Like most of the world, I've been watching the news in shock and disbelief. The power of nature that struck Japan boggles the mind. Houses turned into splinters. Cars carried by the tsunami like toy boats in a bathtub. Thousands of lives lost. Mothers losing children. Husbands losing wives. Daughters losing mothers. A country in mourning, struggling to find the missing. It's heartbreaking. And the world weeps for Japan.
Like most geeks, I love Japan. I love its food, particularly sushi, but also miso soup and ramen. I love its magnificent gardens. I love its manga. I love its video games for the Nintendo DS and the Wii, like my favorite, Professor Layton and the Unwound Future. I love its anime, particularly Miyazaki's movies. Kiki's Delivery Service is one of my favorites. The wave reminded me of scenes from Ponyo and Spirited Away. Now I think I might never see those movies the same way again. I also admire the quiet stoicism and strength of the Japanese people.
Like most of the world, I felt helpless, and I still do. But I found a small way I can help. I created a piece of artwork for an auction: Art for Japan. http://showandtell.meghunt.com/post/3823882215/artforjapan It was inspired by Japan's beloved Hello Kitty. I just want to give that little kitty a hug and tell her everything is going to be okay. I hope she conveys my love of Japan and the Japanese people.
If you're an artist and would also like to donate a piece of your artwork to a good cause, check out the website and contact Meg Hunt. And if you're not an artist but would still like to help, I hope you'll consider buying one of the pieces.I'm sure every little bit helps.
All the best,
Shevi
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Art for Japan
Labels:
art,
Art for Japan,
artist,
artists,
auction,
contribute,
contribution,
earthquake,
Hello Kitty,
help,
illustrator,
illustrators,
Japan,
Japanese,
Meg Hunt,
Miyazaki,
relief,
tsunami
Thursday, March 10, 2011
How I'd fix America
I'm not a politician or an economist. I was a political cartoonist for seven years, so if what I'm about to say offends you, take it as being humorously intended. I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm just one person, and this is just one person's opinion.
I see two main problems with our economy: first, we buy too much stuff from overseas and not enough American-made stuff. Not only does this ship our money overseas, it ships our jobs there too. If companies can make more money producing goods in China with lower paid workers, they won't hire workers here. This doesn't just apply to manufacturing but customer support, some health services, and pretty much everything else.
The answer I see is to tax American companies that sell products here for every employee overseas. This should be a fixed amount, say $1,000-$2,000. Non-American companies should also have a tax added to the products they sell here, say 10%. This should also apply to parts produced overseas and shipped here to be put into products that are only assembled in the USA. This money should then go directly to American businesses to pay for American workers. For every employee who earns, say, between $20,000 and $50,000 a year in America, the company would get $1,000-$2,000. Basically, a fraction of the taxes those employees pay would help finance their own employment. The price of goods from overseas would go up, but so would employment in the USA and our ability to buy things. This would be a good thing for the rest of the world, too, because our biggest asset to the global economy is as consumers. Americans buy products from companies that employ the world. The more buying power we have, the better it is for everyone.
The second problem I see is that 60% of our government budget is made up of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--and that number is only growing as Baby Boomers retire and Americans in general become unhealthier. What most people don't realize is that the purpose of so-called "universal health-care" isn't to finance everyone's medical insurance but rather to force the middle class to finance minimal health-care: in other words, Medicaid. Everyone who can't afford good health care will get Medicaid, and the middle class will foot the bill. The rich, meanwhile, will continue to pay for the quality health-care they're already getting. This doesn't really seem like a good solution to me.
Instead, when it comes to health care, I would look to our current legal system. Today if you get sick because you once had a job that exposed you to asbestos, you can sue your former employee for your health costs, pain and suffering. That only seems fair. The person responsible for you getting sick should foot the bill.
But what if you're responsible for your own illness? Should the rest of us have to pay for your cancer treatments if you smoke a pack a day? Should the rest of us have to pay for your diabetes treatments if you ate yourself into obesity and never exercised? I don't think we should. If the only people who received Medicaid were those who became sick through no fault of their own, not only would we cut the cost of Medicaid by more than half, the quality of health care to those who deserve it would rise, others would be more motivated to quit smoking, eat right and exercise, and the new health care program would--gasp!--actually lead to people being healthier.
