Recently I did some calculations and I discovered that if we stay in this same exact apartment, and rent does not go up (which is a really stupid assumption, considering how every single apartment we've ever lived in the rent always goes up after every lease ends, it's just too tricky to try to predict how much it'll go up here), we will be paying approximately $85,000 in rent in the next five years.

I estimated for five years because I don't know exactly how long it'll take to get my Ph.D. I should be done with coursework in 4 years, but then there's that whole getting-a-panel-together-so-I-can-defend-problem. I've heard of someone having to wait 18 months before he could defend because his panel just couldn't arrange a date where they all could meet at the same time. Also, the program has been in existence for five years at USC, and so far only one person is primed for graduation this Spring. Now, I don't mean only one person is graduating in the Spring, and it's kind of unusual or something. It's the first graduate from the program. Ever. So we're not entirely sure how long it'll take to graduate. But at least the grad students are productive. Lots of the inaugural students from the five years ago have published novels and books of poetry, so it is promising.

But back to the rent situation.

In light of this new information, I started to research buying condos or apartments or lofts in the immediate area. And believe me, we'd be getting out cheap paying $85,000 in rent.

Apparently in the immediate area, condos/lofts/apts are at least $500,000, but usually they're starting at $599,999. Needless to say, we could not afford that mortgage payment. In addition, after 5 years, paying $85,000 on that wouldn't really lower anything. Whereas if we bought something in the $300,000 range, we could actually afford that mortgage payment of about $1300-$1700 a month (depending on the downpayment) and paying $85,000 would actually make a dent.

However, buying a condo is more complicated that I anticipated. Apparently there's something called HOA (homeowners association) fees which can range anywhere from $100-$350 a month. To be fair, the ones that are $350 a month have included: water, gas, cable, insurance and property taxes. These fees generally go into the maintenance and upkeep of the buildings, which is a good thing.

Right now, we currently enjoy the amenities of our building: 24 hour concierge/security, secured building entry, 24 hour access to the pool and gym, and extremely convenient commute location for Brad and a 10 minute bus ride to campus for me. But luckily, a lot of these apartments for sale in the buildings have these features as well. It's just that the apartments end up being really expensive.

On top of a mortgage, and HOA fees, we'd also have to pay mortgage insurance which would be another $100+ a month. That would have to be paid until 20% of the mortgage had been paid, which from what I used to understand was a standard downpayment. But with the average price of a house in the U.S. at $218,000 I doubt most people save up $36,000 before they buy a home. Even so, by the time we'd be able to save up $60,000 we probably won't even be in the Los Angeles area anymore.

A few blocks away from major bus routes, the average price of condos drops dramatically to $299-$320,000, including the aforementioned amenities. But I don't know how safe those side streets are, since I haven't actually been down them myself. All I know is that when you leave the immediate downtown area, it gets kind of ghetto-y. And I really don't want to be buy an apartment in a ghetto.

So I don't know which is better: buy an apartment in a (perhaps) less than desireable location for (perhaps) $299,999 or stay in the building we know we love, feel safe in, and don't have to pay to upkeep? One could be seen as an investment, whereas the other is just, well, convenient. Plus, I think a lot can be said for 48-hour maintenance turnaround guarantee. I mean, if the toilet breaks, we don't have to fix it.

What would you do?

Labels: grad school, los angeles, real estate

( 3comments )

at December 30, 2005 8:08 PM  Alex_Knight said...

I think I would continue to rent. The money you save renting could be stashed away to make a better purchase after you get your PhD. Besides, if you need to move, you wouldn't have to worry about the problems of selling a home or apartment.

 

at December 30, 2005 11:04 PM  Lorie said...

I can understand the desire to put your money into an investment instead of just throwing it to landlords every month, but it doesn't sound like owning a home in L.A. is economically feasible. Besides the fees you've mentioned, I think where owning your own place really gets you is in the unexpected expenses. Sure, it's inconvenient if your toilet breaks and you have to fix it yourself, but what if your central air system or water heater goes out in a place you own? (Although I suppose I don't know exactly what the situation with that sort of thing would be like in a loft or apartment.) Then you've got to scramble to come up with the money to fix it when your budget is already tight to be able to make your mortgage payments.

