Food Network Star - Emilia Goes Crazy ... Then Goes Home

Well, that was just weird.

When I saw the commercial last week with Bob Tushmann calling Emilia "mean spirited," I thought "What?" It just seemed so out of character, and I could't imagine how Emilia could be on the bottom in judging. She was the one who seemed to have solid command of cooking and talking to the camera. But reality TV will surprise you sometimes. Emilia Cirker  went home tonight after going off the rails in the live audience segment where she basically decided to "Go big or go home" by resorting to middle school mockery of her fellow contestants. It made everyone who saw it uncomfortable, and the strangest thing is that it seems so uncharacteristic. That is not the same woman who had been on the top for week after week and seemed so in control. But then again, maybe that is really who Emilia is. And, the sad thing for her is that by all other measures Dom or Alex should have gone home this week.

Actually, hold up a moment. A second hopeful — despite his boss-level cooking skills and general adorableness during confessionals — sweats like he’s midway through a triathlon, freezes up after only 60 seconds, then flees the scene like his face is on an FBI Most Wanted poster and his audience consists completely of law-enforcement agents. Perfect pick for the guillotine, yeah?

Think again. Lucky for Alex (aka Doomed Chef Walking) and Dom (The Little Staten Island Engine That Hasn’t Quite), icy-but-interesting Emilia decided the midway point of Season 11 was the perfect time to fling caca as indiscriminately as a caged zoo monkey — leaving poor Giada De Laurentiis covering her ears in an attempt to block out the meltdown that nobody wanted to see/hear/get within 50 feet of.

Maybe Emilia — whose Andouille sausage onion-rings looked pretty tasty — could’ve survived her misguided decision to spend half her demo mocking her rival chefs (though her mincing imitation of drag queen Albert was especially brutal, no?), but when she subsequently slipped on a sweater emblazoned with the words “Break the Rules” and declared that she was “really proud” of her performance as an “Alpha female,” the outcome was as pre-determined as a stick of butter in a Barefoot Contessa dessert. Don’t these contestants ever learn that likability/relatability is just as important as, say, one’s ability to julienne a carrot?

And, I will add that if Emilia had simply apologized to the judges and pleaded that she made a huge mistake, they would have kept her. Let's face it - Dom is never going to be able to bring it in front of the camera. And, that is where Bobby Flay is just flat out and uncharacteristically wrong. As Bob T. has noted, Dom seems to be "running from the camera." He just can't do it. And that's not a terrible thing. When Bob said, "My food was still a hit," he's right. Bobby thought it was one of "the best things he's tasted." And this means Dom should be a chef. He should run his food truck. He should open a restaurant. He should publish a cookbook. But he should develop a little self awareness and realize he is not a Food Network Star. Why does he think he should do this? I mean, seriously, who leaves three whole minutes on the clock during a camera test. That's just pathetic. And he should have gone home - except for Emilia's manic meltdown.

If we want to be honest, the two finalists - and the only two who will ever have a legitimate shot of starring in a watchable show on the Food Network - are Eddie and Jay. They can cook, and they have a schtick. Granted, Eddie got a heck of a boost from David Allen Grier this week - but that was fun. Who knew he was such a foodie. As for Arnold, Alex, and Michelle - they are all basically forgettable, though seemingly nice people. No star quality there. And Arnold should have gone home a week ago when, following the Alton Brown rule about being a food expert, Arnold knew nothing about "his favorite spice." Yet, Alton isn't around to diss, and dismiss, Arnold, so he survives another week.

Let's just get on with the Jay and Eddie show.

"Distortion" as a Literary Technique

Flannery O'Connor once said, "I am interested in making a good case for distortion, as I am coming to believe that it is the only way to make people see."

