Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

There is someone out there for everyone.

True love exists.

We’re all familiar with these sayings. They’re our excuses. Yes, he’s a dork, but he has an amazing sense of humour and a great chest; I’m not going to settle for that vapid model, there’s someone better yet to be found; They just weren’t “the one”.

Juliet looked to like with Romeo, and together they became one of the greatest and best known couples in the world.

In the ABBA song Lay All Your Love On Me they sing ‘a little small talk, a smile and baby, I was stuck’. Surely this was the case with the star-cross’d lovers.

One glance was all it took.

No matter how often we say we aren’t waiting for fairy tale love, the stuff of knights and ladies, at some point, perhaps frequently during our lives, we find ourselves imagining the ‘perfect’ romance.

Our eyes meet across a crowded room and we are instantly aware that this is the person we wish to spend the rest of our lives with. The chemistry in the air crackles as we fly across the room and take the other in our arms.

I readily admit to (frequently) indulging in this fantasy. Although I am completely aware that ‘real life’ is not a fairy tale it doesn’t stop me from thinking about how wonderful it would be to be swept off my feet by a kind, intelligent, funny (and hopefully incredibly gorgeous) handsome prince.

Preferably, all this will occur while I am wearing a fabulous, one-of-a-kind gown, possibly whilst dancing in a luxurious garden, the summer air filled with the scent of roses.

Like it or loathe it, Gone With The Wind’s Rhett Butler had the right idea when he told Scarlett ‘you should be kissed, and often, and by someone who knows how’.

However, I am rarely able to completely immerse myself in this attractive fantasy before my inner cynic rears her ugly, obnoxious head. This girl doesn’t believe in true love, arguing that what people call ‘love’ is simply a confusing cocktail of lust, longing, foolishness and infuriating head rushes caused by meddlesome, uncontrollable endorphins.

Overuse of adjectives aside, I must grudgingly admit that this girl has a point. Believing that being with a particular person will make you happy by association is, arguably, part of the supreme naivety we employ to help us get up in the mornings. In my sensible moments, I like to believe that although the heart may control the blood that pumps through our veins, in a civilized society it is our brains that are the true rulers of the world.

Besides, as poster children go, Juliet and her Romeo are not the best, unless you are advocating underage sex and impulsive suicide. But it’s the teenagers’ deaths that truly capture our romantic attention. Sure, Romeo’s balcony courtship is beautifully poetic, and the way the pair leaps straight into marriage is fairly sweet. Yet it’s the fact that they cannot abide living in a world without the other that truly drives our passion for these two. They have been in love for barely a fortnight yet they are sure of their feelings.

Truly, if there is a heaven, I would much rather enter it moments after the love of my life does, knowing he will be waiting at the gates for me, than to live for twenty years alone once my love is gone.

Foolishness or not, I won’t stop searching for ‘true love’. My soulmate may live in a bark hut in Kenya, but my almost-perfect-in-every-way man may be waiting for me, just around the corner.

I have often wondered what the world would be like if we dispensed with all areas of government. Anarchy? Well, perhaps. I would like to think that all our boasting as a species that we are so far removed from apes and other so-called uncivilised animals was not us just talking out of our jauntily-placed hats.

In the Big Rock Candy Mountain, there may be cigarette trees and lemonade springs, but I bet we'd still fight over who consumed the most and who got to be first.

I like poetry, long walks on the beach..........and poking dead things with a stick.


Want to meet?

Published!

America's fluffy sweetheart pours on the saccharine

• Email
• Printer friendly version
• Normal font
• Large font

February 8, 2010

Oh my gosh … dropping one of her Grammys last month.
Photo: Jenny Evans

Taylor Swift 

Acer Arena, February 6

Reviewed by Fenella Henderson-Zuel (aged 15) and Bernard Zuel (a bit older than 15)

ACCEPTING her Grammys last month, 20-year-old Taylor Swift, who writes million-selling songs about schoolyard crushes, boyfriends dumping you and exacting revenge on said ex-boyfriends in pop rock songs which pay lip service to country, was all omigosh, I can't believe this is for little ol' me. Repeatedly.

