Talk:A Week With Christian Chandler

Address difference

Chris's house, according to this, is at 46 Branchland Court. Do you think it's because Chris was just moving in, he got the address wrong or do you think they could have changed the house number (what circumstances would cause that though?)? Or some other option? --Champthom 18:44, 31 August 2009 (CEST)

• I'd think that he just go the address wrong. The only circumstances I can think of to cause the changing of a house number is the addition or subtraction of other residences, but even then it isn't likely that they would change things because then they would have to go about changing the innumerable documents which are made that include any given property. It's not uncommon in other areas to have numbers seem to bounce around because the location has built up, I can't imagine his neighborhood would treat expansion any differently. --LizardPie 19:02, 31 August 2009 (CEST)

• Yeah, but 46 is quite a leap from 14. Then again, we are dealing with someone who thought it was April when it was really August or think it was the 17th when it was really the 27th. --Champthom 19:04, 31 August 2009 (CEST)

• Exactly, there's a history of this. He'll get a portion correct (the four) and then fuck up the rest of it. But, going with your argument, it's quite a leap to think that a house number wouldn't just go up one or two numbers, but 32. --LizardPie 19:11, 31 August 2009 (CEST)

To do

Transcribe this and add humorous commentary and stuff we've learned from it. --Champthom 23:32, 25 March 2009 (CET)

Definitely looks like he was a lot less fail back then. - Fatmike 14:10, 4 April 2009 (CEST)

I disagree. He was in special ed (not surprising), and he read R. L. Stine books (called "novels". Having read R. L. Stine books in my youth, I would say they hardly qaulify as novels, just cheesy "horor-esque" books for the kiddies.) And why the hell does he call study hall "coping class?" Sounds like he had emotional break-downs every day and had to cope during study hall while reading kiddy books. Maybe something on that should be added. - Tregnier2795 17:20, 4 April 2009 (CEST)

• No idea why you think it's study hall. Two possible theories:

1. "Coping class" is some sort of coping skills class. This is an actual behavioral training thing, probably part of Special Ed, designed to deal with being able to cope with strong emotions.

2. He meant to say "Copying class" (his copy shop/printing class? Like, where he made his CD cover and the such) but misspelled it.

I'm leaning mostly towards one. --Champthom 01:30, 6 April 2009 (CEST)

• Maybe. However, he said he made the CD cover and the like in computer class, so it seems unlikely to be "Copying class." Also, on the Pg.8 picture, it is refered to as "Coping/Study Hall." I thought it might be one of Chrissy's quaint phrases, though possible behavioral training does sound likely. He hasn't put it to very good use, though. -- Tregnier2795Tregnier2795 02:10, 6 April 2009 (CEST)

I'd like to go over this when I've got time. The main thing I noticed was that Chris freely admits that he sleeps in class, not just once, but several times throughout the week. Hell, he practically brags about it, in a school project. Reading between the lines, I get the impression that his teachers simply never bothered to wake him up when he did this, which says a lot about how Chris turned out today. Chris's community would put in the effort to get him to school, provide him with special classes, but this was only to get him through high school in one piece. No one was seriously worrying about preparing him for life after graduation, and here we are.
Something else that may be of interest: Chris mentions "immature teenage boys" on his 5 May 2000 entry. As he was talking about a pre-graduation photoshoot with the other seniors, I don't think he's talking about the other special ed students, which he contemptuously calls "slow-in-the-minds" earlier on. It suggests to me that Chris's high school years weren't the Golden Age he makes them out to be. I've always found it suspicious that he always waxes nostalgic about his "gal-pals" from Manchester, but never has anything to say about the boys there, good or bad. Let's face it, I don't care how sympathetic he might have looked then, there's no way in hell he made it through high school without getting picked on by somebody. He was basically surrounded by several dozen Bluespikes five days a week. If contact is ever re-established with Chris, I think this is a topic that should be explored. Dethchemist77 01:37, 6 April 2009 (CEST)

