Urban Exploring

I don't think I've ever actually considered doing something illegal simply for the sake of travel, art, and the wonder of the human experience. However, I have recently added an illegal activity to my proverbial bucket list for precisely those reasons: urban exploring, particularly in the area of abandoned theme parks.

I didn't know these actually existed until quite recently. But there are apparently quite a few theme parks in the world that still stand, but have been abandoned to the elements. They haven't been torn down or relocated ... they simply exist in a haunting shadow of former glory, slowly being reclaimed by nature. Nara Dreamland in Japan is one such theme park; a Disneyland ripoff, it closed in 2006 but has not been demolished. Six Flags New Orleans is another one; after Hurricane Katrina, this Six Flags was damaged beyond repair, but its skeletal remains still grace Louisiana. These places seriously exist all over the world. And I have decided that I must visit them because they are haunting and beautiful and the sheer epitome of the human realization that, as time moves forward, all things are left behind -- even us and our wonderful creations.

I am honestly excited about this. I want to wander and take photographs and sit and think and write and experience. But here's the problem: stepping foot into one of these places is considered trespassing, and is highly illegal. People have gotten arrested for participating in urban exploring, and so I'm not quite sure how I'm going to pull this off. Much research and preparation will be necessary, I'm sure. But before I leap too far into that aspect of my proposed journey, let me share more details about these places I want so badly to visit, courtesy of images from explorers who have already ventured out.

The first place I want to go is Six Flags New Orleans. I mean, honestly, do we really need much of a reason to visit New Orleans? It's jazz and the bayou; it's amazing food and drink; it's vampire culture and voodoo folklore; it's the historical South at its absolute best and worst. And it has an abandoned theme park.

Like I said before, Hurricane Katrina destroyed this place years ago. It was covered in water, and when said water retreated everything was left in rusty disrepair. The photographs already taken of this place are truly some of the most haunting images I've seen of an abandoned theme park. The cost of fixing everything up would have been too much for Six Flags ... but, the thing is, it was also going to cost them too much to take everything down (due to the lease they had on the land). So their cheapest, most viable option was to leave it alone. This is my first choice of abandoned places to visit, by far. It has so much potential.

I also previously mentioned Nara Dreamland. Again, it was a Disneyland ripoff built in Japan in 1961 as a response to Walt Disney's success in California. It has all of the token visual representations of Disneyland, including the pink fairy tale castle and the Matterhorn mountain. But, unlike Disneyland, it did not experience immense success, and ultimately closed its doors in 2006. Much like what happened with Six Flags in New Orleans, those who owned the park didn't think that the time and money it would take to remove the park was worth investing in, and so it was simply abandoned.

Photos reveal that you can still climb the hills of the roller coaster, and the queue areas are completely overgrown with moss and plant life. The once-beautiful fountains are now exposed and decrepit, and its "Main Street" looks like a scene right out of the next zombie film to hit theaters.

I'm not opposed to traveling to Japan to see it, though, obviously, that will be farther in the future than New Orleans.

Honestly, I'd like to try my hand at urban exploring at various places around the world ... Who knows, I may even be crazy enough to venture into Chernobyl one day. Not that I necessarily want to make a habit out of illegally entering premises, but I do think that abandoned places, like ghost towns, carry so much potential for human reflection and discovery. It could be fun. So ... who's game? :)

Everything Happens at Midnight: A Review of Bates Motel

I have been a fan of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho for a great majority of my life. As such, I was intrigued when I learned that A&E was releasing a television series that would supposedly prequel Norman Bates' descent into madness. I just finished watching the season finale of Bates Motel, and the show, as a whole, did not disappoint. Though the very premise of this show could have easily taken a nosedive early on, my experience is that every major aspect -- the characters, the plots, the actors, the writing, the pacing, etc. -- has been spot on, leaving me wanting more after each episode, and certainly after the series' completion.

I want to take a moment to review the final episode and offer a few thoughts about it, and the series in general. I honestly don't want to spend a lot of time here summarizing the show or this episode, so it suffices to say that if you haven't been watching the show, then you won't have a clue as to what I'm talking about. And if you have been watching the show but haven't seen the final episode(s), remember that spoilers are a thing. ;) If you want a quick summary and expose from the writers, directors, and actors, watch this short video clip from A&E about the final episode.

There is an aspect about this episode that I both loved and hated. I guess it's virtually present in all cliffhanger television shows -- the capacity to answer questions and tie up loose ends while, at the same time, opening up so many more. It leaves us, the audience, somewhat satisfied and wanting more all at once, which is the foundation for keeping a television audience entertained. The game, however, is arguably different with a story as iconic as Psycho. There needed to be, I think, a delicate balance between keeping fans satisfied with the direction of the series and still keeping them guessing. So when it came to the looming question about this series, how did the writers choose to play it out?

