Blog

  • WHY ARE NAMES GENDERED, ANYWAY?

    When language first came about and humans invented ways to refer to objects, we also needed a way to refer to each other. Hence, we were given names, a personal identifier for an individual that oftentimes carries historical, cultural, or sentimental meaning. Beyond that, most names often time carry another distinguishing mark: they are divided and assigned by sex. Sure, there exist unisex names in some cultures, but even those started out assigned to one side. But why? Who determined what proper noun would be associated with which sex? Spoiler: there’s no clear cut answer, but there are a variety of factors that contribute to us assigning a gender to a name across many cultures. 

    The first reason has to do with sounds. Specifically, the sounds and letters each culture or language will associate with a sex. The differentiating markers all depend on the language. In many romance languages, for example, feminine names tend to be longer and “softer” sounding than masculine names. This is because feminine names that are derived from masculine names are usually given a vowel sound at the end, like “-e,” “-a,” “-ie,” “-ine,” “-ina,” and so on. These suffixes change the syllabic stress, which ends up making the name sound “smoother” or “rounder”. Contrastly, masculine names tend to be short and end with a consonant, making it “abrupt” or “spiky” sounding. These names tend to place the stressed syllable at the front (names like “Rick, “Jamal,” or “Evan” spring to mind), while feminine names tend to have the stressed syllable in the middle or last (think “Josephina,” “Ramona,” or “Evelyn”). In other non-romance or syllabic languages, names might end or include certain sex-associated markers. In Japanese, names that end with “-o” or “-shi” tend to be male, while feminine names tend to end with “-e,” “-ka,” or “-ko” (to name a few). In Chinese, feminine names will include radicals that make reference to beauty, appearance, or flowers, or include the female radical, “女” in some way. That’s why we can say a name sounds feminine or masculine, even if we have no idea what it means. 

    Meaning also ends up determining the gender of a name. A lot of names are derived from descriptors, praises, or traits we tend to associate with the sexes. Male names often include meanings like strength, war, protection, numerical birth order, authority, or even just “manly.” Feminine names tend to relate to positive attributes or characteristics, like kindness, fertility, flowers and nature, purity, places, or seasons. There exists some overlap with both sexes when it comes to meaning derived from appearance, historical figures, or deities, although feminine names are more likely to make reference to appearance than male. 

    Meaning and phonemes also often influence the creation of unisex names, too. For instance, in English-speaking parts of the world, names like “Leslie,” “Evelyn,” and “Ashley” started off as boy’s names, and within the span of the 20th century, were either popularized as girl’s names, or accepted as unisex. This is because our ears have been trained to detect the masculine and feminine patterns and components of a name- the stressed syllables and length- which is why it’s easier to accept names that have these features as belonging to the opposite sex. While not every masculine name utilizes voiced phonemes, and not every feminine name utilizes unvoiced, the pattern is common enough that our brains have picked up on it. With a few rare exceptions, most of these switches were popularized in the 20th century. In fact, one individual compiled a table that showed the progression of this opposite name adoption from 1900 to 2016 using data compiled from the US Social Security Administration. In less than a century, names that were previously male skyrocketed in popularity for women, most commonly in the 40s, 50s, and 60s! Religion can sometimes play a part in the blurring of these gender lines, too, when it comes to meaning. A common practice in some Catholic countries or cultures is to have the name of a saint given as the middle name for a child, even if it does not match their sex. For example, a child might be named Maria José or José Maria, depending on their sex, in reference to Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Joseph, his legal father, even though these names are typically assigned to one sex or the other. Many Hindu names for both male and female are derived from Indian gods and goddesses. 

