Stolen from everywhere: Find Sherlock Holmes game!
1) Go to Wikipedia
2) Click 'Random article' (on the left navigation bar)
3) From there, only using links in articles, navigate yourself to Wikipedia's entry for Sherlock Holmes
4) Post your path!
My first path:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Weiss
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunchback_of_Notre_Dame
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes
The most obvious path:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingmaker,_Kingbreaker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_novel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detective_fiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes
And then I decided I was going to do the same thing with Misha Collins (because I can). It was really surreal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Trapnell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protectorate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_England#The_Commonwealth_.281659-1660.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uriel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural_(TV_Series)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misha_Collins
You can pretty much play this game with anything. Bonus point if you find Waldo or Carmen Sandiego.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
In which Jayne dusts off her soapbox
It's been awhile since I last posted here, so let's see if I remember how to do this.
Instead of doing any of the eight million things I should do today (grade undergrad responses, work on my thesis so the thought of it doesn't make me go in to the fetal position), I surfed the Internets because that's how my procrastinating ass rolls. In surfing I came across Why discriminate if it doesn't profit? It's an article addressing the question about why Hollywood and the television industry are dead set against making movies/shows for or by women.
The writer, Jennifer Kessler, takes a couple of detours in getting to the point (she discusses curly hair and salons in an analogy that doesn't quiet gel), but her answer boils down to ego:
"Even greed is fueled by the ego – it’s the ego that wants more than enough so it feels safe or better than its neighbors. It’s the ego that wants to feel important, unique, successful. Eliminating entire clumps of humanity from the 'race' your ego thinks it’s in is a quick way to get rid of competition."
This is, of course, a compelling theory (used in the non-scientific sense of the word), but one that doesn't cover it entirely. As the resident feminist of the blog, I feel obligated to point out that the movie and tv industries are still steeped in (and yes, I refuse to apologize for using this term) patriarchy. Executives, directors, writers, and so on are overwhelmingly men, and thus the mindset is that it is men who are the prime consumers of movies and television.
This is, of course, complete bullshit, but it's a powerful, ego feeding theory that allows these same executives and directors and writers to justify their often sexist offerings(oh god, just look at how actresses are objectified in comparison to actors). Why should they bother giving well-rounded, heroic and amazing female characters and women-centric storylines when "women don't watch movies/tv"?
Kessler then has this paragraph, that I really want to discuss:
"That laziness factors into TV and film because in the case of TV advertisers don’t seem to want to know that women are worth pitching products to because it would mean learning something new (look at the shortcuts they take when pressed: “make it pink, mention shoes”), like what types of ads women respond to. In the case of movies, it would mean… well, nothing. Honestly, you write women pretty much like you write men. But they think it would mean learning something new, and to be fair, for many of them it would mean learning to write credible voices belonging to a group of people they associate with little more than high school rejection, being told to clean up their room, divorce and child support checks. It would also, for many of them, mean noticing someone who has never before existed to their eyes: women who don’t fit the “hot chick” profile. Women who, like so many of our favorite male movie icons, are more fascinating than modelesque, who are sexy because they’re made of awesome, instead of just looking awesome."
YES. THIS.
And I think this reasoning, among other things, is the reason why comics, while making little, tiny, slow baby steps to acknowledging female readers, are still pretty much trapped in this GIRLS DON'T READ COMICS LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU mindset.
Girls read comics, especially when those comics feature strong female characters. Hell, when Stephanie Brown was the new Robin the sales of Batman increased. Manhunter was critically acclaimed and widely popular comic that features an kick-ass female protagonist. Ditto for Catwoman. Not to mention the long and successful run of Birds of Prey.
And yet every single one of those titles were cancelled. Yes, perhaps, the sales were low, but look at how much manpower was put behind the effort to market them compared to other titles; not a whole hell of a lot. And, yes, some of them, like Catwoman, suffered from having to include retarded storylines to tie in to the latest big event, but I think these titles and comics in general suffer from what Kessler said above.
Women in comics are "awesome to look at" and not just plain awesome. As an industry, comics has a hard time realizing that strong female characters doesn't just mean they have giant breasts and are sexy danger.
Look at Marvel's Lady Bullseye. She is awesome to look at. And the sad thing is that Marvel tried to make her strong, in that "strong" to them means "is motivated from past sexual assault and needed a man to inspire her and also happens to give tits and ass and is sexy, sexy danger."
Lady Bullseye is a strong female character as filtered through the male gaze, which means she is sexy danger and not a strong character at all. Sadly, comics are still firmly entrenched in the male gaze. Hell, even the attempts comics made to appeal to female readers are insulting and offensive.
And, since we're on the topic, both movies, television, and comics are finally recognizing LGBT characters, although the visibility on them still remains frustratingly low. Hell, how about getting some diversity up in comics? With DC's cancellation of Blue Beetle, comics are awfully white.
If Kessler is right that this is about the ego then it's time to set that aside, especially in this shitty economic times, and realize that women and LGBT and minorities are just as valuable consumers as white, straight men. Get your heads out of your asses and recognize it's not all about the dangly bits between your legs.
Instead of doing any of the eight million things I should do today (grade undergrad responses, work on my thesis so the thought of it doesn't make me go in to the fetal position), I surfed the Internets because that's how my procrastinating ass rolls. In surfing I came across Why discriminate if it doesn't profit? It's an article addressing the question about why Hollywood and the television industry are dead set against making movies/shows for or by women.
The writer, Jennifer Kessler, takes a couple of detours in getting to the point (she discusses curly hair and salons in an analogy that doesn't quiet gel), but her answer boils down to ego:
"Even greed is fueled by the ego – it’s the ego that wants more than enough so it feels safe or better than its neighbors. It’s the ego that wants to feel important, unique, successful. Eliminating entire clumps of humanity from the 'race' your ego thinks it’s in is a quick way to get rid of competition."
This is, of course, a compelling theory (used in the non-scientific sense of the word), but one that doesn't cover it entirely. As the resident feminist of the blog, I feel obligated to point out that the movie and tv industries are still steeped in (and yes, I refuse to apologize for using this term) patriarchy. Executives, directors, writers, and so on are overwhelmingly men, and thus the mindset is that it is men who are the prime consumers of movies and television.
This is, of course, complete bullshit, but it's a powerful, ego feeding theory that allows these same executives and directors and writers to justify their often sexist offerings(oh god, just look at how actresses are objectified in comparison to actors). Why should they bother giving well-rounded, heroic and amazing female characters and women-centric storylines when "women don't watch movies/tv"?
Kessler then has this paragraph, that I really want to discuss:
"That laziness factors into TV and film because in the case of TV advertisers don’t seem to want to know that women are worth pitching products to because it would mean learning something new (look at the shortcuts they take when pressed: “make it pink, mention shoes”), like what types of ads women respond to. In the case of movies, it would mean… well, nothing. Honestly, you write women pretty much like you write men. But they think it would mean learning something new, and to be fair, for many of them it would mean learning to write credible voices belonging to a group of people they associate with little more than high school rejection, being told to clean up their room, divorce and child support checks. It would also, for many of them, mean noticing someone who has never before existed to their eyes: women who don’t fit the “hot chick” profile. Women who, like so many of our favorite male movie icons, are more fascinating than modelesque, who are sexy because they’re made of awesome, instead of just looking awesome."
YES. THIS.
And I think this reasoning, among other things, is the reason why comics, while making little, tiny, slow baby steps to acknowledging female readers, are still pretty much trapped in this GIRLS DON'T READ COMICS LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU mindset.
Girls read comics, especially when those comics feature strong female characters. Hell, when Stephanie Brown was the new Robin the sales of Batman increased. Manhunter was critically acclaimed and widely popular comic that features an kick-ass female protagonist. Ditto for Catwoman. Not to mention the long and successful run of Birds of Prey.
And yet every single one of those titles were cancelled. Yes, perhaps, the sales were low, but look at how much manpower was put behind the effort to market them compared to other titles; not a whole hell of a lot. And, yes, some of them, like Catwoman, suffered from having to include retarded storylines to tie in to the latest big event, but I think these titles and comics in general suffer from what Kessler said above.
Women in comics are "awesome to look at" and not just plain awesome. As an industry, comics has a hard time realizing that strong female characters doesn't just mean they have giant breasts and are sexy danger.
Look at Marvel's Lady Bullseye. She is awesome to look at. And the sad thing is that Marvel tried to make her strong, in that "strong" to them means "is motivated from past sexual assault and needed a man to inspire her and also happens to give tits and ass and is sexy, sexy danger."
Lady Bullseye is a strong female character as filtered through the male gaze, which means she is sexy danger and not a strong character at all. Sadly, comics are still firmly entrenched in the male gaze. Hell, even the attempts comics made to appeal to female readers are insulting and offensive.
And, since we're on the topic, both movies, television, and comics are finally recognizing LGBT characters, although the visibility on them still remains frustratingly low. Hell, how about getting some diversity up in comics? With DC's cancellation of Blue Beetle, comics are awfully white.
If Kessler is right that this is about the ego then it's time to set that aside, especially in this shitty economic times, and realize that women and LGBT and minorities are just as valuable consumers as white, straight men. Get your heads out of your asses and recognize it's not all about the dangly bits between your legs.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
In Which Jayne Is Vindicated
So I am currently sitting in O'Hare airport because my flight is delayed because it's snowing because Chicago lives to thwart me. That has nothing to do with my feelings of vindication. Comics, for once, does.
So for those of you that aren't Darcy, you do not understand my deep seated love for dead gay Ted, the second Blue Beetle. For clarification: Ted is dead (although now I think he's a zombified Black Lantern? God, I cannot keep up with the crazy that is DC) and when he was amongst the living he was totally in love with Booster. Seriously, they were super gay together, hence dead gay Ted (or possibly undead gay Ted now).
Even DC agrees with me on that gay thing:
So for those of you that aren't Darcy, you do not understand my deep seated love for dead gay Ted, the second Blue Beetle. For clarification: Ted is dead (although now I think he's a zombified Black Lantern? God, I cannot keep up with the crazy that is DC) and when he was amongst the living he was totally in love with Booster. Seriously, they were super gay together, hence dead gay Ted (or possibly undead gay Ted now).
Even DC agrees with me on that gay thing:
Sweet, sweet vindication. Also, Milagro is totally a slasher.
Now, I sort of want a comic where Booster and dead gay Ted get married and have lots of shenanigans.
Don't you judge me.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
It's December. How did that happen?
No, seriously. I've been buried in work for the past month and I lift my head and it's two weeks to Christmas, I missed my friend's birthday, and Chicago is colder than Dante's Ninth Level of Hell. I am currently hunched over my space heater like Bob Crochet and his little piece of coal that Scrooge allows him per month. God, I wish I had some coal to burn.
While there are many things I should be posing about, like my new found obsession with Misha Collins (MIIIIISHA), I am brain dead from my critique and my crazy writing schedule to get my thesis jump started. Dear god, I have one semester of school left. Christ.
So, it's another bits and pieces post, I'm afraid.
Let's start with SCIENCE!
This site is pretty awesome. Slide the bar over for SCIENCE!
The World of Chemistry
If Chemistry class was really like this I would have a PhD by now.
Moving on from SCIENCE, this is beautiful, especially for all you Firefly fans out there. Would it be wrong to use my student loan money to buy it?
And since Chicago is approximately the temperature of the vacuum of space, make a snowflake.
As I mentioned above, it's two weeks to Christmas (everyone I know is getting super late presents), and as such we've all been inundated with Christmas songs for the past month and a half. Not to mention my classes are down in the Loop by Macy's. And their window displays and constant music. And the parents with small children that stop in the middle of the goddamn sidewalk to stare while I'm late for class and homicidally low on coffee, omg I will brick all of you in the face!
Ahem. My point being is that if you're like me the next time you hear "I'm Dreaming of White Christmas" you may very well snap and murder everyone in the face. That is why I have developed a UnChristmas playlist, to fulfill all your misanthropic needs!
Another Christmas Song--Stephen Colbert
And this is what Christmas songs are all about: the royalties. Oh, Stephen Colbert, you warm the cockles of my cynical, caustic heart. (Sorry, guys, have no download for this one)
If you don't know who Jonathan Coulton is you then you cannot call yourself a geek. Do yourself a favor and go visit his site and download Skullcrusher Mountain right now. Go on, I'll wait. You back? Okay.
This is a take off the Alvin and the Chipmunks song, only a thousand times better and less migraine inducing.
Don't think us rude/We don't want to get sued/By the thugs from the RIAA
You're A Mean One Mr. Grinch
You all know this one; I have nothing to add here.
Santa's Gonna Kick Your Ass--Arrogant Worms
In the words of Jayne (the one from Firefly) this is hi-larious!
Santa's coming and he's gonna kick your ass/Because you've always been a rotten little brat
Chiron Beta Prime--Jonathon Coulton
Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime/Where we're working in a mine/For our robot overlords
Have Yourself a Bitter Little Christmas--David Ford
A song about breaking up with your girlfriend on Christmas.
The kids are making snowmen out of mud/It makes me think about us
Father Christmas--The Kinks
It's The Kinks. They are awesome
Father Christmas, give us some money/Don't mess around with those silly toys/ We'll beat you up if you don't hand it over
So what are your UnChristmas songs? Share in the comments.
ETA:
The Muppets are never not awesome.
And now I'm off to disappear into work for another week. I hope you all survive this holiday season, one way or another...
While there are many things I should be posing about, like my new found obsession with Misha Collins (MIIIIISHA), I am brain dead from my critique and my crazy writing schedule to get my thesis jump started. Dear god, I have one semester of school left. Christ.
So, it's another bits and pieces post, I'm afraid.
Let's start with SCIENCE!
This site is pretty awesome. Slide the bar over for SCIENCE!
The World of Chemistry
If Chemistry class was really like this I would have a PhD by now.
Moving on from SCIENCE, this is beautiful, especially for all you Firefly fans out there. Would it be wrong to use my student loan money to buy it?
