Some R & R

Last week, I was put on modified bed rest. I won't go into details because - frankly speaking - this whole pregnancy business can be pretty gross extremely magical. What this really means is I'm spending a lot of time on the couch with my feet elevated.

I've been doing some reading, and I've been watching some TV. The reading has been productive, the TV watching... not so much.

I just finished reading The Rookie Mom's Handbook, which I enjoyed enough that I thought it would be worth blogging about. I borrowed it from the library (and I'm returning it tomorrow), so nobody sent me a comp copy for review. I just thought I'd share books that I liked, since there have been quite a few that were ... not as good.

Cover picture shamelessly stolen from Amazon.com

What I liked: 

- The book is very positive, and it takes into account that you might not have your pre-partum body back 15 minutes after being discharged from the hospital. 
- Some of the suggestions were very creative, and I hadn't considered before. Also, they sounded very fun.
- At least *3* of the activities required yarn. I wholly approve.

What I didn't like:

- A lot of the suggestions include going to a mall, shopping, or other consumer-centered activities. Take this with a grain of salt: On a good day, I hate the mall.

Overall, I'd recommend this book, especially if you're worried about being short on ideas on how to maintain your identity post-partum.

Me? I'll be here on the couch, reading and catching up on my stories.

The Stay-At -Home Survival Guide: A review

I've had some questions about what I've been reading, as far as parenting books are concerned. The first book I read (and liked, nay, LOVED) was the The Stay-at-Home Survival Guide: Field-Tested Strategies for Staying Smart, Sane, and Connected While Caring for Your Kids by Melissa Stanton.

I'm not being paid to review this, Seal Press didn't send me a galley copy, and best of all? I borrowed it from my local library.

Cover, for you to enjoy

While it's true that I'm not a stay-at-home mom *yet*, that's the end goal. I was reading this book, and it was like Melissa Stanton had been following me around when it came to how other people reacted to our choice to have me stay home. True, she was a few years ahead of me (the book came out in 2008), but her powers of pre-cognition are to be commended.

But seriously.

Stanton talks about dealing with the "yes, but what do you DO" question, household finances, and how demanding being a full-time Mom can be. So it's not a parenting-parenting book, per se, but it helps parents. So it totally counts.

It took me a LONG time to figure out that most people don't respect useful life skills that they lack- like raising children, cooking, or knitting. People who don't (or can't) cook from scratch don't appreciate that skill from someone in a home environment. If you measure success and happiness in dollars and cents, any activity that doesn't make money is worthless and a waste of your time.

We know that's not true. Knitters put thousands of hours into projects every year- many of which never get finished. We knit because it brings us pleasure, because it can be challenging, because it is creatively fulfilling. Not because it is profitable- or even has the *potential* to be profitable.

[Did you just fall out of your chair laughing at the idea that hand knitting is - or could be - profitable? I did.]

Back to the book.

It also includes loads of useful advice and strategies on changing relationships (romantic and otherwise), keeping up your self-esteem, and division of labor.

Division of labor isn't really an issue in our house. Given all of the Mommy Memoirs I've been reading, Andrew is really and truly a prince among men. He doesn't expect to be waited on when he gets home from work, and doesn't assume that because I'm staying at home that I've become the maid, the cook, and the household personal assistant. I thought this was normal in a marriage, but I stand corrected. Also, horrified that it's *not* the status quo.

Not only does he contribute to household chores, but he usually also picks some sort of home improvement project every weekend (sometimes something small, sometimes something... bigger). For the record, I also try to defend his leisure time, by making sure he has plans to do something fun.

(Did I just sign my own death warrant by bragging on my husband? Let me balance all his great qualities with the fact that he snores like a buzzsaw and sometimes leaves his shoes in the living room. He also has a taste for handknit socks and wears a size 12 men's shoe. Move on, he's not so great.)

In short,  I really felt like Stanton addressed a lot of the issues that *all* parents have- not JUST stay-at-homes. I handed the book over to Andrew to read and he's finding it useful, too, for managing expectations (mostly). I've been screening the books, and handing over the ones that I particularly like to Andrew to read. (I have more time right now to sift through the chaff. Also, I read faster.)

I think this is a great book for *all* parents. Everyone has a schedule to accommodate, whether or not you work outside the home. I think the real key is that *both* parents need to read this book. (All the books, really, but this is a good place to start.)

The writing is compelling, Stanton has a personable style as a writer. I powered through this book in two days- that's how "readable" it is. Pick up a copy, you'll thank me for it.

Henry IV, Part I - A Review

Event: Henry IV- Part I, Shakespeare Santa Cruz

Cost: Our tickets were comp'ed, but you can buy yours here (Tickets range from $14-$50)

Prince Hal (Erik Heger, center) brings together forces, including Falstaff (Richard Ziman, far right) to vanquish Hotspur and defend his father, the king, in Shakespeare Santa Cruz's 2011 production of "Henry IV, Part One".

The Review: 

I read Henry IV (pt I) in college, and I HATED it. I  thought Falstaff was a cartoon, and that Hal was an over-privileged, spoiled douchebag. I blame the teacher, who systematically took all of the humor and bawdiness out of every bit of Shakespeare's work that we read that semester. He also declared that the histories were "boring". 

To be fair, if that had been my one-and-only experience reading Shakespeare, I don't think I would have ever considered attending a live performance. After all, Shakespeare is soooooo dry and boooooooring. Thank goodness I had fantastic teachers before and after the disaster that was English 102.


