May 25, 2005

Can it be? Can it be?

I saw Gene waiting at West Oakland BART this morning. I thought briefly of dashing out of my train and trying any of several extreme and implausible methods to attract his attention and say hi before he caught his train, but this was mostly because it's a nice morning and it seemed like an unnecessary wild-goose-chase would be more fun than remaining obediently in my metal box and going to work. I did the latter anyway. Sorry, Gene.

Jacob and I saw Revenge of the Sith last night. THERE ARE SOME SPOILERS IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH. Since we walked out of the theater I've been attempting to decide which of two statements more accurately sums up my reaction. It's pretty much a dead tie, so I'll give you both:

  • It was satisfying, but it wasn't good.
  • It wasn't good, but it was satisfying.

What I mean by this is that the payoff scenes paid off, and the other scenes were awkward and stilted. How could it be any other way? Hearing Darth Vader take his first echoey breath through the black helmet would have to feel good, and it did. Listening to two hours of George Lucas's scriptwriting (less time spent on lightsaber battles) would have to make me wince, and it did. Everything else I've thought of to say about it has pretty much been said either here, here, here, or indeed in all three places, except for one thing. I've always thought of Darth Vader as a man at the height of middle age, someone on whom the James Earl Jones voice wouldn't seem out of place. When he says, "Luke, I am your father" in The Empire Strikes Back I always picture him remembering bouncing a two-year-old Luke on his knee before turning to the Dark Side. I'm not sure how to reconcile that with the story in which Anakin becomes Vader as a young man, a newlywed, not yet a father, not yet a Jedi master, not yet really grown up. It doesn't seem right for him to finish growing up in the Vader suit. I kind of want him to have a chance to live first.

Oh well.

Posted by dianna at May 25, 2005 10:47 AM

Who woulduh thunk it. Well ya I was at West Oakland BART today for about 10 minutes. A fremont train came first and I figured I'd like to wait for my train outdoors instead of underground so I went to west oakland. I enjoyed my 10 minutes of fresh air and summeryness as well as a really cute pair of shoes this chick was wearing on the platform.

Posted by: gene at May 25, 2005 12:41 PM

Cute shoes? I'm always curious what qualifies in a straight male's mind as cute shoes. Do elaborate.

Posted by: Dianna at May 25, 2005 01:15 PM

were they sugar shoes?

Posted by: michele at May 25, 2005 01:30 PM

I'm hoping for big stompy boots, myself.

Posted by: Dianna at May 25, 2005 01:47 PM

ummm, that won't be what gene thinks is cute. he's got a foot fetish and stompy boots don't really do much to aesthetically display the foot itself as they're mostly concerned with covering it all up for the stomping.

Posted by: michele at May 25, 2005 01:53 PM

Okay, now I'm concerned. Most shoes that people say aesthetically display feet are heinous violations of comfort and mobility. Tell me you weren't ogling some awful pinchy fragile heely thing...?

Posted by: Dianna at May 25, 2005 01:58 PM

Anyway, people who ride motorcycles should appreciate big boots. They go together like, well, boots and motorcycles.

Posted by: Dianna at May 25, 2005 01:59 PM

maybe gene's appreciation of shoes could be compared to the madonna/whore complex. as in hard-leather booted madonnas on motorcycles and comfort-violating 5 inch spiked heel wearing whores on a runway.

he always likes the whore even if he pretends to favor the madonna.

i think my analogy fell apart before i even started. stupid 'shrimp' book is influencing me. kim knows what i mean.

Posted by: michele at May 25, 2005 02:11 PM

Yeah, that analogy was totally doomed. Sorry.

I just ask you, if you find that someone's ass needs kicking and you're wearing tiny beaded heeled sandals, what are you going to do? Stand around wringing your hands until someone comes along with the right equipment for the job?

Posted by: Dianna at May 25, 2005 02:19 PM

are you kidding? do you know how much it hurts to have one of those heels shoved into your flesh?

Posted by: michele at May 25, 2005 02:23 PM

I dissapoint. They were high heeled sandals, like these ( ) but black not pink.

Posted by: gene at May 25, 2005 02:39 PM

i can't even begin to tell you how delighted i am that you included a picture link.

Posted by: michele at May 25, 2005 02:46 PM

I don't think it's uncommon for straight males to appreciate women's footwear, is it? Especially open-toed shoes.

Gene's also sort of gay for a straight guy, which I mean in no way to be disparaging.

"Heinous violations of comfort and mobility" is a good description of what's often appealing. It's like peacock feathers - part of the appeal is the lack of function, the aesthetic display simply for its own sake.

Posted by: sean at May 25, 2005 03:03 PM


Posted by: Dianna at May 25, 2005 03:04 PM

Wait, that's kind of a circular argument. They're useful for mating because they're appealing; it's not that they're appealing because they're useful for mating. Right? And you could argue that having the money for hurty shoes is a good indicator of economic status in the same way that feathers are a good indication of health status. Right? So they're totally unuseful except as a coincidental indication of something desirable.