 

at December 31, 2005 3:37 PM  Anonymous said...

Another option is to do a 80/20 loan. If the place appraises for 20% more than you're having to pay for it (which it might with the home economy on it's pattern) then you can get an 80% mortgage with a 20% home equity line of credit aka HELOC. (This is used for your down payment and closing costs.) Once your home gains enough equity you can refinance, paying off the HELOC. Just some advice. Call a local real estate office, they can explain to you your exact options in your area.

 

I started this post on the 26th and then for some reason... stopped. Plus, you may notice how I have changed the comment system back to normal, where the comments automatically appear with the entry. I didn't like having to go to a separate page to see what people said. Plus, I formatted the comments to have their own design element. So I think it adds some style overall.

But on to the original post that never was...

We had a non-traditional Christmas this year, and I have to say that I liked it best this way.

Things that were different (i.e. better) for X-Mas '05:

1. B worked: Okay, so that's not great, especially since he doesn't get holiday pay or anything. But he was done by 2:30 p.m., and we still had the entire day to do absolutely nothing. Plus, I got to go with him to work and see him do his chemist thing. I didn't realize how hands on chemistry was. B calls it a "blue collar science," and for some reason I find it more noble that way. By the by, he's really good at his job. He can hand tritrate like nobody's business. Oh, and run five tests all at the same time. It's impressive. And kinda hot.


2. Trickling presents: We did not open a single gift on Christmas day, and I know it's weird, but I actually liked that so much more. B and I exchanged (unwrapped) gifts two weeks earlier, so that we each could get as much use out of them as possible. I started working out 3-4 times a week again, and have gotten much use out of the awesome MP3 player he got me. Plus, I walk all over the place, and it makes walking to the library or 7th+Fig or RiteAid so much faster and so much more enjoyable. I've been listening to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince when I've been walking and my fast workout music when I'm exercising. It's a nifty little contraption. Oh, and Brad got me Fatal Frame II: Crimson Butterfly which is so scary, that I can only play it when he's home. Also, he got me some awesome So Bad They're Good horror movie collections such as Horrorlicious! and it is indeed. In addition to the gifts we received from each other, Brad's parents sent boxes that have been trickling in for the last couple weeks as well, not to mention gifts from our friends. Our haul has been awesome so far. To keep with some traditional gift-giving, my family came up on Christmas Eve--I cooked another fabulous 2 hour turkey, green bean caserole, mashed potatoes, crescent rolls and double decker fudge--and we opened presents. My brothers actually are getting old enough to give us gifts in return, which was really neat this year because their gifts were really thoughtful. I liked this trickling in of gifts so much better than opening presents in front of everyone. I really am self-conscious and I don't like opening stuff in front of people.


3. No freakin' airports: Okay, so we didn't fly anywhere for the holidays. We also didn't have to drive anywhere either, which was awesome. This means that my family came to me! But this also means we didn't see my husband's family, nor did we see any of our friends in Michigan. Which is sad, but honestly, we saved so much money in airfare. Especially since I am in two weddings in Michigan in next year, one in February and another in August. Plus, I don't care for airplanes. Okay, so I'm still not getting the 26 tons of hunkin' metal being able to sustain itself in the atmosphere, but that is not what bothers me about airplanes. I hate planes namely for four reasons.

• Turbulence + germophobia = there is no way I'm risking sitting on a toilet filled with perma-dye blue ink and having that splash on me. Think of the blue buttocks! Think of the millions of germs! Not to mention the fact that I wouldn't dare wash my hands with airplane water. A couple years ago, MSNBC wrote an article about the bacteria, parasites and rat droppings that were found in the potable water tanks on airplaces. I can't find that article since it was two years ago, but I did find this article on the topic if you're interested.


• I hate the soda service: would it really cost the airlines so much money to spare an entire can of soda?


