this is how I would feel in this situation," even though I've never been in that situation in the real world.

Some people might laugh at this. Like, imagine if someone said something and I responded with, "I'm sure that I'd react in such and such a way because I dreamt of this exact scenario once and this is how I felt." Some might argue that because the dream isn't real, my reactions weren't real either. But after today, I am convinced that that is untrue. I dreamt of a scenario that I had never encountered before and right when I was reacting to it, my parents came home from work and woke me up. And I know that if this scenario ever played itself out in real life, I would feel the exact same thing.

I think I am going to temper what I bring to Kingston this year, a.k.a. I'm going to pack the bare essentials seeing as how I don't feel like moving stuff back and forth as I switch locales at the end of each month.

I have finally caught up with the rest of the (teenage) world and have now seen Twilight.

I can sorta see why it's insanely popular. It's a teen romance of the star-crossed-lovers variety. It also involves flesh-eating vampires.

Seriously, is there anyone who doesn't like either of those themes? If star-crossed lovers aren't your thing, flesh-eating vampires must be. And vice versa.

For those of you who dislike both... well, I guess you probably won't like Twilight very much.

For those of you who seemed to be concerned about this, I have shaven. As if any of you were around to verify this.

Goddammit, I'm literally like... under 10 pages away from reaching the halfway point for my informal writing piece and I just can't seem to get it done.

It has occurred to me that my blog layout does not include titles. Well, this one could be named Putting Things in Perspective. I remember having a conversation once with Grant about how comically unpredictable the future can be. And the best proof of this is to look back in the past. And I was doing just that, earlier tonight, with Karen and I thought I would put that belief in perspective.

A year ago, I had not realistically considered writing a book.
A year ago, Teddy and I were merely acquaintances.
A year ago, I had no idea who Julia was.
A year ago, I thought Grant would be the only person to ever visit me in Kingston.
A year ago, I didn't think Pearl and I would ever do anything together beyond playing badminton.
A year ago, I was still in undergrad.
A year ago, I wasn't scared about the future.

And these are just the observable things, to say nothing of changes in personal perspectives and whatnot. Things work out in the most unfathomable ways. And it's not so much the idea that "If someone had told me a year ago that xyz would happen, I'd laugh." It's not so much that anything is unexpected so much as it is that it's impossible to expect anything because the possibilities are endless. It's not so much the feeling of "Wow, how did I get here?" so much as it is the feeling of "Alright, I can see how I'm here... but I can also see how I could have so easily ended up anywhere else." There are so many little things that contribute to shaping our lives and this is why the phrase "just go with it" takes on so much meaning for me. Because if you don't know how to do that, you'll end up concerning yourself too much with how every little decision will affect your life. I think, though, that while having a destination is important, there are often many little decisions you make along the way that contribute to the richness of the journey. And if you think too hard about those little decisions, you'll be too tired to make the important decisions when you get to them.

I think it'd be a good exercise for everyone to take some time to trace out the little things that have made up the many facets of our own unique lives. I think it'd be interesting to see how often random chances or seemingly small decisions play a role in making us who are we today. And that's not to say that our lives would be better or worse either way. I just think things would be different.

Also! I just found out an amazing thing! I can post-date blog posts and blogger will automatically post them for me when the time and date arrives! That's so cool! I never noticed before (I know... been a blogger for 9 years... FAIL).

Another epiphany! Again, another one that Pearl is indirectly responsible for (read: http://bona_fide.blogspot.com/2009/07/im-going-to-do-something-i-dont-do-very.html). I am beginning to feel that there's something very funny about this girl in the sense that through no direct action of her own, she has caused me to realize some very interesting things about myself (and douchebags!). This is something I need to remember to hold onto in case (knock on wood) the world goes up in flames sometime in the future (no, I don't expect it to but it's nice to be prepared anyway).

Now, I don't know that what I am about to say is factually true. It's entirely theoretical and a lot of it is based on what I think WOULD happen under certain circumstances (you'll see what I mean soon enough). I don't know because I have never experienced it and I can't, off the top of my head, actually think of anyone who has gone through this and can vouch for it. Therefore, unlike the whole douchebag post, I haven't gotten personal confirmation that what I'm doing is the right thing to do.