Given how amazing all of the other productions at Shakespeare Santa Cruz have been, I decided to go in with an open mind, and I was surprised to find that I really, really enjoyed Henry IV, pt 1. It was not a "boring history" that dragged on and on and on. It was funny and spoke to me on a number of levels.


As with all of Shakespeare's work, the characters are incredibly multidimensional, and the acting took it to depths that I hadn't even considered when I read it all those years ago. 


V Craig Heidenreich plays King Henry IV with command of the stage which I can only really compare to Martin Sheen's opening scene on the pilot episode of The West Wing. (Side note: If you haven't seen The West Wing, do yourself a favor and watch it ALL. From the beginning.) Heidenreich plays a father who hopes for the best for his son, but young Prince Hal is at that age where he could grow up to be a great young man, or a total loser.


Now that I think about it, I have the experience of a few extra years, and watching Sam grow up since I read this play, I remember a few years where I wasn't quite sure which path he'd choose. And he didn't have the fate of a kingdom resting on his adolescing shoulders.


We see Prince Hal (played by Erik Heger), carousing with Falstaff (played by Richard Ziman) who drinks too much, tells tall tales, and doesn't necessarily pay all his debts. Despite Falstaff's flaws, he's clearly a good friend to Hal. Their relationship, while on the surface looks like it should be more of a father/son relationship, it's more of a bromance. It reminded me a lot of the Alan Shore/Denny Crane relationship from Boston Legal. 


Hal gets the call to arms from his father, and in the blink of an eye, we watch as Hal makes the decision to man up and defend his father's kingdom. It gave me chills. Heger plays the role where it just seems to scream, "I'm not a loser, I can make you proud!" And he does.


Another notable performance was given by J. Todd Adams, who played Henry Percy/Hotspur. Or, as I like to refer to him "the *good* Henry", who is the young Henry that seems a more appropriate choice for the throne than Hal. You can see both sides, yes, Hal needs to grow up, but young men need *time* to do that. Yes, Hotspur has had his eyes on the prize, seemingly since day 1. We all know who *that* kid is in our lives.

(Is it just me, or does it seem like the British throne has always had issues with monarchs and succession?)


If you're in the area, RUN-don't-walk to get tickets to see this production. I couldn't recommend it more.

The Three Musketeers - A review

Event: The Three Musketeers, Shakespeare Santa Cruz


Cost: Our tickets were comp'ed, but you can buy yours here (Tickets range from $14-$50)

“All for one, and one for all!” The Three Musketeers (Kit Wider, Allen Gilmore, and J. Todd Adams) with D’Artagnan (Leigh Miller) in Shakespeare Santa Cruz’s 2011 production of “The Three Musketeers” (photo by rr jones).

The review:


I read The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas when I was nine or ten years old, unabridged, because my mother was a teacher and didn't believe in sugary cereals *or* abridged books. I tore through it an a day (ah, summer), and despite the fact that it's been almost 20 years since, I remember enjoying it.


I also have seen two of the eight million film adaptations, my favorite being the all-star Disney Cast. Feel free to lose all respect you ever had for me, I also LOVE the first two Mighty Ducks movies. And Newsies.


If you have somehow managed to miss any references to The Three Musketeers, it's basically a story about bros, brawls, and babes. I might paraphrase.


Let's talk about the acting first, shall we? There were lots of familiar *voices* from previous productions at Shakespeare Santa Cruz. I say "voices" because this is a Hair and Costume drama. SO. MANY. HAIRPIECES. I know it's necessary for historical accuracy, but the wig budget for this show must have been through the roof. It also obscured a lot of the familiar faces, which is a pity since the actors are *so* handsome. Repeat attendees with an ear for voices (ahem, me), will recognize many of the distinctive voices onstage.


The acting was stellar- Charles Pasternak, who was my favorite Romeo EVER (take that, DiCaprio) played an utterly foppish and convincing King Louis. (Andrew didn't recognize him at ALL, which speaks to how much Pasternak changed his voice and carriage for the role.) J. Todd Adams (who has been in every production in the Festival Glen I've had the privilege of seeing) played a soulful and (occasionally) tortured Aramis. Kit Wilder plays a delightfully lecherous Porthos, and Allen Gilmore plays Athos with command of the stage, and presents the major plot twist towards the end of the show with sincerity.


I thought that Katie MacNichol could have played the Countess de Winter as more of a villain, but to be honest, after seeing Rebecca DeMornay's performance, it's hard to out-villain her. (Side note: Does DeMornay EVER *not* play a villain?)


Leigh Nichols Miller played the young and enthusiastic D'Artagnan well, my only complaint was his *incredibly* distracting hair. Among all the wigs, here was D'Artagnan with what was either a poorly done bleach job, but looked more like an experiment with Sun-In gone wrong. If the lighter hair was an intentional costume part (to represent youth, light, all that is good), I wish they had done a better job. Or covered that hot mess up.


The interpretation of the book - which I'll admit, is no easy task - was entertaining, but choppy and disjointed at parts. It felt like the folks adapting the novel were just trying to include *too* much. There were quite a few 30 second scenes that could have accomplished the same amount of exposition with an explanatory line instead of a scene change and an incredibly short scene. 


I would have traded all of the shortie scenes for more development of the characters- like how D'Artagnan kills a man, and only seems troubled over it for the few moments between then and then end of the scene. Not only did they completely disregard any real conflict he may have felt, but it mostly left me feeling cheated out of any real exposition there.