Because, you see, what we have now isn't a health-care system, but an illness care system. Go ahead, smoke a pack a day, spend all your free time in your car or in front of the TV, and eat nothing but fat and sugar. You might send yourself into a diabetic coma, but you won't have to pay for the tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills, so what do you care? This doesn't make sense.
The only thing I can say about Medicare is that it shouldn't be given to those who can afford to pay their own health care. If you have over $1,000,000 in cash and property, you shouldn't get it. That just goes without saying. Otherwise, I wouldn't touch that program.
I would, however, eliminate the forced retirement age and make retirement optional after the age of 65. People live longer and are healthier when they're active and productive, so why should we deny them that? I'd also restrict Social Security to those who are retired, don't earn more than $40,000 a year, or don't own more than $1,000,000 in property. Again, I think this is just common sense. We could even give a higher Social Security rate to retired people who work as volunteers. Retired teachers could continue to work in the classroom as volunteers, and that would improve their quality of life. It would be a win-win for everyone.
Speaking of teachers, the teacher strike in Wisconsin has placed a lot of focus on the cost of public education. This is ridiculous, not only because education is only a small part of the budget, but because there is no greater investment in our future. A well-educated student can get a better job, earn more money, and put more money into the economy. A poorly educated student will have a hard time getting a job, is more likely to turn to crime, and will cost society as a whole over time.
Still, I do have an idea of how we could save money on public education: I would simply eliminate all competitive sports. Too much is spent of football, basketball and baseball, and not enough on actual education. Lately we've seen high-school athletes dying, in part because of the stress such sports put on young hearts. We've also seen a professional football player kill himself because he couldn't deal with the adverse health affects the sport had on his brain.
Just like people should be responsible for the illnesses they get stemming from their own actions, I believe we shouldn't finance activities that harm our kids both in the short run and in the long run. Sports take a huge part of a school's budget, but if that were put into something else--like math, science, and computer education--it would better serve our kids today and in the future, and that would better serve our community as a whole. Imagine an America where instead of dreaming of becoming the next movie, pop or basketball star, kids dreamed of becoming the next Steve Jobs or Jonas Salk? Not only would the next generation fix America, it would fix the world.
Lastly, one of the reasons state and local politicians give for wanting to fire or pay government workers--including teachers, police, and firefighters-- less is that the alternative is to raise property taxes, and people don't want that. I think property taxes should be raised, but only on houses valued at over $100,000 per resident. You're married and you have two kids? Your family of four can continue to pay the same property tax on your house valued at under $400,000. You're a single guy, and you live in a $200,000 house? Either pay the higher property tax, get someone to live with you (like your aging parent), move into a cheaper house, or sell your house and rent a place. If we did this, there might even be a little money left over to reduce the property taxes for people who are living within their means or simply can't afford to pay those taxes, like the unemployed.
Like I said, I'm not an economist or a politician. I don't know if these ideas will work. But I do wish someone in government would stop asking, "How can we cut the budget without raising taxes?" and start asking "What's fair, and what makes sense?"
I see two main problems with our economy: first, we buy too much stuff from overseas and not enough American-made stuff. Not only does this ship our money overseas, it ships our jobs there too. If companies can make more money producing goods in China with lower paid workers, they won't hire workers here. This doesn't just apply to manufacturing but customer support, some health services, and pretty much everything else.
The answer I see is to tax American companies that sell products here for every employee overseas. This should be a fixed amount, say $1,000-$2,000. Non-American companies should also have a tax added to the products they sell here, say 10%. This should also apply to parts produced overseas and shipped here to be put into products that are only assembled in the USA. This money should then go directly to American businesses to pay for American workers. For every employee who earns, say, between $20,000 and $50,000 a year in America, the company would get $1,000-$2,000. Basically, a fraction of the taxes those employees pay would help finance their own employment. The price of goods from overseas would go up, but so would employment in the USA and our ability to buy things. This would be a good thing for the rest of the world, too, because our biggest asset to the global economy is as consumers. Americans buy products from companies that employ the world. The more buying power we have, the better it is for everyone.
The second problem I see is that 60% of our government budget is made up of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--and that number is only growing as Baby Boomers retire and Americans in general become unhealthier. What most people don't realize is that the purpose of so-called "universal health-care" isn't to finance everyone's medical insurance but rather to force the middle class to finance minimal health-care: in other words, Medicaid. Everyone who can't afford good health care will get Medicaid, and the middle class will foot the bill. The rich, meanwhile, will continue to pay for the quality health-care they're already getting. This doesn't really seem like a good solution to me.