By the by, for those of you who are curious as to what's actually been happening on that front, aside from the incredible amount of brain-work it has generated, things have simmered down since I first posted about it back in July. Just like how a series of unfortunate circumstances thrust her into my life to a far greater degree than I had intended, a similar series of unfortunate circumstances have been ushering her out - those being that the strike is over and she is now only free on select weekday nights... but due to the overwhelming amount of fighting she does with her parents, she gets banned from going out on like a daily basis. The overall result being that I have not seen her in like 3 weeks. On the whole, this is probably a good thing (for me... for her, probably not so much since it means she's fighting with her parents).

Anyhow. I remember talking to Ted awhile back about how stressful it can be to see someone you like - but who is, for all intents and purposes, unavailable - on a regular basis. Actually, what am I talking about, I posted on it (see my link above). And I realized something about why it's so stressful. And it is actually a two-fold reason, not a one-fold reason like I originally thought. What did I originally think?

I originally thought that what was happening was that I had to be constantly on my guard around Pearl because I was conscious of the invisible barrier that is her relationship status = not single and I did not want to accidentally let slip an indication that I like her. I mean, in base terms, I should say "I had to be careful not to hit on her" but let's be honest, I'm careful not to do that regardless of whether or not a girl is single. I don't know why but the concept of "hitting on someone" always sounds incredibly sleazy when I say/think about it. But getting back to the point, it is true that I did feel like I had to be constantly on my guard when I was around her. I'm sure you can all appreciate why it would have been disastrous to indicate my interest in her. So unconscious flirting had to be kept in check, teasing had to watched over, etc. All things that, realistically, I could have done if I had zero interest in her and not even had to worry about. For some reason, when you flirt with someone who you actually have no interest in, the flirtation feels harmless. But once you like someone, even though the actual words said/deeds performed when you flirt are exactly the same as what you do when you have no interest in a girl, you really FEEL like they're charged. I'm sure many of you can relate.

So there was that. And there's nothing new there. I covered it, in more or less words, in my July post on douchebagotry. But here's the thing I didn't realize back then, which reinforces why the whole damned process is so freaking difficult: it's not just about being careful not to tell the girl you like her, it's also about being careful not to tell the girl that you DON'T like her as well.

But how can this be possible? (you ask). Well, to take my own personal story (since I have nothing else to go by), let me give you an illustration. The first part I talked about is obvious. I make sure I don't "hit on her". Ok, done. But I realized that unconsciously, there is something very interesting about the way I talk to her/about her. And it can be very very subtle but here it is: I have never referred to Pearl as my "friend". I have never equated her with people, with whom I share the bond of "friendship" and while this can easily escape notice, it is definitely there. For example, I often preface things I say to my friends with "Courtney, my friend... let me tell you..." or "Grant, my good friend, I thought you should know..." or "Karen, my friend... blah blah blah" (yeah, I'm too lazy to make up a second clause for you Karen. I hope you're not too upset). Or, I will say things like "Well, my friend, Christian once told me..." or "I know a friend - Linda - who studied Commerce at Queen's".

You see what I mean? There are very subtle differences in the way I talk to/about Pearl. And while some of you may think that is just simple linguistic variation, I am convinced that it isn't. A more illuminating example might be seen in the way I respond to doing nice things for people. Most of you, by now, know enough about me to know that I consider doing "nice things" for friends pretty much par for the course. If I've done someone a favor or some such thing and they thank me, my response is usually "Well, that's what friends do" or some variation. Because I do honestly believe that. I never feel "troubled" when I do something for a friend. I might grumble about it because as Christian can attest to, I grumble about EVERYTHING. But really, I fundamentally believe that doing nice things for nice people is just part of being a good person. However, whenever the same thing happens with Pearl, I have never been able to say "Well, that's what friends do". In fact, back when this all started, I remember actively balking at saying this very phrase and by now, I'm not even conscious of the balking. But I must say something right? Well, usually, my response to Pearl "Well Pearl, I care about you so..." And even though this seems like something I could say anyway because, in strictly accurate terms, I care about all my friends, it... takes on a slightly different meaning if you know that I like the girl - and not only because I'm actively using it in lieu of "Well, that's what friends do".

