Ikea! Or, if you're pedantic about capitalization (and in these times of internet grammarian smackdowns, who isn't?), IKEA! I like to say it with a Swedish accent for added authenticity, but it really makes no difference. I also like reenact their commercials by barking "You feel sad for the lamp? DON'T!" at unsuspecting family members from time to time. But actually shopping at Ikea? Ay carumba.
For those of you who have never been, Ikea is a wonderland. It's also a hellhole. Let's go together, yes?
Enter the gigantic blue building through double doors. To your right? A child playground, where the kids are wearing numbered jerseys and being half-heartedly cared for. They are likely chucking ball-pit balls at each other or crying in the middle of the room. Don't worry! This is normal. Little Number Seven is only crying because there's a five-foot-long stuffed ant hanging from the ceiling (the theme of this childcare is "forest") and it will haunt his dreams forever. You can check them in there while you shop! When they've exhausted themselves through playing/hiding from the ant, you'll be able to pick them up and take them to the cafeteria. Make sure they are crying by then, or else they'll feel left out.
Wander upstairs. Grab a cart. Feel your sense of optimism - look at all these storage solutions! Be charmed by the faux-Swedish names of things. Oh, a Borgnine convertible sofa. Adorable. A chaise lounge woven from wicker and bamboo. Sustainable. A loft bed that will safe space and also sway like a drunken pirate when you attempt to make love in it. Remarkable. Feel a creeping sense of despair that the Ikea showrooms are nicer than anything you've ever owned. Hang on to that feeling - you'll be needing it when you attempt to put your new dresser together using only allen keys and curse words.
As you pass through the displays, note that the stylish display clothes are bolted to the walls and the display books are all in Swedish. Idly pick up a book as your family members debate the merits of the Svang chair when compared to the Jagerstruedel rocker for 57 minutes. Note that "idiot" in Swedish is "idiot." This will come in handy in the checkout lines.
Coming to the bedroom section, look around you at the children's rooms. Wonder if Swedes have a notion that childhood should be as Seussian as possible. Become irrationally attached to the bed canopy that gives the appearance of a covered wagon. Fall deeply in love with the small-spaces display - a daybed! A kitchen with little sink dividers! Fantasize about becoming an interior designer who specializes in treehouses and cruise ship cabins. Reject this fantasy when you realize how much school will be involved for what is probably a fairly specific market. Hate your day job.
Realize that you haven't seen a window to the outdoors in three hours. Or a bathroom. Realize none of the fake bathrooms have toilets.
Head downstairs to the small-items and pick-up zone. Pick up thirteen different styles of vase. Reject six. Reject nine. Carry around four vases until you find your shopping partner, who will have been staring at knives for ten minutes with a vacant expression on his face. Force him to carry the vases, and the tea-towels, and the gingerbread men cookie cutters, and the 100-pack of candles, plus plates, plus a seventeen-pack of shitty off-brand Tupperware. You will be dragging a rug behind you like an animal carcass; you can't carry the vases. Your hands are full.
Arrive at the warehouse. Consult the list you've compiled of items you want: dressers and beds and tables and entire kitchens, nay, entire apartments. You will see "aisles" and "bins" in your scrawling handwriting. Make sure you have been accurate! The warehouse is about the size of metropolitan Detroit and twice as depressing. The aisles and bin contain your choices. If you change your mind about colour, know that your alternate choice will be in another bin, in another aisle. Why? Because the warehouse has been designed by an algorithm written by a computer. Human beings would never do this to one another. The Geneva convention would not allow it.
Once you've piled your new furniture onto your cart - or what is probably your new furniture, because things here are labelled with codes, not names, not the the names would even help - go the checkout. If you've come on a weekend, you are a fool. Wait in line for 45 minutes. Weep softly, if no one is watching. On the other side of the cashier, there is a commissary, with 75-cent hotdogs and pasta in the shape of caribou. Coffee and fountain pop will never be as sweet as it is today. Over and over, pick up and set down the same candle holder with the absentminded grace of a sedated nun.
The rest is challenging, but you can go at your own pace: loading your hatchback with heavy boxes and stuffing the empty spaces with vases; frantically trying to get onto the freeway with zero rear visibility and weighing an extra 700 pounds; setting up your new belongings, which will take three hours longer and require, in addition to the allen key Ikea has sent home with you, a cordless drill, a stud finder, a hammer, a square-head screwdriver, and the help of your least stupid family member. Know that what you have made can never be unmade, because disassembling Ikea furniture is a mission for only the foolhardiest of movers. It's easier to chuck it out and start again.
On the plus side, we can all agree that Ikea's 99-cent chocolate bars are second to none, and they sell lingonberry soda, which will lead to much quoting of The Big Lebowski if your companions are the least bit human. Maybe you can watch The Big Lebowski tonight, as you sit on your new couch and idly wonder if the whole thing is going to collapse.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
Barbie's Dream Job
Last week I wrote about Dream Jobs - god, how evocative is that phrase, even? Don't you feel like Dream Jobs have Katrina and the Waves playing in the background all the time, and the commute is you, in a convertible, on a freeway beside the ocean? And your office, even if you're a grunt who's on some no-health-benefits one-year contract, is massive and decorated with healthy plants. Oh! And there's another cute new-job person, and he's got a chin-dimple and clear eyes and is fun and easy to talk to? Dream Jobs! So good!
My last Dream Job was at a Toronto non-profit that specializes in housing. Given that I was fresh out of school and riding a three-year wave of enthusiasm for, and interest, in co-op and alternative housing options, I was so stoked. It was a real office job, with my own email account and a phone extension and everything. In hindsight, I should have picked up the fact that things were not totally right when 1/3 of the hiring committee was late to my interview: the company president showed up half-way through my Xanax-enabled babbling about agency and community and punctuality, and yet I still managed to get the gig.
Six months into that job, I was having anxiety-induced hallucinations. I had to get the hell out of there. My boss was rude and the hours stank, and the small company that I had admired on paper turned out to treat its employees like garbage. It's hard for me to buy into the idea that offices that ignore despicable behaviour - and this was a place that rewarded one particularly awful manager by giving her a spot on their board - can be places that really understand how to effectively implement social change. You know how charity is supposed to begin at home? It's my opinion that, for social-justice organizations, compassion begins at the office.