The question I'm speaking of was whether Norman was going to go full-on Psycho by the end of the season. We were all wondering. And most of us were left feeling pretty sure that he did (and I emphasize most ... more on that in a moment). We as an audience have seen this coming, and not just because we've seen Psycho; to the contrary, this series has created a psychological descent that stands on its own. We've seen it coming because we know Norman has a tendency to black out and see strange visions of his mother. We know that, during one of these blackouts, Norman killed his father. We know that Norman witnessed his mother being abused by his father, and that he walked in while Keith Summers was raping his mother. We know that Norma, while simultaneously controlling Norman the child, places her own heavy emotional burdens on Norman the person. We know that Norman uncovered the diary of a sex slave, and found the sex slave herself chained up in his mother's lover's basement. And we know that Norman's heart was shattered when he lost his virginity to an evening of comfort sex with someone who wasn't actually interested in him, something he was not emotionally prepared to take on. We know Norman's not mentally stable, and we know that he had a dream about killing Bradley, the girl who instigated the casual sex. All of these things present a recipe for disaster, and so we know, even beyond the Psycho that's in Norman's future, that something dire is due to happen with him.

What is interesting is how Bates Motel has begun to characterize the development of "Mother". Each time Norman blacks out and attacks someone (and keep in mind that we've only seen this happen with his father, with Dylan, and, presumably, with Miss Watson), it's been either in protection of his mother, or due to uncomfortable sexual tension that he doesn't know what to do with. Even though the sexual aspect of Norman's psychosis is only beginning to rear its ugly head, I don't think its significance should be underestimated. We have to remember what this kid's experience with sex actually is -- seeing his mother raped, hearing about his mother raped, coming across visual evidence of sex slaves, and being invited into the kind of casual sex that he was not emotionally ready for. And then his English teacher invited him over to her house and proceeded to undress within full view of her underage student (directly, I might add, before her grisly death). When Norman could see Miss Watson begin to remove her clothing, you could see the tension building within him. You could just feel it (kudos to Freddie Highmore for such an excellent acting job here and throughout the series). His arousal was, by this time, a negative experience for him. And that is when "Mother" appeared for the second time in the series -- telling Norman, ultimately, what he "ha[d] to do" to the woman causing his arousal. And Norman's expression of discomfort began to morph into an eerie, sadistic smile.

So Norman's disturbing, intertwined vine of feelings involving his mother and sex are beginning to take root. And the final episode of the season has led us to believe that this has already resulted in a murder. After learning that he blacked out and can't remember anything, and after seeing the final screen shot of her dead in her home, what other conclusion could we come to?

Weeeellll ... if there is one thing this show does well, it's teach us to expect the unexpected. In other words, this almost seems too easy, and almost too early for Norman to be committing the crimes we know that Norman Bates the adult is capable of. The series has, thus far, portrayed him as an ultimately good kid in a really bad situation, and with just the right amount of mental instability to eventually become a killer. And we kind of expected this to be dragged over a few seasons before actually seeing a Psycho-esque murder. Also, those of us who are writers understand that you simply do not write something that doesn't actually play a part in the overall story -- and yet, what other role could "Eric," the man Miss Watson was arguing on the phone with, play other than her murderer (when we were expecting it was Norman)? Sure, he could turn out to be nothing more than a useful scapegoat to keep Norman out of trouble, but I honestly suspect him playing more of a role in Miss Watson's death than that.

Further, Miss Watson's corpse shot revealed that she wore a necklace of the letter "B." If you haven't been watching the series, you don't know why this is significant, but if you have been watching, you'll remember the letter that Bradley found in her father's office. "B". This will certainly come into play in season two.

So what does all of this mean? In my opinion, it means that Miss Watson was murdered, but not by Norman. I would love to see the show take him there, as it was a very chilling way to end the season, but I honestly don't think that's how this is going to play out. Personally, I think that Norman may have witnessed the murder, and is storing that awful scene in his subconscious mind alongside the other traumas he's witnessed throughout his life. Remember, Norman has killed only once before (by hitting his father over the head), and attempted to kill one other time (by trying to hit his brother over the head). Even though we can easily see how mentally disturbed he is, it seems a bit much to expect that he's going to automatically, suddenly launch himself into a bloody, throat-slashing serial killer. But time will tell on this one.

Another new question that this final episode raised concerned Dylan. He's always been different than his mother and brother (more down-to-earth, certainly), though his own capacity to take a life makes you wonder just how "different" he really is. Dylan, though, is a bit inconsistent, and difficult to keep up with. In only ten episodes, he's gone from jobless moocher to solemn hard worker; from apathetic about his strange brother to concerned about said brother (he even wanted at one point to move Norman out of Norma's house), and then back to apathy when he begins moving in on the young woman he knows his brother is still obsessed with (though I do think Dylan is becoming very aware that Norman is mentally disturbed, hence the shift in the type of concern he's showing). He has moved from complete and utter distaste for his mother into very mild respect and trust for her. Learning what Norma has gone through recently probably affected his views on her, but his acquiescence in acquiring her a gun, teaching her how to shoot, and his slip up in calling her "Mom" instead of "Norma" all point to a possible closer bonding experience between them.