So this was interesting. That, by the way, was all a lead up to the epiphany I am about to illustrate. Yeah, I know... long lead up. But I wanted to make sure I parsed out what I meant by being careful about not only not telling a girl you like her, but also about not telling her you don't like her as well. I know the previous sentence sounds incredibly convoluted but it's 2 in the morning and I don't know how to phrase it better... but I hope the above illustrations have made my point clear - while I have never, at any point, told Pearl I liked her, I have also never, at any point, DENIED this fact or suggested that I merely liked her "as a friend," which would have been practically the same as denying that I like her, worded in a different manner. And this got me thinking. Why do I do this? Surely, it would have been easier to just treat her like any other friend. Surely it would have been simpler to actually just say we're friends. Because as it stands, I am putting myself under a lot of stress when I'm around her. I'm constantly having to think twice as fast and twice as hard about everything I say to her.

By the way, for those of you whose heads are spinning, imagine what it's like to think in this convoluted fashion on a daily basis. Yeah, that's my life. And people wonder why I'm always tired. I'm convinced it's mental exhaustion.

This is my theory: I think that it's the wrong way to go about the relationship I have with this girl. And this is why. Sure, it'd be easier to just make a very public ordeal about seeing Pearl as any other friend. That would actually alleviate both sources of stress. I could just refer to her as I would any other friend, AND, I wouldn't have to be on my guard as much because it would be publicly understood that all signs of flirtation are purely platonic. But I believe that it would also be building a relationship (I will use the term "relationship" in its strict sense - the bond we share with another person, be it friendship, love, whatever) on a terribly unstable and, structurally speaking, rotten foundation. Because I think that if I were to build the relationship I have with this girl on a lie - that lie being that I see her as a friend and nothing more - one day, it will all come crashing down. Any engineer could tell you this - if the foundation's rotten, the entire building's rotten. And I don't want that to happen.

I am convinced that this is what might easily happen to nice guys; the nice guys I mentioned from my post on douchebagotry who continue to be friends with a girl, even after learning that she's unavailable for whatever reason. Again, I don't KNOW this for a fact because I can't personally think of anyone else who's done this exact thing, but I really do feel that this is what would happen. That if you fooled yourself into thinking that you don't really have feelings for a girl; if you suppressed your feelings for the "sake" of making the "friendship" work, that this will ultimately come back to haunt you. Like I said, I don't know if this is actually true for everyone but I am convinced that that is what would happen to me. Because sooner or later, those latent feelings would come out. And when that happens, I would experience a TERRIBLE conflict. The part of me that built my relationship with Pearl on the understanding that we were just friends wouldn't be able to cope with the part of me that says "But you know that deep down, you really do like her." And the worst thing that could happen then would be that I would blame Pearl for it. And that would be completely and utterly unfair and unfounded. But in a moment of conflict, unhappiness, and realization, that might happen. And the entire relationship would come crumbling to the ground because I didn't have the strength to build it on a stable foundation.

Bet you can see all that happening in your mind as I speak. I hope you can. It's almost scary how clearly I can envision that path in my head. And this is why I could never, ever, deny that I like Pearl or give evidence that suggests that we're only friends. I firmly do believe that the only way our relationship could ever work (even knowing this, it might not, but I don't want to be too pessimistic) was if I did my part in building it up, understanding that I DO like this girl. And that even though that will probably never amount to anything, I am at least being honest with myself. Moreover, if we do end up being "friends" for a long time, I will be able to say that I chose to remain a part of her life because I judged that there was something more important in what she brought to my life than the... stress (it's the closest word I could think of... it is now 3 AM and I am convinced that "pain" is the wrong word) that comes with liking her and knowing that she's off limits.

