« July 2009 | Main | September 2009 »

August 27, 2009

Birthday Wishes

Birthday Wishes 2009

 

As usual, I am very picky about notebooks and coffee cups, and my cupboards are full of both. And as usual, whatever you think I will enjoy, I probably will.

Posted by Julie at 9:04 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

xkcd

xkcd

Posted by Julie at 8:34 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Cocktail Party

Posted by Julie at 11:40 AM | TrackBack

August 25, 2009

I anledning valget blogger jeg litt om politikk

In Norway, I'm the token right-wing conservative in my group of friends. In the US, I'm practically a socialist. I dream of a small island in the Atlantic Ocean where people agree with me.

Slik beskrev jeg min politikk til en amerikansk venn forrige uke.

"Ap og Høyre burde regjere sammen" skrev Rögnvaldur Hannesson i E24 i går. Egentlig bør dere alle bare lese det Hannesson skriver. Myten om høyresiden og venstresiden i norsk politikk er faktisk en myte. Nok er nok nå.

Men siden det snart er valg, og siden pappa kom meg i forkjøpet og blogget om Hannesson først, og siden jeg kan være en ordentlig valgnerd, tenkte jeg å benytte anledningen til å fortelle hva mine politiske synspunkter faktisk er. Hint: Jeg er enig med Hannesson.

Jeg har egentlig sperrer mot å være for politisk offentlig. Jeg mener, jeg er jo journalist. Og etter at jeg ble det, har jeg en slags unnskyldning for min uklare politiske overbevisning. Journalister skal jo være så nøytrale.

Journalister skal imidlertid også stemme. Og for Nte gang: Poenget med å være nøytral journalist er ikke at man skal være totalt foruten interesser og bekjentskaper, men at man skal legge disse til side når man skriver som journalist. Derfor har jeg ingen problemer med å fronte synspunkter i denne bloggen og være nøytral i en annen publikasjon.

Jeg har likevel ikke blogget så mye om mine egne politiske meninger. Det skyldes egentlig at jeg som statsviternerd synes partipolitikk både er håpløst forenklende og håpløst komplisert.

"A writer is somebody for whom writing is more difficult than for other people." Det var visst Thomas Mann som mente det. Jeg er ikke egentlig enig med ham. Min versjon: "A political scientist is someone for whom an election is great fun, but voting is more difficult than for other people."

Ifølge én "Political Spectrum Quiz" (se nedenfor) er jeg en "centrist social libertarian".

My Political Views
I am a centrist social libertarian
Right: 0.21, Libertarian: 5.05

Political Spectrum Quiz

Det finnes flere lignende politiske tester, men slik ble resultatet i dag. Det høres fornuftig ut for meg: nesten midt på verdens høyre-venstre-akse (såvidt over til høyresiden), men klar på at staten ikke skal blande seg inn i hva folk spiser, hvem de forelsker seg i, og hvorvidt de ber til noen form for gud.

Det er på verdensbasis. Hva min plassering på det store ideologiske spektret egentlig betyr for norsk partitilhørighet er ikke selvsagt. Da jeg tok faget Politisk Teori, skrev jeg om mine politiske frustrasjoner. Hovedpoenget var at partipolitikk handler om å gruppere synspunkter som gjerne har en historisk fremfor en logisk sammenheng. Og dess mer man stiller spørsmål til disse politiske pakkeløsninger man har å velge mellom, dess mindre logisk virker det folk sier om politikk. Spesielt hvis man begynner å sammenligne med andre land, og spesielt hvis man tenker seg at man stemmer på regjeringsalternativer (altså pakkeløsninger laget av pakkeløsninger) i vel så stor grad som på partier.

Akademisk er jeg en teori- og ideologinerd. I praksis er jeg lei av svada. Lei av "sosialister" som sitter i boblebad på Frogner og tror de forstår hva fattigdom er fordi de er studenter. Lei av "liberalister" som mottar penger fra Lånekassen, men går ut fra at jeg er enig med dem - basert på mine perleøredobber - om at kunstnere ikke fortjener støtte.

Det fører meg tilbake til Hannesson. Jeg fikk vite om innlegget hans gjennom grunnleggeren av denne Facebookgruppen. Den heter Arbeiderpartiet+Høyre+Venstre - VALG 2009, og gruppens beskrivelse kunne nesten vært mitt eget politiske manifest:

Jens og Jonas er jo egentlig ikke sosialister, og vi slipper KrF, FrP, SV, Rødt og Sp :) I tillegg er det ofte disse partiene [Ap, H og V] som samarbeider mest på Stortinget. Aps hovedmotstander er FrP, ikke Høyre og Venstre. Vi har lenge sett at det er et stort gap mellom Høyre og Venstre på den ene siden og FrP på den andre. Et litt utradisjonelt alternativ, men hvorfor ikke? Hvem vil ha Siv Jensen som statsminister egentlig??