My Dream Job, when I was 18, was waitressing at a popular downtown noodle house. I loved it. I made a ton of money, got a name for myself as a cute local girl, was flirted with and tipped well. I was also working for a boss who, when I fell carrying a full armload of plates during a jam-packed Friday night rush, coldly told me to quit fucking around and get back to work. He was a man who was widely regarded as a jag-off and a meanie, generous one moment and enraged the next. I was nervous every time a table sat down - dealing with the public, despite a decade of practice, is still not something I really enjoy. And after a summer of Dream Job, I was burned out. I was working with a crew that focused on getting drunk and chasing girls, and since I rarely (at that time) drank, and I rarely (even now!) chase girls, I was lonely.
I've had a variety of idiosyncratic bosses and weird working environments - I had a boss who insisted that employees show up fifteen minutes before their shift started, but screamingly refused to pay for the extra quarter-hour. During the the blackout in 2003 that paralyzed the Eastern seaboard, we worked until it was too dark to see the gas fryers in front of us. While I heard stories later that friends of mine had enjoyed the blackout in various outdoor pools and states of drunkenness, we held off zombie-like hordes of folks angrily demanding french fries from the only open restaurant within a thousand miles. I've worked as a factory two blocks away burned to the ground, the heat from the fire strong enough to be felt inside our building. I've held jobs where we were required to evict drunk transients from student housing, where we found violent Japanese pornography, where we found a laptop bagged stuffed with fake penises.
But in those other jobs, I've felt a sense of cameraderie with the people I work with. Some were friends, some were just laid-back co-workers, but they always made me feel safe and secure. There was no loneliness in my workday, only the satisfaction of doing a hard job well. My Dream Jobs, despite the fact that they held the promise of new and interesting work, never made me feel like mistakes were acceptable. I lived in fear of screwing up.
My Dream Jobs now are a little vaguer: I love writing, but I also feel deeply satisfied when I tie on an apron and make meals in my kitchen. This fall, cupcakes and cookies have been pouring out of my oven with a regularity that borders on diabetes-inducing, but it's proving to be therapeutic to follow recipes and explore new cuisines. My reluctance towards returning to an office is tied directly to my last Dream Job, where I was so stressed out that my brain chemistry was changing. Safety, security, compassion: as it turns out, some basic things to consider when entering into a new workplace.
I hope to God that I find work soon. I don't need a Dream Job. I just need a job I like doing, one that isn't going to ruin every single day or make me anxious and crazy. I need Katrina and the Waves, I need sunshine, I need agency and punctuality. I need compassion.
My last Dream Job was at a Toronto non-profit that specializes in housing. Given that I was fresh out of school and riding a three-year wave of enthusiasm for, and interest, in co-op and alternative housing options, I was so stoked. It was a real office job, with my own email account and a phone extension and everything. In hindsight, I should have picked up the fact that things were not totally right when 1/3 of the hiring committee was late to my interview: the company president showed up half-way through my Xanax-enabled babbling about agency and community and punctuality, and yet I still managed to get the gig.
Six months into that job, I was having anxiety-induced hallucinations. I had to get the hell out of there. My boss was rude and the hours stank, and the small company that I had admired on paper turned out to treat its employees like garbage. It's hard for me to buy into the idea that offices that ignore despicable behaviour - and this was a place that rewarded one particularly awful manager by giving her a spot on their board - can be places that really understand how to effectively implement social change. You know how charity is supposed to begin at home? It's my opinion that, for social-justice organizations, compassion begins at the office.
My Dream Job, when I was 18, was waitressing at a popular downtown noodle house. I loved it. I made a ton of money, got a name for myself as a cute local girl, was flirted with and tipped well. I was also working for a boss who, when I fell carrying a full armload of plates during a jam-packed Friday night rush, coldly told me to quit fucking around and get back to work. He was a man who was widely regarded as a jag-off and a meanie, generous one moment and enraged the next. I was nervous every time a table sat down - dealing with the public, despite a decade of practice, is still not something I really enjoy. And after a summer of Dream Job, I was burned out. I was working with a crew that focused on getting drunk and chasing girls, and since I rarely (at that time) drank, and I rarely (even now!) chase girls, I was lonely.
I've had a variety of idiosyncratic bosses and weird working environments - I had a boss who insisted that employees show up fifteen minutes before their shift started, but screamingly refused to pay for the extra quarter-hour. During the the blackout in 2003 that paralyzed the Eastern seaboard, we worked until it was too dark to see the gas fryers in front of us. While I heard stories later that friends of mine had enjoyed the blackout in various outdoor pools and states of drunkenness, we held off zombie-like hordes of folks angrily demanding french fries from the only open restaurant within a thousand miles. I've worked as a factory two blocks away burned to the ground, the heat from the fire strong enough to be felt inside our building. I've held jobs where we were required to evict drunk transients from student housing, where we found violent Japanese pornography, where we found a laptop bagged stuffed with fake penises.
But in those other jobs, I've felt a sense of cameraderie with the people I work with. Some were friends, some were just laid-back co-workers, but they always made me feel safe and secure. There was no loneliness in my workday, only the satisfaction of doing a hard job well. My Dream Jobs, despite the fact that they held the promise of new and interesting work, never made me feel like mistakes were acceptable. I lived in fear of screwing up.
My Dream Jobs now are a little vaguer: I love writing, but I also feel deeply satisfied when I tie on an apron and make meals in my kitchen. This fall, cupcakes and cookies have been pouring out of my oven with a regularity that borders on diabetes-inducing, but it's proving to be therapeutic to follow recipes and explore new cuisines. My reluctance towards returning to an office is tied directly to my last Dream Job, where I was so stressed out that my brain chemistry was changing. Safety, security, compassion: as it turns out, some basic things to consider when entering into a new workplace.
I hope to God that I find work soon. I don't need a Dream Job. I just need a job I like doing, one that isn't going to ruin every single day or make me anxious and crazy. I need Katrina and the Waves, I need sunshine, I need agency and punctuality. I need compassion.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Gridizens of Toronto
You used to be able to tell the kind of people you hung out with by the free Toronto weekly paper they picked up. There are two major competitors in this fine city, and a host of other, more niche-market options to supplement your transit-time reading. Since I'm not a gay man or a person of South Asian descent, and I rarely find myself in the market for a new automobile or apartment, I tend mostly to stick to the big two: NOW and The Grid, formerly known as Eye Weekly. With The Onion's recent entry into the Toronto market, there might be a third horse in the race, but for now, it rests with The Big Two.