Instead, when it comes to health care, I would look to our current legal system. Today if you get sick because you once had a job that exposed you to asbestos, you can sue your former employee for your health costs, pain and suffering. That only seems fair. The person responsible for you getting sick should foot the bill.
But what if you're responsible for your own illness? Should the rest of us have to pay for your cancer treatments if you smoke a pack a day? Should the rest of us have to pay for your diabetes treatments if you ate yourself into obesity and never exercised? I don't think we should. If the only people who received Medicaid were those who became sick through no fault of their own, not only would we cut the cost of Medicaid by more than half, the quality of health care to those who deserve it would rise, others would be more motivated to quit smoking, eat right and exercise, and the new health care program would--gasp!--actually lead to people being healthier.
Because, you see, what we have now isn't a health-care system, but an illness care system. Go ahead, smoke a pack a day, spend all your free time in your car or in front of the TV, and eat nothing but fat and sugar. You might send yourself into a diabetic coma, but you won't have to pay for the tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills, so what do you care? This doesn't make sense.
The only thing I can say about Medicare is that it shouldn't be given to those who can afford to pay their own health care. If you have over $1,000,000 in cash and property, you shouldn't get it. That just goes without saying. Otherwise, I wouldn't touch that program.
I would, however, eliminate the forced retirement age and make retirement optional after the age of 65. People live longer and are healthier when they're active and productive, so why should we deny them that? I'd also restrict Social Security to those who are retired, don't earn more than $40,000 a year, or don't own more than $1,000,000 in property. Again, I think this is just common sense. We could even give a higher Social Security rate to retired people who work as volunteers. Retired teachers could continue to work in the classroom as volunteers, and that would improve their quality of life. It would be a win-win for everyone.
Speaking of teachers, the teacher strike in Wisconsin has placed a lot of focus on the cost of public education. This is ridiculous, not only because education is only a small part of the budget, but because there is no greater investment in our future. A well-educated student can get a better job, earn more money, and put more money into the economy. A poorly educated student will have a hard time getting a job, is more likely to turn to crime, and will cost society as a whole over time.
Still, I do have an idea of how we could save money on public education: I would simply eliminate all competitive sports. Too much is spent of football, basketball and baseball, and not enough on actual education. Lately we've seen high-school athletes dying, in part because of the stress such sports put on young hearts. We've also seen a professional football player kill himself because he couldn't deal with the adverse health affects the sport had on his brain.
Just like people should be responsible for the illnesses they get stemming from their own actions, I believe we shouldn't finance activities that harm our kids both in the short run and in the long run. Sports take a huge part of a school's budget, but if that were put into something else--like math, science, and computer education--it would better serve our kids today and in the future, and that would better serve our community as a whole. Imagine an America where instead of dreaming of becoming the next movie, pop or basketball star, kids dreamed of becoming the next Steve Jobs or Jonas Salk? Not only would the next generation fix America, it would fix the world.
Lastly, one of the reasons state and local politicians give for wanting to fire or pay government workers--including teachers, police, and firefighters-- less is that the alternative is to raise property taxes, and people don't want that. I think property taxes should be raised, but only on houses valued at over $100,000 per resident. You're married and you have two kids? Your family of four can continue to pay the same property tax on your house valued at under $400,000. You're a single guy, and you live in a $200,000 house? Either pay the higher property tax, get someone to live with you (like your aging parent), move into a cheaper house, or sell your house and rent a place. If we did this, there might even be a little money left over to reduce the property taxes for people who are living within their means or simply can't afford to pay those taxes, like the unemployed.
Like I said, I'm not an economist or a politician. I don't know if these ideas will work. But I do wish someone in government would stop asking, "How can we cut the budget without raising taxes?" and start asking "What's fair, and what makes sense?"
Thursday, February 24, 2011
How You Can Fix the World
Each of us can. Like the child in the story about the emperor’s new clothes, sometimes all we have to do is speak up.
Here’s an example:
In 1995 I wanted to buy a certain book, but I couldn’t find it in any bookstore in Jerusalem, which is where I was living. Someone told me about a new American company that was selling books online (not dropping any names here: *cough* Amazon *cough*), and I thought I would give it a try.