Applaus fra meg. Såpass at jeg meldte meg inn i gruppen da jeg fikk invitasjon til det for omtrent et år siden.

Hannessons forslag er altså ikke noen nyhet i seg selv. Janne Haaland Matlary har også gått inn for det hun kaller ikkepopulistisk side, og det var allerede i 2008. Hun nevnte New Labour og at Arbeiderpartiet står nærme Høyre i blant annet utenrikspolitikk og økonomi. Herman Friele mente denne våren at en kriseregjering med Høyre og Arbeiderpartiet ville vært det beste for landet.

Ikke misforstå. Arbeiderpartiet og Høyre er uenig om mye. Bedøm selv. Poenget er at det må gå an å tenke nytt, og at ord som "borgerlig" og "sosialist" egentlig bare er ord i dagens norske politikk.

Når vi har klart å plassere partiet "Venstre" og partiet "Høyre" ved siden av hverandre på en høyre-venstre skala, er det kanskje på tide å finne på nye politiske merkelapper.

Posted by Julie at 7:32 PM | TrackBack

How to be a parent for teenagers

Ingar sent me a link to an article called "5 steps to understanding teenage girls". I talked to my mom on the phone a couple of days after reading the article, and we talked about her own parent-frustrations.

My mom isn't frustrated about teenage girls. She's frustrated about their parents - specifically the way other parents talk about their teenagers. When my mom claims teenage girls aren't monsters, parents react either with "You don't know what we're going through. Your daughters follow the rules." or "You have no idea what you're talking about. You think your daughters are following the rules? Puh-lease!"

By the time my youngest sister turns 20, my parents will have spent 15 years of their lives being the parents of teenagers. The article from Ingar and my conversation with my mom both got me thinking: What did my parents do right?

First of all, my parents know better than to listen to the worst advice. For example, when there was some newspaper/magazine debate about reading teenagers' diaries and text messages to check on what they were up to, I told my parents that I would never, ever, forgive them if they invaded my privacy that way. I think I was about fifteen, and I kept a very honest journal. Which they better not have read.

(Shortly after this, my dad set up a blog for me, so he could legitimately read some of my thoughts. Pretty sneaky.)

I've been an ex-teenager for a couple of years now. Looking back, I never felt like my parents were ruining my life. We fought, but I never fundamentally thought of them as enemies. In fact, I would say that my parents and I have had more serious disagreements before I turned 13 and after I turned 20 than during those supposedly difficult teenage years. Which brings me to my most basic tip for being a good parent for teenagers: Stop imagining that those seven years are so very different from all the other years of your lives.

I think that by the time your children become teenagers, they should know the following:

Really, that's it. Start the supposedly awful teenage years with mutual trust and half the job is done.

Beyond that, be consistent and predictable when it comes to rules - and within the ground rules, be flexible and reasonable. I usually knew what to expect from my parents. I also feel like my parents communicated the difference between what was really unacceptable and what was just not recommendable. For example, lying about my age and sneaking into clubs was something I got away with. Taking drugs while at those clubs would not have been ok. I've stayed home from school because I didn't feel like going - with my parents' permission. But not caring about school at all, or cheating on a test, would have gone against their values, which I think would have been different.

The point is that I felt we had a shared understanding about what the limit was. Sometimes I went beyond that line, and crossed over into unacceptable, they-better-not-find-out-about-this territory, but I always knew that was what I was doing. I think that kept me in check a bit; it kept me from going too far.

In the comments to the article, "Former Teenager" wrote:

I was pretty wild from 16-18 (sex with older men, smoking, taking ecstasy at weekends in nightclubs and bunking off school whenever I knew I wouldn't get caught) though had the good sense to keep very schtum about it as my parents were quite strict... although I now realise she knew about the majority of it, worried about it and monitored it quite early on and never believed my lies and ommissions.

Her 'talking' about this stuff with me wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to my behaviour but knowing where her tolerance levels were absolutely helped keep me in check. I would never have dared get pregnant, fail an exam, need my stomach pumping or get caught playing truant. As a result I got fabulous A level grades, a good degree from a good university and now have an excellent career and an eminently lovely and sensible man, despite my teenage high spirits.

A bit of wildness does teenagers no harm provided parents are there to set firm objectives, maintain order and pick up the pieces every now and then.

In other words, don't underestimate the power of "My parents will be so disappointed in me." That thought has kept me from doing some pretty stupid stuff.

Throughout my teenage years, I perfected my defense for the day when my parents would be really, really disappointed in me. It varied, but followed this basic idea:

Mom, dad, I'm not pregnant. I've never been arrested, I've never taken illegal drugs, and I don't smoke. I've never committed any serious crimes, and my grades are still good. But please, don't try to make me stop __________. Because I probably will continue to do so anyway. And you should be glad that's all I'm doing.