In previous times, Eye Weekly was a distant second to NOW, which boasts the Savage Love, and a thorough selection of globe-trotting pleasure women - Tatiana from Russia! Svetlana from Sweden! Like a cadre of slutty Carmen Sandiegoes! Also, the concert listings. I'm a nerd and so I'll include the NOW weekly crossword, which is one of the better crosswords out there. NOW has the restaurant reviews, movie listings, and a naked, photoshopped Rob Ford. NOW also, unfortunately, sometimes seems a little chintzy: their cover stories, often musicians or actors, are frequently interviewed at open press scrums and their cover images are culled from non-exclusive sources, which can lead to a sense of deja-vu while one gets their Ryan Gosling fix.
Eye Weekly was its sickly second-place competitor. When I bothered to pick up a copy, I was always impressed with the layout, which was clean and interesting - it reminded me of IKEA catalogs, but I mean that in a good way. But the covers were uninspired, and they always seemed so slender. I rarely grabbed a copy in the first place. NOW seemed to cover all my bases, and Eye Weekly wasn't going to tell me anything new about being a Torontonian.
In recent months, though, there's been a shift. Reading through NOW doesn't actually take that long. Readers with a political bent use it as a forum to decry Toronto's devolution under the pinko bike-riding vegans who want us all to pay 110% of our income in taxes/under the fascist warlords who bring want to rip out the TTC and start charging 120% of our income for private schools and flu shots. Under Rob Ford, the tone became shrill and strident, and a little alienating to those of us who live somewhere in the middle of the extremes. NOW still offers top-notch reviews and a rigorous approach to concert listings, which my boyfriend pores over with Talmudic intensity each week. But like I said: the content? Not so much. Puff pieces on actors and bands, festival guides and eco-advice, and cover stories that don't leave me feeling satisfied.
Enter The Grid. Despite it's semi-unfortunate name, it's done something that leaves NOW in its dust: it produces actual, readable, entertaining content each week, every week.
For instance, recent cover stories have been a celebration of the city's young fashionable risk-takers and one woman's chronicles of her box-bike experience. It also, unfortunately, ran a story about how hard it is to find an apartment downtown, which read like "Yuppie Like Me: one white, under-30, $100K+/yr couple's struggle to find a cool apartment for under $1500/mo while illogically refusing to put a totally manageable down payment on a house," which made me, and everyone I know, want to scream. Generally, though, The Grid manages to put out cool issues from week to week. They spend money on their cover shoots, and it pays off. They have an informal, bloggy aesthetic that's a breath of fresh air from NOW's text-block crunch. They brought back lots of man-on-the-street interviews, which makes it feel like Toronto is participating in The Grid's experiment, and their editorial tone is sophisticated, urban, and inclusive.
Obviously, with free weekly newspapers, I'm welcome to pick up both and read them with pleasure and any degree of completion. NOW still blows The Grid out of the water in terms of concerts and reviews, and that's okay: to fill up The Grid with that kind of content would mean edging out their more interesting and original pieces. Readers should, and do, take a hybrid approach: each weekly offers something for everyone, even if neither offers everything.
But The Grid should be congratulated for trying something new, like a redesign of their visual brand and a re-conception of their editorial focus. It's paid off handsomely. I, and many of my friends, have become Gridizens - people who look forward to each new issue. Even if the crossword is sort of second-rate, they have a kick-ass Sudoku.
In previous times, Eye Weekly was a distant second to NOW, which boasts the Savage Love, and a thorough selection of globe-trotting pleasure women - Tatiana from Russia! Svetlana from Sweden! Like a cadre of slutty Carmen Sandiegoes! Also, the concert listings. I'm a nerd and so I'll include the NOW weekly crossword, which is one of the better crosswords out there. NOW has the restaurant reviews, movie listings, and a naked, photoshopped Rob Ford. NOW also, unfortunately, sometimes seems a little chintzy: their cover stories, often musicians or actors, are frequently interviewed at open press scrums and their cover images are culled from non-exclusive sources, which can lead to a sense of deja-vu while one gets their Ryan Gosling fix.
Eye Weekly was its sickly second-place competitor. When I bothered to pick up a copy, I was always impressed with the layout, which was clean and interesting - it reminded me of IKEA catalogs, but I mean that in a good way. But the covers were uninspired, and they always seemed so slender. I rarely grabbed a copy in the first place. NOW seemed to cover all my bases, and Eye Weekly wasn't going to tell me anything new about being a Torontonian.
In recent months, though, there's been a shift. Reading through NOW doesn't actually take that long. Readers with a political bent use it as a forum to decry Toronto's devolution under the pinko bike-riding vegans who want us all to pay 110% of our income in taxes/under the fascist warlords who bring want to rip out the TTC and start charging 120% of our income for private schools and flu shots. Under Rob Ford, the tone became shrill and strident, and a little alienating to those of us who live somewhere in the middle of the extremes. NOW still offers top-notch reviews and a rigorous approach to concert listings, which my boyfriend pores over with Talmudic intensity each week. But like I said: the content? Not so much. Puff pieces on actors and bands, festival guides and eco-advice, and cover stories that don't leave me feeling satisfied.
Enter The Grid. Despite it's semi-unfortunate name, it's done something that leaves NOW in its dust: it produces actual, readable, entertaining content each week, every week.
For instance, recent cover stories have been a celebration of the city's young fashionable risk-takers and one woman's chronicles of her box-bike experience. It also, unfortunately, ran a story about how hard it is to find an apartment downtown, which read like "Yuppie Like Me: one white, under-30, $100K+/yr couple's struggle to find a cool apartment for under $1500/mo while illogically refusing to put a totally manageable down payment on a house," which made me, and everyone I know, want to scream. Generally, though, The Grid manages to put out cool issues from week to week. They spend money on their cover shoots, and it pays off. They have an informal, bloggy aesthetic that's a breath of fresh air from NOW's text-block crunch. They brought back lots of man-on-the-street interviews, which makes it feel like Toronto is participating in The Grid's experiment, and their editorial tone is sophisticated, urban, and inclusive.