    Interestingly, while there are some male names that were originally female (“Douglas,” in fact, was a girl’s name in 16th and 17th century England), the switch often seems to happen male-to-female instead of female-to-male. This has to deal with the societal attitudes behind what makes an individual masculine or feminine, and the attitude towards the sex as a whole. This idea of one-way name-switching carries some traces of sexism; while a woman can be granted attributes of “strength,” it is deemed as “emasculating” or insulting to refer to a man as “beautiful,” “graceful,” or “compassionate,” even though these are widely regarded as positive traits on their own. This is rooted in the still-present demonization of femininity, that it is inherently “lesser” or unfavorable to display feminine traits, especially in males. Similarly, names can even change gender association across cultures; names like “Kim,” “Andrea,” and “Yuri” can be majority one sex or the other depending on what part of the world you’re in. 

    Your location also determines what your name can be. Many countries have name laws that dictate what you can and cannot name your child. Countries like New Zealand and Lithuania, to name a few, require parents to choose the name of their child from a list; any other name must be approved by the government. These lists are often divided by sex, but unisex names are still permissible. Four countries- Portugal, Denmark, Iceland, and Germany- have outright banned the use of unisex names. In cases of countries with syllabic languages, like Japan, China, or Korea, these regulations are put in place so the child’s name can be read without issue. In the case of Iceland, this is done to meet certain rules of grammar, though the primary reason is to avoid future embarrassment for the child, as is with most other countries. It is the held belief that a child with a name that mismatches their sex will be prone to teasing or bullying. In some cultures, like with the Sikh, there exist genderless given names; if gender is wished to be indicated, it is usually through using the middle or last name. Though, in recent years, names have started favoring one sex or the other. 

    Socialization affecting the meaning of a name also swings the other way: your name can affect your socialization. A study found that individuals that had names less strongly associated with one gender reportedly engaged in less gender-typical social behavior, and had a weaker expression of gender-associated personality traits. So men that boasted “masculine-masculine” names were more likely to engage in stereotypically masculine activities and behaviors, and the same on the feminine side. Beyond your sex, your name influences your gender socialization, identification, and contributes to your expression of gender and gender roles within the society you’re a part of. Your name can even go on to influence your personality, self-esteem, and even your face, but that’s a topic for another time. 

    Names have so many linguistic influences that go into their creation. While these gender associations may vary by culture and tongue, there seem to be a shared list of components ranging from meaning to auditory pattern to spelling that determine the reason a name may become associated with a certain gender. While we’re aware of what names are associated with what sex in our respective cultures, names, like language, are an ever-evolving mode of communication that constantly grow, shift, and change; who knows, one day you may be walking past a girl named “John” or a boy named “Grace!” 

    References 

    Alexander, Gerianne M. et. al. “Living Up to a Name: Gender Role Behavior Varies With Forename Gender Typicality.” Front Psychol, Jan. 22, 2021, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7862123/.

    Seguin, Charles, Chris Julien, Yongjun Zhang. “The stability of androgynous names: Dynamics of gendered naming practices in the United States 1880-2016.” Poetics 85 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2020.101501.

    Sidhu, David M., Penny M. Pexman. “What’s in a Name? Sound Symbolism and Gender in First Names.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, May 27, 2015. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?d=10.1371/journal.pone.0126809

    Kaufman, Jeff. “Name Gender Over Time.” Feb. 23, 2016. https://www.jefftk.com/p/name-gender-over-time.

  • MY YEAR AS A CINEPHILE

    I made it a mission to watch more movies this calendar year. Not that it was on purpose, but that’s what ended up happening. Of course, some may turn up their noses at the idea of 90 films being a lot in one year- I’ve heard some hardcore addicts consume that in a mere month- but to me, those are big numbers.

    I’ve never really been much of a movie fan. It’s funny, considering I’m in the entertainment industry and all, but I’ve never been partial to them. I think it’s because they’re so…self-contained. Pardon my hypocrisy since I write short stories, but I just really love a good series that you can follow for a time. That’s why people like movies, of course, because you can sort of immerse yourself in another world for a few hours, then get back to business as usual, but that’s never been satisfying for me.