I never needed to say it.

Usually, the blank was filled with some variation of "going to parties with people who do things you don't want me to do". But as it turns out, my parents trusted me to be able to be in a potentially risky environment without putting myself at risk. (Or they just had no idea what I was really up to, but I'm going to assume my parents are smarter than that.)

The point is that if someone wants to for example start smoking, it's really hard to stop them. I've tried and failed repeatedly. When I wanted my friends and family members to stop smoking, I didn't have the resources parents have with their kids. I couldn't lock them in their room, for example. But locking up children is usually frowned upon, even though that's really the only way to forcefully stop someone from breaking the rules.

Which brings me back to mutual trust and shared understanding of rules: I think my parents knew they couldn't stop me, but they relied on me to stop myself. And that was good for me.

I can just hear the other parents saying: "Yeah, but they're not all goody two-shoes like you,", and I could probably write a whole separate blog post to answer that kind of comment. But any parent who thinks I was born "a nice girl" while their own children are actually impossible, simply does not get it.

The point here is that while "My parents don't want me to do this." may deter some teenagers, it isn't really a genuinely good reason not to do something. You need to teach them why drugs/cheating/lying etc. are bad in the long run. If they want to do something, and they can't see for themselves that it's bad for them, then you can't stop them by force. 

And beyond that, remember that your kids are growing up. That's kind of the whole idea of being teenagers: they are no longer children. More and more of their world is separate from your world, and more and more of their problems have nothing to do with you. The plus side: It might not be your fault. The minus side: It might be completely out of your control.

I'll finish this with another comment from below that same article:

I've always thought that if you expect trouble with teenagers, that's what you get. Too many people batten down the hatches and prepare for war with a giant list of 'Don'ts' before anything's even happened.

It's important to like teenagers... my daughter's nearly a year old and people say 'Ah, but wait til she's a teenager', and you know what? I'm really looking forward to it.

I'm well aware, though, that maybe I was lulled into a false sense of security - there was no door slamming and squawking with the three of us in our teens, but I still don't think we were that exceptional. Our parents trusted us not to do anything stupid, we paid them back by not doing anything (too) stupid, and they didn't make a fuss over things that weren't worth it.

- Claudia Conway

Posted by Julie at 12:35 AM | TrackBack

August 23, 2009

Koselig = the meaning of life

During Julie's* stay in Oslo, and again during a conversation with Peter, the list of "signs you know you've been in Norway too long" came up repeatedly. I finally found a really long version of this list. Some of these are really, really funny, some are pretty disturbing (like the first and last one), and they are all true.

*Julie?!?!? Where am I supposed to link to you?

You know you've been in Norway for too long when...

Posted by Julie at 11:24 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Chanel i Morgenbladet

Morgenbladet har anmeldt begge sensommerens Chanelfilmer her. Det var interessant å lese etter at jeg selv skrev en slags anmeldelse av Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky her.

Marius Lien skriver i Morgenbladet at den første oppføringen av balletten Le Sacre du Printemps i seg selv er verdt prisen av å se Coco + Igor på kino. Jeg er student og synes kino er for dyrt, men det er absolutt en bra scene.

Han skriver også om filmens hovedpersoner:

"Jeg vil anta at de hadde en og annen spennende samtale, men Kounen [regissøren] tar ikke sjansen på å utforske disse. I stedet er det mange tungt dramatiske blikk, og opptil flere svulstige sexscener. Coco Chanel og Igor Stravinsky reddes fordi hovedpersonene er interessante nok i seg selv."

Akkurat.

Vi er også enige om at filmen ikke lar oss bli godt kjent med Chanel. Det er ikke nødvendigvis et problem, og jeg tror kanskje jeg liker at Chanels handlinger og tanker på slutten av filmen - og forholdet - kan tolkes på flere måter. Det var tross alt det jeg diskuterte med venner etter filmen - ikke Igor og Coco, men Coco alene.

Min bloggpost fikk noen jeg ikke kjenner til å la være å se filmen. Hun hadde tenkt til det, men ombestemte seg. Så la meg bare få sagt: For all del, det er en godt laget film. Og hvis du ikke er fattig student, er kanskje én god scene verdt pengene. Men den faller litt i samme kategori som Mad Men og Gossip Girl: Fine klær, slemme mennesker. Jeg er ofte i humør til det første, men orker ikke å tenke så mye på det andre, i hvert fall ikke nå for tiden.

Og den andre Chanelfilmen? Jeg gleder meg til å se Coco Avant Chanel. Så får vi se om jeg er enig med Morgenbladet der også.

Posted by Julie at 9:32 PM | TrackBack

August 21, 2009

It's a real live Moose!

Limbs Stortinget_178

 

Happy Moose Cap Friday to everyone!