And I won't have a mental breakdown.

I also realize that it could potentially be a big issue if she ever asked me if I liked her. Because then I'd have to be honest with her. BUT, seeing as how she is in a seemingly stable relationship, this question will hopefully never come up as long as I am able to continue thinking twice as fast and twice as hard when I'm around her. So I'll assume for now that I won't have to cross that bridge.

I hope you've all enjoyed yourselves at my expense.

Wall photos! All the rage. You know the ones. A grid of traits and you tag the person who most possesses that trait.

I just thought I would note facebook-related cultural phenomena as they occur.

I remember doing a quiz thing last year. I feel like now is the time to do another. Why? Because I very clearly remember ranting about the Blue Jays' first rate offensive incompetence (I believe those were my exact words) and I have witnessed another just minutes ago. I feel like I need to complete another quiz so I can rant about it again.

I would like to take some time to talk about a film called Forgetting Sarah Marshall.

Normally, I reserve my discussion on films for flixster reviews (which I have been terrible at updating lately because I haven't seen very many films. I expect this will change when I'm back at Queen's) but I thought this film warranted a post on its own.

First though, I guess it wouldn't hurt to post my review (circa... 258 days ago, according to flixster):

"I'm getting to that point in my film watching career when I can't decide whether or not I am allowed to criticize a film like this for some of its inevitably predictable plot elements. It's not so much that predictability has gained a better rep as I watch more of these comedies more as I'm starting to realize that most just can't... function without them. Not that Forgetting Sarah Marshall was wholly predictable but I was hoping that when it got to the point in the film where I began thinking "God I hope he doesn't screw himself over" the film might, for once in my long film watching career, actually heed my thoughts. But of course, it didn't. And the reason why I am so critical of it is because I genuinely believed that, with enough ingenuity, this film could have done away with the "guy screws himself over" bit and still actually worked out. But aside from that, the film was very charming, Mila Kunis was astoundingly good looking (a key element in a film such as this - and on a side note, the irony staggers me when I consider that of all people, she is the one who does Meg Griffen's voice from Family Guy), the secondary characters were relevant, and it was funny. So I guess I can't complain too much. Oh and the musical at the end was fantastic. Someone needs to adapt that into a real life production."

My final verdict: 3 1/2 stars

But I'm thinking that one day, I will revisit this film and perhaps give it a much higher rating. Well, actually, that is doubtful because I still didn't like the part where Jason Segel screws himself over and I do honestly believe that this film was, up until that point, so good that they could actually have avoided that predictable "fall" in the "rise, fall, redemption" formula. I mean, The Girl Next Door follows that formula as well but I think that TGND did it in the only real way you could include a "fall" without making it too grating: to make it happen halfway through the film so that the redemption part gets its due attention. Man, I really wasn't intending this to be another post on why TGND is so great but that really is the only way to do it without making the audience groan. Either don't have an epic fall, or have the epic fall but give the redemption enough screentime so that it doesn't seem so trite or simplistic.

Anyhow, back to Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Aside from that one sticking point, I am growing more and more convinced, with each passing day, that there is truly something unique about this film. And I haven't quite been able to put my finger on it yet but I know it has something to do with understanding that sometimes in life, people are the ones that assign meaning to their actions; that the same action can mean very different things if someone chooses to make it so. This seems understandable when I say it and it might, perhaps, even seem a little obvious. But I do think that people in today's society have grown to assign certain meanings to certain actions, regardless of the performer. I'm thinking of all those times I have discussed social interactions with Michael Genin and he kept asking me "So what does that mean?" after describing to me something that someone has done. And I kept trying to tell him "I don't know! I don't know this person. It could mean anything." And then he'd say "But what does it usually mean?" and I'd say, "I have Asperger's Syndrome... how on earth would I know?"

There is something really well done about the way Forgetting Sarah Marshall does the whole interpersonal thing. Like I said, I haven't quite figured it out. But it is unique, I think. And the rest of the film is really good to boot. I'd have to watch it again to go into more details.

