Is a cookie recipe a weird thing to blog about? Maybe, but I have about five minutes of free time and I'd rather use it to bake than to write a coherent blog post.
I've made these cookies at least once a week for the past six months, and I'm still not sick of them. They're less bready than regular chocolate chip cookies because they have oats and coconut, but they still taste super chocolatey and delicious.
Ingredients:
1 cup white sugar
1 cup brown sugar
1 cup butter
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
2 eggs (the batter is delicious, so you can use powdered or pasteurized eggs if you don't want to die)
1 teaspoon baking powder
1 teaspoon baking soda
2 cups flour
2 cups oats
1 cup shredded coconut
2 cups chocolate chips
Mix the butter and sugars, then add the eggs and vanilla extract. Dump everything else in the bowl, stir, and then use your hands to roll the batter into little balls. Put them in a 350 degree oven for eight to ten minutes. This makes almost four cookie sheets worth of cookies, so you might want to freeze some.
Obviously this is very complicated and time-consuming, so it might be better to just play Cookie Clicker for six hours instead. Maybe that would explain my lack of free time...
...because this happened. Joseph Gordon Levitt, Jimmy Fallon, and Stephen Merchant had a lipsyncing battle and it was beautiful. Make sure to stay through to the end for the absolute best part!
A few weeks ago, my family and I went to the Lifelike exhibit at the Blanton art museum. I have to admit...I didn't really have high hopes for this exhibit. At the risk of sounding like a persnickety, "get-off-my-lawn-whippersnappers" old man, I don't really understand modern art. Why is a blank yellow canvas considered to be a masterpiece? I just don't get it.
Another reason I'm wary of showing too much appreciation for modern
art is that I've heard about so many art museum pranks (like Banksy's
awesome caveman prank).
I'm afraid that I'll be the tourist standing in front of the fire exit,
stroking my chin and murmuring "interesting criticism of modernity."
One of the pieces at the exhibit that perplexed me most was what appeared to be a piece of cardboard, leaning against a wall. When I first saw it, I thought I could do that - and then immediately hated myself. I sounded exactly like a narrow-minded Polluck critic.
Then I learned that the cardboard sheet had actually been painstakingly crafted out of bronze and I immediately thought, oh, maybe
it is worth something then. Then I was horrified. Is that how I
measure the worth of art? I wondered worriedly. Just because more time.money/energy was spent on it, it becomes more meaningful? How do you even define art?
The more I saw, the more questions I had. What is art? I puzzled. Is modern
art in a gallery more important than a street art mural? If so, why? How
does our perception of art affect artists? What sets the difference
between art and graffiti? Is it a matter of personal taste or are some
things simply not art? Are everyday objects art, or does a person need
to create them with artistic intent? If that is the case, then does photography count as art, if it's just capturing something that someone/something else
has created? If art changes through the ages, then is street art the
next step?
After watching Exit Through the Gift Shop multiple times, I felt like maybe I could have a bit more of an opinion on modern art (especially street art). I loathed Mr. Brainwash (Thierry Guetta) for copying the ideas of countless others before him, using street art as a way to get rich quick. He wasn't even making the art, I thought scathingly. He stole an idea from someone else, told a crew of underpaid carpenters to build it, and slapped on a three million dollar price tag. But again, I was measuring a worth of the art by the time and skill it took to create it.
Mona Lisa, arguably one of the most famous paintings to this day, is simply a woman with a mysterious smile in front of a nondescript background. It isn't necessarily the focus of the painting that has helped it to be considered a masterpiece for so long - it is da Vinci's skill in painting her. Artists like Andy Warhol take common objects (soup cans, gallons of milk) and change them in a way that will get people to notice them.
Visiting the exhibit raised many more questions than answers. After a while, though, I came to the the tentative conclusion that perhaps the true measure of art is how long it can stay with you after you leave, and how much each individual piece can alter your perception of the world, rather than the amount of time, money, energy or skill used to create it.
Last night, a few friends and I went to see PowerUP, a show combining music, dance, and spoken word in a production showcasing the workers or Austin Energy. It showed all that they do for the city, from the commitment and passion the employees have for their jobs to showing how much they do every day just to make sure you can have power. It featured a score from the fabulous Graham Reynolds, accompanied by Austin Symphony Orchestra with Peter Bay and the amazing Todd Reynolds, featuring the real workers of Austin Energy.
Spot the guy at the top?
They did exactly what I think they were aiming for: they opened my eyes completely to how difficult the job truly is. In one particularly memorable sequence, a man climbed all the way to the top of an enormous pole, sat precariously on the edge, and climbed all the way back down, the music all the while setting the scene by sound very horror movie-ish. They spoke of how many hours they worked overall, particularly when they are in manholes, the injuries of the job and how they are handled, and how much math and scientific knowledge are needed. All the while music swirled beneath the dramatic scenes, ranging from basic classical to Spanish and gypsy sounding themes. Todd Reynolds, the solo digital violinist, stood out as especially amazing as he took many solos over the orchestra. All in all, it was a fantastic performance from everyone involved.