This photo is from the Skansen Zoo in Stockholm. Julie and I went to Skansen just to see the Moose. A pilgrimage if you will. And after that, the usual comment to anything else we saw (like all the other animals, bakelser at NK and the night train back to Oslo) was: "Well, that was fun, but not everything can be a Moose."

Posted by Julie at 12:07 PM | TrackBack

August 12, 2009

Cheating with Chanel

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A few weeks ago, I saw Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky at a closed viewing before the official release date. There were glasses of cava and bottles of number 5. The idea was that we would talk the film up before the release. I didn't feel like writing a review. Partly because of vacation mode, partly because... meh.

I went in on a slight cava buzz, expecting to crave Coco's clothes and to love Igor's music. Check. Check. Also, she apparently had a great house. But that was it.

I would warn of spoilers, but spoilers require a plot.

The full extent of the plot is revealed on the movie poster: Coco Chanel and Igor Stravinsky have sex. No, it wasn't porn, but that was really what happened. She is rich and admires his work. He moves into her house with his entire family, including wife, so that he can have a quiet place to compose. In a series of scenes that zoom closely in on their two faces, we get that the two main characters are thinking about each other a lot. One night she goes into his room and takes off her dress. And I think: "No! The clothes are the best part of this movie!"

Not that the whole thing isn't all very pretty. I mean, look at the trailer:

But I would prefer a slide show of Chanel clothes set to a Stravinsky soundtrack. The "plot" only makes the two seem selfish and horrible. His wife is in the next room. So are his children.

After reading Lust in Translation last week, I started thinking about this movie again. The author, Pamela Druckerman, an American living in Paris, went to China, South Africa, Japan and Russia among others to research cheating. According to Druckerman, while the cheated spouse is always hurt, no one is more devastated by infidelity than Americans. The French for example don't cheat any more than the Americans, but if it happens, it's not all that surprising to them. Being cheated on in France doesn't change your world view, or make you question everything your cheating partner has ever done. According to Druckerman, both the Russians and the French are calmer than Americans about the whole issue of lying.

I don't know how I'm "supposed" to react to infidelity, since Lust in Translation doesn't have a chapter on Scandinavia. But Stravinsky's Russian wife calmly, but tragically accepts her fate, and she's the one I sympathise with, at least up to a certain point.

I think the audience is supposed to be on Coco and Igor's side, but I certainly wasn't. The interaction between them doesn't justify the cheating to me.  The characters don't seem to be in love or to inspire each others' work or even to like each other all that much.

It's as if the script writers want us to think: If two attractive geniuses spend enough time together, of course they should have an affair. And since the movie is marketed at fans of both the main characters, of course we'll all sympathise with them. Coco is my heroine already, surely she can do no wrong on screen?

Well, my sympathy did swing back to Chanel for a moment when Igor's wife wrote har a letter saying: "I need him more than you do." Maybe that comment hit too close to home for me, too close to the idea that "strong women" can handle anything, so they better not need anything or anyone.

I know that this film is based on a novel which is based on a true story. So it happened, but that doesn't make it believable to me. There is a difference between realistic and believable. But perhaps reality or the novel has an interpretation of events more sympathetic to Chanel and Stravinsky.

Especially Chanel, who as my friend Martine pointed out after the viewing, could be an interesting character to discuss from a feminist point of view: She provides a house for Stravinsky, she is a successful and really sort of bitchy business woman during the story; she initiates the affair. And most importantly to me, she ends it. I wouldn't mind reading this story as a novel where we actually see what's going on inside this woman's head.

In the meantime, listen to this and browse here instead.

Posted by Julie at 11:33 AM | TrackBack

City of Thieves

I've always envied people who sleep easily. Their brains must be cleaner, the floorboards of the skull well swept, all the little monsters closed up in a steamer trunk at the foot of the bed.

I was born an insomniac and that's the way I'll die, wasting thousands of hours along the way, longing for unconsciousness, longing for a rubber mallet to crack me in the head, not so hard, not hard enough to do any damage, just a good wack to put me down for the night. But that night I didn't have the chance. I stared into the blackness until the blackness blurred into gray, until the ceiling above me began to take form and the light from the east dribbled in through the narrow barred window that existed after all.

Only then did I realize that I still had a German knife strapped to my calf.

That was the end of chapter 2* in City of Thieves by David Benioff. The insomniac is imprisoned in Leningrad during the Nazi siege. His crime was looting a dead German soldier. His punishment was supposed to be death, but instead he is sent on a special mission to find 12 eggs so that a Soviet colonel's daughter can have a traditional wedding cake. In a city where people are willing to eat books - or each other - finding eggs is completely impossible. But it's the only way he can survive.

I read ten chapters of this book last night, so I expect to finish it by Friday. It's fast-paced, sad, scary and somehow funny.

*I have added paragraph breaks.

Posted by Julie at 9:58 AM | TrackBack