Distorting something to make people truly "see" it seems to be counter-intuitive, though one could argue that all literature distorts information in order to make the point clear.  From exaggeration to understatement to stock characters, metaphors, and cliched endings, literature must make the truth plain to see.  Often that can only come from - in Flannery O'Connor's word - distortion.  How often have we encountered characters who only truly exemplify a trait or an idea because the trait is so glaringly obvious?  How often have we told "some stretchers," as Huck claims Mr. Mark Twain did, in order to  impact an audience and help them "see" what we mean?  Distortion - or hyperbole - is a natural part of our language and our thinking.

This concept of distortion is particularly interesting because the word has a negative connotation.  Certainly, to exaggerate a detail is in some ways deceptive.  It might even be dishonest.  But if we shift from the concept of "distorting" and instead focus on simply emphasizing, then the act seems almost necessary.  Artist John Kascht, whose caricatures of many iconic figures have become iconic themselves, explains that he is not distorting the figures he draws but instead magnifying their traits.  Kascht's works have been featured in the Smithsonian, and his video explanation of his craft as he draws Conan O'Brien is fascinating in its analysis of the concept of artistic distortion - or magnification, emphasis, exaggeration, etc.

This concept of somehow emphasizing beyond the reality is integral to our understanding of art.  And whether it's the writing of Flannery O'Connor or the art of John Kascht or the entire genre of Romanticism, discussion of "distortion" is a necessary tool in the English classroom.

According to Jane Austen ...

Let's face it - readers in the twenty-first century have some fascination with the novels of Jane Austen that goes beyond a common sense (and sensibility) understanding.

There's just something about Jane that resonates with readers and consumers in an age markedly different than the world of Elizabeth, Emma, and the like.  Then again, perhaps we're not so different.  For, at their heart the stories of the Bennet sisters and Emma are really the stories of what it means to be human.   That is the essence of a great new critical look from writer Adelle Waldmen in her piece "I Read Everything Jane Austen Wrote, Several Times" for Slate Magazine.  

Admirers make much of Austen’s deadpan tone, her wit, and her irony, and rightly so. But hers isn’t irony for irony’s sake: Austen’s portraits of people and their milieus are animated not by satirical malice or mere eagerness to entertain but by a sense of moral urgency. With a philosophical eye, she sees through fuss and finery and self-justification. She gives us a cast of characters and then zeroes in, showing us who and what is admirable, who is flawed but forgivable, who is risible and who is truly vile. Delivered economically, her judgments are not only clever but perspicacious, humane, and, for the most part, convincing. Her real subject is not the love lives of barely post-adolescent girls, but human nature and society. Austen wrote stories that show us how we think. Take Emma, in which Austen is at the height of her powers as both an artist and analyst of human beings. The novel has very few obvious signifiers of “seriousness.” It’s the story of a young woman blessed with good looks, wealth, intelligence, and an adoring father; the plot revolves around Emma’s attempts to make matches among her friends and her own mild flirtation with a good-looking charmer. It ends with her marriage. Yet for all its apparent frothiness, Emma is a book about a maturing mind, and it is as devoid of melodrama as a postmodern experiment. At one point, the book even dabbles in stream-of-consciousness, with a wonderful monologue that carries the reader through the arc of a morning’s strawberry-picking expedition while deftly sending up the affectations of its speaker.

Waldmen has actually written several interesting commentaries about the works of Austen, and her insight may be of use to the contemporary English teacher who seeks to connect the students of today with the lives and loves of those past. Two hundred years after the publication of Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen novels remain a cottage industry unto themselves. And there may be no author who is more targeted for re-invention and re-imagination and re-packaging, than the young British woman who wrote six novels which bridged the neo-Classical and the Romantic ages. The latest, and perhaps most "Austen-tacious" of ideas in its scope is The Austen Project, a new series which presents the stories of Jane Austen in contemporary settings, written by six well-known contemporary novelists.  An interesting take on this idea comes from Megan Garber, writing for The Atlantic, who offers insight about the challenges of adaption - "For Pride and Prejudice to Make Sense Today, Jane Has to be 40." It's a clever bit of scholarship that brings necessary understanding of why the novels of Jane Austen remain so popular and relevant.