Was it better than a movie adaptation? It was different. Despite what I felt were adaptive shortcomings, I still really enjoyed the production, and I would recommend attending. If you're a slave to the original, this might not be the play for you. If you're up for a fun show with sword fights and camaraderie, go for it. Purists, re-read the book and NEVER see an adaptation of a book, they'll always leave you cold.

The Comedy of Errors - A review

Event: The Comedy of Errors, Shakespeare Santa Cruz

Cost: Our tickets were comp'ed, but you can buy yours here (Tickets range from $14-$50)

Antipholus of Ephesus (Mike Ryan, left) bestows orders on his servant, Dromio of Ephesus (Brad DePlanche, right) in Shakespeare Santa Cruz's 2011 production of "The Comedy of Errors."

The review:

I'm going to start this review by saying that this isn't a play I've read or seen before. I would like to thank my high school AP English teacher for pointing out that Shakespeare's work isn't meant to be read, it was meant to be watched. So there.


The play starts with a one-man-band (Jonathan Shue) providing ambient music, and Carly Cioffi playing an Adelaide-esque director, scrambling to put together a skeleton cast for this play- seven players playing twenty roles. Totally do-able.


Most of the initial exposition is brilliantly accomplished using an overhead projector, which is ridiculously funny and incredibly effective. All of the cast-stretching methods were equally funny and effective- using glasses to differentiate between twins, quick (and occasionally incomplete) costume changes- it was all comic gold. Especially if - like me - you have the sense of humor of a (not very sophisticated) 12-year-old boy.


Without giving too much away, if you like slapstick, absurdist humor, or dudes in dresses, you'll enjoy this show. The *one* slight issue I had with the play was Susan Engbrecht's performance (who played Adriana). It felt like she wasn't familiar enough with the script to do more than really yell her lines and beat her castmates with a purse. I'm not saying that I could have done a better job, but the caliber of her castmates was pretty high, and she stood out as a considerably weaker performer.


The only other *slight* disappointment is that this isn't being performed in the Festival Glen. (I would attend a reading of the phone book in the Glen, for the record.) 

Despite my love of the Glen, this play is still totally worth attending. If you're in the mood for a good date play, this is a great way of spending an evening- especially if you grab a nice dinner first.

(To get your Festival Glen fix, you'll have to attend another show. Fortunately for you, I'll be reviewing all the shows this season.)

The Lion in Winter - A review

Event: The Lion in Winter, Shakespeare Santa Cruz

Cost: Our tickets were comp'ed, but you can buy tickets here. (They range from $14-$49.)

Photos:

John Pasha as Richard “the Lionheart” in the Shakespeare Santa Cruz production of “The Lion In Winter”.

(Photo by rr jones)

The Review:

As with "Love's Labor's Lost", I went into this play totally cold. There's a brief description of the plot on the page for the show (linked above), but it doesn't do the play justice.

The best way of describing this show is part Tudors, part Twits, and a hint of the Prodigal son parable. Henry II is preparing for his succession, and like any good monarchs-in-training would, the three boys fight, plot, and do their utmost to secure their spot as the future King. Marco Barricelli conveys the conflict of deciding what is best for the empire he has built and reconciling that against how he feels about his sons.

There are complex family dynamics at work in this play, mainly how the imprisoned wife and the scheming sons interact. Everyone is working toward their own end goals, politically aligning themselves for their best benefit, but looking over their shoulders the whole time.

"The Lion in Winter" deals with serious themes, but is also incredibly funny. All of the actors have fantastic dramatic chemistry. I feel inclined to add that this is a ridiculously handsome cast. Most notably, John Pasha (Richard, photographed above), who happened to be sitting in front of me during Love's Labor's Lost. So, so handsome- and look at that beard! I love a good beard. He was convincing both as a future monarch and as a soldier. (This is personally relevant to me because my initial introduction to Richard I was in the Robin Hood story.)

There is definitely some artistic license taken with the history, but it didn't ruin my enjoyment of the play. (For reference, I *love* The Tudors.) If you can't cope with anachronisms, perhaps you should skip this show, and for that matter, any historically-based costume drama. If not, this play is not to be missed.

Love's Labor's Lost - A Review

Event: Love's Labor's Lost, Shakespeare Santa Cruz

Cost: Our tickets were comp'ed, but you can buy tickets here. (They range from $14-$49.)

Photos:

Costard (J. Todd Adams) describes his newfound "lady friend" to Berowne (Adam O'Byrne), Longaville (Brett Duggan) and Dumaine (Richard Prioleau) in the Shakespeare Santa Cruz production of "Love's Labor's Lost".

(Photo by rr jones)

The Review:

As with every Shakespeare Santa Cruz production, this production has chosen to use contemporary costumes in order to make the show more accessible, or perhaps, to reflect the timelessness of the themes. I like the comedies- who doesn't? While this particular production is a bit over-the-top, I think it works. I hadn't read this play before, so other than knowing that it was categorized as a comedy, I went in cold.

I was pleased to see some familiar faces from last year (J. Todd Adams, who played Puck in A Midsummer Night's Dream), along with some outstanding new talent. The standout performer in this production was Dana Green, who played Rosaline; she is simultaneously dark and fair, has a voice like a 1920's jazz singer, and has a presence on stage that borders on distracting- in the best way. Green plays the sharp-tongued Rosaline with her tongue firmly in her cheek and a playful air.