• Cat arrangements. This is the most annoying thing about travel. When we lived in Maryland and flew back to California, we had to kennel our cat because we had no friends. Now that we're in California, my family won't let me bring Zhoul to their house. Oh, that's an exaggeration. I could bring her to their house--if I didn't mind her being caged in her tiny kitty carrier quarrantined in the garage all week. Last year, we went to Stratford, Canada for some Shakespeare action, and my family came up to our apartment to house/cat sit since we were only gone two days--because we couldn't bring Zhoul to their house! When we went to Michigan right after Christmas, we had to take Zhoul with us. It was cheaper to fly her out to Michigan than to kennel her in California during the holiday season. My uncle and his son recently moved in with my mom, my two younger brothers and my grandmother. So there are now six people living in this house. My uncle and his son brought their cat, and the cat lives inside the house! And yet, when I asked if Zhoul could stay with them when we fly back to Michigan, I was told that Zhoul would still have to be in her kitty jail cell. Ugh.


• No leg room: This normally isn't a problem because I'm 5'4" so my legs don't need that much room. But last year, we took Zhoul with us to Michigan, I was cramped roundtrip. I don't think I would have felt good sharing the duty of leg cramping with B. He's about a foot taller than I am, so it's less inconvenient for me.

So that's how our Christmas was so much better than any other so far, even though it meant we didn't get to see everyone we wanted to see. I wonder how everyone else's holidays went...

Labels: cat, tired, travel

( 1comments )

at December 30, 2005 1:15 AM  Princess Blogonoke said...

They don't give you a whole can of pop? The last two flying trips I've been on, each plane I was on gave me a whole can of pop. Then again, before that, I've gotten just those little plastic cups with 2/3 a can of pop. I'm going on a trip tomorrow, I'll see how it goes :-)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

 

Happy Tree Friends may be the cutest and most twisted thing I've ever had the pleasure to watch. My personal favorite is the Kringle Train episode.

How awesome would it be to take the fam out to a horror movie on Christmas? I was thinking, as an added Christmas present, of taking Brad and my family out to see Wolf Creek.

Labels: horror, movies

( 3comments )

at December 29, 2005 2:38 PM  Samantha said...

We did see it. We didn't see it on X-Mas, though, because it wasn't playing anywhere near us (and we're in downtown L.A.!), we didn't feel like going out of our way since Brad had worked, so we schlepped around the apartment in our PJs and played games instead.

We saw it on Tuesday. And I have to say it wasn't great but it wasn't horrible. Definitely not a contender for the It's So Bad It's Good Category either. It was mediocre. I tried to find the ways in which it defied the traditional slasher flick genre, or subverted traditional cultural norms... but I really couldn't. It just seemed like a throwback slasher flick where girls are stupid and scream and get their fingers lopped off in one smoother motion.

I would absolutely love to read that review that suggets that it goes beyond the standards of the genre, though. Because honestly, I looked and couldn't find it.

 

at December 29, 2005 7:02 PM  Lorie said...

And what do you know, as soon as I posted my last comment, the site loaded. You can find the review here.

 

at December 29, 2005 7:02 PM  Lorie said...

I can't give you a direct link because the site's down at the moment, but the review is at http://www.intergalacticmedicineshow.com/
I believe there's only one movie review column in the sidebar, and it should be part of the site's free content.

But now that you're looking forward to it, I'm worried that I read too much into it and he wasn't actually so clear about it subverting genre and things like that. But you can see for yourself...if the site comes back.

 

I don't know what came over me. I was looking at my A Series of Unfortunate Events 2005 Calendar, and I realized how sad I was that 2005 was ending--not because it was such a fabulous year, but because the calendar was just that cool.

And I realized: if I love the calendar so much, why don't I make a design centered around my favorite stylized illustrators? It was tough, choosing between Edward Gorey and Lemony Snicket. But in the end, I decided to go with the reclusive man whose house I never got a chance to see when I lived on the East Coast. It is my uneducated opinion that Edward Gorey influenced Lemony Snicket's illustrations anyway, and so the choice ended up not being as tough as previously believed.

Labels: books, writing

( 0comments )

Last night, while recalling the memories of how we first got to together, I was strongly reminded of how much I love B. So I wrote him a love letter. And packed it into his lunch.