Food Network Star - Rue Loses Out

In last week's episode of the Food Network's "Food Network Star," the four contestants on the bottom were all cooks who, we can safely assume, were never going to be the "Next Food Network Star." Dom, Arnold, Michelle, and Rue are all reasonably talented chefs with generally engaging personalities - but there is simply no "Star Power" in any of them. Thus, it was really a toss-up for who was going home - and this week it was Brooklyn chef Rue Rusike who lost the toss. Rue has continuelly made the mistake of not living up to the "promise of her premise." Originally from Zimbabwe, Rue's POV has allegedly been about southern African flavors and techniques, and to be honest, we have never seen anything that actually lives up to that claim. While she seems to be a genuinely sweet and dedicted chef, her food has been regularly characterized as bland. And no matter how many warnings Bobby and Giada have given, she hasn't been able to "up her game." Rue could certainly speak to the camera and engage an audience, but she won't have that chance. Rue lamented her shortcomings in this post-interview with the Food Network.

Do you stand by your last-cooked dish and presentation?
RR: They said that Arnold's vegetables were raw. I tasted them during cooking, and there was a point where I was like, they're too crunchy, let's put them back in. So he put them back in, but then he didn't want them to overcook, so during the heat-up, I didn't taste them then, and neither did he taste my steak and shrimp in the heat-up. But I stand by my protein. I have never seasoned anything so much in my life, to the point where I almost felt it was too salty. And had they said to me it was overseasoned, I actually would have been like, you're right. But in fact they said it was not seasoned — I used about 11 spices, so I stand by my dish.

How would you explain to fans at home what this competition is really like?
RR: This competition is tougher than you could ever imagine. It is like doing a marathon in five minutes and thinking that you're going to be OK.

That said, the contestant who should have gone home this week is Michelle. Michelle Karam, the cook from Santa Barbara, who wants to promote her Mediterranean and Latin roots, was a real disappointment this season. Michelle's small meltdown after her inability to work with Dom was actually quite pathetic, especially for someone who wants to work in the food service and entertainment industry. You simply can't act that way - even as Dom deserved a bit of criticism for being so inflexible on their preparation. Yet, at least Dom can cook. Michelle ... not so much. And, it won't be long before Arnold and Michelle follow Rue out the door. Overall, this has been a rather disappointing season in terms of engaging personalities and culinary prowess.

A Renewed Sense of Purpose - July 2015

Yesterday, I came down from the mountain, and as I returned home and reflected on a relaxing Independence Day celebration in the beautiful mountain town of Breckenridge, I realized that at this mid-point in the summer - and this mid-point in 2015 - it is time for a renewed sense of purpose and committment to my goal of "living the life that I have imagined." Earlier this year, I blogged about entering 2015, my 45th year, and my intention to live a better life. The goal was to make this my best year yet by improving how I do my job and how I live my life. I can be a better administrator and teacher and husband and father and person. That focus includes living a healthier and more focused life. And, that includes success as a writer.

And, so far, I am not where I want to be. The following words concluded my thoughts in January:

So, I like my job, and I can't complain about my life, but I had a different vision of success in my life, and my daily-ness does not look like the life I had imagined. And, I will not be truly happy or content or satisfied until I am doing all that I have planned and am capable of doing. There are articles and books to be written, presentations to be crafted and made, products to be produced, businesses to develop, and refinements to my daily living experience to be crafted. And, 2015 should not end with the resigned disappointment and acceptance of "adequate" that has been the conclusion of previous years. And, I am hoping that this blog keeps me focused and honest and on track. Last year I turned forty-four, and it seemed like a convenient marking point for my next phase. I'd graduated college at 22, I'd achieved career success in pubic education at 44, and it was time to begin "Act III." Act III is a writing career and the role of "independent scholar" and public commentator. So, here's to Act III. Here's to more writing and "advancing confidently ... to live the life I have imagined."