However. We learned in this episode that Norma's brother raped her growing up, leading us to wonder whether Dylan might be a product of incest. After all, we knew that Dylan and Norman were not fathered by the same man, but we were never given any information whatsoever about Dylan's father. I think there's a possibility it could have been Norma's brother, which would partly explain the dynamic between them, and also raises questions about the future of their relationship.

In terms of Norma herself, I also found her small, solo scene with the gun to be interesting. She seemed to be pondering the idea of suicide -- not necessarily considering it, but considering the idea of it. I wondered if that was foreshadowing how she'll wind up dying later in the series. I have assumed, up until this point, that she'll wind up murdered by Norman, but it would be an interesting turn of events if she decides to end things herself once it becomes impossible to continue living in denial about Norman. Although Norma comes off on the surface as overly dramatic and mentally unstable, the writers (and actor Vera Farmiga) have done a wonderful job showing that there is more depth to her character. She has become at least somewhat relatable, albeit unreliable. I wonder how much of what she says is true (which includes the story about Norman killing his father, which only came from her), and how many of her untruths she actually believes (such as the discrepancy between the all-loving, smelling-like-cookies description of her parents she gave to her therapist, and the abusive, neglectful one she gave to Norman). In many ways, Norma isn't a likeable person, but it's precisely because of her frailty and inner demons that we care for her as a character, and continue to root for her despite watching her live in a denial that will likely cost many people their lives.

A few other things I'm left wondering:

1) What's up with Sheriff Romero? It's looking like he's going to play the hero role for now, but there are still a few things I don't understand about him. Or trust. For example, if he wasn't involved in the sex ring, why did he so readily believe Norma (in all her drama) about the Abernathy situation, with enough time to take care of things himself? And why did he know just where to find Shelby's money? And why, for the love of everything holy, would he throw that money into the sea after killing Abernathy (if, indeed, there was money in the suitcase, and he wasn't just putting on a show for Norma)? There is something off about Romero.

2) What is actually happening now with the sex slave ring? What happened to the girl that Norman rescued?

3) What's going to happen between Bradley and Dylan? Something tells me they're going to get closer and that Norman isn't going to be happy about it. I'm wondering, too, how this is going to affect Norman's friendship with Emma (assuming they still have a friendship after his display of assholery at the dance and her subsequent departure). I have been assuming that Bradley would be Norman's first kill, but now I'm not so sure ... like everything else, we'll see how this plays out.

All in all, this was a fantastic season that allowed us to explore who Norman Bates might have been as a young person, and just what circumstances drove him into his dual-personality, serial-killing destiny. Some have speculated that this series probably won't last long, due to the fact that we know how this whole thing ends. I, however, disagree. I think that the very fact that we know how this ends is what keeps us engaged. This show is an exploration of the human mind, the human experience, and the types of human interactions that carve out paths in our day to day lives. We as viewers are often fascinated by stories such as Norman Bates', but what makes it ultimately chilling is the realization that, as we delve further behind the scenes of Psycho, he is still a human being with very human experiences. And we relate.

As I Am: Putting Perspective on "Summer" Bodies

It's that time of the year again -- that time when the pressure to get ourselves "ready" for summer through dieting, tanning, highlighting, and a variety of other activities becomes pretty intense. It's the time of year when advertisements, the media, friends, and family remind us on a daily basis that if we're planning on wearing bathing suits, we'd better be thin enough to do so; that if we're going to be showing any skin, our body had better be tan enough to do so; that if we plan on having any fun whatsoever during the summer months, we'd better make sure that our bodies are ready to take on the physical role of "summer."

So here's the thing. This year, for the first time in my life, I've made a conscious decision not to buy into it. It's not easy -- not by a long shot. But this year, I am not dieting. I am not tanning. I am not bleaching my hair. I am ready to experiment with the idea of proudly displaying myself in whatever bathing suit or clothing I want to, in all of my imperfection. This is me:

While I am not overweight, per say, I am curvy (especially according to society's standards). My skin is very fair (often referred to as "pasty" by the loving members of the society to which I belong). My hair is very dark and pretty long -- not often styled well (mostly because I choose to sleep longer or whatever instead of spending an hour on it). I've got lots of freckles all over my body, which stand out starkly against my white skin. My breasts are a B-cup. But, see, I've decided not to care anymore that I don't meet society's standards for summer beautiful.

This isn't because I think that my natural self at all embodies the epitome of what we have culturally been led to believe is "beautiful," but because I've decided it's a good idea to embrace the deep philosophical practice of not giving a shit.

Golda Poretsky covers this at her blog. This is not about apathy, per say, but about making a conscious decision to not allow others' opinions of you (particularly about your physical appearance) control any aspect of your life.

This is difficult because we are taught from a very young age that we should care very much about what other people think. As a woman, I know that the pressure to shape one's self into the generic notion of "beautiful" can be intense. Crushingly intense.

