asakiyume: (miroku)
I'm nearly done with The Mountain in the Sea, by Ray Nayler, which I picked up hoping and expecting a cool nonhuman intelligence first-contact situation (with octopuses), and which has that, sort of, but is mainly about the nature of consciousness and the mind, human loneliness, and How Bad We Humans Are For This World Of Ours. To my amusement and chagrin, the plotline that pulled me in is the corporate scheming one--more so than the octopus researcher + lonely android, and definitely more than the slave fishing vessel. (Favorite characters so far: Rustem the hacker and Altantsetseg the security person.) But they've all been gripping enough to keep me reading and thinking.

I'll do a proper review later, but what I want to talk about here is the concept of "Point Fives" (.5). In the novel, a character remarks that many people don't really want to interact with a whole, complete other person (1.0)--too much friction! They want someone who's always interested in what they're doing--not just as a yes-man, but with genuine interest, asking appropriate questions, etc.--someone who has enough of a personality to have their own interesting quirks and unexpected conversational gambits, but who will never grandstand, never make emotional demands, will always take second place to the "full" person. (As I type this, it occurs to me that basically the character is saying that people want the stereotyped 1950s male ideal of a wife.) In the story, these exist! AI virtual companions. (Not physically, I don't think: just as like a hologram.)

Maybe needless to say, the narrative thrust of the story disapproves of this philosophically, while acknowledging its seductiveness. And I'm here to underline both parts of that! Both the disapproval, but also the seductiveness--speaking as someone who has essentially built up Point Fives in my head from time to time.

Example: When I was eight, friends of my parents came over from England, bringing two of their kids, one of whom, a girl, was my age. She read the same stories I did! Even the weird ones! I had a great time playing with her, and after she left, I decided she was my True Best Friend, my one and only. She wrote me letters in which she drew pictures of horses--and she could draw them so they looked real! I fantasized about her coming back to visit. I fantasized about her coming to school with me. I fantasized about drawing pictures together, going on adventures together, reading stories together, etc.

I did have some real input for these fantasies--she was really writing letters--but for the most part I was creating her to suit me. But it caused eventual disappointment because guess what! She was her own real person, with her own real interests, not ones scripted by me! I've done similar with other people. It always requires that the person be conveniently unavailable in some way: real, present people are not so amenable to this treatment. After years of experience, I now can recognize the danger signs of this behavior and (try to) nip it in the bud.

Meanwhile, I'm happy to say I've had real friendships, with people who are really present--not necessarily physically present in my house or neighborhood (though yes, in my house and neighborhood too)--but present in the sense that I'm interacting with them in multiple ways, and frequently, so we're seeing multiple aspects of each other. We have a sense of obligation or responsibility for one another--probably not an equal sense: for one thing, people are rarely exactly balanced in their degree of interest in or commitment to one another, but also, people need and want different amounts of commitment, and people have differing abilities to give. So it's not a balanced thing, and it's not without friction, stress, and disappointment. But it's also very rewarding, very beautiful, in moments.

In The Mountain in the Sea, one character reflects on not really seeing the people he's around. A traumatic thing has just happened, and it awakens in him a desire to have his eyes open from now on, to see and pay attention to the people (and one can extend this beyond just people, though probably we do own an extra something to our species siblings). It's the first step away from the solipsism represented by Point Fives.
asakiyume: (Em reading)
I've been daunted by the idea of trying to do justice to Aster Glenn Gray's The Sleeping Soldier here on Dreamwidth. Somehow I did manage, finally, to say a few things on Goodreads, but when I think about writing a DW post, I think about saying more, or making it more personal, or something. And then I wilt. And that's a shame, because I love this book. All of AGG's books are fun, thoughtful tales, but this one really nails a central theme of hers, which is what friendship means or has meant for people at different points in time, and what romantic love means, and what sexual attraction is and how that fits in.

The scenario is that Russell, a young Civil War soldier, was cursed, Sleeping Beauty style, by a fairy, and has now awakened 100 years in his future, in 1965, where he's guided through his new life by Caleb, a miserably closeted gay college student. The story has plenty of the fun you'd expect from that setup, as Russell encounters the wonders of life in 1965--and also enlightens the college crowd about which things were, in fact, present in 1865 ("I know what ketchup is," he says haughtily at one point). But it also probes the grief and loss that would go with waking up 100 years in the future, and touches on how we understand history--or don't:
Caleb nodded. "It's hard for people to let go of their preconceived notions [about the past]."

