Letters to the Editor
Christopher1988
Published Letters: 569 Editor's Choice: 40
-
Superb answer, other thoughts.
[Read the article: I'm so anxious I can't think straight]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Totally agree that Cary’s response is superb, particularly his emphasis on anxiety as a way to avoid the feelings. I hope LW really looks at that sentence because I sense an odd quality of disconnect between her experiences and feelings.
This is very telling to me:
For the first time in my life, I have a good relationship with a man I really love. It's a lot of fun, and such a relief, and I think maybe not having relationship anxiety has cleared the way for some older and possibly greater anxieties.
A person can’t help but note, as she pinpoints herself, that having cleared up one source of anxiety she dives right into another. She’s creating issues where none exist (and I don't think this is intentional).
Secondly, while different people express themselves different ways, and not everyone puts their feelings perfectly in a letter, I find it really odd that though she “loves” the man in her life, and this is a “good relationship” and this is a new experience for her, the only comment she really has on it is “it’s a lot of fun” and "a relief" Hmmm. Usually, “it’s a lot of fun” is the way you describe a comfortable, but not particularly important attachment. Again, I may be reading too much into this, but I’d expect a more effusive description.
So I think Cary is really on target about anxiety blocking feelings. I even wonder if maybe she’s putting on her dad the anxiety she feels about the new relationship. Is this case—the first successful relationship she can remember—terminal? Does she fear that acknowledging the depths of her feelings might crush it?
I think LW needs to examine her emotions, but I also think she needs to do it with a therapist. “Shrink” is such a dismissive term that I’m not sure she really puts stock in psychiatrists. But why not just go to a licensed councilor, instead? The reason I suggest some kind of professional is that it won’t do much good to just switch from obsessing on anxieties to obsessing on “feelings.” And just as she creates anxieties, she might manufacture false emotional issues. A professional could help by having the right amount of distance to spot these things.
I hope nothing I've written reads as blame. We get into patterns of behavior, and it can be hard to let go. I hope things work out.
-
Original SLN Cast WAAAYYYY Overrated
[Read the article: I Like to Watch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not sure why. Part of is the fact that SNL in its initial form really was transgressive. It was a genuine counter-culture product, and the startling quality of it, and the real attack on the general morality/philosophy of television up to that point made up for the fact that the vast majority of skits weren't funny. In this is follows the (now dreadfully unfunny and downright dull) Smothers Brothers show. In fact, if the fist years of SNL were still regularly re-run, I think it would become obvious how unfunny, how lame, the humor often was.
That doesn't mean there weren't great skits. There were. But they don't represent the typical quality level. And a lot of those returning characters would seem pretty dull today. Would anyone today really find Lisa Loopner funny? Would Chevy Chase's anchorman opening Weekend Update on the phone, soothing a girl on the other end about no one noticing what they did—he doesn't state it, but those hip to it would get she's blown him as they were driving down the street--raise an eyebrow? It's a pretty standard American Pie joke at this point. You don't have to be hip to know about that kind of oral sex. In the 70's, you did. And that it got on television in the first place was pretty funny. Now? Nah.
Every season since that initial run has been a completely different animal, largely because Lorne Michaels left with the orginal cast, and when he came back he wasn't really carrying on the same tradition. The SNL since then has been a sometimes terrible, sometimes very funny, most often competant comedy-skit show in a tradition that has run from Jackie Gleason to Carol Burnett. It isn't transgressive, it isn't remotely counter-cultural. It's just a sometimes funny show.
-
What a creepy letter!
[Read the article: Should I tell my daughter about her mother's two abortions?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The casual "She's swung from one single parent to the other, is sexually confused and sexually active, plus I feel like telling her my ex, her mother, had two abortions." Speaks volumes. I wish the poor girl the best in what seems to be a deplorable home life.
-
SoFla Kate,
[Read the article: I Like to Watch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But my point is that they sort of didn't lay the groundwork because the whole concept of SNL has changed so much since those days.
And good comedy is generally timeless. We haven't stopped laughing at W.C. Fields because his stuff came out in the 30's. We still laugh at I Love Lucy, or any number of shows. That when we now watch early SNL we don't laugh (or, I don't laugh) tells me the quality of those shows wasn't so hot to begin with. What's funny about Belushi's samurai character? Not much. What's funny about Emily Litella? Not much. It just wasn't great comedy.
-
Love the Bunnies
[Read the article: Rabbit Bites: Spidermania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I'm average. I must have superpowers." Exactly.