cocoa ; caf
pb on toasted ciabatta [12g / 270 cal] + [8g / 240 cal] = 20g / 510 == .0392 p.idx "D"
shakshuka w/1 srv chickpeas, 2 eggs
street taco kit day 3
recon recon recon
vac
cook up the remaining 1/2 bag (5 servings) brown lentils
figure out next commute
suspend Happy Face; most of Wicked before I fell asleep; most of Harry Potter 1 before bed
HP character effects (the Cerberus, mountain troll etc.) and makeup aesthetic look pretty dated now.
* * *
SciAm: the 6 basic story patterns in order of commercial success (in revenue $)
1. "Man in a Hole". Hero falls from + to - status; fights back up to +. e.g. The Godfather
2. "Cinderella". Hero rises from - to + status, is foiled by decline again, finishes +. Babe
3. "Oedipus", i.e "Cinderella" pattern inverted. Frankenstein, Moby Dick, Hamlet
4. "Icarus", i.e. "Man in a Hole" inverted. Titanic, The Great Gatsby
5. "Riches to Rags". Simple tragedia: The hero falls from + to -, the end. Romeo + Juliet
6. "Rags to Riches". Simple comedia: inverse of Riches to Rags. Groundhog Day
Not shown: pretty charts plotting emotional register over time
In order of viewer ratings:
1. Rags to Riches (simple comic climb from starting down to ending up)
2. Icarus (compound tragic path from down to up to down again )
3. Oedipus (complex tragic path from up to down, to up again, to down again)
4. Riches to Rags (simple tragic fall from starting up to ending down)
5. Cinderella (complex comic inverse of Oedipus)
6. Man in a Hole (compound comic inverse of Icarus)
How to explain the discrepancy? Critics favor complexity and tragedy, and critical favor drives buzz, which in turn drives revenue - but critic values don't necessarily translate to audience popularity.