Obviously, with free weekly newspapers, I'm welcome to pick up both and read them with pleasure and any degree of completion. NOW still blows The Grid out of the water in terms of concerts and reviews, and that's okay: to fill up The Grid with that kind of content would mean edging out their more interesting and original pieces. Readers should, and do, take a hybrid approach: each weekly offers something for everyone, even if neither offers everything.
But The Grid should be congratulated for trying something new, like a redesign of their visual brand and a re-conception of their editorial focus. It's paid off handsomely. I, and many of my friends, have become Gridizens - people who look forward to each new issue. Even if the crossword is sort of second-rate, they have a kick-ass Sudoku.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Cherry Pie Don't Come For Free
Last week I wrote about the joys of home cooking, and then, in my Thanksgiving-induced food coma, I promptly forgot to add a second entry. Sorry, loyal fans! (Also: LOLZ.)
Over the last few week, I've been thinking more and more about What I'm Going To Do With My Life. Dad, I know that you're clutching your laptop in one hand and your chest with the other, shouting, "Just get a job, dammit! Temp agencies! Call one!" and if you were Jewish, you'd tack on a hearty "oy vey" and a headshake or two. Because you are Polish, you will likely just sigh and reap your crops, and by that I mean mow the lawn. And I'm working on it! Job hunting is one of the worst jobs to do, because it's all work and no feedback. You know those cartoon jobs of endless cubicle farms and beige phones? The ones where all the workers are the same, and that sameness makes them crazy? (You know this cliche. Scott Adams built an empire on it.) That is job hunting. It sucks at your soul.
Naturally, between applying for jobs, I've been daydreaming about My Perfect Job. I love writing, and, despite a missed self-imposed deadline or two over the years, I've been pretty good at updating and maintaining this blog, which has led directly to a 2009 internship at Spacing and to a more recent twice-monthly gig at the Huffington Post Canada, both nice feathers in my cap. But, as of yet, I haven't sold an actual piece of writing to an actual publication. This has proven to be somewhat of a stumbling block in considering myself a writer, psychologically speaking.
Ariel Gore, in her excellent book How To Become A Famous Writer Before You're Dead, recommends that writers create alter egos to tackle the less amazing parts of being a writer. Your alter ego is in charge of the beggy follow-up emails, of reading contracts, of money stuff, of rejections, and of all the less-than-ethereal aspects of being A Person Who Writes.
I'm likely going to have to develop a split personality, since I tend to go into a tailspin when something gets rejected, and my authoress self has yet to make an appearance due to a deficit of any real authoring. On Gore's advice, I'm going to call my bad-ass version Cherry Pie: she'll grapple with the crappy feelings brought on by extremely cheerful and supportive rejection correspondence from The Hairpin, and I will be in charge of the women's writing circle-themed erotica and pitching short stories to Canadian small presses. Should I have any degree of success, I will honor Ms. Pie by dying a chunk of my hair fire-engine red: that's how you'll know I've sold something.
I like to think that there's an alter ego for my alter ego: the Person Who Writes, who wears flowy linen pants and has great, wild, creative-person hair. If Cherry Pie is like Rosie the Riveter, only with more tattoos and a really terrific phone voice, then my creative side is a woman named Roshonda: a woman who smokes vanilla cigarillos and who owns a large, well-trained dog. Both Roshonda and Cherry Pie have their benefits and drawbacks: Cherry's a big-hearted den mother, but she's got no self-control when it comes to vegan cheesecake and will eventually get happily fat; Roshonda's got the creative chops, but she's a terrible sleeper and will steal your pillows from between your knees.
There's been a recent mini-media storm about young people and our allegedly slutty creative ways. We're just giving it away for free on the street corner, apparently, with our free blogs and our Huffington Post contributions. This is irking more established writers, like Russell Smith who argued that new writers are somehow devaluing the creative industry standards that older writers worked so hard to implement.
To this I say: Russell! You have a job. A writing job! A rare, published, marketable writing job! Smith is tough to defend, since it's been a long-ass time since he's been hungry for a job. In my mind, a blog is like a photographer's portfolio or a designer's sketchbook: examples of what a client might get if she paid for it. Some of my writer friends make a point of never working for free, but almost all of us have personal blogs. Ain't nothing wrong with giving it away for free, selling some work and not others, or working exclusively for the paycheck.
Where is Kaitlyn in all of this; where am I? Well, did I mention the job hunting? The blogging? The feeling not-quite-there-yet in terms of writing? I'm still figuring out a way to not get teary-eyed when someone says, "No thanks, this isn't quite right!" both in the traditional professional settings - I am a basket case before job interviews, no question about it - and in these new creative attempts. It'll take time. Smith and Topping might scoff at my free internet writing, but those guys can blow it out their ears: I have Roshonda and Cherry Pie on my side.
Over the last few week, I've been thinking more and more about What I'm Going To Do With My Life. Dad, I know that you're clutching your laptop in one hand and your chest with the other, shouting, "Just get a job, dammit! Temp agencies! Call one!" and if you were Jewish, you'd tack on a hearty "oy vey" and a headshake or two. Because you are Polish, you will likely just sigh and reap your crops, and by that I mean mow the lawn. And I'm working on it! Job hunting is one of the worst jobs to do, because it's all work and no feedback. You know those cartoon jobs of endless cubicle farms and beige phones? The ones where all the workers are the same, and that sameness makes them crazy? (You know this cliche. Scott Adams built an empire on it.) That is job hunting. It sucks at your soul.
Naturally, between applying for jobs, I've been daydreaming about My Perfect Job. I love writing, and, despite a missed self-imposed deadline or two over the years, I've been pretty good at updating and maintaining this blog, which has led directly to a 2009 internship at Spacing and to a more recent twice-monthly gig at the Huffington Post Canada, both nice feathers in my cap. But, as of yet, I haven't sold an actual piece of writing to an actual publication. This has proven to be somewhat of a stumbling block in considering myself a writer, psychologically speaking.
Ariel Gore, in her excellent book How To Become A Famous Writer Before You're Dead, recommends that writers create alter egos to tackle the less amazing parts of being a writer. Your alter ego is in charge of the beggy follow-up emails, of reading contracts, of money stuff, of rejections, and of all the less-than-ethereal aspects of being A Person Who Writes.