I had a computer, and I was comfortable in cyberspace. In fact, I had studied computer graphics and basic HTML and had put together a fairly nice website on Geocities, with my own photos, graphics, links and so on. The visual web was just starting to take off, and I was excited to be a part of it. I loved buying books, and I found the idea of doing that online intriguing.
This new website was cool, but surprisingly unsophisticated. After ordering my book, I wrote a letter to the company and offered suggestions on how they might improve things.
Books, I said, are judged by their covers. Why not scan the covers of all the books they sell so people can see them? And why not arrange the site’s homepage to feature recommended books, sort of like a bookstore window showing off their most enticing titles? And how about dividing the books into categories, much like the shelves in a bookstore are divided by subject and genre? And what about a “bargain bin” section, where readers can find books on sale? And what about being able to look up books by price, not just title? I wrote that I had put together my own site, included the link, and told them I would be happy to help them implement these changes, which I was sure would improve their sales. I saw a problem that needed to be fixed, and I wanted to help them fix it, both for the company’s sake and mine as a customer.
I received a quick response. The person from the online bookstore informed me they knew their customers, and their customers were more interested in quickly loading pages than in being able to see covers and all the rest. It was “Thanks, but no thanks.”
While they might have known their customers, there were millions of other potential customers they might have been missing out on. But I shrugged and figured you can’t help someone who doesn’t want to be helped. I had done my part. I had spoken up. The rest wasn’t in my hands.
While they might have known their customers, there were millions of other potential customers they might have been missing out on. But I shrugged and figured you can’t help someone who doesn’t want to be helped. I had done my part. I had spoken up. The rest wasn’t in my hands.
About a year later, I received another email from that online bookstore. They were very excited to announce some changes to their website. Customers could now see book covers. The homepage now looked more like a bookstore window. Books were divided into categories, much like the shelves in a bookstore. And it was now possible to find books that were on sale.
My point isn’t that I’m responsible for this online bookstore’s success (although, you’re welcome, Jeff Bezos). My point is that you can’t fix the world if you don’t speak up.
Maybe it wasn’t my email that led these changes. Maybe I was just one of ten or fifty or even a hundred people who wrote to that bookstore to make the same suggestions. Maybe someone higher up in the company had already wanted to make these changes, the person who wrote to me was misinformed, and my email didn’t change a thing. You never know. But one thing that’s certain is your voice will never be heard if you don’t use it.
Don’t think no one is listening or no one wants to hear you. If you’re polite, and you’re genuinely interested in helping others, it’s never a mistake to try. The answer could be no, but at least you will have done your part. The emperor won’t know he’s naked, unless you speak up.
You can fix the world, but you have to speak up to do it.
How are you going to fix the world?
Labels:
fix,
fix the world,
fixer,
fixing,
how to,
speak up,
speaking up,
the world,
tikkun olam,
world
Monday, September 20, 2010
To outline or not to outline, that is the question
My stories always start out in my head, but I do need to outline before I write. It's the map to my story. Without it, I don't really know where I'm going, and I find that not knowing wastes too much time. My outlines are flexible, not written in stone. If I see where something can be made better, I'll, adjust the outline accordingly. That, in the end, is what it's all about, right? Doing everything you can to make the story the best that it can be?
You don't need a physical outline--many writers don't use them--but there are several advantages all writers might want to consider:
1. With an outline, you know where you're going and why. This makes writer's block pretty much impossible. If you have a map and a destination, you know what roads will get you there. No map and no direction leads to indecision, and that leads to writer's block.
2. The outline can be your sh**** first draft, which means you can feel free to write whatever you want in it, no matter how ridiculous. Think of it as backstage on a Broadway show. The audience doesn't know what's going on back there, so actors and crew members can goof around as much as they like. If it helps make a better show, great. If not, no problem. The only one who's going to see it is you, so the pressure is off.
3. Having an outline means you can start with dessert, as in start with whatever scene you feel most inspired to write at any given time. Usually, I'll start with the beginning, the climax, and the ending. I might also work in some scenes that particularly capture my fancy, maybe because they're funny or dramatic. How fun is that?
