Beginning my sojourn spelunking through the deepest recesses of my hard drive/ear canals, I feel it is only appropriate to talk about one of my favorite bands—The Shins. Not only are they among my tops of all time, but I always hesitate a bit before calling them my favorite, and this is largely due to the movie Garden State, primarily because of this scene:
And thus I fall into the dreaded hipster-trap—I love something but can't really love it because it's been acclaimed and claimed by the mainstream. I wrestle with this often, though probably less than some. The film, the band's reputation, the general sappiness attached to their music, none of these things deter me from wholeheartedly and unabashedly loving the band. It's just the perception that I'm afraid of. I'm afraid that someone will think I love a band because some people in a movie loved them. But really, when you get down it, what's so bad about that?
Movies have turned me on to tons of music, from Cat Stevens to Aimee Mann to Love. The fact that these bands were mentioned/featured in mainstream movies does not keep me from mentioning them when the topic of favorite musicians comes up. So what it is about the Shins? Maybe it's the general d-bag vibe that Zach Braff emanates. But I think it probably has to do with something deeper, namely the fact the Shins really are that great. So great they could almost change your life. Despite my avowed love of music, I don't really believe a band can change your life. But if one could, it could probably be the Shins. Or Incubus. Or Letters to Cleo. Or whatever you love. But the Shins make me feel like the world is a warm but melancholy place. It's a place were things are tender or fun or sad or breathtaking, but really I just love listening to their music.
I've been slowly working my may through some George Orwell essays. I bought the book when I needed some inspiration (and something to steal from) to make a go of it as an essayist. As I'm only on my third essay in the collection, it should seem obvious that the inspiration didn't work. But here I am, writing about it. Of course, I don't have much to say, but I did find the remarkable historical curiosity of the "seaside postcard," a relic from earlier times but still feeling very familiar. The jokes seem to be timeless and, as Orwell notes, seem to stay away from too many topical jokes or captions containing opinions. I'll write more on the essays later, but I wanted to make a note of these postcards--particularly those by Donald McGill--and thought someone might enjoy a little piece of British history.
"Which" is for non-restrictive, nonessential clauses (often set off by commas). "That" is for restrictive, essential clauses. "Which" can be used for restrictive clauses, as long as the clause is not set off by commas.