I'm likely going to have to develop a split personality, since I tend to go into a tailspin when something gets rejected, and my authoress self has yet to make an appearance due to a deficit of any real authoring. On Gore's advice, I'm going to call my bad-ass version Cherry Pie: she'll grapple with the crappy feelings brought on by extremely cheerful and supportive rejection correspondence from The Hairpin, and I will be in charge of the women's writing circle-themed erotica and pitching short stories to Canadian small presses. Should I have any degree of success, I will honor Ms. Pie by dying a chunk of my hair fire-engine red: that's how you'll know I've sold something.
I like to think that there's an alter ego for my alter ego: the Person Who Writes, who wears flowy linen pants and has great, wild, creative-person hair. If Cherry Pie is like Rosie the Riveter, only with more tattoos and a really terrific phone voice, then my creative side is a woman named Roshonda: a woman who smokes vanilla cigarillos and who owns a large, well-trained dog. Both Roshonda and Cherry Pie have their benefits and drawbacks: Cherry's a big-hearted den mother, but she's got no self-control when it comes to vegan cheesecake and will eventually get happily fat; Roshonda's got the creative chops, but she's a terrible sleeper and will steal your pillows from between your knees.
There's been a recent mini-media storm about young people and our allegedly slutty creative ways. We're just giving it away for free on the street corner, apparently, with our free blogs and our Huffington Post contributions. This is irking more established writers, like Russell Smith who argued that new writers are somehow devaluing the creative industry standards that older writers worked so hard to implement.
To this I say: Russell! You have a job. A writing job! A rare, published, marketable writing job! Smith is tough to defend, since it's been a long-ass time since he's been hungry for a job. In my mind, a blog is like a photographer's portfolio or a designer's sketchbook: examples of what a client might get if she paid for it. Some of my writer friends make a point of never working for free, but almost all of us have personal blogs. Ain't nothing wrong with giving it away for free, selling some work and not others, or working exclusively for the paycheck.
Where is Kaitlyn in all of this; where am I? Well, did I mention the job hunting? The blogging? The feeling not-quite-there-yet in terms of writing? I'm still figuring out a way to not get teary-eyed when someone says, "No thanks, this isn't quite right!" both in the traditional professional settings - I am a basket case before job interviews, no question about it - and in these new creative attempts. It'll take time. Smith and Topping might scoff at my free internet writing, but those guys can blow it out their ears: I have Roshonda and Cherry Pie on my side.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Cook, Good, Food
When I really want to unwind and let loose, I used to crack open a bottle of Jack Daniels and grab a funnel from the kitchen drawer. These days, I use a slightly less liver-destroying method of cooling my sheeze down. I still have a soft spot for the bourbon, but now it's the loveliness of a single glass, an ounce and a quarter of the good stuff, and three ice cubes. Other methods include hot baths, sitcom television, and re-reading McSweeney's guide to '80s bands, which can make me laugh so hard I wheeze. But over the last few months, I've developed a real affinity for what may be my most relaxing pastime yet: cooking.
Back when I would have wine for, not with, dinner, I was a bit of a foodie. My first boyfriend was a chef, and my first jobs were all in the food service industry, so an interest in high-end food came naturally. There's an exoticism to fine dining. You get a little dressed up, people take you to your table and fawn over you with hunks of bread and little piles of food. An amuse-bouche? Okay! Some sort of prix-fixe menu that delivers artful towers of prawns or scallops or veal cheeks? Homemade ice cream? Deceptively tiny servings ("This is like, five mouthfuls for forty-five dollars! I'm going to eat eight slices of this really nice bread to make up for it."), and bucketload of booze. It's a very appealing, albeit expensive, way to live one's life. When the whole, 360 experience is taken into consideration (the room, the service, the view, the waiter's designer outfit), it feels glamorous. It can be a little bit addictive.
When we were younger, my mom was definitely the family dinner-maker. We used to pray for unadulterated Kraft Dinner, but she usually wouldn't cave to our high-pitched begging. I remember salmon cakes and steamed vegetables, or breakfast cereal-encrusted chicken, or spaghetti with olives and shredded carrots. These sound like culinary forerunner to taste experiments like nitrogen-frozen cherries, but my mom is an excellent cook (even if she did ruin KD by putting tuna in it). My dad made more "manly" foods - meat, grilled; meat, roasted; deli meat, fried. She usually cooked during the week, and they did a kitchen pas de deux on the weekends.
While there are entire magazines and cookbook sections devoted to getting dinner pumped out seven nights a week, I actually find cooking very relaxing. (This is probably due to the lack of hungry, shrieking children in my household.) I move fast in the kitchen, and have a slowly-growing repertoire of good, fast, tasty meals I can whip up ranging from breakfast burritos to vegan shepherds pie to banana-chocolate chip muffins. Sometimes I follow a recipe; other times, I improvise. With the exception of the chef boyfriend, I've been tapped in for KP on almost every relationship. I remember the first time I cooked for my Big Ex - we had been hanging out for, like, 36 hours straight. I was ravenous. We were both too broke for take-out, so I whipped up an udon-and-eggplant stir-fry. He looked at me with stars in his eyes. I love that feeling.
These days, I'm experimenting more. I buy the bacon marmalade and the kimchee. I make breakfasts with pickled beets. I want to try more advanced stuff, like whole chicken or yeast breads. Some of my friends will whip up salsas and make their own yogurt on the fly, but I'm not there. Years of denying the pleasure of food - unless it was really fancy food - have left me hesitant to explore my own kitchen. Islands of safety, like eggplant-and-udon stirfries, need to give way to oceans of new experiences.
Back when I would have wine for, not with, dinner, I was a bit of a foodie. My first boyfriend was a chef, and my first jobs were all in the food service industry, so an interest in high-end food came naturally. There's an exoticism to fine dining. You get a little dressed up, people take you to your table and fawn over you with hunks of bread and little piles of food. An amuse-bouche? Okay! Some sort of prix-fixe menu that delivers artful towers of prawns or scallops or veal cheeks? Homemade ice cream? Deceptively tiny servings ("This is like, five mouthfuls for forty-five dollars! I'm going to eat eight slices of this really nice bread to make up for it."), and bucketload of booze. It's a very appealing, albeit expensive, way to live one's life. When the whole, 360 experience is taken into consideration (the room, the service, the view, the waiter's designer outfit), it feels glamorous. It can be a little bit addictive.