I am such a fuckup.

I realize now that I am no good at writing love letters, and that I should endeavor to never write another one for as long as we both shall live.

Love notes included.

( 0comments )

I am on Winter Break right now, and so I have had a lot of time on my hands. It could definitely qualify as the Summer of George, if it was summertime or if I was a short, stalky, bald man. Well, I guess I have half of it down. It feels like summertime outside, even though it's December. Thank you, L.A.

So in between playing Fatal Frame II: Crimson Butterfly, We Love Katamari and the World of Warcraft demo, I haven't been doing a lot of reading yet, but I have been doing a lot of thinking. Mostly about that age-old phobia. I was able to be distracted from such fears this semester, being too busy to be neurotic agrees with me. But I've realized that not all of my reading (and brooding) over the summer on the subject of children has not been completely for naught. Because I started to re-evaluate the subject.

My sister-in-law is having a baby. She is seven weeks and one day along--well, that was three days ago, so technically she's seven weeks and four days along now. Yeah, apparently doctors are that good. And she's so happy. And I realized I was envious. I was not envious that she's having a baby, but I was envious that she could be so happy about it. Because I know that if I got accidentally pregnant, I would be mortified.

I lurk on these Childfree By Choice (CFBC) forums, and I learned that Anderson Cooper had a segment on his show about the CFBC lifestyle. Afterwards, there was a short debate between the Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and author Madelyn Cain, whose book The Childless Revolution I read over the summer. If you're interested in reading the transcript of the show, click here.

After a few back-and-forths between the Southern Baptist and Madelyn Cain, where it became quite clear that Mohler equates having children as a requirement of marriage, "Well, in the first place I find it incredibly sad. I think most viewers watching that segment that you just very capably put forth, just demonstrates that this is really about avoiding the responsibilities of parenthood. And I find that profoundly sad. You know, obviously, there is a tremendous moral point to be made here. These couples -- well, they have to be very thankful that their parents didn't make the same decision [to be childfree]. And society depends upon parenthood and the raising of children being seen as a norm for married couples and as something that is of social value."

However, the debate became quite amusing when Mohler admitted this juicy tidbit, "I mean, obviously, if everyone in society even thought about this for an extended period of time, you know, we would not have any children. We have to understand that parenthood is to be understood as a part of marriage itself."

Sure, it's very easy to point out that Mohler undermined his own argument, and that frankly I agree. It is exactly because I have thought about it that I'm not getting suckered into having kids, not even by accident.

But then I wondered: Why do people choose to have children? Is it because they haven't really thought about it? Is it because they've been raised to think it's just the order of life? Who actually wants children, and why? I really liked an important point that Cain made, "all children should be wanted children. Not children had out of obligation." I totally agree. But I am baffled at how children who are accidents can be wanted. And are they wanted for the right reasons?

I was an accident for my parents. Actually, I was the second accident, even though I am the oldest of three children. Yes, that means my parents had an abortion before me. My parents married at 19 and 21 (sounds eerily similar to B's and my situation, doesn't it?), and got pregnant within the year (thankfully not similar to our situation).

My dad told my mom that he was not ready to be a father, and essentially freaked out. My mom didn't really know what to do, and so she went through with an abortion. When she got pregnant the second time, with me, my dad still said he wasn't ready, but that my mom could do whatever she wanted (meaning either abort me or keep me). She had scheduled an abortion, but cancelled it.

And so I came into the world: to a mother who wanted me by accident, and to a father who has resented me ever since. But my mother has repeatedly told me that she really only had me so she wouldn't be lonely. That she wanted a companion, since my father wasn't really what she needed. She wanted someone to love her unconditionally. She wanted "a reason to wake up in the morning."

That's a lot of pressure for a little kid.

I never wanted to be in that situation or put B in that situation or put a child in that situation. And so I started to wonder what I would do if I did accidentally get pregnant--which thankfully has less than 0.01% chance of happening since I'm on a birth control pill now. But I'm pretty sure I would make the same choice my mother and father did, even though I'm happily married. I wondered if that made me a monster. But then, my mother made the same choice, and I don't think she's a monster. I think she was very brave. And I am thankful that she had the strength to make such a hard decision because if I ever have to make the same decision, I know it would be easier for me to make because of her.