Clearly, I have not written what I want to write, nor have I reached the levels of health and focus as a person that will make me feel successful. And, that needs to change. Life has thrown a few curveballs this spring and summer, as our incredibly rainy spring and summer has led to some very serious structural issues in my house. This damage, of course, from "earth movement" is conveniently "not covered by insurance," and I am facing some serious home improvement costs. But, I need to simply take care of business, and I need to work harder to be better prepared financially and professionally to handle that which comes my way. To that end, I return to my focus - "living the life I have imagined."

Wish me luck.

To Teach - or not - Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

As we prepare to celebrate America and the idea of independence, I am thinking about the novel that has long been the voice of our heritage for many people. There is no "sacred book" in the high school canon that absolutely must be taught for a student to have a valid experience in literature. Granted, some English teachers believe it to be an abomination to graduate high school in America without having studied The Great Gatsby, 1984, The Catcher in the Rye, The Scarlet Letter, Pride and Prejudice, or others. That is, however, not true. There are far too many great works to determine that any one is indispensable, but it's important to understand and evaluate why or why not a teacher would teach a certain novel.  And, one that tops that list of either "sacred" or "taboo" is Mark Twain's seminal 19th century work Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

Growing up on the banks of the Mississippi, I am partial to Twain in a way that many may not understand. In fact, my son's middle name is Twain. In completing my master's degree I was adamant that I take a class called "Twain and the Rise of Realism," and I have taught the novel on numerous occasions to various student populations. It is a watershed accomplishment in American writing, and it offers countless lessons and rich experiences on many levels. However, it remains one of our most controversial choices. That controversy is the heart of a piece of commentary from education writer Kent Oswald who offers "A Dissent on Teaching Huckleberry Finn," published in EdWeek. Now, I am not an adamant supporter of the teaching of Huck, and I respect any person's decision to teach it or not, but Oswald is dissenting and abandoning the book for some of the wrong reasons.

We should not - and cannot - turn away from viable and monumentally significant literary works because they are edgy or controversial or, worse, that "few high schoolers gain any sense of why Twain is revered, [or] understand what the book is even about." Granted, Oswald argues that the book may be better reserved for college level readers, and I don't dispute that.  Unlike Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Huck is not a children's book, and I do believe it is wrong for middle or early high school.  And I studied it in both my undergrad and graduate work. Certainly, choosing other works by Twain is a viable and valid alternative.  But we must remember that guiding students through the tough stuff - the ideas and works they won't and can't access on their own - is precisely the purpose of formal education.

For those considering teaching Huck - or not - I highly recommend a PBS video called Born to Trouble: Adventures of Huck Finn. It offers some excellent guidance on the book, the teaching of it, and the controversy surrounding it.

How Generation X Hacked Society

This past week has been an extraordinary moment of progression and change. The recent conversations on race (and relegating the racist confederate flag to history and museums) and the historic Supreme Court ruling which granted nationwide marriage rights to gay couples represent progress toward true societal change with a revision and improvement on traditional structures. And, that idea, of breaking with tradition to see what new can be created, is integral to the "hacker ethos." Obviously, most people associate the word "hacker" with a computer specialist who breaks into and breaks down computer systems. That is, no doubt, the origin of the word. However, it has grown to become synomous with "breaking down traditional walls" in order to improve outcomes. That is what is known as "life hacks," or tricks to improve overall quality through greater access. And, the idea of "hacking life" or "hacking society" or just "hacking" is truly a Generation X characteristic. In my view, the incredible progress on gay rights with the achievement of legal status for gay marriage is the ultimate societal hack. While the "tolerance" among the Milennial generation has long been noted in media and sociology, it is the "whatever" attitude that was foundational to Generation X which ultimately paved the way for a world where such tolerance could grow. And, that's a good thing.