When we were younger, my mom was definitely the family dinner-maker. We used to pray for unadulterated Kraft Dinner, but she usually wouldn't cave to our high-pitched begging. I remember salmon cakes and steamed vegetables, or breakfast cereal-encrusted chicken, or spaghetti with olives and shredded carrots. These sound like culinary forerunner to taste experiments like nitrogen-frozen cherries, but my mom is an excellent cook (even if she did ruin KD by putting tuna in it). My dad made more "manly" foods - meat, grilled; meat, roasted; deli meat, fried. She usually cooked during the week, and they did a kitchen pas de deux on the weekends.
While there are entire magazines and cookbook sections devoted to getting dinner pumped out seven nights a week, I actually find cooking very relaxing. (This is probably due to the lack of hungry, shrieking children in my household.) I move fast in the kitchen, and have a slowly-growing repertoire of good, fast, tasty meals I can whip up ranging from breakfast burritos to vegan shepherds pie to banana-chocolate chip muffins. Sometimes I follow a recipe; other times, I improvise. With the exception of the chef boyfriend, I've been tapped in for KP on almost every relationship. I remember the first time I cooked for my Big Ex - we had been hanging out for, like, 36 hours straight. I was ravenous. We were both too broke for take-out, so I whipped up an udon-and-eggplant stir-fry. He looked at me with stars in his eyes. I love that feeling.
These days, I'm experimenting more. I buy the bacon marmalade and the kimchee. I make breakfasts with pickled beets. I want to try more advanced stuff, like whole chicken or yeast breads. Some of my friends will whip up salsas and make their own yogurt on the fly, but I'm not there. Years of denying the pleasure of food - unless it was really fancy food - have left me hesitant to explore my own kitchen. Islands of safety, like eggplant-and-udon stirfries, need to give way to oceans of new experiences.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Rings On His Fingers
Once in a while, when we want to convey in the same breath that something is both contemptible and hilarious, my boyfriend and I will cackle, "rings on his fingers," while waggling our fingers at each other and generally behaving like morons. It's from High Fidelity, the movie that introduced me to John Cusack (heresy! It should've been Say Anything, I know), and is about Ray, the tai chi-doing, pony-tail-wearing, tantric-sex-having horror that shacks up with Cusack's ex-girlfriend. The rings are just one example of Ray's yuckiness; he also produces "horrible cooking smells" and is one of those guys that, while telling Rob that Laura's descision to leave Rob and come share his bed wasn't easy for Laura and she needs to be respected, will reach out and firmly grasp the other man's shoulder in a manner that can only be understood as a hate-crime.
The problem with men's jewelery is that it can pretty much only be awful. Women, in addition to having centuries of socialized adornment behind them, also frequently have a wide range of tastes and styles to choose from. Last season's bib necklace is cousins with the lavaliere, the pendant, the big ropy chain, the delicate little chain, pearl necklaces (oh, behave), leather chokers, and a myriad other selections, ranging in price from "that store at the mall that gives you a free pair of earrings with every ear piercing" to "mortgage your house." But men? Despite attempts at blingy options in the last few years, the reality is, if a guy comes at me with a lot of metal, my first instinct is to avert my gaze. It demonstrates a level of conspicuous consumption and vanity that is wildly unappealing. Frankly, in both genders, if your choice in jewelry overshadows anything else in the first impression, you're probably doing it rather tastelessly.
Let's do a stereotype rundown, shall we? Let's see: if you wear an earring, you're either gay in 1994 or Harrison Ford. If you wear a chain, you're an Italian-American high school student, with tearaway Diadora pants and a professionally groomed set of eyebrows that are a source of both pride and shame. If you have facial piercing and are under 25, you are deliberately annoying your parents; over 25, and you attend drum circles and are considered "underemployed" by the government. Got a lot of rings? Ick. Bracelet? You're likely wearing an ID bracelet, an invention I have never seen outside a Stephen King book. (Or a hemp bracelet, in which case, carry on, former camp counselor.) Anklet? Have fun geting strip-searched coming back through the Vietnamese border, you hippie tourist. Have we missed any?
If you're among the jewelry-wearing masses, don't despair. I'm only one woman, and if you like your rings and anklets and headpieces, go right ahead and wear them. There are always exceptions to the rules. When I first moved to Toronto, I was struck by the number of regular guys who wear rings. I can't pin it to a specific culture or age group; dudes in the city just seem more okay with wearing jewelry than their country-mouse counterparts. Leather bracelet cuffs are prevalent and sufficiently dudely, although their moment of ubiquity seems to have passed. Some guys wear a crucifix on a chain, ranging in subtlety from "big honkin' cross on a string" to something a little more subtle. It can be tough, though, navigating the waters of personal bling: like cologne or sports cars or Jagermeister, a little goes an awfully long way.
Men don't get the same fashion breadth as women. We get purses, shoes, hosiery, make-up, hairdos and jewelry; they get to let loose with a really wild pair of socks. I'm sure it's not keeping most men up at night, since they make loads more money and have lots more power, but when your major accessory choice in the A.M. comes down to the brown belt or the black belt, chances are, you have a penis.
Obviously, the major exception to the jewelery rules is the wedding ring. Stalwart and true, the band would seem to be a no-brainer. But, again, we've come a long way since they would just hand you a gold band when you signed your marriage license (they never did, but that would have been dope). Now men (and women) are expected to embody themselves in their ring choices. I myself love a classic gold band - I love gold rings, because I'm an aspiring fancy person - but I've seen rings that have ranged from turquoise hunks - amazing! - to pieces that look like lug nuts - not amazing! Utilitarian-type guys seem to think they need a big freakin' ring, as though that might showcase their handy side, or be useful in case they get a flat. Wedding rings are supposed to be gifts from one beloved to the other, but it's handy to know if your future husband is a plain-band guy or if he might like something more ornate.
When we visited Brooklyn last weekend, I picked myself up a memory ring. It's a teeny gold band that usually rests on the pinkie, but when I have to remember something, it goes on the first knuckle of a larger finger. I love it: delicate, useful, and unexpected. I feel slightly bad that my boyfriend will never know the joy of a fun jewelry purchase. If he gets married, he's said that he'll likely wear a ring, but the fun of a pendant or an interesting earring isn't in his sartorial vocabulary. Honestly, though? I am mostly relieved. As we learned in High Fidelity, rings on his fingers only leads to ponytails, and you might get smashed in the face with an air conditioning unit. Better stick with funky socks.