It's not just me who feels this way. B has since had a change of heart and agrees that he'd want me to get an abortion as well. I remember there was a time when this would not have even been an option in his mind. I remember when we had to take a compatibility test before we were allowed to get married in the Catholic church, and the area of children was the only area that we were deemed not compatible. We had never really talked about it, I mean we were 20 and 22. But there we were, plunked down in front of Deacon Dan as he asked what our thoughts were about children. I don't even remember what the questions were, or what other possible responses there were, all I knew was that I had marked every box against having them. Brad must have marked some boxes in the opposite direction; it's three and a half years later, and I still do not know how he answered those questions, not even B remembers. I do remember the word "someday" being used a lot. And I remember I didn't say much at all. But it's weird, I generally have an extremely good memory, but I honestly can't remember that conversation at all. What's more, is that we still didn't discuss children after that. I guess we figured we were so young, we wouldn't have to deal with it ever.

But we do have to deal with it. We all have to deal with it: either by addressing it or ignoring it, and I would like to kindly encourage anyone who thinks they will get married eventually to address the topic of children before getting engaged, or at least shortly thereafter. I think B and I were ignorant about this subject. I mean, we even had a prime opportunity to talk about it after our meeting about the compatibility test, and we didn't. I know I was extremely uncomfortable discussing such things, and I still am. But I recommend at least broaching the topic at some point before the actual marriage. Although, I realize this is probably something older, more mature couples would actually discuss before getting married anyway. But I know for me, it's been a stressful and scary topic, and it's embarassing to even talk about... and I don't even know why it's embarassing. But I hate actually discussing it aloud. So don't make the same mistake I made. And it's probably best not to make the same mistake my sister-in-law made. Somewhere in between our two extremes is probably a happy middle ground, I just hope you can find it.

But the "why" still eludes me. I guess for some people the "why" doesn't matter. But if it doesn't matter, then why go through with it at all?

Labels: cfbc, childfree by choice, childhood, children, los angeles, parenthood, parents, pregnancy, the children question, video games

( 3comments )

at December 29, 2005 2:05 PM  Jack's Shack said...

I love being a parent but I don't think that it is for everyone. Too hard unless you really want to do it.

 

at December 29, 2005 2:48 PM  Samantha said...

I hope you come back and share your insights. I just commented your page inviting you back to share your experience. I'd be interested to know what made you decide to have kids in the first place, and also what you love about being a parent versus the stuff that is hard.

 

at December 29, 2005 10:51 PM  Jack's Shack said...

Hi Samantha,

I have always loved kids. I really am a five year-old trapped in a man's body. I have always wanted to be a father. It is not something that is solely based upon logic or reason or upon faith. Some of it comes from with my gut, the desire to propagate and pass on my thoughts and values and hope that my children help to make the world a better place.

Children require tremendous amounts of energy. There are many sacrifices both emotional and financial and a ton of rewards that come with being a parent. Words don't adequately express the joy/horror/fear that being a parent can bring. For me the joy is overwhelming. I am happier far more often than I am unhappy.

I don't think that everyone should be a parent or that there is anything wrong with choosing not to be. If I didn't have any children I could guarantee an early retirement, travel more often and have freedom to do so many other things.

But as I mentioned I don't mind waiting to do those things.

If I remember correctly your profile says that you are 24. You are still really young. Take a little time to enjoy life without children and to experience things because with kids things change. I happen to think that life is better but there are moments in which you want to scream.

Don't know if that makes any sense but it is a starting point.

 

"It will be until we iron out the kinks and get me in thee."

Yeah, that's my husband in a convo with Des. I don't want to know.

Labels: writing

( 0comments )

I happen to enjoy watching The Apprentice. Well, I did this season anyway. I felt like it was as fun as the first season--because sadly the last two "seasons," if you can call them that, were boring and I'm pretty sure B and I lost interest along the way.