3. Starting with dessert means I can connect the dots later, and usually this means I don't waste too much time on boring, connecting scenes. I mean, if they bore me, they're going to bore the reader. Writers who don't outline usually can't start with dessert, and they don't always know what the boring connecting scenes are, so they tend to waste too much time on them. I think this was less of a problem in the past, but writing tends to be a lot tighter nowadays. TV and the Internet has led to shorter attention spans. We're used to storytelling that moves along quickly. Outlining can help your writing keep pace with the times.
4. In the same vein, write-as-you-go writers are more likely to go off on a tangent, which can be fun, but it can also mean scenes that will later have to be cut, cut, cut. Not only have you wasted time on these scenes, but you might have poured your heart and soul into them. You might think, "But that scene with the falling cherry blossoms was so beautiful, and I described it so perfectly!" Sure, but does it advance your story in any way? If not, cut it! As the writing advice goes, "kill your darlings." Outlining means fewer darlings you'll feel pained to cut. And it's not just scenes. Knowing exactly what your story needs in advance means knowing what it doesn't need in all areas. No wasting time on anything that will need to be cut later, whether it's a scene, a description, or a character. This lets you write and edit faster and with less effort.
5. You know that feeling you get at the start of a writing day? That feeling of excitement filled with a bit of dread, because you don't know what you're going to write? Well, here's the way I like to end each writing day: I start the beginning of the next scene I'm going to work on, and I outline the rest of that scene. Yes, I outline individual scenes. This way I know exactly where I'm going the next time I sit down to write. At the start of every writing session, I have in front of me the beginning of that scene, and a kind of "to-do" list for that scene. For example, "X and Y are walking along Broadway at night. It's cold. Y is pensive. X is suspicious. They enter a pizza place. X eats a slice, but Y just sits there at the counter, the slice in her hands. Finally Y confesses to X about Z. X seems to take it well at first, but then he walks off in a huff, leaving Y scared and alone, wondering if she was wrong to tell X the truth." It's not much, but now all I have to do is follow that check list to get that chapter written. I might also have a more detailed outline, with snippets of dialogue or some point I want to get across. It might say, for example, "Remember, this scene is all about X breaking up with Y, forcing Y go to back to Z, which will eventually lead to X having to rescue Y from Z." Now I know exactly where I was planning on going today, and how to get there.
6. Outlining means you know in advance what your story is ABOUT. This helps you focus. After all, you're story isn't about this character and that character and how this and that happens to them. It's about SOMETHING much bigger, like undying love, or sacrifice, or sibling rivalry. You can't really connect with the reader unless you know what your story is about. A well outlined story will usually be focused and mostly be about one thing, which makes it easier for the reader to follow. If you're focused, your story will be focused, and so will the reader. If you're not, the end result is a reader who isn't focused, who might just put your book down and move onto something else, maybe another book that's clearly ABOUT something.
7. And finally, sooner or later, you're going to need an outline to sell your story. You're going to need to be able to communicate to an agent or editor what your story is about. If you created the story based on an outline, that job is going to be a lot easier.It'll make it easier to sell your story at every stage, from the agent and editor, to the bookstore and the reader.What's a book blurb, after all, if not the hook of a really good, tight, focused outline?
Again, outlining isn't for every writer. Give it a try. If you find that it makes thing easier, faster, more focused and more fun, do it! But if you discover you just don't like that sense of knowing where you're going--if you write because you love that feeling you get when your characters surprise you, and you just can't get that with an outline--don't do it. In the end, each writer has to do what works best for him or her. What works for me, might not be right for you.
You don't need a physical outline--many writers don't use them--but there are several advantages all writers might want to consider:
1. With an outline, you know where you're going and why. This makes writer's block pretty much impossible. If you have a map and a destination, you know what roads will get you there. No map and no direction leads to indecision, and that leads to writer's block.
2. The outline can be your sh**** first draft, which means you can feel free to write whatever you want in it, no matter how ridiculous. Think of it as backstage on a Broadway show. The audience doesn't know what's going on back there, so actors and crew members can goof around as much as they like. If it helps make a better show, great. If not, no problem. The only one who's going to see it is you, so the pressure is off.
3. Having an outline means you can start with dessert, as in start with whatever scene you feel most inspired to write at any given time. Usually, I'll start with the beginning, the climax, and the ending. I might also work in some scenes that particularly capture my fancy, maybe because they're funny or dramatic. How fun is that?