The problem with men's jewelery is that it can pretty much only be awful. Women, in addition to having centuries of socialized adornment behind them, also frequently have a wide range of tastes and styles to choose from. Last season's bib necklace is cousins with the lavaliere, the pendant, the big ropy chain, the delicate little chain, pearl necklaces (oh, behave), leather chokers, and a myriad other selections, ranging in price from "that store at the mall that gives you a free pair of earrings with every ear piercing" to "mortgage your house." But men? Despite attempts at blingy options in the last few years, the reality is, if a guy comes at me with a lot of metal, my first instinct is to avert my gaze. It demonstrates a level of conspicuous consumption and vanity that is wildly unappealing. Frankly, in both genders, if your choice in jewelry overshadows anything else in the first impression, you're probably doing it rather tastelessly.
Let's do a stereotype rundown, shall we? Let's see: if you wear an earring, you're either gay in 1994 or Harrison Ford. If you wear a chain, you're an Italian-American high school student, with tearaway Diadora pants and a professionally groomed set of eyebrows that are a source of both pride and shame. If you have facial piercing and are under 25, you are deliberately annoying your parents; over 25, and you attend drum circles and are considered "underemployed" by the government. Got a lot of rings? Ick. Bracelet? You're likely wearing an ID bracelet, an invention I have never seen outside a Stephen King book. (Or a hemp bracelet, in which case, carry on, former camp counselor.) Anklet? Have fun geting strip-searched coming back through the Vietnamese border, you hippie tourist. Have we missed any?
If you're among the jewelry-wearing masses, don't despair. I'm only one woman, and if you like your rings and anklets and headpieces, go right ahead and wear them. There are always exceptions to the rules. When I first moved to Toronto, I was struck by the number of regular guys who wear rings. I can't pin it to a specific culture or age group; dudes in the city just seem more okay with wearing jewelry than their country-mouse counterparts. Leather bracelet cuffs are prevalent and sufficiently dudely, although their moment of ubiquity seems to have passed. Some guys wear a crucifix on a chain, ranging in subtlety from "big honkin' cross on a string" to something a little more subtle. It can be tough, though, navigating the waters of personal bling: like cologne or sports cars or Jagermeister, a little goes an awfully long way.
Men don't get the same fashion breadth as women. We get purses, shoes, hosiery, make-up, hairdos and jewelry; they get to let loose with a really wild pair of socks. I'm sure it's not keeping most men up at night, since they make loads more money and have lots more power, but when your major accessory choice in the A.M. comes down to the brown belt or the black belt, chances are, you have a penis.
Obviously, the major exception to the jewelery rules is the wedding ring. Stalwart and true, the band would seem to be a no-brainer. But, again, we've come a long way since they would just hand you a gold band when you signed your marriage license (they never did, but that would have been dope). Now men (and women) are expected to embody themselves in their ring choices. I myself love a classic gold band - I love gold rings, because I'm an aspiring fancy person - but I've seen rings that have ranged from turquoise hunks - amazing! - to pieces that look like lug nuts - not amazing! Utilitarian-type guys seem to think they need a big freakin' ring, as though that might showcase their handy side, or be useful in case they get a flat. Wedding rings are supposed to be gifts from one beloved to the other, but it's handy to know if your future husband is a plain-band guy or if he might like something more ornate.
When we visited Brooklyn last weekend, I picked myself up a memory ring. It's a teeny gold band that usually rests on the pinkie, but when I have to remember something, it goes on the first knuckle of a larger finger. I love it: delicate, useful, and unexpected. I feel slightly bad that my boyfriend will never know the joy of a fun jewelry purchase. If he gets married, he's said that he'll likely wear a ring, but the fun of a pendant or an interesting earring isn't in his sartorial vocabulary. Honestly, though? I am mostly relieved. As we learned in High Fidelity, rings on his fingers only leads to ponytails, and you might get smashed in the face with an air conditioning unit. Better stick with funky socks.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
No Sleep Til Williamsburg
Coming home to Toronto from New York City reminds me of that line in The Big Lebowski where The Dude wistfully says, "How you gonna keep 'em down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?" I've always loved that line, because as our experiences expand, places and things that once seemed oh-so-important start to wither next to the grandiosity of our new explorations. (Plus, The Dude is my bathrobe-wearing, cream-sniffing ersatz life coach.) I'm not going to play the "Toronto isn't good enough" game that well-traveled folks often do. I love my city. It's safe and friendly, it's interesting and fun, it's arty, cosmopolitan and youthful enough to still be figuring itself out. Comparing New York City and Toronto are like comparing Yoko Ono to Katie Stelmanis - both accomplished and inspiring in their own right, but who knows if Stelmanis will have the longevity, the adaptability or the tragic and playful stateliness of Ono in 25 years? Only time will tell.
It's true that New York, being older and larger, has amenities that Toronto can only envy from afar. Take, for example, their metro: an all-night, far-flung subway system with a universal user interface (everyone gets a metrocard! All the stations take it! Oh, plus the buses!), stations that are simultaneously classically beautiful and falling apart in a very appealing way (although probably not for the people who ride it daily), and a long and storied history. It's hard not to ride the TTC and feel, for a moment, that we got into the transit game during an ugly-looking era, and that efforts to expand it will constantly be truncated by whining about expense. Meanwhile, the suburbs and the downtown stay part of two different Toronto experiences, and New York City enfolds its outer boroughs.
I'm not sure if Toronto has "hipster" neighbourhoods the same way New York City does. I know Stratford sure doesn't: Stratford has "the cool coffeeshop" or "the indie video rental place," because it's made up of five or six neighbourhoods, one of which is called "downtown." Coming from a small town into a larger city like Toronto can be a bit of a mind-blower. What do you mean there's more than one cool coffee shop? How can that be? How do people know where to get expensive, artful lattes?