    Movies often feel like the narrative continues well after the screen turns off- that’s a good thing, since it’s proof of a well-rounded universe with a well-crafted story that harbors believable characters. These standalone stories tend to do a great job creating conclusions in a satisfying way, but even if it’s well-done, there’s the more childish part of me that always wants more. It’s better to leave an audience wanting more than to be content, but there’s something so exciting about being drawn into a good series, and knowing you’ll get to see the genius behind how it unfolds. Movies have a genius of their own, and maybe I’m less attracted to the idea of only knowing a story and its characters for a mere two hours. I want to see just how far it can go.

    Not everything needs to be a series, of course, and some things narratively work better as a movie because they’re only meant to be followed for this specific instance in time. But man, I do adore the feeling of staying with a narrative, and following it for months at a time. I like seeing how things will unfold, how the writers will choose to expand it further, how these characters will have a gradual change that feels believable. A good series sticks with you a long time, usually because you’ve watched it a long time.

    That’s not to say movies don’t do that. I do understand the narrative purposes of different mediums. Movies can do exactly everything I just listed, which is why my expression of preference simply comes down to feeling. I love the commitment to a series. I love the way staying attached to something makes me feel. I love feeling like you’re not getting just a momentary peek into these characters’ lives; you’re following them for days, weeks, months, years at a time. Maybe it’s invasive, but personally, I love that kind of intimacy we get to see into these fictitious lives. You’ve been given a reason to care about people that will never be real.

    I did enjoy watching more films, though! I probably would’ve averaged twelve in any given year, so I’m kind of surprised I managed to get through nearly a hundred of them. I might see if I can squeeze in ten more before 2025 rolls around, that way I can brag that I, the long-term media consumer, actually expanded my comfort zone and consumed one hundred entire films.

    Well, probably more like 80 films and a ton of Saw 0.5 rewatches. There was a period where I took in a bunch of short films, and Saw 0.5 I pretty much watched twelve times in one night when I was pulling an all-nighter in the computer lab. But hey, ninety films are ninety films, and if the bulk of them are rewatches, those are still hours that I spent glued to a screen, utterly immersed in whatever narrative I was experiencing for the umpteenth time because it spoke to me in some way.

    I’m a rewatcher, in case you haven’t noticed, but I did make a point to branch out and find new narratives this year. Special shoutout goes to YouTube for making the bulk of these films free this year. I’m sure I wouldn’t have been as committed if there weren’t the ease of access that putting stuff up for free would entail.

    Overall, I had fun this year exploring a whole world of films I’ve always heard about, but never got to experience. That’s what the bulk of this comes down to, anyway; a lot of these were things everyone and their mother has already seen, already raved about and said you should see. That’s another impact of feeling so far removed from pop culture, sometimes. I still haven’t shed the poverty shell, where I can actually experience things where they occur in real time instead of catching up a few years down the line. I got my first taste of that seeing films like Saw X and Five Nights at Freddy’s (twice!) in theaters this year. I don’t know, there was something nice about heading to a theater and knowing what everyone experienced, for a change. But no, now I’ll finally know what everyone means when they’re talking about Scream or Perfect Blue or 10 Things I Hate About You, or even a regular Disney film. There’s still so much I have to catch up on.

    Except nothing will ever get me as passionate about it as Nicole Kidman in that AMC advert. I still have minor pangs of adrenaline every time I hear it play, because it typically meant I was running out of time to clean the theater, haha.

    Even though I said movies weren’t my favorite form of entertainment, I still do like them. They just weren’t my first pick, is all. After spending a year consuming them more frequently, though, I have a newfound appreciation for them now. One thing I do love is how movies come with the opportunity to notice so many new things you didn’t catch the first time around. I really love that about rewatches; they let you take a step back from the narrative for a moment and notice everything outside of it. Of course, my first love will always be television, but now I do understand why people love films a bit more.

    That reminds me, I still need to dismantle my watchlist. And maybe squeeze in one more watch of Final Destination before I catch my flight to France.

    Want to see what I saw this year? Help yourself. You can find my diary over on Letterboxed.