There are so many ways in which the "slackers" of Generation X have hacked society, as they've simply chosen to live life on their terms, and they have never much cared for what anyone thinks about that. Some of the most prominent Gen X hackers who have changed the rules by just going about doing what they want regardless of others saying they can't are people like Elon Musk and Peter Theil and Jimmy Wales. Musk is the ultimate societal hacker for basically changing the rules on automobile manufuacturing and sales at the same time he literally "hacked" the concept of space travel by moving it from the public to private sector. Peter Theil made similar hacks to the economic and finance systems with PayPal (of which Elon Musk was a contributing partner/creator). And, Jimmy Wales hacked the world of knowledge and information access with the creation of Wikipedia. All these areas and industries are better for the hacks of these men. And, it was by "breaking the rules," so to speak, that they hacked society as a way of improving it.

Food Network Star 2015 - Rosa's Sandwich Fails

If you can't talk about food in an engaging way, you will never be a Food Network Star. That said, if you can't make really tasty, interesting food on a daily basis, you won't even have a chance to talk about food in an engaging way. And, that's what happened to Rosa this week, as she was eliminated during the annual 4th of July barbeque episode because her portobella mushroom sandwhich just disappointed. Thanks for playing, Rosa.

So, I am a bit late to the competition this year, and this is my first Food Network Star post of season 11 in 2015. In fact, I had been unaware that the season started, so I just tuned in for the recent 4th of July episode. And, I have to note that I disagree with Bobby Flay's comment that this is "the strongest group of contestants FNS has ever had." If that's true ... well, that's not true. But I am reasonably impressed at this point with a few: Emilia Cirker definitely has "it," as she knows how to cook and can effortlessly talk the talk. She's a frontrunner.  I like Alex McCoy and Jay Ducote at this point as well, though Alex really needs to get some command of his "food talk." Jay is easygoing and can flat-out cook.

I will have to wait a week and see if anyone else rises in expectations. At this point, it seems like Dom is the perfect example of a good cook who won't be able to bring it in front of the camera. No matter how much coaching he gets, he will never be comfortable and engaging enough to anchor a show - and the judges know that by now. The others have their stengths and inconsistencies - as does the show. I was late coming to this season mainly because the last two winners have been so disappointing. And, I have documented my opposition in this post on Lenny, as well as this one lamenting the elimination of Nikki Dinki.  After the last two seasons, the show lost a lot of its entertainment value.

Hopefully, this season will redeem it. And, I hate to say it, but I'm kind of glad that Alton isn't back - his cynicism had just become ... wrong.

So, game on, Foodies.

"Seat Time" at Issue in Colorado School Funding

School funding is always an issue, and who gets how much money can be impacted in convoluted and arbitrary ways. One of the challenges for schools is the dreaded "October count" where schools must prove full time attendance in order to receive state and federal funding based on the number of kids in seats. A more convoluted issue is the question of "Seat Time," or the number of minutes/hours those kids are "in class." And, just how much time is necessary to be considered adequate? How long must the school day and week and year be? How long should a "class" session be?  Is a 47 minute class less effective than a 51 or 55 or 59-minute session?  I certainly have my criticisms of seat time and the Carnegie unit, and I've expressed them before. These ideas simply promote a misguided standardization and uniformity in public education. Seat time requirements are arbirtary and ineffective.

Now, the issue has reared its head in Colorado, as the Colorado Department of Education has ordered the Douglas County School District to pay back $4 million in state funding after an audit revealed that a certain number of students had not met the necessary requirements to be considered "full time students." Thus, the district can't claim full funding. The DougCo School Board fought back this week, arguing these "seat time" requirements are ineffective, and that in many cases, students missed the required time "by seconds." And that's just crazy.

The district contends the students should be considered full-time. Some fell just a few seconds short a day and some graduated with honors, it said. "Our District completely rejects the Department's position as arbitrary, capricious and not the result of reasoned agency decision-making," school board president Kevin Larsen and vice president Doug Benevento wrote. "We intend to pursue our remedies in the Colorado courts with all deliberate speed." Noting that Dougco is often at odds with the department, they wrote, the department's actions "convey the unmistakable whiff of policy retaliation." Citing budget challenges, Douglas County moved from seven to eight periods in its high schools, leading to slightly shorter periods.