On the other hand, Toronto definitely has "cool" neighbourhoods, like both East and West Queen Street, but we rarely sustain them. Yorkville, our former hippie enclave, has been transformed in the last few decades in a showy and expensive neighbourhood catering to the Rosedale crowd. I guess we'll see, in the coming years, if Parkdale and Leslieville and the Junction can retain their indie vibe, or they, too, will get GapKids and exorbitant rents. In New York, Brooklyn has suffered from its successes: rents have risen and the influx of new residents have most been young, white, and employed in "careers" like barista and web designer. The diversity in ages, lifestyles and backgrounds is slowly getting lost.
I don't mean to sound spiteful. I love Brooklyn, because in addition to Brooklyn Heights and its plethora of hipsters, it's also home to places like Bed-Stuy and its sizable, and creative, Black population; plus, Crown Heights and the Hasidic Jews who call it home. It's huge, bigger than Manhattan in both population and area, but it suffers from the same inferiority complex that Toronto often seems to. Hipsters will stuff themselves into an area of a supposedly dowdy place (like Toronto or Brooklyn) in order to maximize their cool points and to find others like them. Hep cats in cities like Montreal or San Fransisco don't need to congregate into tiny little areas. Those cities spread their fun out to all compass points. Besides, have you ever been to Haight-Ashbury? The damned place is just tourists and drug dealers, and any semblance of genuine counterculture has been neatly erased with the opening of another soup-and-sammie joint. Spread the wealth, you know? As a Torontonian, my city definitely has cool and uncool pockets, and it can be exhausting to navigate them. Not to mention that, when I try, it leaves me feeling like I'm paddling in awfully shallow waters.
The long and the short of it? I refuse to believe that Toronto is a B-team city. We have our shortcomings, it's true. But I've been places - New York City, Chicago, Montreal, not to mention Halifax and Savannah - and Toronto is still very much in its learning, building stages. We're so young compared to a lot of these places. We can make something of ourselves. Frustratingly, we also seem to suffer from a lack of leadership - a monorail and a ferris wheel do not a world-class city make. We need green spaces, integrated transit, a thriving theatre and gallery scene, one-of-a-kind shopping, and a sense that each neighbourhood has something new and different to offer.
Look, NYC has a 200-year head start, and it took some wrong turns - remember the 1980s? Seedy Times Square and a soaring crime rate? There's no reason we can't get there too. We need visionaries: leaders and critics who aren't following some other city's plans, but who can put Toronto on the map on our own merits. Expand the subways, open the waterfront, fund the arts, and give out-of-towners - and ourselves - a reason to ooh and ahh over us. We'll finish fulfilling our destiny as the New York/Paris/Hollywood of the North, and then ditch that mantle to finally, gloriously, be Toronto.
It's true that New York, being older and larger, has amenities that Toronto can only envy from afar. Take, for example, their metro: an all-night, far-flung subway system with a universal user interface (everyone gets a metrocard! All the stations take it! Oh, plus the buses!), stations that are simultaneously classically beautiful and falling apart in a very appealing way (although probably not for the people who ride it daily), and a long and storied history. It's hard not to ride the TTC and feel, for a moment, that we got into the transit game during an ugly-looking era, and that efforts to expand it will constantly be truncated by whining about expense. Meanwhile, the suburbs and the downtown stay part of two different Toronto experiences, and New York City enfolds its outer boroughs.
I'm not sure if Toronto has "hipster" neighbourhoods the same way New York City does. I know Stratford sure doesn't: Stratford has "the cool coffeeshop" or "the indie video rental place," because it's made up of five or six neighbourhoods, one of which is called "downtown." Coming from a small town into a larger city like Toronto can be a bit of a mind-blower. What do you mean there's more than one cool coffee shop? How can that be? How do people know where to get expensive, artful lattes?
On the other hand, Toronto definitely has "cool" neighbourhoods, like both East and West Queen Street, but we rarely sustain them. Yorkville, our former hippie enclave, has been transformed in the last few decades in a showy and expensive neighbourhood catering to the Rosedale crowd. I guess we'll see, in the coming years, if Parkdale and Leslieville and the Junction can retain their indie vibe, or they, too, will get GapKids and exorbitant rents. In New York, Brooklyn has suffered from its successes: rents have risen and the influx of new residents have most been young, white, and employed in "careers" like barista and web designer. The diversity in ages, lifestyles and backgrounds is slowly getting lost.
I don't mean to sound spiteful. I love Brooklyn, because in addition to Brooklyn Heights and its plethora of hipsters, it's also home to places like Bed-Stuy and its sizable, and creative, Black population; plus, Crown Heights and the Hasidic Jews who call it home. It's huge, bigger than Manhattan in both population and area, but it suffers from the same inferiority complex that Toronto often seems to. Hipsters will stuff themselves into an area of a supposedly dowdy place (like Toronto or Brooklyn) in order to maximize their cool points and to find others like them. Hep cats in cities like Montreal or San Fransisco don't need to congregate into tiny little areas. Those cities spread their fun out to all compass points. Besides, have you ever been to Haight-Ashbury? The damned place is just tourists and drug dealers, and any semblance of genuine counterculture has been neatly erased with the opening of another soup-and-sammie joint. Spread the wealth, you know? As a Torontonian, my city definitely has cool and uncool pockets, and it can be exhausting to navigate them. Not to mention that, when I try, it leaves me feeling like I'm paddling in awfully shallow waters.
The long and the short of it? I refuse to believe that Toronto is a B-team city. We have our shortcomings, it's true. But I've been places - New York City, Chicago, Montreal, not to mention Halifax and Savannah - and Toronto is still very much in its learning, building stages. We're so young compared to a lot of these places. We can make something of ourselves. Frustratingly, we also seem to suffer from a lack of leadership - a monorail and a ferris wheel do not a world-class city make. We need green spaces, integrated transit, a thriving theatre and gallery scene, one-of-a-kind shopping, and a sense that each neighbourhood has something new and different to offer.
Look, NYC has a 200-year head start, and it took some wrong turns - remember the 1980s? Seedy Times Square and a soaring crime rate? There's no reason we can't get there too. We need visionaries: leaders and critics who aren't following some other city's plans, but who can put Toronto on the map on our own merits. Expand the subways, open the waterfront, fund the arts, and give out-of-towners - and ourselves - a reason to ooh and ahh over us. We'll finish fulfilling our destiny as the New York/Paris/Hollywood of the North, and then ditch that mantle to finally, gloriously, be Toronto.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