3. Starting with dessert means I can connect the dots later, and usually this means I don't waste too much time on boring, connecting scenes. I mean, if they bore me, they're going to bore the reader. Writers who don't outline usually can't start with dessert, and they don't always know what the boring connecting scenes are, so they tend to waste too much time on them. I think this was less of a problem in the past, but writing tends to be a lot tighter nowadays. TV and the Internet has led to shorter attention spans. We're used to storytelling that moves along quickly. Outlining can help your writing keep pace with the times.
4. In the same vein, write-as-you-go writers are more likely to go off on a tangent, which can be fun, but it can also mean scenes that will later have to be cut, cut, cut. Not only have you wasted time on these scenes, but you might have poured your heart and soul into them. You might think, "But that scene with the falling cherry blossoms was so beautiful, and I described it so perfectly!" Sure, but does it advance your story in any way? If not, cut it! As the writing advice goes, "kill your darlings." Outlining means fewer darlings you'll feel pained to cut. And it's not just scenes. Knowing exactly what your story needs in advance means knowing what it doesn't need in all areas. No wasting time on anything that will need to be cut later, whether it's a scene, a description, or a character. This lets you write and edit faster and with less effort.
5. You know that feeling you get at the start of a writing day? That feeling of excitement filled with a bit of dread, because you don't know what you're going to write? Well, here's the way I like to end each writing day: I start the beginning of the next scene I'm going to work on, and I outline the rest of that scene. Yes, I outline individual scenes. This way I know exactly where I'm going the next time I sit down to write. At the start of every writing session, I have in front of me the beginning of that scene, and a kind of "to-do" list for that scene. For example, "X and Y are walking along Broadway at night. It's cold. Y is pensive. X is suspicious. They enter a pizza place. X eats a slice, but Y just sits there at the counter, the slice in her hands. Finally Y confesses to X about Z. X seems to take it well at first, but then he walks off in a huff, leaving Y scared and alone, wondering if she was wrong to tell X the truth." It's not much, but now all I have to do is follow that check list to get that chapter written. I might also have a more detailed outline, with snippets of dialogue or some point I want to get across. It might say, for example, "Remember, this scene is all about X breaking up with Y, forcing Y go to back to Z, which will eventually lead to X having to rescue Y from Z." Now I know exactly where I was planning on going today, and how to get there.
6. Outlining means you know in advance what your story is ABOUT. This helps you focus. After all, you're story isn't about this character and that character and how this and that happens to them. It's about SOMETHING much bigger, like undying love, or sacrifice, or sibling rivalry. You can't really connect with the reader unless you know what your story is about. A well outlined story will usually be focused and mostly be about one thing, which makes it easier for the reader to follow. If you're focused, your story will be focused, and so will the reader. If you're not, the end result is a reader who isn't focused, who might just put your book down and move onto something else, maybe another book that's clearly ABOUT something.
7. And finally, sooner or later, you're going to need an outline to sell your story. You're going to need to be able to communicate to an agent or editor what your story is about. If you created the story based on an outline, that job is going to be a lot easier.It'll make it easier to sell your story at every stage, from the agent and editor, to the bookstore and the reader.What's a book blurb, after all, if not the hook of a really good, tight, focused outline?
Again, outlining isn't for every writer. Give it a try. If you find that it makes thing easier, faster, more focused and more fun, do it! But if you discover you just don't like that sense of knowing where you're going--if you write because you love that feeling you get when your characters surprise you, and you just can't get that with an outline--don't do it. In the end, each writer has to do what works best for him or her. What works for me, might not be right for you.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
SPOILERS: Explaining the movie "Inception"
DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN INCEPTION
People have been asking questions about the movie Inception. What's real in the movie and what's a dream? Who is manipulating whom? Was the top at the end going to fall or wasn't it? What's it all about? Here is my interpretation.
Inception is a brilliant movie about a dream manipulator, who ends up manipulating himself. How do I know this?
1. Inception works like a virus, so in Incepting Mal with the idea that the dream world is the real world, Cobb Incepted himself with the same idea, and that idea became a part of who he was.
2. Cobb has the power to create exactly the dream world he needs to convince himself of his own Inception, so that everything that happens that seems to be real is that way because Cobb’s mind needs to be convinced that it’s real, whether or not it is.