I have had my first (real) experience with old age. I skipped badminton for a week (due to the Quebec trip) and after playing again (giving me a grand total of 2 weeks in between playing), I am hurting everywhere. Pains I would normally only get after a tournament or after having not played for a month have suddenly accelerated into pains I feel after 2 weeks of not playing. Terrible...

What we all want to say at the dentist but never will:

Hygienist: "Your gums are bleeding."
Us: "Of course they are, you tool; you're stabbing at them with a sharp, metallic instrument."

You know that expression you get when someone does something that's both charming and puzzling at the same time? Like a frown with a smile? How do you describe that? "She frowned and smiled at the same time" doesn't seem to be the right description.

Also, along with being horrible at poetry, I am also horrible at describing faces. I just don't know how to do it, even though I can see the face clearly in my head. But because of my widespread exposure to celebrities, I have managed to get around this by describing the face as best as I can and then comparing it to a celebrity who has a similar trait in their own face.

I should be working on my informal writing piece/doing the necessary reading/research required to write a poem (ugh... the work I will do to write 1 good poem) or doing my required readings for Ed. But no, I am sitting here writing this blog post. Oh well, 3 more weeks to get my priorities straight.

We like to say "there is a thin line between..." a lot when we refer to the fact that there are many gray areas in life. But nowhere, I think, is this more true than talking about other people's flaws and the question of whether or not we should strive to change them. I speak of those who you hold near and dear, of course. Because everyone has flaws. And normally, we just brush them off or, in extreme cases, simply choose not to interact with the people whose flaws we are unable to tolerate. But what happens with the people we care about?

See, there's a school of thought that says "we should accept the imperfections in people" and you know, "not only loving because of, but in spite of," and a general attitude towards recognizing that nobody's perfect. And while there is merit from this point of view, I also think it needs some fine tuning. Because really now, should we not always be striving to overcome our flaws? If someone tells you "Oh, I'm terrible at keeping in touch with people... even people I care about. That's just the kind of person I am," is it really wrong to say "Well then there's something wrong with the kind of person you are!"?

You see where I'm going with this? I do agree that we should strive to accept people for who they are, but does that ban us from trying to make them better? I don't think so. Just because I say you should, I don't know, try to empathize more with people, doesn't mean I don't "accept" you for who you are. I'm pulling that example out of thin air but you get the picture. At the same time though, I haven't quite figured out who decides what's important enough to warrant change. That's why it's such a fine line. Where does encouraging someone to change for the better become trying to change who they are? And when does accepting someone for who they are become problematic because of a lack of necessary intervention?

This would be far less of a problem if we trusted each other more. But you all know my take on that.

I need to see 500 Days of Summer. Unfortunately, I lack the friends (in my area I mean) who would want to see this film. But, if I can't see the film, I at least listened to the soundtrack. Because you see, I had it on very good authority (Megan Blacklock; no, most of you don't know who she is) that this film has one of the best soundtracks ever. Needless to say, I was skeptical about its ability to measure up to gold standards like the Garden State or The Last Kiss soundtracks, but this was also Megan Blacklock (who has heard both of the aforementioned soundtracks) speaking. So I gave it a whirl.

Everyone needs to go listen to this soundtrack. Immediately. Like I said, I was doubtful, but in the end, there's no denying that this is truly a behemoth of The Last Kiss proportions. I think Zach Braff himself would have been proud to have assembled this mix.

Just a few weeks away from the end of summer. I know that very few people actually care, seeing as how most people I know are done school. But being in Ed means that I still have one more year of school - and in fact, as it stands, I will never be out of school in the strictest sense of the word (save for the period of unemployment that is sure to follow teacher's college).

People are always excited to be heading back to university. With good reason, I might add. But even though we refer to Queen's as our Alma Mater, and even though we grow to think of it as our second home, and even though most of us love the time we spend there, it still isn't really home is it? I mean, I've always felt like I needed to get back "in the swing of things" every September. This, I know, is partly due to the fact that I've moved around so much, but even the mentality of being back at Queen's takes some getting used to. This, I feel, differs from moving back home in April. I have never needed to get back in the swing of being at home. And this is how I know that my home home will always be more of a place where I belong than Queen's could ever be. I don't know how to describe it but moving home in April always feels like I'm doing just that... moving home. And no matter how excited I get in September, the drive from Kingston to Toronto in April is always a cozier, warmer, and more comfortable journey than the drive from Toronto to Kingston.