At Acer we saw another side of the same coin: a performer well schooled in working and milking a crowd (so much so that about

80 minutes of music extended to nearly two hours of show); much less of the surprised teen and much more of the star basking (that self-satisfied look she had often was instructive); and as adroit as any of the classy Disney factory in balancing cheesiness and well-practised sincerity (as in her hand on the heart declaration of ''I can't express how in love with you I am at this moment, Sydney''.)

From You Belong With Me, performed in High School Musical fashion with dancers and band in cheerleader/marching-band outfits and Swift in drum major threads ripe for being pulled off to reveal a spangly dress, to Should've Said No, nine outfits later, Swift was never less than on-message and in control.

Her voice may have no power or character when in regular mode but she has a belter setting which kicks arse. Her songs may be mostly generic but at least structurally, melodically and lyrically they feel like the work of a talented teenager not a Music Row hack. Her shtick may be old school but her audience is new school, and screamingly happy.

Bernard Zuel

AS Taylor Swift rose on to the stage to tumultuous applause, she looked like just what she was: a girl living her dream, and having the time of her life. It didn't matter that her dance moves were slightly unco-ordinated, the constant rumpling of her famous blonde waves made her appear endearingly sweet and the audience felt like they were at the concert of the girl down the street. You couldn't help but be enchanted by her.

The Fearless Tour is neither as flashy as Britney, nor as sophisticated as Beyoncé, but the use of fellow teens Miley Cyrus, Demi Lovato and Texas heartthrob Lucas Till in a video montage preceding the main show helped set the mood of fluffy teenage fun.

But even an excited 20-year-old may find it hard to be forgiven when she stands basking in the applause one too many times and spends 10 minutes wading through a crowd of fans, hugging and clasping hands with anyone who gets close enough, leaving the rest of the audience to wait for her to return to the stage.

Still, the concert was a great night out, an excuse to wave glow-sticks and sing till you were hoarse, to be "taken back in time" for the fairytale Love Story and dream of the boy-next-door with The Way I Love You.

Be warned: if you break Swifty's heart, mess with her friends, or fail to admit that her new album is your current guilty pleasure, she will write a song about you.

But to any guy mentioned in her songs, just count yourself lucky you didn't date Lily Allen.

Fenella Henderson-Zuel

As true now as it was then

As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.

Abraham Lincoln

All Hallows Eve

As Halloween approaches, strange things begin to occur. Many who on an average day would be normal people living normal lives morph each year into a crowd of witches, warlocks, ghouls, goblins and, most frightening of all, CELEBRITIES.
Whatever happened to good old draped-in-black-and-cobwebs witches and wizards? Where are the pointy hats and demon-like masks? WHY ARE THERE CROWDS OF SIX YEAR OLDS DRESSED AS LADY GAGA??!!!!!
We talk about wanting children to remain innocent, about protecting them from the evil of the world, yet every year little girls go out on Halloween dressed as some of the worst examples of modern humanity, including Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan and the aforementioned Gaga.
"What are you going to dress up as for Halloween?' says mother to young daughter.
"A wicked witch!' says innocent little girl.
"Oh no dear, don't dress as a witch! It sends the wrong message. We don't want people to think of you as evil, now do we?'
'No?'
'No. Why don't you dress up as Little Red Riding Hood? You love that story, and she was a nice little girl.'

So dressing up as a foolish little girl who makes friends with a wolf, tells him where she is going, is captured and almost eaten by said wolf is a good example for little girl? I have lost my hope for the future.

What message do we really want to send to little girls at Halloween? That dressing up as a scary witch is bad because you want to be seen as a nice little girl? That dressing up as princesses who don't have the brains to avoid the massive spindle/evil witch/ tower prison/wolf really obviously dressed as grandmother is a good idea? That it is good to be a weakling fairytale character because the prince always saves them in the end? Or perhaps dressing as a vapid, slutty celebrity who doesn't seem to own any pants is the new thing.