Those who know me deeply know that I used to shape my life around making myself "beautiful." I thought that happiness could be found in being physically perfect. I used to put off things I wanted to do because I wasn't thin enough yet, and once I was thin enough or whatever enough, life could finally begin. I spiraled through eleven years of eating disorders (which almost killed me when I decided it was acceptable to withhold my necessary insulin injections because, hey, I'd be thin). I laid in tanning beds and covered my body with staining lotions so that my naturally fair skin would become darker. I bleached my hair, subsequently damaging it beyond repair. I used under-eye concealer on my freckles to make them less noticeable. In short, I went to great lengths in the name of physical perfection ... and I know that many other girls and women do, too.

But the burning question, always, is why. Why do we do this to ourselves? Why do we buy into the notion that our physical appearance is more important than our health, or our very lives? Why do we allow ourselves to accept the notion that we're not "good enough" unless we're thin enough, tan enough, blond enough, etc.? I am a huge advocate of health and taking care of one's self, but the fact of the matter is that not all of us (not even close to all of us) are born with the capacity to be ultra-skinny, large-breasted "bombshells". And the message that our society sends to us is that we are, therefore, lesser people than those who were born with said capacity. That we should feel ashamed about the ways in which our bodies deviate from society's beauty standard.

That we should do everything in our power to change ourselves, mold ourselves, until we meet the expectation.

But beyond the fact that this leaves millions of women (and men -- yes, I know you suffer from this, too) feeling inadequate for simply being themselves, it also sends the message that the main point of wearing a bikini (or short shorts, or a tank top) is to turn ourselves into ornaments that are attractive to other people. That the main point of vacationing is to be physically appealing. That the main point of visiting public pools or parks or cookouts or camping trips is to be physically appealing. As if we don't do these things simply because we enjoy doing them.

As if we don't deserve to enjoy our summers if we're not thin, tanned, and blond.

I've come to a few realizations in recent years, including that I've got quite a few things going on that require a lot from me -- my child, writing, teaching, and everything involved in getting the most out of the human experience that I can, while I'm here. And I'm tired of sacrificing so much time and money, and devoting so much emotional effort, into an impossible ideal that does not represent who I really am. So I'm not going to do it anymore.

Don't get me wrong here. Societal pressure, and the not-so-subtle messages that it sends to us about the way we look, still gets to me. It's not easy to dismiss it. I'm not going to lie and say that I love my body, or that I'm proud of it. I'm not there yet.

But what I can say is that I'm proud of myself. I'm proud of the fact that, despite society and all of the anxiety I feel about how I currently look, I'm just not going to waste any time on it anymore. I will do what I can to be healthy (like, you know, take my insulin). And beyond that, I will spend my extra money on making memories with my son and with my friends, rather than on tanning lotions and expensive highlights. I will spend my time making memories rather than on excessively exercising and obsessively dieting.

I'm not trying to denounce anyone who does feel the need to spend time and money shaping themselves. Do what you feel you need to.

But as for me, I am proud of myself this year -- proud beyond anything that my body and physical appearance represents. I'm simply proud of the woman I am. And when I show up at the beach, or the theme park, or the barbecue, or wherever this summer, I will not be there to prove that I can meet anyone else's expectations of "beauty." I will be there to have fun.

As I am.

Single Rider Lines

I spoke a bit about single rider lines in a comment thread over at Coaster Guy's blog. This wasn't an issue I've brought up very often in the past, but I think it needs to be discussed.

Why, you ask? Well, here's my reasoning: with the exception of Disney (who does not own any of my particularly favorite theme parks), single rider lines are not often utilized. In high-traffic parks with large coasters that draw people like myself, you can find a single rider line only once in a blue moon. Sometimes you'll see one at an older coaster, or maybe at a random newer coaster once in a while. But the parks don't seem to make them a priority.

And I'm having an issue with that.

First, let me identify what single rider lines actually are, and what they actually do. When people are visiting a park by themselves (because they're hopeless roller coaster addicts, haha), or if a group of people choose to ride individually, these people can enter a ride through the exit and experience a much shorter wait than they would in the general queue. They wait for a single space to be available (you know, during those times when you've got a row of four seats and only three people in a group, so there's one extra seat available), and are able to get on the ride by filling in the extra seat. This system is actually useful to all people involved, but because some people feel that shorter wait times for others are "unfair," many parks have cut back on the single rider lines.

I recently visited Six Flags Discovery Kingdom for a quick run on some of my favorite coasters there. Earlier this summer, they utilized single rider lines (especially for Superman: Ultimate Flight, where park owners feared capacity issues). I loved it -- as a person visiting my myself, these lines offered me a chance to hop from ride to ride, have a good time, get my adrenaline fill, and leave the park within a few hours. That one experience made me a loyal Six Flags fan, and I couldn't wait to return.

On my recent visit, however, the park owners had decided to do away with single rider lines. Because school is now back in session, the park is only open on weekends, and it seems as though every single weekend is jam-packed full of people (and I can imagine it will only get worse when Fright Fest starts). So this meant that I either had to leave the park, or consign myself to hours of waiting for only a few rides. And I had an issue with that.