  • THE OPPOSITE OF EVERYTHING

    If I tell people what I mean at face-value, they seem to struggle with comprehending it. “I’m not a fan of this idea.” That seems to mean I am. “I’m not cold.” That seems to mean I am. “I don’t like this.” Well, I guess that means I do.

    What is this phenomenon, where people seem unable to hear exactly what you say? What causes this inability? I’ve dashed away the idea that I will find someone who understands that I mean exactly what I say. Now I simply wish to be alone, that way I don’t have the intrusive decisions of others impede on me any longer. I’m sick of hearing everyone’s thoughts, where they think they know me better than I know me. Are you living in my skin? Are you thinking with my head? I do not think so. So what gives them the impression that they should be so sure? I still have yet to encounter anyone who was correct in their assumption that they know me very well. Perhaps we should realize that people everywhere are complex, and it’s presumptious to assume we can understand them at a glance?

    Even worse is that these aren’t things being done out of control or malice; it comes from a well-intentioned place, and that’s why it frustrates me more. Even my own mother does it. Granted, most of the time she thinks I’m being self-sacrificial, but I’ve never before had a period of time where I felt unheard even by her before now. It seems like everyone has an idea in mind for what will help me, and it’s only after the fact that they relent and realize I was right. It would be helpful to hear me sooner. What good will your hindsight give me? Irritation?

    What gives? Why will no one believe me? I don’t lie frivolously, so it’s not like I’ve built up the reputation. Do I sound hesitant? Unsure? Is a simple, “Yes,” or “No,” not sufficient anymore? I can say exactly what I want and no one will believe me; not even my own mother anymore. Before she’d be correct in looking past my indecisions. Not so much anymore.

    I haven’t done anything reckless. My family and adults in my life applaud me for it. I carefully measure and weigh each decision before I make it. So why is everyone living in some unfounded fear that I’m going to “do wrong”? Is life not about experiences? How do you expect me to learn or evaluate anything if you want me to never do anything? And if you’re so sure your decision for me is correct, then why does it always work out bad for me? All it’s done is turn me off to the idea that I should take advice from others. No one knows what they’re talking about, but are so eager to feel like they’re helpful that they can’t help but put their two cents in your hand. I don’t need anymore spare change. All anyone over me ever does is get me in trouble pushing their ideas onto me; then, when I need help getting out of the mess they pushed on me, everyone wants to whistle and look at the ceiling. So help and people and ideas are equally useless. No one has anything good to offer, so I don’t go looking for anyone anymore. Then I get to feel like a fool for allowing anyone to “extend a hand” again. You can help in other ways, but I don’t need people interfering with me unwanted anymore.

    I don’t feel lost. I feel sure. I know what I want, I know how to get there, and I know what’s best for me. And so far, every time I give someone the chance to see if they understand what I need, they fail me. So I can’t wait to be on my own to exercise the freedom I need. Why do I have to put up with people telling me what I should say or do or think or feel or act or believe? Why am I treated like I am uncapavle of independent thought? Must you breathe for me as well?

    And it even extends to rare moments where I would seek out help in another. Heaven forbid I feel ill or stressed or exceedingly sad; I’m not haggard-looking enough on the outside, so therefore it must not be true. So I don’t go to doctors, who will not believe me when I say I am sick. I will not turn to lovers, who try to convince me that I should be interested in sex. I do not bother discussing if I feel dreary, because what is there to say if it will just be said for me? If you say I’m happy, then I am, and I will always be.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m murdered one day and it be deemed as a suicide. Despite having said that I would never kill myself, my word would never be good enough for anyone else; they always assume they know you better than yourself. It’s only right that even in death I’d be treated the same way.

  • THE NEW NOOLOGY NETWORK: ADVERTISING USING AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

    On a crisp autumn day in October 2019, you’re walking down the street in San Francisco when you encounter a bizarre advertisement: 

    “SEE YOUR OWN DREAMS RECORDED IN FULL COLOR!” 