And since Chicago is approximately the temperature of the vacuum of space, make a snowflake.
As I mentioned above, it's two weeks to Christmas (everyone I know is getting super late presents), and as such we've all been inundated with Christmas songs for the past month and a half. Not to mention my classes are down in the Loop by Macy's. And their window displays and constant music. And the parents with small children that stop in the middle of the goddamn sidewalk to stare while I'm late for class and homicidally low on coffee, omg I will brick all of you in the face!
Ahem. My point being is that if you're like me the next time you hear "I'm Dreaming of White Christmas" you may very well snap and murder everyone in the face. That is why I have developed a UnChristmas playlist, to fulfill all your misanthropic needs!
Another Christmas Song--Stephen Colbert
And this is what Christmas songs are all about: the royalties. Oh, Stephen Colbert, you warm the cockles of my cynical, caustic heart. (Sorry, guys, have no download for this one)
Make it a part of your Holiday canon/Make it the heart of my retirement plannin'
Podsafe Christmas Songs--Jonathan CoultonIf you don't know who Jonathan Coulton is you then you cannot call yourself a geek. Do yourself a favor and go visit his site and download Skullcrusher Mountain right now. Go on, I'll wait. You back? Okay.
This is a take off the Alvin and the Chipmunks song, only a thousand times better and less migraine inducing.
Don't think us rude/We don't want to get sued/By the thugs from the RIAA
You're A Mean One Mr. Grinch
You all know this one; I have nothing to add here.
Santa's Gonna Kick Your Ass--Arrogant Worms
In the words of Jayne (the one from Firefly) this is hi-larious!
Santa's coming and he's gonna kick your ass/Because you've always been a rotten little brat
Chiron Beta Prime--Jonathon Coulton
Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime/Where we're working in a mine/For our robot overlords
Have Yourself a Bitter Little Christmas--David Ford
A song about breaking up with your girlfriend on Christmas.
The kids are making snowmen out of mud/It makes me think about us
Father Christmas--The Kinks
It's The Kinks. They are awesome
Father Christmas, give us some money/Don't mess around with those silly toys/ We'll beat you up if you don't hand it over
So what are your UnChristmas songs? Share in the comments.
ETA:
The Muppets are never not awesome.
And now I'm off to disappear into work for another week. I hope you all survive this holiday season, one way or another...
Monday, November 09, 2009
We still think we're hilarious
So y'all know I read awful things, right? And that I willingly seek them out? Instead of doing the eight-nine things that need to be written this week, I found a little gem out there on the Internet. And by "gem," I do mean, "literary horror," although it is still more readable then Twilight: Off Rack Johnny Depp in Body Glitter.
And, of course, I had to share a particular passage with my Hetero Lifemate. You, dear readers, get to see the result (her comments in italics, mine in bold).
The passage (and I swear to god this is a real thing): "'Thank you,' I mouthed. I didn't know why I was thanking him. Maybe it was for killing the hobo. Maybe it was for making me feel the most alive I've ever felt in my life. Maybe it was because he made me feel important. Needed. Wanted. Desired."
HOBOCIDE
I, too, have always found the murder of a hobo to be romantic. I love how in the middle of all this sappy crap there's the casual mention of murder.
Yeah, do they mention why a hobo had to be murdered? Besides to arouse them apparently...
From what I gathered, the hobo was threatening him, so his werewolf boyfriend killed the hobo, I guess.
You KNOW. Not to sound like some HIPPY or anything but...I'm pretty sure that one look at his werewolf from would be all that was necessary to drive the hobo off.
I'm more worried that the poor idiot thinks that having his bf murder anyone that looks at him funny is proof of a healthy relationship.
While killing him [the hobo] is a permanent solution, and I'm sure some would say he provided a good service to society and all, I suppose when you're a werewolf you just kill and it's no big deal to you ever.
Lucky for him he's got an amoral sociopath for a boyfriend who finds murder to be an acceptable token of affection as a box of gas station chocolates.
Oooooh chocolates how delightful!
Hobo murder flavored chocolates!
That's an acquired taste, I think. It's got a musky aftertaste.
Musky, whiskey aftertaste.
With a hint of BO. Well, ok, more than a hint. More like a back handed pimp slap to the face.
With the subtle tang of syphilis.
And possibly lice. They're his friends! He has a name for every single one of them!
The lice will avenge him!
YEAH. WATCH OUT WEREWOLF. You goin' to be usin' that hind leg of yours a whole messa times. Hey, maybe it's not that he killed a hobo, but rather he's just gained a boyfriend AND a pet dog!
And in just a short amount of time we've improved this story and made it about a thousand times more plausible. And, no, before you ask, I have no idea what the actual plot was about beyond hobo killing and gay werewolves, but that should tell all you ever needed to know about it.
And, of course, I had to share a particular passage with my Hetero Lifemate. You, dear readers, get to see the result (her comments in italics, mine in bold).
The passage (and I swear to god this is a real thing): "'Thank you,' I mouthed. I didn't know why I was thanking him. Maybe it was for killing the hobo. Maybe it was for making me feel the most alive I've ever felt in my life. Maybe it was because he made me feel important. Needed. Wanted. Desired."
HOBOCIDE
I, too, have always found the murder of a hobo to be romantic. I love how in the middle of all this sappy crap there's the casual mention of murder.
Yeah, do they mention why a hobo had to be murdered? Besides to arouse them apparently...
From what I gathered, the hobo was threatening him, so his werewolf boyfriend killed the hobo, I guess.
You KNOW. Not to sound like some HIPPY or anything but...I'm pretty sure that one look at his werewolf from would be all that was necessary to drive the hobo off.
I'm more worried that the poor idiot thinks that having his bf murder anyone that looks at him funny is proof of a healthy relationship.
While killing him [the hobo] is a permanent solution, and I'm sure some would say he provided a good service to society and all, I suppose when you're a werewolf you just kill and it's no big deal to you ever.
Lucky for him he's got an amoral sociopath for a boyfriend who finds murder to be an acceptable token of affection as a box of gas station chocolates.
Oooooh chocolates how delightful!
Hobo murder flavored chocolates!
That's an acquired taste, I think. It's got a musky aftertaste.
Musky, whiskey aftertaste.
With a hint of BO. Well, ok, more than a hint. More like a back handed pimp slap to the face.
With the subtle tang of syphilis.
And possibly lice. They're his friends! He has a name for every single one of them!
The lice will avenge him!
YEAH. WATCH OUT WEREWOLF. You goin' to be usin' that hind leg of yours a whole messa times. Hey, maybe it's not that he killed a hobo, but rather he's just gained a boyfriend AND a pet dog!
And in just a short amount of time we've improved this story and made it about a thousand times more plausible. And, no, before you ask, I have no idea what the actual plot was about beyond hobo killing and gay werewolves, but that should tell all you ever needed to know about it.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Jayne gets her snarky disapproval on about something on the Internet
So. Cracked.com. I have such a love/hate with this site. They are snarky and fairly hilarious, and yet, let's be honest here, they are a bunch of frat boys. Yes, they have articles, like this one, that manage to grapple with social/political issues and still manage to be funny. But for everyone of those there are about thirty gay panic/homophobic jokes (because everyone knows that the gays want nothing more than some frat boy ass) and about elevenity million pictures of boobs. The entire editorial board is all male, which is, sadly enough, not abnormal at all, and, I am not trying to be a smart ass here, I honestly can't remember if I've ever read an article on the site written by a woman. There has to be one, right?
Look, I get it. Even though Cracked covers a huge array of topics, from Presidents to deadly insects and everything in between, it assumes that a majority of its readers are heterosexual men, who really fucking love boobs. Because boobs are awesome.
So, fine, okay, I accept there's going to be some casual sexism and homophobia going on, I got that, but this? That is just fucking lazy.
But it's funny, guys, because women fucking love shoes! And men don't! Seriously, we have statistics to prove it! Man, those crazy women and their shoes! So fucking wacky!
There's nothing new or groundbreaking or particularly funny about this. It's just another well worn stereotype being trotted out, complete with some objectification, because the author couldn't think of anything new and creative to write about. This is the equivalent of me getting on here and complaining about how men leave up the toilet seat and can't cook.
But, of course, it really is the comments that pull it altogether, like this gem: "If these articles that make fun of stereotypes make you mad, then just don't read them!!!!"
First of all, I am revoking this commenter's exclamation point privilege. You use one exclamation point and no more, you illiterate jackass.
Second of all, relying on stereotypes is not only lazy humor, but it also helps propagate racism and sexism; by ignoring these articles or remaining silent and not criticizing them is just another way to continue to promote a culture of prejudice and discrimination. Not to mention that it lets people think that lazy writing like this is acceptable.
Look, I get it. Even though Cracked covers a huge array of topics, from Presidents to deadly insects and everything in between, it assumes that a majority of its readers are heterosexual men, who really fucking love boobs. Because boobs are awesome.
So, fine, okay, I accept there's going to be some casual sexism and homophobia going on, I got that, but this? That is just fucking lazy.
But it's funny, guys, because women fucking love shoes! And men don't! Seriously, we have statistics to prove it! Man, those crazy women and their shoes! So fucking wacky!
There's nothing new or groundbreaking or particularly funny about this. It's just another well worn stereotype being trotted out, complete with some objectification, because the author couldn't think of anything new and creative to write about. This is the equivalent of me getting on here and complaining about how men leave up the toilet seat and can't cook.
But, of course, it really is the comments that pull it altogether, like this gem: "If these articles that make fun of stereotypes make you mad, then just don't read them!!!!"
First of all, I am revoking this commenter's exclamation point privilege. You use one exclamation point and no more, you illiterate jackass.
Second of all, relying on stereotypes is not only lazy humor, but it also helps propagate racism and sexism; by ignoring these articles or remaining silent and not criticizing them is just another way to continue to promote a culture of prejudice and discrimination. Not to mention that it lets people think that lazy writing like this is acceptable.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
I'm a Wer-Fangirl, the sound you hear is me squeeing at the Moon!
Hello and Happy Halloween from all of us here at The Geekiest Girls You Know!
As a "grown-up" with no children or younger siblings to make use of as a "candy beard", I often find myself standing in the aisles around this time of year, staring at the heaps and heaps of purple, orange and black packaging that traditionally encases a delicious sugary death warrant for my teeth and waistline.
The struggle to give in to my inner six year-old is often a futile one...six year olds are mean...but this year I was a good "grown-up" and only had a couple of Reese's cups out of the ridiculous sixteen pound bag of treats that I bought to keep the little ankle-biting terrorists at bay. I AM SO GLAD I DID because Space Buddah decided to reward me....WITH THIS:
I like it too!
I wish they sold that man in Fun-Size...
~Darcy
As a "grown-up" with no children or younger siblings to make use of as a "candy beard", I often find myself standing in the aisles around this time of year, staring at the heaps and heaps of purple, orange and black packaging that traditionally encases a delicious sugary death warrant for my teeth and waistline.
The struggle to give in to my inner six year-old is often a futile one...six year olds are mean...but this year I was a good "grown-up" and only had a couple of Reese's cups out of the ridiculous sixteen pound bag of treats that I bought to keep the little ankle-biting terrorists at bay. I AM SO GLAD I DID because Space Buddah decided to reward me....WITH THIS:
I like it too!
I wish they sold that man in Fun-Size...
~Darcy
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Its mortal enemy...THE VATICAN
The Dan Brown Plot Generator
An ancient labyrinth beneath the streets of Chicago.
A ruthless cult determined to protect it.
A race to uncover the Daughters of the American Revolution's darkest secret
The Last Rune
When world-famous Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon is summoned to the Sears Tower to analyze a mysterious ancient script--drawn on a calling card next to the mangled body of the head docent--he discovers evidence of the unthinkable: the resurgence of the ancient cult of the Destifori, the secret branch of the Daughters of the American Revolution that has surfaced from the shadows to carry out is legendary vendetta against it's mortal enemy, the Vatican.
Langdon's worst fears are confirmed when a messenger from the Destifori appears at Lake Michigan to deliver a deadly ultimatum: Deposits $1 billion in the Daughters of the American Revolution's off-shore bank accounts or the exclusive clothier of the Swiss Guards will be bankrupted. Racing against the clock, Langdon joins forces with the ambidextrous and charming daughter of the murdered docent in a desperate bid to crack the code that will reveal the cult's secret plan.
Embarking on a frantic hunt, Langon and his companion will follow a 800-year-old trail through Chicago's most exalted monuments and venerable buildings, pursued by a hypoglycemic assassin the cult has sent to thwart them. What they discover threatens to expose a conspiracy that goes all the way back to Susan B. Anthony and the very founding of the Daughters of the American Revolution.
I am so going to write this for my Detective Fiction class. Seriously.
An ancient labyrinth beneath the streets of Chicago.
A ruthless cult determined to protect it.
A race to uncover the Daughters of the American Revolution's darkest secret
The Last Rune
When world-famous Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon is summoned to the Sears Tower to analyze a mysterious ancient script--drawn on a calling card next to the mangled body of the head docent--he discovers evidence of the unthinkable: the resurgence of the ancient cult of the Destifori, the secret branch of the Daughters of the American Revolution that has surfaced from the shadows to carry out is legendary vendetta against it's mortal enemy, the Vatican.
Langdon's worst fears are confirmed when a messenger from the Destifori appears at Lake Michigan to deliver a deadly ultimatum: Deposits $1 billion in the Daughters of the American Revolution's off-shore bank accounts or the exclusive clothier of the Swiss Guards will be bankrupted. Racing against the clock, Langdon joins forces with the ambidextrous and charming daughter of the murdered docent in a desperate bid to crack the code that will reveal the cult's secret plan.
Embarking on a frantic hunt, Langon and his companion will follow a 800-year-old trail through Chicago's most exalted monuments and venerable buildings, pursued by a hypoglycemic assassin the cult has sent to thwart them. What they discover threatens to expose a conspiracy that goes all the way back to Susan B. Anthony and the very founding of the Daughters of the American Revolution.
I am so going to write this for my Detective Fiction class. Seriously.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
I am both excited and apphrensive about this
So Routledge is starting an academic journal about graphic novels and comics. My inner lit nerd is torn between squeeing for this (and wistfully considering submitting a paper for it) and lapsing into a "hmm" state of mind.
Let's start with the squeeing, shall we? While I have spent a lot of time here making fun of comics--mainly in the guise of Alan Your Tears Are Like Wine To Me Moore and Aquaman I Live in a Cardboard Box Under the Sea)--I have championed graphic novels as literature in their own right. The most obvious examples of this would be Watchmen and basically anything Alan Moore has written and Neil Gaiman's Sandman.
As for the more monthly titles, while it would be hard to argue that some of them (coughTarotcough) construe literature, they are undeniably markers of popular culture, and you can certainly track social/political trends through them. Hell, just look at the evolution of Lois Lane's character, paying particular attention to her 1950s incarnation compared to her contemporary characterization.
The description of the journal as "covering all aspects of the graphic novel, comic strip and comic book, with the emphasis on comics in their cultural, institutional and creative contexts" makes me cautiously optimistic. Since comics have become so twined with American popular culture to the point where even non-comic readers recognize the shorthand used to portray certain personality types, like "man of steel, Wonder Woman" and so on, it's very important to examine comics in an academical and cultural context.
It has only been relatively recently that comics have been viewed in an academic light, since comics have historically been marked as "for children" and by "children" I mean boys. It has only been in the past twenty or so years that papers and books have been published (off the top of my head I think of Wonder Women: Feminisms and Superheroes by Lillian Robinson--if you are at interested in Wonder Woman and female superheroes you need to read this book like yesterday-- and Comic Book Nation by Bradford Wright). There has been studies on horror comics and the war comics of the 40s, but overall comics books have been dismissed as cheap genre escapism for boys (girls, as both Didio and Quesada are quick to assure you, don't read comics).
The journal also wants to include articles about comic book fandom and international comics. I'm happy that they are trying for a wider scope than just the US and maybe Britain. I, for one, would love to see if there's a comic book fandom/culture in, say, Iraq or South America or anywhere that's not predominately white and English speaking.
I really would like to read a journal that explores gender, race, sexual orientation, just among a few topics, in comics. I would love to read about Russian comic book fans, or writers and artists in Mexico creating their own superheroes, and god knows I would kill for a study of Internet based fandom and how much it's dominated by heterosexual Caucasian male fans, and the ramifications of that and the backlashes of criticisms posed by women and fans of color.
So there's the squee, and now we get to my "hmm" part of my reaction.
I'm going to be honest and say this part of my reaction is a bit harder to pin down, and some of you will probably disagree with my reasons, which in that case you need to debate me in the comments, because like I've said many, many times before I love a good argument.
First of all, I'm not entirely certain how successful this journal will be. I know that I'll be buying it, but others? Especially since a majority of average comic books fans aren't exactly inclined to do in depth analysis beyond debating who would win in a fight, Superman or Batman? This journal may very well put out one issue and then fold completely.
Second of all, I'm afraid that this journal, like in most areas of academia, the field will be dominated by, again, heterosexual white males, and that would probably, but not definitely, limit the topics explored (like gender and race and even sexual orientation).
Thirdly, how exactly to you tackle some of the monthly titles? It's one thing to write about Sandman or Watchmen, but what the hell do you do with, for example, Tarot (as godawful as it is) or Spiderman or Batman and his eight spin-off titles or the eight bajillion continuities in DC and Marvel? I'm not saying that no one could analyze this, but how do you handle that in a way that non-comic reading people will understand?
Fourthly, the fanboys. Oh god, the fanboys. Can you just imagine all the wank that will come out of this? Granted, most of them will probably never read the journal, but that's unlikely to stop them probably from complaining about how unfair everyone is to them and their comics and how, seriously, it's just not women objectified and there's, like, non-white heroes, dude.
Lastly, I'm afraid that in the end this will be less a serious studying of comics as culturally and literately important and more regulating comics to the ghettoized genre, which is still viewed as being for children and therefore has no literary or cultural value.
That all said, I am cautiously optimistic for this journal and will definitely be picking up the first volume. I am, first and foremost, a geek at heart.
Let's start with the squeeing, shall we? While I have spent a lot of time here making fun of comics--mainly in the guise of Alan Your Tears Are Like Wine To Me Moore and Aquaman I Live in a Cardboard Box Under the Sea)--I have championed graphic novels as literature in their own right. The most obvious examples of this would be Watchmen and basically anything Alan Moore has written and Neil Gaiman's Sandman.
As for the more monthly titles, while it would be hard to argue that some of them (coughTarotcough) construe literature, they are undeniably markers of popular culture, and you can certainly track social/political trends through them. Hell, just look at the evolution of Lois Lane's character, paying particular attention to her 1950s incarnation compared to her contemporary characterization.
The description of the journal as "covering all aspects of the graphic novel, comic strip and comic book, with the emphasis on comics in their cultural, institutional and creative contexts" makes me cautiously optimistic. Since comics have become so twined with American popular culture to the point where even non-comic readers recognize the shorthand used to portray certain personality types, like "man of steel, Wonder Woman" and so on, it's very important to examine comics in an academical and cultural context.
It has only been relatively recently that comics have been viewed in an academic light, since comics have historically been marked as "for children" and by "children" I mean boys. It has only been in the past twenty or so years that papers and books have been published (off the top of my head I think of Wonder Women: Feminisms and Superheroes by Lillian Robinson--if you are at interested in Wonder Woman and female superheroes you need to read this book like yesterday-- and Comic Book Nation by Bradford Wright). There has been studies on horror comics and the war comics of the 40s, but overall comics books have been dismissed as cheap genre escapism for boys (girls, as both Didio and Quesada are quick to assure you, don't read comics).
The journal also wants to include articles about comic book fandom and international comics. I'm happy that they are trying for a wider scope than just the US and maybe Britain. I, for one, would love to see if there's a comic book fandom/culture in, say, Iraq or South America or anywhere that's not predominately white and English speaking.
I really would like to read a journal that explores gender, race, sexual orientation, just among a few topics, in comics. I would love to read about Russian comic book fans, or writers and artists in Mexico creating their own superheroes, and god knows I would kill for a study of Internet based fandom and how much it's dominated by heterosexual Caucasian male fans, and the ramifications of that and the backlashes of criticisms posed by women and fans of color.
So there's the squee, and now we get to my "hmm" part of my reaction.
I'm going to be honest and say this part of my reaction is a bit harder to pin down, and some of you will probably disagree with my reasons, which in that case you need to debate me in the comments, because like I've said many, many times before I love a good argument.
First of all, I'm not entirely certain how successful this journal will be. I know that I'll be buying it, but others? Especially since a majority of average comic books fans aren't exactly inclined to do in depth analysis beyond debating who would win in a fight, Superman or Batman? This journal may very well put out one issue and then fold completely.
Second of all, I'm afraid that this journal, like in most areas of academia, the field will be dominated by, again, heterosexual white males, and that would probably, but not definitely, limit the topics explored (like gender and race and even sexual orientation).
Thirdly, how exactly to you tackle some of the monthly titles? It's one thing to write about Sandman or Watchmen, but what the hell do you do with, for example, Tarot (as godawful as it is) or Spiderman or Batman and his eight spin-off titles or the eight bajillion continuities in DC and Marvel? I'm not saying that no one could analyze this, but how do you handle that in a way that non-comic reading people will understand?
Fourthly, the fanboys. Oh god, the fanboys. Can you just imagine all the wank that will come out of this? Granted, most of them will probably never read the journal, but that's unlikely to stop them probably from complaining about how unfair everyone is to them and their comics and how, seriously, it's just not women objectified and there's, like, non-white heroes, dude.
Lastly, I'm afraid that in the end this will be less a serious studying of comics as culturally and literately important and more regulating comics to the ghettoized genre, which is still viewed as being for children and therefore has no literary or cultural value.
That all said, I am cautiously optimistic for this journal and will definitely be picking up the first volume. I am, first and foremost, a geek at heart.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Well, we think we're hilarious
So how many of you out there have thought to yourself, "You know, self, I wonder what the geek girls do when they're not here making fun of Alan Moore or spending money they don't have on Star Wars Force trainers?"
Well, wonder no more, my friends! While I cannot speak for my lovely co-mods, I can assure you that my day is spent consuming roughly my body weight in sweet life sustaining coffee, resisting the urge to kill undergrads, and exchanging awesomely geeky texts with my hetero lifemate.
To further strip away the aura of mystery, I'll even let you in on one such exchange (hetero lifemate texts in bold, mine in italics):
Batman: the Bold and the Brave. Attempting to make Aquaman useful since the 2st Century.
There is nothing I do not love about you or this.
His [Aquaman's] beard speaks volumes: he hasn't had a job in months and he's living out of a whiskey bottle.
Instead of tossing him some change, Batman was all, "Fine. You can help me save the world. Just don't do that talking to your fish friends thing. It's weird and makes everyone uncomfortable."
In case you're wondering, yes, this exchange is representative of our normal, daily conversation. Also, yes, we clearly are awesome.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The internet tries to scare the crap out of you
Halloween is coming up in a week and a half (holy crap, it's almost November! I just paid rent, I swear!), so I'm going to take this opportunity to post some links, because if I have to be scared, so do you.
The SCP Foundation Can be rather hit or miss, but I spend a lot of time here procrastinating (mainly when I have grading to do--nothing is as scary as undergrad papers). It's rather creepy, but it can be rather nifty, too, especially if you know your urban legends and fairy tales and can identify what the things are before they tell you. My favorites are the ones dealing with artifacts, because those are the ones that are really freaking creepy.
Creepypasta Very hit or miss. It's little bite-sized pieces of terror, and when it hits, oh god, it hits.
Candle Cove Related to Creepypasta, but something completely on its own. Also, creepy, because puppets, like clowns, are inherently fucking terrifying. Something a girl in one of my classes disagreed with, and was talking about how she makes puppets and paints them and I just sat there shuddering, because PUPPETS. Ech!
ETA: Oh god, someone made a video of it.
Ichor Falls Origin of Candle Cove (gah puppets!). Haven't really looked at it, but supposed to have creepy things there.
Bad, Scary Place Not so much creepy as it is just bizarre. Sort of feels like you're stuck in an acid trip for hours. Be prepared to get lost by clicking on things.
SFPA Halloween Reading Horror Poetry! Awesome!
Pesudopod and Wormwood Audio horror stories! Hello nightmares!
Sf_drama's latest OTT on creepy shit. I found a bunch of links through this. Well worth it to read through the comments and pick up on things that creep people out, like mirrors at night. My favorite comment is "Wyoming. No one has ever convinced me it isn't really a government conspiracy." I can believe that.
Pesdu-Realism
Ted's Caving Page This is definitely not real--was taken from a short story--but it still manages to be claustrophobic and creepy. Vaguely reminiscent of Lovecraft.
ETA: Original short story here
Indian Lake Project I am reading my way through that now. Definitely has that creepy "government conspiracy cover up" feel to it. Plus, there's something about old photographs that freak me out.
The Dionea House A story told through e-mail and chat logs. Have not started to read this, but heard it's really creepy. After you finish with that, go here (oh god, that "found you" makes me want to hide under the bed) and here and here and here
Vids
The girl or the weapon A Firefly, River-centric vid. First of all, Firefly is awesome, as is River. Second, fantastically made vid that is, like I keep saying in this post, creepy.
Also, scary clowns:
While this video is amazing, I have to go with OMG SCARY BLANK CLOWN MASK IS GOING TO EAT YOUR FACE. There is nothing not terrifying about clowns. Even worse, I watched this late last night before going to bed. I live in an old building, with creaking floors and whatnot. That meant every time the person who lives above me moves around and makes the floor creak in tortured ways, I was convinced the clown was coming to eat my face.
Since this post has a surplus of things designed to scare the crap out of you, wanna buy a ghost?
In conclusion, sweet, sweet dreams, everyone.
The SCP Foundation Can be rather hit or miss, but I spend a lot of time here procrastinating (mainly when I have grading to do--nothing is as scary as undergrad papers). It's rather creepy, but it can be rather nifty, too, especially if you know your urban legends and fairy tales and can identify what the things are before they tell you. My favorites are the ones dealing with artifacts, because those are the ones that are really freaking creepy.
Creepypasta Very hit or miss. It's little bite-sized pieces of terror, and when it hits, oh god, it hits.
Candle Cove Related to Creepypasta, but something completely on its own. Also, creepy, because puppets, like clowns, are inherently fucking terrifying. Something a girl in one of my classes disagreed with, and was talking about how she makes puppets and paints them and I just sat there shuddering, because PUPPETS. Ech!
ETA: Oh god, someone made a video of it.
Ichor Falls Origin of Candle Cove (gah puppets!). Haven't really looked at it, but supposed to have creepy things there.
Bad, Scary Place Not so much creepy as it is just bizarre. Sort of feels like you're stuck in an acid trip for hours. Be prepared to get lost by clicking on things.
SFPA Halloween Reading Horror Poetry! Awesome!
Pesudopod and Wormwood Audio horror stories! Hello nightmares!
Sf_drama's latest OTT on creepy shit. I found a bunch of links through this. Well worth it to read through the comments and pick up on things that creep people out, like mirrors at night. My favorite comment is "Wyoming. No one has ever convinced me it isn't really a government conspiracy." I can believe that.
Pesdu-Realism
Ted's Caving Page This is definitely not real--was taken from a short story--but it still manages to be claustrophobic and creepy. Vaguely reminiscent of Lovecraft.
ETA: Original short story here
Indian Lake Project I am reading my way through that now. Definitely has that creepy "government conspiracy cover up" feel to it. Plus, there's something about old photographs that freak me out.
The Dionea House A story told through e-mail and chat logs. Have not started to read this, but heard it's really creepy. After you finish with that, go here (oh god, that "found you" makes me want to hide under the bed) and here and here and here
Vids
The girl or the weapon A Firefly, River-centric vid. First of all, Firefly is awesome, as is River. Second, fantastically made vid that is, like I keep saying in this post, creepy.
Also, scary clowns:
While this video is amazing, I have to go with OMG SCARY BLANK CLOWN MASK IS GOING TO EAT YOUR FACE. There is nothing not terrifying about clowns. Even worse, I watched this late last night before going to bed. I live in an old building, with creaking floors and whatnot. That meant every time the person who lives above me moves around and makes the floor creak in tortured ways, I was convinced the clown was coming to eat my face.
Since this post has a surplus of things designed to scare the crap out of you, wanna buy a ghost?
In conclusion, sweet, sweet dreams, everyone.
Friday, October 02, 2009
My new theory is I just hate myself
I was going to use this time to post a review of Terry Pratchett's The Nation, or talk about the animated adaption of Weird Sisters, or possibly get back to making fun of comics, but all that takes energy that I frankly do not have, what with grading some undergrad papers (I am going to staple Strunker and White to their foreheads I swear to god). Instead I am taking the time to do something like a public service announcement, which is not a selfless act in that I'm hoping that it will in the future help keep my eyes from bleeding.
So you all know that I read some truly horrifically bad books, right? Look, we've all picked up a book that was less than stellar quality and end up reading the entire thing out of morbid fascination, or in my case I read it for something to feel snarkily superior to. But, and this is a big but, I sometimes find myself actively seeking out horrible things to read of my own free will. There are days when I could either read a extremely tight paced story with beautiful language and fantastic dialogue and wonderful, insightful characterization or I could read something retarded about angel babies being hatched from eggs, and I am all over the egg hatched angels (I truly wish I was making the angel thing up, but I'm not. Don't ask. Seriously, don't.)
It's like being given a choice between the finest of Swiss chocolates made by a chocolatier that has spent his entire life working and training and preparing to make this one perfect batch of chocolates, one taste of which would make you weep in joy and gratitude that something like this could exist in the word, and a Twinkie and you choose the Twinkie. Worse still, this is not an either/an choice: you can have both the Twinkie and the transcendent chocolate, and yet you reply that, no, thanks, it looks good but the Twinkie filled you up and you feel no need to eat the chocolates.
That might have gotten away from me for a bit, but the point I was trying to make (before I made myself crave truffles) is that I have read some really awful things in my life and I feel it is my duty to offer advice to those young writers out there. And when I offer this advice you better take it because otherwise I may be forced to kill you. Just so you know.
1. For god's sake, keep your tenses consistent.
Seriously, if I have to read one more goddamn piece of fiction where the writer cannot keep the tenses straight for more than two sentence then I'm going to harness Alan Moore levels of bitter and blow something up.
Look, young and impressionable writers, most fiction is written in the past tense (commonly seen in words ending in -ed for those who are unsure), but you can also employ present if the fancy takes you, but don't switch between them. If you're having trouble keeping tenses straight find someone to look over your work and point out where you mix them up or I will find out where you sleep and come for you. Trust me when I say you do not want that.
2. There are point of views other than first
Try investing in some third omniscient or third limited. Please, I am begging you. If I have to read one more story with a whiny, self-indulgent narrator I'm going to snap and voluntarily search out plots involving magical angel babies being hatched from eggs. OH WAIT THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENED SEE WHAT YOU'VE DRIVEN ME TO.
In all seriousness, though, I understand that most new writers employ first because it seems the safer choice, but be aware of what you're trying to achieve in your narrative and what pov might suit it better, which leads me to:
3. Stick with one pov
This is mainly for those working in third person limited. I think there is some confusion between the difference between third person omniscient and third person limited. In third omniscient, the narrator knows everything that's going on, all the characters' thoughts, motivation, actions, ect. In third limited, the narrative is filtered through one specific character, meaning the reader has access to his/her motivation and thoughts, but not to other characters'.
A mistake a lot of young writers making, including me when I was but a wee lass, is that mid-scene you'll switch from third limited focused on character A to third limited focused on character B. Do not do that. It's true that some authors employ that switch, but they are considerably better at their craft than you. Many young writers make the switch clumsy and that throws the reader out of the narrative. If you're not sure if you switched povs then once again get a reader for your work for the love of Space Buddha.
4. It's okay to use the word "said"
It is. You can trust your Aunty Jayne on this. Yes, yes, I know what you've learned in school, that you don't want overuse the word and that you should employ synonyms. But here's the thing in fiction: said is one of those words that become invisible to the reader. They'll just gloss over it. What they won't gloss over is exclaims, demands, argues, and whatever else your thesauruses vomits up. Just stick with said.
5. The use of epithets
I can write an entire goddamn book on this, but in short, if the characters have names, which I'm assuming they do, use their goddamn names. If the reader knows them as John then there is no reason why you refer to him as "the blond" or "the surfer" or "the baker" or what-the-fuck-ever in the narrative when he has a fucking name.
Don't worry about being repetitive. Like the word said, character names become invisible pretty quickly and the reader won't suddenly stop and go, "You know what? I wish the writer would stop calling John by his name. I am so sick of reading it."
There are exceptions to this, like if you introduce character X and character A doesn't know his name and refers to him as "blond boy" or "thug one" or whatever. But as soon as the character has a name use it.
Sometimes in the text, it is okay to refer to a character by, for example, their profession. That will signify them pulling rank on another character or thatthey know what the hell they're doing. But only do that once or twice, not every other sentence. In short, USE THEIR GODDAMN NAME OR I WILL COME FOR YOU.
6. It's "come," not "cum."
Cum is not a word and you are not twelve. Grow up.
7. Cocks should never be weeping.
And no, I am not talking about the bird. Look, I am not about to step in and tell you if you should or should not use a sex scene in your story. What I am saying is that you damn well need to be aware of your language and description in sex scenes or you're going to end up with something that's not erotic but a giant messy ball of hilarious mess.
If you want your sex scene to be awkward then by all means make your narrative and descriptions as awkward as possible to get that across. But if you want your scene to be sexy and erotic then "his weeping cock" is not going to achieve that.
Yes, yes, I am aware that the phrase is referring to the pre-come and all that, but it just makes me think the penis is sad, and no penis should be sad when it's about to be laid. Also, you use "weeping cock" and I will make fun of you forever. Even more than the person with the magically hatching angel babies.
6. Be really aware of your descriptions
This is related to the above, in that you don't want your reader to suddenly start laughing during a dramatic scene because you whipped out a weeping cock.
For example, I was perfectly invested in one story until I came upon "his rock hard abs." Instead of responding with, "My, he is most definitely a ripped and sexy individual," I IMed my Hetero Lifemate this: "ROCK HARD ABS, HL. HE WAS HEWN FROM ROCK."
That led to this exchange:
HL: They made him from the finest granite.
Jayne: He has to be careful if he lays out on the sun, otherwise lizards come to soak up the heat from his granite abs.
HL: He is like geiko-nip.
Jayne: Though he does have to watch out for erosion, because god knows that in twenty, thirty years, his abs aren't going to be rock hard so much as mudslide.
So unless that's what you're aiming for, get someone to read your work over and point out anything that is ridiculous.
7. Learn what the word "literally" actually means.
You know what, let me help you with that. Literally is defined as: "adv. in the literal or strict sense; word for word; actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy; in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually."
That means when you say something literally happens it actually happened just like you said. This is not a hard concept, people.
Let's look at some ways to use the word in the most inaccurate way possible:
"His eyes literally burned with an emotion."
Unless he is Superman or Cyclops then his eyes were not actually burning with an emotion. If his eyes were smoldering from an emotion (although god only knows which one it is, since the author doesn't specify. Possibly he is bored) then this story would have been far more exciting then it was.
"They literally devoured each other's mouths."
If that was what was actually happening then this is not a sexy kiss scene but cannibalism and drastically different then what the writer was going for. However, if the writer wanted to properly use literally here then just make the two characters zombies and you're good to go.
An example of the proper use of literally: "People who misuse the word 'literal' make me literally want to concuss them with a volume of the Oxford English Dictionary."
I am fully aware that this list will not cure me of my self-loathing quest to consume my body weight in the literary equivalent of Twinkies, but hopefully some of you young writers out there will take this advice and save me the effort of finding you and beating you to death with the OED. Because I will do it. As soon as I finish reading about the baby angel breaking forth from its shell. Aw, it's so fluffy like a little chick!
Share us with others! Hooray sharing!
So you all know that I read some truly horrifically bad books, right? Look, we've all picked up a book that was less than stellar quality and end up reading the entire thing out of morbid fascination, or in my case I read it for something to feel snarkily superior to. But, and this is a big but, I sometimes find myself actively seeking out horrible things to read of my own free will. There are days when I could either read a extremely tight paced story with beautiful language and fantastic dialogue and wonderful, insightful characterization or I could read something retarded about angel babies being hatched from eggs, and I am all over the egg hatched angels (I truly wish I was making the angel thing up, but I'm not. Don't ask. Seriously, don't.)
It's like being given a choice between the finest of Swiss chocolates made by a chocolatier that has spent his entire life working and training and preparing to make this one perfect batch of chocolates, one taste of which would make you weep in joy and gratitude that something like this could exist in the word, and a Twinkie and you choose the Twinkie. Worse still, this is not an either/an choice: you can have both the Twinkie and the transcendent chocolate, and yet you reply that, no, thanks, it looks good but the Twinkie filled you up and you feel no need to eat the chocolates.
That might have gotten away from me for a bit, but the point I was trying to make (before I made myself crave truffles) is that I have read some really awful things in my life and I feel it is my duty to offer advice to those young writers out there. And when I offer this advice you better take it because otherwise I may be forced to kill you. Just so you know.
1. For god's sake, keep your tenses consistent.
Seriously, if I have to read one more goddamn piece of fiction where the writer cannot keep the tenses straight for more than two sentence then I'm going to harness Alan Moore levels of bitter and blow something up.
Look, young and impressionable writers, most fiction is written in the past tense (commonly seen in words ending in -ed for those who are unsure), but you can also employ present if the fancy takes you, but don't switch between them. If you're having trouble keeping tenses straight find someone to look over your work and point out where you mix them up or I will find out where you sleep and come for you. Trust me when I say you do not want that.
2. There are point of views other than first
Try investing in some third omniscient or third limited. Please, I am begging you. If I have to read one more story with a whiny, self-indulgent narrator I'm going to snap and voluntarily search out plots involving magical angel babies being hatched from eggs. OH WAIT THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENED SEE WHAT YOU'VE DRIVEN ME TO.
In all seriousness, though, I understand that most new writers employ first because it seems the safer choice, but be aware of what you're trying to achieve in your narrative and what pov might suit it better, which leads me to:
3. Stick with one pov
This is mainly for those working in third person limited. I think there is some confusion between the difference between third person omniscient and third person limited. In third omniscient, the narrator knows everything that's going on, all the characters' thoughts, motivation, actions, ect. In third limited, the narrative is filtered through one specific character, meaning the reader has access to his/her motivation and thoughts, but not to other characters'.
A mistake a lot of young writers making, including me when I was but a wee lass, is that mid-scene you'll switch from third limited focused on character A to third limited focused on character B. Do not do that. It's true that some authors employ that switch, but they are considerably better at their craft than you. Many young writers make the switch clumsy and that throws the reader out of the narrative. If you're not sure if you switched povs then once again get a reader for your work for the love of Space Buddha.
4. It's okay to use the word "said"
It is. You can trust your Aunty Jayne on this. Yes, yes, I know what you've learned in school, that you don't want overuse the word and that you should employ synonyms. But here's the thing in fiction: said is one of those words that become invisible to the reader. They'll just gloss over it. What they won't gloss over is exclaims, demands, argues, and whatever else your thesauruses vomits up. Just stick with said.
5. The use of epithets
I can write an entire goddamn book on this, but in short, if the characters have names, which I'm assuming they do, use their goddamn names. If the reader knows them as John then there is no reason why you refer to him as "the blond" or "the surfer" or "the baker" or what-the-fuck-ever in the narrative when he has a fucking name.
Don't worry about being repetitive. Like the word said, character names become invisible pretty quickly and the reader won't suddenly stop and go, "You know what? I wish the writer would stop calling John by his name. I am so sick of reading it."
There are exceptions to this, like if you introduce character X and character A doesn't know his name and refers to him as "blond boy" or "thug one" or whatever. But as soon as the character has a name use it.
Sometimes in the text, it is okay to refer to a character by, for example, their profession. That will signify them pulling rank on another character or thatthey know what the hell they're doing. But only do that once or twice, not every other sentence. In short, USE THEIR GODDAMN NAME OR I WILL COME FOR YOU.
6. It's "come," not "cum."
Cum is not a word and you are not twelve. Grow up.
7. Cocks should never be weeping.
And no, I am not talking about the bird. Look, I am not about to step in and tell you if you should or should not use a sex scene in your story. What I am saying is that you damn well need to be aware of your language and description in sex scenes or you're going to end up with something that's not erotic but a giant messy ball of hilarious mess.
If you want your sex scene to be awkward then by all means make your narrative and descriptions as awkward as possible to get that across. But if you want your scene to be sexy and erotic then "his weeping cock" is not going to achieve that.
Yes, yes, I am aware that the phrase is referring to the pre-come and all that, but it just makes me think the penis is sad, and no penis should be sad when it's about to be laid. Also, you use "weeping cock" and I will make fun of you forever. Even more than the person with the magically hatching angel babies.
6. Be really aware of your descriptions
This is related to the above, in that you don't want your reader to suddenly start laughing during a dramatic scene because you whipped out a weeping cock.
For example, I was perfectly invested in one story until I came upon "his rock hard abs." Instead of responding with, "My, he is most definitely a ripped and sexy individual," I IMed my Hetero Lifemate this: "ROCK HARD ABS, HL. HE WAS HEWN FROM ROCK."
That led to this exchange:
HL: They made him from the finest granite.
Jayne: He has to be careful if he lays out on the sun, otherwise lizards come to soak up the heat from his granite abs.
HL: He is like geiko-nip.
Jayne: Though he does have to watch out for erosion, because god knows that in twenty, thirty years, his abs aren't going to be rock hard so much as mudslide.
So unless that's what you're aiming for, get someone to read your work over and point out anything that is ridiculous.
7. Learn what the word "literally" actually means.
You know what, let me help you with that. Literally is defined as: "adv. in the literal or strict sense; word for word; actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy; in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually."
That means when you say something literally happens it actually happened just like you said. This is not a hard concept, people.
Let's look at some ways to use the word in the most inaccurate way possible:
"His eyes literally burned with an emotion."
Unless he is Superman or Cyclops then his eyes were not actually burning with an emotion. If his eyes were smoldering from an emotion (although god only knows which one it is, since the author doesn't specify. Possibly he is bored) then this story would have been far more exciting then it was.
"They literally devoured each other's mouths."
If that was what was actually happening then this is not a sexy kiss scene but cannibalism and drastically different then what the writer was going for. However, if the writer wanted to properly use literally here then just make the two characters zombies and you're good to go.
An example of the proper use of literally: "People who misuse the word 'literal' make me literally want to concuss them with a volume of the Oxford English Dictionary."
I am fully aware that this list will not cure me of my self-loathing quest to consume my body weight in the literary equivalent of Twinkies, but hopefully some of you young writers out there will take this advice and save me the effort of finding you and beating you to death with the OED. Because I will do it. As soon as I finish reading about the baby angel breaking forth from its shell. Aw, it's so fluffy like a little chick!
Share us with others! Hooray sharing!
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Wonder Whoa-man!
Thank the Almighty and benevolent Space Buddah I finally (through entirely legal means, I swear!) mustered up the cash to buy the Wonder Woman movie on DVD. (Two -disc Special Edition! Yay!)
I've already expressed my mild rage that it's taken this long for Wondy to get her own feature so I won't reiterate it here. I was really excited to see this movie but now I'm not all together sure it was worth the wait. Don't get me wrong! I really liked this movie, but I'm hoping this is just the feelers being put out for interest in bringing her to a wider audience, be that through either the TV or motion picture medium. This was an entertaining movie but it could have been so much better. I think we can go a lot further with her story without perverting her image, making it a magical-girl anime knock off or turning her into the host of Princess Diana's Pandering
Comedy Hour for Basement Dwelling Mouth-Breathers.
This movie was produced for the expanding direct-to-DVD DC Animated movie line by the Bruce Timm production family over at Warner Bros. Everything that man's name is on says quality, so I was so excited to see his Wondy designs. The movie was written by GAIL SIMONE who's very name makes me flail with joy. She writes things that are awesome; Jayne and I argue weekly over who of us wants to bear her children more...despite the obvious hinderances.
Those, besides obvious members of the voice acting cast, are the only names attached to this project that I care about.
This review is in the play-by-play style and very spoilery. If you care, DO NOT read this post.
Monday, September 14, 2009
I'm not really here
If anyone asks, I am totally revising this draft and doing reading for class. Totally.
But if I was here, I would mention that this is relevant to your interests--well, I'm assuming it is, and since you are reading a blog written by geeky girls then I'm probably right.
I went and saw the original broadcast and, seriously, it was entirely awesome. I was buzzed and the theater was packed with MST3K fans and Jonathon Coulton is there being awesome, as is his wont, and, come on, it's them making fun of Ed Wood. What's not to love? Absolutely nothing unless you are dead inside or Alan Moore (these two states are actually synonymous).
Also, you end up getting a lot of free goodie downloads, including a song about plans 1-8, which if you mosey along over here you can download it. Because I love you guys.
If it's playing in your area you need to go, or Alan Moore will come for you.
(Disclaimer: Alan Moore is going to come for you anyway, so you might as well make sure it's for something you deserve.)
But if I was here, I would mention that this is relevant to your interests--well, I'm assuming it is, and since you are reading a blog written by geeky girls then I'm probably right.
I went and saw the original broadcast and, seriously, it was entirely awesome. I was buzzed and the theater was packed with MST3K fans and Jonathon Coulton is there being awesome, as is his wont, and, come on, it's them making fun of Ed Wood. What's not to love? Absolutely nothing unless you are dead inside or Alan Moore (these two states are actually synonymous).
Also, you end up getting a lot of free goodie downloads, including a song about plans 1-8, which if you mosey along over here you can download it. Because I love you guys.
If it's playing in your area you need to go, or Alan Moore will come for you.
(Disclaimer: Alan Moore is going to come for you anyway, so you might as well make sure it's for something you deserve.)
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Why I should never be left alone with the internets
So at this point in our blogging relationship, I hope most of you realize that not only am I a hateful, bitter person, but that in most cases my brain actively frightens me, which leads to some very interesting results. And by that I mean I can draw some crazy conclusions from even the most innocuous of statements (see everything I have ever written about Alan Moore). I like to believe this is what makes me a good writer, but deep down I know it just means I am insane.
This also means much like the Japanese pop singer Gackt, I should never be let out in public without a handler (if interested, I will perhaps one day explain the reasoning behind this sentence). For example, let us explore what I loosely call my "thought processes."
My hetero lifemate, bless her little enabling heart, sent me a couple of links to a picture of a moth which led to me wishing that Alan Moore had his own television show. If you cannot see how those two things can possibly be connected then congratulations: you are not insane!
Alas, I have long ago lost any shred of good sense I ever had and thus my brain leaped and bounded and cartwheeled in the batshit crazy territory with abandon.
Let us try to follow the overgrown corkscrewed paths of my thought processes, shall we?
It started with this. This is a normal moth:
This is a hell beast that just rubs its legs together and whispers Latin in your ear at night:
This was my initial response: OH SWEET ZOMBIE JESUS GET SOME HOLY WATER AND KILL IT.
Eventually, after I could look at the screen without flinching and searching for a flamethrower, I told my hetero lifemate thus: "Oh god, I bet it's one of the elder gods. Actually, like those moths in the Lord of the Ring movies, I bet Alan Moore doesn't use the mail and instead employs this to deliver his messages. His beard whispers instructions to it in dead languages that have not existed for thousands of years..."
My enabling hetero lifemate's response: YES!
And this is the point where it didn't so much as spiral down into craziness as it leaped off with a faulty jet pack to plummet down the cliffs of insanity ala Wile E. Coyote style.
I have named the moth Yad-Thaddag, because if that hell-moth isn't an elder god I don't know what is (my hetero lifemate maintains that it is really Beezlebub. That is also highly likely, oh god, look at it, I need to hide under my blankie now.)
This is what I told my hetero lifemate:
Oh god, can you imagine poor Neil Gaiman's wife coming downstairs in the morning and seeing that waiting on the counter for her? Poor woman would try to beat it to death with a chair. Nothing short of divine intervention can kill this thing.
Neil Gaiman: Oh, hey, honey, Alan Moore wants to know if we can come to dinner. Honey? Why do you have that axe?
It did not stop there. There is more:
Alan Moore: Neil, why did Yad-Thaddag return with its wing bent?
Neil Gaiman: Um, yeah, sorry about that, Alan. But my daughter was trying to stab it with a carving knife.
Alan Moore: I was just wishing her a happy birthday.
Neil Gaiman: Alan, it...it came at her at head height.
My hetero lifemate responded with "Hee! Oh, Alan, this is why you have like two friends and they are AFRAID to unfriend you!"
If you doubt that this would actually exist, here's a picture of Alan Moore being inherently creepy for no other than reason than he can.
Is it wrong for me to now wish that Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore had their own show? And by that I mean the persona of Alan Moore that exists inside my own head. I'm sure in real life Neil Gaiman would be charming and say delightful things and then Alan Moore would silently stare through the television screen and into your soul for thirty seconds until Neil Gaiman came back to talk you back down.
No, I want this show where Alan Moore is being bitter and crazy and Neil Gaiman is just being dragged into these adventures against his will and every episode ends with Alan Moore staring into your soul through the television screen while Neil Gaiman makes you a cup of tea to help stave off your nightmares. Because I would watch that show. I would watch the hell out of it.
In a related note: I am now taking applications for anyone interested in becoming my handler. All the job entails is slapping my hand and saying in a loud, authoritative voice, "No, Jayne! Normal people don't think about Alan Moore and Gackt this much!" when I look thoughtful and start to giggle to myself. Then you just have to keep me away from all computers until I calm down and am capable of having a rational conversation again (note: this could take hours. Applicants must be patient).
In conclusion, I just want to say DON'T YOU JUDGE ME.
Share us with others! Hooray sharing!
Share us with others! Hooray sharing!
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Oh for god's sake, are you kidding me?
I am not, in fact, dead, despite my homicidal oven's best efforts. I won't go into details, but there was gas and a small ball of flame that blew open the oven door, blew out my pilot light, and tried to singe the skin off my finger. Also, I suspect my oven is conspiring with other elements in my apartment because not five minutes after the tiny fireball the blinds fell off my window for no other reason than to add insult to injury. I expect any day now for my fan to turn on me.
Murderous household appliances aside, I decided it was good a time as any to share some of my bitterness, because why be spiteful if you can't spread it around? (Note: this explains Alan Moore's existence.)
In a fit of boredom as I waited to counter the oven's latest attempt on my life, I was surfing the internet when, lo, I came upon this gem of complete and utter bullshit craziness. Go read it. No, seriously. I'll wait.
Back already? In case you're wondering, yes, Harry Potter just got turned into a religion. Everyone together now: what the fucking fuck?
All right, tiny little warning before I get into this. I'm actually going to discuss the Harry Potter series, something I've had really no inclination to do before because the series is finally concluded, it's been two years since the last book was released, and, to be honest, I care little for the series itself. Yes, that means I am going to be very critical (read: bitter) about the books and Rowling, so if you hold a deep love for the series you might want to go read Darcy's quite lovely review of the movie. You could also stick around and argue with me in the comments and that would be equally as awesome, because I love a good argument (I fully expect Darcy to take me up on this).
That out of the way, let's move on. I don't know whether to sit these people down and take away all pointy objects or perhaps buy them puppies and kittens and hope the cute little animals distract them from interacting with the world, because damn, people, damn.
Look, I'm not about to dispute that Harry Potter is a huge cultural phenomenon--at least it's less inexplicable then, say, Twilight--but it's not the pinnacle of children's literature, or any literature at all, actually. It started as a few series of books about a boy going to a magical school and having magical adventures and then spiraled out into Rowling's message bout Love and Death and other nonsense.
I am all for books that get kids excited to read, but people have been writing fantasy series with deep layers far longer and better than Rowling. Just off the top of my head you have Pullman's His Dark Materials and Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising series (which a tragically few people know about and I have now made it my mission to introduce as many people to it as humanly possible). I didn't cite Narnia here because everyone knows Narnia, and, to be honest, the last book in the series is problematic if you're anything but a white, hardcore Christian.
I will admit that I quite enjoyed the first three Potter books, especially Prisoner of Azkaban, which took risks for a children's book. Goblet of Fire and onwards was just an increasing mess, not helped by Rowling's undeniable success and the fact her editors apparently just gave up. For example, is there anyone out there that thought it was vital to the plot of The Deathly Hallows for Harry and co. to sit around under a magical tent in some field for what felt like 900 endless pages? Anyone?
Not to mention that Rowling's writing itself started to decline, which became evident in the last book where the pacing was shot to hell, and we had gems like this: "The suddenness and completeness of death was with them like a presence." I'm sorry, but on what planet is that considered good writing?
A lot of people cite the sheer amount of pages of Harry Potter as a mark of the scope of the work. I won't deny that Rowling did put a lot of effort into making the series rather epic, and she did, arguable, succeed in that sense. However, the sheer amount of words you write doesn't making anything epic or deep.
For example, take Cooper's The Dark is Rising. It's only five books to Harry Potter's seven, and only a fraction as long. In fact, the third and fourth books, The Green Witch and The Grey King respectively, don't even break two hundred pages. And this is absolutely not at all a weakness. I'll be the first to admit that Cooper's writing is dense enough that so much can be packed into one page that I often find myself reading it to get everything. This is a strength, because Cooper does not waste one word. The same cannot be said about Rowling and the magical tent of pace killing boredom.
In fact, Cooper is such a master of making use of her space that one of the most important characters in the entire series only appears in the last two books, but by the end I knew him better than Harry, who I had spent seven books with, and Dumbledore of the interminable exposition back story dump of oh my god Rowling seriously.
And, for the record, killing off characters does not make one edgy or dark, especially when the characters you kill off only include secondary characters and an owl. It says nothing about Death other than that Rowling thought she was being dark and edgy. You killed an owl, Rowling. Shut up.
As seen in the article about Rowling's website, Rowling has an interesting relationship with her readers and with fandom. I'm not even going to get into Harry Potter fandom because it's a giant, frightening beast, but will discuss the way that Rowling and fandom intersect.
In this day and age with the internet making things so easy, fandom is an entirely different creatures than pre-iternet days where you had to go hunt down convention and 'zines to get your fanfic fix. Now you do a simple google search and viola! You can find porn for any pairing your twisted little heart desires.
Most authors and creators take a rather ambivalent stance to fandom and transformative works (i.e. fanfiction, fanart, and fanvids) and pretty much stay away from it. Some, like Robin Hobb, see fanfic as encroaching on their ownership of the work and destroying her carefully constructed novels (I do not agree with this, because people are going to take away different things from your work and you cannot control that or how they expound on those interpretations). Others, like Terry Pratchett, accept it but make no move to actively seek out transformative works based on their creations.
Rowling...is an interesting case. Harry Potter fandom is so prevelant that even if you are not actively seeking things out, you're going to pick up some idea of it via osmosis if nothing else. In Harry Potter fandom it's pretty apparent that one of the major pairings is Sirius/Remus. It may have no canon basis, but a lot of fandom extrapolates what they want from cannon and then runs with it.
I've mentioned up there in an aside about personal interpretation and how an author cannot control it. An author can, of course, guide it by suggesting and outright stating things in the text, but at the end of the day it is the reader who takes what they want from the work. Now I'm not about to suggest all interpretations have equal validity, because anyone who has ever sat through a freshmen lit course knows what nonsense that is. What I am suggesting is that two people can read the same text and take different things away from it depending on their point of view, and that is what makes books and the act of reading rather amazing.
Rowling appears to disagree and seems intent on doing the interpretation for the reader. Look, as a writing student I can sympathize that it's frustrating if your audience doesn't take away what you want, but that suggests the fault lays with you the writer and not the audience. Rowling seems to be of the mindset it's the audience's fault and will do everything she can to rectify it.
Take the Remus/Sirius fandom created relationship that I mentioned paragraphs ago (I did have a point in that). In whatever book, six or seven maybe, Harry goes into Sirius' old room and sees that he had up multiple posters of half-naked woman. This is pretty much Rowling telling those who create work advocating that Remus and Sirius were going at it like bunnies to fuck off because Sirius is completely and utterly straight, damnit! That's a real mature response to your audience, Rowling.
To make matters worse, in her latest book Beedle the Bard after every story there are Dumbledore's notes, which is literally Rowling telling you how to interpret her work. In doing so Rowling is actively taking away the reader's own interpretation, leaving nothing for them to interact with. That does not make reading fun. It makes it boring and dull and insulting. Well done, Rowling.
Out of this cultural phenomena, you get The Harry Potter Alliance. I won't deny that the Alliance has done some wonderful things, donating books to schools in Rwanda, but the fact that they decided to make their moral compass a character from a mediocre children's book series is worrying and infuriating.
Look, there is a long history of books raising social activism, which is amazing and awe inspiring. But, I have to tell you, Harry Potter isn't exactly on the same level as Uncle Tom's Cabin or The Jungle. Harry Potter is only a few steps up from Twilight: How to Get Yourself into an Abusive Relationship.
Slack is using Dumbledore as an indicator of right and wrong, the same man who sent a seventeen year old boy off to willingly die. And, yes, I know, Harry had to die because he had a piece of Voldemort's soul in him and so on, that does not take into the account Dumbledore spent much of the series being some God-like figure who wouldn't get off his ass to perhaps find a way to keep a young boy alive. Awesome.
And then there's this paragraph in particular:
"Slack relates all sorts of social issues back to themes in the Harry Potter books. Using the opinions of Harry's mentor Albus Dumbledore as a moral compass, Slack suggests Potter fans should fight prison torture because Dumbledore was against Dementors, and that they should support fair trade because Dumbledore agreed on giving rights to house elves."
I don't know whether to frame this paragraph or go on a week long bender. Again, books promoting social activism is a good thing, but Jesus Christ, taking something as complex as free trade and relating it to Rowling's rather patronizing and condescending attitude to house elves and social classes is fucking ridiculous.
And, of course, Rowling has her own say in this: "What did my books preach against throughout? Bigotry, violence, struggles for power, no matter what. All of these things are happening in Darfur. So they couldn't have chosen a better cause."
Oh my god, shut up, you stupid, arrogant, smug little woman!
It is evident that Rowling was trying to make big statements about Tolerance and Love and Death in her books but if you look below the shiny surface she pretty much failed.
Yes, Rowling, you preached tolerance in that you literally turned Death Eaters into Nazis. That's as deep and profound as saying, "You know what? Hitler was a crazy, horrible human being and genocide is bad."
And you definitely fought bigotry by making your protagonists any ethnicity beside Caucasian and any class other that, say, middle. Oh wait, you completely didn't. In fact, your text is pretty much a construct of bigotry.
Let's take the issue of race first, shall we? Harry is white from a (albeit abusive) middle class family. Hermoine? Well, she's female, but still white from middle class family. Ron: white, but from lower middle class. That's not really ground breaking. In fact, everyone in your books are pretty much white, aren't they? Accept for Dean, who is black, and Cho Chang, who is Asian. In the movies I think those twins in Gryffindor whose names I never bothered to learn because you never bothered to give them personalities are British Indian, but I'm not sure if that was ever stated in the books.
So your hero is a white, middle class kid who literally gets turned into a Christ figure. Way not to subvert anything but to completely uphold the idea that only heroes get to be white. God forbid Harry was Indian or Asian or anything that wasn't white, because he was the hero, damnit, and how would kids identify with him if he wasn't white as the driven snow?
And, yes, Rowling, you claim to be a feminist, but of your prominent female characters, mainly Hermoine and Ginny, both end up married to their childhood sweethearts. Hermoine is smart and way more capable than either Harry or Ron, but she's a girl and therefore couldn't be the hero either. Women are there to be the love interest or to help the hero, not to save the day themselves.
Moving onto a wider view point, the entire text is almost in support of bigotry and stratification. The wizarding world is presented as being better than anything else ever. Rowling pretty much outright said this in an interview, and while this is her creation and she can think whatever the hell she wants, I, for one, will take e-mail over mail delivered by owl any day.
Now the books, with one or two small deviations, are from Harry's point of view, and this idealization of the wizarding world makes sense. Harry came from a horrible family that abused him for years--anything would seem better after that.
The problem comes when Rowling widened the scope of the books. If this series were truly about tolerance and preaching against bigotry then it should become clear that the muggles and the giants and werewolves and all the rest were just as important and just as valid as the wizards. Sure, Rowling paid lip service to trying to bring together giants and werewolves to fight against Voldemort and his Nazis, but in the end were they important?
No. The day was saved by the white middle class Jesus, thus proving the wizarding world is still the best ever, no question, everyone else can just suck it and accept their status as second class citizens.
Except for house elves, because if we pretend you're people you'll get back in the kitchen faster.
Oh, by the way, that brings me to the houses of Hogwarts. Rowling made it damn clear that Gryffindor is the best and Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw are not even close seconds and anyone sorted in Slytherin is pure evil because ambition is the devil.
That's a really interesting theme there, because, let's face it, Harry Potter is the more passive character to ever passive in the history of passivity. He is the Boy Who Lived. All his heroics boil down to his ability to not die. If this were another writer I would suspect Rowling was subverting what it is to be hero, but since this is Rowling, I'm left suspecting that for her ambition is, by her definition, evil.
Take Philosopher's Stone for example. Harry gets the stone because he have absolutely no ambition or motivation to ever use it. Dumbledore said that if did have any sort of inclination to, you know, actually do anything the stone would be denied him. That's pretty much Harry's constant theme: he does these things because Dumbledore tells him to, not because he has any personal will or ambition of his own.
(Aside, Daniel Hemmens at FerretBrain.com has written a lot of really interesting articles about Harry Potter the themes in the book here. Be warned that he is way more harsh and critical than me, so you might want to proceed with caution.)
But I digress. Let's tackle the idea of tolerance, shall we? Harry Potter does preach tolerance, if by "tolerance" you mean that Voldemort is, in the words of Eddie Izzard, "a genocidal fuckhead." I think most people reading the books agree that wiping out and subjugating entire races is bad. Those that disagree are probably not reading Harry Potter and and are unlikely to have their minds changed by children's books.
You know what would have been a lot more striking about this book in regard to tolerance, Rowling? If everyone wasn't white and straight. Oh wait, Dumbledore was supposed to be gay, wasn't he? Even though you couldn't be bothered to state that in the actual text, because why would gay and lesbian kids out there need someone they could identify with?
Also, Rowling stated that Dumbledore fell in love with a man once when he was eighteen. We never know if it was requited, just that he became asexual afterwards. Um, Rowling? Yeah, that's not a basis of homosexuality. Asexuality is part of the human sexuality spectrum, but to be homosexual Dumbledore has to be sexually attracted to other men and have sex with them. What you've done is made an old man who wears robes (read: dresses) into a homosexual because any man that isn't married and dresses weird is apparently gay. Well done.
In fact, you know what would have been really interesting? If at the end of your book where everyone is happily paired off with their 2.5 children and the house and the fence and the dog if you had a happily in love gay or lesbian couple in there as well. You don't have to make a big deal about it. Actually, it would work a whole lot better if you presented it as being completely and utterly normal. Hell, you could make them childhood sweethearts to stick with the theme of you finding your true love at eleven. That would have said more about Love and Tolerance than your 9,000 pages about how Nazis are bad.
In short, I find the Harry Potter Alliance ridiculous not because of the work they do but that the fact they advocate these books as the be all and end all of moral guidance (for fuck's sake, Slack says it's "Talmudic." Fuck you, Slack.)
They ask What Would Dumbledore Do?
Based on my reading of the text, I would say he would find an eleven-year-old boy, who after years of physical and psychological abuse and neglect, would latch onto the first kind word from a father figure, and spend the next seven years shaping him into an unthinking sacrifical lamb he would send to the slaughter to end a war he can't be bothered to get up his ass for more than two seconds to do anything about. That's what Dumbledore would do.
Murderous household appliances aside, I decided it was good a time as any to share some of my bitterness, because why be spiteful if you can't spread it around? (Note: this explains Alan Moore's existence.)
In a fit of boredom as I waited to counter the oven's latest attempt on my life, I was surfing the internet when, lo, I came upon this gem of complete and utter bullshit craziness. Go read it. No, seriously. I'll wait.
Back already? In case you're wondering, yes, Harry Potter just got turned into a religion. Everyone together now: what the fucking fuck?
All right, tiny little warning before I get into this. I'm actually going to discuss the Harry Potter series, something I've had really no inclination to do before because the series is finally concluded, it's been two years since the last book was released, and, to be honest, I care little for the series itself. Yes, that means I am going to be very critical (read: bitter) about the books and Rowling, so if you hold a deep love for the series you might want to go read Darcy's quite lovely review of the movie. You could also stick around and argue with me in the comments and that would be equally as awesome, because I love a good argument (I fully expect Darcy to take me up on this).
That out of the way, let's move on. I don't know whether to sit these people down and take away all pointy objects or perhaps buy them puppies and kittens and hope the cute little animals distract them from interacting with the world, because damn, people, damn.
Look, I'm not about to dispute that Harry Potter is a huge cultural phenomenon--at least it's less inexplicable then, say, Twilight--but it's not the pinnacle of children's literature, or any literature at all, actually. It started as a few series of books about a boy going to a magical school and having magical adventures and then spiraled out into Rowling's message bout Love and Death and other nonsense.
I am all for books that get kids excited to read, but people have been writing fantasy series with deep layers far longer and better than Rowling. Just off the top of my head you have Pullman's His Dark Materials and Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising series (which a tragically few people know about and I have now made it my mission to introduce as many people to it as humanly possible). I didn't cite Narnia here because everyone knows Narnia, and, to be honest, the last book in the series is problematic if you're anything but a white, hardcore Christian.
I will admit that I quite enjoyed the first three Potter books, especially Prisoner of Azkaban, which took risks for a children's book. Goblet of Fire and onwards was just an increasing mess, not helped by Rowling's undeniable success and the fact her editors apparently just gave up. For example, is there anyone out there that thought it was vital to the plot of The Deathly Hallows for Harry and co. to sit around under a magical tent in some field for what felt like 900 endless pages? Anyone?
Not to mention that Rowling's writing itself started to decline, which became evident in the last book where the pacing was shot to hell, and we had gems like this: "The suddenness and completeness of death was with them like a presence." I'm sorry, but on what planet is that considered good writing?
A lot of people cite the sheer amount of pages of Harry Potter as a mark of the scope of the work. I won't deny that Rowling did put a lot of effort into making the series rather epic, and she did, arguable, succeed in that sense. However, the sheer amount of words you write doesn't making anything epic or deep.
For example, take Cooper's The Dark is Rising. It's only five books to Harry Potter's seven, and only a fraction as long. In fact, the third and fourth books, The Green Witch and The Grey King respectively, don't even break two hundred pages. And this is absolutely not at all a weakness. I'll be the first to admit that Cooper's writing is dense enough that so much can be packed into one page that I often find myself reading it to get everything. This is a strength, because Cooper does not waste one word. The same cannot be said about Rowling and the magical tent of pace killing boredom.
In fact, Cooper is such a master of making use of her space that one of the most important characters in the entire series only appears in the last two books, but by the end I knew him better than Harry, who I had spent seven books with, and Dumbledore of the interminable exposition back story dump of oh my god Rowling seriously.
And, for the record, killing off characters does not make one edgy or dark, especially when the characters you kill off only include secondary characters and an owl. It says nothing about Death other than that Rowling thought she was being dark and edgy. You killed an owl, Rowling. Shut up.
As seen in the article about Rowling's website, Rowling has an interesting relationship with her readers and with fandom. I'm not even going to get into Harry Potter fandom because it's a giant, frightening beast, but will discuss the way that Rowling and fandom intersect.
In this day and age with the internet making things so easy, fandom is an entirely different creatures than pre-iternet days where you had to go hunt down convention and 'zines to get your fanfic fix. Now you do a simple google search and viola! You can find porn for any pairing your twisted little heart desires.
Most authors and creators take a rather ambivalent stance to fandom and transformative works (i.e. fanfiction, fanart, and fanvids) and pretty much stay away from it. Some, like Robin Hobb, see fanfic as encroaching on their ownership of the work and destroying her carefully constructed novels (I do not agree with this, because people are going to take away different things from your work and you cannot control that or how they expound on those interpretations). Others, like Terry Pratchett, accept it but make no move to actively seek out transformative works based on their creations.
Rowling...is an interesting case. Harry Potter fandom is so prevelant that even if you are not actively seeking things out, you're going to pick up some idea of it via osmosis if nothing else. In Harry Potter fandom it's pretty apparent that one of the major pairings is Sirius/Remus. It may have no canon basis, but a lot of fandom extrapolates what they want from cannon and then runs with it.
I've mentioned up there in an aside about personal interpretation and how an author cannot control it. An author can, of course, guide it by suggesting and outright stating things in the text, but at the end of the day it is the reader who takes what they want from the work. Now I'm not about to suggest all interpretations have equal validity, because anyone who has ever sat through a freshmen lit course knows what nonsense that is. What I am suggesting is that two people can read the same text and take different things away from it depending on their point of view, and that is what makes books and the act of reading rather amazing.
Rowling appears to disagree and seems intent on doing the interpretation for the reader. Look, as a writing student I can sympathize that it's frustrating if your audience doesn't take away what you want, but that suggests the fault lays with you the writer and not the audience. Rowling seems to be of the mindset it's the audience's fault and will do everything she can to rectify it.
Take the Remus/Sirius fandom created relationship that I mentioned paragraphs ago (I did have a point in that). In whatever book, six or seven maybe, Harry goes into Sirius' old room and sees that he had up multiple posters of half-naked woman. This is pretty much Rowling telling those who create work advocating that Remus and Sirius were going at it like bunnies to fuck off because Sirius is completely and utterly straight, damnit! That's a real mature response to your audience, Rowling.
To make matters worse, in her latest book Beedle the Bard after every story there are Dumbledore's notes, which is literally Rowling telling you how to interpret her work. In doing so Rowling is actively taking away the reader's own interpretation, leaving nothing for them to interact with. That does not make reading fun. It makes it boring and dull and insulting. Well done, Rowling.
Out of this cultural phenomena, you get The Harry Potter Alliance. I won't deny that the Alliance has done some wonderful things, donating books to schools in Rwanda, but the fact that they decided to make their moral compass a character from a mediocre children's book series is worrying and infuriating.
Look, there is a long history of books raising social activism, which is amazing and awe inspiring. But, I have to tell you, Harry Potter isn't exactly on the same level as Uncle Tom's Cabin or The Jungle. Harry Potter is only a few steps up from Twilight: How to Get Yourself into an Abusive Relationship.
Slack is using Dumbledore as an indicator of right and wrong, the same man who sent a seventeen year old boy off to willingly die. And, yes, I know, Harry had to die because he had a piece of Voldemort's soul in him and so on, that does not take into the account Dumbledore spent much of the series being some God-like figure who wouldn't get off his ass to perhaps find a way to keep a young boy alive. Awesome.
And then there's this paragraph in particular:
"Slack relates all sorts of social issues back to themes in the Harry Potter books. Using the opinions of Harry's mentor Albus Dumbledore as a moral compass, Slack suggests Potter fans should fight prison torture because Dumbledore was against Dementors, and that they should support fair trade because Dumbledore agreed on giving rights to house elves."
I don't know whether to frame this paragraph or go on a week long bender. Again, books promoting social activism is a good thing, but Jesus Christ, taking something as complex as free trade and relating it to Rowling's rather patronizing and condescending attitude to house elves and social classes is fucking ridiculous.
And, of course, Rowling has her own say in this: "What did my books preach against throughout? Bigotry, violence, struggles for power, no matter what. All of these things are happening in Darfur. So they couldn't have chosen a better cause."
Oh my god, shut up, you stupid, arrogant, smug little woman!
It is evident that Rowling was trying to make big statements about Tolerance and Love and Death in her books but if you look below the shiny surface she pretty much failed.
Yes, Rowling, you preached tolerance in that you literally turned Death Eaters into Nazis. That's as deep and profound as saying, "You know what? Hitler was a crazy, horrible human being and genocide is bad."
And you definitely fought bigotry by making your protagonists any ethnicity beside Caucasian and any class other that, say, middle. Oh wait, you completely didn't. In fact, your text is pretty much a construct of bigotry.
Let's take the issue of race first, shall we? Harry is white from a (albeit abusive) middle class family. Hermoine? Well, she's female, but still white from middle class family. Ron: white, but from lower middle class. That's not really ground breaking. In fact, everyone in your books are pretty much white, aren't they? Accept for Dean, who is black, and Cho Chang, who is Asian. In the movies I think those twins in Gryffindor whose names I never bothered to learn because you never bothered to give them personalities are British Indian, but I'm not sure if that was ever stated in the books.
So your hero is a white, middle class kid who literally gets turned into a Christ figure. Way not to subvert anything but to completely uphold the idea that only heroes get to be white. God forbid Harry was Indian or Asian or anything that wasn't white, because he was the hero, damnit, and how would kids identify with him if he wasn't white as the driven snow?
And, yes, Rowling, you claim to be a feminist, but of your prominent female characters, mainly Hermoine and Ginny, both end up married to their childhood sweethearts. Hermoine is smart and way more capable than either Harry or Ron, but she's a girl and therefore couldn't be the hero either. Women are there to be the love interest or to help the hero, not to save the day themselves.
Moving onto a wider view point, the entire text is almost in support of bigotry and stratification. The wizarding world is presented as being better than anything else ever. Rowling pretty much outright said this in an interview, and while this is her creation and she can think whatever the hell she wants, I, for one, will take e-mail over mail delivered by owl any day.
Now the books, with one or two small deviations, are from Harry's point of view, and this idealization of the wizarding world makes sense. Harry came from a horrible family that abused him for years--anything would seem better after that.
The problem comes when Rowling widened the scope of the books. If this series were truly about tolerance and preaching against bigotry then it should become clear that the muggles and the giants and werewolves and all the rest were just as important and just as valid as the wizards. Sure, Rowling paid lip service to trying to bring together giants and werewolves to fight against Voldemort and his Nazis, but in the end were they important?
No. The day was saved by the white middle class Jesus, thus proving the wizarding world is still the best ever, no question, everyone else can just suck it and accept their status as second class citizens.
Except for house elves, because if we pretend you're people you'll get back in the kitchen faster.
Oh, by the way, that brings me to the houses of Hogwarts. Rowling made it damn clear that Gryffindor is the best and Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw are not even close seconds and anyone sorted in Slytherin is pure evil because ambition is the devil.
That's a really interesting theme there, because, let's face it, Harry Potter is the more passive character to ever passive in the history of passivity. He is the Boy Who Lived. All his heroics boil down to his ability to not die. If this were another writer I would suspect Rowling was subverting what it is to be hero, but since this is Rowling, I'm left suspecting that for her ambition is, by her definition, evil.
Take Philosopher's Stone for example. Harry gets the stone because he have absolutely no ambition or motivation to ever use it. Dumbledore said that if did have any sort of inclination to, you know, actually do anything the stone would be denied him. That's pretty much Harry's constant theme: he does these things because Dumbledore tells him to, not because he has any personal will or ambition of his own.
(Aside, Daniel Hemmens at FerretBrain.com has written a lot of really interesting articles about Harry Potter the themes in the book here. Be warned that he is way more harsh and critical than me, so you might want to proceed with caution.)
But I digress. Let's tackle the idea of tolerance, shall we? Harry Potter does preach tolerance, if by "tolerance" you mean that Voldemort is, in the words of Eddie Izzard, "a genocidal fuckhead." I think most people reading the books agree that wiping out and subjugating entire races is bad. Those that disagree are probably not reading Harry Potter and and are unlikely to have their minds changed by children's books.
You know what would have been a lot more striking about this book in regard to tolerance, Rowling? If everyone wasn't white and straight. Oh wait, Dumbledore was supposed to be gay, wasn't he? Even though you couldn't be bothered to state that in the actual text, because why would gay and lesbian kids out there need someone they could identify with?
Also, Rowling stated that Dumbledore fell in love with a man once when he was eighteen. We never know if it was requited, just that he became asexual afterwards. Um, Rowling? Yeah, that's not a basis of homosexuality. Asexuality is part of the human sexuality spectrum, but to be homosexual Dumbledore has to be sexually attracted to other men and have sex with them. What you've done is made an old man who wears robes (read: dresses) into a homosexual because any man that isn't married and dresses weird is apparently gay. Well done.
In fact, you know what would have been really interesting? If at the end of your book where everyone is happily paired off with their 2.5 children and the house and the fence and the dog if you had a happily in love gay or lesbian couple in there as well. You don't have to make a big deal about it. Actually, it would work a whole lot better if you presented it as being completely and utterly normal. Hell, you could make them childhood sweethearts to stick with the theme of you finding your true love at eleven. That would have said more about Love and Tolerance than your 9,000 pages about how Nazis are bad.
In short, I find the Harry Potter Alliance ridiculous not because of the work they do but that the fact they advocate these books as the be all and end all of moral guidance (for fuck's sake, Slack says it's "Talmudic." Fuck you, Slack.)
They ask What Would Dumbledore Do?
Based on my reading of the text, I would say he would find an eleven-year-old boy, who after years of physical and psychological abuse and neglect, would latch onto the first kind word from a father figure, and spend the next seven years shaping him into an unthinking sacrifical lamb he would send to the slaughter to end a war he can't be bothered to get up his ass for more than two seconds to do anything about. That's what Dumbledore would do.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
I Blame the Lemon Drops! A Harry & THBP Review
I know, I've been away, forgive me. My struggle to maintain a nerdy lifestyle in a bad economy means that work takes up a lot of my free time lately. But, I haven't forgotten you, reader!
I, Darcy, state here and now that there will most definitely be huge spoilers about the new Harry Potter movie, as well as the associated book series. If you are one of those people (read: weirdos) who are only watching the movies or "plan on reading the books later", and have somehow, miraculously, avoided spoilers for this long; DO NOT read this review or you shall have at last met your Waterloo.
I must admit I will be really, really sad when the last of these movies are out and the franchise is over. Few things excite me as much as new Harry Potter-related things anymore. (I'm bitter and old.) Also, I really liked this movie. Keep that at the back of your mind as I spiral downward into nerd-rage.
Three major things that bugged me right away, first viewing.
#1 Snape:
Well, OK, to clarify, Harry and Snape's big "confrontation" after Snape kills Dumbledore. Firstly, the filmmakers chose to skip the semi big battle between the Order of the Phoenix/Dumbledore's Army and the invading Death Eaters that comes before this. If I take into account the fact that the filmmakers didn't want this movie and the last one to have similar endings, I am ok with this, (now, after a few weeks away from it to regain rationality.) I don't really think that a lopsided battle between a bunch of adults and a handful of very magically talented, luck enhanced children is exactly the same as an all out brawl between ALL of the good guys and ALL of the bad guys. In fact I think the only similarity between them is the setting of Hogwarts. I'd like to think that my fellow movie-goers aren't that stupid but, alas, I know this hope is a false one. I missed the scene mostly because I really like seeing magic fights. The one in Order of the Pheonix was pretty cool. Also, I was looking forward to how they would portray the Felix Felicis working in a battle setting. I think it would have greatly improved a movie that was lacking in action where the other movies were not. Poo.
Harry chases Snape and the other Deatheaters as they flee from Hogwarts, and he's yelling and having all of his noobness pinged back into his face by Bellatrix and Snape. Fine, but, as Harry uses Snape's Sectum Sempra against him and Snape blocks and counters it, I was all ramped up for Snape to freak...and he just...didn't. It was so disappointing, so lackluster it caused a flare up of misplaced rage. I should be angry at Snape, even if I've read all of the books and have Snape's true motivation floating around in the back of my mind. I should be right there with Harry, full of helpless rage and hatred for this man who's, as far as you know, just murdered (one of) your surrogate fathers right in front of you. This man who's treated you like little more than refuse since you were eleven for no reason that you can understand. Daniel Radcliff does this very well, he has noticeably improved in every subsequent movie since Sorcerer's Stone. My problem with this scene was mostly, and it burns to say this, Alan Rickman.
Ok, so a lot of people I know have yet to read the books. That's fine. They don't know what they're missing but whatever. Because of this, when I'm discussing the movies with them I have this tendency to say the phrase "Well, in the book..." and tack on a long rant about characters and plot and lit-nerd jargon which basically can make me look and sound like a dweeby fangirl but I don't care.
SO.
In the book the confrontation between Harry and Snape is so frustrating and intense! Just as Harry is hurling all of his pain and rage and fear at Snape, so should Snape be showing every single ounce of hatred he has for this kid. Pretty much none of that came through in the movie and it bummed me right the hell out. Rickman's hateful sneer is cool as ever,(and the littlest bit sexy) he does that very, very well. I just don't think that that was the time or the place for Snape to keep his cool.
#2 Hagrid
Or really, the lack thereof. Robbie Coltrane's Hagrid, as well as Dame Maggie Smith's Minerva McGonagall, Luna Lovegood and Remis Lupin are all standards of perfect casting that I will hold high forever. (Especially Luna, it's almost eerie how perfectly she fits the character that I imagined in my head as I read, down to the sound of her voice!)
Hagrid is one of the best characters in the series. He's literally a giant walking contradiction. He's huge and looks like a frightful beardy wild-man only not in the nightmarish Alan Moore kinda way. Your first sane impression of him should leave you needing to change out your underpants. He hangs around with some of the most vicious and horrible creatures in fantastic history and loves them the same as if they were cuddly little puppy-kitten hybrids made of happiness, bubbles and the laughter of children. He cries like a two ton baby at the drop of a hat! Now, admittedly the movie version of Hagrid isn't quite as blubbery as his literary counterpart but there is still absolutely no excuse for Hagrid standing with the rest of the school over the corpse of Dumbledore, most beloved of wizards, as if he were made of stone. If I hadn't been too occupied with blubbering like a two ton baby myself I would have been chucking my big-gulp at the screen.
#3 The title of the movie
So, maybe your looking at that thinking, "Huh!?"but look at it this way. Why should they call the movie Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince if they're just gonna ignore almost the entirety of the subplot that centers around the Half-Blood freaking Prince? Harry finds the potions book and gets some minor harassment about it, but mostly it's Hermione nagging about cheating and being sorta concerned that Harry is maybe learning spells he shouldn't be. The thought that Harry is taking advice from an eerily intelligent book of shifty origins and that this kinda sorta happened before never seems to cross anyone's minds in the film. Then we almost forget about the book except that Harry is carrying it around everywhere and allegedly sleeping with it. It doesn't come up again until Harry uses Sectum Sempra against Draco Malfoy and they hold an intervention to get Harry to get rid of the book for good. He does so...is that it? Do we care who the Half-Blood Prince is? Apparently not 'cause it's isn't brought up again until Snape admits to being the Half Blood Prince himself. If I hadn't read the book I can imagine my reaction to that revelation would have been a resounding, "uhm...so?" Did the filmmakers forget that not everyone has read the books in depth, multiple times before seeing the movies? They didn't even bother to explain what that meant! Grr! Shoulda called it Harry Potter and the Death of Dumbledore 'cause that's clearly the only part of the story they cared about telling.
Despite the stuff that was glaringly wrong with this movie, there was so very much more that was done really well. In fact, aside from the fact that I spent the last twenty minutes of the movie sobbing into my popcorn even though I promised myself I wouldn't do that, I left that theater feeling like I'd just seen one of the best Harry Potter movies to date. Maybe not the best translation of the books, but the movie itself was damn good. It was funny and dark. I loved that they gave Ginny Weasly a personality. I can understand some fans, (mostly American) who complain that the Ginny and Harry thing kinda came out of no where. I personally hold with the idea that because the books are from Harry's perspective, it makes sense that Ginny would be a sort of background character until she comes into her own as a woman and becomes something more that Ron's kid sister to him. They literally go through war together before he really sees her. Plus Harry totally strikes me as the kind of guy who would fall for his best friend's sister. He associates her with the Burrow, the only place outside of Hogwarts he could really call home. The only other place, at least until the seventh book, he could feel safe. They also are the only two people in the world that know what it's like to be possessed by Voldemort, which I'm sure makes for lovely bonding moments.
I loved the funny moments, especially the performance of Jessie Cave as the delightfully terrifying Lavender Brown and Harry when he's high on luck. There were very scary moments, I jumped about five feet into the air when that Infiri's hand grabbed Harry out of the lake, (even though I KNEW that was gonna happen!) The scenes with young Voldemort are equally terrifying. In my opinion he is more terrifying as a sociopathic child than as a murderous, psychotic adult. The action, (what there was of it,) was superb, especially the Quidditch match, which showed for the first time that Quidditch is a sport. The series continues to be a showcase for the best of British actors and actresses, this time Jim Broadbent proving a point that nobody doubted; that he is an amazing actor. Lastly the special effects were amazing, namely the destruction of the Millenium Bridge and the memories within the Pensieve.
I'm excited for the next two films. I'm very happy that they are breaking the last book into two movies. It shows that maybe they'll try to be more faithful with more time to spread the story out. I don't know where they'll split them, though I have my theories. (At some point before or after the Trio gets captured and taken to the Malfoy's, that seems to be a popular one, though.)
The first half of the first part will have to be dedicated to filling in the plot chunks missing in the films that are integral to a lot of the end of the story. (i.e. Kreacher, his relationship with Harry after Sirius's death, Dobby, the Horcruxes and Dumbledore's wand.)
Like I said, I'll be sad when it's all over. The remaining slivers of my soul that the loan companies and my job don't own have been consumed by this emo little kid with a lightning bolt scar and the world that J.K. Rowling created for him since I was in high school. Now I'll re-read the series at least once every year and let that little part of me believe in magic, (or jealously covet, depending on my mood) at least for a little while.
~Darcy
I, Darcy, state here and now that there will most definitely be huge spoilers about the new Harry Potter movie, as well as the associated book series. If you are one of those people (read: weirdos) who are only watching the movies or "plan on reading the books later", and have somehow, miraculously, avoided spoilers for this long; DO NOT read this review or you shall have at last met your Waterloo.I must admit I will be really, really sad when the last of these movies are out and the franchise is over. Few things excite me as much as new Harry Potter-related things anymore. (I'm bitter and old.) Also, I really liked this movie. Keep that at the back of your mind as I spiral downward into nerd-rage.
Three major things that bugged me right away, first viewing.
#1 Snape:
Well, OK, to clarify, Harry and Snape's big "confrontation" after Snape kills Dumbledore. Firstly, the filmmakers chose to skip the semi big battle between the Order of the Phoenix/Dumbledore's Army and the invading Death Eaters that comes before this. If I take into account the fact that the filmmakers didn't want this movie and the last one to have similar endings, I am ok with this, (now, after a few weeks away from it to regain rationality.) I don't really think that a lopsided battle between a bunch of adults and a handful of very magically talented, luck enhanced children is exactly the same as an all out brawl between ALL of the good guys and ALL of the bad guys. In fact I think the only similarity between them is the setting of Hogwarts. I'd like to think that my fellow movie-goers aren't that stupid but, alas, I know this hope is a false one. I missed the scene mostly because I really like seeing magic fights. The one in Order of the Pheonix was pretty cool. Also, I was looking forward to how they would portray the Felix Felicis working in a battle setting. I think it would have greatly improved a movie that was lacking in action where the other movies were not. Poo.
Harry chases Snape and the other Deatheaters as they flee from Hogwarts, and he's yelling and having all of his noobness pinged back into his face by Bellatrix and Snape. Fine, but, as Harry uses Snape's Sectum Sempra against him and Snape blocks and counters it, I was all ramped up for Snape to freak...and he just...didn't. It was so disappointing, so lackluster it caused a flare up of misplaced rage. I should be angry at Snape, even if I've read all of the books and have Snape's true motivation floating around in the back of my mind. I should be right there with Harry, full of helpless rage and hatred for this man who's, as far as you know, just murdered (one of) your surrogate fathers right in front of you. This man who's treated you like little more than refuse since you were eleven for no reason that you can understand. Daniel Radcliff does this very well, he has noticeably improved in every subsequent movie since Sorcerer's Stone. My problem with this scene was mostly, and it burns to say this, Alan Rickman.
Ok, so a lot of people I know have yet to read the books. That's fine. They don't know what they're missing but whatever. Because of this, when I'm discussing the movies with them I have this tendency to say the phrase "Well, in the book..." and tack on a long rant about characters and plot and lit-nerd jargon which basically can make me look and sound like a dweeby fangirl but I don't care.
SO.
In the book the confrontation between Harry and Snape is so frustrating and intense! Just as Harry is hurling all of his pain and rage and fear at Snape, so should Snape be showing every single ounce of hatred he has for this kid. Pretty much none of that came through in the movie and it bummed me right the hell out. Rickman's hateful sneer is cool as ever,(and the littlest bit sexy) he does that very, very well. I just don't think that that was the time or the place for Snape to keep his cool.
#2 Hagrid
Or really, the lack thereof. Robbie Coltrane's Hagrid, as well as Dame Maggie Smith's Minerva McGonagall, Luna Lovegood and Remis Lupin are all standards of perfect casting that I will hold high forever. (Especially Luna, it's almost eerie how perfectly she fits the character that I imagined in my head as I read, down to the sound of her voice!)
Hagrid is one of the best characters in the series. He's literally a giant walking contradiction. He's huge and looks like a frightful beardy wild-man only not in the nightmarish Alan Moore kinda way. Your first sane impression of him should leave you needing to change out your underpants. He hangs around with some of the most vicious and horrible creatures in fantastic history and loves them the same as if they were cuddly little puppy-kitten hybrids made of happiness, bubbles and the laughter of children. He cries like a two ton baby at the drop of a hat! Now, admittedly the movie version of Hagrid isn't quite as blubbery as his literary counterpart but there is still absolutely no excuse for Hagrid standing with the rest of the school over the corpse of Dumbledore, most beloved of wizards, as if he were made of stone. If I hadn't been too occupied with blubbering like a two ton baby myself I would have been chucking my big-gulp at the screen.
#3 The title of the movie
So, maybe your looking at that thinking, "Huh!?"but look at it this way. Why should they call the movie Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince if they're just gonna ignore almost the entirety of the subplot that centers around the Half-Blood freaking Prince? Harry finds the potions book and gets some minor harassment about it, but mostly it's Hermione nagging about cheating and being sorta concerned that Harry is maybe learning spells he shouldn't be. The thought that Harry is taking advice from an eerily intelligent book of shifty origins and that this kinda sorta happened before never seems to cross anyone's minds in the film. Then we almost forget about the book except that Harry is carrying it around everywhere and allegedly sleeping with it. It doesn't come up again until Harry uses Sectum Sempra against Draco Malfoy and they hold an intervention to get Harry to get rid of the book for good. He does so...is that it? Do we care who the Half-Blood Prince is? Apparently not 'cause it's isn't brought up again until Snape admits to being the Half Blood Prince himself. If I hadn't read the book I can imagine my reaction to that revelation would have been a resounding, "uhm...so?" Did the filmmakers forget that not everyone has read the books in depth, multiple times before seeing the movies? They didn't even bother to explain what that meant! Grr! Shoulda called it Harry Potter and the Death of Dumbledore 'cause that's clearly the only part of the story they cared about telling.
Despite the stuff that was glaringly wrong with this movie, there was so very much more that was done really well. In fact, aside from the fact that I spent the last twenty minutes of the movie sobbing into my popcorn even though I promised myself I wouldn't do that, I left that theater feeling like I'd just seen one of the best Harry Potter movies to date. Maybe not the best translation of the books, but the movie itself was damn good. It was funny and dark. I loved that they gave Ginny Weasly a personality. I can understand some fans, (mostly American) who complain that the Ginny and Harry thing kinda came out of no where. I personally hold with the idea that because the books are from Harry's perspective, it makes sense that Ginny would be a sort of background character until she comes into her own as a woman and becomes something more that Ron's kid sister to him. They literally go through war together before he really sees her. Plus Harry totally strikes me as the kind of guy who would fall for his best friend's sister. He associates her with the Burrow, the only place outside of Hogwarts he could really call home. The only other place, at least until the seventh book, he could feel safe. They also are the only two people in the world that know what it's like to be possessed by Voldemort, which I'm sure makes for lovely bonding moments.
I loved the funny moments, especially the performance of Jessie Cave as the delightfully terrifying Lavender Brown and Harry when he's high on luck. There were very scary moments, I jumped about five feet into the air when that Infiri's hand grabbed Harry out of the lake, (even though I KNEW that was gonna happen!) The scenes with young Voldemort are equally terrifying. In my opinion he is more terrifying as a sociopathic child than as a murderous, psychotic adult. The action, (what there was of it,) was superb, especially the Quidditch match, which showed for the first time that Quidditch is a sport. The series continues to be a showcase for the best of British actors and actresses, this time Jim Broadbent proving a point that nobody doubted; that he is an amazing actor. Lastly the special effects were amazing, namely the destruction of the Millenium Bridge and the memories within the Pensieve.
I'm excited for the next two films. I'm very happy that they are breaking the last book into two movies. It shows that maybe they'll try to be more faithful with more time to spread the story out. I don't know where they'll split them, though I have my theories. (At some point before or after the Trio gets captured and taken to the Malfoy's, that seems to be a popular one, though.)
The first half of the first part will have to be dedicated to filling in the plot chunks missing in the films that are integral to a lot of the end of the story. (i.e. Kreacher, his relationship with Harry after Sirius's death, Dobby, the Horcruxes and Dumbledore's wand.)
Like I said, I'll be sad when it's all over. The remaining slivers of my soul that the loan companies and my job don't own have been consumed by this emo little kid with a lightning bolt scar and the world that J.K. Rowling created for him since I was in high school. Now I'll re-read the series at least once every year and let that little part of me believe in magic, (or jealously covet, depending on my mood) at least for a little while.
~Darcy
Sunday, July 05, 2009
In case you somehow missed it
This is pretty much made of win:
It's described as "an example of transformative storytelling serving as a pro-feminist visual critique of Edward's character and generally creepy behavior...[and] some of the more sexist gender roles and patriarchal Hollywood themes embedded in the Twilight Saga."
First of all, I jut want to say word to all of that. Second of all, I feel there's a lot to be said here for how Bella/Edward is presented and how that compares to Buffy/Angel and Buffy/Spike. If we're taking a feminist route, there's also a lot to be said about Whedon and feminism, some of which I rambled on about specifically in regards to Dollhouse.
But, honestly, I just want to send this to Stephanie Meyer and possibly tattoo on her forehead "Girls don't find stalking romantic," which, seriously, Stephanie Meyer, what the fuck? Also, I've spent most of the day trying to revise a story that is driving me crazy and Eddie Izzard ("blaspheme, blasphe-you, blasphe-everybody-in-the-room") is currently on my television so I'm a bit useless for anything that requires me to think and use polysyllabic arguments. (Fun fact: that phrase just used up the last of my functioning brain cells!)
ETA: This is the artist of the mashup talking about the experience of the video and the idea behind it. It's fascinating and intelligent and well worth reading.
So just watch this video because it is awesome and join me in missing Buffy.
It's described as "an example of transformative storytelling serving as a pro-feminist visual critique of Edward's character and generally creepy behavior...[and] some of the more sexist gender roles and patriarchal Hollywood themes embedded in the Twilight Saga."
First of all, I jut want to say word to all of that. Second of all, I feel there's a lot to be said here for how Bella/Edward is presented and how that compares to Buffy/Angel and Buffy/Spike. If we're taking a feminist route, there's also a lot to be said about Whedon and feminism, some of which I rambled on about specifically in regards to Dollhouse.
But, honestly, I just want to send this to Stephanie Meyer and possibly tattoo on her forehead "Girls don't find stalking romantic," which, seriously, Stephanie Meyer, what the fuck? Also, I've spent most of the day trying to revise a story that is driving me crazy and Eddie Izzard ("blaspheme, blasphe-you, blasphe-everybody-in-the-room") is currently on my television so I'm a bit useless for anything that requires me to think and use polysyllabic arguments. (Fun fact: that phrase just used up the last of my functioning brain cells!)
ETA: This is the artist of the mashup talking about the experience of the video and the idea behind it. It's fascinating and intelligent and well worth reading.
So just watch this video because it is awesome and join me in missing Buffy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)