But this season was fun/funny to watch primarily because of the unexpected firings, four people here, two people there. It was a contrived deviance from the previous shows, but it was entertaining nonetheless. With all that firing, Trump seemed primed to hire two apprentices last night. But he didn't. The contestants were down to Rebecca, a 23-year old financial journalist who had a broken ankle 12 of the 13 weeks, and Randal, a 33-year old Rhodes Scholar with 5 academic degrees from institutions such as Oxford and MIT. Then Trump threw me for a loop and said, "Rebecca, you're outstanding. Randal, you're hired."

(Snipped from MSNBC)

The band struck up The Apprentice theme song and Randal leapt up, hugging his friends in the cast. How could this be? What about Rebecca? Then Trump called for Randal to return to the table repeatedly. Trump, ever the showman, was just trying to squeeze out a little bit more melodrama before the double-hiring.

At least, that's the way it appeared.

"If you were me, would you hire Rebecca also?" he asked Randal, and we all knew what was coming next. After getting the nod from Randal, Donald Trump was going to make Apprentice history and hire Rebecca too.

But then Randal, who has perhaps played the game with more integrity than anyone else in four seasons of The Apprentice, and who
earned the respect of basically every other candidate in the suite this season, surprised everyone.

"Mr. Trump, I firmly believe that this is 'The Apprentice,' that there is one and only one apprentice, and if you're going to hire someone tonight, it should be one," Randal said. "It's not 'The Apprenti,'
it's 'The Apprentice.'"

For some reason, this impossibly lame and aggressively selfish argument convinced Trump, who kind of shrugged and said,
"Okay, I'm going to leave it at that then. I think I could have been convinced, but you feel that's the way it should be, I'm going to leave it that way."

Now MSNBC is blaming/blasting Randal, titling their articles: 'Apprentice' winner refuses to share title. And including headers in their article called: Selfish when he could have been selfless.

I was all for Trump hiring Rebecca, or hiring both, but I can't deny that Randal was exceptionally qualified, and yes, "It's no question, they're both stars, and I think either one of them would be an excellent choice for the organization," said George in the final boardroom. I liked the way Rebecca seemed to be a younger, female version of Trump, except you know, she has grace and carries herself with dignity. Which makes me think that Randal is not the one to blame here...

Trump made several arbitrary choices last night. First, if he felt he "could have been convinced" why not just hire both and blow past whatever Randal had said? But suddenly, Trump was a Bible-belt born Baptist and what Randal said was taken for the gospel--why say that? He could have probably said any number of things including, "Hey, where's the can? I gotta take a wiz." "I'm hungry, let's eat!" "El gato en mis pantalones." "Watashi wa hambugaa." Just about anything else would have worked. But merely uttering the phrase, "I think could have been convinced..." makes Randal instantly the bad guy instead of sucking up the blame for asking such a stupid question and leaving the decision up to such a spontaneously selfish answer.

Of course, I think Randal made a horrible choice, and of course I instantly lost all respect and liking for him. I wonder how he feels going from one of the most-liked people in America to one of the trolls. But I think Trump should be dumped right there beside him. Because ultimately it was Trump who made a series of bad moves that made the evening play out to its final selfishness.

Labels: television, the apprentice

( 0comments )

I found this article on MSN called: 9 Ways to Look Rich But Live Cheap. I really enjoyed it. I especially enjoyed the end, but I won't ruin it for you...

Labels: fashion, news

( 1comments )

at December 29, 2005 2:05 PM  Lorie said...

There's an extra http in your link.

I don't know...I don't know if I care to look rich, especially if it involves hobnobbing. I don't think I can hobnob. I'll stick with just being cheap.

 

It suddenly dawned me, as so many things have suddenly dawned on me lately, that I haven't had ants in years.

I remember the last time I lived in California, every single place I lived--it didn't matter if it was Sacramento or the buttcrack of nowhere--every summer we had ants. Without fail. I remember my mom tried poisoning the sugar bowl, in hopes that they'd carry the poison back to their homebase. I remember thinking to myself, Why poison the sugar when you could just clean up the sugar you spilled when you spooned it from your coffee?