    Complete with promises of real-time dream analysis from willing participants, this flier urges you to call the tear-able number or visit the website to learn more. You’re the curious type, so when you’re done providing a comfortable amount of personal information, you’re added to an email list where you then learn of the privately-funded foundation organizing this cattle call: The New Noology Network

    ────·✦·────

    The New Noology Network was an immersive art piece made in 2019 to promote AMC’s new anthological series, Dispatches from Elsewhere. Over the course of five months, participants were guided through emails to join livestreams, browse through websites, and record videos of real-life actions in order to piece together the puzzle presented by the game [¹]. 

    The New Noology Network, or NNN, made use of an emerging medium that’s gaining mainstream awareness and traction: alternate reality games. An alternate reality game, or ARG, is a type of interactive multi-platform storytelling that involves participants interacting with real world elements in order to progress through a narrative. The NNN quickly caught attention due to its high production quality, which sometimes attracted upwards of 10,000 viewers to the livestreams held on Twitch.tv, and garnered buzz in several speculative online communities, including Reddit, Instagram, and YouTube [³]. 

    Framed as a real-time analysis of dreams, these two-hour livestreamed sessions provided viewers with clues to crack the overarching mystery, and audiences were further enticed once the dream research itself was shown to be a hoax. This ushered in the second round of the project, which increased the amount of viewer participation in an intimate way. Namely, participants were often invited to share their real names and faces with the project, or required to record themselves committing absurd tasks, such as shouting strange things in public. The line between fiction and reality became further blurred with the third installment of the project, which featured participant’s real-life usernames or faces apart of livestreams. Initially, an actor associated with the ARG was planned to appear outside of participant’s homes, but this concept was scrapped due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, which forced the team behind the project to reroute the final leg of the game [⁶]. Still, that didn’t stop communities from coming together to determine the ultimate purpose of The New Noology Network

    Eventually, players began connecting it with a TV series that started to premiere around that time. 

    ────·✦·────

    Dispatches from Elsewhere premiered on March 1, 2020 on AMC in the United States, created by and starring Jason Siegel [¹]. The show was inspired by and connected to The Jejune Institute, another immersive art experience and social experiment from the mid 2000s in which some 7,000 players in the Bay Area were involved [⁷]. 

    The show itself incorporated threads from the ARG. Once viewers were made aware that the two properties were connected, they sought after clues in the episodes. The finale of the series itself even used the real life faces and videos of participants in The NNN, in which participants mimicked a line from the show [¹]. 

    With months of build-up to the premiere of the show, it’s no wonder that the series started strong. However, despite the seemingly explosive levels of success the project was projected to have, the show ultimately ended up becoming a blip on the map. What happened? 

    ────·✦·────

    The New Noology Network and Dispatches From Elsewhere both exist in a strange limbo of success. Each did remarkably well considering the specific audience it targeted, but how effective was The New Noology Network as a marketing tool? 

    Hexagram, the company responsible for organizing the game, and Brian Solomon, a member of one of the many teams who helped produce the project, stated in a write-up that The New Noology Network brought in a total of 500,000 players [²][³]. That is highly successful for an ARG; that is half a million potential consumers of a product. However, Dispatches from Elsewhere was operating on one rather large assumption: 

    That everyone who participated in the ARG would subsequently watch the show. 

    To an extent, they were right. The series premiered in the USA with 938,000 viewers, and nearly a million viewers for a barely promoted series aren’t bad numbers at all [⁴]. Especially with the context of modern broadcast television in the year 2020, when this show would’ve premiered, it’s impressive. 

    However, there was an incredibly steep drop off after the premiere- 586,000 viewers lost, to be precise [⁸]. A further 112,000 viewers dropped off after the second episode, to which the ratings finally stabilized to the 200,000 range for the duration of its run [⁹]. Only the finale dipped below that number, coming in at 198,000 television viewers, the lowest in the series [⁵]. While it’s hard to determine an accurate total number of viewers that account for both broadcast television and streaming, that is still a devastating drop in viewership between two episodes aired within 24 hours of each other. 

