[Repost] On the notion of Belief - Do Science and Religion really have to be incompatible?

Am I a Christian, Pastor Timothy Keller?

A friend on Facebook posted this article from the NY Times and it's a great conversation between the Pastor and the interviewer, Nicholas Kristof, about questioning faith. Pastor Kelly makes some wonderful points questioning the notions that skepticism and science are necessarily incompatible with religion and suggesting that secularists 'should be as open to questions and doubts about their positions as religious people' - all things I not only agree with, but deeply believe in. I really do recommend people give it a read, whatever they believe. 

It was in that spirit, that I wrote the below last year. Well, that spirit and somewhat admittedly incendiary response to comments on a topic posted to the IFLS Facebook page about giving up sugar for Lent hence of the moments of tonal aggression. Why a repost? Because pretty much any response I have to the above linked article is pretty much already summed up below. 

As always, my overarching stance on pretty much anything is that I respect the respectful, regardless of where they stand on the spectrum of belief. 

Originally posted on April 4, 2015:

'Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.'

The National Academy of Sciences on the compatibility between science and religion

I do encourage everyone to read the rest of that page linked above.

Earlier today, the I Fucking Love Science (IFLS) FB page posted a link about what happens to you if you happened to give up sugar for Lent. I'm always somewhat wary of seeing links like this on IFLS, not because I'm not religious, quite the opposite, but because I've become accustomed to the hostility and mindless bashing that comes with even remotely daring to have the notions of both science and religion in the same vicinity. I have seen it before when IFLS linked to an article talking about the potential discovery of the birthplace of Jesus. Now I understand that IFLS and any similar sites are not The History Channel or otherwise historically informative, but when I see comments like, 'Why are you reporting on a myth', I am filled with a very quiet but very real fury (look up the history for two seconds, honestly). On today's post about sugar addiction that dared to mention Lent, some choice comments included, 'If you practise Lent, there's already something wrong with your head' and 'do people who fucking love science observe Lent?'.

Clearly that first comment is far more incendiary than the second which, outside of my own bias and doubt, could have been genuinely meant. In that case, I will answer it with a resounding yes. Some people who fucking love science actually observe Lent because they are both scientists and Catholics or Christians. In fact, growing up, the majority of priests I knew were scholars in science, most notably physics. Even now, some of my friends who are scientists and engineers are also very devout Catholics who have no problem pursuing science and practising their faith at the same time. Bearing further mention are the countless Christian or Catholic scientists who have contributed so significantly to our modern understanding of the world. How many people know who Georges Lemaitre, Angelo Secchi or Roger Bacon are? Look them up.

[On a personal note, I am a happily practising Catholic with a Bachelor of Science in Psychology (although one who admittedly chose not to pursue it as a career but professionally assists others who have) who agrees wholeheartedly with the use of the scientific method to learn more about the world around us. Any qualms I may have with scientific pursuit usually fall under the umbrella of scientific ethics (an area into which I undertook postgraduate study), often in the area of bioethics (eg. cloning), but such areas are generally contentious and without medical or scientific consensus so I'm far from alone on that count, religious or not.]

Essentially, what is upsetting and angering about comments that immediately jump on the science and religion can't coexist is that these days, some such declarations (not all, I'm sure, but many) are made without having actually attempted to read or research the idea and appear to have become Pop Fact, much like the notion that religion has caused the most wars (again, fury) despite the fact that according to recorded history, only 123 out of 1763 wars and less than 2% of all people killed in warfare have been classified as religiously based, according to the Encyclopedia of Wars by Phillips and Axelrod. Yet, people seem more than willing to blindly accept that religion is a bigger source of evil than outright human greed and territorial conquest and the need for power and control.

Also, from experience, a lot of people who seem to 'love' science, have no damn clue what it actually is. As a Psych student, I was often told by people I knew in the hard sciences that 'Psych is not a science' despite the fact that the method by which I spent a degree being taught to study observable human behaviour was most definitely the scientific method and the statistical analysis that followed (which I have gladly left behind) was engaged to ensure we were obtaining results as statistically significant as possible. We didn't do that shit for fun, we were trying to see if the variables we had manipulated in order to test our hypotheses were actually making a real difference - just like people do in labs. Pardon us for trying to scientifically research something that is intangible and therefore more difficult to assess. To this day, I say those studying cognitive psychology are some of the most creative people I've ever encountered. Being able to construct experiments to test and observe memory? Insanely imaginative and clever.

But I digress. As the statement made above by the Academy of Sciences points out, scientific reason and faith and belief look at things from completely different angles and ultimately, that's how you want to view the world - from as many angles as possible. Considering we live in an age obsessed with pluralistic thought and perspective, it's odd that people are then only willing to engage in understanding the world via one very often flawed means. When journalists investigate a story, attacking it from just the one side or the one perspective, it begs questions of bias, an agenda and a lack of objectivity. Why is it suddenly completely objective to stand by science and nothing else?

I think what people get confused is scientific fact versus scientific discovery and possibility. More likely than not, what many people take on board as scientific 'fact' is nothing more than the replicated results of studies that provide evidence for particular conclusions to be drawn. These are not facts, they are findings that potentially support hypotheses and once disproven or falsified, will be altered. As an undergrad science student, I was trained to write, '... there is evidence to suggest...' ad nauseum. Even in areas of more solid and tangible results, for example, biological or medical discoveries and treatments, there are only so many treatments, medications and therapies that work 100% of the time. As a sufferer of a number of chronic medical conditions, I can at least personally attest to the fact that many treatments that have worked on many past patients have not been able to work on me and I am not alone in that at all. When it comes to science, we do what we can with the knowledge that we have and still test what works and what doesn't. The rest, we take on almost as a form of faith, eg. I have never seen these medical results in others for myself, but I have taken it on faith that the medical community backing these assertions aren't simply lying to me. In that same spirit, I have never been to space, seen the moon's surface for myself or seen the Red Spot on Jupiter with my own eyes, but I have faith and trust in those astrophysicists who have done the research for me.

Now, if someone has no belief or has chosen not to believe in the supernatural (I don't, however, tend to adhere to the notion that anyone chooses what they believe. While specific beliefs can be altered, belief in itself is simply that. You believe something or you don't), then fine, if you have no room for any form of spirituality in your life or are happy in the notion that biological or neurological processes or quantum mechanics are enough explanation for the more intangible aspects of life, then by all means, that is absolutely your call. This does not, however, give you the authority to declare as fact beyond a shadow of a doubt, that those who do believe in a supernatural aspect of the world are either dead wrong and intellectually pitiable because in some cases, the likelihood will be that those people have put a lot more thought into it because that which is intangible bears far more need for thought by nature of its invisibility.