[To be honest, if this is the same Rosaline that Romeo was pining over, I think he got the short end of the stick when he picked Juliet. (Sorry, Juliet. Being a rebound can be tough.) Rosaline, on the other hand, traded up from the besotted Romeo to the quick-witted Berowne (played by Adam O'Byrne).]

The other standout was V Craig Heidenreich, who played King Ferdinand with a command of the stage that reminded me of Martin Sheen on the West Wing- with an air of authority and a booming voice that fills the Festival Glen, which is no easy feat.

Overall, I wouldn't say that this was my favorite play, but isn't a reflection on the production; just my tastes. If you like Shakespeare's comedies, you'll enjoy "Love's Labor's Lost".

It's worth mentioning that Shakespeare Santa Cruz is doing something differently- but I'm not sure what. There were more chairs *and* there was more "groundling" seating, and every seat was full. Not only was this a standing room only show, but the audience was well matched to the performance; lively and responsive.

I've said it before, but it's worth saying again. Even if you have no interest in Shakespeare, give Shakespeare Santa Cruz a try. The outdoor Festival Glen makes a great spot for evening romance and so does the brisk Santa Cruz air.

A Midsummer Night's Dream - a Review

Event: A Midsummer Night's Dream - Shakespeare Santa Cruz
Cost: Our tickets were comp'ed, but you can buy tickets here. (They range from $13-$48.)
Photos:

Aldo Billingslea (Oberon) and J. Todd Adams (Puck) in SSC's 2009 production of A Midsummer Night's Dream.
Photo: Shakespeare Santa Cruz

The Review:

I read A Midsummer Night's Dream in college, and maybe it was the teacher, but I didn't think it was funny. I'll be honest, it was the teacher. (This is the same guy who told us that he was writing a book about how Claudius committed all of the murders in Hamlet, instead of Hamlet himself. He was unamused when I declared that using his logic, Ophelia was just as likely a culprit.) A good teacher can nurture a love of Shakespeare, a bad teacher leaves dirty fingerprints all over your opinions and interpretations.

Mom and I packed up our Festival Glen bag (seat cushions, blankets, warm clothes), and went in with an open mind. (Remember, I wasn't a big fan of Romeo & Juliet until I saw SSC perform it last year.) The Midsummer cast captured us from the beginning scene, where the actors from the play-within-a-play start the show with a STOMP-esque opening number. The show just got funnier from there.

This production featured contemporary clothing, and some props that made the show both more current, funnier, as well as more accessible to the less-literary crowd. (I seriously may have hurt myself laughing when Hermia declares her undying love for Lysander while clutching a copy of Twilight.) We also thought it was terribly apropos that Hermia calls for Lysander "What, out of hearing? gone? no sound, no word?" - with a cell phone.

However, the modern props don't overshadow the classic elements of the play- the fairies, nymphs, and other forest creatures are there, in all of their glory- especially J. Todd Adams (pictured above), plays an athletic, built, and cheerfully impish Puck. (I might also mention here that, wow, he is BUILT.) There were a few Cirque-worthy flips and tosses in there that only added to the authenticity of the character.

Miles Villanueva (Lysander) and Lenne Klingaman (Hermia) had phenomenal chemistry, and both Mom and I found ourselves cheering for them. While their counterparts who played Helena and Demetrius were not so compelling, they played nicely off of the obviously better matched pair. (I mean, really, when you get down to it, Helena and Demetrius don't really have chemistry because Demetrius has love dust in his eyes.)

Evans Eden Jarnefelt (Demetrius) was delightfully loathesome, while Emily Kitchens (Helena) just seemed a little too hysterical for my taste. Her pacing and repetitive hand gestures were overused, and whining her lines was also a poor choice. Alas, I don't direct.

Scott Wentworth played a hysterical Bottom the Weaver, with his lovely baritone voice filling the glen, terrific comic timing, and his dashing good looks. (You'll notice that I gush about the handsome actors. SSC evidently hires incredibly talented, impossibly attractive people.) I mentioned in my Julius Caesar review that he's super-talented, and I can't go on enough about it. (I'd let him warp my loom anytime, if you get my meaning.)

Titania (Lanise Antoine Shelley) and Oberon (Aldo Billingslea) commanded the stage with unmatched presence. The scheming seemed good-hearted (where I read it to be spiteful and malicious), and both played the characters sympathetically.

It seems a little obvious to say that Mom and I laughed our way through this production, but really, this was side-splitting, hysterical laughter. I would definitely reccomend seeing any production done by SSC, but moreso, take your kids and teens. It is my opinion that a good initial impression of things like classical music and theater create long-lasting love of the arts.

Julius Caesar - a Review

Event: Julius Caesar - Shakespeare Santa Cruz
Cost: Our tickets were comp'ed, but you can buy tickets here. (They range from $13-$48.)
Photos:

Chris Butler (Cassius), Aaron Walker (Cinna), Matt Gottlieb (Caesar), David A. Moss (Casca), and Scott Wentworth (Brutus) in SSC's 2009 production of Julius Caesar.
Photo: R. R. Jones

The Review:

In order to be totally honest and forward with my review, I have to admit that we finished watching HBO's "Rome" about two weeks before we attended Julius Caesar. It feels a little tawdry to say that the Bard is competing with HBO, but let's face it. With the "All Roads Lead to Rome" special feature on, Andrew and I learned all sorts of interesting historical tidbits, along with the ... historical interpretation that HBO did.

