For starters, my wife and I did something that we hardly ever do -- talked about the Jamie Spears nonsense. We speculated on how a family goes from what was presumably a normal, happy but squabbling, family, to this kind of public -- well, I suppose that 'humiliation' doesn't quite hack it; the parents might well feel that way, but the two daughters don't seem to have much angst about it. Or maybe they do, but their assorted coaches and support staff tell them to smile brightly for the cameras and act - literally - as if all is normal. I reminded her of the comments that Dave Chappelle made when he made his abrupt departure from his comedy program, to the effect that he was surrounded by people whose goal in life was to make him happy by giving him anything he wanted, to the exclusion of people who really did care about him. We both thought that if we were in that environment, it'd be very difficult, damn near impossible, to stay sane and 'normal' -- and thats completely outside of the idea of whats 'normal' for someone in the acting business. We didn't think that the activities and results of the Spears daughters are excusable, but we did think that perhaps they're explainable. Somewhat.
What brought this on was a letter in an advice column that runs in the Washington Post, which we like to read on occasion because the questions tend to be real, and the answers tend to be practical and believable. In this case, the question was 'how do you handle a 7 year old who's cute and precocious, and thinks that he knows it all and can do it all'. The answer, which made sense to us (the gold standard of reasonability) is that you absolutely do not reinforce his cute and precocious actions, and you absolutely do reinforce his successes, pushing (and here's the part that I like; when I came across it in an article on parenting years ago, I thought 'oh, get real' but after a while it began to make sense to me) the idea that his successes aren't 'because he's smart' but 'because he tried hard and stuck with it' -- letting the 'smart' part be implied. We segued pretty naturally from that to the idea of 'if you're talented, and cute, and a teen, how do you maintain your sanity and normality' .
I'm susceptible to that kind of sycophant-like flattery; put another way, I'm willing to listen to things that intellectually I know aren't the best for me -- I got a call this morning from the nurse practitioner I see routinely, answering a question about higher than normal blood sugars I've been seeing since the dental surgery. She said that its a normal reaction to the surgery, not to worry, give it a couple of months. Intellectually, I think what?, because I don't think its normal, and I do think this woman is intellectually lazy (she sees ten thousand 'oh its just a cold' type calls every month); emotionally, I jumped right on the idea of 'oh, I'm not doing anything wrong, its okay, see, she said so'. Yup, you bet.
Why is it that the blogger spell checker doesn't recognize the word 'reasonability' but has 'risibility' as an option? I'd have thought that risibility isn't all that common a word, and reasonabilty is very common.
A second question in that same column was from a woman who said that her primary friend, confidante, associate is her husband, and she tends to forego trying to form relationships with other people -- which she sometimes thinks is abnormal. I was surprised to read it, because, except for the gender, it could have been written by me. I always find it very difficult to get to know people, and, though I dislike admitting it, I find it hard to get to care about other people. I don't think I'm particularly cold -- I find myself worrying, a little, about my mento, for goodness sake -- but I just don't bond with people, as a rule. I just expect too much, I think -- if they aren't immediately fascinating, I don't want to make the effort. I know thats shallow of me.
Last night I made something called a 'caramel crunch' which was pretty easy to make, but a little sloppy; basically, you layer a 9x13 pan with rectangular crackers, make a caramel mix (butter, brown sugar, some other stuff), coat it, then put on a second layer of crackers, and coat that with a mix of peanut butter and melted chocolate, drizzling chopped nuts over it. It's very sweet, but its not a cookie, so I think I'll keep the recipe but not make it again. It reminded me of a recipe that a neighbor gave us which they call 'bark'; its not the stuff you buy in the stores, but its a surprisingly tasty snack food (so much so, I have to consciously limit myself as to how much I take). I think its likely one of those recipes that's circulated through various families for years.
Chocolate Bark
1 sleeve of saltines
1 stick butter
1 stick margarine
1/2 cup sugar
1/2 cup brown sugar
12oz chocolate chips
M&Ms or nuts -- optional
Cover a jelly roll pan with aluminum foil
Spread the saltines (unbroken) to cover the foil.
Melt the butter and margarine in a saucepan
Add sugars to mixture
Bring to rolling boil, stirring occasionally. Boil for 3 minutes
Pour the mixture over the saltines, spreading evenly.
Bake at 350 for 7 minutes.
Remove from oven and sprinkle the chocolate chips over the saltines
Allow the chips to melt; spread them as evenly as possible over entire pan
Sprinkle with M&Ms and nuts if desired
Cool. Place into freeze for at least an hour until firm
Peel from the foil and break into small pieces.
Best if stored in refrigerator or freezer.
No comments:
Post a Comment