    So, where did they go? This circles back to the issue of using niche advertising. While there’s a better likelihood of encountering a stable audience when using these methods, there runs the risk only appealing to a select number of potential audience members from in that bunch, and banking on the fact that they will like B if they liked A. 

    The New Noology Network, and Dispatches from Elsewhere at large, started from 500,000 potential viewers [²]. Subtract from that the amount of players who became inactive in the ARG, and were therefore not made aware that the game was connected to a series. Then subtract from that the amount of players who were made aware of the show after reaching the ARG’s conclusion, but were either not attracted to the show, or only cared about the mystery of the ARG itself. Finally, subtract from that the amount of players made aware of the show, were attracted to the premise, but only watched the first episode. 

    When it comes down to it, that’s a very small sliver of people funneled into the show from the marketing campaign. That’s not to say this wasn’t an effective strategy, however. The utilization of this medium was clever for a show about skewing reality, and it assures that the show will attract at least a fraction of assured viewership. The problem is that Dispatches from Elsewhere had an overreliance on one exact type of marketing. It wagered that it’d receive the bulk of its viewers from the ARG, and failed to account for the viewers it could attract through regular marketing means. 

    To remedy this, it would’ve helped if Dispatches did not put all of its eggs into one basket and chose to bolster its potential viewer base through other forms of advertisement. AMC seems to primarily promote its shows on its own channel, but in the age of streaming and the fall of linear television, it would help if they ran social media advertisement promoting the show separate to the ARG. Because of the strange nature of the show, even a simple captivating banner ad or YouTube advertisement that was in a similar vein to The New Noology Network fliers would’ve effective. 

    Plenty of viewers are aware of the other ARG this is connected to, The Jejune Institute, but there’s hardly any mention of The New Noology Network. In fact, a large percentage of people discovered the show through other means. Even official publications like The New Yorker, Rolling Stone, and The Guardian who reviewed the show don’t mention the game at all [¹⁰][¹¹][¹²]. 

    This further backs the idea that a bit more standard advertisement would’ve potentially done the show some good by tapping into a mainstream market. While it’s important to preserve the mystery, The New Noology Network ultimately suffered from being a bit too far removed from the product it sought to promote. 

    Niche marketing is a very risky venture, and all things considered, The New Noology Network and Dispatches from Elsewhere were both very brave in committing to such an ambitious marketing campaign, especially concerning a show with a very hit-or-miss concept. However, where it could have resulted in a stronger marketing campaign is by utilizing standard means of social media marketing in order to reach a larger audience for the show. This would have preserved the mystery of the ARG while still attracting a larger potential audience for Dispatches from Elsewhere that may have resonated with the show’s premise more. 

    The New Noology Network may have faltered a bit as a marketing campaign, but this was as a result of an overreliance, not the campaign itself being unsuccessful. If used in combination with other marketing techniques that compliment this method, then brands wishing to enact a similar campaign can expect to see a positive impact in viewership if the correct precautions are taken.

    Citations

    [¹] “How an Actual Alternate Reality Game Helped ‘Dispatches From Elsewhere’ Pull Off That ‘Communal’ Finale.” The Wrap. https://www.thewrap.com/dispatches-from-elsewhere-ending-fans-arg-game-finale-jason-segel/

    [²] “Dispatches from Elsewhere / 2020.” Hexagram. https://www.hexagram.io/dispatches

    [³] “Behind the Experience: New Noology Network.” LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/behind-experience-new-noology-network-brian-solomon

    [⁴] “Top 150 Sunday Cable Original & Network Finals: 3.1.2020.” ShowBuzzDaily. https://web.archive.org/web/20200303152007/http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-150-sunday-cable-originals-network-finals-3-1-2020.html

    [⁵] “Top 150 Sunday Cable Original & Network Finals: 4.27.2020.” ShowBuzzDaily. https://web.archive.org/web/20200429003108/http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-150-monday-cable-originals-network-finals-4-27-2020.html

    [⁶] “NNN.” Sludge. https://www.sludge.io/nnn

    [⁷] “‘Dispatches From Elsewhere’ Is 2020’s Weirdest New Show.” Vice. https://www.vice.com/en/article/amc-jason-segel-dispatches-from-elsewhere-review/

    [⁸] “Top 150 Sunday Cable Original & Network Finals: 3.2.2020.” ShowBuzzDaily. https://web.archive.org/web/20200303211832/http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-150-monday-cable-originals-network-finals-3-2-2020.html.