• I thought the slow-in-the-minds comment was interesting too. He probably was refering to those who, undoubtably, made fun of him as immature teenage boys. Ironically, he acts the same way to other autists (though not a baldfaced.) I suppose that's where his refusing to date any autistic people comes from. Also, I think the overview should be ammended; Chris was obviously as much of a shut-in closet case in high school as he is now. Just my two cents. --Tregnier2795
• Nevermind, I edited it. Feel free to improve at your leisure, gentlemen. -- Tregnier2795 02:10, 6 April 2009 (CEST)
• Edited again to bring all the facts into alignment. That better? --Tregnier2795 02:47, 7 April 2009 (CEST)
• I think that the "slow-in-the-minds" WERE the special ed students, mostly because the buses that Chris said were filled with nutty slow-in-the-minds, were the short buses that the special ed students ride in. --kewlkat101 15:11, 31 August 2009 (CET)

• Deth is on target. SOMETHING traumatizing had to happen to Chris at the hands of teenage stoners.Although he does appear to take the more feminine classes, ie, Comtemporary Living. --Jump 02:34, 4 May 2009 (CEST)

That's an interesting thought, Chris must have had a different reason to hate other guys back then other than "they take all the girls" or "they tempt me", I'd like to know the real reason Chris doesn't like any other male other than his father.(Drlugae 23:12, 27 May 2009 (CEST))

Bra on page 5?

Is that his hat on the bed on page 5 or is it a bra? I couldn't entirely tell because of the pictures. Was he taking his mom's undies at that young of an age? Meeko 00:20, 22 September 2009 (CEST)Meeko

• Those things on the bed in the top right picture? I'm pretty sure the one at the back is a hat, you can see the rim facing to the right just below the white on the front of it. I'm not sure what the black blob in front of it is though. Didn't he have a fanny pack with his Ash Ketchum outfit? That may be what it is, although the shit photography makes it look like some power cable's sticking out of it. I doubt it's his mom's undergarments, my guess is it's the hat and fanny pack from this outfit: [1] SirCucumber 00:57, 22 September 2009 (CEST)
• Yes, it does look like a bra but if you look closely, it looks like Chris's unattached fanny pack and a side view of Chris's Ash Ketchum hat. --Champthom 03:02, 22 September 2009 (CEST)

Photogeekery

Apologies if I went a bit into too much detail in describing the photography failures. As someone who used to do black-and-white photography years ago, some of this stuff was just a little bit gut-wrenching. Chris has failed on so many fields!

Here's a few tidbits in case anyone's wondering about the fingerprint and smudge on page 7. Someone described it as "milky"; this is just a tiny little bit wrong, but understandable. Here's how conventional photography works: You snap a photograph on the camera, and it goes on the film, producing a negative image. It is then projected on photographic paper; the more light the photographic paper receives, the darker the final picture becomes. Since light parts are dark and dark parts are light on the negative on the film, this works out just fine. However, if anything obstructs the projection on the paper, it leaves that part of the print white. So, if anything "milky" appears in the picture, that's an immediate clue to me that some crap was sitting on the paper when the picture was enlarged. (See wikipedia:Photogram for dramatic examples.) So my theory is that someone had handled chemicals grubby-handedly when slapping the paper in an enlarger, projected the image on a dirty paper, and whoop, we have crap. It's been years and I don't remember enough about the processes to say for sure, but that's my theory. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 11:54, 12 October 2009 (CEST)

And a few more thoughts: Chris began here a trend that would follow him until this day: He has no idea how to light stuff. The thinks that if he can see stuff, then the camera can see stuff. Indoors photography, as everyone knows, needs light. Lots of light. His school has bigass fluorescent lights, so the photos there don't look half bad, but when he's in his room, he assumes that the light from the windows is enough. Nope, it's not. And you don't photograph stuff against light, because that makes the background visible and the subject's face disappears in shadow. The only reason we can see anything in his YouTube videos is because the webcams have relatively tolerable dynamic range, so we get the pee-yellow instead of utter goddamn darkness. (Though he still manages to sometimes shoot himself against light, like in that one angsty video he once posted.) --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 12:04, 12 October 2009 (CEST)

Also photogeekery.

Someone got their underexposures and overexposers mixed up so I fixed them. Most of the photographic mistakes I see here are fairly typical for a student who's never really done film beyond snapping photos and getting the roll developed at walgreens. The light bar on that photo of the photo of his mother (how meta!) is probably a light leak from him fucking with the film. CaptainCornbread 18:51, 25 August 2012 (PDT)