Anyway, I guess ants have been on my mind because I'm going to be one. Not a physical, little black ant. But an Aunt, with a 'u.' I know it should probably be pronounced: ahhhnt, or awnt or something yuppy-ish, but I've always said, ant for Aunt. My sister-in-law is having a baby.

I have gone through a lot of emotions, actually. I am happy that she's happy. But honestly, for some reason, I guess I never really imagined that I'd have to deal with this day when someone really close to me had a baby. I guess I assumed we'd live some sort of Lord of the Flies type of existence, except with more clothes, less killing (unless it's in video, computer or some kind of game), and, well, more bathing. I honestly don't know what I expected. Maybe Lord of the Flies is a bad example. Maybe Never Never Land is a better example. Like we'd all be Lost Boys--not the vampire movie, but that would mean Keifer Sutherland could join our group...

I suppose I never really imagined being grown up. But I look around, and I'm 24 years old. I'm teaching freshmen. My brothers are either adults or nearly so. I'm married. And my husband actually has what could quite possibly be a career. But our cat is as crazy as ever, so all is right in the world.

Labels: california, cfbc, childfree by choice, children, the children question

( 0comments )

I officially finished my first semester as a doctoral candidate on Friday, and I think the semester went quite well. I honestly don't know what I'll get in my courses. I'm thinking B+/A- for my Fiction Workshop. T.C. Boyle said that my writing drastically improved over the course of the semester and that I always had intelligent and insightful things to say in class during our peer review. I was a putz and volunteered to be in the first group on the first day of class. So that meant I had exactly 7 days to write something brilliant, while also trying to figure out how to teach a class for the first time ever in the same week. With all of my worrying, it didn't leave much time for being brilliant. I came up with 6 pages of the rawest material I had ever exposed to anyone and got a B-. We had two one-page essays based on books we read in the semester, I got an A- and A on those. The second submission, which only T.C. Boyle read, got an A-. The third submission was another full-class review. I had been working on one project but suddenly got inspired and wrote 13 pages about a praying mantis which received a B+. The final submission was the first submission, heavily revised--I have decided to turn it into a novel--and I got an A-.

My literary/cultural theory class is a little harder to figure out. We didn't know how we were being graded. I figured basic things would be taken into consideration, which means I figured they would be grading on the things I was grading my own students on: attendance, ancillary work, participation, and then the presentation and final paper would be the majority of the grade. But well, the professors kinda changed near the end of the term and decided to make the presentation 50% of the grade and the final paper 50% of the grade, and to hell with our attendance, participation and ancillary assignments up until that point. I felt especially sorry for the students who had already presented because it seemed to me that they were inherently screwed over.

I never sweated so much in my life. For 3 weeks, I worked on my presentation every single day. I had chosen horror as my subject. But when I started to think about it, horror suddenly was way too big. Did I want to focus on supernatural horror or human horror? Did I want to focus on literature? Film? Television? How about the phenomenon of prime time television this fall? There's a plethora of horror-genre shows this season. Was I interested in the connection between horror and September 11th? Was I interested in the reasons why horror is appealing?

Finally, I narrowed it down to Frankenstein. I was interested in how the legend of Frankenstein permeates popular culture, but very few people have actually read the novel (which is one of my favorite novels of all time). Then I thought about it and realized that the monster has actually devolved as time progresses. So the monster originally started out very human and very intelligent in Mary Shelley's novel. But nowadays, the monster is relegated to a glorified zombie who is more associated with The Munsters and Pepsi at Halloween than the original incarnation. I wondered why that was.

As I considered that, I suddenly got re-interested in zombie movies. And how zombie movies have proliferated the cinema over the last four years. Could that be related to September 11th? Zombie movies seem like the best suited for political messages. In fact, Showtime has a series called Masters of Horror, every episode stands alone, so they're not related storywise, and a different director takes on each installment. The series is not very good... but when I'm hard up for horror, I'll watch anything. And the latest episode was actually about zombies taking over the government. Could that be leftist propaganda? The episode had such potential... but sadly it was really boring. Shaun of the Dead is highly superior in every way, even if it is simply a zombie homage flick.