In some ways, this is why I have always thought that it was a bad idea to move back to Kingston too early. I have never had the choice because it was either the Labour Day weekend, or the weekend right before classes start and I knew I wasn't going to be able to move in on the Saturday before classes and actually unpack/get settled by Sunday night. Again, moving around a lot does have that disadvantage - "moving back to Queen's" is a big deal. But every time I move back on the Labour Day weekend, I have always felt that that, alternately, gave me too much time. Because once school actually starts, you go to class, you have a routine, you have a purpose you know? From the moment you wake up until the moment you go to bed, everything you do has a purpose. Even creeping around on facebook has a purpose - procrastination.

But moving back to Queen's on Labour Day weekend - frosh week has always been a supremely depressing time. It's not so much that there's nothing to do more as you're doing nothing while other people (mostly first years) are. And I've always hated that feeling. It's not that having nothing to do is bad. It's having nothing to do and being in a place where everyone else is doing something so it makes you feel like you SHOULD be doing something. And that is how I've always felt about frosh week (after first year).

This year, I'm sure, will feel even weirder. Because up until this year, I've always gotten the feeling that at least, this is where I, not so much belong but, should be. Because I was partway through undergrad. And every time I returned, it was always a feeling of "well, here we begin the next step of undergrad". I'm thinking about the Con-Ed ceremony on Vic Hall steps: this is the one thing... the ONLY thing, I might add, that I have consistently experienced every single year at Queen's. And I know that if I attend the ceremony this year, I will feel extremely odd. Because it'll make me feel like this year is just like any other year at Queen's.

But it's not! This year is NOTHING like any other year at Queen's. Aside from having no friends (Christian, Teddy... I am looking in your general direction), I'm not in undergrad anymore. Classes don't work the same... in fact, they're on another freaking campus. Being part of a whole new education system at the same educational location is going to be a very disjointed experience. I think this is why, when people apply for grad schools at a different location than Queen's, they say "I've had enough of Queen's" when asked why they don't go to grad school here. It's not really that they've had enough of Queen's in the sense of being sick of it. I think they just feel like Queen's University is tied to one educational experience: undergrad. And to return to Queen's as a grad student puts a whole new spin on what Queen's University means to them. And this is how I'm sure I'll feel this year. If, hypothetically, someone asked me if I would rather do teacher's college here or at another university, you know, without losing the progress I've made in Con-Ed, I would, for sure, do it somewhere else. It's not because I don't like Queen's. It's just that being at Queen's gives me a certain kind of feeling as to what life will be like while I'm there. And that won't be the case come September.

Something funny occurred to me today.

And that is simply this: I don't think I have a very strong personality. I came to this conclusion when I realized that the way I behave when I interact with someone is generally a fairly good indication of the kind of person they are as well. And this changes depending on who I'm conversing with. It hit me today when I was debating with my mother over something and she criticized me for being too defensive every time we argue. I thought about it for a minute and realized that, yes, this is true. But I was also puzzled because I was like "You know, I'm usually not nearly as defensive when I talk to other people."

Originally, I thought it was simply the fact that she's my mother. Then I was like, well, it's not only just the fact that she's my mother, it's also that she herself tends to be very defensive when she argues. And for some reason, her defensiveness spurns me towards being defensive myself. And then I thought about everyone else I interact with.

I realized that whenever I talk with Karen, I always come off as having really strong opinions because Karen has strong opinions.

Christian is the kind of conversationalist who's knowledgeable but is also prepared to accept different viewpoints. And sure enough, I find that I become a lot more intellectual when I talk with him, but I'm also usually prepared to defer to his better knowledge if it gets to that.