"They don't really want my opinion on anything," Russell griped. "They just want to draft the whole nineteenth century into supporting what they think. As if we all agreed with each other! We had this whole Civil War, you might could remember."

And then there's that theme of friendship and romantic love, and what's appropriate to express and what's considered by society to be deviant at any given time. I knew some of this, but not much, and very little about how same-sex attraction has been understood. In fact, what little I know is mainly thanks to AGG's earlier stories. I'm humbled to say that her writing in this book made me understand the situation of a gay friend of mine (Caleb's contemporary) in new ways. On that note, I really love the character Michael in this story. What a good and patient friend.

I came across this in someone's Goodreads review of the book:
I felt sad because I honestly never knew how it was in the past (men being open with their affection to each other).

And this, from an Amazon reviewer:
I came out in my teens, in the Midwest in the mid-70s, and the novel captures that sense of isolation and self-discovery: reading The Charioteer, Giovanni’s Room etc. anything with gay characters while feeling like you’re the only gay person in the world and trying to figure out how you’ll make a life. I never would have expected this book to capture the profundity and comedy of this forgotten world so well.

Those comments say so eloquently what's important and special about this book.

... But past-meets-nearer-past moments were also great, honestly. I enjoyed the explanations of things like hot dogs ("Hot dogs are... um. A kind of sausage") and Russell's encounters with items such as escalators a whole lot too.
asakiyume: (hugs and kisses)
I started to post this as a tweet and then thought, This is ridiculous; there are too many aspects to the question and too many long potential answers. So I'm putting it here!

When you were little, did you have best friends? Did you have several at the same time, or only one at a time? Or did you not use that term?

If you did use it, do you continue to now? If not, what changed, do you think? If you're someone with one or more life partners, how does having that person or people figure into the equation, if at all?

This question arose for me because I'm taking another online language class (Indonesian this time), and the teacher had us practice descriptions by asking us to describe our best friend, and I realized I had very dear friends but no one person I'd identify as a best friend.
asakiyume: (miroku)
I was just realizing that two of my friends here on Dreamwidth are building little miniature scenes. "Huh," I thought to myself. "That's an interesting coincidence." [the joke will be on me as it turns out that ALL my friends on Dreamwidth are building little miniature scenes]

Then I thought, "Wow, come to think of it, they also both can tell horrifying and yet entertaining stories of their childhood--that's something else they have in common. And they both enjoy gardening. And they're both writers. Well, everybody on Dreamwidth is a writer, so maybe that one doesn't count. Hmmmm, let's see ... they also both have some Jewish heritage, both love California, though only one lives there currently ...."

There are differences between them too, of course. One's about, I don't know, twenty years older than the other? One's been married a couple of times and has kids; the other hasn't and doesn't. They have diverging levels of social-justice orientation and cynicism.

So would these two people enjoy each other? Putting aside the fact that enjoying someone in person and online are two different things (with overlap, but not 100 percent overlap), lists of characteristics only represent a possibility for mutual interest and enjoyment--that's it. They're like tinder for a fire; they're not the spark. And the cool, wonderful, unpindownable thing about the spark is that when it's present, it can take hold in the most unexpected, damp, noncombustible pile of stuff.

It's why you can write in your profile "I like unicorns," but you meet that other person who also likes unicorns, and you see just how incorrectly, unappealingly, and in fact downright maddeningly someone can like unicorns. "I like unicorns--but not like that," you think. Or, someone says, "I love watching high school basketball games," and (if you're me) you think, "Uhhhh, not me, not so much"--you say that (again, if you're me) without even ever having watched one, based just on your miserable years of gym class as a child and your lack of interest in sports, generally. But then, for whatever reason, you decide to give it a try, and this other person's enthusiasm gets you to see what's fun about them, and you end up enjoying yourself, and before you know it, you *do* love watching high school basketball games (.... not me; but it *could* be me--I'm just waiting for that invitation from the right person and for the pandemic to be over)

It's also why I don't like checklists of characteristics or elements in books. Maybe having that element is necessary for you (though speaking personally, I don't think I have those, though I do have elements I want to avoid), but they won't be sufficient.
asakiyume: (autumn source)
All neighborhoods have these little landmarks. This broad, flat rock at the edge of mine has become very popular during pandemic times:



I see couples sitting here all the time. There's a woman who comes with a blind man; sometimes women-who-walk-for-exercise sit and chat here. Yesterday it was these girls, who said they didn't mind if I posted their picture--so I am!