We saw the play with HBO-colored glasses on. Neither Andrew or I had read Julius Caesar (somehow, in school I read Hamlet five times, Taming of the Shrew thrice, but never Julius Caesar), so we went in with a blank slate. With Shakespeare's work, this is sometimes good, and sometimes... less good. In this case, we already had a peripheral knowledge of the storyline and characters. We all know how this play ends, so I really don't need to do a spoiler alert, right?

Let's start with the basics: minimalist staging and modern dress, which I really like. There is also nothing that compares to sitting in a grove of redwood trees, watching excellent theater, bundled up and snuggling with your date.

Saying that the writing was excellent seems foolish, so let's focus on the actors- which are what really makes or breaks the performance of a classic work. Julius Caesar was played by Matt Gottlieb, who was particularly commanding in the role, but when playing across from Calpurnia (Emily Kitchens) there was a genuine softness that really speaks to the talent of the actor.

The other really standout actor was Scott Wentworth, who played Marcus Brutus. Wentworth boasts a beautiful baritone voice that carries across the glen with no need of amplification, and an enviable acting range. The audience follows along through his good intentioned beginning (to take down a tyrant) through the reality of having slain his friend, to his own tragic end.

Despite the fact that the histories are not my favorites of Shakespeare's work, I would still give this show two thumbs up. The acting is stellar, the setting is divine, and watching well-performed classics is always enriching.

Shipwrecked! - A Revew

Event: Shipwrecked! - Shakespeare Santa Cruz
Cost: Our tickets were comp'ed, but you can buy tickets here. They range from $13-$48.
Photos:

Dierk Torsek (Louis), Mike Ryan (Player 2), and Karen Aldridge (Player 1) in SSC's 2009 production of Shipwrecked!
Photo: R. R. Jones

The Review:

I really enjoyed this show! When we were seated, I noticed that there was minimal set, a rack of costumes, and a few instruments off in a corner. In a day and age where flashy costumes and ostentatious sets seem to be more important than the content of the show, I applaud the minimalism. (The minimalism says, to me, "This show stands on it's own. We don't need no stinkin' distractions.") It was roughly 1 hour, 45 minutes long with no intermission.

The story itself begins as an adventure story, and then seamlessly shifts into a commentary on the fluid and delicate nature of memory. Andrew and I found ourselves captivated by the story, suspending disbelief (despite the absence of flashy costumes) and following along while Louis de Rougemont tells his fantastic tale.

The story takes a dark turn towards the end, when he decides to publish his tale and is personally (and professionally) destroyed by the public scrutiny he is subject to as an author. (I think this is partly due to the fact that fiction was considered sinful, I think, at this point in history, but I can't find my notes from 18th century lit in college.) The audience experiences the same shock as the protagonist- how could his story NOT be true? We've seen the whole thing, from his perspective.

What it really reminded me of was the episode of Buffy where she is in an asylum, and is made to question whether or not slaying vampires, etc, is all a delusion. We, the audience, had suspended disbelief through five and a half seasons, and accepted that - in the Whedonverse- all things supernatural were possible, and in one episode, WHAM! Reality hits like a ton of bricks. Vampires aren't real, and teenagers don't save the world.

In a red-pill-versus-blue-pill moment, Buffy chooses the Whedonverse. In Shipwrecked!, Louis chooses to prove his story, and there is a moment at the end where he strives to prove that his experiences were real, while his reality cracks and his story rains down around him.

Despite the slightly gloomy ending, it was a good show, and definitely worth seeing. Shipwrecked! led to a discussion about the fragile nature of memory- and how subjective it can be. (For example, take witnesses at a crime scene. No two people will have seen the same thing.) We talked about oral history, and the natural embellishment that can happen as one tells a story.

So, I'd give it two thumbs up, because despite a less-than-cheerful ending, we still left the theater feeling good.

All’s Well That Ends Well- a Review

First, I’d like to say that I know that this review was promised a couple of weeks ago. Two things have kept me from writing it: one, I was torn about whether it was the writing or the production I didn’t like, and two, life has completely overwhelmed me.

Luckily, and with help, I’ve managed to simplify my life by relinquishing some of the unnecessary stressers.

Event: All’s Well That Ends Well, Shakespeare Santa Cruz

Cost: Buy tickets here. Costs range from $12-$44. Ours were comp’ed.

Photos:

[PENDING PERMISSION]

The Review:

I didn’t like it. The problem is, I’m not familiar enough with the play to say, “I didn’t like it because of the production,” and I hesitate to say, “The writing lacked something,” because, well, it’s Shakespeare.

I think part of my issue is that I’m too modern to appreciate the value and humor of tricking a man into staying with you. I’m too modern to believe that (effectively) purchasing a spouse is not the way to find love.

I don’t think it was the casting- a lion’s share of the cast comes from the casts of Romeo and Juliet and Bach at Leipzig. Again, not sure if it was the writing or the delivery, but I found the gal playing Helena to be whiny and desperate, as opposed to a clever, sympathetic character.

But.

I’m clearly not a fan of the story.

It’s playing at the lovely outdoor theater, and there’s a lot of eyecandy. If you like Shakespeare, you’re a fan of the play, and you don’t have plans, attend.

[Side note- Caitlin Fitzgerald, who plays Diana in this show, and was Juliet in "Romeo and Juliet" is on the cover of the Interweave Knits favorites book, wearing the Icarus Shawl. I think. According to a message board, she is purportedly Pam Allen's daughter.]