Some of you are probably thinking that my thought process is rather entitled, and that I should take a few steps back. Why, you may ask, should I have the privilege of not waiting in line when everyone else has to? Why shouldn't I have to get in line, like everybody else?

Good questions -- and while I don't think there are simple, black and white answers to that, I'll share with you my thoughts. To me, single rider lines are very important, for a few reasons.

First, single rider lines help everybody. Believe it or not, having a single rider line keeps the wait shorter for everyone, even those in the stand-by line. When every seat in a car is full, customers are shuffled through the queue area and the ride itself much faster than if every car has empty seats. Think about it this way -- if only one person got to ride per car, how long do you think it would take to get a whole queue of people on the ride? When I go through the single rider entrance, and can be placed in a seat that would have otherwise been empty, I will not be taking up an entire row later on (again, with an empty seat beside me) when someone else might have been able to use it. Single rider lines save time for everyone.

But beyond this, I have personal feelings about single rider lines. I know that some people question whether or not single rider lines are fair, and believe that we should all wait in the same line, regardless of how many are in our party. That's fine -- I respect that opinion. However, I will venture to say that when I choose to attend a theme park by myself, my experience (and my expectations) is vastly different than people who arrive in large groups. When I go by myself, my expectation is that I'll ride as many thrill rides as I can in a given time, and then leave. With groups, however, the expectation is a bit different.

When families or groups of friends attend a theme park together, they expect to move a bit more slowly. They'll be riding the rides, of course, but they'll also probably be seeing the shows. They'll be sitting down to dine together. They might take pictures with characters, or stop for a photo in a scenic area. And while they're waiting in those long lines, they'll be talking, laughing, and visiting together.

Now don't get me wrong -- being a single rider has given me the opportunity to meet lots of great people (on my last visit to Six Flags Magic Mountain, my two very long waits for Tatsu both resulted in some extremely wonderful conversations with people I didn't even know). But that is not why I am there. That is not why I have purchased a season pass to the park. I bought a season pass, and am there by myself, solely so that I can experience roller coasters -- quickly, and in large amounts.

When I visit theme parks with groups of people, I don't usually mind waiting in the long lines. It's part of the experience. But when you're there on your own, with a very specific agenda in mind, it becomes tedious.

And it's even more tedious when you take into account the fact that, in my experience, Six Flags Discovery Kingdom had single rider lines! They just chose to eliminate the entire system. And when I asked why, I was told that it was because other people couldn't behave themselves.

Yes, you read that correctly -- the single rider lines were eliminated because too many people were "abusing" the system. They'd get in the single rider line as groups, I was told. Or, one person would ride as a single rider and then rush to get in line with his or her group, who was now halfway through the queue. For the sake of fairness, I was told, the entire system had to be eliminated.

Not even taking into account the fact that the system was eliminated at the expense of people like me (who were, of course, not abusing the system), there are multiple issues that I have with this. First of all, I don't see a problem with groups of people using the single rider line. Part of the deal is that you will be split up, and will likely take multiple cars. If you don't mind your group being split up so that you can get on faster, then so what? Have at it. (Disney already allows this kind of behavior, and haven't had any issues with it.) Secondly, the latter scenario wouldn't be an issue if only the parks would enforce the "no line cutting" policy, which includes saving a place for someone else in line. This is supposedly grounds for being ejected from the park, but I've never seen it enforced (though I see people saving spots for others multiple times each time I visit a park).

But even if people have an issue with large groups using the single rider line, isn't there a way to deal with that without having to toss the system altogether?

I am one who believes that single rider lines should be available at all rides as well, not only a select few. As I said, it helps everyone out, and it also makes those of us who make a habit of visiting the parks by ourselves feel like we and our situations are valued.

National Roller Coaster Day

I just found out (courtesy of The Coaster Guy) that August 16 is National Coaster Day. This is a big deal for me, for not only am I a coaster enthusiast, but I happen to celebrate my birthday on August 16. This means, of course, that future birthday celebrations just might have to include at least one roller coaster, if for no other reason than to be as spirited a coaster junkie as I can.

August 16, which I have always only associated with my birthday, Madonna's birthday, and the day that Elvis died, has apparently also been National Roller Coaster day since the early 1980's (which is the exact time I happened to have been born). How did I not know about this until now?

The main thing to keep in mind about this day is that it's not just some unknown holiday for adrenaline junkies to come together and celebrate amongst ourselves. There are certain places that actually give free roller coasters rides (or celebrated the day in some other way) around the world. Although I'm still looking into it, what I know for certain is that Buffalo Bill's Resort and Casino is one venue that offers free rides on this day.

If you've ever driven the lonely expanse of highway in between Las Vegas and Los Angeles (and I have -- many, many times), then you're probably familiar with Buffalo Bill's. It's also commonly referred to in the vernacular as "State Line," and is that last pit stop before the final 40-or-so minutes into Vegas (or final 3 1/2 hours into LA). It's home to a roller coaster called Desperado, which I haven't had the pleasure of riding since 2003, despite the fact that I've been through the area many times since then.