Now, I don't agree with DougCo Schools and the DougCo School Board on a great many things. And the information that they shortened the day and class periods because of budget issues can be troubling. The DougCo area is one of the wealthiest in the country, and they are pinching pennies and burdening teachers in an almost intentional way of harming public education. Yet, they are correct in that seat time requirements are arbitrary. And if, as they claim, some of these classes missed legal requirements by seconds, and the students are succeeding anyway in shorter classes, then CDE needs to back off.

Did Generation X Destroy Adulthood - and Is That Bad?

As is appropriate for the "slacker" Gen X-er in me, I am coming a bit late to the conversation about the end, or changing nature, of adulthood in contemporary society - a discussion which was kicked off last fall by astute NY Times critic A.O. Scott in his piece, "The Death of Adulthood in American Culture." Scott initiated a firestorm of discussion, specifically because he conceded a bit of contempt for today's adults who still want to act like kids with their "X-boxes" or "flip flops" or other child-like amusements. Doesn't anybody want to act like an adult anymore? He also deftly anchored his discussion on popular culture, specifically with the death of sterotypical TV men like Mad Men's Don Draper or Tony Soprano. And, he connected the ideas to literary criticism by icons such as Leslie Fielder. It was an engaging bit of commentary, and I like looking at it from the perpsective of generational attitudes, specifically Generation X. The group of people who came of age in a time of low fertility, rising divorce, latchkey childhoods, and a sputtering economy were certainly likely to view "the adult world" with suspicion and contempt. On that note, I particularly enjoyed Scott's acknowledgement of this tradition in American thought. From Huck "lighting out for the territory" and Holden desperately trying to "hold in" childhood to avoid being phony to Rabbit simply giving up and starting to "Run," our opposition to "growing up" is part of the American DNA. This is the basic idea behind the "American Adam" concept, and it might just be that Generation X was the first group to actually have the opportunity to make it happen on a societal scale.

Y.A. fiction is the least of it. It is now possible to conceive of adulthood as the state of being forever young. Childhood, once a condition of limited autonomy and deferred pleasure (“wait until you’re older”), is now a zone of perpetual freedom and delight. Grown people feel no compulsion to put away childish things: We can live with our parents, go to summer camp, play dodge ball, collect dolls and action figures and watch cartoons to our hearts’ content. These symptoms of arrested development will also be signs that we are freer, more honest and happier than the uptight fools who let go of such pastimes

I know for years that my wife and I used to joke about that moment at which we would stop feeling like we were playing "dress up" every time we went out to a nice restaurant. Not sure when it happened ... but it did. But perhaps it wasn't that we really grew up and entered adulthood, but that we simply stopped worrying about what people might think. I do know that it seems like Generation X might be the truest embodiment of the American Adam concept simply because it simply and soundly defied and eschewed the corruption and lack of authenticity that typified the adult world. Lines got blurred because Generation X committed to the idea of choosing lifestyle over career, and we entered all the phases of life, from school to job to home ownership to parenting with the same "fast casual" attitude that came to define our youth and coming age. And, that's not at all a bad thing.
Maybe it was time to give up and let go of the adulthood myth, and Alexandra Petri of the WashPost says, "Good Riddance" 