FO’ing like it’s going out of style

Since Tika and I began the Social Pressure experiment, I have been more … motivated to finish lingering, half-finished projects. Maybe it’s the feeling of completion. Maybe it’s the feeling of VICTORY. Maybe it’s the wine.

So, between seeing Bach at Leipzig and Romeo and Juliet, I finished three pairs of socks. Granted, all three pairs were half-done long ago, but, per the terms of our agreement, a FO is a FO is a FO.

The first FO are the Cascade Heritage socks.

Product: Cascade Heritage
Product Description: 75% Superwash Merino Wool/ 25% Nylon
Cost: $17.95 – but mine was given to me to review on the Podcast.

Photos:

Comments:

I really like knitting with this yarn. The stitch definition is fantastic, and the colors are great. I haven't washed them yet, so we'll see how the color and fabric wears.

The Second FO is my pair of Regia Silk socks, in 0190.

Product: Regia Silk Color
Product Description: 55% wool, 20% silk, 25% nylon
Bought from: Nine Rubies, $9.95/ball
Photos:

Comments:

Another great yarn with excellent stitch definition. This specific colorway was totally unappealing in the skein, but much prettier as a pair of completed socks. It feels wonderful, but since they're recently finished, I can't speak as to how they wash and wear. It's great to knit with, though.

The Third FO is my pair of “She’s like a Rainbow” handspun socks.

Product: Crown Mountain Superwash Merino
Product Description: Handpainted SW merino roving, "She's like a rainbow"
Bought from: Crown Mountain Farms . Cost was around $16.20 (co-op pricing).
Photos:

Comments:

I've always loved spinning the Crown Mountain Superwash. This spun up at a fingering weight, and knit up really well. And look at those colors!

Romeo and Juliet - a review

Event: Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare Santa Cruz
Cost: Buy tickets here- costs range from $12- $44. Our tickets were "comp'ed".
Photos:

Charles Pasternak (Romeo) and Caitlin FitzGerald (Juliet) in SSC's 2008 production of Romeo and Juliet.
Photo: R.R. Jones

(Hunky, n'est pas?)

The Review:

Like I said on the Podcast, Romeo and Juliet is not one of my favorite plays, and had my tickets not been comp’ed, I likely would not have attended. This would have been an epic mistake.

For the venue alone, it was worth it, but it was so much better than just a pleasant venue. Shakespeare Santa Cruz has an indoor theater (where we saw Bach at Leipzig) and an outdoor theater, where we saw Romeo and Juliet.

The outdoor theater is charming- still intimate while having enough space to be comfortable. The smells and sounds of the woods surround you, adding to the experience.

[WARNING: First time attendees- bring blankets and seat cushions. Santa Cruz gets very cold at night.]

Let’s talk about the play. We all know the plot, right?

Most of the cast is dressed in contemporary clothing, but some are in semi-Elizabethan garb. Somehow, the old and the new blend together. The older characters tend to be the ones in the Elizabethan clothing, which is an interesting juxtaposition.

My personal biases against the play are many; however, it was executed so well that ten minutes into the show, all thoughts of “overdone” and “cheesy” were fleeting.

When Romeo appears, offstage, you expect the traditionally “emo” Romeo. Sure, the show starts that way, but the secondary characters are so funny, that he seems like the appropriately lovelorn teen. In preparing for the Capulet’s ball, there is a lovely parallel between Romeo’s friends primping and preparing him and Juliet’s mother and nurse grooming her for the party.

Juliet’s appearance is reminiscent of a young Anne Dudek, and while the actress appears physically mature, her delivery of the role reminds the audience that while one may appear to be mature, they aren't, necessarily. I have never been so convinced that Juliet really is fourteen years old. She captures the haste and despair that seems to always accompany young love.

The “Pilgrims/prayers” scene (at the Capulet ball, pictured above) made my heart stand still. Seated in the audience, you can feel the electricity between Romeo and Juliet.

It made me feel fourteen years old again. Somehow, after rehearsals and multiple performances, the actors have managed to keep the scene feeling young, frantic, and authentic. (It doesn’t hurt that Romeo is a total hunk. I’m just saying.)

To be honest, until I watched this production, I hadn't realized how funny the first act of the show is. Every other interpretation has been so mired with the eventual outcome of the couple that it has dragged down the whole show. The actors managed to keep the production funny and light in the beginning, and appropriately poignant in the second act.

Other things worth noting are that throughout the show, there is some interaction with the audience, but it’s minimal and well-executed. Due to the way the outdoor theater is set up, entrances and exits are made through the audience, bringing you into the action. It’s fantastic.

If you get a chance to attend any Shakespeare Santa Cruz productions, DO. They do an excellent job and have unusually attractive casts. If not for the culture, it seems to be worth attending solely for the eye -candy.

Bach at Leipzig: A Review

Event: Bach at Leipzig, Shakespeare Santa Cruz

Cost: My tickets were “comp’ed”. To attend, tickets range from $12-$44.

Photos:

Stephen Caffrey (Fasch) in SSC's 2008 production of Bach at Leipzig by Itamar Moses.
Photo: R.R. Jones.

Comments:

Last Friday, I had the pleasure of attending Shakespeare Santa Cruz’s production of “Bach at Leipzig”. This was my first time attending a Shakespeare Santa Cruz show, and I was very pleased with the overall experience.

The indoor theater (where this show is playing) is lovely and small, with no real need for amplification. Every seat in the house seems to be a good one. I like intimate theaters, and I’m all for being close to the action.