3. There are several hints that show that the Inception has successfully deluded Cobb into thinking the dream world is real, and that he is in denial about this:
A. Cobb has replaced his real totem (his wedding ring) with Mal’s totem (the spinning top), which means he’s deliberately chosen not to know the difference between the real and dream worlds.The scene where he loses his wedding ring in the bathroom is probably his subconscious trying to remind him that he lost it, but the Inception wins out, and he can't even remember that it was his totem. The Inception has created a replica of his ring to convince Cobb's subconscious that he is or isn't dreaming, according to what best suits the Inception's purpose of getting him to believe the dream world is the real one.
B. Fisher and Saito’s characters are sometimes projections of Mal (saying and doing things that reflect Mal’s point of view, most notably Saito’s words about growing old together and Fisher’s discussion with his father about how his father was disappointed with him for trying to follow in his footsteps, which reflect Mal's relationship with her father, Michael Caine's character). Whether they come from Cobb or what Cobb has internalized of Mal is irrelevant: the Inception is still deluding him into believing these projections are real.
C. At the end of the movie--when the Inception is complete and Cobb is fully convinced the dream world is the real world--he walks away from the spinning top, choosing not to know if it will fall down. Whether or not it does is irrelevant. First, it's not his totem (it's Mal's), so it doesn't really show him if he's in the dream world or not. Second, it's not about whether it's real or a dream (although it is a dream, because the Inception wouldn't be complete unless Cobb is completely convinced the dream world is the real world, and vice versa). It's about Cobb's CHOICE not to know.
So you see, Inception is a brilliant movie about a dream manipulator, who ends up manipulating himself. What's real and what's a dream isn't relevant; only what Cobb chooses to believe is or isn't real. The Inception Cobb created is manipulating the entire thing. And the movie deliberately cuts where it cuts to make it clear to the audience that Cobb has chosen not to know that he's been manipulated by his own Inception into believing that the dream world is real.
One last thing, some have asked what's the audience's totem. A totem is whatever tells you you're in the dream world. For you it can be just reaching down into your bag of popcorn, or (in our case, because it is a very long movie) a trip during the movie to go to the bathroom. While you're watching the movie, you accept that the dream world--the one created by the dream (movie) architects--is real. And like Cobb, that's you're choice. And, like Cobb, that's your choice because you want, for those two plus hours, to believe in the dream.
People have been asking questions about the movie Inception. What's real in the movie and what's a dream? Who is manipulating whom? Was the top at the end going to fall or wasn't it? What's it all about? Here is my interpretation.
Inception is a brilliant movie about a dream manipulator, who ends up manipulating himself. How do I know this?
1. Inception works like a virus, so in Incepting Mal with the idea that the dream world is the real world, Cobb Incepted himself with the same idea, and that idea became a part of who he was.
2. Cobb has the power to create exactly the dream world he needs to convince himself of his own Inception, so that everything that happens that seems to be real is that way because Cobb’s mind needs to be convinced that it’s real, whether or not it is.
3. There are several hints that show that the Inception has successfully deluded Cobb into thinking the dream world is real, and that he is in denial about this:
A. Cobb has replaced his real totem (his wedding ring) with Mal’s totem (the spinning top), which means he’s deliberately chosen not to know the difference between the real and dream worlds.The scene where he loses his wedding ring in the bathroom is probably his subconscious trying to remind him that he lost it, but the Inception wins out, and he can't even remember that it was his totem. The Inception has created a replica of his ring to convince Cobb's subconscious that he is or isn't dreaming, according to what best suits the Inception's purpose of getting him to believe the dream world is the real one.
B. Fisher and Saito’s characters are sometimes projections of Mal (saying and doing things that reflect Mal’s point of view, most notably Saito’s words about growing old together and Fisher’s discussion with his father about how his father was disappointed with him for trying to follow in his footsteps, which reflect Mal's relationship with her father, Michael Caine's character). Whether they come from Cobb or what Cobb has internalized of Mal is irrelevant: the Inception is still deluding him into believing these projections are real.
