Conversations: Part Two: The Good Ones

I am a sucker for good conversations, and I think about them frequently, (check out Part One). I have even noticed that I get grumpy if I haven't had a good conversation for some a couple days. This leads to the obvious question: What makes a good conversation?
For me it takes a few things.
1) It's got to be back and forth. It doesn't have to be 50-50 but it has to be close, and both people have to participate in the meat of the conversation actually sharing opinions/feelings/ideas.
2)Content. This one is tricky. There seem to be about four types of conversations. People talk about people, places, things, or ideas. Each can revolve around stories that apply to the subject at hand. Some conversations can combine these things. My favorite is when ideas are involved, but other than that I am usually pretty flexible. As in I like conversations talking about how different people react to a certain situation and why, but I also enjoy talking about how things can affect culture. Whatever, and there are a lot of other examples, but I get bored or I just don't feel fulfilled after a conversation if it was only a rehash of people someone has met, movies someone as seen, places someone went or things people like to do.
OK. I guess I will take it back, it only takes two things for me to like a conversation. Although if I get to learn something that is a bonus.
What I find fascinating and also depressing is it seems impossible to have a good conversation with most people. I realize that many people just don't talk ideas but I have found that those who do usually need a lot of time to warm up to the subject or warm up to the person. As in you have to be really close friends to talk ideas. . .
Which begs another question, or at least it does to me. Why are people so reticent to talk ideas? Is there something in our culture that suggests it's not appropriate? (So is this common in most cultures?) Or are people just too curled up to talk?

Retold Fairytales and Superheros

As many people may have noticed retold fairytales and superhero stories have recently become popular in media. It seems to me that the reason for this is the same in both cases.
There is something immensely comfortable in hearing/seeing/reading a story that you are familiar with. Why else would little kids love to read the same books over and over again, and often seem far more likely to pick up a book about a character they know (The Bernstein Bears, Clifford) then a book with characters they don't know. For one it's easier to get into a book with a character that you already know and care about, even if the character isn't quite the same. Also, when you know that Cinderella will meet Prince Charming you know what to expect. And that works no matter if Cinderella is really a princess named Cinderella (Disney), is the daughter of a courtier named Danielle (Ever After) or is a cyborg named Cinder (Cinder).
Then you can add to the comfort of a story or character you know the excitement that comes with the twist or new view of what you thought you had already known. It allows something old and worn to become clever and surprising. It is like the best of both worlds, familiar but also new. Is it any wonder these two genres are so popular?

Rebellious

I drove down the street a couple of days ago and saw some roadkill, and then smelled the potent aroma of skunk. My first thought was a sigh. Ahhh, skunk cabbage. Skunk cabbage for those who aren't familiar is a wetland plant that looks like rhubarb but smells almost exactly like skunks when you break/bruise the leaves. I remember playing with them a lot as a kid. The smell brought back happy memories. Most people don't smile at the smell of skunks. But I do, and I did. When I was little I remember specifically talking to my peers telling them I liked the smell of skunk. Mostly I think I was motivated by the fact that everyone hated it so I had to like it.
The same thing happened in my sophmore year of High School. We were assigned to read Moby Dick and everyone was like "This is terrible, I can't believe we have to read this. It's so boring." Everyone hated it so I had to like it. And really I thought it was pretty good although there is a chapter or two that it could have gone without.
Perhaps I'm a tad rebellious. . .
Probably because of situations like this my parents would tell me that I was a rebel, and I thought of myself as such. Later, one of my mission companions, told me that I wasn't rebellious at all. I tend to be pretty obedient, so I guess she was right but it left me a little confused.
I guess I'm rebellious about somethings and not about others. . . Maybe I'm still confused.

Words

Consuming and Creating: Part 5: Opposites

When I was little, opposites were a big deal. Stop and Go. Over and Under. I'm sure you can think of some.
I have heard someone speak about choice. He said that although the opposite of choice is often given as no choice, what really destroys choice is a lack of consequences. If no matter what you choose the same thing happens your choice doesn't matter. So it would appear the opposites don't really matter it's the antithesis of choice that can affect things.
It made me think about creating. The first thing that comes to mind when I try to think of the opposite of creation is destruction. But perhaps the worst kind of destruction, the kind that destroys creation, is apathy. Or maybe apathy isn't the right word, but not wanting to create, having no desire, or need or anything that leads to creating things. Consuming can cause apathy. It's easier to consume than create so why not just consume? So in someways maybe consumption is the antithesis of  creating, (although it is not in others see Part 2.)
And maybe opposites are not nearly as important as we thought when we were 5.