Posted by: Dianna at May 25, 2005 03:16 PM

no. they're appealing because they are useful for mating. evolution has forced them to be more appealing in order to be mated with because otherwise the girls are like, "la, sir!" and whap the men peacocks with fans made out of the male's own inferior tail feathers and then go get busy with a super-bright-feathers peacock with whom they're also all "la, sir!" but the subsequent slapping noise isn't a fan and it goes on and on and on.

this is only true of peacocks. shoes are a whole other thing.

Posted by: michele at May 25, 2005 03:23 PM

and maybe the second 'la, sir!' is more like 'laaaaaaaa, siiirrr, oh my god do it again right there oh my god oh my god!' and then some breathy peacock panting.

Posted by: michele at May 25, 2005 03:25 PM

Missy, show me a picture of peacocks using their feathers to fuck. I just dare you.

Also, I have to point out my own hypocrisy here: my boots weigh five pounds and need to be worn with an additional pound of socks, making them as impractical in their own way as the dainty things Gene likes. I'll put up with one and not the other only because I find the boots hot. I'm just a fetishist too.

NOT a peacock fetishist. Will you cut it out with the peacock porn here?

Posted by: Dianna at May 25, 2005 03:28 PM

go approve my comment! it's banning me again!

Posted by: michele at May 25, 2005 03:43 PM

The question about sexual selection characteristics and things like the peacock is fairly large. John Maynard Smith wrote about it in his book The Ant and the Peacock : Altruism and Sexual Selection from Darwin to Today which I haven't yet read. Dawkins talks about it in his book The Selfish Gene in which he makes fun of Maynard Smith's ideas on the "handicap principle" (page 160) as well as A. Zahavi's "Fox, Fox" theory (page 159).

I guess my only point is, we're not going to figure this one out here in the Snoqualmie comment forum.

Posted by: gene at May 25, 2005 03:48 PM

Hey, stop discouraging people. I like it when my entries provoke 22-comment-long discussions, even if they're mostly unproductive discussions about peacock sex and half of the comments are from me. People, keep commenting.

Posted by: Dianna at May 25, 2005 03:55 PM

it would be longer if you would check your email!

Posted by: michele at May 25, 2005 04:03 PM

I did! See? You're approved. See how approved you are?

Movable Type is just threatened by you and your, um, I have no idea actually what's making it want to ban you. It's probably the cleavage again.

Posted by: Dianna at May 25, 2005 04:10 PM

it was apparently because i posted a comment with 5 internet links in it to peacock related porn images. which still isn't approved by the way. but thank you for blaming my cleavage. it was feeling left out again.

Posted by: michele at May 25, 2005 04:13 PM

Whoa! Those comments are showing up in my comment list as already approved! What the hell? Why aren't they here? Wait, I said no peacock porn, so I shouldn't be upset about this.


Posted by: Dianna at May 25, 2005 04:16 PM

This is curious

Posted by: gene at May 25, 2005 04:23 PM

so i've manually fixed it in the database. not sure why this happened. must be a bug in the software.

Posted by: gene at May 25, 2005 04:31 PM

To clarify, I was trying to say that peacock feathers aren't functional for survival, or for kicking another peacock's ass; their appeal is (arguably) for mating.

I think the shoe question isn't so much, "I'm rich enough to afford painful shoes"; it's more like, "I'm sacrificing functionality and comfort solely for aesthetic appeal". It's not the wealth; it's that the girl is specifically putting herself out there.

For me, it's not like the shoes *have* to be painful; it's just good that they demonstrate effort.

Posted by: sean at May 25, 2005 04:45 PM

I love spoiler alerts in reviews of Episode III: Spoiler alert! Anakin Skywalker turns to the dark side! He becomes fuckin' Darth Vader! OMFG!

Posted by: Chris at May 25, 2005 06:21 PM

Shush, you. I put that in there because when the transition happened actually was a surprise to me. I'm pretty sure everyone who reads my page ignores spoiler warnings anyway, so basically it was just an HTML exercise for me in remembering how to make the text red. Wheee!

Posted by: Dianna at May 25, 2005 07:09 PM


Attractive plumage #1.
Attractive plumage #2.

Posted by: Dianna at May 25, 2005 07:28 PM

I am a woman of simple tastes, so on a real live leg my favorite boot from that site has to be either the shirley boot (rowr) or the saloon boot, which is exactly what the floozies will be wearing to dance on my bar, and is available in red. Double rowr.

However, in purely non-sexual/aesthetic terms, I am delighted by the "smegg elevators". They're whimsical. As architecture, they're fascinating, grounded in a heavy, fortresslike base, and then becoming more and more skeletal as they taper to the sky. I want to work in a building that looks like that.

Posted by: katie at May 27, 2005 08:11 AM

a shoe which is both romanesque and gothic. i like your thinking, katie.

Posted by: didofoot at May 27, 2005 08:42 AM

Yes, well, if you worked in a building like that, you'd really need the elevators. You wouldn't want to be taking the stairs every day, would you? Zing!

I'll grant you the saloon boot. That's a hell of a hot shoe, and perfect for bar-dancing floozies. They say it's a granny boot, and you know which granny I think would wear it? Granny Weatherwax. That makes it good, because, see, she could totally kick anyone's ass.

Posted by: Dianna at May 27, 2005 09:35 AM

i kind of like the ones that aren't boots at all. though also the storm elevators.

Posted by: michele at May 27, 2005 09:37 AM