    [⁹] “Top 150 Sunday Cable Original & Network Finals: 3.9.2020.” ShowBuzzDaily. https://web.archive.org/web/20200311203358/http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-150-monday-cable-originals-network-finals-3-9-2020.html

    [¹⁰] “On AMC’s “Dispatches from Elsewhere,” Jason Segel Plays with Convoluted Ways of Telling Straight Stories.” The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/on-television/on-amcs-dispatches-from-elsewhere-jason-segel-plays-with-convoluted-ways-of-telling-straight-stories

    [¹¹] “‘Dispatches From Elsewhere’ Review: A Journey Into the Weird Beyond.” Rolling Stone. https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-reviews/dispatches-from-elsewhere-amc-jason-segel-review-954779/

    [¹²] “Dispatches from Elsewhere review – Twin Peaks meets Alice in Wonderland.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/apr/29/dispatches-from-elsewhere-review-jason-segel-twin-peaks

  • MATURE CHERRY RED

    Ah, December already. Doesn’t it go by so fast? It always seems like so little and yet so much changes in the blink of an eye.

    For awhile now, I’ve been particularly drawn to a certain shade of red. Well, not just a shade, but red full stop. I’ve been absolutely smitten with it lately. For the longest time, my default “item” color has been pink. Don’t get me wrong, I’m still obsessed with all of my cute little pink belongings, but I can feel the start of a transition as I ease out of my soft and cheery shade into something bright and bold.

    It started about two months ago, when I found myself hankering for red lipstick. I’ve never really had the desire to wear it before, as I prefer softer and more natural makeup looks, but I could not get the idea of red out of my mind. I started clambering for red anywhere. I was in need of a new wardrobe, anyway, and perhaps it was thanks to my Princess Diana black sheep sweater dupe that I wanted for my birthday, but I wanted a red cardigan, too. Or maybe it was the other way around. Either way, it’s not like I was planning to do away with all the brown sweaters and jackets I’ve built up over the years, but I wanted something red for my daily outerwear. I needed it terribly.

    I did eventually get my red, although it was in the form of a cute little jacket with pom-poms on the ends of the drawstrings. It has pockets, too, although they’re quite shallow, and are actually the reason I’ve obtained the first crack in any phone screen I’ve ever owned. While the streak is over for unbroken phones, I couldn’t be happier with my new hooded sweater. It’s the perfect thing for layering and crafting early 2000s looks.

    And I did eventually find my shade of red lipstick, too. A trip to the store allowed me to procure a shade called Rendezvous by NARS, which is absolutely adorable and almost looks to be a rust color more than anything. Still though, I am in love!! It’s the perfect layering shade with anything, and it’s natural looking enough that I don’t feel self-conscious wearing it out in public.

    It’s funny. Now that I’ve altered my favored shade of red from pink to a deep cherry red, I feel more ready to transition into this new era of my life more than anything. I’ve never been immature, but it feels poetic to shed the girlhood shade of pink to a womanly, mature color of red. Of course, I’m still keeping all of my pink belongings (I still have a soft spot for it underneath all this, haha), but I feel like red is much more appropriate for this era of my life. I’m 22, after all, and I’ve always associated 2s with the color red. Maybe that’s what influenced me to make the change to red!

    I’m armed with my new wardrobe, new (arriving) glasses, and new numerical age to take on this next era of my life- and boy, am I excited to face it draped in the color red!