Parking is a steal- $2 and very close to the theater. There is food, wine, and a gift shop on site, but you could also bring a picnic and enjoy it there, if you come early.

The basic plot of the show is that six composers have gone to Leipzig to apply for the position of organist at Leipzig- a position which holds a great deal of prestige (and a modest salary). The six other composers use guile, trickery, tomfoolery, and all other means of subterfuge to eliminate the competition. Much of the exposition is done in an epistolary manner- where the characters read their letters aloud before releasing them by pigeon, signaling the end of the letter.

It sounds boring, I grant you. That’s not at all the case. It’s really funny, and really fast. Meaning, if you’ve had too much wine beforehand, you’ll feel a little behind.

In addition to lightening-quick dialog and beautiful costuming, the acting is quite good.

One small criticism that I have is that the actors would start a line quickly, and gain momentum, leaving me reaching for my Tivo remote- to jump it back. As a naturally quick speaker, I know it’s hard to slow down, but really, I only fell behind once or twice.

The story is easy to follow and a great deal of the humor is obvious. There are some high-context moments, but the show is fairly accessible.

I would call this a good “date” play- not too heavy, nice and light, but not necessarily family-friendly. There is a close-to-naked character, but all of his vital bits are covered. (In fact, I would attend again just for the eye candy. I’m just saying.)

Another high point of the show is the fight scene at the end. It’s magnificent, and my second favorite staged swordfight EVER. (First place still goes to the swordfight in The Scarlet Pimpernel.)

Would I go again? Most definitely. You should go, too.

Beauty and the Beast- a Review

I attended Beauty and the Beast at AMTSJ on Saturday, accompanied by Mom and Tika. I grew up a Disney-ish kid, and I love musicals, but this musical holds a slightly more special spot in my heart. The last time it toured through San Jose, Andrew and I went to see it. It was our first real date.

When they announced that it was going to be part of this season, I was pretty happy. The cast was phenomenal, but it seems that there have been some changes made in the last 6-7 years.

I didn’t think it was possible, but they Disney-fied it even more. Gaston is even more of a bully (who doesn’t go more than 3 minutes between punching the formly-sycophantic-now-stuttering Lefou), and they have changed the Beast from a gothic hero to an awkward buffoon. Less angst, more social ineptitude. My heart was very nearly broken by this change.

Despite the ill-advised changes, the actors were terrific- Brad Little plays the Beast, Edward Staudenmayer plays Gaston, and Nikki Renee Daniels interprets Belle with an incredibly powerful voice. I enjoyed the show so much that I picked up a copy of the Brad Little CD. I do love a good baritone. We also thought that Gaston was a smokin’ hot fox.

It’s hard to separate what I want theater to be- thought provoking and moving- with what it is- occasionally aimed a little lower, going for the cheap laughs. I understand that it has become a kids’ show- but it wasn’t before. (Just take a listen to the lyrics. You’ll agree.)

The original story has depth about appearances being deceiving and looking past the superficial. With this one, it felt more like the moral was, “Once you spend enough time with someone, you’ll love them.” A little more Stockholm-y, and a little less a-meeting-of-like-minds, if you will.

This is just be a criticism of the Disney-fication of the world, not the show. Take your kids, everyone will enjoy it. Ignore the curmudgeonly, pink-haired woman in the fierce shoes. She likes angst.

I'm baaaa-ack!

Hi all.

I know. You're thinking, "How was the cruise, Jasmin?"

Poorly planned. I would go into the details, but that would make this post intensely negative, and frankly, boring to read. Sadly, I can not recommend going on any future Sea Socks cruises. Really.

But.

Alaska was beautiful. You should totally go.

I may have been pre-occupied with having fun to take a lot of pictures of Ketchikan. It was cold and rainy, and I LOVED it.

We stopped at the Hubbard Glacier.

It was pretty cold. Perfect time for a vanity shot!

It was also super-cold. So, to warm up:

Hot chocolate with Bailey's and my pink socks.

We went around Juneau. First to the Mendenhall Glacier:

Pretty, huh?

I met my first snowman ever.

He liked my sock.

I was hoping to see some black bears, but only saw this:

Afterwards, we went to Glacier Gardens, and got rained on in the rainforest. In person, I wax poetic about how peaceful and introspective the time I spent there was. Here, you get a picture of our very young (and sporting) tour guides:

Next, we went to the Alaskan Brewing Company. There was beer. I drank jalapeño beer. And six or seven other kinds.

Mmmmm... Foamy!

After sampling some of their brews, we went to dinner at the Twisted Fish.

I can really pull off a bib.

And we had the best waitress ever, Jennifer. (Holding the sock.)

In Victoria, there was Beehive Yarns, and the Canoe Club. Sorry, no pictures. But, I had some amazing drinks. (There may be a connection between those two.)

There were more upsides:

Meeting so many fabulous people. I really do believe that knitters are inherently interesting and good people.

Amy's husband (Phil) looks hot in his kilt. HOT!

Churchmouse Yarns & Teas. Nice people, good yarn, GREAT sherry.

Now I just have to wait for my souvenirs to show up in the mail. Mom asked me why I didn't mail my dirty laundry and pack my new yarn.

Clearly, I was having a "pretty but not smart" day. Live and learn, right?

Buffalo Gals Bison Review- Part One

Product: Buffalo Gals Bison

Product Description: Prepared Bison roving- natural brown

Bought From: Purlescence Yarns (gift from Katie for editing her college admissions essays). $21/oz. 2 ounces total.