I got the idea a few weeks ago to write about the manic pixie dream girl cliche, so I started researching, but that research inevitably led me to a New Girl marathon on Netflix, which got me thinking about the characterization of "whimsical" female characters in media, which inspired me to write this post which led me back to (500) Days of Summer and Breakfast at Tiffany's so I've been stuck in kind of a vicious circle with this post.
Anyway, the term manic pixie dream girl was originally coined by Nathan Rabin in a critique of Kirsten Dunst's character in Elizabethtown. He says: "The Manic Pixie Dream Girl exists solely in the fevered imaginations of
sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to
embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures." Ever since he wrote this in 2007, the manic pixie dream girl trope has been examined, analyzed and critiqued to death - so, naturally, I decided the internet wouldn't be complete until I added my own thoughts to the mix.
Manic pixie dream girls are often youthful or childlike, and are characterized by their free-spirited, whimsical ways. When taken over the top, they can seem shallow and frivolous, but usually they're eccentric and lovable, with an unquenchable enthusiasm for life.
Zooey Deschanel is basically the manic pixie poster girl.
At first, these characters might not seem negative. They're unique
(or at least appear so), they're comfortable being different from the herd, and they're contrary to the shallow female stereotype commonly found in other media. They even seem inspiring. I mean look at them, running around dyeing their
hair cool colors and wearing adorable dresses and living life to the
fullest. I'd love to re-create (500) Days of Summer - running around Ikea is a lifelong dream of mine, and I wouldn't mind inspiring Joseph Gordon-Levitt to dance in the park with bluebirds and fountains.
Ironically, the main flaw in the manic pixie dream girl character is that, well, she has no flaws. She is totally in control, completely balances her (off-stage) life and job, and is basically a paper doll in vintage boots; her life is reduced to a series of quirks. She experiences no character development, because she is not meant to be a developed character - she's written to help the male protagonist find himself and fully realize his potential. She'll go on adventures only to
drag a sensitive, nerdy, lost man behind her, infusing his previously
drab life with sparkle and shine. Basically, manic pixie dream girls exist to inspire men. They're an idea, a muse whose presence will complete the lucky man they're with.
This concept of a perfect woman falling in love with a flawed man and "saving" him, helping him to explore his world, or just encouraging him to relax, has been around for centuries, and is harmful for many reasons. Not only is this concept detrimental to women, preaching that a women exists solely for the benefit of a man (and that she must settle for a man who isn't her moral and intellectual equal), it isn't great for men either: it teaches that he can only reach his full potential if he finds his dream girl to complete him.
But dream girls are just that: a dream. They can't exist
in the real world, because no one can (or should!) exist only for the
benefit of someone else. Clementine, from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, summarized this notion perfectly: "Too many guys think I'm a concept, or I complete them, or I'm gonna make
them alive. But I'm just a fucked-up girl who's lookin' for my own
peace of mind; don't assign me yours."
Being quirky, impulsive or whimsical doesn't make a character a MPDG -
it's when she exists only in regard to the male protagonist. A great example of this is Lorelai Gilmore, from the show Gilmore Girls. She's quirky, childlike, and playful, and she has a business, a relationship with her family (particularly her daughter), and interests and hobbies; she is a fully developed character in her own right.
So how do you know if a character is a manic pixie dream girl? It's pretty simple, really. Does she ...
-Have a life separate from the man interested in her? (cheating on him with someone else doesn't count)
-Have a plot separate from that of the male character?
-Have a job, interests, friends that aren't directly related to the male character?
This video, the first in a series that discusses tropes of women in pop culture, is the perfect summary of a manic pixie dream girl.
~Maya
p.s. I got way too carried away researching this post, mainly because honestly, I like reading about this and I really like some aspects of these characters. I just don't like how they're portrayed in relation to their luuuuurve interests. So, in no particular order, here are some of articles I found about the manic pixie dream girl trope:
The original MPDG critique, by Nathan Rabin, can be read here.
You can find a list of MPDGs in movies here.
A defense of the MPDG can be found here.
Some reasons why it's time to retire the term manic pixie dream girl can be seen here.
Finally, some consequences of the cliche can be see here.
The world was made a much, much better place yesterday, and all just from a few short videos... It all began with this.
Then this, when I realized it was going to be a series and almost died. Then this one....
Are you reading his captions to these, by the way? Oh my god, the dancing. Then the grand finale. And no, as far as I know, there's no particular reason he did this. But I'm very glad he did.