While we're on the subject, Desperado is actually a pretty good roller coaster to experience, if you haven't before. Back in 1996, it was the tallest roller coaster in the world, with an initial drop of 225 feet. Since then, of course, it's been dethroned by such legends as Goliath (255 foot drop, at Six Flags Magic Mountain), Millennium Force (300 foot drop, at Cedar Point), and Kingda Ka (currently the reigning champion with a 418 foot drop, at Six Flags Great Adventure). But still -- how could you justify turning down a free ride on this classic (especially when it's your birthday)?

The thing is, though, I'd like to get more theme parks on board with National Roller Coaster Day. I think the biggest parks should be aware of it (including all of the Six Flags parks), so that they can help celebrate in some way. After all, we coaster enthusiasts are their primary customer, and we dig holidays like National Roller Coaster Day.

We'll see what happens when August 16, 2013 rolls around. Hopefully many of us can be in contact with the parks before then.

From Snow White to Korra ... and Everything in Between

Brendan and I have been watching The Legend of Korra every Saturday (seriously, we never miss it -- the Amazon Instant Video download every Saturday evening is always anticipated). For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, it's a sequel to the Avatar: The Last Airbender series that we both fell in love with a few years ago. It's awesome, but before I digress into why I'm enjoying the show so much, let me get to the point of my post.

Well, wait, no -- I need to backtrack one last time. Right around the time I began watching Korra, some of my theatre friends and acquaintances from Logan, Utah performed in a Disney-themed show called Remember the Magic at The Old Barn Theatre (where Brendan and I performed in winter of 2010). It was basically a compilation of Disney songs thrown together into a show. I recently got to view all of their production photos with a smile, 'cause it looked cute and fun. I started thinking, though, about how much many of these girls love Disney (particularly the princesses). Really, really, really love Disney.

It's not that I don't understand that fascination -- I, myself, went through a rather long phase of Disney obsession earlier in my life. As a child, I made my family members call me Snow White. I watched all of the princess movies, always wanted to dress up like a princess, and idolized every one of them. Disneyland was by far my favorite place to visit, and when I turned 18 I attended a mass cattle call audition in Anaheim so that I could be paid to be a "professional princess" (otherwise known as a "face character") at Disneyland. I'd wager money (really, I would) that some of my friends and family members questioned my sanity at times.

I eventually grew out of my obsession (which was really an escapist fantasy into a world I so desperately wanted to exist, but that's another story), but having lived in Utah for five years opened my eyes to a very interesting phenomenon. Girls in Utah (who mostly identify as very conservative) absolutely love Disney and its court of princess characters. Asking a young woman in Utah if she likes Disney is like asking a young woman in Utah if she likes Twilight -- the answer will usually be an unequivocal, resounding yes.

I'm not going to go out on a huge limb here and suggest that all conservative people really like Disney (especially since I know that some ultra-conservatives like to boycott Disney's support of gay rights), but I am going to speculate on a few things. As most people who know me are aware, I am not conservative. In fact, I'm pretty liberal. And I'm very open about being a feminist. With all of that being said, I'm also pretty disgusted with my former Disney obsession, for a number of reasons. I understand it and what it meant for me, but it's evolved into a love/hate relationship with the company that I often don't know how to balance.

And why, you ask, is there a part of me that hates Disney? There are a few reasons, but for the sake of this post I'm going to focus on the princess characters (with whom the majority of my obsession belonged). I get why so many girls and young woman love the princesses. For starters, they encompass everything our society has projected about the ideal woman. They're beautiful, graceful, kind, and loved by all. They always wind up with a handsome prince (or at least some rendition of a hot guy). Their stories end with the "happily ever after" scenario that every girl dreams of at least once in her life (come on, girls -- admit that you dreamed about it at least once growing up).
But this, in actuality, is entirely why I dislike them. Their extreme beauty sends a questionable message -- Disney doesn't create plain or homely heroines who get happily ever afters, only beautiful ones. When you pair that with the fact that many of the female villains are ugly (think of Cinderella's stepsisters and Ursula from The Little Mermaid), it's easy to equate goodness and female success with beauty, and virulence and female downfall with non-beauty. When you're a young girl idolizing these characters, it's even easier to base your own self-worth on your physical appearance (as if girls need any more of that in our culture and society).

Further, aside from the message this sends to women, we must also consider the message this sends about women. Snow White was considered the fairest in the land, and her stepmother was willing to kill her for it. That is extreme, and supports the notion that women are petty and jealous, and that out-doing each other (particularly when it comes to looks) is, or should be, our first priority. You see a similar situation when Mother Gothel is willing to kidnap Rapunzel and lock her away forever, living alone and isolated with her for years and years, for the sake of staying young and beautiful. I know that these are the villains of the story, but keep in mind that they're usually the only women (not girls) who play a significant role in the story.
And let's not forget that in Sleeping Beauty, the three fairies each bestowed a magical gift upon Princess Aurora. They could have given her any three gifts they wanted -- kindness, power, strength, the mental capacity to actually run a kingdom, or perhaps magical abilities of her own -- but instead, the first and foremost gift they granted her was the gift of beauty (followed by the gift of song, because a singing beauty is apparently more important than any quality that might make her a good monarch someday). What are girls supposed to take from that?