Generation X Grew Up - and We're Still Trying to Figure Out What That Means

Most of the writing about Generation X - that quirky post-Boomer/pre-Millenial group born in the 60s & 70s - acknowledges the realities of the first generation of divorce and the first group of latch-key kids. It was a time when kids first faced the possibility of growing up less successful and prosperous than their parents. And, while no catastrophic world events defined the era, it was truly a "Cold War" childhood. Yet, by now the average Gen X-er is in his/her forties, and has most likely casually slid into middle age, going about parenting in the laid back way most would have imagined. So, for the group defined by John Hughes films and Douglas Coupland books, the idea of growing up is complicated.  A couple interesting takes on the idea of childhood and growing up are in the pop culture news cycle now. Philosopher Susan Neiman asks us an important question in the title of her recently published book - Why Grow Up?  Neiman looks to Enlightenment-era thinking to ponder the twentieth-century invention of childhood, adolescence, and maturity. And, critic A.O. Scott offers an insightful analysis of her thesis:

Nor, in spite of its subtitle, is her book a critique of contemporary mores. The “infantile age” she has in mind goes back to the 18th century, and its most important figures are Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant. “Coming of age is an Enlightenment problem,” she writes, “and nothing shows so clearly that we are the Enlightenment’s heirs” than that we understand it as a topic for argument and analysis, as opposed to something that happens to everyone in more or less the same way. Before Kant and Rousseau, Neiman suggests, Western philosophy had little to say about the life cycle of individuals. As traditional religious and political modes of authority weakened, “the right form of human development became a philosophical problem, incorporating both psychological and political questions and giving them a normative thrust.”

Another important work at, perhaps, the other end of the cultural spectrum is the new Disney-Pixar film Inside Out, which is garnering hugely positive reviews from all corners. Lisa Damour writes for the New York Times that perhaps the best quality of the film is its "convincing argument against happiness in childhood." That perception would seem to hit home with the Gen X parents out there.

In other words, the movie begins where most parents begin: We tend to treat dark feelings as unwelcome intruders into the idyllic childhoods we had in mind for our children. At the extreme, we can act as emotional offensive linemen, throwing our bodies in front of anything that may knock our children down and equating a happy childhood with the absence of distress. Pixar doesn’t buy it. And neither should we. Though Fear carries on like a neurotic mess, he’s rightly charged with keeping Riley safe. Anger seethes throughout the movie and often loses control by pushing the levers at the mental command deck to full throttle. But Riley’s success as a hockey player is credited to the healthy aggression that zips her around the ice. While avoiding spoiler territory, I can tell you that Sadness more than holds her own. “Inside Out” doesn’t just stick up for dark feelings, it also recognizes that growing up comes with evolving emotional complexity. We meet Riley as a baby, when her rudimentary mental apparatus delivers emotions that are straightforward and pure. We really get to know her as a preteen when Joy loses control of the command deck and gets lost, along with Sadness, in the now-complex recesses of Riley’s mind, while back at headquarters, Anger, Disgust and Fear jockey for position.

Voices of Generation X - Hughes & Coupland

There is little doubt that the naming of Generation X (those born between roughly 1963 and 1983) belongs to Canadian author Douglas Coupland. Coupland's book Generation X: Tales of an Accelerated Culture was published in 1991 (soon coming up on its 25th anniversary), and the media and marketing communities quickly jumped on the term to define a diverse group of post-Baby Boomers. However, Coupland never intended to be the definer for or voice of a generation. That moniker is probably much better reserved for a man who preceded the generation, but provided the films that held the most meaning for it. John Hughes (a Baby Boomer by age) is the director of the primary films that spoke to, for, and about the kids of Generation X. The characters of Coupland's book represent a specific sub-group of people who, in an attempt to find meaning by choosing lifestyle over career, chose to diverge from the classic paths to adulthood that had defined previous generations. X-ers were a group that was simultaneously defined by and alienated from an ever-growing consumer culture that overewhelmed their identities as it sought to cater to them. That sense of conflicted alienation is nowhere more clear than in the movies that appealed to many different personalities of Generation X. As "Generation X" approaches the 25th anniversary of its naming, and Hughes classic The Breakfast Club passes thirty, it's worth looking back at the man who gave voice to the teens and young adults of the 1980s. Kirk Honeycutt's book John Hughes: A Life in Film is a good place to start.