I do understand that there are people out there who have thoughtlessly decided to follow one belief system or another, among them Catholics and Christians, however, this type of believer is not strictly bound within the arena of religious faith. There are blind adherents to scientists, philosophers, hell, nowadays, even celebrities (I'm looking at you, Jenny McCarthy, incidental anti-vax champion. More fury).

Rather than demonise, however, as I've always stood by the notion that everyone believes what they do for a reason, whatever reasons they may be, at the end of the day, by all means, disagree, mock, even, if you really must, but maybe once in a while, instead of burrowing comfortably in your warren of disbelief/belief, ask someone you just do not understand - why?

Oh dear, 2016 did slow down in terms of books...

... but hey, there's always something to say about those wonderful things.

I never ended up reading To The Lighthouse because I came into possession of books by a trio of hilarious women and decided to proceed to knock off two of them. Then I got halted massively by Jonathan Safran Foer. Not sure how to speak of that guy's writing though I described it as delightfully insufferable to a friend. The man is imaginative and insightful, no doubt, but there's also something to be said for writing characters I can actually care about and I think that may be where it dips downhill.

Saying that, Eating Animals, though still unfinished, has really gotten me thinking about a lot. It makes some very, very good points about the real reasons we eat what we eat and delving into the cultural norms that many often never bother thinking about it, and it's certainly had me looking further into factory farming and their impacts. No, I'm not about to go vegan even though I already trawl the menus, but I am interested in bettering my understanding of more humane and more environmentally sound methods of farming and agriculture.

On the subject of fiction, however, after finally rolling over the mountain that was Everything Is Illuminated and then deciding to halt Eating Animals altogether, I went on fishing through my piles and have happily gone through the below.

Now Reading:

Some of my recently acquired and as yet unread titles:

From Gleebooks at the Sydney Writers' Festival 2016:

From POWELL'S BOOKS in Portland (squee!):

I've read some of the poems, actually. LOVE this man. His poems represent him to a tee.

From Graphic 2016 (and for free from Kinokuniya!):

Finished:

.

I had no clue at all of Mindy Kaling's lifelong relationship with comedy and my appreciation of what she does went sky high upon reading this book. And she is funny. I've admittedly found some of her past skits and bits less than fun or amusing (though of course, there was The Office so, colour me dolt) so I was initially surprised by the degree to which The Mindy Project had me rolling in its pointed and brisk hilarity. In book form, however, her concentrated mix of humour, honesty and insanity made for light but completely relatable reading. The whole time, I could hear Kelly Kapoor/Dr Lahiri's voices telling me each story and relaying every anecdote and in the end, I'd thoroughly enjoyed getting to know this woman who shares just as many insecurities as the rest of us non-famous chicks do and has chosen, again and again, to run with it all. That courage was one of the many common threads between her, Tina and Amy's books, where each time, I got to know these genuinely amazing women on a slightly more intimate level and learn that the difference between us all was a lot of hard work and circumstance and that is a difference that separates, divides and makes unique the lives of pretty much everyone. 

Tina is fantastic. I loved this. I loved so much of it. Ok, so another common thread between the three were the reminders that we've all been taught since childhood while being further taught the exact opposite on almost every other level - be you. Above all things. You are more than your face and your shape, you are more than your sex and you can and should be you, with all your neuroticisms, in all you do. You are worthy of respect and no one else in the world's words, ideas or opinions change any part of that because as Tina asks, "Who cares?" I could not agree more. Listen, learn, grow but don't let personal change be coerced by pointless negativity. Honestly, a wonderfully written book and, like Mindy, I loved getting to know the woman behind the humour just that little bit better.

Interesting and intricate though it was, this book slowed me down significantly. Maybe it was the plodding introduction of the narrator and his guide's clumsy English and the ever-winding myth and history of Trachimbrod, but I just felt like my ability to read came to a screeching halt. The historical background of the story is genuinely interesting and much like when I read Middlesex and learned about the Great Fire of Smyrna and the 1967 Detroit Riot, I was unaware of Trochenbrod's existence and its ultimate demise at the hands of the Nazis, having been a Jewish shtetl (a small town with a significant Jewish population). I was also not yet familiar with the notion of Magical Realism until I read this (a literary introduction not dissimilar to my discovery of Speculative Fiction upon reading The Handmaid's Tale) and this may have been a part of the hindrance because I've not a lot of taste for fantasy as it is (though Gaiman is fast changing this). I've never finished a single Tolkien, not even The Hobbit, and J.K. Rowling has provided the rest of what I've swallowed in terms of fantasy, that is, if we don't include the more fantastical elements in King's horror stories. Admittedly, I'm now finding myself choking on literary definition so I'll stop there, but the style did not appeal to me and the story was a slog. It might do to give it a re-read, but I have a feeling that what I'm dealing with here is a simple lack of chemistry between writer and reader. I wouldn't not recommend it, not at all, it just wasn't for me. I have been distinctly imprinted with the fact that Jonathan Safran Foer is a very intelligent man, but his storytelling felt rather like lead.

This was a really interesting read for me because by the time I read it, I had attended two talks by Anna Westbrook over the last two Writers' Festivals in Sydney. That she was from UNSW furthered my curiosity about her style and what reading her would be like and having attended a talk in which she specifically spoke about her approach to this very book, I had some idea of what to expect. Something I should mention here, is that Australian writers sound incredibly different to other writers and as someone who has still read shamefully little Australian Literature, I think I tend to find myself needing to adjust, despite the fact that a lot of the dialogue and the culture as written is actually familiar to me. It's simply a voice of which I've read comparatively little. So reading this, I found some of that jarring. I also found the tone and the description wasn't really to my liking. It reminded me of a book I read last year, by Hannah Kent - Burial Rites - which I understand was well-acclaimed, but that I distinctly did not enjoy. I found her language needlessly melodramatic and oftentimes overbearing... and that same criticism applies here to some extent. Saying that, I actually quite liked the story and felt for Nancy, Frances, Templeton and their families. I was still able be drawn into their lives and my pangs with the writing style only meant that I was pulled out of the story from time to time. It's also a piece of historical fiction which means I did think it an intriguing glimpse into Sydney's past. Though I only discovered this afterwards, a few real historical figures made appearances and the story itself was borne of an actual rape and murder of a young girl that took place in Newtown at the time - all information I knew nothing of about the city in which I live. Style aside, anything that introduces me to more history is something I'll appreciate.