I'll also mention the romance aspect. Girls and women get dreamy-eyed when they watch Disney romances, but if you take a closer look at them, the reality is a bit darker. Notice how all of the princess movies (particularly the first three, Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty) all end with a marriage. These movies are supposed to be these girls' stories, and their stories end with a marriage -- that's it, end of story, happily ever after. Cinderella, even, was only able to escape her abusive family through the help of a handsome prince (and it wouldn't have happened had she not been beautiful). I've analyzed the possibility that this idea (and you see it everywhere, even outside of Disney) leads young girls to think that marriage is the key to their happiness and contentment. In our culture, girls are being sent the message that they should be striving for marriage, and once they achieve it, everything else will fall into place. Those of us who have experienced marriage know this isn't really the case, but does Disney bother to show the squabbling, the balance of power, the immense compromise, the learning to live together, the getting to know one another (as some of the Disney princesses married men they knew for about a day)? No. Do they ever allow the princess or heroine to remain single, shining light on the fact that some women prefer it to being married? No. (Update: Remember, please, that this blog post was written long before the days of Elsa and Moana.)

Couple this with the other subtle messages that Disney sends about love and marriage. For instance, Ariel was willing to give up everything -- her family, her friends, her voice (both physically and metaphorically), and basically her entire life -- for the sake of being with a man that she'd never even spoken to. Belle stayed with a physically and emotionally abusive man because she could "change" him. Jasmine chose to be with Aladdin, but let's not forget that she would have otherwise been forced into a different marriage -- the option of just being single, or even taking her time finding a suitable match, wasn't available to her. Even the most recent princess, Rapunzel, can't escape her own story, which was initially about discovering independence, self-determination, and her own autonomy. Her story is eventually dominated by the love story (she goes from being dependent on Mother Gothel to, at the end of the story, returning to her parents and marrying Eugene "Flynn" Rider -- there, in actuality, is no real self discovery other than "Oh, I'm a princess and I'm in love").

I know what some of you are probably thinking at this point (assuming you've made it this far) -- some rendition of "they're just stories," "they're just kid movies," or "you're taking this way too seriously." In some ways, I agree. I over-analyze everything. But remember that Disney Princess has become a franchise in and of itself. For many little girls and young women, these aren't "just" kid movies. Some people idolize and look up to the princesses (I know, because I was one of them). As a liberal feminist, I know that I'd like to see the role models of the next generation of women be a bit more round and less flat. I'd love them to be motivated by something other than jealousy and love. I'd love to see them experience some of the hopes, fears, and dreams that real women have, but are often neglected.

So this brings me to Korra. I think that there are a few great female role models in children's programming today (many more than when I was a child), but the some of the best come from the Avatar: The Last Airbender series (and its sequel). Katara, the story's main female character in the original series, is a strong and powerful water bender who eventually takes down one of the main villains. She's also motherly, kind, and feminine, and the combination of her attributes -- traditionally feminine, and yet also a driven warrior -- are part of what makes her character so likeable and complex. Although she does wind up romantically involved with the main male character in the end of the series, she initially turned him down, deciding to focus first on her role in the worldwide war. She's an intelligent girl who makes intelligent choices (and, sometimes, bad choices). She's more believable than any of Disney's princess characters.

There's also Toph, another main female character, who doesn't embody beauty or grace. She's a 12-year-old blind girl who's more than a bit rough around the edges. And she's also the world's most talented earth bender. One of the series' main villains, Azula, is actually driven by power, greed, and insanity -- she's hardly moved by others' beauty or relationship statuses. Her interactions and history with the other members of her royal family are complex and serve to help us understand Azula as a human being -- more than just the show's main villain. And then there's Suki, the female warrior who softens the formerly sexist Sokka. And finally, in the sequel to the series, we've got Korra, who's doing her best to balance her ambitious nature, brave and wild spirit, and, yes, her romantic feelings for a close friend. She's a dynamic character with an honest self-identity and, as the new Avatar, sense of command.

The main point that I take from these female characters, which I think is wholly important for girls and young women to grasp, is that femininity doesn't have to mean that you give up your power, independence, and autonomy. That beauty doesn't make you worthwhile, and plainness doesn't make you worthless. That romantic relationships are wonderful, but better made when two independent selves come together to work together (rather than one or both parties giving up all or part of themselves for the sake of the other).

So what does this have to do with conservatism and liberalism? I'm not sure, precisely, and I'm not about to make any leaping statements about it. But I do find it wholly interesting that the conservative women I know (who do strive for extreme beauty and do believe that marriage might be the most important things in the world) are awfully fond of the Disney princesses. And it's also interesting that, as a liberal, I reject much of what the princesses personify and seek out better representation of women, girls, and femininity for myself and my young son. Perhaps I find it more fascinating that others because I was that girl who lived and breathed everything Disney.