Teddy is generally very easy going, but every so often, comes across something he will not budge upon. And so when I converse with Ted, we tend to agree a lot because of the easy-going-ness. But every so often, we divide on something and all hell breaks loose.

And I think that's the way it pretty much is with everyone else. It's interesting. Because it means I don't have a default personality. I wonder what it'd be like to converse with myself. Probably, I guess, something pretty close to conversing with Grant.

This principle also seems to work the other way around. If you're a douchebag, I'm pretty sure I come off as one too.

It gets even more interesting when I'm with a group of people... I haven't quite figured out how that part works yet.

Somebody please remind me in the future, after the 7th HP film comes out and before I read the books, to write a large review about what the HP experience was like, seeing the films before reading the books.

So far, I haven't fully reviewed any of the HP films because I tend not to review multi-film epics. While Harry Potter might not technically be an epic (I'm not sure of the strict definition of "epic"), you get the idea. It's the same reason I didn't write a review on The Lord of the Rings when it came out. The reason being I find it incredibly difficult to review a film when it's meant to be seen in conjunction with others. Then I think, well, is it supposed to stand on its own? Do I review it in relation to the ones that come before and after it? Things get complicated when I entertain the thought of reviewing epics that span more than 1 film.

I also, for the record, don't review childrens films, nor do I review superhero films. I feel like these 3 categories of film have their own criteria that I have not figured out yet.

But I do want to write about Harry Potter. I just have to wait until 2011 to do so.

Meanwhile, in other news, the hotel in which I stayed during my trip to Quebec got evacuated while we were halfway through our dinners due to fire. We had firetrucks and everything. And idiot tourists asking lowly employees what was going on... as if they would know. Interesting right? It gets better...

I was staying at the Chateau Frontenac.

Yeah, that big, orange and green, historical castle along the Dufferin Boardwalk. And let me just say something about the living experience at the Chateau Frontenac. The building itself isn't all that magnificent (all things considered). I mean, it's mostly hotel rooms by this point. The rooms were also meh-ish (considering the price). I mean, we only stayed at the Chateau Frontenac because my parents insisted on going on a long weekend and literally every other room anywhere near the city was booked. But you know what they say about real estate... location, location, location. And overall, I think the convenience of living in the heart of hearts of Quebec City justified the price (notwithstanding the fire). Everything was right around the corner; it was "on the way" to everything. So if it got hot, you stopped off at the hotel to change. If it got cold, you stopped off at the hotel to change. Never having experienced the privilege of living close to everything, I was most childishly delighted with having this option.

The following was my best line from the entire trip. I emerged from the Chateau for the first time on our first night and, upon seeing other obvious tourists with knee-length socks, fanny packs, and cameras the size of my laptop, proclaimed, with lively scorn in my voice.

"This is the worst kind of tourist trap... and I am the worst kind of tourist."

We did much romping over the next 2 days. I was primarily keen on revisiting all the places I had been to during my inaugural tour of the place back in 2000. I couldn't manage to find everything but that was due more to time constraints than any actual inability on my part. For example, I was fairly hopefully that the Maison Du Fort would be located on Du Fort road but I wasn't permitted to make a thorough investigation.

That's about it. The Cirque was in town but they couldn't perform due to heavy rains Sunday night. I also ordered an omelette from what might possibly have been the most beautiful girl I have ever seen. So you know, for those of you who are heading to Quebec City. It might be worth your time to have a meal at L'Omelette. It's right on St-Louis.

A 9 hour return trip from Quebec turned into 15 hours due to congestion... all on the Quebec side I might add. The multi-lane express got condensed into 2 lanes (1 in each direction) three times before I could even understand what the construction signs were saying. Who shuts down a major freeway over a long weekend?!

I limp home, more dead than alive...

In my absence, half the blogging world has had their blogs deleted. People's lives have exploded. Apparently, I left the world in a better shape than it was upon my return.

I also have pictures of Quebec! In my 9 year absence, surprisingly little has changed. I'll prove it to you all on facebook once I'm able to keep my eyes open for longer than the 5 minutes it's taken me to write this.