C. At the end of the movie--when the Inception is complete and Cobb is fully convinced the dream world is the real world--he walks away from the spinning top, choosing not to know if it will fall down. Whether or not it does is irrelevant. First, it's not his totem (it's Mal's), so it doesn't really show him if he's in the dream world or not. Second, it's not about whether it's real or a dream (although it is a dream, because the Inception wouldn't be complete unless Cobb is completely convinced the dream world is the real world, and vice versa). It's about Cobb's CHOICE not to know.
So you see, Inception is a brilliant movie about a dream manipulator, who ends up manipulating himself. What's real and what's a dream isn't relevant; only what Cobb chooses to believe is or isn't real. The Inception Cobb created is manipulating the entire thing. And the movie deliberately cuts where it cuts to make it clear to the audience that Cobb has chosen not to know that he's been manipulated by his own Inception into believing that the dream world is real.
One last thing, some have asked what's the audience's totem. A totem is whatever tells you you're in the dream world. For you it can be just reaching down into your bag of popcorn, or (in our case, because it is a very long movie) a trip during the movie to go to the bathroom. While you're watching the movie, you accept that the dream world--the one created by the dream (movie) architects--is real. And like Cobb, that's you're choice. And, like Cobb, that's your choice because you want, for those two plus hours, to believe in the dream.
Friday, June 18, 2010
The Wish List
A few years ago, I started compiling wish lists. I don't mean the Amazon.com kind of wish list. I mean writing down everything I want: from big things, like a publishing contract, to little things, like a sunset walk on the beach. Some of the things that go on my wish list are concrete things that can be purchased, but most aren't.
I created my first wish list because my husband is terrible at buying presents. One year he bought me a basketball hoop. I don't play basketball, but he does. Another year he gave me a Nintendo DS with a copy of Brain Age. This, of course, sends the message that he thinks I'm going senile. Or that I might like to play any of the games that were available for the DS at the time, which I did not. (The first DS game I actually liked was Professor Layton.) The Nintendo DS went the same way at the basketball hoop, meaning my husband played with it and eventually gave it to our son. And then there was the year we vacationed in Boston on my birthday . . . with his mother. When we wanted to take a water taxi, she insisted on taking the train. She ordered food she didn't like just so she could refuse to eat and then complained for hours about it. Who wouldn't want that for their birthday?
So I wrote my first wish list and stuck it up on the fridge with magnets. My husband liked the idea. He says I never tell him what I want, but the truth is I tell him all the time--I just about hammer him with what I want--but he doesn't listen. He tried to give me a few of the things on that list, the best one being some time alone to write, go shopping, take baths, and so on without being disturbed by the kids. It was a few weeks after my birthday, but it was the best birthday present he ever gave me. I stood in Kohl's and started to panic. Didn't I have to be at home to meet the kids when they got off their school buses? Then I realized I didn't. I could actually buy myself some clothes without someone telling me, "I'm so bored. This is torture. Can we go now?" I could spend as much time as I wanted picking outfits, trying them on, and buying only the ones I liked that fit. Wow!
When you wish upon a wish list, your dreams really do come true. Well, maybe not all of them. I'm still wishing for that ever-elusive book contract. It keeps going from wish list to wish list, but hopefully someday soon that wish will also be answered.
So at the beginning of this summer, we sat down as a family and wrote a wish list together: "Our Summer of Wishes, 2010." Every wish we could think of was put down on it, from the mundane (4. Get passports renewed) to the altruistic (28. Teach a class at the library--Shevi) to the highly unlikely (3. Win lottery) to the downright impossible (48. Get super powers). There were 88 things on the original list we made that day, but my husband has since added 89 (Driving license--Shevi) and 90 (Become an American--Gidon). We've already made a few of our wishes come true, and we're crossing them off the list with a highlighter marker. This way we'll have something to aim for every day, and at the end of the summer we'll be able to look back at all the great wishes we made come true.
Psychologists once conducted a study that showed you're more likely to accomplish a goal if you write it down. That's the power of the wish list. Go ahead, and use it! Put "Wish list" at the top of a page and then write down all your wishes, from the most mundane to the impossible. Then put that wish list somewhere you'll see it every day. Then start making your dreams come true.
What would be the first three things on your wish list?
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Neil Simon on writer's block
"Some people misinterpret what writer's block is. They assume you can't think of a single thing. Not true. You can think of hundreds of things. You just don't like any of them. And what you like, you don't trust."
~from Rewrites by Neil Simon.
~from Rewrites by Neil Simon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