Perhaps I'm rambling about issues that are non-essential to most, but I think they speak about deeper issues that most women understand and appreciate. And so, ladies, I'll close by offering you a wink -- whether you agree with me or not, you know what I mean. ;)

Right Back Where I Started From...

I won't lie -- I've wanted to return to California for quite some time now, but didn't actually seriously take it into consideration until just a few months ago. Upon finishing my graduate degree in Utah, I thought about the possibility of staying in Utah or moving to a number of other places (Montana, Las Vegas, and Texas among them), for a number of reasons. For a while I was applying for jobs in various areas, thinking that wherever I happened to get a job was where I'd go. But when I didn't land a job in any one area (damn economy), I began to do some serious consideration about what I, personally, wanted and where I desired to live.

The answer was California. During my teenage and early adult years (you know, when I was still pining to be a princess at Disneyland) I desired to return to California (where I was born and spent many of the first twelve years of my life). After I married and traveled from Vegas to Washington to Idaho to Utah, I desired to return to California. So now that I'm on my own and calling all the shots in my life, I had to answer the following question: at this point in my life, when I can choose anywhere I want to go, why not finally return to California? After all, when will I again have the opportunity to pick anywhere I want to live and make it happen?

The major issue for me was expense. It's no secret that California is a hugely expensive state to live in, particularly in the Bay Area (where I'm at). Luckily, though, I have friends here who have been kind enough to open their home to me and show me that finding a nice area that's still affordable is, in fact, possible -- if you know where to look. So, to make a long story short, I found myself a great place in a great area and am getting ready to make the move that I've been looking forward to for about fifteen years now.

Still, I've been reflecting recently on the fact that I'll be leaving Utah after living there for almost five years. My son was practically raised there. I got my education (bachelor's and master's degrees) there. I'd be lying if I claimed I didn't have some roots there. So, as excited as I am to be in California now, I am finding myself reminiscing fondly about some aspects of my former state.

Things I'll miss about Utah:

1) The people I met. I made some great friends in Utah, both in St. George (Cath Glover, Dustin Jackson, and Kay Berry, to name a few) and in Logan (Simone Suddreth, Charlotte Kondel), and I'll miss them for sure. The academic mentors that I grew close to (Sue Bennett, Jennifer Sinor, Brock Dethier, etc.) are all in Utah as well. Even the acquaintences that I made (the Old Barn Theatre crowd, for example) were great people. I've taken so much from my Utah relationships.

2) "Minority Sundays." Being part of the nonreligious crowd in Utah usually meant that I could go shopping on Sundays with little to no crowds to deal with. I'll definitely miss that.

3) The small, safe community. This has it's upside and downside, but Logan was certainly the smallest, safest community I've ever lived in (with the exception of, maybe, Hudson in Quebec). Last year, my first grader could walk to and from school on his own, and there was an overall sense of calm throughout the community. I didn't lock my doors, and never once had a problem. That will be missed.

But ... here are the things I'm just loving about California:

1) Being back in a busy, diverse community. Let's be honest -- even though Utah has some diversity (especially on the college/university campuses), it's very white and very Mormon. I'm loving being (and raising my son) in an area that experiences and promotes racial, religious, sexual, and political diversity (among other things). It's fantastic.

2) Related to what I just said, it's been great being in a political and ideological environment that I fit into better. Being the furthest thing from an ultra-conservative Mormon, coupled with the fact that I'm a single, working mother made finding a niche in Utah quite difficult. Not so in the Bay Area.

3) Two words: food and wine. In California, the fruits and veggies are so fresh. The seafood is so fresh. The variety of the stores and in the stores is amazing. Nearly everything is just delicious, and all of this makes eating healthy so much easier than I'm used to. And let's not forget that I'm now in wine country, so the flow of delicious reds and whites has been nonstop.

4) The job and academic opportunities. Even though the economy sucks and finding a job anywhere is tough right now, this area is huge, and being close to San Francisco means that there are job openings all over the place. I've been able to throw my resume in dozens of different areas. Also, I've been thinking about the future possibility of either a PhD or a JD, and the academic institutions offer so many choices to be thinking about.

5) My place. It's small and affordable. It has a dishwasher (after living two years without one, this was a big deal). It's surrounded by trees and plant life. It's close to so much. I'm loving it.

6) The weather. In Utah, I was used to two extremes: the dry desert heat of St. George, and the frigid winters of Logan. In St. George, I spent summers sweating and seeking out air-conditioned venues. In Logan, I spent winters managing icy roads and air cold enough to freeze wet hair. Since being in California, I've experienced the mildest, most beautiful weather! The summer has been mostly in the high 70s and low 80's -- warm enough to swim, and cool enough to stay comfortable. I know it won't snow in the winter. It's fantastic.

I know there are other things I'll miss about Utah and other things I love about California that I'll remember one minute after posting this, but for now I'll leave it as is. I'm heading out now to enjoy the clear blue skies and 75 degree summer!