Photos:

Comments:

Initially, I was very nervous about spinning the bison. I spun a little when I took Judith MacKenzie’s comprehensive spinning class last April, but when it comes to spinning expensive fibers, I get a little… apprehensive. At $21/oz, the Bison falls into my definition of the “expensive fiber” category.

I spun it semi-woolen (long draw with the front hand doing some guiding to keep the yarn fairly even). I was instructed by Sandi (my personal Yoda) to add more twist to the singles (to essentially overspin them), which I did. I also plied it rather aggressively.

You can find the video of the fulling process HERE. In the video, it’s Yak, but I swear, I fulled the bison the EXACT same way, sans the overuse of the SOAK.

The bison is very soft, but has a smell. A gamey smell. It left my hands smelling pretty gross, but once my hands were washed, the smell was gone. I used the aquae scent of the SOAK, and that has mostly resolved the gamey smell of the bison yarn.

The bison had fair amount of guard hairs, and a little VM. I’ve spun much grosser stuff, but really, this wasn’t too bad as far as VM is concerned.

If you aren’t comfortable spinning short fibers (or aren’t comfortable with woolen spinning), buy the pre-spun Bison/Merino blend. I’ve been working on my woolen spinning, but deep in my heart, I know that I am a Worsted Spinner. I did a lot of deep breathing to do this, and I practiced on the yak first.

I ended up with 360 yds/2 oz- a respectable laceweight. This may become another Shetland triangle, since it needed a little yardage and knit up in four days. Or a Dragon Scale Scarf. You'll see part two of the review once I've knitted up the bison.

Royal Hare Superwash Roving review- Part One

Product: Royal Hare Superwash Merino Roving Top

Product Description: One braid of roving, either 100g or 4 oz(read below) in Calistoga Calypso

Bought from: The Royal Hare, Stitches West 2008

Price: $13/braid

Photos:

Comments:

The first thing that I noticed was that the braid I purchased was 3 ¾ oz, which surprised me, since most roving is put up in 4 oz bumps. However, upon discussion with Andrew, I checked it in grams, and it was 108g. Enough for socks, but I’m a little miffed over being shorted- since I specifically asked if the braids were 4 oz.

I really like how they dye their braids- in even lengths and weights so that if you’re inclined to line up the colors when you ply, it’s a little easier than Navajo-plying.

(I wouldn’t recommend this way of doing your spinning if you’re crazy OCD about your colors lining up perfectly. In that case, just Navajo ply. Or buy commercial yarns.)

The roving they use is pleasant to spin- not the nicest stuff I’ve ever spun, but a nice base roving nonetheless. The colors are very saturated and rich, which I love, and the yarn ends up just as vibrant as the roving.

With the colors as saturated as they are, I was concerned about bleeding. I was pleasantly surprised to find that there was minimal bleeding (slightly pinkish) water after a thorough soaking.

For the price and quality, it's a good buy, just make sure you're getting the right weight. I'll keep you posted as to whether this light bump was a fluke or if the others are light as well.

Stay posted for Part Two, where I discuss the wear and washing

Creatively Dyed Yarn Review Part One

One of the booths that I got caught in was the Creatively Dyed Yarn booth. I didn't actually buy any yarn from her, I bought some of her roving.

Product: SW Merino Tencel 4 oz

Product Description: 50% SW Merino / 50% Tencel. Color RMT9

Bought from: Creatively Dyed Yarns, at Stitches West 2008

Price: $15

Photos:

Comments: I love her colors. I am a big fan of handpaints that are a little more impulsive looking, and the roving I bought was intended for socks- so having to match more than one bump was not a concern of mine. If you want perfectly even and uniformly dyed bumps, go elsewhere. Hers are for the free of spirit.

They spin with the best qualities of silk (or tencel, really) without any of the hassle. She uses a really excellent base roving- it's equivalent in quality to the Crown Mountain Superwash base roving, which I love.

She uses some unusual colors to accent the main colors, but it works out beautifully. (So, for those of you who rip out colors you don't like out of roving, don't. You'll be sorry.)

The first color I chose to spin didn't have any bleeding issues- but the bump was predominantly white. When I spin one of the others, we'll see how they compare.

The price point is in the right range, and she makes sure that each bump is at LEAST 4 oz by adding a chunk of roving into the braid. Though it's not totally uniform (which is fine), she makes sure not to short her customers, which is awesome.

Any questions? I'll be happy to answer them.

Part two of the review will come once the socks are knit and washed. Stay tuned!

Review Template and Intent

Jerry asked:

“Thank you for being honest about what you write. Will you also give negative reviews in a positive light. Like, "I would like this better if it had more twist and less splitty??" I just omit the review and let the blog reader draw their own conclusions. I may disclose my purchases but only review what I like.”

That’s a really good question, Jerry. While I try to be a tactful person (generally), and my diplomatic skills were praised by an ex-boss recently, if something doesn’t live up to my standards, I’ll say so. I think it's important to be polite, but I find positively-skewed reviews to be, frankly, skewed. The existence of the skew messes with the "balance" of my fair-and-balanced reviews.

Now, I won’t say anything unnecessarily unpleasant or rude. I’m working out my format for the reviews. So far, the template looks like this:

Product: [NAME]

Product Description: [DESC. OF MATERIALS]

Bought from: [STORE/WEBSITE]

Price/Gift: [$X]

Comments: [BLA BLA]

I’m also going to be sending links of my reviews to the people who I’ve bought the product from and/or the company.

Anything else I should add?