So I started to wonder when zombie movies started to crop up, and it wasn't until George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead in 1964. I saw it once when I was four, but I watched it again OnDemand, and it is awesome. The movie is in black and white, or well, you should only watch the b&w version, and it's over 30 years old, but it is still really scary and extremely relevant. It makes that poor attempt by Sam Ham (or is it Hamm?) on Masters of Horror really sub-par. Because Night of the Living Dead is political without being overtly so.

I tried to research zombie movies, but sadly, there isn't a lot of scholarly articles on the subject.

Then somehow I decided that instead of zombie movies, I was going to do Scream (1996). But there wasn't anything written on that either, but that movie still really entertains and scares the heck outta me, and so I wanted to try to figure out why... then suddenly it dawned on me: if I was going to try to conquer a fear, shouldn't I go to the source?

Freddy Krueger.

By the time I was six years old, there weren't any horror movies that scared me anymore. My dad made me watch them all, you name an 80s horror movie and I've seen it. Even Re-Animator (hey, they sell a shirt of that at Hot Topic now, I didn't know anyone knew that movie except me). The only movie that scared the living crap out of me was A Nightmare On Elm Street. Fuck, you weren't safe awake, you weren't safe alseep. Being on the receiving end of many-a-back-hands, I understand not being safe at home. But I always viewed school as my sanctuary. But fuck again--you weren't even safe at school! That stupid movie took every safe spot away from me.

That Krueger bastard has haunted me since I was four years old. I still have nightmares about the fucker and I'm 24. But it was really bad when I was six and seven, because my dad bought an Indiana Jones hat--eerily similar to Krueger's hat--and stupid Toys R Us put the stupid glove on sale for Halloween. So my stupid dad cast Freddy Krueger shadows on my wall at night until I would scream bloody murder. My dad, being an amateur filmmaker, super 8mm mind you, made me star in a movie about that stupid gloved hand killing me in 3 different ways--but everytime I died, I woke up again, just to die a different way. If my dad wasn't busy casting shadows on my door and wall, or making dumb silent movies, he was scratching on my window at night with that gloved hand.

It got to the point where I started to watch A Nightmare On Elm Street and A Nightmare On Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge every day after school, just so I would know all of scary parts, and so I could stop being scared.

My dad took this to mean that I was in love with the movies, and being fascinated by movie make-up, he made me be Freddy Krueger at Halloween that year. I should scan this photo of me in a red and green sweater, with a melted face, my dad's hat and the stupid glove hand.

So I decided to stare my fear right in the face because that bastard has haunted me since I was four years old. I gotta tell you, hearing a whole room erupt in laughter at the "scary" scenes doesn't make it so scary anymore. I wrote a 15 page paper that I affectionately titled: The Slash In Slasher Flicks: A Deconstructionist/Cultural Materialist/Feminist/Psychoanalytical Analysis of A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984). I had to watch the movie, not to memorize it for the scary scenes, but to analyze it. It felt good to stare my fear in the face.

But back to the sweating... the professors really enjoyed my presentation. And that's good, because it was worth 50% of the grade. But I literally changed my shirt three times before class that day. The underarms of my shirts were so damp that it was grossing me out. I have never sweated so much in my entire life as I did during those three weeks leading up to my presentation. But I still don't know what grade I got on anything.

Labels: cultural materialist, deconstruction, feminist theory, gender, grad school, horror, movies, psychoanalysis, writing

( 1comments )

at December 29, 2005 2:05 PM  Alex_Knight said...

Sounds like it has been an interesting semester for you. When you get the final results on your grades, I hope to hear good things. :-)
As for Night of the Living Dead, I can't say that I personally thought it was all that scary. I ended up laughing throughout the entire movie. Especially being a gamer, I spent the movie thinking, "Shouldn't have done that... That was a mistake..." and so forth.
The last movie to truly creep me out was The Ring. I actually had a difficult time sleeping after watching it.