Valentine's Day

I walked into an APUSH review session this morning and was immediately greeted with, "Heyyyy. Happy Valentine's Day!" My reaction: "Oh, is that today?"

I guess, in some way, it had registered in my head that today was the 14th of February and that said date is indeed Valentine's Day. But somewhere in between those two thoughts, there was a minor disconnect.

I can't recall Valentine's Day being particularly special at school last year, but I feel that the various significant others of our school really pulled out all the stops this time around. From the oversized teddy bears to the generous boxes of chocolate, I could tell that people really... embraced the occasion.

On the scale from bitter-about-not-having-a-boyfriend to extremely-enthusiastic-and-in-love, I would say that I fall somewhere between apathetic and accepting-of-free-brownies-and-such. I won't rant about how Valentine's Day is just another day in which stores can exploit our society's consumerism and blah blah blah. (I will say, though, that watching boyfriends panic because they forgot to buy flowers for their girlfriend is pretty hilarious.)

No More Fishing

"no, YOU'RE SO PRETTY:" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSinrR1SHVA&feature=related

I decided to take a stroll down memory lane for this blog post and rewatched an old video (linked above) by an Australian YouTube celebrity/comedienne named Natalie Tran, better known as "communitychannel."

In her video, Natalie, often affectionately called "Nat," addresses an annoyance that all of us (I would say women in particular) encounter regularly -- people fishing for compliments. As in most of her other videos, she satirizes real life situations by acting them out, usually using herself as the only actress.

The sketch begins with two girls (both portrayed by Nat), one (girl A, let's say) wearing a nice dress and dangling earrings and the other (girl B) dressed in a casual t-shirt. Girl A, in the typical and irritating fashion, whines, "Oh, you look so pretty tonight. I feel so ugly." (Yeah, I know. "Are you serious?") Now, in real life, the situation would've probably played out in reverse. However, Natalie satirizes compliment-seeking by exaggerating the situation and adding this element of irony, which is only magnified by the fact that the two characters are played by the same person.

Of course, girl B then feels obligated to respond with a stiff "oh, no, you look so pretty," thus commencing a string of sickeningly sweet "no, youuuu're pretty"s and half-hearted "no, don't be silly... you're much prettier"s. At this point, I was already laughing aloud. The entire scene definitely seemed familiar.

I feel that part of Nat's comedic appeal is that she lets us identify with the situation by letting us hear the thoughts of the protagonist (so to speak), whose thoughts she says aloud in a voice-over. After all, who among us has not been the victim of an aggressive yet tactless fisher?

On a even deeper level, more importantly, I felt myself examining my own behavior. I'm ashamed to admit that I've been guilty of fishing quite a bit as well. Now, if someone had tried to say that to me in complete seriousness, I might've gotten a bit offended. However, Nat didn't have to directly state this moral to anyone. She got the audience (or me, at least) to consider our own actions simply by suggesting their ridiculousness. Although Nat didn't use too many formal rhetorical devices, I feel that her video is highly persuasive as a satire simply because of that fact; never directly advising her viewers to watch what they say (and get some self-esteem, while they're at it), Nat still got her message across, loud and clear.

If you buy a child a piece of candy...

Someone once told me, "If you let someone borrow something, make sure that you'll be okay with it if he/she never returns it." Of course, I, being the amazingly skilled decision-maker that I am, chose not to think too much of this advice at the time. And as all stories that begin with a moral go, I learned my lesson the hard way.

It was on a slightly cloudy Monday afternoon. I was volunteering at the middle school when a group of three little boys came up and asked me if they could each have a piece of candy. Now, let me say first of all that I am usually very much immune to wheedling and the like, and second of all that the candy I had was supposed to be sold for no less than a dollar a piece, mister.

But can you blame me for cracking under the weight of the expectation in those children's eyes? When one of them beseechingly said, "I didn't have lunch today," I sighed and reluctantly allowed each of them one piece of candy, thus eliciting seemingly earnest promises to pay me back just as soon as possible. The kids then proceeded to inhale the chocolate bars in the span of fifteen seconds and then bounce around in a state of sugar-induced enthusiasm for the next hour.

As you can guess from the quote that began this post, I didn't get the money back the next time I saw them. In fact, I still don't have the money back today, almost two weeks later. Heck, I've come to terms with the fact that I'll probably never get the money back.

In the end, I lost three dollars and some faith in the honesty of children, but I've decided to consider that the price of the lesson learned. What lesson, you ask? Why, simply this:

"If you give a mouse a cookie, you can write a fun and whimsical book about it. If you buy a child a piece of candy, not so much."