Amy Poehler is amazing. I love her and I loved this book. Read it. Read it. Read it because nothing I say will be able to convey just how strongly she spoke in this book. Aside from being funny, honest, clever and so, so brilliantly insane, she clearly wants people to realise themselves. To go out and take on all the scary shit they want to do and try. She, like Tina and Mindy (and, I'm going to guess, every other comedian who has written an autobiography or, well, done stand up) very openly addresses her fears and insecurities and the constant battles you have with yourself as a person, and in her case, as a writer and an entertainer. Learning to stop hiding from those 'demons', and simply put them right back in their place when they try to corner her, prod her, remind her she's nothing, is a struggle everyone can understand and hopefully learn from. Overall, I highly recommend.

As I approached the end of Yes, Please, I fell quite ill for a week and ended up revisiting my childhood in book form, devouring 19 books in 3 days. Ah, the luxury temporarily incapacitating illness affords. The list is below as it seems both brutal for me to look up every single cover and then to subject all that to anyone who reads this.

2 x You Be the Jury books

1 x You Be the Detective book

SVH (yes, by gum, that does stand for Sweet Valley High) In Love Again

SVH Double Love

2 x 20 Mini Mystery books (one spooky, one not so spooky)

2 x Encyclopaedia Brown books

The Lifeguard (ah, the Point book phase of my pre-teen years!)

The Babysitter

Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys - Hits and Misses

Nancy Drew - Diamond Deceit

1 x The Usborne Books of Whodunnits

1 x Usborne Puzzle Adventure set - 3 stories

1 x Sleepover Friends

2 x Usborne Spinechillers - House of Shadows and Ghost Train to Nowhere

as well as finishing Yes Please, of course.

Suzanne Leal was another author I had the privilege of seeing speak at the Writers' Festival on a panel alongside Emily Maguire about Secrets and Survival. As a tale of suspense, it works very well and as that foreigner of sorts to Aussie stories, I found this one well written and full of characters that I could care about (or hate, as it were. Either way, there was an emotional connection or response). Terry, the subject of all the scrutiny, the man with a secret, was someone who I could not help but feel for the whole time. All I could see was this kind, caring, dedicated educator and carer being dragged through the dirt. I'm unsure if one was meant to feel more ambiguity towards his innocence, but from the start, I felt for him and his friends and the kids. I also enjoyed getting to know the rest of the townsfolk as Leal introduced them all chapter by chapter so that, alongside finding myself so invested in the story as a whole, well, can't complain about that. Furthermore, the importance of an education that really takes into account the real characters and abilities of the pupils is something I strongly believe in and Terry seemed to represent that integrity, only making me like him more.

There was quite the gap between books as I went through all the craziness at work, while simultaneously preparing for my trip. As I was spending most of my train rides falling asleep from sheer exhaustion, reading time largely vanished. In Portland, I finally made it to the unbelievably amazing Powell's Bookstore and after hours of browsing and getting lost among the many floors and shelves and hyperventilating over finding signed, first editions of books by T.S. Eliot and (breathe, breathe...) William Faulkner, I ended up purchasing three books. one of which was the above.

Hands down, this is one of the funniest and most entertaining books I've read in a long, long time. Yes, even including the trio of Comedy Queens above. Jesse Andrews did an amazing job of taking this teenage guy and his love of film and his carefully constructed social world and making me laugh out loud or have to smother my laughter in public as I went on the journey with him through a bizarre and often confusing new friendship. Me, Earl and the Dying Girl is a YA novel that I would want every teen to read (and pretty much anyone else, really) because it is so fucking frank and so, so funny all the while. Greg's inner workings are entertaining as hell and man, I only wish I could have been so humorously, keenly aware of myself as a teenager. Heart by the bucketloads, laughs aplenty - pure gold and my favourite read of the year so far.

Emily Maguire is a fantastic literary panellist. She has great energy and humour and, from the talks I attended, a real handle on human behaviour. What was great was getting such a sense of all of this as I read her work. This was a great book - fundamentally human all the way through and as wrenching as you could imagine a story about the fallout from a murder would be. I loved Chris' character's wit and grit and stony realism in an un-ideal world. I admit I had less empathy for May's character, though that probably had a lot more to do with my total disdain for two very specific things - cheaters in relationships and completely boundary-less and disrespectful journalists - which she seemed to embody from the beginning (though admittedly, technically not the cheater, still, why do that to another person?). Though I did get to know her better over the course of the story and get a better sense of the fact that she was largely trying to survive and ultimately get to the truth and my response to all that is a testament to Maguire's writing. She did well to create an atmosphere of constant mystery and suspense amidst small town folk and small town gossip and her characters were real, funny, irreverent and oftentimes surprising. A thoroughly enjoyable book.

A re-read and an interesting one at that, because this was sort of my writing bible in the early 00's and it is indeed also a beautiful and funny memoir, though oddly enough, the tone sat differently with me this time around. It could be that certain parts of the book age a little poorly, only because it was completed at the turn of the millennium (something poignantly demonstrated by the short story featured at the end, a tale which these days, may be met with a little bit more trepidation as partially evidenced by my own personal reaction to it after all these years), not to mention how much has changed in terms of the world pretty much transferring itself online, leaving his advice about letters and books quite dated. I still enjoyed it and was again reminded of what I love about his writing and his outlook on the world and the craft, but yes, there was a tonal difference from what I remember. A long while back, when Television Without Pity still existed pre-Bravo takeover, I stumbled quite by accident upon a discussion between Sars and Wing Chun about Stephen King and how he 'jumped the shark' by writing On Writing. I remember thinking their criticism was harsh at the time, equating him to your somewhat annoyingly 'wise' old uncle who wants to sit you down and tell you some tales, ayup. Upon re-read, however, many years later, I see some of what they're talking about. Though he often acknowledges that he only really knows what he knows and that's nothing, the way he then goes on to advise on the tools in the writer's toolbox seems a little incongruously pompous. I wonder now if I'm being too harsh, but it was a surprise for me to feel that way because I adore this book. It always pays to revisit though. Maybe I'll feel differently again when I'm closer to his age and I give it another go.

I finished this in less than two days, that's how swiftly and completely engrossed in the story I was. For a story seen through the eyes of the one character, and one who is (thankfully) not too prone to over narrating and overwrought description and is merely thinking and remembering and attempting to understand it all, Ishiguro did an amazing job of plunging me into the Hailsham world. Kathy recalls her childhood and adolescence and her burgeoning adulthood, complex though it all was, in simple, utterly relatable bits and pieces. Looking back is always an exercise in difficulty. Are you recalling things correctly? Are you even able to do that, as a biased human being? Then looking over the moments and events recalled, trying to cut through the thorny maze of confusion as you piece it all together and try to understand how the course of life and history could be mapped out and filled by those puzzle pieces of memory... and this doesn't even begin to mention the horrifying world in which this is all happening. I was fairly spoiled for this book, having watched bits of the movie's end and subsequently looking it up on Wikipedia and getting the basic plot down. Despite that, despite having a fair idea of what was going to happen, I was still completely within the story. Ishiguro is an amazing writer and this book had me wanting to ask humanity - why do you do these things? Oh, dehumanisation. The book presented it in a frighteningly pure form and knocked me dead with it, so much so that I now have a new favourite book and author.

Aaand finally done for this batch! Insanely overdue, but at least it's finally done. I've missed reviewing so it actually feels pretty great to get this up and to also 'colour my (blog) with the chaos of (literature)'. Now, Gaiman, sir, I continue my journey to The Ocean at the End of the Lane.

Cue GIF!

An accurate depiction of the state of my room.

Much hiatus. So brain dumpage. Wow.

It's been a little too long since I've gotten on there - another one of many, of course, inevitable pauses, attempts to regroup, rest, breathe amidst the constant battle for comprehension of a world so intensely full. Of course, I've also been genuinely busy, though since I've gotten back from my trip, I've had a number of ideas for posts - the joys of any form of travel, wherever it goes and however long it lasts, the shared experiences of so many different cities, the steamroller that is gentrification and progress and finding a balance between necessity and maintaining cultural life, glimpsing the spirit of different cities and the fights they fight, to jot down a few - and thus far, they haven't moved into the realm of published reality purely because of the usual mix of laziness and distraction on my part.

Frankly, I read too much. I don’t mean that in the way many would think… what I mean is, I read and then find myself trying to digest too much, of the world’s problems, mostly. I understand why people pick a cause and seemingly ignore all others because it is freaking exhausting.

Here’s an example.

Trying to argue in the debate on transgenderism while then having to take into account the biological science, the psychological development of children, the ongoing battles in feminism and homosexuality, the science and history of opinion and how that comes to play in a modern world where everyone’s opinions are strengthened by those who agree and cause increasing polarity between them and those who don’t, taking into account morality and moral relativism, the ongoing debate about mandating morality and having government favour a particular moral stance or viewpoint, the true development of each individual’s moral perspectives and therefore the understanding of background, the inevitable discussion about socio-economic status and people’s genuine access to opportunity, the notion of white privilege, the notion of racism, the notion of mandating laws about offence or offending people’s sensibilities and again the issue of moral superiority, the neverending question about those who have and those who have not and the machinations involved behind closed doors about what can be done about it all, the need to trust in the goodness of humanity despite overwhelming evidence of people’s greed and lack of foresight of belief in integrity, the need to trust in goodness at all when those believed in have made so many errors, even inside my own church, the notion of belief, the power of persuasion versus hard core belief, the history of all of it and the myths that have been bandied around as fact, sifting through truth and lies, the source of those truths and lies, whether they be the media, the education sector, the government, the lobbyists, the nature of journalism and the need to tell the truth versus the need to sell or send a particular message, positive or negative, the need for people to have the capacity to discern between fact and fiction, the need for education that creates those types of people, the need for true objectivity and the uphill battle in finding it because people are humans with experiences, ideas, backgrounds and subjectivity is the fallback position for anyone, however objective they believe themselves to be, the importance of history and how often that importance and how often the history itself is ignored and therefore doomed to repeat, the importance of the ideological and philosophical history, the debate surrounding whether or not truth even exists, the difference between truth and perspective of truth and the different means by which one finds it, the power of fiction to deliver and discover truth, the power of media to create platforms for truth and perspective, the ever changing landscape of how people see and learn and teach and speak, the inevitable debate about useless entertainment and its ability to distract from what is real, countered by the importance of culture in the progression of society and humanity, the sheer age of the medium of story and the way in which people seem programmed to respond to narrative, in whatever form.

I have to stop there because this will go on forever and at some point it will likely force me to plunge myself off the tracks altogether.

This is my brain. I’ve tried to say to myself again and again, pick something, anything, and then run with that, then lather, rinse, repeat.

But fatigue, physical, mental and emotional, are very, very real. And the reality also exists that none of the above exist without the others and in and of themselves, there already exists an immensity of literature and continuing schools of thought and discussion. The tapestry is so damn huge and unfortunately only metaphorical because trying to envision it all, trying to digest it all, trying to do so without feeling like you’re drowning in thought might be aided by an honest to goodness piece of something that maps all this shit out. Something to grab on to.

There is an actual throbbing in my right, frontal lobe at this very minute.

And now all I want to do is laugh.

I am a person with problems, much like everyone else, some real, some illusory, many, many which I feel don’t even begin to compare with those of the vast majority of the world, despite my childish cling to a notion of ‘difference’.

Thinking about this shit weighs a ton. But what a luxury I have, to have the time and means to think about it at all.

My daily 'battle' in this regard will always be the attempts to pick something and try to do something about it, granted I make the time. My life is what it is and I constantly try to figure out what more to do with it, but at the same time, I’ll be damned if I don’t try to squeeze every possible bit of meaning and offering I can out of each and every second because that is just how I am and I would never want to be any different.

Anyway, where to from here? The pot bubbles and I do plan to serve up some of the resulting stew. For now, at least, this place remains as it always has - a means by which to sort and share.

A nice thing to have, really. 

Unity Through Laughter - So Fluffy!!!

I seriously want as many people to watch this video as possible - the more useless stereotypes and preconceptions dead, the better (although may the humorously benign ones live forever! I can't take a world where an Arabian prince can't be in possession of a real life tiger and one ideally named Rajah).

Love this guy and genuinely love what he's trying to do with his work - it's a hell of a balance being able to remain genuine, truly hilarious and culturally sensitive without completely ignoring cultural differences and ultimately being able to highlight the humour in all of it.

Salud Gibril!

The closest I'll ever come to 'experimental' 'photography'...

... yes, both sets of quotation marks are necessary when you're talking about me essentially chasing tail lights in Rhode Island on a slow exposure in a moving car.

Nevertheless, it did make the drive back to Jersey from Newport that bit more enjoyable and some of these turned out a lot more fun than I expected so hey, why not post those bastards and pretty this place up a little? I re-stumbled upon them looking through the pics I took on my last trip to the US back in 2010 and found myself momentarily wondering, I was on what, now?

Of course, I secretly think I've delved into the untapped genius that is my photographic capabilities and am sure that anyone who sees this will demand I immediately contribute to a gallery exhibition on the sheer merit of all the pretty squiggles because, come on, look at those things.

La Linea!!

Yeesssssssss........

Destino (2003) by Salvador Dali and Walt Disney

This is one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen.

Having now watched the short film, it seems the most natural of combinations, but prior to viewing, I would have never in my life imagined seeing something that was so quintessentially Disney while simultaneously bearing Dali so brilliantly in its essence. The surrealism of Fantasia delivered no form of preparation for such a visual and symbolically emotional onslaught.

Tremor

Love, blood mingling death and life.

Time taunting ends, beginnings, curves.

Beauty an eviscerating waltz.

To-ing, fro-ing, eternity, atrophy.

Hope imbibed in gulps, in chokes.

Desolation, desire, helically bound.

Mind's lids droop inescapably rent.

Destiny swallowed whole.

[Repost] Islamophobia: more mindless generalistic demonisation of religion

Honestly, I really do hope to put something up that isn't quite so heavy some time soon because I'm not loving the general wave of tone I've been posting in the last month or so. That being said, the current state in which the world is simmering, boiling, burning, however you want to put it, does lend itself to moments of unavoidable painful reflection and self-reflection so it simply is what it is.

In that spirit, current events, particularly in the US and Europe this last month, have only shown that despite the flurry of events, so many core realities don't change. In trying to find answers to the horrors of the world, people respond in a myriad of ways, some as hopeful and as positive as can be mustered under the circumstances, some innocently misguided and others resorting to outright hatred, anger and vitriol.

It is that last point my original post looked to address. Anger, fear and hatred are actually genuinely natural responses to horror. But at the end of the day, if we've voluntarily chosen to remain blind to any further human consideration for other individuals, we have to take responsibility for that and any damage it may cause which, let's be honest, it often will.

I don't condone the notion of never questioning the beliefs, backgrounds and histories that lead to acts of violence, in fact that can only be a huge step in hopefully addressing the roots of so many problems. However attacking genuinely innocent people is simply unjustifiable. We can argue till we're blue in the face about systemic ignorance leading to extremism going unchecked (has that peacefully practising Islamic family passively condoned acts of terror simply by being Muslim? I personally absolutely do not think so, but the scores who disagree will) but ultimately, those who acted and those who encouraged and trained them to do so are entirely responsible. Any retaliation aimed elsewhere is just wanton and pointless vengeance.

Though ideally, I identify as a pacifist, I do believe in fighting for what's right and fighting for what you believe in which is why I can often admire even those who fight vociferously for things with which I absolutely do not agree. However I definitely believe in fighting against those who decide to attack who we are and what we believe in.

What I will never believe in is attacking innocent people.

Originally posted October 6, 2014.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Over the last week, the two videos below have been all over my Facebook, Twitter and news feeds. Both tackle the question of Islam and Islamophobia and the impact generalisation has on how people view Islam. I finally got to watch them today and, well, let's be honest, I love watching spirited debate and both delivered, just in very different ways.

'Criticize the person doing it, not the [country]'

It is odd to find myself potentially siding with Bill Maher because in general, I've never liked the man. I'm not a fan of his smug, sarcastic brand of commentary and his 'documentary', Religulous, while certainly entertaining, could hardly have been called objective and the fact that it is now treated as a factual representation of all (not some, all) religious folk by some still makes my blood boil. 

However, at the beginning of the video, particularly in comparison to Ben Affleck heatedly spluttering his disgust for their views, it was difficult not to see Maher and Harris' calm reiteration of the statistics as more reasonable. It wasn't until further on in the video I was able to see what Affleck was trying to say underneath his irritation and that, I believe, is the same point that Reza Aslan was far more eloquently able to make in the next video.

'To say that 'Muslim countries' as though Pakistan and Turkey are the same, as though Indonesia and Saudi Arabia are the same... is stupid.'

His point was so very clear and yet Camerota insisted on using the term, 'Muslim countries' as though Aslan hadn't already pointed out that the term was invalid about 5 times. Within the first few minutes, he succinctly points out that the examples that Maher was using to criticise Islam are in fact not representative so much of the religion as they are of the countries in which they are practised. I understand the point that Maher and Lemon and Camerota were trying to make about the statistics of mainstream Muslim belief and their own belief that this is indicative of a faith that ultimately promotes violence at its core and not just in its extremes, however it still doesn't change the fact that they cannot use that to justify a broad judgement of all or even most of who identify as Muslim - and yet they continue to do so. 

People say statistics don't lie. I don't imagine they do, but they certainly don't always tell the whole truth. If anything, the picture they end up painting more closely resembles an incomplete puzzle than a crisp and clear photo of reality. 

People and statistics are two separate entities and one thing I've grown to hate is one being mistaken for the other. They are indicative of either what has happened or what people think but they don't determine everything. I don't care if say, for example, a lower socio-economic area in society has a statistically higher rate of crime, unemployment or teen pregnancy or any other category of marginalisation for that matter. If you live in that area, until you as an individual finally act in a way that makes you fall into one of those categories, those statistics do not represent you as a person and are therefore in no way a determinant of your future. They do not define you until you let them.

It is based on this point that I agree with Ben Affleck more than I did his counterparts (until Sam Harris acknowledged that they were speaking of ideas as opposed to people). His point was that judgement should always fall on those who are perpetrating disaster. Not the faith they claim to represent, not the race or country from which they came, but the perpetrators, the terrorists themselves. The end. To focus the blame elsewhere based on statistics is misguided and dangerous because then the victim count extends beyond those directly affected by terrorism or genocide to even more innocent people who had absolutely nothing to do with any of it.

I'm certainly not saying that we shouldn't condemn dangerous ideas. Ideas are what drive these attacks and to pretend they don't serve a vital role is naive. But that still provides no excuse to unfairly judge and demonise innocent people who haven't adopted those more violent ideas. The beheadings in Iraq do not make it ok for the beatings and harrassment of innocent Muslims in Australia to have occurred as they did after the police crackdown this last month. That they did is abhorrent and a tragic manifestation of blind and uninformed hate. No number of bombings, attacks, beheadings or kidnappings will ever justify retaliating against the innocent and I say this as someone who has lost a family member to a terrorist attack. 

As Aslan said, those individuals, those societies or those governments that actively oppress and abuse people should be condemned but to breed fear and misunderstanding based on blanket generalisations leads to discord beyond borders because therein lies a very dangerous idea - that we have the right to judge people based, not on their own actions, but on the terrible actions of someone else. 

A response to fear in light of all that's going on in the world...

We

There is little else to do but continue.
Let the music play on
The words write themselves
And the smiles shine on.
Fear is a friend, not an enemy
It reminds us of what we have
What we could have
Who we could be
It only becomes a foe if we let it
If we allow it to consume us
To blind us to what's true and good
And keep us from doing all we can
Being who we can be
Even then, it isn't the fear that acts
Or doesn't act.
It is us.
We make the choice.
We are the cause.
We.

******

As most who know me would be very well aware, fear is the consistent underlying aspect of my character. There's no lie in my ease or in my laughter or moments of joy, there simply exists an acknowledgement that either hovering alongside or not far beneath is that little stratosphere of anxiety and doubt that has been formed over three decades of often hyper-sensitivity, over-awareness and an unrelentingly vivid and dramatic imagination.

Saying that, I still think the world is just as scary as it's always been, simply with more coverage. What I can't control, I can't, but because I'm often mired by the fear I so feverishly ramble on about above, it's too often easy to just allow the burial to take place and sink into dead mode. Not a difficult thing to do when I picture the people I love potentially being slain as they innocently go to Mass in the morning as they do every day and when I think of family members already lost having simply gone to do their job to provide for their family and, through no choice of their own, never come back. Fear throws aside realistic probability of risk or the fact that others have lived their entire lives this way and allows the notions to grow beyond proportion making me even 'happier' to sink into nerve bending oblivion.

The above is just a brief reminder that it is no excuse. I've always been of the opinion that my life is no one else's fault but mine and so I continue to think that way, fear notwithstanding. Atop that, is the broader reality that, so far as I'm concerned, my world is also no one else's fault but mine. I acknowledge the impact of other's choices but my responsive actions will always be mine and mine alone and for that I will always hope to take ownership of everything I choose and do and, following that, everything I inflict upon the world.

Now, to put some of that fear-taking into action, I post. Regardless of its triviality, putting anything up on this takes a chunk out of me and truth be told, I know of it garnering little impact, whether it be negative or positive. It is simply here and it is simply me. For the purposes of what I do on this thing, that is enough. I understand those who question that but truly, I assure you, the purpose is vital... in the absolute purest sense of the word.

Anyway, here's to ensuring that the sense of helplessness doesn't lead to actual uselessness in the face of all the crazy in the world.

Or... we could just go full Homer, a clearly viable option.

A Westie in North America

RENO-SAN DIEGO-SAN FRANCISCO-PORTLAND-SEATTLE-VANCOUVER

Well, a year out of the original hope, I finally head back to North America this September and get to knock off the western leg of that trip that will likely never be but hey, who cares, because *Honest Trailer voice* this is still awesome!

In less than a year, I'll have been able to make the rounds and finally meet all my titas, titos and pinsan after decades as the sole member of my family who hadn't yet met everyone - or anyone really, till last December. So, so pleased and excited to get to celebrate my cousin's wedding in Reno and spend time with my Tita in SD before gallivanting northwards and even getting to make the dip into Canada for the first time!

The Plan - she begins. 

War

It's strange to be so brashly titling this post considering the lifelong fear I've held on the subject. You could say I was a dramatically fearful kid and when I was about 7 or 8, I came across AJP Taylor's The Second World War - An Illustrated History in my brother's room and after that, my fear of kidnappers and cyclones swiftly turned into a fear of armies, soldiers and dictators.

I won't pretend I read the book in its entirety because I certainly never did however as the word 'Illustrated' would suggest, there were a great many pictures in it and many of those were intensely traumatising to a young kid. Sure, the rather comic pictures of propaganda from during WWII were almost a form of cartoonish relief, but I ultimately got the gist of just how horribly the world suffered between 1936 and 1945 and that new information was terrifying.

Not to mention well timed. In 1990, I was 7 going on 8, and much as I tried to avoid the news, I wasn't ever able to escape the reports of what was happening in Iraq and Kuwait and joining the growing mini-encyclopedia of horrors I was slowly constructing inside my head (thanks to Mr Taylor) were reports from the news, the newspapers and our monthly Reader's Digest, of the atrocities being committed by Saddam Hussein and his army. A measure of how deeply internalised this information became is a dream I can still vividly recall in which an Iraqi ship had somehow made it's way all the way to (the dream version) of Sydney Harbour followed by my dad and myself being taken prisoner and being lead onto the ship. Thankfully I woke up before anything drastic happened but I continued to live each day battling fear about a war that was happening on the other side of the world.

Then of course 1992 came around and the war in Yugoslavia broke out, the subject of which is the reason this post has come into existence. By '92, my consumption of new articles and stories of various wars had unfortunately increased and again my very sensitive young mind was not so well equipped to handle the footage of bombings and people huddling from snipers in Sarajevo. I cried a lot that year about the people in Yugoslavia and, being a kid, really only understood that Serbs = bad. My Year 3 teacher at the time happened to be Slovenian and her attempts to explain the conflict, whether she meant them to or not, only confirmed for me that the Serbians were the bad guys.

I remember reading about the 'Romeo and Juliet of Sarajevo' (again, likely thanks to Reader's Digest) and wondering why, why, why would the sniper have taken the shot. Did he not know that the boy, Bosko, was a Serb? Did he not understand that if Bosko could love their 'enemy', maybe there was no reason to kill them? I know now that it was never determined that a Serb killed the two but I wasn't to know that back then and all of it just felt senseless. Later in high school, I would end up reading Zlata's Diary not too far followed by The Diary of Anne Frank, and hating the level of innocence that had to suffer at the hands of powers who simply did not care.

As I write this, I'm suddenly reminded that the reports of this kind obviously never ended, but, as this article I found from 1994 states, they simply changed places. Mixed up in amongst the stories and reports from Iraq and Yugoslavia, were the reports from Rwanda and learning that Hutus and Tutsis existed. It was just ongoing and alongside the more fun things that Buzzfeed likes to remind us of about the early '90s, these are things that I also associate with that time.

Yesterday and today, I ended up Wiki-ing the siege at Sarajevo, realising that I still didn't really have a complete idea of what happened at the time. Even before I'd ever set foot in Europe, something that still sets off a ping in my mind is when people have referred to or spoken of Serbia and Bosnia as 'amazing holiday destinations' because my immediate association is a war which somehow still feels recent. Bearing that in mind, I decided to look it up and here I am, slowly recalling bits and pieces that I'd read at the time and filling in more of the gaps.

I associate all of the conflicts mentioned above with the pre-9/11 world - a world which as of late, I'd begun to see with the rosiest of coloured glasses. 9/11, the wars that followed in Afghanistan and Iraq, the terrorist attacks in Madrid, London, Mumbai, the civil war in Syria and the rise of Islamic State not to mention the increasing frequency and spread of attacks, these things have inevitably led to thoughts of just how far flung the world is. Of course, it's not hard to feel that way in the face of the current state of the world and our increasing ability to see it all happen as it happens.

But then I read again about events like Sarajevo and quickly remember, alongside the aforementioned concurrent conflicts, things like the constant reports from the Middle East, Rodney King and the LA riots, the earlier bombings in NYC and the World Trade Centre, the shootings in Port Arthur and Dunblane and of course later, in Columbine and remember just how often I thought the world was 'dying' back then, too. These days, the nature of news and social media only means we hear about more incidents more quickly so it makes sense that the world could be just as bad as it was back then, only we're reading and hearing more about it now.

And that notion could be further supported by the fact that, despite wherever we are now, the world is probably at a point where most 'civilised' countries aren't all at open war with one another. Unlike the centuries prior. With the recent Brexit and discussion around the efficacy and the purpose of the EU, it still amazes me that a set of such closely packed countries that have easily spent the last two millennia at war have lived in relative peace since the end of WWII. Barring, of course, the former Yugoslavia and the recent Russian annexation of Crimea and infiltration of Ukraine.

I now wonder how naive a notion that is in itself. The Middle East continues to rage on, Afghanistan is still tattered by violence, the South China Sea only continues to simmer, Venezuela is in the process of civil collapse, Boko Haram continues to tear Nigeria apart, extreme racist groups are growing in popularity, just to name a few things... we don't all have to be bombing one another to be destroying one another.

But honestly, the conclusion I end up drawing, if you can even call it that, is similar to that of the article I linked earlier. This is the world's curse. I grew up with the above, my parents' generation were doing nuclear attack drills in their classrooms, my grandparents' generation endured the world wars as did their parents, and so on.

So I'm going to out and out disagree with anyone saying the world is more screwed now than it's ever been (multifaceted topic, I know, but in terms of global and territorial conflict, I'm going with it and from the looks of things, Google agrees with me, reliable bastion of knowledge that it is). It's just behaving as it always has. People will always want power, territory, identity... and there will always exist those who decide to kill to get them, the sad truth remaining that innocent people will be the most numerous casualties. It's difficult to end on a positive note after such a conclusion and particularly considering this all remains a very real personal fear, except to acknowledge and genuinely appreciate the fortune and privilege in which I get to live when so many needlessly suffer purely due to an accident of birth.

In the meantime, to lighten this just a touch, something I read on Cracked a couple years ago - 18 Undeniable Facts That Prove the World Is Getting Better. Sure, it's a little US-centric, however entries 17, 12, 7, 2 and 1 do garner cause for hope.

The Briefest of Comments on the Australian Federal Election (or pretty much any election)...

... brief from sheer fatigue after reading, thinking, reacting and having to finally pull away from the never ending campaigning and opinion jockeying alongside the wish to still put in a cent.

Voting may seem like a time when our voices are quietest, like a drop in the ocean of already minuscule hope for change.

But as I was reminded by a wise friend not that long ago as we were discussing the emergence of candidates like Trump and Duterte, at the end of the day, as a whole, we end up with the elected officials/parties we deserve.

Key word: Elected.

Vote and be sure you at least begin to be heard.

Every day, I attend my own burial.

Flogging Flicks

[ETA: so I completely forgot about Paris je T'aime which I reviewed earlier this year. Goes to show how long ago even February felt!]

So clearly books get quite the bit of attention from me here and it's literally been years since I properly recommended or reviewed a movie, which is crazy because just as I love allowing myself and my imagination to disappear into the worlds the written word conjures up, I also love the total sensory and emotional surrender you get when you go to the cinema.

Seriously, considering my love of story is great enough to allow me to be enamored by random internet urban legends (see: Slender Man) and games backstories (see: pretty much any backdrop and history for any video game, even those I don't play which, let's be honest, is pretty much most of them), one of my favourite things in the world is getting to sit in that darkened movie theatre and just enjoy incredible stories, amazing performances, the most beautifully composed scores, awesome cinematography and, where it fits, well crafted special effects.

So far this year, I've only seen a few movies at the cinema (oh, Schmoes and other movie hoes, how I envy the sheer number of movies you get to see) but I've enjoyed each and every one. Funnily enough, as I tried to remember what else I'd seen this 2016 it also occurred to me that I went with the absolute perfect people to see each film which only made them more enjoyable.

Eddie The Eagle

What a fun movie! As a fan of Taron Egerton and Hugh Jackman (more so after following the Eddie press junkets - what a ridiculously charming pair), I was really looking forward to this movie and I love that it introduced me to a person I'd never heard of before. In '88, I was in kindergarten and I don't recall even caring about the Olympics, let alone the Winter Olympics (and I certainly didn't watch the news, my childhood self shudders at the notion). Jackman has made numerous comments about how well-loved Michael 'Eddie' Edwards was in Australia at the time, but that all flew right over my head so learning about him and his dogged persistence and dedication was really enjoyable and this movie paid him lovely tribute. He even thinks so himself which is a credit to both actors and to Dexter Fletcher who manned the helm on this. Yeah that's right, Spike from Press Gang directed this movie, a fact which only added to my 80s nostalgia watching it.

'You don't have to win to be a winner' is a line Hugh Jackman's credited to a friend who saw the movie and repeatedly mentioned in interviews when drawing out the heart of the movie. Spot on. Eddie Edwards was a dreamer who really fought for his chance to compete in the Olympics and then took on the challenge and all its subsequent challenges with seriousness and dedication. For him, it wasn't about being the best, something he may never be (and ultimately many of us will never be). It was about doing the thing he loved and really giving it the best go he could possibly give.

Yes, this movie definitely had its sports movie cliche moments - the comedic fumbles, the uplifting speeches, the fun training montage - however as many reviewers before myself have said, Eddie the Eagle embraced its light-hearted ambitions to simply entertain you with a great sportsy story. I loved the fact that Fletcher enlisted actual artists from the 80s to bring to life a wonderfully 80s synth-embued score and I loved that he was so intent on taking us on the ski jumps with his crazy shots from atop the different heights, making seeing it in the cinema so much more worthwhile. And of course, the relationship between Eddie and Bronson was made all the more fun thanks to Egerton and Jackman's clear delight in each other's work and company. Seeing this with Ma and my sisters was a great cherry topper because it was definitely a great family flick that was both entertaining and inspiring.

Do I rate? Should I rate? If I could, I'd probably give it a good 4 1/2 out of 5 stars because it was what it was, it loved what it was and I loved it for that.

Captain America: Civil War

I went with the guys to see this and holy crap, I loved this movie. Sure, it helps that I love pretty much everyone in it (Evans, Mackie, Stan, Renner, Downey Jr., Cheadle, Rudd, Bruhl..!) but hell, even the trailer above was awesome. The set up without the pay off would have been severely disappointing, but thankfully it wasn't. At all. The Russo brothers nailed this movie. Though I'm definitely still curious about just how successful they were in making it Honest Trailer-Proof, I'd say they've likely done a great job.

The question of responsibility for all the innocent lives lost in every battle is an important one thus the notion of a force being put in place to reign in the Avengers makes absolute sense but at the same time, Steve's doubts as to the integrity of such a force are also completely understandable and these conflicts help to blur the lines between a clear good and bad side in the story. They all have reasons and they all have a point and in the end, they just have to fight for what they think is right and you can't not feel for everyone involved. Every single character in this movie made me give a damn about who they were and what they were trying to do and I was drawn in from beginning to end. Tony's guilt, Steve's love for his friend and everyone around him, Bucky's battle with himself, alongside everyone else's fear, anger and loss pulled this movie far above its (genuinely fantastic) action. Seriously, brilliantly written and excellently acted.

I'll rein in more gush as I could go on a lot longer but to run through moments of brilliance - the recruitment of the teams (bless you. Paul Rudd, my gosh, your addition to this franchise just makes me happy... and Peter Parker!), Bruhl (yes, a second mention - I love this guy), the airport sequence and of course, the revelation about Tony's parents which killed me to watch. I've been a fan of RDJ since the 80s so my faith in his acting is fairly solid and this scene punched me square in the gut.

This one was a happy 5/5 for me. I understand the questions a lot of people have regarding the plot and the motives, particularly Zemo, but it all worked for me so I was thoroughly entertained.

X-Men: Apocalypse

As a fan of the old X-Men cartoon, I remember being pretty excited to watch the movies when they first came out. To my friends, I am well known as a non-fan of a lot of the casting, particularly Anna Paquin as Rogue and I was even more critical of the omission of Gambit and I remain so to this day. Then when X-Men: First Class came out, I was overjoyed by the direction the movies ended up taking and X-Men: Days of Future Past did a great job of unpicking the ruin that was X3. Coming in to this third installment, I was definitely looking forward to it and I decided to take my friend, another big X-Men fan, out for her birthday to see it - which we both did just last night.

Straight off the bat, the movie has some definite flaws. The pacing often dragged and somehow the cheese felt a bit more pronounced to me, not to take away from the moments of genuine dramatic weight (Fassbender, what an actor), but at times the dialogue definitely had my face scrunching. I was also surprisingly not too impressed by Jennifer Lawrence in this. I wouldn't go so far to say that she was bad this time around, but her acting felt oddly stilted at times and particularly compared to the last two movies.

That said, the comedic moments were enjoyable and overall, I didn't walk away let down. There are some really great sequences and the opening was impressively done. While a particularly frustrating plot point comes in the form of Moira's part in Apocalypse's resurrection, it's easy to let go. I loved the introductions of the future X-Men and Quiksilver being back in the picture was outright fun and made for an awesome scene. It's admittedly weird seeing him as two different actors in two different movies and I have to say, I take Evan Peters' go over Aaron Johnson's though I'm curious what heftier comic fans think of it. And of course, Apocalypse's defeat came in the form of an event that I straight up loved as an X-Men fan.

I'd say about a 3/5 because despite the flaws, my friend and I still enjoyed it and as a fan of the old cartoons, it served up enough to delight.

At this point, Ant-Man is just about to finish as I type - a movie I finally caught on Netflix and am so glad I got to see just before seeing Civil War because it wasn't just entertaining as hell, it also made Ant-Man's part in the movie so much more enjoyable for me. Oh, and go Anna Akana! Loved her bit at the end. Yep, loved this movie. Marvel does some excellent comedy and Paul Rudd plays some excellent Scott Lang.

Another rec that comes to mind that I didn't necessarily see in the cinema would have to be Straight Outta Compton (O'Shea Jackson et al killed this movie and the beat drop at the Detroit concert is now one of my favourite movie moments ever). I'm sure there was a fair amount of gloss over but the story remained compelling and of course, there was the music.

In terms of upcoming movies, there are a good few I definitely want to check out. Independence Day: Resurgence is something I do not intend to miss. The original may have been a 90s movie to the core, but that part of me is definitely up for whatever stories remain of that world. I'm a little uncertain about Suicide Squad at this point, but if the opportunity arises, I would happily check it out. I'm still yet to see quite a lot of this year's Oscarbait - Room, The Big Short and Spotlight are all high on my list and on the more family-friendly end of things, I'm definitely geared to see Finding Dory and the live action Beauty and the Beast (such excellent casting!).

In other words, it looks to be a fun year.

#myswf2016

I'll put together a more comprehensive review set to adorn my sadly neglected little blogger but for now, this micro-update and Studio collage, complete with dorky touristy stickers, will do.

Such a brilliant few days thanks to 14 sessions, 28 panellists/speakers (alongside some excellent facilitators) and 1 incredibly talented performer who somehow created a seamless solo hour of Austen oftentimes without the apparent need for oxygen. I look to you, Miss Vaughan's Miss Bates. Do you not breathe?

Got in a good mix of the journalistic, the political, the philosophical and the literary this year, happy crumbs of the untaken arts undergrad and the masters that will never see completion. Particular favourites? The Danger of Ideas, The Risky Business of Breaking News and Murder in the Making were all outstanding panel discussions with amazing moderators and Emma Sky, Emily Maguire (saw her in 2 panels) and Rebecca Vaughan all particularly blew me away in sessions that, funnily enough, fantastically bookended my time at the festival. Nothing to do with primacy or recency however, they three are simply that impressive.

Anyhow, cheers to SWF for one of my favourite times of year and onward till SWF2017 a.k.a. my next run on Gleebooks. In other news, I now officially live amongst piles of paperbacks threatening to topple and bury me alive at any moment. #theymaytumble #imaydie #sweetphonicdeath #iregretnothing #canyoutellthiscamefrominsta? #myswf2016