Bless you, friendship rock.
asakiyume: (miroku)
Eve Shi introduce me to this great phrase, shy like a pigeon. It means someone who seems gregarious, but flies off if you get too close. I really understand that! I can be really sociable so long as there's a certain distance built in, like with .... drumroll .... social media!1 Specifically, the sort of interaction that you can get on LJ/DW. You can share all sorts of thoughts, chat, enthuse about whatever it is you want to enthuse about, even give or receive comfort and consolation--but you can also retreat, and by and large people won't mind too much. It reminds me of something [personal profile] sovay said about a writer's characterization, that his characters were "on the whole are drawn more vividly than deeply." It's that type of friendship, vivid but not deep.

Of course you can *make* it deep. I bet anyone who's been online for more than a few years has had serious, lasting friendships blossom from their online interactions. I know several people who've gotten married to people they met online. But when it gets deep, most probably you're no longer interacting solely through LJ/DW. Probably you're meeting up in person, sending private messages or emails, maybe exchanging paper letters, maybe phoning--you're getting to know the person through more than one medium.

But once a friendship is a deep one, you can't convert it back into a shallow one. You can drift apart as friends--that happens--but you'll never not have shared a deep friendship. And if you have a social-media space made up of people who are mainly close friends, that's very different from a social-media space made up of strangers and acquaintances. Speaking for myself (but I'm willing to bet this is true for many people), it changes how you interact. You have responsibilities in a way you don't if you're interacting with strangers and acquaintances.

Musing on the nature of online interactions and in-the-flesh interactions, and what friendship is, etc. etc., has gradually led me to the conclusion that I haven't been a very good real-life friend to very many people. I **haven't** done that thing that gets talked about in every movie and every essay on friendship: I haven't been there as a supportive presence for people in hard times. Not very much. Part of me wants to say that it took my mother dying, and having to be there for my dad, for me to understand what being there for someone really means. Kind of late in life to learn that stuff.

But I'm trying harder now. Still in a very limited way, because, see above, shy like a pigeon. (Or maybe I shouldn't blame shyness. Maybe it's just selfishness.)

I thought I might segue into talking about how being in a social-media space composed of actual friends lends itself to certain types of posts and inhibits others, but as I think about it more, I think a lot of that comes down to personal styles--it's actually hard to generalize on. Maybe what I could talk about would be my own feelings on that--but another time.


1And not just social media. Acquaintanceship through some shared activity can be like this; my interactions with people in my book group feels similar. Warm, friendly, but not too deep.
asakiyume: (nevermore)






I came online in 2006, which is much more recently than some of my friends here, but definitely makes me an online veteran compared with, for example, people in my neighborhood, or my family. As those people discover Facebook, they go through a version of what I went through when I joined Livejournal, becoming totally absorbed in online conversations, to the extent that they want everyone they know to be following along with their doings through that particular medium. They'll start telling me something in person with "Did you see about X--I posted on Facebook about it," and I usually have to tell them, no, I don't go on Facebook much, so I missed it. So then they tell me in person.

I realized that for friendships or relationships that I've made in person, I prefer my interactions to be in person (not necessarily face-to-face: might be via telephone or email or letter, but **personal**--not in a public forum). It's not just that I dislike Facebook: I don't want a preexisting friendship to suddenly become contingent on my attention to **any** online site.

It's different for friendships that I've formed online, even if they later become in-person friendships (or add a dimension in some other way): In that case, our friendship grew up through online interaction, and in that case I definitely enjoy and indeed rely on the online interaction.

How do you feel about online and in-person friendships and where you interact?


asakiyume: created by the ninja girl (Default)
Today Matt, of Where the Hell [now toned down to Heck] Is Matt fame (videos here and here), came to dance in South Amherst.

I was one of the first people to arrive, but gradually more and more people came, until we had a small crowd. There was a woman whose name was Forest--not Forest Something, or Something Forest, just Forest. She's a dancer. There was a young meteorologist, and an acquaintance of mine who does shape-note singing, and a pastor who is going to let me go up into her belfry to take pictures of her bell and who has a little daughter. There was a woman with her two grandchildren. So many people, happy to dance!