Is that really what you want to say to your kids? Now maybe I am not the right person to say anything (as I don't have kids, I can't really imagine what parents are thinking. Hey, I'm still at the stage of life where I think my parents are from another planet.) but none of these sound like the sort of thing I would want to be telling my kids.

Maybe I am just ranting because I am bored. Or maybe I am just saying what other people are thinking? I don't know about you but I still like the idea of dressing as a witch/vampire for Halloween. Traditional and fun. Plus, vampires in popular culture are hot :)

Do svidaniya (goodbye in Russian!)

Ooooh that reminds me. I recently rewatched one of my favourite childhood films, Anastasia! I used to watch this all the time when I was smaller, and I know I just ranted about fairytale princesses not being good role models but Anastasia Romanov was, at least in this adaptation. This film kindly glosses over the horrors of the deaths of the Romanov family and creates a fairytale out of the rumour that one of the young princesses, either Anastasia or her elder sister Marie, along with her younger brother Alexei, may have survived the slaughter during the Russian Revolution.
This beautiful film was probably my favourite as a child thanks to its suggestions of truth. The idea that a young woman, who disappeared as a child, could find family, fortune and her true love all in the space of a few weeks, and with a backdrop of chilly St Petersberg and glamorous Paris, was like a drug to ten-year-old me.
Just wanted to mention that.'

xoxo

A Philosophy According To Nell

So I have been thinking (I know; a dangerous pastime, indeed) for quite a while about the difference between want and need. For years now humans in first-world countries have been able to convince themselves that although they want the shiny new pair of peeptoe heels, they need the new fridge with the improved climate control more.

And I agree, we do need the new fridge much more than those shoes (though having those as well would be a pretty good deal). But what I have been wondering is this: who was it who decided that the fridge was what we needed more?

But before you begin to worry, before you leap from the chair and close the page, this is not going to be an anti-fascism rant. Though I in no way support fascism or similar, today's post will not address the subject. Rather, this is a thoughtful ramble-on about need and whether our modern perception of the word is an accurate portrayal.

For example, consider the Cavemen; the Neanderthals, the 'Hobbits' and 'Pygmies' of the pre-Homo-Sapien world. I wonder if the parents of these beings educated their young ones about the difference between want and need. I wonder if they were even able to make that distinction? 

Because when it comes down to it the majority of the things in life life that we consider to be what we need to survive are simply creature comforts. The refrigerator, while an undoubtedly wonderful invention, could be done without if we reverted to the days when you obtained and consumed goods on the same day, unless they were the types of ingredients that could be preserved in a simple wooden box.

The oven and stovetop, other helpful household inventions, were created to replace the ancient art of cooking on a woodfire.

Just like a housewife in a 1950s advertisement, we stand in the kitchen and sigh, wondering how we could ever have got by without these inventions.

And there is the key point. Although we may not realise it, humanity was getting along just fine before the age of luxury living. Before televison-cars-radios-flatscreen-silverscreen-also-have-one-in-the-kitchen-seperate-fridge-ice-dispenser-oven-that-also-tells-the-time-playstation-really-awesome-computer human beings, or those that came before them, found other ways to live. 

They hunted and gathered their food, cooked it on spits over the open flames of the fire they had learnt to create, made toys out of wood and at night they slept under the stars.

For many this doesn't sound like a paradise. I admit that the lack of access to a shower and the Sims 2 would certainly put a dampener on my ability to see that way of life as comfortable.

Yet the only reason I percieve the way we live today as 'comfortable' is because I have been told that that is so! Since birth it is put into our heads that we are lucky to have what we do, that we need it to survive. Well perhaps we do and perhaps we don't. I believe that the only reason we need these creature comforts so badly is that we have never known another way of life.

Do you think that the first Neanderthal woke up every morning thinking that someone needed to invent a large box to cook things in, or an even larger one to keep game cool? No I don't think he did. And why? Because he had no reason to. He had food to eat, water to drink and bark to sleep on at night. 

To him, those were creature comforts. Now I'm not going to go out on the street and pitch my ideas to the rest of society. But I will air my thoughts to the few readers through my blog, as you can see. I just think that we should think about the difference between want and need. Because it may be a smaller gap than we thought.