He came with just a smartphone to film with! And asked for a stepladder and a chair, and people found those things--and then for someone willing to film, and guess who was willing: [livejournal.com profile] wakanomori!

Here he is consulting with Matt (forgive the crummy photo; I didn't bring my camera (crazy), so this is taken with my cell phone)



Here are two pictures of the crowd that [livejournal.com profile] wakanomori took from his vantage point on the ladder (you can click through to see bigger) (Also, the pastor's church is over on the right as you look at the picture):





Here's the front row, where the kids were (my cell phone picture again):



After it was over, one guy called out, "You've been all over the world--what's one thing you've learned?" Matt thought about it a minute and said, "That people want to be helpful."

It's true--you could see it in action right there. A sunshiny thought.

Matt collects way more video footage than he uses in his final video, and what he got today may not make it in--but it'll be up on his website, eventually. When it is, I'll link.

Last of all, a posed shot together :-)



[Edit, from 2018. I'm going through carefully putting photos that were only available on Livejournal into my Dreamwidth photo storage, so that when I cease to pay for an LJ account, the photos will continue to be visible. As I do, I'm revisiting the past from the future. In this case, I know now, which I didn't then, that this Matt video would be lackluster compared to the early ones; that you can't go to places based on popular demand and have as interesting and diverse a video, and that the enthusiasm of the earlier years can't be maintained for ever and ever. Matt deserves to--and ought to--move on to a new project. Hopefully now he is/has.]


asakiyume: (Kaya)
I missed posting about what happened on August 20 in Pen Pal because I was posting about Irom Sharmila, a real-life political prisoner. Belatedly, then:

On August 20 in Pen Pal, an editorial in a national paper in Kaya's country questioned the wisdom of the agitation in the mountains.

People in positions of power often have a lot to say about what's wise or unwise for those without power to do. Sometimes they're even well-intentioned (though sometimes they're distinctly not), but they're almost always ignorant. "Why don't you just [do X]? Why must you [do Y]?" There are reasons, but the powerful don't take the time to learn them.

. . . More cheerfully, here are some Pen Pal treasures that a pen pal sent me--bottle caps, feathers, stamp, sea glass, volcanic rock, friendship rock, and--sea heart!




asakiyume: (feathers on the line)






Voices are often what pull me into a story--even before I can hear what they're saying, sometimes just their tone, their manner. That was the case with the story of Jose Armenta, a Marine who, with a German shepherd, formed a mine-detecting team of two. Terry Gross interviewed him yesterday on Fresh Air.


Jose, his wife, and their dogs (Zenit in the background). Photo credit: Adam Ferguson/National Geographic

He was so soft-spoken, so matter-of-fact. So matter-of-fact about his traumatic childhood--shootings in front of his home--so matter-of-fact about his dangerous job, so understated about a sense of duty so strong that when he stepped on a mine, his first thought was shame at having "f--ed up" by failing to detect it.

Understated too about his deep love for Zenit, his dog partner. The soldiers who pair with mine-sniffing dogs aren't supposed to let themselves get too attached to the dogs, and Jose didn't think he had--but as he lay waiting for the Medevac, he kept asking for Zenit. And the National Geographic article "The Dogs of War," which goes into more detail about Jose and Zenit's story, notes that for his part, Zenit lay down next to Jose, ears pinned to his head, and stayed there until the chopper arrived.

During his recovery, Jose often woke from dreams, calling for Zenit. Even though the protocol was for Zenit to be assigned to a new handler in this situation (which did happen), Jose started up proceedings to adopt Zenit--and eventually succeeded.

Even though Jose doesn't go in for effusive statements of love, in his voice you can hear how much Zenit means to him. Zenit, for his part, ran right to Jose's side when they were reunited. We should all have--and be--such true friends. "I'm a lucky guy," Jose says.

Yeah, because even though he lost both legs above the knee, he's now married, has a baby son, and Zenit. It's not entirely happily ever after, but it's the sort of happiness this life gives us, if we're lucky.

Profile

asakiyume: created by the ninja girl (Default)
asakiyume

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
4567 8910
11 121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 15th, 2025 11:58 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios