#right now i am editing a book for my great uncle which is a huge relief

[headless-horsepossum]

also, when i finally snap what i am going to do is kill everyone involved in producing the chicago style manual

#right now i am editing a book for my great uncle which is a huge relief #bc i edited two graduate theses for two of my mom's students last semester and. Reglear Writing is SO EASY after that #like it's always kind of weird and sometimes tricky to edit stuff that's in a specific field you are not in but like #you can usually figure out everything you need to make sure the grammar is right and everything #(and i am not editing for content thank god. i would charge WAY more if i was) #BUT. the seminary uses chicago style and i don't know Fuck about chicago style #but the one student in particular needed a 100 page thesis edited in Like A Week and there was No One Else Who Could Do It. #so i had to just. check the manual every time i had any question about the formatting #and to be clear i do NOT have an opinion on academic styles and which is better and if i ever do i want to be put out of my misery BUT #the chicago manual of style is laid out like Garbage and i felt violent every time i had to look something up #IT DOESN'T HAVE PAGE NUMBERS IN THE INDEX #i want retribution

[nartml]

To Pimp a Butterfly and 1989: a rant

Listen here, three things about me are that I'm a) white as snow, b) Greek, c) still a minor.

What does this mean? It means that I obviously wasn't raised with hip-hop, and I got into Kendrick Lamar's music pretty late.

As in, early this year.

I've known of him for some time, and the moment I found out he had a Pulitzer prize at some point in late-ish 2023, I decided I had to sit my ass down and pull out Spotify.

Now, as an avid reader of both fanfiction (ao3 raised me) and books [I feel the immense need to clarify that I don't associate myself with mainstream booktok. Capitalism's consumerism has overrun that shit and all I see are the same 20 books being recycled and recommended (a substantial amount of those are Colleen Hoover and her variants). Tropes and spice* are officially the defining factors of whether a book is worth it (*your porn addiction ain't cute) and quantity is heavily prioritized at the expense of quality. Also, diversity who?], I was, for a lack of a better word, hyped.

A Pulitzer prize is nothing to scoff at in general, more so in music, more so in hip-hop.

(Edit: Upon quick reflection, I realize that putting emphasis on hip-hop can come across as coded.

I am in no way, shape, or form trying to undermine hip-hop or say that it's somehow less 'sophisticated' than, for example, classical music. I'm very aware of the amount of skill and technique one needs to write a masterful hip-hop album, and I'm not doubting that there are hip-hop artists out there who are also incredibly deserving of such a prize. I meant it in the sense that I've unfortunately never heard of another hip-hop artist who won a Pulitzer before, which is quite telling.)

That's some huge shit, and I'd be a fool not to be intrigued.

Admittedly, I didn't get on that immediately. For a while I procrastinated, because I wasn't in the mood to hyper-fixate on anything new just yet.

Which of course meant I ended up forgetting about it for a few months, because of course I did.

But then I came across a TikTok that talked about how it was insane that '1989' won the Grammy when To Pimp a Butterfly was right there.

Now, a fourth thing about me is that I don't fuck with Taylor Swift.

And a fifth thing about me is that I'm not baseless in anything that I do, say or feel, and that includes annoyance.

Her immature understanding of activism and feminism leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The way she built up her fan base around this portrayal of her as a relatable girl's girl, her refusal to accept criticism, and always making a victim out of herself (even now when she's in her thirties and is a fucking billionaire) while never using her position of power and privilege for good are all reasons that serve to fuel my dispassionate dislike.

And before any Swifties get on my ass, no, I don't think that "But she's a singer! Why are you expecting so much out of her, she isn't even qualified to speak on XYZ—" is a good enough excuse.

She has always been rich, and now she's a billionaire. There are no ethical billionaires, and that includes her.

Fame is influence is power. Uncle Ben said it all: With great power comes great responsibility.

And let me tell you, I don't see her owning up to that responsibility, especially after all that talk about how she supports women, supports the LGBTQ community, and supports the BLM movement. Has she ever actually put her abundant money where her mouth is?

I've never seen her speak about anything that doesn't immediately concern her.

Don't get me wrong. She's not the only celebrity like this out there. I'm sure there are worse cases. I know it for a fact.

To wrap this segment up before I get even more sidetracked, I'll outright state that I don't hate her, because hating her would by definition mean that I, in some way, actually care about her, and that just sounds exhausting.

Best way to describe me is indifferent, leaning towards distasteful.

She's annoying.

And that's how I feel about both her as a person and her as an artist.

I'm not denying her talent, nor her impact on the industry, nor the fact that she does have good songs that even I like.

A select few, of course, but still.

Apart from those...what? Ten songs? I have never, ever been able to listen to any other song of her's all the way through.

I get bored. They do nothing for me. They sound empty. Hollow. Plastic. Repetitive.

Her lyrics, that are praised by fans for being deep and complex, sound pretty surface level to me.

Not all of them. But I'm a sucker for analysis. A literature nerd. Greek is my native language. I can tell when something's deep and when something wants to be deep.

(Not necessarily including Folklore and Evermore in that category. Her storytelling ability is actually great.)

Her music largely sounds like it wants to be deep.

Most recent example being her latest release, The Tortured Poets Department.

Anyway, back to Kendrick.

My initial plan was to listen to 'DAMN.' first, because that's what he won the Pulitzer for in the first place.

There was a change of plans after that TikTok.

I decided to compare the opening tacks.

I put on Welcome to New York, and predictably, I felt nothing.

The rhythm is dance-y, I suppose. But there's nothing substantial about it. There's nothing exciting about it.

The lyrics are juvenile, and I get it, it's a pop song and she was in her twenties.

Nobody is expecting Shakespeare (no matter how much you scream or kick your feet, the only reason Shakespeare couldn't write Taylor Swift is because he's in another league entirely) or Odysseus Elytis. Nobody is expecting mind-blowing lyricism.

But it's the opening track to an apparently Grammy-worthy album. The very least I'd expect from it would be some additional levels of artistry.

Am I being harsh? Probably. Do I care? No.

Disappointed but unsurprised, I put on Wesley's Theory.

I ascended within the first minute.

Don't get it twisted, I barely understood shit.

Not only am I white, I am also entirely removed from America and its culture as a whole. I don't know what's going on there in y'all's daily lives.

And this was baby's first proper introduction to hip-hop as a whole.

My untrained, white-ass ear barely caught two references. I got what the gist of the song was about, and that's about it.

I had to look up analyses of the track to fully grasp what Kendrick was on about, and even then, there was obviously still a disconnect.

And I expected all of that.

I didn't expect to get hooked on that song within the first listen.

I swear to fuck, the beat is addictive. I swear to fuck, even when I was fighting to understand what the lyrics were referencing, I was having the time of my life.

Even I, an amateur in every sense of the word, could tell that there was depth and there was quality and there was intentional meaning in every line of that song.

It didn't matter that I couldn't understand it. It mattered that I knew it was there. Not because someone told me that was the case. But because it was audible.

I listened to the next track. And the one after that. And the one after that. I had listened to all of the tracks, before I knew it.

And the evident permeance of quality, of substance, carried on throughout the whole album.

It had exactly the type of lyricism I'd expect a Grammy-worthy album to have. It had exactly the amount of artistry I expected a Grammy-worthy album to have.

Even better, it had all the ingredients I expected a timeless album to have.

The poetry Taylor Swift fans insist hides in her discography, I found in plain sight within Kendrick Lamar's.

After meticulously reading the lyrics, I watched video essay after video essay, searched for analysis after analysis on this album, each time understanding the meanings behind it a little better.

Needless to say that the Grammy's are rigged and I love Kendrick Lamar.

Hip-hop is gorgeous.

#tpab #to pimp a butterfly #kendrick lamar #he's awesome #hip hop #1989 #taylor swift #just to be safe #anti taylor swift

[ailinaline]

The Untamed: unsorted

Well... I am nothing, if not eccentric, after all. Why not publish a huge post all of a sudden? :)

The Untamed (СQL) is an abyss, and I am still falling, grasping at some scattered thoughts... that tend to arrange themselves in equally chaotic blocks of thoughts, which, in turn, multiply questions successfully.

Spoilers ahead, I guess...

I.

The timeline of СQL is more than a little blurry, and when I try to calculate, how old Wei Ying was, when he died, I come up with the sorrowful conclusion he couldn’t be more that 21, probably younger. Which, in turn, means that the post-time-skip Sizhui is, actually, of the same age or even older than Wei Ying and Lan Wangji were, when they did a lot of things I honestly can’t imagine the new generation pulling off, even physically/magically, let alone psychologically (although I wouldn’t go as far as to call young LWJ and WWX mature - they clearly were not, and that was a huge part of the tragedy foundation, in my opinion). The young disciples are referred to as ‘children’, and they truly are. Compared to 16-17 year old LWJ and WWX, they are very, very young, inexperienced and not especially capable – while still being quite skilled and smart. And it’s both fabulous and painful to watch. Fabulous because it’s a very vivid and authentic demonstration of how exceptionally gifted LWJ and WWX are (and were); and painful because, unfortunately, not all of their greatness comes just from inborn talents.

II.

I am easily charmed by languages, but СQL, being the third Chinese dorama I have ever watched, is still the first one to so profusely tempt me to learn Chinese – in order to translate the songs and to understand the subtleties of the dialogues.

III.

I can’t get rid of the impression that the concept of rules/order breaking and punishment/atonement is fundamental for СQL (and its world). As far as I am aware, the Chinese culture does tend to be quite severe in this regard, but right now I am considering the symbolic layer of the process rather than the harm/good/efficiency of any particular method.  And I wonder, whether I am imagining things or Wangji’s history of ‘transgressions’ and punishments within his sect is really openly symbolic and not merely coincidental.

My interpretation certainly lacks some special cultural insight because I can’t help being of European origin, so I read all the codes as a European would, first, and only then make an attempt to switch lenses and decipher the message, taking into account my scarce knowledge of the Chinese (and Asian) culture.

And yet...

The first time (drinking) Wangji is not only completely innocent, but also a ‘victim’ of Wei Ying’s careless (and questionable) mischief. They share the punishment (and we encounter the number 300, by the way), but Wangji is obviously (and rather fiercely) on his own here, and evidently by choice, despite Wei Ying’s sincere efforts first to exclude and then to include him. Wangji, just as obviously, truly believes he deserves the punishment – not for drinking as such, I think, but for lowering his guard and being not attentive enough: internally, he substitutes one transgression with another, and the equation works for him (actually, it might be unfair, but quite fortunate for their future relationship that Wangji blames himself or, at least, blames himself more than Wei Ying). To put it in a nutshell, for Wangji, the system and order are intact and non-contradictory: he is understandably upset, even angry, but hardly shaken, and simply intends to do better than that in the future, so to say. It’s hard to speculate, if this is Wangji’s most unpleasant experience so far or not, but in any case, the psychological pressure is minimal and reproach is rather mild (and I am really surprised, Lan Xichen didn’t find all that story highly suspicious… or was it his indirect method of showing WWX that he hadn’t been told on?..)

The copying of the rules happens after a considerable amount of… experience, if not time. And the transgression is not specified, but hinted at very heavily. I also wonder, if Lan Qiren realized an additional message he conveyed through his choice as well as through his general treatment of his nephew during that meeting: a strict reminder that, a war hero or not, LWJ is still too young to have an opinion. Wangji accepts the book of rules reverently, accepts the punishment… the word, that springs to mind is ‘habitually’: he doesn’t disregard it, per se, he doesn’t devalue the fact his uncle is not happy with him, he still wants to do better, but… there are things of greater importance to him now, and LWJ is so focused on them that he makes the request about the restricted books at the least suitable moment, really. (And I believe this dismissal does cut him rather deep.) The system still works, but the seed of the conflict is already planted.

The third episode seems pivotal in itself: we actually don’t know, what the punishment for letting WWX and the Wens go was, except for having to kneel, while being lectured, but this time this is a result of a conscious choice to do something that definitely wouldn’t be approved. And I can’t remember a single second of the screen-time, when Wangji would look repentant: conflicted, upset, slapped (when Lan Qiren mentions his mother), stressed (his uncle uses some pretty cruel techniques that border on manipulation, to my mind), but not sorry at all – not for letting the fugitives go, at least.  And comparing the shades of Wangji’s silence here and on the previous occasion, this one seems somehow more determined. And closed-off. And there is no intention to do better, in regard to this transgression: the alternative he is being pushed to is unacceptable.

Kneeling again, for the whole day, in the cold, lifting a… what is it, as a matter of fact? It does look like a slightly smaller version of ‘the discipline whip’ we’ll see later, and if it is really so, then it’s beyond prophetic symbolic – it looks more like a promise on Lan Qiren’s part. :/ Anyway, my impression is that, for the first time in the series, LWJ is actively absent from the scene of his own punishment: he doesn’t reflect on it (I think he expected something like that), he also doesn’t mentally substitute one transgression with another to restore the balance (his inability to help Wei Ying is not something to atone for by kneeling). He simply endures. And thinks. And feels. Just not what he is expected and obliged to be thinking and feeling at the moment. And through all of this, Wangji is utterly, hopelessly and stoically alone and unaccepted. His concerns have been dismissed and care rejected by Wei Ying. His actions and decisions have been castigated by a significant authority figure (whom he loves and respects). If I am not mistaken, in the special edition Wangji’s loss-and-loneliness are somewhat artificially heightened through the pseudo-contrast because his moments are mixed with the moments of Wei Ying’s drinking with his new family, who values and appreciates him. (In reality their situations are just the same: they are both in anguish and feel helpless to change things they wish to change.) And, a cherry on top: we don’t know, what has been said initially, and by whom, however, we see that Wangji is released not by his uncle, but by some adept (or disciple). It might be a normal procedure, but it completes the picture of being unequivocally separated from any supportive figure and hints at a lack of closure, in a way, as there was no forgivenes-and-reconnection after the punishment.  

I am struggling to verbalize, why exactly, but to me, this scene is, in a sense, more bitter than the next one, despite the circumstances.

During the next punishment Wangji is as actively present as he was absent during the previous one. And if then he was frozen in sadness, now he is all fire (fueled by grief, and guilt, and fury, and despair, yes, but fire, nonetheless). And the system and order get burned down: what Wangji re-builds during his seclusion is his very own set of rules. They do coincide with the Gusu Lan set, but not fully. And this is a point of no return because, filtered through Wangji’s own system of values, now they are more than just the elders’ lessons learned and tested – they are the only valid reference point for recognizing transgressions and ‘living with no regrets’.

(On another level, I am more than a little puzzled by several details here:

1) linguistics: do they really call this thing a discipline ‘whip’ in Chinese?

2) cultural message: as literally nothing could get in the way of filming a beating with an actual whip, the type of instrument has to make some sense, doesn’t it? (For now, I can’t think of any reason to choose this tool, though. Except the number 300 as 300 lashes are hardly survivable, even with a golden core.)

3) application: I can understand, why Wangji has his shirt on (although this is a more dangerous and torturous option: such a thin layer is no protection at all, but it will be hell to clean the wounds afterwards), but why is his hair down his back like that?..

4) consequences: the scarring looks rather odd, considering. (And again: it was definitely not a problem to paint whatever they had to, so – why?)

The only (and vague) explanation I can come up with is that the type and form of the tool is not important at all: it’s the intent and sentence that count, so the wounds and pain would be the same, even if the instrument looked like a rod or a cane. (Still doesn’t explain the hair, though.) And as for the scars, perhaps, not all of them have to stay forever, especially if the cultivator is very strong.

Well, no: unsatisfactory...)

IV.

I wonder... My first impression after watching the scene, where Lan Wangji cuts off Jin Guangyao’s  arm, was that he was actually saving him from Baxia, separating Guangyao from the mark on his hand. And the only reason, why the spirit of the sword attacks Jin Ling next, are the drops of the bad/damned blood on the boy’s shoulder. But after the special edition I am not so sure.

V.

Lacunae and plotholes (or what I subjectively perceive as such) are extremely challenging and thought-provoking in this series. Right now, I wonder about the Wens: Wen Qing clearly stated she had asked one of the clansmen to look after WWX, so not all of them were going to surrender. Could it be that they were attacked at the Burial Mounds, when seeing the siblings off, and taken away by force?

...Enough. For now.

#the untamed #lan wangji #wei wuxian #suddenly #questions and more questions #just thinking

[the-regal-warrior]

In Which Thomas Is an Idiot

Here it is: my very first fic for Stalking Jack the Ripper. I’ve been in love with this series for a while, so I figured I’d try my hand at writing for it. This story is a little surprise for the absolutely lovely @city-of-fae - while it’s not nearly as good as the beautiful stories she brings to life, I’ve been inspired by her and wanted to give her some love.

Huge shout-outs go to @highqueenofelfhame for helping me plan this and to @tangledraysofsunshine for editing for me. You’re both absolutely amazing and I’d be lost without you!

Summary: Thomas Cresswell is an idiot, but it’s for a good reason, he swears. Or, Audrey Rose Wadsworth catches him in a lie and is determined to get to the bottom of it.

Warnings: I actually don’t think there are any necessary warnings for this one. That’s new.

.

Audrey Rose was completely and utterly baffled. Beyond that, even. 

Her uncle, once the greatest forensic pathologist the police department had ever seen, was now a professor at the local college. Audrey Rose, despite only being a sophomore, had been studying forensics and helping her uncle cut open dead bodies for long enough that she served as a tutor for the two senior elective classes he taught. During the two hour lab, his students would be taken through one of his previous cases, complete with models of the cadavers and mock crime scenes. Since he taught the class twice a day, she only sat in on one lecture, but she tutored students from both classes. 

Most of the students who came to Audrey Rose for help just needed a little guidance in connecting the dots. They would often understand the conclusion, but needed someone to help them truly see how her uncle had gotten to it so quickly. Since tutoring sessions involved making her rounds between individual students, this was relatively easy to accomplish. Usually all she needed to do was explain things a little more in depth, and they were good to go. 

But “usually” did not apply to Thomas Cresswell.

As far as Audrey Rose was concerned, he was the biggest idiot she’d ever encountered - at least in terms of this class. He was at every single tutoring session she offered, yet he never seemed to make any progress. 

When he’d first come to her for help, Audrey Rose had been a bit taken aback by him. He was one of the most beautiful boys she’d ever seen, and he seemed intelligent, both in the way he spoke and in the way he handled himself. He was reading a different classic novel each week, seemingly for fun because she knew he didn’t have any English classes, and their conversations about said books were always in-depth and riveting. She’d figured he’d just been confused by something her uncle had said during class and needed clarification. 

Her thoughts on the matter, however, were quickly disproven by the end of the session. 

But the confusing part, however, was his grade on the test she’d just graded. 

100%. 

She usually didn’t pay attention to the names on tests - frankly, she didn’t care how the students did one way or another - but she’d recognized his handwriting immediately. Worried about what she’d see on his test, it was with some trepidation that she started grading it.

When she got to the last page, she couldn’t quite believe what she was looking at. 

Quickly grading the rest of the stack, she picked up Thomas’s test and made her way to her uncle’s desk. “Uncle Jonathan,” she began, resting a hip against his desk. “Can I ask you something?”

Looking up from the lessons he was preparing, her uncle inclined his head. “Of course, dear.”

“Well, I’m a little curious about the grade one of your students got on his test.” When her uncle only nodded at her to go on, she added, “It’s Thomas Cresswell. His test was perfect - not a single point off.”

“That’s hardly surprising. Thomas is practically my best student.”

Audrey Rose couldn’t help it - her mouth dropped open in surprise. “He is?”

“Without a doubt. He gets a perfect score on every test. Thomas is the first to volunteer an answer to every question I ask, along with being one of the few students willing to challenge answers the other students have given. He’s participated in a fair amount of demonstrations, and he’s the only student who got a perfect score on the pretest. I imagine this class is actually quite simple for him, but his work always goes above and beyond.”

“Huh,” Audrey Rose muttered. “You don’t say.”

At the inquisitive look her uncle gave her, she just shook her head and returned to her table in the corner of the room, a plan already forming in her head. 

~*^*~

By the time the next tutoring session rolled around, Audrey Rose had a plan - a plan she was willing to bet would work flawlessly. If Thomas challenged answers given by other students, she had no doubt he’d correct her if she started giving him wrong answers. 

Making her rounds, she mentally thanked her uncle for choosing to discuss a case involving blood splatters today - something nice and simple for her to purposely get wrong without sounding like she was doing it on purpose. 

“Cresswell,” she started, walking up behind him. “How’s it going over here?”

“Not so great, Wadsworth.” Thomas turned his gaze to her, confusion swimming in his eyes. “I can’t seem to grasp the whole blood splatter/direction of impact concept.”

“Well, it’s pretty simple really.” Pointing to a picture in their text, Audrey Rose managed to keep a smirk off her face. “Since the blood is splattered on the wall to this side of the body, you can tell the bullet came from the left.”

Making like she was moving on to the girl at the table next to Thomas, she only managed to take two steps before Thomas was interrupting her. “Um, wouldn’t that imply the bullet came from the right?”

Glancing back down at the picture, Audrey Rose sculpted her features into a look of mild embarrassment. “Oh, you’re right. Sorry about that!”

Thomas just nodded at her, his focus already moving to the next scenario. Audrey Rose continued to the next student, glad her plan had already started to work.

~*^*~

The rest of her tutoring session had continued in the same fashion. She would make her way back to Thomas and give him another incorrect answer, each one getting more and more complicated. 

And each time, Thomas corrected the inaccuracies in her statements. It was almost like he couldn’t quite help himself.

As the last student walked out of the classroom, Thomas pulled his bag over his shoulder and wandered in Audrey Rose’s direction, his hands tucked into his pockets.

In what had quickly become a routine for the two of them, Thomas would walk Audrey Rose to her car, the two of them discussing classic literature and their favorite books along the way. Clearly, he hadn’t caught on to her plan if he was continuing on like everything was normal.

“So,” he began, an easy smile falling across his face, “I finally finished Dracula, and I must say, I don’t agree with your belief that it’s better than Frankenstein.”

“That’s great, Cresswell.” She cut him off before he could get into a rant about the merits of Frankenstein, needing to get to the bottom of this whole deal. “But I need to talk to you about something else before we discuss why you’re wrong about how great Dracula is.”

“Sure, Wadsworth. What’s up?”

Audrey Rose caught his eyes with hers then, her gaze never wavering as she said, “You know, I was very impressed with your last test score - not a single question wrong.”

“Oh, you saw that?” His gaze dropped briefly to the floor before meeting hers.

“Yeah, I was helping my uncle with some grading. It really took me by surprise.”

“Well, what can I say? You’re an excellent tutor.”

“Cresswell,” she cut in, her tone sharp. “I talked to my uncle about it. I know that you’re his best student, that you get scores like that on every test. I know that you even got a perfect score on the pretest.”

His gaze fell to the floor then, and he refused to meet her eyes, no matter how long she stared at him.

Heaving a sigh, she continued, “So, why, exactly, are you acting like you don’t know what’s going on when you could probably be helping tutor the others?”

“Well,” he started, his voice a bit sheepish, “you weren’t supposed to know I was pretending not to understand.”

“Thomas Cresswell, I’m not amused by this. Why on earth would you waste your time and mine like this?”

He finally met her gaze then, his eyes filled with something that looked suspiciously like pain. “I’m sorry, Wadsworth, I really am. I just wanted to spend time with you.”

“What?” Whatever Audrey Rose had been expecting, it wasn’t that.

“I was enchanted by you the minute your uncle introduced you to us during the first week of classes. You only sat in on our class once, but I was taken by the way you handled yourself, the way you were so sure of yourself as you helped your uncle perform a demonstration, the way you quickly and efficiently shut down anyone who thought you didn’t know what you were doing because you were younger. I just - I didn’t know how to approach you.”

“Thomas -” she began, but he held a hand up to stop her.

“I know it seems ridiculous. But you made it clear you didn’t have the time to deal with any of our nonsense. I was just afraid you’d shut me down like you did everyone else.”

“Thomas,” Audrey Rose started again, and this time he let her continue. “Why would you think I would shut you down, when I am as taken with you as you claim to be with me?”

Now it was Thomas’s turn to be confused. “You - what?”

“Cresswell, I’ve never met another man who has captivated me like you do. I was smitten the minute you walked in carrying a copy of Macbeth, and then immediately began analyzing it when I asked you how you liked it.”

Shaking his head, Thomas just gave her a sheepish grin. “I’ve been a fool. But I’m a fool for you, dear Wadsworth. Will you do this poor fool one small favor and accompany me on a date tonight?”

Laughing, Audrey Rose intertwined their fingers, kissing him quickly on the cheek before replying. “It would bring me nothing but pleasure, Cresswell, my dear fool.”

Leaning down, Thomas pressed his lips to her forehead as his laughter joined hers in echoing around the empty classroom.

.

As always, please let me know your thoughts, and if you want to be added to my tag list!

Tags: @highqueenofelfhame @city-of-fae @musicmaam @throne-of-ashes-and-beauty @tacmc @tangledraysofsunshine @keep-a-bucket-full-of-stars @tonystarkdadmode @tamaranianprincess

#cressworth #thomas cresswell #audrey rose wadsworth #stalking jack the ripper #sjtr #my writing #in which thomas is an idiot

[lemon-writings]

Hamish Update Pt. III

Genre: Literary fiction // Word count: 77,037

Here we are! Chapters VII-IX! I’ve written these chapters really recently, so I can go a little more in-depth with the process. The second half of this book (and specifically this particular trio of chapters, for some reason) is definitely the part I’m most proud of. Writing everything coming to fruition is just so satisfying. Is this what people who write books with actual plot feel like? Because it makes me consider writing books with real plot.

But in all honesty, I really enjoy writing this part of Hamish. I’m super happy with how everything’s turning out. One problem I do have with the latter half is that it is super depressing to write all the time, especially with the amount of rain we’ve been getting in Ohio right now (we love depression), so it is taking me a little longer to write than normal, since I keep sidetracking with random projects to try taking my mind off the deeper things. But when I am working on it, the words just flow. It’s beautiful.

Chapter VII

Epitaph: “I’m a strange new kind of inbetween thing aren’t I? Not at home with the dead nor with the living.”-Anne Carson, Antigone

Here is what’s been building this entire time: the funeral. That, and everything funerals entail, with the Celebration of Life and whatnot. The first time I wrote this, I read the funeral scene to my mom in full detail, and she started crying, because it reminded her of her father’s funeral. I, personally, loathe funerals, for what boils down to the fact that I am greatly horrified by being in the same room as someone who I once knew to be alive. That, and the crippling fear of death most people experience at least once in their lives.

There’s also a lot of Horacio’s... fantasies. There’s something deeply personal about the way I write him, sometimes, that makes rereading certain parts difficult. Horacio, in his darkest moments, feels he deserves bad things happening to him, nearly craves them, and he hates himself for it. The amount of self-loathing in this work is high.

Excerpts: 

Horacio, as always, is concerned about Hamish’s state of being alive, because that man always looks halfway dead, and at times, he’s more ghost than living person

The question of if you were dead or alive laid on my tongue, begging to be asked. Maybe I should’ve asked you. Maybe I should’ve checked your pulse. Maybe I should’ve laid my head on your chest and listened to your heartbeat. Maybe I should’ve left with you then and there and avoided the trap Leon kept guiding us to.

Hot take from a Farm Child: broken machinery is one of the most haunting things you can ever see. I could probably wax poetic about how terrible their beauty is, but I really don’t think anyone wants to hear about farm machines for three hours. (On a completely serious note, my uncle’s coat got tangled in a grain auger yesterday, and he could have died. Be safe around farm machinery. Please. It can be really dangerous, even if you’ve been around it for 60+ years.)

Leon’s descriptions are always some variant of men thinking being tall is intimidating. 

Leon bared his teeth once more, the animalistic beauty of it all making me wonder where Leon ended and his rage began. Primal is often used as a way to pull down others, to say you are not advanced the way I am, but Leon’s rage seemed like an advancement of humanity, a way of saying I have advanced my own humanity through my anger. He was gorgeous in the same way broken tractors on the side of the road are, monolithic kings taken over by the passage of time, their steel teeth rusty and eternal.

Did I reference “Father” by Warsan Shire? Yes. Yes, I did. Hamish is a huge Warsan Shire fan, because, like, it has his vibes. 

You recited a poem about fathers, about death, about life, speaking it as if it were scripture. When you finished, you began again. Or perhaps you never ended, speaking this poem forwards, then backwards, then repeating cyclically.

Yeet.

Chapter VIII

Epitaph: “I could be a wolf for you. I could put my teeth on your throat. I could growl. I could eat you whole. I could wait for you in the dark. I could howl against your hair.”-Catherynne M. Valente, “The Red Girl”, The Bread We Eat in Dreams

There’s a lot of plot stuff that happens in this chapter, so unfortunately, I do have to be a little shorter when it comes to this summary, but let it be said that I am not meant to be a thriller/action author. Do I enjoy watching Indiana Jones and Star Wars? Yes, I do. Should I be writing anything close to that? Absolutely not. It takes a lot of effort to do, and even with that, I would say that any sort of action scene I write is... not exactly “half-baked”, but most certainly not up to par with the rest of my writing. I’ll need to edit this chapter heavily the next time I go through Hamish.

That being said, there are moments in this chapter that I am proud of. Horacio and Ofelia’s interactions in this chapter are some of my favorites, just because they’re some of the only characters in this book who don’t violently hate/distrust each other.

Excerpts: 

When I mentioned kudzu to my mother, she mentioned it was an invasive species she’d seen a lot of during her time in the south, which just confirmed that it was a great metaphor to use. That’s always a sign, right?

I looked down at the flowers, then at her, wiser than anyone I’d ever met, the freedom ripping open her seams like something terrible and sharp, the parts of her that were so carefully cultivated spilling out of her like kudzu.

Horacio feels like he’s the only real person in a world of ghosts. The disconnect between Horacio and the people around him is heavily based upon the first time I disassociated. We watched the Blue Man Group in Chicago on a music/Spanish department trip, and the second I walked out of the building, I thought I was a freaking ghost. I had my first panic attack at 14 because I didn’t know if I was actually experiencing life. It was a wild experience.

Next to Ofelia, I looked out of place. Ofelia was hazy and magical in her presence, looking more like a dreamy memory than a real person, as if I touched her, my hand would touch only air. I was the solid type of real, unfortunately. Tall and unnaturally skinny, with a gritty, starving look to myself, the two of us next to each other were like a pastel-covered, out-of-focus impressionist painting next to a photograph of childhood labor in Industrial Revolution-era factories.

There’s also a confrontation with Leon that has some, um, spoilery moments. Leon is an asshole. I kind of love him.

Chapter IX

Epitaph: “[Grief is pain internalized, abscess of the soul. Anger is pain as energy, sudden explosion.]”-Lauren Groff, Fates and Furies

Again, there’s a lot going on in this chapter. A lot. Marcus the bodyguard makes another appearance (underappreciated character of the book) and acts as a guardian angel. Bless Marcus. Seriously.

This chapter is more introspective than the last, so I enjoyed writing it a bit more. Or... a lot more, actually. I was not created to write action scenes, and I accept my fate. Horacio’s musings on fate are long-winded and beautiful and what I’m meant to write. It’s just a chapter of him reflecting, pining, and wishing he was in a different situation. Which. Fair.

Moments like this make me realize I am a cruel god who treats her characters terribly.

Excerpts: 

Starting this chapter strong with the true weighted blanket: death.

Death cloaked me like your blanket.

As I said before, Marcus? Underutilized character. I use him as much as I can, but the plot makes it difficult to use him as much as I wish. He’s the man we deserve.

Marcus was smart, was good at playing the game we all played without making it apparent that he was playing it. He knew what he was doing. “I want the best for Hamish,” Marcus said. He looked into my eyes. “You do, too.”

Horacio takes a moment to think awful, rage-colored thoughts about the people around him, which are, of course, one of my favorite things to wax poetic about. He’s a salty man, and he has all rights to be, because this entire work is just “things to be salty about, the novel”. Poor Horace. He just wants to live in a gay daydream, but he’s stuck in a nightmare. 

(Not to sound too Midwestern, but OPE, the shade.)

These people played their sick, twisted games like gods, forcing everyone to play along for their survival while they watched and knew exactly what they were doing to the rest of us mortals around them. In that moment, I was filled with the type of righteous anger that made me understand why people were drawn to religion. I wanted a higher power to strike them down, to make an example of them all, to say don’t do this, or you’ll end up like them.

I sounded like my parents, like all the religious nuts I’d ever met, the ones who said that those who didn’t fall their doctrine were inferior, were going to die, and suffer for being different. Is that how it begins? Is anger the true root of all cruelty?

That last line, is anger the true root of all cruelty? was probably my favorite line when I first wrote Hamish. It’s sort of become a thesis statement for Horacio’s past and the way he sees the world. 

Lastly, of course, we have

The Jams

We have a fine selection of songs here, a lot from my Lucy playlist (Lucy has one of my favorite playlists I’d ever made).

Oh No!!! - grandson

Temple Priest (feat. Paul Wall & Kota the Friend) - MISSIO

Destroy Me - grandson

BTSTU - Jai Paul

Seven Devils - Florence + The Machine

Pretty Little Head - Eliza Rickman

That’s the tea, y’all. If you’re interested in this and hearing writing updates for Hamish, then ask to be added to the tags list!

#wip: hamish #writing update #amwriting #writeblr #writers on tumblr #ayyy we're in the home stretch y'all!!!

[witchylittlefox]

My Thoughts and Feelings About Star Wars as of 2019

I held off sharing my complete feelings on this franchise/fandom because I wanted to wait for TROS to be out. since I have seen it now I’m ready to share how I feel about disney owned Star Wars, the fandom war, reylo, and TROS. Heads up these are my opinions and if we disagree that’s okay! But I would appreciate some respect when it comes to nasty comments because some of the things I’m going to say can be..... controversial in the reylo community.

Preface: I have been a Star Wars fan since I was 4 years old. I somehow figured out how to used a VHS machine and I would insert Return of the Jedi and rewind to watch it over and over again. To this day that movie is my favorite out of all of them. Star Wars was something my brother and I shared together and he would lend me all the EU books. I loved all the stories about Jacen and Jaina Solo at Luke’s jedi academy. I grew up with the prequels and yes, I am a prequel defender but they were corny as hell. So not to toot my own horn but I was very much invested in the lore and commited to the series before Disney bought it.

Disney Star Wars: Disney had absolutely no idea what they were doing with the movies (atleast when it comes to the Skywalkers + everyone related to the OT trio). They spat on the OT character’s legacy. They turn Luke into a character who seems to care nothing about helping his sister. No way in the world would Luke just throw a lightsaber off a cliff. Han and Leia are treated a little better (more so Leia), but Disney is passive agressive with them and make them out to be these horrible parents that decide to send away their son because they’re scared of him. No wonder Ben turned out the way he did. Rey, well......they could of written her better and don’t get me wrong I love aspects of her but this should of been Ben’s time to shine. HE should of been the main character of all the movies. Finn? Would of been cool seeing more perspective from an ex stormtrooper but nahhhh let’s just make him fawn over rey in the first one and then in the second give him this whole arc making us think he’s getting somewhere and then another badly written character ruins it. Poe? Well he atleast got more of an arc than Finn but he’s still so flat.

The Fandom Menace And the Fandom War: I decided after TLJ came out that I was not going to label myself in this fight. It seemed like (or atleast on Tumblr) that you couldn’t be a Reylo if you hated Rian Johnson. Rian was made out to be this “savior” of some sorts, just because he focused the movie to be more Reylo centered. YES he is talented. YES I’m thankful he gave us more of a Reylo plot, But jeez that guy is an ass (I didn’t want to cuss in this but oh well lol). Calling out fans on Twitter? Calling them names? Ridiculing Mike Zeroh? Which say what you will about Mike (not a huge fan of him tbh) but god he’s a fan of the series why are you making fun of him? But those people who are apart of the Fandom Menace are not innocent. A lot of them (NOT ALL, but most) only make videos on Youtube hating on Star Wars because it’s cool. They use the hate to get attention. I’m just not all about that. I agree with them on a lot...but seriously at what cost do we have to allow this. Both sides are annoying and immature and I choose not to take a side. I will like what I want about Star Wars and dislike what I want about Star Wars. I am not going to be a sheep. So yes... I am a Reylo, hardcore since TFA came out in 2015 and yes, I think Rian Johnson is a crappy person and I won’t be seeing any of his movies ever again (besides rewatching TLJ) because I don’t want to give money to someone who fuels the fan war. That being said, I dont support (whether that be my viewership or money) anyone who is in the “Fandom Menace” and does the same for the other side.

Reylo: The only thing I really cared about in this sequel trilogy was Reylo. I honestly started to care less about the other characters like Finn and Poe, which in my opinion is sad and just goes to show how bad Disney was at writing these characters. What got me so choked up about their relationship was how raw it was. It wasn’t some unrealistic clean romance. There was no love at first sight (at least on Rey’s end.. can’t say for Ben). It felt so real to me. They reached a level of intimacy that honestly in my opinion reached higher than sexual intercourse. Unconditional love is something that I hold close to my heart, it may be because of my faith, but the fact that Rey saw through Kylo and could see that at his core he was just Ben, emotionally hurt and lost, just wanting someone to believe in him. And she did! she believed in him when his uncle and mother easily gave up hope for him (again horrible character writing bc uhhh sry but isn’t hope supposed to be a theme with them???). And Ben loved her in return!! He protected her and not this stupid patronizing crap that Finn does (Which side note: THAT PISSES ME OFF SO MUCH LOL. John Boyega was wasted with this stupid character). Ben knew her strength and worth and only did what a man should do in a relationship, not overstep, not take control but add his part to the relationship, creating symbiosis. If you look up the meaning of “Dyad”, this comes up:

specifically, sociology : two individuals (such as husband and wife) maintaining a sociologically significant relationship

They are equal. No one is better than the other. They are two sides of the same coin and they complete each other.

And at last....

TROS: Well crap. This movie was...... not amazing. I will have to say that I have only seen it once at this point and may make an edit to it if I change my mind. Honestly though... I can’t see myself changing my opinion but it may happen after a second viewing. I had been following the leaks and yup pretty much all true. And yep... Ben dies. Not only does he die but he barely gets any time to shine when he is redeemed. I am grateful we finally got the Reylo kiss we all waiting for but did he really have to die??? I know lots are saying he didn’t die because we didn’t see him show up as a force ghost in the end but obviously there is no confirmation from Disney on this. The fact that he died for her to live just supports everything I have said above. But where was her emotion? I expected her to be crying? it seemed to appear like she couldn’t care less, yet she was the one who went in for the kiss first and then she seems to be fine when everyone is rejoicing and hugging in celebration? Why didn’t they add him in as a voice in her head or something (ooh fanfic idea! :) ) Why did Rey call herself Rey Skywalker?! I’m sorry but she DOES NOT desserve that title plus she is still a Palpatine! That does not change anything. Don’t get me started on Palpatine.... bringing him back was the dumbest decision ever and undid everything that Anakin did. Now I would of been slightly okay with it if they got Anakin in to help to defeat him but we only got his voice and a bunch of other jedi’s voices sharing words of guidance (which ngl it was nice hearing Ahsoka) but holy heck you could of atleast added ben to the mix. They could of both heard the voices and ended Palpatine together? Also what happened to Rey and Kylo fighting through the various scenes of the past movies? I thought that was a leak? They did absolutely NOTHING to tie up the OT and PT. It has no ties to PT, besides Anakin’s voice and some of the other jedi in the mix (Mace Windu, Ayala Secura, Yoda, Ahsoka Tano, etc..). I know I’m nitpicking but I am atleast grateful we got their voices I just wish we actually got to see their faces. That’s a lot of negatives though so here is what I did like:

Babu Frik.

Rey’s kind heart ( you see that when she greets the little girl on Pasaana, helps D.O. and the snake creature)

The banter between Finn, Poe, and Rey

C-3PO ( they really did him justice)

Ben (just all of him everything about him)

Lando was pretty good

Seeing Wicket at the end with his child ( I think that’s his child?)

Wedge Antilles showing up for like one second ( although that could be a negative because I thought he was going to be in it more because of the book Resistance Reborn. WHICH OH YEAH..... this movie retconned that book btw! So not only was it a horrible book but everything in it doesnt matter)

Conclusion: So yeah, I am not happy. But in the end I will always love Star Wars no matter what. This franchise has taught me so much about hope, love, and even redemption. It was such a fun ride on here. There were ups and downs ( anyone remember that Reylo discourse a while back lol) but we made it. Even though as Reylos, it didn’t end the way we wanted it... we still were proved right. We fought hard against the antis when they kept trying to tell us Reylo wasn’t a thing and boy were they wrong..... they were very wrong. I don’t know what the future holds in store for Reylo’s story or even Star Wars but all we have to do is look forward and have hope for Ben because just as the great Jedi Master, Luke Skywalker once said:

"No one is ever really gone."

May the Force be with you all.

#tros spoilers #the rise of skywalker #star wars #tros opinion #tros review #fandom menace #reylo #reylo fam

[theblackdragon-studios]

The Dragon Prince Tag

I wasn’t tagged...but I saw this and I had to fill it out. I am obligated by my own laws about quiz taking to do so. Sorry. (I read from the one I got this from that it was made by @ true-neutral-earth-elf)

Rules: Answer all 25 questions to the best of your ability, then tag 5 other blogs.

#1. Which Primal Source Do you identify most with? Why?

The official quiz said Ocean, and I agree. At least for now.

Moon is a good second guess though.

#2. Elves or Humans?

Dragons. *shot* Uh...I can’t really choose right now. We’ve only seen the human side of the conflict so far. I want to see the elf side of things before I choose a side.

#3. If you had to choose, would you rather free Runaan from the coin or Aaravos from the mirror?

...I know I’m basically an Aarahoe...and it’s very obvious by the era title “Return of Aaravos” he’s going to break free...but I still don’t know if that’s a good thing or not.

But Runaan...I’ll get into my opinion on him later. I’ll just say the one reason I’d have for freeing him right now is because of Rayla. If she asked, I’d try.

#4. Best animal companion?

Oh don’t make me choose! Um, Bait is the obvious choice because he’s got the most personality. Ava’s also a good girl though...and Phoe-Phoe is a beautiful Moon Phoenix! Oh and then there’s the Aarapod/Wormavos...but if I had to choose, I guess Bait.

EDIT: Actually Berto the parrot! Best animal companion! XD

#5. Best humanoid companion?

To have as your own? Also a tough choice...since they’re all good choices. Except Fen. *shot*

#6. You can revive one character, who is it and why them?

That’s also a tough one...Sarai seems like a good choice, based on what we saw of her...but almost every death in this show is for a reason that leads to major story choices. So...probably no one.

#7. Otp?

Please note this is my opinion. Not yours. If you disagree, that’s fine, but none of my choices are meant to be controversial.

Rayllum. I don’t care if they end up canon, not to the extent I’ll meme or throw a fit or something if it does or doesn’t, but they have the best chemistry I’ve seen in a cartoon in a while.

Other pairings I like:

Amaya x Gren-This is very unlikely given the age gap...I know they’re just close friends as we’ve seen, but it seems nice as a background ship to me.

Harrow x Sarai-Do I need to explain?

Harrow x Viren-Again, I know they were just friends but...it’s also a nice thought. What if they were? You know? (Alternatively: Harrow, Sarai, and Viren could be interesting to think about in an AU too)

Viren x Aaravos-Not super into this one...because this is a Toxic relationship with a capital T if you only look at canon footage. But the fandom has made some interesting “What if it was like this” content...and I love both Viren and Aaravos as characters. Just not their dynamic so far.

Aaravos x Reader/Self-Insert/OC-Aaravos x Anyone really, but I love the self-inserts and “x Reader” stories and headcanons. I’m a part of the problem of course...but that’s beside the point.

Viren x Reader/Self-Insert/OC-I see less of him than any of the main cast in this area, for good reason, but what I have seen...I support you and wish there was more out there. He wasn’t always who he is now.

#8. Unpopular opinion?

1.) Ok, probably the most unpopular...I’m not a huge Runaan fan. I don’t dislike him, don’t get me wrong. I’m just kind of indifferent. I like that he’s an uncle figure to Rayla and that’s really sweet...but I’m just not as interested in him or Tinker as what looks to be a lot of the fandom. Again, I don’t dislike them at all, but I don’t have strong feelings yet either. (That is a bit hypocritical since I know just as much, if not less, about Aaravos...but he intrigues me. There are so many mysteries surrounding him and he’s being built up big time...starting with his role as narrator. I’m not seeing that with Runaan. Sorry.)

2.) Viren is my favorite character, hands down. He’s the most interesting and such a refreshing take on an old idea. I don’t love to hate him for this either, like I do a lot of my favorite villains in the media I consume. I genuinely like him as a character, and that adds to my conflict on how to feel about Aaravos...

3.) I really hope Harrow isn’t Pip (the bird.) I think Pip escaped, but it’s not Harrow. It’s just Pip...whom Ezran can still communicate with if they go that route.

I also hope Callum isn’t half-elf. I don’t know if that’s unpopular, but it just feels like an easy way out. The show doesn’t feel like they’d do that when they’re trying to say Dark Magic is an easy way out, a short cut instead of spending years learning runes and the philosophy of the magic you study.

#9. Favorite headcanon?

More of a theory...but the one that Crowmaster is an Earthblood elf in disguise. I really like that.

Also all the Aaravos headcanons. Some are super cute, others are fuel for my angsty, sadistic writer’s heart.

#10. Best siblings pair?

Both the Broyals and the One Brain Cell Siblings. I won’t choose between them, they’re both great.

#11. Who’s your Queen?

...We haven’t seen the Dragon Queen yet...so I won’t say her in case she’s insane from grief or something... Uh...man, I don’t know. I’ll stay undecided for now.

#12. Lujanne offers you ice cream, how do you respond?

Is it Bubblegum flavored?

#13. Be honest, do you have the guts to use dark magic?

The guts? Maybe. The drive? Not really. My only reason to use it would be to test my theory if everyone goes through what Callum did when he used it. That weird dream where he had to choose. But that’s coming from someone that knows the consequences of Dark Magic and all the comparisons being made about it.

It’s like smoking, it’s like cancer, and for me it’s like killing household pests. When I started out, I was very hesitant about how hard to swat when killing flies that got in the house. Now, I use full force from so much time doing so. It got easier and easier and now it’s almost second nature.

That’s how I would describe the use of Dark Magic. Why it’s so easy for Viren to kill with it, why it gets easier for Claudia to as well...just my thoughts.

#14. Who’s best elf? Why?

I’m not sure yet. Rayla’s the only one that hasn’t insulted humanity in some way so far...but because I’m biased and thirsty: Aaravos (XD)

#15. Hot brown morning potion or leaf flavored water?

Hot brown morning potion WITH chocolate mixed in. Otherwise, I’ll take your flavored water.

#16. Best use for magic?

It depends what type. I’ll go with illusions for...personal reasons. Related to a certain starry elf in a mirror...

#17. Who wins the best hair award?

Does Thunder count? I mean look at that beard! *shot* I dunno...I like them all. But Harrow, Viren, and Aaravos (ofc) stand out most when I think about hairstyles.

#18. Viren; misguided, evil, or actually the good guy?

It’s hard to say right now...everyone raises some good points...but it’s too early to say. Is he just power-hungry? Seeking control? Wants to take control of the East side, the magical side of Xadia, for a selfish reason? Or was he being honest when he claimed to love the kingdom? That war is coming and they need to take action?

What we know from the creators is Viren’s main goal or dream is to “get his name in the history books” though I could have worded that wrong. Basically I’ll just say...he’s clearly the villain. Maybe he didn’t start out that way, but by now he’s definitely willing to do whatever it takes to get his way. Is it a good cause? I don’t know yet...but I can’t say he’s a good guy or the Good Guy at this point.

#19. Would you rather fly with Phoe-Phoe, hike with Corvus, sail with Villads, or stay home with Opeli?

I would love to fly, but Villads is just the best...and I like Corvus but I hate hiking...Phoe-Phoe or Villads.

#20. Who’s your crush?

Isn’t it obvious? Viren, of course. *shot* I mean like I said...I like him...but it’s obviously Aaravos.

#21. You’re being chased by a cotton candy hippo; reaction?

Confusion. And I run.

#22. Choose a champion.

I don’t get this one...

#23. Favorite scene? Why?

It’s hard to choose just one... All Viren and Aaravos’ scenes are great...but I’ll go with the scene where Callum is reading King Harrow’s letter. That is my favorite moment.

A more humorous answer: Anything with Villads, but I love his introduction.

#24. Should Soren be a poet?

I mean who am I to judge? I think people that complain about “bad poetry” need to lighten up about it.

#25. Soggy Socks. (No more context)

...I think that’s the metaphor. Villads is the only reason this is ok to me.

Tags: I only have one friend I know in the TDP fandom who won’t mind being tagged...so: @allykatsart and anyone else that wants to fill it out.

#tag game #the dragon prince #the dragon prince tag #meme

[chiefbuttons]

Happy New Year! Books are the Best!

In 2018 I went to Japan, filled some bookshelves, and read more than the usual amount of literary biographies. In Japan, we navigated the bookstore in which Haruki Murakimi apparently bought his first fountain pen. While there, I bought copies of two of my favourite Japanese books: Kitchen by Banana Yoshimoto, and Book 1 (of 6) of 1Q84.

Japanese books are very beautiful, and all very uniform. There were hundreds of book protectors on sale in every bookshop and stationery shop (we went to a lot of those – the Iroshizuku ink was soooo cheap!), I had to remind myself that books in the UK don’t fit into them to stop myself from bringing them all home. Now that I have at least one  Banana Yoshimoto book in Japanese, there’s more incentive than ever to try and learn the language. I’ve been thinking a lot this year about how much is lost or gained in translation and what that does to a book depending on the language you read. This Little Art by Kate Briggs is a novel-length essay on exactly this topic, and I read it not long after The Idiot in which the protagonist has a crisis about language and how words can lose their meaning. They fit together very well in my head – both asked and tried to provide answers to questions about translation, like why even do it at all if meaning is going to be lost? Having read Murakami’s most recent book, Killing Commendatore, I’m still not sure if the absence of Jay Rubin as translator is responsible for my disappointment with it, or if it was just a bad book, or if Haruki Murakami has never been that great and it was all Jay Rubin all along.

This Little Art, The Idiot, Shirley and Romantic Outlaws are probably my favourites from this year. Also Daphne du Maurier’s short story The Breakthrough, from Don’t Look Now. Sinister, terrifying, haunting, all words that fall short of describing the atmosphere of that one short story.

I read Shirley after reading Outsiders by Lyndall Gordon. I had tried to read it before and had never been able to get past the first chapter, but something about Outsiders made me want to try again. Reading Outsiders made me realise in a way that I hadn’t before that books written in the last couple of centuries aren’t as far removed from us as I had thought. Previously, when reading books from different time periods, I had become as detached as if I was reading fantasy; I forgot that the stories being told were often very firmly set in social, political and cultural climates that had once existed. It helped me to find ways to empathise with the narrators and the characters, and make them much more human and relatable. While reading Shirley, instead of feeling like the characters and situations were a million miles away, I forced myself to remember that Charlotte Brontë was writing about events that were important to the people in the time she was writing about. Her father witnessed Luddite uprisings. The setting of Shirley with its discussions of workers’ rights and its attacks on mills was as real for Charlotte and her father as Brexit and Trump are for us now.

Turtles All The Way Down – John Green

My Twentieth Century Evening and Other Small Breakthroughs – Kazuo Ishiguro

Manderley Forever: Daphne du Maurier, A Life – Tatiana de Rosnay

Don’t Look Now & other short stories – Daphne du Maurier

Outsiders: Five Women Writers who Changed the World – Lyndall Gordon

Shirley – Charlotte Brontë

View this post on Instagram

The first time I tried to read Shirley, I struggled to get past the first three chapters. "This is not as good as Jane Eyre or Villette," I thought. And, of course, I was wrong. How did I come to change my mind and try again? It was because I read Outsiders by Lyndall Gordon. It was sometimes difficult to read; lots of what felt like fact-listing, and the events of the five lives studied are not always in chronological order, which would not be a problem if it was made clearer. This made it difficult to get through but did not affect my ability to be grateful for all the new information and the future reading list (I have a charity shop copy of Middlemarch now sitting on top of a book pile, and am searching for some Olive Schreiner). It also provided me with new reasons to persevere with Shirley. Though the Brontë sister included in this book is Emily, not Charlotte, it is impossible to talk about one without mentioning the other. Especially when Charlotte included a characters based on Emily in a novel: Shirley Keeldar and Caroline Helstone. To read someone's fictionalised perception of her sisters' characters, I thought, would be a very strange experience. And it is, it sometimes feels weirdly voyeuristic. In the future we are all in on the secret. A huge theme throughout Outsiders is the rights of women and how their role has changed over time; Shirley is referred to as an incredibly feminist book. And it is. Jane Eyre has nothing on it. Still feminist, but this is in-your-face "what are we supposed to do all day, cook and sew??" "…yes. I hate womenites." So I decided to read it again but placing it as contemporary, rather than viewing it as a relic of the past which I should accept that I can't always understand or relate to. Putting these new perspectives on it has really helped me to get into the book. This is a huge post. Shirley is great. (Also the first time Shirley was used as a female name!) #bookstagram #Shirley #charlottebrontë #outsiders #lyndallgordon #brontë #nowreading

A post shared by Adelle Hay (@chiefbuttons) on Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34pm PST

In Search of Anne Brontë – Nick Holland

Moshi Moshi – Banana Yoshimoto

Asleep – Banana Yoshimoto

Valley of the Dolls – Jacqueline Susan

Eleanor and Park – Rainbow Rowell

Winter – Ali Smith

Banshee, Volumes 2 & 5

My Uncle Oswald – Roald Dahl

Young Hearts Crying – Richard Yates

The White Book – Han Kang

Wuthering Heights – Emily Brontë

The Idiot – Elif Batuman

Emily Brontë Reappraised: A View from the 21st Century – Claire O’Callaghan

A Cup Of Sake Beneath The Cherry Trees – Yoshida Kenko

This Little Art – Kate Briggs

The Lonely City – Olivia Laing

The Diary of a Bookseller – Shaun Bythell

Sputnik Sweetheart – Haruki Murakami

A Cat, A Man and Two Women – Junichiro Tanazaki

N. P. – Banana Yoshimoto

Romantic Outlaws – Charlotte Gordon

The Pilgrims – Mary Shelley

Bartleby The Scrivener – Herman Melville

Behind A Wardrobe In Atlantis – Emma J. Lannie

The Hatred of Poetry – Ben Lerner

Convenience Store Woman – Sayuka Murata

Demian – Herman Hesse

Revolutionary Girl Utena 20th Anniversary companion book

The Penguin Book of Japanese Short Stories – Edited by Jay Rubin, Introduction by Haruki Murakami

The Beginning of the World in the Middle of the Night – Jen Campbell

The Tales of Beedle the Bard – J.K. Rowling, Illustrated by Chris Riddell

We went to a talk given by Chris Riddell at Nottingham Trent University. He was answering questions about his work on the newly illustrated Beedle the Bard while drawing for us live. He signed my copy of The Edge Chronicles Maps, and was generally very lovely.

View this post on Instagram

Tonight we went to see Chris Riddell speaking with Dr Sarah McConnell at Nottingham Trent University. There were live illustrations, and Shauna Shim did dramatic readings from The Tales of Beedle The Bard. I've been reading The Edge Chronicles since I picked up a copy of Beyond The Deepwoods AT THE LIBRARY (libraries, man!), aged 11, and thought it had the best front cover I had ever seen. Now that I'm older, if Chris Riddell has illustrated something I assume it's good and read it. Thank-you @chris_riddell for staying super late after your talk to speak to everyone and sign everything! @ntucreated #nottinghamtrent #illustration #theedgechronicles #beyondthedeepwoods

A post shared by Adelle Hay (@chiefbuttons) on Oct 3, 2018 at 2:26pm PDT

Ariel – Sylvia Plath

Charlotte Brontë Revisited: A View from the 21st Century – Sophie Franklin

Killing Commendatore – Haruki Murakami

By The Light of My Father’s Smile – Alice Walker

Agnes Grey – Anne Brontë

Rough Magic – Paul Alexander

View this post on Instagram

HAPPY FRIDAY GUYS

A post shared by Adelle Hay (@chiefbuttons) on Dec 21, 2018 at 1:55pm PST

How To Be Invisible – Kate Bush

View this post on Instagram

Merry Kate-mas =D

A post shared by Adelle Hay (@chiefbuttons) on Dec 25, 2018 at 9:34am PST

Mary Ventura and the Ninth Kingdom – Sylvia Plath

This year I would like to write more about the books I am reading – this blog has been very neglected for the past couple of years! I’ve been occasionally taking part in the Are You Book Enough bookbinding challenge on instagram again. This time last year I was working on the January 2018 theme Darkness. I wrote and illustrated a story called The Black Ribbon. It was inspired by the Tatiana de Rosnay biography of Daphne du Maurier, in which de Rosnay refers to Daphne du Maurier’s depressive episodes as her “black ribbon.” It’s also a tribute to Edward Gorey. I thought his style of illustration would be best suited to the story I was telling, so I had a go at reproducing his style.

View this post on Instagram

Part 2 of my #AreYouBookEnough January book. Here are all the illustrations and the story I wrote inspired by Edward Gorey, Daphne du Maurier and Tatiana de Rosnay. Please see my previous post for the explanation! #bookart #bookstagram #handmadebooks #illustration #edwardgorey

A post shared by Adelle Hay (@chiefbuttons) on Jan 30, 2018 at 1:43pm PST

Another of the books I made this year was a book in a box for the theme Listen. I chose to bind a book of Kate Bush’s Fifty Words For Snow from her song and album of the same name.

View this post on Instagram

This is my contribution to the August #AreYouBookEnough bookbinding challenge, #listen . I love to listen to music, and Kate Bush is one of my favourites. Why choose Fifty Words For Snow when I could choose any of her songs? Why does it fit the theme best? The song is a list. It's Stephen Fry reciting fifty words for snow – some made up by Kate Bush, some real. She wanted him to be the narrator because people believe the words he says, he is intelligent and speaks with a quiet authority.  Hearing him speak her fictional words for snow makes them sound real. Snow itself deadens sound but has sounds of its own; one of the words is "creaky-creaky." I hope whoever looks at my book can hear the snow behind the words. This is the first time I've made this kind of box, and my measurements are a bit off (the lid is loose!) but overall I'm pleased and know what to do better next time! The paper is very fibrous, I wanted something that looked and felt like snow. Both the front cover of the book and the lid of the box are padded. The ink I used to write the fifty words is a mixture of two different inks – white calligraphy ink and a Grey Plum Kwiz ink. I'm going to have to find a way to photograph it properly because it is almost pearlescent! If you hold the paper a certain way it disappears. Hold it to the light and it looks like it is glowing. I'll try and get some video footage of it. #AreYouBookEnough #bookart #handmade #katebush #fiftywordsforsnow #50wordsforsnow #listen #books #snow #music

A post shared by Adelle Hay (@chiefbuttons) on Aug 30, 2018 at 12:36am PDT

I will leave you with a picture of the new bookcase. I hope you have an excellent 2019!

View this post on Instagram

Got a new phone. The cats ran away so I took a picture of one of the bookcases. It's so shiny

A post shared by Adelle Hay (@chiefbuttons) on Dec 6, 2018 at 1:28pm PST

  Books I read in 2018 Happy New Year! Books are the Best! In 2018 I went to Japan, filled some bookshelves, and read more than the usual amount of literary biographies.

[rockinlibrarian]

Three Survey Memes

@e_louise_bates tagged me once directly and twice indirectly (I mean, since I'm already typing something here I might as well do the others too), so here. Please feel free to comment! I like discussions!

Survey One (what I was actually tagged for): Name my top ten favorite characters from ten different fandoms.

I feel like the way this is phrased, I should pick ten fandoms first and then narrow them down to the characters, so that's what I did. It's an easier way to find my favorite characters, anyway.

1. From Harry Potter: Luna Lovegood, obviously

2. From Tolkien: Samwise Gamgee, obviously

3. From the MCU: Peggy Carter, most obviously of all

4. From Star Wars: This is a product of me picking fandoms first, and then discovering I don't have an OBVIOUSLY answer this time. But when you get right down to it, I've always had a special place in my heart for Obi Wan.

5. From Diana Wynne Jones: Sophie Hatter. Stealing one from Louise there, but again, obviously.

6. From L.M. Montgomery: Stealing the fandom from Louise that time, but I on the other hand have to stick with Anne Shirley, because she may top my fave character list, period.

7. From Jane Austen: Rev. Henry Tilney, NOT stealing from Louise because again, OBVIOUSLY, as she well knows, too. :D

8. From Discworld: DEATH. This was hard, because as soon as I started thinking of Discworld, so many MUST INCLUDES came up. Tiffany! DEATH's granddaughter, whose name I totally had a minute ago when I first thought of it but now has suddenly slipped my mind as I'm typing it (my brain now keeps trying to tell me it's "Karen" but that feels utterly wrong Her last name's Sto-Helit. I think. EDIT: SUSAN! Of course. The second I hit "post")! Sam Vimes, one of the other great Sams of fiction! But who's there and perfect and wonderful through all of it? DEATH. So I'm sticking with that.

9. Uh, other Marvel properties that aren't the MCU: I just have to shout out again to the Loudermilk twins from Legion. They count as one person because they sort of are, and because their chemistry together just MAKES them, even though they both individually are pretty fun, too (Cary's dorkiness and Kerry's innocent enthusiasm for beating people up). There was like a block of three or four episodes this season without them and it nearly ruined the whole season for me.

10. No particular fandom I'm aware of but no list of favorite characters is complete without: Blossom Culp. From the books by Richard Peck.

SURVEY TWO, a writing one:

1. When did you start writing and how? In first grade I had this dream about a disgruntled Santa's elf taking our church hostage on Christmas Eve. It was a great dream, so I decided to turn it into a book. Recently I decided to revisit it-- the basic plot, at least-- as a picture book. And for some stupid reason I decided it needed to be in verse. It might work some day.

Early on all my story ideas came from dreams, actually. Still today, my subconscious does most of my story-creating. Last night I had one about this huge family that lived in a mansion with a public pool in it and had all sorts of hijinks. They were great. They lived on Chalk Street and the oldest girl's boyfriend was named Granger the Ranger. Anyhoo.

2. What is your favorite line from your own work? It's got to be "Concentration leads to Meditation leads to Levitation leads to Aviation," because that's just a way of life.

I'm also partial to anything at all that Billy Boyd says in the Pipeweed Mafia Stories.

3. Who is your writing idol, and how have they influenced you? Hmm, I wouldn't call Madeleine L'Engle my writing idol, but she has influenced me the most, with her way of seeing the cosmic in the very small and the individual in the cosmic. And I named my daughter after her. But my Patron Saint of Writing whom I occasionally call on for intervention is Diana Wynne Jones. I don't know why. She just seems to be who I need to get my writing juices flowing.

4. Which oc has the best family (found or otherwise)? Of my characters? Hmm, I've never really focused much on family in my works. Even found family. I guess Billy 'Arrison's uncle IS George Harrison, so probably that.

5. Which oc has the most satisfying ending to their story? Ah, I'm terrible at endings. None of my characters has an ending to their story, not just because most of my works have never been finished, but because I keep thinking of things that happen to them later. NO ENDINGS.

6. If you’ve gotten feedback on your writing, who is your readers’ favorite character? If not who do you think readers will fall in love with? Well, no questions there. Billy 'Arrison. I mean look how often he's come up already in this survey. If you ask anybody whose ever read my work to name ANY of my original characters, they will go with Billy. Heck, people who HAVEN'T actually read his story would pick Billy.

7. Which tropes (eg. Friends to lovers, fake death, white haired pretty boy) do you always find yourself wanting to write? All my stories tend to have the theme of disparate people becoming friends through having an adventure together. I recently wondered if that's because I've always thought friendship would be easier if you could cut out all the small talk, and having an adventure leaves no time for small talk.

8. What goes through your head when writing a scene? The... scene? Also, random entirely unrelated stuff. Because I have ADHD. My brain is impossible to follow anywhere.

9. How specific is your idea of your characters’ appearance usually? Do you draw them? (If so can we see it?) Facial features are usually fairly foggy to me. I get general shape and color, so, like, what their hair looks like, their size, their race. I get their sense of style, too-- often I give them a signature item of clothing whether in my mind or in the text. I've drawn a few of my characters, yes, but I'm not particularly good at drawing consistently.

10. What are you proudest of as a writer? That I can occasionally look back at things I have written and be delighted by them as a reader. Unfortunately most of these things I have written continue to not be finished.

SURVEY THREE, also about writing:

1. How many works in progress do you currently have? That depends on your definition of "in progress." If you mean ACTUALLY IN PROGRESS, zero. Zip. Unless you count a couple of GeekMom articles I have in the planning stage. Or unless you count not-writing. I have a living room renovation in progress at the moment.

How many works do I have in an incomplete status that I plan to get back to eventually? Hmmm. At least five.

2. Do you/would you write fanfiction? I'm not INTO fanfiction but I do/have written a few pieces when they occur to me. There's of course the Pipeweed Mafia, which is a mix of Inklings fanfic and real people fanfic. You could count me writing George Harrison into Billy's background real people fic. One of my works in possible occasional progress is a Firefly fic about how Zoe fell in love with Wash. Oh, I should have put Firefly on my list of fandoms above, just so I could name Kaylee. KAYLEE, people. But I haven't written fic about her. Anyway. I also once wrote a very short prompt response X-Files fic that always delights me. It's silly, and yet in character.

3) Do you prefer paper books or ebooks? Paper.

4) When did you start writing? First grade.

5) Do you have someone you trust that you share your work with? A few people. It depends on the type of work, who would be the best fit for it. Louise is in fact one.

6) Where is your favorite place to write? Someplace where I don't have real life demands calling on me. Oddly enough, I think I got some of my best writing done while working at the Children's Museum, during downtime. On slow days I'd write a scene on the back of my schedule. A page a day really adds up! Of course, on busy days that was unthinkable!

7) Favorite childhood book? Have I mentioned A Wrinkle In Time?

8) Writing for fun or publication? Depends on where I am in life. Now, it is for fun, unless it is an article.

9) Pen and paper or computer? First drafts pen and paper. Then putting it together on the computer.

10) Have you ever taken any writing classes? Yeah, I had some writing courses in college, and I also took correspondence courses twice.

11) What inspires you to write? Ideas. As I mentioned, I get a lot of ideas from dreams. But there's also, like, a swelling of words in my brain that needs to come out through my hands every so often. I called it "writeritis" as a kid, and I guess I still do.

TAGGING: Whoever. You know who you are, if any of this resonates with you!

[kristens-chaotic-life]

Big Update #2

So my update part 2...as far as the changes going on in my life.  I think this one is going to be harder and longer to write than I planned.  And now I question if I should have saved this one for last! So the last I’d say 6 months or so..maybe more, it might be closer to a year now I’ve been really working more on my relationship with God.  I’ve believed in God since I was young...and during high school and college spent a lot of time helping with worship and such.  But as an adult I really just hadn’t been going as much. It got hard, and I just didn’t go. Just the thought of getting the kids ready and dragging them out alone, and keeping them occupied during a service didn’t seem fun to me. Yes I know there is childcare. BUT as YOUNG kids my kids had nothing to do with being away with me and stuck into a room with other kids. Michael is still this way. He sits with me, or his Grammy if I happen to be singing during the church services. That toddler room is NOT for him. So anyways...I just didn’t go. Finally like 2 years ago we had started going. Went for a few months but then once Zach's mom and grandma went down south for the winter I again decided it was way too much work for me to do on my own. So this fall we started going again. And then in October I became part of the worship arts team. And it has been WONDERFUL. Being a part of a group like that is so great.  Helping lead others to worship is just so amazing! Super huge to thanks to Zach's mom for helping out with the kids so I can be apart of something like that because it involves kid shuffling on our busy night of the week on the weeks that I have rehearsal. (taekwondo and cheer) And getting up a little early on Sundays and picking up the kids and bringing them church, getting them to their classrooms, and entertaining Michael during the service. And then getting them back home and most times feeding them lunch, because I’m not back for another couple hours. It's quite a bit! So I am super appreciative of that.  Now even though she’s gone for the winter we are still going, and still making it work. Well this week we didn’t go because Michael is sick so we stayed home. And there was 1 week we had a snow storm. But aside from that we are still going :) And I’m still helping with worship, about once a month.  Zach&Stephanie are helping do the kid shuffle. 

In January(so originally when I typed this it was still January lol but I put it off and now am rereading and editing) I got to sing “Your Great Name” when learning that I was going to be doing that I put a lot of thought into the meaning of the song when I was working on it and what it means to me. I do usually spend a bit of time connecting with all the songs, because I feel that it's important.  But I spent extra time on this one. And just every single line of the song is something. The whole song is just so powerful! Take a listen below(the entire service which is also great can be found somewhere on my fb page) Big thanks to my uncle for cutting down this video for me so that I was able to share it :)

https://youtu.be/GmmuuFimaoQ

Another thing I have been doing, well trying to do but I’m not great at doing it daily. But I was given this book The Purpose Driven LIfe, by my therapist. It has 40 days of short readings, and things to think about. (Insert picture here) It really and just reminds you that YOU have a purpose. YOU were planned by God and he knows everything about you and has a plan for you. I’m excited to keep going in that. I just find that I forget to read from it daily, because ya know distractions and life. BUT it's pretty awesome.(Update here, I should be done with this, but I’m only about half through. BUT it is still awesome, life is just busy) 

So..now this brings me to this next part. And now that I’m here I’m not sure if it belongs in this entry, or if it really belongs in the next one. Really I think it relates to both. The counseling office I go through hosted a prayer event, a HeartSync conference.  When I got the invite for it, it immediately caught my eye, and I just KNEW I HAD to go. Not even fully understand what it was about, or much about it at all. But I felt I needed to be there.  So I registered right away. I told my therapist I was going, and he said that was cool and that it's very powerful. And wow, was he right. I don’t even know that powerful is the word to explain it. But I can’t think of a word that means something more than powerful right now. So we’ll just go with that.  The conference was on a Friday night for a few hours and then all day on Saturday.  I had 2 friends there too. My friend April who we had planned to attend together so that we didn’t have to be alone. And then Christy, who I have known for years, but we hadn’t talked all that much and this even really brought us together. All 3 of us really, it's been a blessing..but that's an update for another time :)   When I got there I recognized many other faces. Not really people I knew, but people I had seen at the counseling office before, as well as a handful of the therapists/counselors(not mine, he was unable to be there). Friday night was very emotional and moving.  Spent a lot of time praying...and while praying God would reveal some other aspect of something going on in my life. And it was just truly emotional. I couldn’t think of another time that I had spent so much time crying. We had talked about defense mechanisms that we use, and I hadn’t even really thought of many of them, but then going through them it was like yep, I do use that..and that..and really a handful of them. One of the last times we spent praying Your Great Name was played.  And that brought in so much emotion for me, as I had just spent so much time a week ago and even before that connecting with that song.  The night ended and I was talking in a group with a few people, one being one of the therapists from the office and he asked if I wanted him to pray with me because it seemed like I needed to. And we did. And there is something very powerful about that, and so helpful that I’m not quite sure how to explain. It had been awhile (I think since my first counseling session, maybe 2nd with my therapist) since I had someone pray with me. I could tell after all of this that night that God was doing something in me. But couldn’t quite grasp what was happening. 

So day 2. LONG day! 830 in the morning. I’m not a morning person. Well, in a way I am because I workout early everyday..like 5/530. But as far as my brain being working and taking things, not so great.  I was exhausted because the night was long and I hadn’t slept much and I was struggling to get my heart in the right place. But during our first break I had a quick yet much needed chat and was able to get my head and heart in the right place so that I could continue to let God work.  We spent a lot of time discussing trauma. And what all it was. And that it's not just the physical things, or grieving a loss or some sort of abuse like a lot of people would think. But there's another type. The absence of something. Ok...so as I’m writing this I’m thinking I’ll at some point do an entire entry talking about what this is. But through this I saw God work in me and I saw God working in others...and at some point I will do an actual heartsync. I just don’t feel that I’m ready yet. I need to let my guard down more I think, and I feel like the process can leave you feeling pretty vulnerable through it, I could be wrong. But just based off of how I was feeling while praying there and everything else...I think I have some praying to do to get there.   But after the conference I talked for a few with Steve, who did the conference and is the director of renewal. He told me when I was ready to do a heartsync to talk to Chad about it, because he is trained in doing it. So this is something I have been praying about..and if you are a person who prays, pray for me! Steve also  gave me a copy of his book, the Divided Heart, which is next on my list to read. Kind of to summarize what happened...letting God in, being able to let go of things, and just letting God work, and show you things. It was very very powerful. Also...I need to share my fortune from a fortune cookie from when we were out to lunch. This couldn’t be more perfect.

Some of you may wonder if I’m done yet...well no. I’m not :) This has really been a journey. A journey of growth...so much spiritual growth, and I know that will continue. Since I started this one I also had the opportunity to lead another song, which is a favorite of mine, “Who You Say I Am”. Take a listen :) 

https://youtu.be/1gA_ZQYg0Fs

This coming week I’m leading 2 songs. And I’m really looking forward to them. And it amazes me how things tie together sometimes. And I know it's just not a coincidence.  So one of the songs I’m leading is “I am not alone”. Which of course is another very powerful song. Friday while I was at counseling the conversation we were having we were talking about how God is always there, and praying. And he asked what I was thinking. And I was like...so...the song I’m leading is I am not alone. I feel that God is really reminding me of that right now. And if you are reading this now...I want to remind you that, too. You are never alone. God is always there. No matter what it is we are going through. Depending on what's going on it can be easy to forget...but at that moment when things seem too much, just pray. He is there. For some people I know being told to pray might seem silly. I understand. I was told that a lot. And I’d be like ok...yea. I will. Sometimes thinking why bother...but seriously. JUST DO IT! It really does help. And maybe, find someone to pray with. And don’t be afraid to ask someone to pray with you. And when I say that, I am talking to myself too. I am not sure why, but I DO like people to pray with me. And sometimes I NEED that. But I’m afraid to ask. So, to the people who might be a little more on the outgoing side, if you can, ask someone if they would like you to pray with them. Some of us need that person to ask….

I know this was long...and I know it might not have all made sense. My mind is kinda all over and there’s so much more to say...but we’ll get there. This update was long overdue!

#heartsync Jesus GodIsGood PowerinPrayer

[ynibytina]

Meet Spencer Kane!!!

I fell in love with Spencer Kane's voice when I heard his song "One Of THE Kind" on Youtube. The message of the song is simple: everyone is different, so stand out and be yourself, and don't be a bully. I recently got to interview this Kendallville, Indiana native that is a spokesperson for PACER's National Bully Prevention Center and also is just about to perform on the 2013 iShine Live tour. If you want to learn more about him, you can check out his personal website, YouTube channel, or Facebook & Twitter pages.

Favorite Musicians: Tobymac, Lecrae, Trip Lee, Jor'Dan Armstrong, Jason Derulo, Capital Kings, The Ground Above.

Favorite Movies: Ace Ventura Pet Detective (#1) & any action movies.

Favorite Books: I Am Number 4 Series.

Favorite Color: Blue.

Favorite Holiday: Christmas.

Mac or PC: Both.

Twitter or Facebook: Twitter.

Blackberry or iPhone: iPhone.

Chocolate or Vanilla: Vanilla.

Winter or Summer: Summer.

Pancakes or Waffles: Pancakes.

Math or Science: Math.

Past, Present, or Future: Present & Future.

What's your favorite song off your new EP besides "One of THE Kind?"

Move-In The Right Direction is my favorite on the EP because even though I wrote 4 of the 5 songs on the EP, that is the one which I was most involved in creating the music and overall production. The other songs I sang and gave input, but they were more directed by the Executive Producer and Producer. I like them all, but Move In The Right Direction was almost like I was able to help assemble each piece of the song the whole way through. The others I would sing my vocals and then kind of wait for the producer to give me a rough cut with music that I could critique and just kind of wait to see what happened. MITRD was very hands-on in the studio in Nashville for me and that will always be my best memory of this EP.

What made you realize you wanted to pursue a career in music?

I believe it was when I was 13 and auditioned for a local version of an Idol competition in my county. There were like over 100 people who tried out in my age category (under 16) and I made the top 10 and actually finished 2nd place. (The video of this performance is on my Youtube channel). I sang Sunday Morning by Maroon 5 and the judges of that competition were professional artists and voice trainers. They all said I did well. So when I look back and see that someone other than family felt I may have a chance to do something with music, it sort of made it easier to choose to pursue it. But even then and until the past 6 months, I was still not sure if it was something I'd do as a hobby or pursue professionally. Once I met with iShine in Nashville and Robert Beeson (founder of Essential Records who originally signed Jars of Clay and Third Day, and like the winner of 6 Grammys and a bunch of Dove Awards) I was told I had good potential. So, I guess that made it even more clear that I should take it more seriously. I'm such a jock athlete, it's been hard to walk away from a life in sports and dream of playing at the highest levels, but right now I'm just like taking it a step at a time and hopefully this upcoming tour starting on February 15 will make the picture even more clear. LOL.

What can you expect to see in the fourth season of iShine Knect?

The show is based on a school of performing arts and students who are talented in a lot of ways. It centers around The Rubyz, Mission 6 and a few other regulars. This new season was my first and I play myself in the show (Spencer Kane). I have a few episodes where I have more speaking lines than not, but many where I am just an extra in the background. I do know we filmed me performing my entire EP on stage at a concert at TBN Studios in Nashville the beginning of December 2012. I know they will be showing me singing on some episodes. I really liked the scripts and the topics of each show and think the over 1 million kids who tune in each week will like it too.

Your song "One of THE Kind" is about bullying. You recently became a spokesperson for PACER's National Bullying Prevention Center. How did that come along?

Yes. That song was based a lot on my own personal experiences in junior high and still even now being bullied for things. But it's also about some of the sad stories I've been told by fans around the world who face bullying in their own country just like here. Some places it's worse than here, but bullying is bullying. So the song is kind of my way of telling people to reach out and be kind and talk to people who may be hurting. PACER was a site that we submitted my song to in hopes they would tweet it or at least post a link on their site of the music video since it was based on what they are all about. That kind of led to a few phone calls from them to learn more about me and after a conference call with my manager in early December along with my dad and I, we sort of agreed to move forward in them helping me with bullying prevention curriculum to share at my live performances and them having me become a national spokesman for their organization. It's quite an honor since Demi Lovato has been their primary spokesperson for the past 5 or 6 years. They work with Disney and The Ellen Show as a partner against bullying, so it's really cool to know that they believe in my message enough to want to join together in our efforts to prevent bullying.

Someone once said write what you would want to perform over and over again. With that in mind, if you could only sing one song on stage (one of your own songs and one cover song), what would it be and why?

Great question. Right now I'd have to say "Be Alright" by Justin Bieber is one that I relate to and think I can sing well in a live performance. Reason To Be from my new EP is one that I actually like to sing because I believe the producer helped me to get the best out of my vocals on that song. I think people that hear the song really connect emotionally and in a live concert, that's what you really hope for.

What does a current day in your life look like?

Haha! Well, thank goodness right at the moment it's not been as crazy as it was from June until Christmas in 2012. But the tour is coming up in February and March and I'll be on the road for nearly 5 consecutive weeks and that will probably be crazy. But I'm a full-time H.S. student and varsity basketball player. I wake up early for school at like 6:15am and have to travel like 20 miles to get there one way. I usually have practice or a game 6 days a week, so I can usually plan on being up until 10pm working on homework, home chores, or cramming whatever other free time I have into something to do with music like chatting with fans online, or rehearsing music, writing music, listening to music, filming music videos or Vlogs, or even doing interviews or performances somewhere. Most people don't know HOW I fit my life in, but we seem to manage as a family right now. I'm sure my schedule after the tour may look different.

Besides music and sports, what do you like to do for fun?

I'm an Xbox gamer. I love playing online against friends or people I don't know. I'm very competitive so I like being able to try to beat my personal best score or be able to talk smack to a friend if I can manage to beat them. I play sports games or Call of Duty. Otherwise, I'm a movie guy. My parents and I watch a lot of movies when we have the time. I have a pretty beast-man cave in my basement where my dad and I just chill, so that's fun. Sometimes I go to the mall or hang with friends, but not very often.

What does your family think of your performances and how do they support you?

Well grandma's, of course, think I'm amazing. LOL. But honestly, my aunts and uncles are pretty supportive too. My best friend is my cousin Evan who is also 16 and he and I go to the same school. He is a huge supporter of me too. But my mom and dad are probably my biggest help. Dad owns a marketing company and is a photographer and videographer. He films all my music videos and edits them. He also does all my pictures so that is a huge help. He manages my marketing stuff like album cover art, and posters, and making my website. He like takes care of a lot of the business stuff for me like contracts and stuff. Mom is my cheerleader and is always checking out the "fangirls" to make sure they aren't up to something that will hurt her little boy. LOL. But I'd say that a lot of what I do with music is because God put me in a great family. My parents always try to make sure I have time to be a kid and have as normal a life as possible. So I guess that is a huge help too.

What's the best part about working with iShine?

I think the fact that I can be the artist I want to be and don't have to meet a stereotype that people expect when you're working with a Christian media group like iShine. I mean, the first time we ever met I explained that I'm definitely a Christian and always want my music to be morally positive, but I have NO plans or call to be a "Christian Artist". Like I don't envision me making albums of praise and worship type songs. It's not who I am or how I want to make music. iShine owners and management said they appreciated my sincerity and honesty and that it made them even more supportive of working with me. They believe my music will reach a broad group of young people who may or may not be Christians and that, I guess, is a good thing for them. So, they have been amazingly helpful in developing me and teaching me about the music industry. They let me work with Jeff Savage (Tobymac's Grammy Winning producer from the album Momentum and Diverse City and the writer of Irene and J Train). That alone was amazing to know I was working with him. He's awesome. He produced One of the Kind, 413 and Blue Sky from my new EP. So just working with him and then working with Zach Hall (producer of Newsboys "God is Not Dead" album) was also amazing. So I just think our goal in 2012 was to be able to work with professional and experienced producers who could help my music get to the next level, and iShine has definitely helped me to do that.

If you could perform anywhere in the world, where would you play and why?

I think anywhere in a huge venue with like 100,000 fans would be incredible. Even like 20,000 fans would be insane. I think the location isn't as important as knowing I would be able to perform for people who really wanted to see me perform. That's going to always be my goal. I love making music videos and seeing people like them on Youtube, but performing live in front of a huge audience would be fantastic.

[thedoughnutdiaries]

hey all,

i have been wanting to do a home tour of our apartment for a while now and finally got around to taking the pics today! mind you they were on my iphone so the quality isn’t that great and i did a LOT of editing in vsco, but you get the gist of our home pretty well :)

coming this october, we will have been in our astoria (that’s in queens!) apartment for 4 years!!! what we thought was just going to be a one-year thing has lasted us this long. i remember when i first moved out to nyc how daunting apartment hunting was. it was right after college and tyler was still living back in minneapolis so i was embarking on this journey alone. i had no where idea where to begin - there are so many websites and sometimes it can be hard to tell what is real and what is a scam. i scoured manhattan and the boroughs on weekends, after work and even during work sometimes. it was a nightmare. i actually remember walking through brooklyn softly crying to myself and thinking how this is NEVER going to happen. but, i came across a listing on craigslist for a junior 1BR located in astoria. i didn’t know much about queens, but the commute was really short and the apartment had charm. so i went and looked, made a downpayment and two days later it was MINE! i called up tyler and told him to book his one way flight because, baby, WE HAVE AN APARTMENT! 

for a long, long time our apartment was kind of a sad place. since it was our first place ever we started from scratch with all of our furniture besides the bed (thanks aunt jane and uncle brian!). with only one of us having a job right away (tyler was still searching for one) ikea was basically our go-to place. ugh, i wish i could show you the evolution of our apartment so badly!! for a while it was just white walls, a futon, a kitchen table and a bed. but eventually we both had jobs, and promotions happened and we were able to really make it our own. :) just to be upfront, i have a VERY heavy hand in the decorating (if you thought tyler picked out the unicorn pillow, think again! haha). tyler though knows that once i have a vision, he might as well just let it come to fruition because there is NO stopping me. and i love him so so much for that quality :) i think if i didn’t go to school for advertising, it definitely would have been interior design. i particularly love mid-century modern, so a lot of our apartment has that vibe. but hey, tyler did the gallery wall above our bed (one of the first things he did when he moved out here!) and that has been a staple in our bedroom. it is filled with art tyler has made, photos we love, and art done by my talented friend samantha. <3 

living in nyc and in a tiny apartment garners lot of questions. it is a bit foreign to our family and friends back home and to be honest, suburban life is just different from city life. one isn’t better than the other and there are pros and cons to both scenarios. obviously space is a HUGE topic of conversation. the truth is it is really challenging. like a lot of people who own a house or even just a much larger apartment, we don’t have the luxury of having a lot of “stuff”. sometimes that can be a pain, but i’ve seen it sort of as a blessing in disguise. not having space really makes you think about what you need vs. what you want. 2-3 times a year tyler and i will go through all of our clothes and clean out things we no longer wear and donate them or take them to this spot, buffalo exchange, to try and get some cash back!! doing this is actually very cleansing. my rule is typically if i haven’t worn it in a year, then out it goes! we also LIVE for space under furniture. we store a ton of things under the bed and couch in plastic bins. also, our closets help enormously. lucky for us, our apartment has two pretty spacious ones that go all the way up to the ceiling (our ceilings are 10ft!). so we are able to do a lot with that space as well. sure, i would love to have a spare closet for more things or even hide all of that junk above our cabinets, but we are working with what we have and so far it hasn’t been THAT bad. :)

you might also notice in the pictures above that we don’t own a tv. based on the layout of the apartment, there isn’t really a great spot, however i do have something in my mind that i have been wanting to do, but i’m just trying to convince tyler to get on board ;) stay tuned. for now, we just watch shows off our ipad and computer and it works out! (sling and netflix is basically all you need in life). we also don’t have a dishwasher, which DEF sucks sometimes, but it forces us to clean our dishes right after we eat - it is a pain and a plus at the same time. and don’t just assume that i do them, tyler and i usually trade off who does dishes based on who made dinner so that it is fair for the other person :) and if you were wondering if we had a washer/dryer, we sure don’t! but luckily our laundromat is just right around the corner. i really thought that was going to be difficult to get used to, but it isn’t bad at all. and if you are feeling super luxurious, you can do wash and fold - you drop your dirty laundry off and you pick it in a clean, folded bag :) i actually have yet to do this...what am i thinking?!? 

as i mentioned, we have done a TON of modifications over the past 3 years. everything from painting, to new furniture to my most recent project - the kitchen counters and backsplash. YOU GUYS. if you are renting an apartment and your countertops are hideous, i highly recommend trying marble contact paper. it completely transformed the space. and if you hate your boring painted wall, you can buy removable backsplash tiles! i am so happy with how it turned out (let me know if you are interested more on this topic!). 

there is still a lot of work i want to do with our aparment, but i really feel like we have maximized our space in all ways possible. tyler and i love coming home to a space that feels cozy and personal vs. a drab blank slate. for you renters out there, paint your walls, hang up art and make the space your own. you will feel SO much happier - flowers also help :) all in all, tyler and i are very happy with our cozy junior 1BR apartment. who knows how much longer we will be in this exact space. all i know is i am enjoying the days we are here because i know it will be so sad when it comes time to leave! 

xo,

grace

ps - almost all of our furniture is from target, cb2, wayfair and west elm! 

#design #interior #interior decorating #decor #home #house #astoria #nyc #apartment #New York City #queens #blogger #lifestyle #abmhappylife #abmlifeiscolorful #liveauthentic #livefolk #Target #Target Style #sharemytargetstyle #west elm #CB2 #mycb2 #cb2 furniture #furniture #style #ikea

[ensembleeding]

1 to 100, cause these are goood.

Thank youuuuuuu this was so fun1. Pandora!2. I would say clean but I don't want to lie, so MESSY3. Blue-grey4. I used to hate it because it's super common where I live, but I've grown to like it more because it can be found in so many cultures around the world, which is awesome, and is a palindrome, which is also awesome.5. Single6. Imaginative, serious, passionate7. Blonde8. I'm too young to drive, so I'll say that I walk and it's great. :)9. Depends on what I'm shopping for, but mostly Maurice's, Target, Charlotte Russe, and Levi's, because I can find stuff to fit my body type there (it is seriously impossible to find jeans for short legs)10. Simple with a dash of lumberjack (I wear a ton of plaid and jeans)11. I guess this one? Or my Wattpad, if that counts as social media.12. A double bed.13. Yep! A younger brother.14. New York City. I love the energy of it there, with the non-stop feeling, and I feel like a lot of interesting people live there because it's such a huge place. Also, I love the theatre, and NYC IS Broadway, and I am so here for that.15. (I don't have a Snapchat so non applicable, I guess?)16. I don't really wear a ton of makeup from a variety of brands, but I've been using Ulta and that seems to work pretty well.17. 6-7 times. 18. Ohhhhhh jeez, um, Downton Abbey, I guess? Even though it's over.19. 7.5 in US sizes20. 5"1.75. Which isn't totally short, but I've met a lot of people who are super, super tall recently, which makes me just feel shorter?21. Sneakers, hands down, or going barefoot because that's the most comfortable 22. I have gym class, so...I guess?23. Well. Um. Huh. I've actually never thought about this. Maybe meeting up in a coffeeshop and talking, and then going out to a museum or stargazing? I'd like a date that focuses on24. Eight dollars, plus around maybe one dollar in the change part?25. None, I'm barefoot! 26. One.27. Nope! But I hope to write, or get involved in media production.28. Ummmmmm okay. I'd say I have maybe seven friends who I'm super close to who stayed in touch with me when I moved recently, and then a squad of maybe 10 people where I currently live? Give or take. I'm not the closest to everyone in the squad but I have some friends outside of it so it still rounds out to about ten. But how close I am to these people is an uncertainty.... AND moving on.29. The worst thing I've ever done is probably in correlation to a huge project I once did. I went all *control freak* and got hysterical over stuff and disregarded other people's feelings and opinions.30. Pine, I think.31. Tom, Ivan, and Cody32. Caitlyn, Rowan (even though it's a gender neutral name), and *dice roll for a name*33. Aaron Tveit and Lin Manuel Miranda.34. I HAVE A LIST: Cynthia Erivo (when she performed on the Tonys I was so wildly impressed and amazed and was squealing the entire time after), Sutton Foster (I am obssesed with her tap dancing), Karen Olivo (It Won't be Long Now is my jam), Sam Barks (EPONINE), Patina Miller (my fave leading player in Pippin), Renee Elise Goldsberry (Satisfied. Just. Satisfied.), and Anna Kendrick because I love her voice.35. Do fictional characters count? Because Nina Zenik.36. Wadjda. 37. I read a lot, and my fave book is The Book Thief by Markus Zusak.38. Brains39. My dad calls me Anna Banana.40. Once, when I was born. Twice, when I had tendonitis. Three times, when I had tendonitis again. And then there's all the times I visited family in the hospital, which is honestly too much for me to count.41. Oh. Um. Uh. Well.(In no particular order) The Witch (Big Fish the Musical), If I Were a Bell (Guys and Dolls), Candy Store (Heathers the Musical), Mamma Mia (Mamma Mia), Watch What Happens (Newsies), Live in Living Color (Catch Me If You Can), Right Hand Man (Something Rotten!), Girl in a Country Song (Maddie and Tae), Castle (Halsey), Mama Who Bore Me (Spring Awakening)42. Nope.43. Dry44. Rejection. Exclusion. Not being accepted. Oh, and buildings crashing on top of me.45. None.46. I honestly just leave it down and don't do anything with it because I keep it in an asymmetrical bob.47. It's a ranch style I think?48. My mother, Hermione Granger 49. I think I50. "Um where? Let's meet by the door" (me texting my dad in the bookstore as a lost child)51. OLD. Like, ten or eleven. 52. Living in NYC so I don't have to have one.53. Not a good thing, and incredibly unhealthy and dangerous. When I was younger, I was bold enough to tell my uncle to stop smoking. 54. I hope I will.55. Novelist! Which is super fantastically improbable. But I'd love to do something with the arts and/or media.56. Suburbs.57. Honestly I use them up and then there's nothing left to take but aside from that OF COURSE.58. One on my knee, one on my finger. Other than that, no.59. Yes.60. Too many to count.61. Nope.62. I never really got into cartoons, actually.63. McDonald's.64. Ranch or soy sauce.65. Pyjamas, or a big T-shirt and underwear.66. No.67. Writing, reading, analyzing, theatre in general, film editing, and karate (the last two I really miss because I haven't found a place to do either one of them68. Sort of? But not really 69. I play the button box accordion. Well, I'm learning. I only know three songs.70. I have no clue. And not because I go to a ton of concerts, but because I go to so few that my timeline is screwed up. I think I went to see Dvorak's new world symphony though?71. Tea72. Starbucks 73. No, not really.74. What crush? 75. When who does the what now? :P76. Pink and blue.77. Too many people, including myself.78. Closed79. I believe that there is another plane of existence on top of ours. But other than that, no clue.80. Blue Wind from Spring Awakening--all of the lyrics in that.81. My mom.82. Chocolate chip cookie dough.83. REGULAR84. Rainbow sprinkles!85. I'm wearing a show shirt from the first show I was in (in middle school) Fiddler on the Roof Jr. It's yellow.86. This is going to sound really weird, but once I was hiding under the covers and the light was coming through and making it glow and, well, I took a pic of it and now it's my background.87. Both. Somehow. Sort of?88. Only if I trust them.89. The one I know is very nice.90. When I shower, so usually at night.91 and 92. No and no.93. A piece of cheddar cheese.94. Blue Wind from Spring Awakening.95. Winter96. Night97. Dark98. May99. Taurus sun, Capricorn moon, Gemini Venus, Mars, and Mercury100. My dog.

[preserving-ferretbrain]

Great Social And Political Import

by Viorica

Wednesday, 02 December 2009

Viorica does the time warp~

There's a very insightful Supernatural fanvideo called Women's Work, about the way the show handles female characters, set to Courtney Love's song "Violet" I mention this not because this article has anything to do with Supernatural or female characters, but because the vid very accurately sums up my current state of mind: I watched this, and now that I've seen it, I don't want it anymore.

For some background on what it is I'm about to rant about, I should probably explain Phase II Created in 2003 by a group of self-avowed Trekkies, the series is based on Star Trek: The Original Series, and picks up where TOS left off. The series is notable for the high production value, and the fact that they have several ST alum helping them out, including Eugene Roddenberry, Denise Crosby, and David Gerrold. The latter contributed an episode that he'd originally written for TNG, but was rejected due to the fact that it contained an openly gay couple and an allegory for the AIDS epidemic. Gerrold retooled his script to fit the TOS characters, and "Blood and Fire" was finally released to the public. So far, so good. I mean, I have to wonder how well-characterized the original script was if he could just adjust things to have it fit TOS, but the dialogue is well-written, and the characters well-realized. The gay couple in question (Kirk's nephew Peter and his boyfriend Alex) are genuinely sweet together, and their relationship doesn't feel forced or cliched. There aren't any stereotypes present- neither of them are especially effeminate or hysterical (well, in the first half anyway) and the other characters never lift an eyebrow at the idea of a gay couple. But then in the second part of the episode, it all comes crashing down.

The episode's main plot circles around the discovery of an abandoned ship, and the horrifying realization that it's infested with "bloodworms-" parasites that feed on human flesh, and are capable of destroying entire civilizations. Peter and Alex are on the away team sent to find out what happened to the ship's crew, and after the discovery that the ship is infested, Starfleet orders that it be blown up, along with everyone who's potentially been exposed. "Okay," I think, "this could be interesting. Kirk wrestles with obeying orders versus his concern for his nephew (and Spock, who's also on the away team) and has to decide whether the potential risk posed by saving the away team outweights the slaughter of anyone unfortunate enough to be on the ship . . ."

. . . or they could just blow over that, and save everyone, except for Alex, who is forced to committ suicide rather than be munched on by bloodworms. Three guesses as to which option the writer took, and the first two don't count.

So after Alex dies, Peter volunteers to go and blow the ship up himself, because he wants to die (because you know how HYSTERICAL them gays are!) only then they find out that the infested ship's original crew was carrying bloodworms because they wanted to committ genocide against the Klingons. Captain Kirk lectures everyone on the dangers of hatred, and they steer the ship into a solar flare, roasting the bloodworms. Oh, and a bunch of sparkly space butterflies symbolize Alex passing into the afterlife or some shit like that. The end!

There is so much wrong with this, I don't even know where to start.

The Times, They Are A-Changing

Back when this script was originally written, the socio-political climate was light years away from what it is now. For one thing, there were virtually no gay characters on television, let alone ones in committed relationships. To show such a couple tragically ripped apart by AIDS- excuse me, bloodworms- would have made a huge difference in the way TNG's viewers would have looked at the AIDS epedemic. Instead of filthy perverts who brought their deaths on themsevles by being mindlessly promiscuous, they'd see two young men (who are so sweet and wholesome, it

hurts

- they bonded over being study partners, for Christ's sake) being ripped apart by something that neither of them could control. Sure it's a flawed allegory, but it was a message that needed to be sent. And even if they did kill one of the gay characters, there was still one left to remind the audience that gays were, in fact, people.

But that was then, and this is 2009. The climate is vastly different then it was in 1989, with different issues that need to be addressed. While AIDS still exists, it doesn't loom as large as it did in the eighties, and most people don't need to be told how awful it is. The problem now isn't a dearth of gay characters, it's the fact that they're rarely allowed to have successful happy relationships. We all know it's hard to be gay, but could someone

please

give us at least one happy couple? Please? I'm running out of hope here.

And although I'm sure the writers/producers would be shocked! shocked, I tell you! at my casting aspersions on their motives for getting rid of Alex, I'm going to do it anyway. With him gone, they never ever have to address Peter's sexuality again. Think about it: giving him another love interest would look callous right after his fiancee died, and if they aren't going to give him another love interest, they never have to mention his gayness again! He'll become functionally asexual, just like

Dumbledore

. [

Edit:

As a reader pointed out, "invisible" would be a better term.] They get all the kudos for having a gay character, but they'll never have to address his affection for men. Or they could retcon it entirely by having him fall for a woman and say "Oh, he was bi! Didn't we mention that?" which would just make me want to break things. I'm just as desperate for bi characters as I am for gay characters, but for fuck's sake, stop using my orientation as an excuse to erase queer characters. We deserve better than that.

But that's just the worst-case scenario. The best is Peter having other relationships with men (which I just don't see being possible/plausible in the near future) or just not having any relationships at all. The latter option would certainly please the fanboys who howled in protest about the icky gay kissing in their bastion of heterosexuality and testosterone, but it wouldn't especially please me.

The Dead Gay Problem

Back when gay characters were first starting to emerge in the media, they could rarely expect a happy ending.

The Well of Loneliness

ends with Stephen begging God for the mere right to exist, while

Maurice

's main character and his lover are forced to shun society and live in the woods. This is presumably due to the fact that the books were written at a time when being publically gay was social (if not literal) suicide. The problem is, it hasn't gone away as things have progressed. At the end of

Lost and Delerious

, Paulie jumps off a roof;

RENT

has Angel dying of AIDS. Even when the writers can't tie the characters' deaths to their sexuality, they still manage to get rid of them.

Buffy

had Tara get shot;

Torchwood

booted Ianto in the third season by having him drop dead of an alien virus. It's like there's some sort of mass delusion that being gay/bi will immediately result in violent, unpleasant death. Is Jan Moir secretly running a media empire or something?

So with the Dead Gay Epidemic going on on network television, it's disappointing to see web-based media falling to the trend as well- especially when there's no reason for it. Alex's death does absolutely nothing to serve the plot. You could remove it, and the episode would make just as much sense,

and

be rid of a bunch of extraneous angst. Now it's entirely possible, even probable that Alex's death was in the original script, but massive edits have been done since. It wasn't outside the realm of possibility for someone to say "Hey, this is great, but killing Alex doesn't really carry the same meaning as it would have back in '89- how about letting him live?" Moreover, I have a hard time buying that no one realized that it was outright offensive. Unless of course, they were deliberately making sure that they wouldn't have a gay couple on the series by killing half of it off. Not only did they avoid having a recurring gay couple, but they dodged having to show them getting married (the horror, the horror.) See, Peter and Alex spend the first half of the episode planning to get married, and Peter asks his uncle to marry them right before they leave on the away mission. Now this feels a bit like pointing out the obvious, but if you want to stay politically relevant, wouldn's showing a gay couple get married accomplish that goal? I mean, it's not like people

all over America

are fighting for the right to have their union legally recognized. Nothing of the sort. Prop what?

Good fuckity god.

In conclusion, the people running

Phase II

fucked up. Badly. They had the opportunity to remain politically relevant and adhere to Gene Roddenberry's vision of a more equal future. Instead, they sent their show hurtling back to the eighties, when I wasn't even born. Which I suppose is a good thing, because I am never watching this show again.Themes:

TV & Movies

,

Sci-fi / Fantasy

,

Minority Warrior

~

bookmark this with - facebook - delicious - digg - stumbleupon - reddit

~Comments (

go to latest

)

Wardog

at 10:07 on 2009-12-02I am so intensely clueless about fandom. As we know, I'm a big Trek nerd, but I hadn't even heard of Phase II - heh, not that I'll be watching it now! Also thanks for the link to the *AMAZING* Women's Work. I've heard people talk about how political, illuminating and fascinating fanvids can be but I've always kind of just gone "whatever." This is officially my conversion. My tiny mind is blown!

The few times homosexuality has come up in Star Trek that I can recall, except for the fact the show itself doesn't *really* want to deal with it, it's been semi-well handled. I seem to remember there's a nice episode of DS9 when Jadzia meets and old Trill lover who is currently in the body of a female. They grapple with their love for most of the episode, but the main issue is always very much the fact that Trill aren't allow to resurrect relationships rather than the fact that they're both girlz now. Which I liked :)

permalink

-

go to top

http://bitterlittleman.livejournal.com/

at 11:22 on 2009-12-02In regards to Women's Work - I get the point it's making, and I see the problem, and recognise the video isn't just talking about supernatural etc etc.

But.

Ugh. I don't even know how to put this. One link summarises it as demonstrating the portrayal of women as "Evil, slutty or helpless" but this is true of almost every bit part character that the main characters meet. Why? Either they are the big bad - ie evil, or they are the victims - ie helpless. Slutty is a different problem (to do with target audiences etc), but temptation is part of the whole demon thing, right?

Plus, to make it's point, it ignores a lot of actual characters. (

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_of_Supernatural)

There are women who are not evil, slutty, or helpless. There are guys who are...

Here I stop before I dig too deep a hole.

Basically, I think the video is extremely well put together, hits all the right buttons to get you worked up about certain issues. But in doing so it leaves out all evidence that doesn't agree, and that bugs the hell out of me.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 11:31 on 2009-12-02It's genuinely fascinating, I think, how something can go from "awesome message of tolerance" to "actually kinda skeevy" purely by putting it in a different cultural context.

Back when Star Trek TNG was big, just having openly gay characters on television was a Big Deal, which means the episode described would actually have been remarkably progressive for its time. Put it ten years later and suddenly it's yet another episode in which the token gay character gets killed off early.

On a side note, bisexuality on TV is always really tricky. There's this horrible trap that both writers and audiences seem to fall into off assuming that bisexuals "don't count". It always used to mildly annoy me that Buffy made such a big thing about Willow being Definitely Gay and Not Bisexual At All. There's this nasty perception out there that being bisexual is somehow cheating - which I rather expect is exascerbated by the fact that, as you observe, it very often *is* used as a way to retcon out previously gay characters.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 13:30 on 2009-12-02It's insanely depressing how many people just

don't get

bisexuality. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a character on TV identified as bisexual who wasn't either a) genuinely confused, and settled on a "permanent" orientation once they met their Twue Wuv, or b) slutty slut slut sluts. Usually they are both.

I can't believe people are

still

buying into the idea that "monogamous bisexual" is a contradiction in terms.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 13:38 on 2009-12-02

Basically, I think the video is extremely well put together, hits all the right buttons to get you worked up about certain issues. But in doing so it leaves out all evidence that doesn't agree, and that bugs the hell out of me.

Well, it's very self-consciously a piece rhetoric - that is rather the nature of rhetoric, isn't it? To concentrate on the evidence that supports your central point.

Also I don't want to derail Viorica's very excellent article into a discussion of the portrayal of women in Supernatural BUT I think the issue is one of generalities not specifics in that the two central characters of Supernatural are men, so you're *always* going to have a very strong portrayal in the foregound to counter-balance all the slutty, helpess, evil men who show up as secondary characters. Equally you always have a very positive depiction of male-male bonding, again, to act as a counterweight to any unfortunate or destructive male relationships, like Dean's short-term friendship with the crazy rogue demon hunter guy.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 15:51 on 2009-12-02'Jamie speculates wildly about reasons why things might be the case', part one:

It's like there's some sort of mass delusion that being gay/bi will immediately result in violent, unpleasant death. Is Jan Moir secretly running a media empire or something?

One can think of no end of possible reasons for this: conscious or unconscious desire to feature gay characters but not for so long that they have to be treated like, you know, real characters; the fact that a lot of media people are probably of such an age that the first time male homosexuality really obtruded on their picture of the world was when it was very strongly associated with AIDS; the conscious or unconscious belief that gay people are normally or necessarily deeply troubled (a belief no doubt

reinforced by the fact that a few of them are

- thanks to Sonia for reminding me of that comic). But it occurs to me that another contributing factor to the high death-rate among gay characters may be the persistently low visibility of middle-aged and older gay people in society. In other words, not only do writers have in their minds an association between homosexuality and early death (partly based on out-dated reality - AIDS in the '80s - and partly based on distortion by the news media - Jan Moir and such), but they also lack a counter-balancing store of real-life examples associating homosexuality with long life.

Of course it's all a bit of a vicious, er, whatever geometric form is more complicated and less symmetrical than a circle, because the low visibility of older gay people is largely caused by media distortion and by the habits they themselves have picked up from growing up and growing old in times (even) less tolerant than today. But it does underline why Ian McKellen is right to nag his contemporaries and fellow public figures to come out.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 15:54 on 2009-12-02'Jamie speculates wildly about reasons why things might be the case', part two:

I can't believe people are still buying into the idea that "monogamous bisexual" is a contradiction in terms.

Now this one I think may be partly structural. The only ways for a work of fiction to dramatize the bisexuality of a character are (1) to put him or her through a series of monogamous relationships with people of both sexes; (2) to put him or her through a number of simultaneous or overlapping relationships with people of both sexes; (3) to have him or her demonstrate the desire or temptation to have sex with other specific people of both sexes; (4) to have him or her express attraction to other specific people of both sexes; (5) to have him or her (or another character or omniscient narrator) state his or her attraction to both sexes in general.

Perhaps you already see where I'm going with this. Options 5 and 4 are weak and smell of tokenism (it used to be, for example, one of my major difficulties with the generally charming

Questionable content

that although there was a respectable number of bisexual and gay characters they never actually did anything beyond mentioning their off-stage partners and hook-ups and occasionally claiming in a rather hypothetical way to be attracted to other characters of the same sex; I'm glad to say the last few months have remedied this to a great extent). Also option 4, if the character is already in a monogamous relationship, risks making him or her look like he or she has a roving eye and is therefore within sight, if not within spitting distance, of 'slutty slut slut' territory. Option 3, if the character is already in a monogamous relationship, can, unless handled very well, end up with the character looking confused about his or her sexuality and / or fickle and tending toward the slutty. Option 2 has to be handled very very very well to avoid landing in confused / slutty territory. And the trouble with option 1 is that, to make it clear that we aren't dealing with a case of confusion or conversion, you really need to give the character a series of at least three monogamous relationships with partners of alternating sex, and that means either making the relationships very short (which again risks ambling down the road to slutty) or dealing with an unusually long time-span for the average work of fiction (excluding soap operas that run forever).

None of which is to say that it can't be done or that it shouldn't be tried or that writers couldn't be doing a lot more than they are. But it's worth noting the pitfalls.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 16:23 on 2009-12-02

It always used to mildly annoy me that Buffy made such a big thing about Willow being Definitely Gay and Not Bisexual At All.

Again, not to shift off the topic, but yes! Fifty times yes. This annoyed me so much. Here was an opportunity for a truly bisexual character (rather than retconning a previously gay/straight character), and they totally ignored it. I felt like poor Oz got so gyped. It was obvious that Willow was in love with and (key word) sexually attracted to Oz. She was the aggressor for the most part in their sexual relationship. Every time Willow had a line equivalent to "Eww, I don't like penises, remember?!" I always got majorly pissed off.

/rant

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 16:30 on 2009-12-02

Also option 4, if the character is already in a monogamous relationship, risks making him or her look like he or she has a roving eye and is therefore within sight, if not within spitting distance, of 'slutty slut slut' territory.

This surely depends whether you're defining "expressing attraction" as the person in question saying to themselves "hey, this person of a gender not of my partner's is making me doubt my commitment to my current relationship", or whether it's just them casually saying something along the lines of "I'd hit that" without any serious intent behind it to go out and, you know, hit that. There are plenty of relationships in which both partners are just fine with their other halves idly expressing attraction to others in a purely hypothetical way.

And what about option 6, depict them in a committed relationship during the course of the story but make references to a previous romantic history which, while in the past, is not denounced or regarded by the character as an aberration?

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 16:50 on 2009-12-02

It always used to mildly annoy me that Buffy made such a big thing about Willow being Definitely Gay and Not Bisexual At All.

At one point, Amber Benson commented that she was glad that Willow didn't "flip-flop" about her attraction to men versus women. I don't even know what to say to that.

Most shows featuring bisexual characters seem to take either option two or three, if they don't just retconn the character's sexuality altogether (Buffy, The L Word) The problem is, the audience will automatically assume that when a character is dating someone of one sex, they are only attracted to that sex- i.e. they've "settled down-" when when that's never stated in the show itself.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 17:02 on 2009-12-02

The problem is, the audience will automatically assume that when a character is dating someone of one sex, they are only attracted to that sex- i.e. they've "settled down-" when when that's never stated in the show itself.

Yes, but there's only a certain extent to which you can blame the audience for the depictions an author chooses to put forward. Surely, in fact, in this case there's a certain responsibility for writers to challenge the audience's assumptions?

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 17:04 on 2009-12-02

but I hadn't even heard of Phase II - heh, not that I'll be watching it now!

In fairness, I should say that the first part of the episode is really well done- part of my irritation stems from thinking "Yay, a well-done gay couple! I'm so happy!" and then getting smacked in the face with SURPRISE DEAD GAY! But I'd say that Part 1 is worth a look, if you ignore part two. (Both parts are on YouTube

here

and

here

if anyone wants to take a look.)

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 17:35 on 2009-12-02This conversation is making me think about bisexual characters on TV...and wonder you think of Angela on Bones? She's been shown in relationships with men, but also had a past significant girlfriend with whom she almost got together with again. She seems to me like an actual bisexual.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 18:20 on 2009-12-02A point that seems to have gone amiss:

I mean, I have to wonder how well-characterized the original script was if he could just adjust things to have it fit TOS, but the dialogue is well-written, and the characters well-realized.

I'm sure the original version was much different - Picard would have tried to negotiate with the bloodworms rather than shoving them into the Sun...

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 18:44 on 2009-12-02

This conversation is making me think about bisexual characters on TV...and wonder you think of Angela on Bones?

For me personally (though this may be just because I was not hugely into Bones), Angela kind of read like a straight women who had a sexy, wild side that included sometimes making out with girls. Granted, I never saw her when she was with this woman (maybe I missed that ep), but from what I remember, she primarily dates men. Having one girlfriend does not really say much for her being bisexual (to me, anyway). Others may disagree.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 18:49 on 2009-12-02Part of the problem with bisexuals on TV is that it's hard to explain the Kinsey scale to audiences. Some bisexual people tilt more to one gender than the other, but not many people realize that. It sounds (though I haven't watched Bones) that Angela would fall about a two on the scale- romantically inclined more towards men, but still attracted to women. Of course, I could be missing in-show context.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 19:05 on 2009-12-02I agree. I just feel with such a stigma attached to bisexuality, a show has to work harder to make it come off as actual bisexuality.

I guess as far as Angela goes, I just never really saw her be interested in women as fully as she was in men. Which, yeah, bisexuals can lean to one side or the other. But it didn't come off that way to me when I watched it. Even my mom thought it was reconning when she got engaged to (blanking on his name) Dirt Guy. For example, when the two guys were fighting over the delivery girl, and it turned out that she was actually into Angela, she didn't actually ask her out or anything as far as I remember. It was like, "oh, haha, she likes me not you". Angela seemed more surprised and flattered than actively interested.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 19:22 on 2009-12-02But why

would

she be interested? Are straight/gay people interested in everyone who hits on them?

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 19:54 on 2009-12-02

Part of the problem with bisexuals on TV is that it's hard to explain the Kinsey scale to audiences.

Especially when the labels we use tend to make people think of discrete little boxes, like sexuality works along the same lines as D&D alignment.

Although now I think of that, I do get a sort of juvenile amusement from the idea of Paladins being obliged to be Lawful Gay.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 20:43 on 2009-12-02

Part of the problem with bisexuals on TV is that it's hard to explain the Kinsey scale to audiences.

To say nothing of the fact that this it's an incredibly reductionist and unhelpful way of looking at bisexuality. Obviously I can't speak for every other bisexual in the world but I think most of us experience regular fluctations in our attraction to members of either sex, dependent on who knows what. How on earth do you put that on TV? I can barely explain it anybody who isn't an actual bisexual. Main character is feeling moderately more straight today than she was yesterday!

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 20:55 on 2009-12-02Yes, that's the way it seems to be with Angela. 13 on House seemed to be shown having lots of anonymous sex with women, but then wound up in a relationship with a man.

Angela is basically a wild child who was mostly shown dating men--though I don't think she dated so many men, exactly. I thought of her because it seemed like when her ex-girlfriend was introduced she was introduced as an ex-girlfriend, meaning a serious relationship, rather than an experiment, for instance. She does seem to mostly be into guys, but I got the impression that this character was introduced as an important past relationship not particularly different because it was with a woman. She was more important than her first husband, for instance.

I still consider her as mostly leaning towards the het side, but it didn't really feel like a retcon when we were told she'd had a girlfriend.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 21:00 on 2009-12-02

How on earth do you put that on TV?

Not easily, which is a shame, because it would probably be a great help to teenagers who are freaking out over "what the hell is going on with me?" without any real examples that say "yes, this is normal." I know it would have been a huge help when I was fifteen.

. . . what was the original article about, again?

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 22:17 on 2009-12-02

But why would she be interested? Are straight/gay people interested in everyone who hits on them?

Fair point. And it's annoying when shows/media act like anyone who is gay is attracted to anyone else who is gay because, yeah, they're not. So I understand that Angela might not be attracted to every girl she sees.

But I was just trying to pull an example out of the many examples. From the beginning, they indicated that she was interested in woman, but I don't remember her EVER really hitting on a woman in the seasons I watched. She commented that a girl was hot or cute or something once, but more as a recollection of what this woman looked like.

I didn't see her with her ex-gf - I couldn't put up with the show enough to watch that far. But when I think about her relationships, I remember Hodgens, her first husband/fling thing, and the guy she was involved with in New Mexico who died.

I guess it just felt to me like a bit of cop-out. It seemed like they wanted to have a hot, artsy bisexual woman without having to actually deal with it past her talking about having a past relationship with a woman or saying a woman is hot/pretty/sexy. This ex-girlfriend (I’ve just looked up) doesn’t show up until season 4 though she was referenced in season 3. It just seems like the writers were more inclined to write her in relationships with men despite having made it clear that she was bi. Why did they wait so long to actively show this part of her sexuality? Maybe other people read her character differently, but that's how I saw her.

permalink

-

go to top

http://baihehua.livejournal.com/

at 04:10 on 2009-12-03Having personal interest in the portrayal of the LGBT community, there are a couple points I would like to add.

I think bisexuality is, in some ways, more frightening than homosexuality to straight culture. An informed understanding of bisexuality denies the black-and-white, gay-and-straight mentality that can be easy for straight people to fall into. Being attracted to both sexes opens up the myriad possibilities of human sexuality in a way that neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality do. Because of that, it can be more threatening than homosexuality to the traditional straight mindset.

Because of this cultural context, like it or not, people need to be very careful portraying bisexuals in the media. I'm even going to make the claim that bisexuals in media should not be considered the same way as bisexuals in real life. In real life, bisexuals can be anywhere on the Kinsey scale. For example, I have a female friend who has never had a girlfriend and recently married a man, but considers herself bisexual because she is attracted to women as well as men. In real life, this is fine.

In media portrayals of bisexuals, however, this is not acceptable. In the media, a bisexual who only has experiences with the opposite sex might as well be straight. Similarly, a bisexual who only has experiences with the same sex might as well be gay.

The thing to remember is that media characters are not real people. Real people need no justification for their identities; characters do. If a character does not behave in accordance with their supposed identity, either the character's behavior or identity should change. Bisexual characters, therefore, should be portrayed as being attracted to both men and women, preferably in roughly equal proportions. That is not to say that bisexual characters need to be attracted to every person they encounter, or that they can't have long-term relationships. But bisexual characters should be just about as likely to have relationships with women as with men, and when they are flirting or looking for dates, they should look to both sexes.

Media people (directors, producers, authors, etc.) need to stop presenting characters that have mostly/entirely heterosexual experiences as bisexual. Bisexuality means being attracted to both sexes, and that needs to be better portrayed in the media.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 11:41 on 2009-12-03I think, as Baihehua says, we have to recognitise a distinction between real people and fictional people. I mean, in 'real life' we can self-define as anything we can damn please, and it underscores no issues of representation or portrayal.

Ultimately, it's all very well to stand here going "the media doesn't portray bisexuality" very well, which is self-evidently true and nets you immediate Minority Warrior points ... it doesn't actually *mean* anything. I mean, I think most people find the sexuality of other people somewhat alien, regardless of the genders involved.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 14:30 on 2009-12-03I think at the end of the day you have to make a distinction between fictional tropes which are simplifications of something broadly but not universally true, and tropes which perpetuate ideas which are actually harmful to people, and accept that you're going to get a lot of the former because writers

have

to simplify; you can't expect authors or scriptwriters to concoct perfect simulacra of real life - and also, human beings appear to

need

to come up with this sort of simplification in their heads to actually process real life in the first place, let alone fiction.

Which is probably why it probably isn't helpful to bring up the Kinsey scale in this context. Putting aside the fact that is itself an oversimplification based on dubious 1950s logic, the fact is that you just don't get people marching for Equal Rights For Four Point Twos.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 03:02 on 2009-12-04

most people find the sexuality of other people somewhat alien

I don't really care about what other people think. I want to be represented because I'm sick of not having any characters to relate to. Which is why statements like this-

If a character does not behave in accordance with their supposed identity, either the character's behavior or identity should change. Bisexual characters, therefore, should be portrayed as being attracted to both men and women, preferably in roughly equal proportions.

Are

really fucking offensive

. If I read your statement right, you're implying that a bisexual character is not behaving like a bisexual unless they date both genders in equal measures, which as I've already mentioned is fallacious. Either that, or you're saying that bisexual characters should act in a way that doesn't challenge the paradigms of monosexual audiences. Either way, what the hell?

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 10:01 on 2009-12-04

I don't really care about what other people think. I want to be represented because I'm sick of not having any characters to relate to.

I agree with you that bisexuals are under-represented, I just merely meant to point out that it's very easy to lock yourself in "woe is me, I am so misunderstood and special" thinking, when sexuality, in itself, is a hellishly complex business. Quite frankly there's a part of me that cannot compute when someone is attracted to someone I am not, regardless of gender, and as far people who are only attracted to one sex ... yikes, how do they function within such limitations? =P

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 10:47 on 2009-12-04

If I read your statement right, you're implying that a bisexual character is not behaving like a bisexual unless they date both genders in equal measures, which as I've already mentioned is fallacious.

Not to put words into anybody's mouth, but I think what Baihehua was saying was that while in real life it's perfectly possible for somebody to be bisexual but still wind up having exclusively heterosexual (or homosexual) relationships, in fiction such a character would wind up looking extremely tokenistic.

To pick an example I think we're all comfortable with, in real life it's entirely possible to have an elderly gay man who had one tragic affair in his youth and hasn't been in a relationship since. It's entirely possible that you could spend seven years at school and never realise that your beloved headmaster was actually a homosexual. In a work of fiction, however, a "gay" character who never has a homosexual relationship is a major problem because it contributes to the idea that gay people are okay, so long as they don't actually act on their sexuality.

With bisexuality it gets a whole lot more complicated, because you've got a veritable minefield of stereotypes to dance around. It's particularly a problem with bisexual women, because it's extremely easy for their bisexuality to come across as something they put on for the benefit of men (a misconception not helped by the huge number of media outlets in which women are encouraged to do exactly that - Katy Perry has never kissed a girl in her life and probably wouldn't like it if she did).

I don't think numbers games are what matters here, so much as attraction to men and women being shown as equally *valid*. This ties back to Mellissa's comments about Angela in the first couple of series of Bones. The problem isn't that she doesn't routinely chase girls, the problem is that when she's attracted to men it's presented as something natural, sensible and meaningful, while when she's attracted to girls it's presented as something delightfully naughty and risque. Of course the fact that I didn't like Bones might be prejudicing me here.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 13:41 on 2009-12-04

in real life it's entirely possible to have an elderly gay man who had one tragic affair in his youth and hasn't been in a relationship since.

You mean

Tim Gunn?

:-) Sorry, couldn't resist.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 15:54 on 2009-12-04

I don't think numbers games are what matters here, so much as attraction to men and women being shown as equally *valid*. This ties back to Mellissa's comments about Angela in the first couple of series of Bones. The problem isn't that she doesn't routinely chase girls, the problem is that when she's attracted to men it's presented as something natural, sensible and meaningful, while when she's attracted to girls it's presented as something delightfully naughty and risque. Of course the fact that I didn't like Bones might be prejudicing me here.

Since I brought up Angela, I just wanted to say I agree with this--particular since she seems to be a character who has a lot of sex and they also continue to bring in male character with whom she has a relationship or an attraction but not characters who are women.

It was just that this one relationship that they introduced for her as something from her past that was briefly revived, it seemed like it actually was addressing the idea that it wasn't naughty or risque, but was an actual long-term relationship. I don't remember it well enough to defend how well it was done or not, but it did seem like it was introduced as an important relationship, someone she'd lived with iirc, that was presented as less naughty and more thoughtful than some of her male relationships for instance.

Another problem I'd say is that there tend to just be more male characters, period, and of the female ones the writers probably want to put them with male characters. For instance, I haven't watched House in a while, but I remember being told 13 was bisexual, and seeing her have a lot of anonymous sex with women when she was self-destructively dealing with being diagnosed with Huntington's. But then she got into a relationship with a male character on the show. So it's probably all too easy to read her relationships with women as having different value.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 20:23 on 2009-12-04

Not to put words into anybody's mouth, but I think what Baihehua was saying was that while in real life it's perfectly possible for somebody to be bisexual but still wind up having exclusively heterosexual (or homosexual) relationships, in fiction such a character would wind up looking extremely tokenistic.

Not denying that there's a minefield of potential stereotypes that well-meaning writers can fall into (especially since that's part of why "Blood and Fire" fails) but as long as it's well-established, it dosn't have to be tokenistic. Alice on "The L Word" establishes very specfically that she's more romantically inclined towards women, but enjoys sex with both genders. It only took two lines to explain that. Now, The L Word gets a bit more leeway because it's populated entirely with lesbians, so Alice doesn't look as tokenistic as she would on a show populated largely with straight characters. But still she was a well-written bi character for a few seasons.

And (to get somewhat back on-topic) I don't have any problems with the idea of Peter or Alex being bi, since it's mentioned that they only ever dated each other ("There's never been anyone else for either of us") so it's entirely plausible. Or- considering that the show takes place hundreds on years into the future- it could be that people no longer label sexuality, so dating both genders requires no explanation. What worries me is the very real possibility that "bi, lol" will be used as an excuse to duck out of ever showing a gay relationship with an HEA.

permalink

-

go to top

http://baihehua.livejournal.com/

at 22:50 on 2009-12-04Sorry it's taken me so long to get back here. And thank you, Dan; that is basically what I was saying.

My point is that, no matter how much we may like and identify with fictional characters, they are not real people. Real people can identify and behave however they want and there's no problem. Fictional characters' identities, however, need to be justified. I think this is true for a lot of things, not just sexuality. For example, a character in the US who claims to be Democrat, yet always votes for Republican presidents and congressmen, exclusively watches Fox News, and who adores Newt Gingrich-- that's a problem. In real life, I don't think anyone can tell this person that he or she can't be Democrat (weird as that might seem). As a character's identity, however, there is no reason for this person to be Democrat. As evidenced by behavior, being Democrat is obviously not very important to the character. Therefore, there is no reason not to have this character be Republican (or at least moderate). Or, if the director or author wants to insist that the character is a Democrat, either revise the character's behavior or at least point out how incredibly hypocritical it is. The same goes for sexual orientation and a whole lot of other identity issues. If there is no basis from the character's behavior to make a claim about that character's identity, then the claim should not be made.

Now, I do grant that things are even more confusing with bisexuality because it is considered to be between hetero- and homosexuality. And I don't really care about exact numbers. Also, I grant that there is less of a problem if a bi character is generally more attracted to the same sex than if he/she is generally more attracted to the opposite sex. But if a bi character only exhibits attraction to one sex (note: that's "exhibits", not "claims"), I think the director or author should rethink his/her decision to make this character bi. Or revise the character's behavior.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 00:13 on 2009-12-05. . . you lost me. A character's sexuality = their political affiliation? What?

permalink

-

go to top

http://baihehua.livejournal.com/

at 00:35 on 2009-12-05No, a character's political affiliation does not equal his/her sexual orientation. Not at all.

But they are both elements of a character's (or a real-life person's) identity. Identity is made up of many facets, including race, sex, nationality, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion, etc. I was simply using an analogous example to (hopefully) make my point more clearly.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 00:37 on 2009-12-05I think she was more making the point that a fictional character identified as something is slightly different than a real world person who is that something.

So for instance, in real life bisexuals can be any number of different ways, but when a character is identified as bisexual on TV we're going to judge how well s/he lives up to that idea, or what the fiction seems to be saying about bisexuals through how they show this character.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 00:54 on 2009-12-05Crikey, this thread's a fair bit longer than when I last saw it! Jolly interesting, too, but I'm only going to reply to Arthur's comments on what I said:

This surely depends whether you're defining "expressing attraction" as the person in question saying to themselves "hey, this person of a gender not of my partner's is making me doubt my commitment to my current relationship", or whether it's just them casually saying something along the lines of "I'd hit that" without any serious intent behind it to go out and, you know, hit that. There are plenty of relationships in which both partners are just fine with their other halves idly expressing attraction to others in a purely hypothetical way.

I was hoping someone would pick me up on that because it's something I sort of wanted to cover in the original comment but left out to avoid wandering too far from the point. You're of course absolutely right, and I think the trouble here comes from a separate bias that's prevalent in fiction but isn't specifically to do with sexual orientation, though it has this disproportionate effect we've encountered here: it's very rare in fiction to get (and I quote because I can't say it better myself) 'relationships in which both partners are just fine with their other halves idly expressing attraction to others in a purely hypothetical way'. I suppose in origin this has something to do with the general assumption that every fairly unimportant that happens in a work of fiction should point towards something more important going on beneath or likely to go on in the future or possibly having gone on in the past: thus writers perhaps fear that

an idle expression of attraction in act one necessitates some sort of infidelity in act two

. Which is wrong because it assumes a far too straightforward connexion between finding someone attractive and actually having sex with that person, but one can sort of see why the idea might arise. So that's another thing for writers to work on, separately from (but related to) writing convincing bisexual characters.

And what about option 6, depict them in a committed relationship during the course of the story but make references to a previous romantic history which, while in the past, is not denounced or regarded by the character as an aberration?

That's a very good option that I hadn't thought of at all, which is probably why I shouldn't write stuff. :) Of course it's still a little bit at the less powerful end of the show / tell spectrum, but still it would be a dashed good start.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 02:15 on 2009-12-05

but when a character is identified as bisexual on TV we're going to judge how well s/he lives up to that idea

And unless we adjust portrayals of bisexuality to reflect the real-life variations, that idea is going to remain flawed. Which is why saying "bisexuals characters must date both genders in equal measures" is only allowing the misconceptions to be reinforced.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 03:11 on 2009-12-05I think the issue boils down more to validity than numbers, as Dan mentioned.

I don't think numbers games are what matters here, so much as attraction to men and women being shown as equally *valid*.

It's not that the bisexual characters can't slide to one side or the other of the Kinsey scale (to use a phrase we're all familiar with), but when bisexual characters are shown on televisions, there's a tendency to portray how they interact sexually with each gender in a different way. And this also leads in to the issue of how we interpret the behavior of characters on TV differently than we would in real life.

Just to give an example, in real life, it would be perfectly fine for a bisexual woman to follow a trend of having flings with women and serious relationships with men. But if this was a character on a TV show, people would infer from this behavior that the writers feel that relationships between men and women are more valid than relationships between two women. I think this is where it gets tricky.

And (please correct me if I'm wrong) I think that's why Baihehua suggested they show them being attracted to both sexes in equal proportions. Not because she feels that we need to cater to the mainstream monosexual audience, but because if there is a somewhat 50/50 ratio, we have more relationships with each sex to judge and would be better able to see how this character treats her relationships with both men and women entirely in the same light. It would be more obvious that this person falls for/is attracted to people regardless of gender (in the sense of not being limited to attraction by gender). Which I think would really help to battle certain stereotypes surrounding the bisexual community.

If I'm completely misunderstanding something, please let me know.

permalink

-

go to top

http://baihehua.livejournal.com/

at 04:41 on 2009-12-05Viorica,

I'm not trying to discredit what you're saying, and I think that adjusting portrayals of bisexuality to reflect real-life variations is a wonderful ideal.

However, I don't think it's manageable in a media setting. The media relies on simplifications all the time. If the media is not able to say "bisexual", "Jewish", "Democrat", etc. and have its audience understand what it means by these labels, then the media will never have the time to tell its stories--it will be too busy defining what these terms mean for each individual character. So, while these simplifications can be harmful in real life, they are often helpful in the media, if simply so the media can perform its function (to tell stories/to entertain).

From what I know of bisexuality, the basic concept is being sexually attracted to members of both sexes. Since the media is unable to present the entire spectrum of human sexuality (because it varies with every single person), it is this basic concept that should be consistently portrayed.

I understand it can be frustrating how the media interprets or presents your identity, but I don't think we can expect it to fully encompass all variations of humanity.

permalink

-

go to top

http://baihehua.livejournal.com/

at 05:05 on 2009-12-05Oh, and Melissa, you're not wrong. That is essentially why I was advocating for equal representation of relationships with men and with women (though you did extrapolate my original statements slightly). Thanks for the comment!

permalink

-

go to top

Andrew Currall

at 16:21 on 2009-12-06I don't think I agree at all that it is unreasonable for a work of fiction to establish that a character is bisexual and never actually "confirm" that (i.e. by showing the character in a relationship with, or at least attracted to, individuals of both sexes). Would anyone, for example, object to it being established (through dialogue) that a character, say, disliked potatoes, and this never being referred to or made important again? The only real difference between this and, say, bisexuality, as character traits, is that bisexuality is somehow considered "important", whereas a dislike of potatoes wouldn't be. But I think a situation in which sexuality is considered an unimportant and largely incidental trait is precisely the situation one should aim for.

I would concede that if a work stated that a character was bisexual but never showed them in any relationships with their own sex, one could reasonably say that it couldn't really claim brownie points for featuring non-heterosexual characters, but provided the revealing of their sexuality is natural (i.e. not clearly there for the sole purpose of creating a bisexual character), I'd have no problem with it.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 09:37 on 2009-12-07

But I think a situation in which sexuality is considered an unimportant and largely incidental trait is precisely the situation one should aim for.

Well, I suppose this leads to a larger, even messier can of worms regarding whether you consider sexuality as connected to who you are or what you do... I think the problem with portraying minority groups (Minority Warrior!) is that as soon as you start arguing that it *shouldn't* matter if someone is gay, or a woman, or black, and that ideally it's equivalent to disliking potatoes, then you're merely giving excuses for it to be badly handled or ignored.

I had a tangential thought about this whole business actually - and I wonder if the difficulty might not lie so much with the depiction of bisexuality but with the depiction of relationships. The problem is that characters, like people, may have more than one relationship over the course of a text, especially if it's a long running series. And unless you're specifically going for "this is an unhealthy relationship", then it's very difficult to give both (or however many relationships they have) equal validity.

And truthfully I don't think we do that in real life either - we look back over our past relationships and go "oh, it wasn't love, it didn't count" (at least we do once we get over them) and our current relationship and think "yes, this is it, this is the real thing."

In fiction it's even worse - in order to make a romantic relationship convicing you have to pretty jettison everything that went before it. Which means that if you do have a bisexuality character, I reckon you can't win. Because if you set them up with a person of the same sex and then with a person of the opposite sex, the implicit (although *unintended* message) will be "lol, they were really straight all along" (because this is their twu wuv) and if you do it the other way round you'll be stuck with "lol, they were really gay all along (because this is their twu wuv).

permalink

-

go to top

Andrew Currall

at 18:20 on 2009-12-07

as you start arguing that it *shouldn't* matter if someone is gay, or a woman, or black, and that ideally it's equivalent to disliking potatoes, then you're merely giving excuses for it to be badly handled or ignored.

Mmm, yes, I can see that. It's all rather difficult.

I think perhaps part of the problem is that it's difficult to judge whether a work of fiction is representing any group in an unreasonable way (or simply underrepresenting it), because a work of fiction will have relatively few characters and situations in it and one could easily argue each as in themselves reasonable. Women are vastly under-represented in fiction as a whole (i.e. the majority of characters, perhaps around 70%, are male), but it's difficult to accuse most specific works of under-representing women (Tolkein is an exception, being an extreme example), because it'll have only 5-10 major characters and you could put it down to random chance or come up with a plausible reason why the majority of characters in this particular work are male.

And this is far worse with sexuality, both because it isn't a 50/50 split in the first place (so one wouldn't want to argue that half of all characters should be homo- or bi-sexual), and because a character's sexuality isn't necessarily evident (whereas their sex generally is).

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 19:55 on 2009-12-07The problem with "it shouldn't matter" arguments is that it skates dangerously close to "I don't see you as black/gay/female" which is basically a way for people who aren't minorities to avoid thinking about their own prejudices.

permalink

-

go to top

http://roisindubh211.livejournal.com/

at 02:15 on 2009-12-08

In fiction it's even worse - in order to make a romantic relationship convicing you have to pretty jettison everything that went before it. Which means that if you do have a bisexuality character, I reckon you can't win. Because if you set them up with a person of the same sex and then with a person of the opposite sex, the implicit (although *unintended* message) will be "lol, they were really straight all along" (because this is their twu wuv) and if you do it the other way round you'll be stuck with "lol, they were really gay all along (because this is their twu wuv).

I automatically agreed with this statement, but I wonder if this is just because its what we're used to seeing. For example, in Friends, (apologies to anyone who doesn't watch this, I'm sure a better example will come to mind) Monica has a longstanding relationship with Richard, then they break up because she wants kids and he doesn't. Later on, she gets together with, and eventually marries, Chandler. There is never any "oh, he wasn't that great" about Richard, its just accepted that there was too big of a problem to work around, and Monica does occasionally have to reassure Chandler that she loves him and is over Richard, etc.

I think if either of the men was made a female character, you could quite conceivably play it that way and have the same kind of break up and moving on without invalidating the previous relationship. I really think the biggest problem with trying to portray bisexuality in fiction is usually that people will go "Wait, so she's straight now?" instead of "oh my god they are such a cute couple/so annoying/etc," as you normally do to a new couple on a soap or sitcom.

That and, of course, things like the *wonderful* reaction of the Sex and the City girls when one of Carrie's boyfriends tells her he has had a boyfriend or two in the past. She freaks out and can't understand why he doesn't "just make up his mind". It was a horrible response to a character who is, very maturely, saying "look, this is my sexual history, I've been tested x months ago, I want you to know so you don't have to worry." That was so frigging offensive it shocked me. (Though why I don't know. It's not as if they put any real thought into how they depict women or gay men.)

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 01:07 on 2009-12-09

Well, I suppose this leads to a larger, even messier can of worms...

Mmm, worms.

Just out of interest, and possibly for the sake of looking at it from a new angle, can anyone think of any bisexual characters / relationships in fiction that have been well handled?

permalink

-

go to top

http://baihehua.livejournal.com/

at 20:31 on 2009-12-09Unless a relationship involves at least three people, I don't see how the relationship *itself* can be bisexual. ;-)

Characters... I think everyone has a different definition of "well handled". Among characters I think are reasonably well handled, I can name a couple that, while they are not explicitly stated to be bisexual, can easily be seen as bisexual or gender-blind.

*Rachel, from Imagine Me & You. She never names her sexuality and even explicitly refuses to label herself. She has had a long-term sexual and romantic relationship with a man before meeting the woman she falls for. Also, the reason given for her leaving her husband is not because she is not attracted to him, but because she "went crazy. [She] went crazy for someone and it wasn't [her husband]".

*Sita and Radha, from Fire (by Deepa Mehta). Again, these women do not label themselves. They are attracted to each other and begin a physical, as well as emotional, relationship, but there is nothing to indicate that either woman would be adverse to a relationship with a man. While they have not found what they need in their heterosexual marriages, this is portrayed as due to the unique circumstances they have with their husbands, not as a dislike of men in general.

I'm sure there are other examples out there, but I can't think of any right now.

permalink

-

go to top

Rami

at 22:54 on 2009-12-09

Sita and Radha, from Fire (by Deepa Mehta)

That's an interesting pair of character names, especially if they're in a relationship. I'm going to have to read that book...

permalink

-

go to top

http://baihehua.livejournal.com/

at 02:40 on 2009-12-10It's a movie, actually (1996). I included the director because it's not a movie most people are familiar with. It's set in India (so those are Indian names), but they speak in English. Deepa Mehta has said in interviews that she chose to film in English because it is such a common language in India that she felt it would be more true to life to film in English than to film in Hindi or another language.

You should definitely look into it, though. I think it's a great movie. If you're interested, Deepa Mehta also has two later films out, "Earth" and "Water", that address different social problems in India. They're all excellent.

permalink

-

go to top

http://miss-morland.livejournal.com/

at 13:19 on 2009-12-10

can anyone think of any bisexual characters / relationships in fiction that have been well handled?

I haven't watched

Torchwood

, but from what I've heard, Captain Jack Harkness is a rather well-done bisexual character.

(Very interesting discussion, by the way!)

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 14:22 on 2009-12-10

I haven't watched Torchwood, but from what I've heard, Captain Jack Harkness is a rather well-done bisexual character.

I have watched Torchwood, and Captain Jack was one of the first people who came to my head when I thought about bisexual characters. I really do read him as someone who just hits on anything that moves. I suppose people could argue about whether this is a positive or negative portrayal of a bisexual. But he definitely doesn't discriminate based on gender, and that's pretty clear.

In fact, I'm pretty sure the creator of the new Doctor Who and Torchwood is of the impression that by the time we get to Jack's time period (51st century), everyone will be "omnisexual" (his term, not mine) meaning that we won't discriminate on gender, race, or even species. And that idea is evident in both Jack and John, an ex-beau of Jack's who comes in the second season of Torchwood.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 14:47 on 2009-12-10I wondered about Captain Jack too, but I've only seen him a few times in

Doctor Who

and never watched

Torchwood

(which hasn't been on the iPlayer since I discovered, to my surprise, that

Doctor Who

was rather fun). From what I've seen he came across pretty well. The Doctor's reactions give the impression that Jack's extreme flirtiness is just a thing about him as an individual rather than something related to his sexuality, and it's so light-hearted and superficial that it doesn't seem to imply any tendency toward being unfaithful if he were actually in a relationship.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 18:37 on 2009-12-10

The Doctor's reactions give the impression that Jack's extreme flirtiness is just a thing about him as an individual rather than something related to his sexuality,

Yes, that's how I viewed it too. It wasn't Jack is a bisexual SO he's flirty. It was just that Jack, as a person, is flirty.

it doesn't seem to imply any tendency toward being unfaithful if he were actually in a relationship.

It got a bit trickier in Torchwood b/c it was a more adult show. But while he was in a relationship with Ianto, he never cheated on him despite having sexually charged moments with other characters. But you were left wondering how serious he was about Ianto, but I chalked it up to Jack being a bit of a commit-a-phobe rather than anything to do with his sexuality.

Torchwood is interesting because every character on the show has had a bisexual moment. Owen had a "devil's threesome", Tosh despite being straight had a relationship with an alien chick for an episode, Gwen had a french kiss with a girl (albeit a super pheromone induced thing out of Gwen's control), and Ianto had a girlfriend before shacking up with Jack.

Oh...uh, spoilers? Sorry.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 18:57 on 2009-12-10I'm iffy on Jack as a bisexual character. On the one hand, he obviously doesn't discriminate in regards to gender. On the other, he hits on everything that moves, and even when he was in a relationship, he wasn't exactly emotionally faithful.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 22:11 on 2009-12-10

I'm iffy on Jack as a bisexual character.

Personally, I'm with you on that. That's why I wasn't going to bring him up, but I wanted to respond to miss-morland.

I guess it comes down to if you can separate Jack from his sexuality to the point where you know that his flaws as far as relationships go are not due to his sexuality, but due to him as a person. But obviously not everyone is going to be able to make that distinction, which leaves you with a rather, as you said, emotionally unfaithful bisexual character, which is not a great example.

permalink

-

go to top

Rami

at 22:13 on 2009-12-10

It's a movie, actually (1996). I included the director because it's not a movie most people are familiar with. It's set in India

Thanks for pointing it out -- I'll have to watch it (especially after reading about

the controversy

)! What actually interested me about the names Sita and Radha is the

mythological

, er,

connection

. Is Mehta preaching narcisissm ;-)?

permalink

-

go to top

http://miss-morland.livejournal.com/

at 19:15 on 2009-12-11

Ianto had a girlfriend before shacking up with Jack.

Well, now you've made me curious as to the portrayal of

Ianto's

bisexuality... (I really should watch that show!)

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 19:50 on 2009-12-11It's mentioned (shortly before they kill him off . . .) that Jack's the only guy he's ever been attracted to/dated. So it's less a matter of bisexuality as it is one of an ostensibly straight guy falling for a man once (and then dying.)

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 06:17 on 2009-12-12Also,

Biphobia: It's What's For Dinner

is a good breakdown of being bisexual erasure and the impact it has.

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 22:30 on 2009-12-15You know, I glanced through a collection of David Gerrold's works at my local library several months back, and one of items published was the original

Next Generation

script for “Blood and Fire.” I didn't read it, which I'm kind of regretting now, because I think it would be interesting to compare the original script to the

Phase II

episode.

Not that it would in any way detract from the epic fail. Gah.

Oh, and thanks for the "Biphobia" link, Viorica.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 03:53 on 2009-12-16If it's still possible to get ahold of it, could you? I'm curious as well.

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 20:00 on 2009-12-18Sure thing, Viorica! The book in question is

Involuntary Human

. I warn you, however, that it may take me a while both to read the script, and watch the episode (my sound system still being KIA), so don't worry if I don't report back right away, I'm still working on it.

Interestingly enough, while I was browsing for “Involuntary Human” I discovered that David Gerrold published a book entitled

Blood and Fire

in either 2003 or 2004 (sources are conflicted on this point). According to the website linked above, it's the concluding volume of his “Star Wolf” trilogy, which I've never heard of before. I wonder how it may or may not fit in.

Kyra: Quite frankly there's a part of me that cannot compute when someone is attracted to someone I am not, regardless of gender, and as far people who are only attracted to one sex ... yikes, how do they function within such limitations? =P

Ha-ha, that reminds me of a story my philosophy professor once told me. Once, when questioned on his sexual orientation, James Dean reputedly quipped: “Let's just say I don't believe in going through life with one hand tied behind my back.”

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 15:00 on 2010-04-24As usual, it's taken me a hell of a lot longer than I expected to churn this sucker out, but here it is

my epic comparison of the Phase II episode versus Gerrold's original script

. Share and enjoy.

permalink

-

go to top

http://scipiosmith.livejournal.com/

at 18:22 on 2013-11-16

can anyone think of any bisexual characters / relationships in fiction that have been well handled?

Just necroing this thread after arriving here via Robinson's B5 comment to mention Bo from [i]Lost Girl[/i], who is definitely helped by the fact that the show is almost structured to support it.

Basically, for those of you who haven't watched (and you should because this is an awesome show) there are four main characters: Bo, a bisexual succubus, Dyson, a burly wolf-man cop, Lauren, a hot blonde doctor and Kenzi, the perky goth girl. There's also Trick, Bo's grandfather, but for obvious reasons he plays no role in the romance plotlines.

Bo sleeps with both Dyson and Lauren at different points in the first three seasons (while I wouldn't describe it as a YA show, there is a YA sensibility to its treatment of romance and none of the three participants in the love triangle stray outside of it for very long), depending on the various upheavals and betrayals of the plot, her emotional commitment to each of them is equally valid and equally strong even when their commitment to her is somewhat more doubtful. She also at least attempts to be monogamous with each of them during their periods together, even when maintaining her fidelity to Lauren causes her to almost die of internal bleeding. Meanwhile Bo's relationship with Kenzi is kept strictly platonic, despite being the most emotionally committed and faithful of all the show's inter-personal relationships, specifically to avoid the 'everything that moves' stereotype.

I'd be amazed if someone here didn't watch it considering it has a very strong female fanbase (I went to meet some of the stars at London Comic-con last month and I was astonished to see fourth fifths of the audience were women) but no one ever brings it up during discussions of shows with feminist-friendly sensibilities.

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 18:06 on 2013-11-18I watched the first two episodes of

Lost Girl

on Viorica's recommendation, but didn't watch any further because I found those two, well, mediocre and kind of dull. Certainly not bad, and I appreciate all the feminist/queer-friendly stuff, it just didn't suck me in on a narrative level.

permalink

-

go to top

http://scipiosmith.livejournal.com/

at 18:23 on 2013-11-18I've never actually watched the first episode, so I can't comment there, but I agree that it takes a few episodes to work up a head of steam. The first season steadily improves peaking at either episode six or eight, and subsequent seasons improve on the first in their own way (in particular the Nadia arc in season 2 is a very necessary corrective to Lauren's rather silly 'I sold my freedom for the chance to study the Fae' motivation in season one).

permalink

-

go to top

Cheriola

at 22:37 on 2013-11-20I was uncomfortable with "Lost Girl" because there was so little reflection about the fact that the main character's superpower was essentially date rape. She forces people who do not want to have sex with her for various reasons (at one point, it was a security guard who was trying to stop her, IIRC) to be irrestibly attracted to her through magic / special body chemistry, and then she sexually assaults them. I mean, you can make a story about that if you want, about how she has to do this to survive, but I would expect an non-villain character to be at least as conflicted about this as your standard woobie vampire. But no, as long as she doesn't kill her victims, it's apparently fair game.

I waited and waited for the show to do some character development in this regard, but then I rage-quit at the end of season 1, because when the main character's boyfriend was assaulted in the same way by her mother (also a succubus; and the boyfriend clearly didn't want to have sex with her), everyone on the show treated this as if he had been cheating. It was all about how horrible this was for the main character and how big it was of her to forgive him. At that point I realised that the writers of this show genuinely don't think it's rape as long as the rapist is a pretty woman.

permalink

-

go to top

Cheriola

at 01:46 on 2013-11-21Also, I know this is necro-ing and probably pointless, but it's a pet-peeve, so please forgive me:

I'm iffy on Jack as a bisexual character. On the one hand, he obviously doesn't discriminate in regards to gender. On the other, he hits on everything that moves, and even when he was in a relationship, he wasn't exactly emotionally faithful.

Wow, slut- and poly-shaming much? First off, the only time Jack was in anything approaching a committed relationship onscreen was during Torchwood season 2 and 3. Do we know he and Ianto had even made any promises of exclusiveness? It's not unusual for an unmarried gay couple to have an open relationship, you know. And even John Barrowman's real-life husband seems perfectly okay with his verbal flirting and chaste kissing. (Apparently they draw the line at french kissing, which Barrowman won't even do for the camera. At least that's what he told Matt Rippy (the 'real' Jack Harkness))

Now, I've given up on Torchwood after the first couple of episodes in the 2. season, so I don't know if Ianto was the jealous type once they got around to talking about their feelings and started having an actual relationship instead of casual office sex. But even if he was: You do realise that you're prioritising one partner's selfishness and possessiveness over the other partner's right to self-determination and you're judging Jack for emotions he can't help feeling, because he's not naturally monogamous and therefore being in love with one person doesn't automatically make him incapable of having romantic and/or sexual feelings for other people.

Yes, I said selfishness - jealousy means not wanting the person you supposedly love to be happy if it's with other people, and not wanting them to spend time and attention on other people, and acting like you have a right to make decisions over their body. It's a controlling impulse born of emotional insecurity (having so little self-worth that you can't trust your partner to enjoy someone else's company and still come back to you) and cultural entitlement. Patriarchal values meant for most of human civilisation that the man owned his wife's sexuality, reproductive capacity and time/attention (love was very much optional until about 200 years ago). And the wife was economically dependent on her husband, so she suffered when he left her or fathered a child with someone else. Though the wife having any moral right to expect her husband to be sexually exclusive is actually a fairly recent cultural development. And since our culture's romantic scripts are still overwhelmingly heteronormative, LGB people sometimes have the same entitlement issues even though it makes little rational sense for them. Plus, lots of people are very insecure and selfish like little kids when it comes to romance, because everything about the way our society teaches teenagers how romance works encourages this kind of behaviour. Just look at YA literature and the ubiquious love triangle. It's all about "You MUST decide between them" and no-one ever asks "Why? Why do I have to suffer losing one positive relationship in my life just because you two can't play nice together?" And almost every show and movie out there acts like jealousy is a cute 'proof of love' and a natural reaction for everyone, and that it's always justified and not at all immature or emotionally abusive, even if it leads the jealous partner to spy on their lover or try to sabotage their opposite gender friendships, good relationships with ex-spouses, or work partnerships. (I was really surprised when the main character of "Defiance" was perfectly willing to accept that his sort-of girlfriend was a sex worker and wasn't going to stop working just because she started a relationship with him. The show even briefly featured a poly married triad in one episode, as a socially accepted option in this fictional world. Though one of the main characters still got rather judgemental about it and the whole thing turned out to be a marriage of convenience situation between one evil woman and two young pretty 'trophy husbands' in need of a meal ticket and possibly more into each other than into her.)

Obviously, cheating by going behind the primary partner's back is extremely unethical, because it endagers your partner's health and life through possible disease transmission. It should be their decision whether or not they consider the outside partner too much of a health risk to continue the primary relationship. And partners who are economically linked (for example through children) have a right to say "I'm not cool with you sleeping with that other person if there's any possibility of another mouth to feed resulting from it."

But no-one, ever, has the right to forbid their partner to have feelings for or spend time with other people - and the attempt to repress these feelings doesn't work anyway, it just leads to resentment.

In this case, if Ianto is insecure enough to require Jack to be exclusive in the later seasons, Jack is clearly indulging him and refraining from having sexual relationships with other people, just like he presumably bowed to poly-phobic social norms when he agreed to say marriage vows sometime during the early 20th century. But you can't expect him to supress who he is - somebody who communicates through flirting due to having been raised in a different culture, and somebody who falls in love / lust easily or just enjoys the banter very much.

Besides, why would you want to burden Ianto with having to fulfil ALL of Jack's physical and emotional needs? In season 1, it certainly seemed like Jack had a much easier time emotionally opening up to and trusting women (Gwen and Tosh) - no wonder, given the masculinity requirements in our culture (i.e. men having trouble offering or responding to emotional intimacy because it's seen as 'girly'); and the fact that Ianto had kept his entire identity a secret and betrayed Jack twice, before they even started officially dating.

If you're naturally monogamous and lose all interest in other people once you fall in love - great! Go for your 'one and done' relationship (hopefully with another monogamous person)! But don't try to force your perspective on life on those who are naturally polyamorous. And do not presume to judge and shame them just because the dominant culture privileges your kind.

And by the way, Jack does not hit on "everything that moves". He seems pretty limited to young and pretty cis men and women and a few, mostly humanoid aliens. He did not appreciate Donna hitting on him, IIRC. In fact, on Torchwood, he's probably the character who sees the least actual action, and he's had remarkably few mentioned lovers for someone with such a long life. (Compared to, say, the "Highlander" immortals. Or the "New Amsterdam" guy and his 609 girlfriends/wives and 63 kids in 400 years.) And just because he happily flirts with a lot of people doesn't mean he actually wants to take them to bed, as well. The show even makes the point that for Jack, flirting is like small-talk.

Yes, I know bisexual people consider the 'promiscuous' bisexual character a negative stereotype. Honestly, that seems like slut-shaming to me. There's nothing inherently negative about promiscuity if it's done ethically, and Jack is the embodiment of the Ethical Slut trope. He never cheats, and his flirting, at least as far as I've seen, is usually refreshingly easy-going, non-harassing and doesn't ping as creepy. (As long as he's not being written by Moffat, though Barrowman did his best to save Jack from character assassination even then.)

Also, I can think of over a dozen bisexual characters of varying degrees of monogamousness on just my favourite 5 or 6 shows, even if most of them are just token bisexual and really lean more gay or hetero in the depicted relationships. But I can think of no positive (i.e. not evil) polyamourous characters in mainstream fiction besides Jack Harkness (and maybe the Doctor). So can you give the more marginalised group this one, please?

(... This got to be a rather longer rant than I initially expected. Sorry. I'm insomniac again.)

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 09:18 on 2013-11-21I agree with a lot of your points, Cheriola, but I think it is a slight oversimplification to ascribe the idea that the "promiscuous bisexual" stereotype is negative exclusively to slut-shaming. I mean, the concept does relate to slut-shaming of bisexuals, that's definitely a factor, but I think it is also born in the bizarrely common misconception that bisexuals *can't* be monogamous - that because they can potentially sleep with both men and women, they can't ever be satisfied with just one.

Of course, there's room to discuss whether or not Torchwood makes room for monogamous bisexuals or whether it falls into the "bisexuality is a type of poly" trap, having not seen it I don't know whether it also features happily monogamous bisexual characters. But I don't think objecting to a well-established stereotype of promiscuity means that those who are objecting to that stereotype are themselves engaged in slut-shaming.

permalink

-

go to top

Janne Kirjasniemi

at 15:15 on 2013-11-21Also, it might be worthwhile to point out, that while polyamorous people no doubt suffer from prejudice, saying that someone refusing to engage in a polyamorous relationship can surely be something else than jealousy or just selfishness, or maybe such jealousness is not purely a result of prejudice. If polyamorousness is a matter of how a person is, then monoamorousness is too and if such people seek a relationship together, the matter needs to be resolved by the people in question, without either of them having the option to just condemn the others feelings on the matter as selfishness(since a person's needs are selfish anyways, no matter their sexual preferences) and demand them to submit to the others wants. I mean, isn't that the whole problem with shaming, just from another point of view? People seek different things from relationships and if either party has to deny themselves something they want to appease the other then surely that is a problem in itself? Of course compromises need to be made and people will no doubt keep making them, but if polyamorous people have a right to their feelings, then surely so do those with different feelings on the matter. And while systematic abuses or restrictions to people need to be stopped(or removed), regular people will need to come to terms with each other and their various needs and wants.

It is strange though that polyamorousness as such is seen as a binary matter. Like most forms of human sexuality wouldn't it be more like a fluctuating scale? But in any case, perhaps the situation is not improved by just turning the tables but rather more acceptance of our own and other's feelings.

This whole thing about whether bi is poly and whatnot does illuminate the problem of trying to categorize human sexuality into neat categories, when actually the names we use are always just vague groupings of similar seeming behaviour. Which is not really surprising when most of the terms used in the discussion were originally popularized as medicalized terms for sexual deviancy and the neologisms always try their best to sound like the old terms, implicitly validating the existence of these clear distinctions even if the discussion itself seeks to be different. But that is a different matter altogether.

permalink

-

go to top

Daniel F

at 02:17 on 2013-11-22Feel free to call me out here, but I can't help but understand it as inherently problematic to set about categorising people into those who are 'naturally polyamorous' and those who are 'naturally monogamous'. Not only am I pretty sure that people are more complicated than that, part of my understanding of what it is to be in a relationship is to have to make some effort.

That is, to me, there is a difference between affirming that it is natural and healthy to have any number of sexual instincts, and affirming that it is equally healthy to give expression to any or all of them. It seems intuitive, to me, that a person in a monogamous relationship, who consciously wishes to be monogamous, might occasionally feel a desire to sleep with a third party; but that this person also has some moral obligation to refuse that desire. I don't think it's shaming, necessarily, to say that sometimes people have sexual desires that they should not express.

I can't help but be suspicious of a line of argument that starts by distinguishing between 'them' and 'your kind'. Whatever tendencies exist are surely - as Janne points out - much vaguer than that?

I'd also dispute the idea of monogamy as selfish. The problem there seems like mismatched expectations, rather. Surely it is also - in a sense - selfish for a person to engage in multiple concurrent relationships despite knowing that this will cause their partner(s) pain. The distinction drawn seems to be about whether a person can have a right over someone else's body, but - to me, personally - I can't help but think that giving someone else a claim on your body is, um, part of

what it means

to be in a relationship. When it comes down to it, if one person feels that monogamy and some sort of mutual possession of each other's bodies is essential to a relationship, and if another person feels that it is morally wrong to ever make a claim on someone else's body... those two people probably should not be in a relationship.

And as far as bisexuality and stereotypes go, it seems to me that it is a legitimate complaint if bisexuality is universally associated with promiscuity. If I were bisexual, I can imagine being very irritated by it.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 16:24 on 2013-11-24

I'd also dispute the idea of monogamy as selfish. The problem there seems like mismatched expectations, rather. Surely it is also - in a sense - selfish for a person to engage in multiple concurrent relationships despite knowing that this will cause their partner(s) pain.

I very much agree with this. The idea that expecting your partner to respect the parameters of your relationship is somehow "selfish" is one I find more than a little offensive.

My former (and in fact late) housemate spent some time in a polyamorous relationship that she did not want to be in, because her partner didn't want to stop having sex with other women. As far as I know this wasn't a particularly central part of his sexuality or sexual identity.

The whole situation caused her *immense* emotional distress (at a time in her life when she was also dealing with clinical depression and suicidal tendencies). Do you really want to tell me that *she* was the one who was behaving selfishly in that relationship?

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 16:49 on 2013-11-24I would also point out that you can frame monogamy so that it's not so much about claiming rights over someone else's body so much as asserting rights over your own. "I'm only going to give you access to my soft bits in the context of a monogamous relationship" is a perfectly reasonable stance to take, and saying that people who genuinely feel that way are misguided and should reconsider their preferences in favour of something more acceptable to you opens a whole

world

of ugly doors. If you're saying it's OK to challenge people for being monogamous, it becomes more difficult to turn around and say that it isn't OK to challenge other aspects of people's preferences.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 17:08 on 2013-11-24Sorry to double-reply, but I'm actually a little bit angry here. I'm also rather bothered by this:

Also, I can think of over a dozen bisexual characters of varying degrees of monogamousness on just my favourite 5 or 6 shows, even if most of them are just token bisexual and really lean more gay or hetero in the depicted relationships. But I can think of no positive (i.e. not evil) polyamourous characters in mainstream fiction besides Jack Harkness (and maybe the Doctor). So can you give the more marginalised group this one, please?

Firstly, I am not really sure that categorising groups as "more" or "less" marginalised is really appropriate. It seems perilously close to oppression olympics.

Secondly, even if it were appropriate to rank the marginalisation of different marginalised groups (and as I say, I am really not convinced it is) I really don't think "number of portrayals on TV shows" is a good way to do it. I'm pretty sure I can think of ten times as many positive portrayals of black people in mainstream TV shows as I can positive portrayals of people who play MMORPGs. Does this mean that MMO players are more marginalised than black people?

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 22:15 on 2013-11-24Sorry for the now triple post, but there were a couple more things I wanted to come back to.

If you're naturally monogamous and lose all interest in other people once you fall in love - great! Go for your 'one and done' relationship (hopefully with another monogamous person)! But don't try to force your perspective on life on those who are naturally polyamorous. And do not presume to judge and shame them just because the dominant culture privileges your kind.

I'm ... really confused by this one. I know a fair few people who are in monogamous relationships, I know a fair few people who are in open or polyamorous relationships (and a fair few on both sides who get really annoyed when one gets confused with the other) and I don't know anybody who stops being attracted to other people just because they're in a relationship no matter how in love or otherwise they are. I'm honestly not sure where you could have got the impression that they did because I don't even think it's a notion that is particularly reinforced by popular culture.

Your whole post seems to suggest that you believe that "monogamous people" are literally rendered incapable of having romantic or sexual feelings for other people once they fall in love with somebody (you state this fairly explicitly). Either I and everybody else I know in a monogamous relationship is actually "naturally polyamorous" or ... well ... that is't true.

You can, of course, argue that the cultural institution of monogamy is grounded in some outdated, offensive, patriarchal assumptions, but polyamory (or for that matter polygamy) is hardly a bastion of sexual equality. Hell, polyamorous relationships which involve a single man and a large number of women are so common that the community has a slang term for it (I believe the call it "one penis poly").

I think what upset me most about your post was the fact that I'm very used to a lot of these arguments being used by asshole men to emotionally blackmail their girlfriends into relationships which they are not comfortable being in - "it's not my fault, I'm naturally polyamorous", "if you really loved me, you'd want me to be happy." And that makes me a little bit nauseous.

Yes, I know bisexual people consider the 'promiscuous' bisexual character a negative stereotype. Honestly, that seems like slut-shaming to me.

I can only speak for myself here, but I really don't think it's the place of somebody who isn't bisexual to tell a bisexual person what they can and can not consider to be a negative stereotype of their own sexuality. I might also add that under most circumstances saying "I know that members of this marginalised group consider this portrayal to be a negative stereotype, but I think they're wrong" when you are not yourself a member of that group would be seen as derailing.

Having said that, I do see the point you are making, but I think you're failing to distinguish between two important but distinct definitions of "negative stereotype."

Some stereotypes are negative in that the stereotypical quality is itself inherently negative (criminality being a good example - and possibly the *only* good example, since to call most other qualities inherently negative would be ablist or classist).

Most stereotypes, however, are negative in that the sense that the existence of the stereotype leads to people treating the stereotyped group in a way that members of that group find damaging.

There are several clear, concrete ways in which the "promiscuous bisexual" stereotype is actively harmful to bisexual people. Just off the top of my head, the assumption that bisexual people are necessarily promiscuous means that if you are openly bisexual:

- People will take your romantic relationships less seriously, no matter how sincerely you are committed to them.

- People will more likely to make inappropriate sexual advances towards you.

- People will, in various ways, fetishize your sexuality, and expect you to like it. Particularly if you're a woman.

- People will assume you are up for threesomes, always.

- People will expect you to want to be in an open or polyamorous relationship, even if you don't...

- ... and they quite possibly won't believe you when you say you don't ...

- ... and if you're a woman, and you're dating a guy, when he says "open relationship" he will quite likely mean "I can have sex with other women, and so can you" ...

- ... which will often mean "I can have sex with other women, and will in practice get really upset if you do the same."

- People will assume that you are sexually attracted to them, and be offended and possibly aggressive if you aren't.

At this point it might be worth remembering that the original comment here was about a fictional character. Nobody was saying that Jack's behaviour would be morally wrong in real life. They were saying that his behaviour reinforced harmful stereotypes about bisexual people which, *as a bisexual person* they were fully entitled to do.

permalink

-

go to top

Melanie

at 23:41 on 2013-11-24

Most stereotypes, however, are negative in that the sense that the existence of the stereotype leads to people treating the stereotyped group in a way that members of that group find damaging.

Yes, precisely. This is true even of allegedly "positive"[1] stereotypes, so I don't see that it's automatically denigrating the thing the stereotype is

about

to object to it.

Plus, even if you haven't been harmed in any concrete way by a stereotype, it's still highly obnoxious when people believe stupid lies about you.

[1]"Allegedly" because--let's face it--even when the assumed trait is supposedly a good/cool thing, there's probably some deeply nasty accompanying baggage--unspoken implications or associations behind it.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 13:27 on 2013-11-25Sorry for continuing to pile on, but I needed to get this out there:

Your whole post seems to suggest that you believe that "monogamous people" are literally rendered incapable of having romantic or sexual feelings for other people once they fall in love with somebody (you state this fairly explicitly). Either I and everybody else I know in a monogamous relationship is actually "naturally polyamorous" or ... well ... that is't true.

Adding a data point that this is my experience as well, and to note that "finds someone attractive" doesn't amount to "specifically wants to have sex and/or a relationship with them".

I have spent most of my life single and haven't followed up on the vast majority of attractions I have felt (even if you only count people who are real and who I have interacted with socially in real life). That doesn't mean I get to claim to be going through an asexual phase when I happen to be single and not looking, it just means that criteria like "This person is in a monogamous relationship and I'm not enough of a cad to mess with that" or "I'd rather not spend time with someone whose personality I find repellent, regardless of how sexually attractive I find them" or "I want a relationship of equals and there just aren't many people up here on the God Tier" tend to outweigh the attraction most of the time.

Likewise, it's entirely possible when you are in a relationship for both parties to experience attraction to other people but elect for going monogamous anyway for mutually agreed reasons which have nothing to do with jealousy, sexual health or money - for instance, given that maintaining a relationship with one person already requires a degree of work and compromise, I find myself reluctant to agree to the extra work, compromise, and complication which would result from bringing additional people into the mix on a practical level.

Also, I think there are compelling reasons why cheating behind your partner's back is wrong that have nothing to do with sexual health. If you and your partner(s) freely and without compulsion agreed that the relationship was going to be monogamous (or, indeed, polyamorous or open but with particular rules or requirements to keep partners informed about stuff), and you go ahead and break that agreement, then regardless of whether or not there's a sexual health dimension involved you've straight-up lied to and broken a promise to a partner, which is an ethical breach I find it hard to sympathise with.

(Obviously you're going to have situations where people feel compelled to agree to stuff they wouldn't have otherwise agreed to - hey presto, Dan provided a example of precisely such a thing upthread - but the solution to a dysfunctional relationship isn't to make the relationship even more dysfunctional, it's to end either the dysfunction or the relationship.)

Lastly, I think you can actually legitimately say you have a claim on a partner's time or attention if the two of you have actually mutually agreed to be there for each other. One of the most hurtful incidents I've lived through in a relationship was when I was dealing with the death of a friend and my partner at the time (they are, needless to say, long gone) simply

was not there

on an emotional level to give me the support I desperately needed. Respecting a partner's right to have their own friendships and interests is important and I wouldn't do a single thing differently if I had my time over in that respect, but equally if they exercise that right in such a way that it ends up hurting you then that's on them. If asking your partner to give the same priority to your emotional well-being as you give to theirs is selfish, then I'm comfortable being selfish.

#Ferretbrain #Minority Warrior #Star Trek #Viorica

[jeroldlockettus]

How to Win Games and Beat People (Ep. 247 Rebroadcast)

Games are fun, but winning is better. (photo: Arwa Gunja)

Games are as old as civilization itself, and some people think they have huge social value regardless of whether you win or lose. Tom Whipple is not one of those people. That’s why he consulted an army of preposterously overqualified experts to find the secret to winning any game.

Listen and subscribe to our podcast at Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or elsewhere. Below is a transcript of the episode, edited for readability. For more information on the people and ideas in the episode, see the links at the bottom of this post.

*      *      *

There is a pretty good chance that you or someone you love has recently given or received some sort of game as a holiday gift. If so, there is probably an even better chance that the playing of said game will ultimately lead to competitive urges that had been capably subdued to that point. It will perhaps even lead to tears. No one likes to lose. Wouldn’t you like to avoid the tears of defeat? The following episode will help you do that. It’s called “How to Win Games and Beat People.” It was part of our Self-Improvement Month series from 2016; we’ve updated it slightly. If you want to hear the rest of the series, our podcast archive is at Stitcher or here.

*      *      *

It’s an activity that seems to be eternal and universal:

MARY PILON: We do know that board games are just about as old as civilization itself and human beings.

It’s an activity that is inherently communal:

GREG MAY: They are here four nights a week playing this card game that’s been around since I was a kid.

And it’s an activity in which the mere participation brings joy, regardless of outcome. Right?

TOM WHIPPLE: Losers look for joy; I look for victory.

Ah, victory! Well, if that’s how you feel, then this is the episode for you: “How to Win Games and Beat People.” Because winning feels like this …

KRISTEN: Hot damn! Woo! Yeah!

*      *      *

I love to play games. For a long time, I was afraid to admit how much I like playing games because it seems a bit childish. And as adults, we are encouraged to do away with childish things. But you know what? I’ve changed my mind. Because playing games means that you’re taking part in the glorious progression of civilization. My favorite game, for instance, is backgammon.

Mary PILON: So backgammon is a great example of a game that has ancient roots, in this case Greek.

And that is …

PILON: Mary Pilon. I’m the author of The Monopolists, a book about the secret history of the board game Monopoly.

Pilon knows the history of other games as well.

PILON: Senet goes back to Egypt around 3500 B.C. Go and Liubo, which are Chinese games, also go back to the earliest known civilizations. Ur goes back to Mesopotamia. Parcheesi goes back to India. Dice: Mesopotamia. Backgammon: Byzantine Greece. Checkers: ancient Egypt. And then, of course, Monopoly, 1904. And a whole bunch of other stuff in between.

Game-playing boomed in America. Much of the boom emanated from Massachusetts, home to both the Parker Brothers and Milton Bradley companies. Boston had a lot to do with it.

PILON: It was a major port; it was a major shipping hub. So a lot of these games that had ancient roots were coming through via the sailors and folks on ships.

In the U.S., ancient games were modernized. New ones were invented. And history itself conspired to create demand.

PILON: So, first of all, you have electric lighting. Now you could play games at night.

Also, child labor was going out of fashion.

PILON: We start seeing laws that allow for children to go to school. Just across the board, you have a rise in leisure time. Board games become part of a lifestyle that previous generations wouldn’t have even conceived of.

Fast-forward now a few more generations.

Martin WALKER: Newer games allow more — there’s more creativity, there’s more strategy. Like, the classic games are fun, but Monopoly or Chutes and Ladders, you’re just rolling dice, something happens, and that’s it.

That’s Martin Walker. Walker is a grad student in Knoxville, Tennessee. Today he’s visiting New York, and he’s at a board-game café in Greenwich Village called The Uncommons, with his wife, Jenny Chin, and a friend. They’re playing a game called …

Jenny CHIN: Takenoko.

WALKER: Takenoko. It is a map-building, bamboo-growing, panda-eating board game.

ANN: Jenny, I will slay you. I just started this game, and I will slay you.

WALKER: She will throw me under a bus.

CHIN: All right we’ll see about that.

WALKER: We’re going to find out who’s the most competitive.

ANN: It’s not really a competition, and it’s not really a group-work thing. We’re just —

WALKER: We’re each helping to grow a farm. But we’re also taking advantage of what they built and taking it from them.

ANN: It’s kind of similar to Settlers of Catan.

CHIN: Yeah, you’re building the same map, but you have your own agenda. Yeah.

ANN: It’s horrible!

Greg May is the founder of The Uncommons.

Greg MAY: I’ve always loved board games. And I’ve always felt like there needed to be a place — a sort of home — for games in New York City.

So that’s what he started. With a collection of nearly 1,000 board games.

MAY: There’s been this explosion and growth in games that weren’t around when I was a kid.

Gil HOVA: I’ve designed Bad Medicine, which is a party game where the players are all pharmaceutical companies making horrible drugs.

Gil Hova is a board-game designer and publisher who lives in Jersey City.

HOVA: I usually drop by here just to see how things are going, what people are playing, what’s been selling, that sort of thing. I have a game coming out later this year called The Networks, where the players are all running television networks starting with three horrible public-access shows and slowing improving their network over five seasons. The business has been incredible. I’m almost sold out of Bad Medicine at this point, out of my entire print run. And I raised over $100,000 on Kickstarter for The Networks.

That is a true fact. And Hova is not the only game designer crowd-funding his work. Kickstarter has an entire division dedicated to games. Since 2009, nearly $1 billion has been pledged to games. A lot of these are video games, not old-fashioned board games. And before you get too excited about some board-game renaissance, consider the sales numbers on board games versus video games. Board-game and puzzle sales in the United States bring in about $2 billion a year. Video game sales total $36 billion a year. So for every dollar we spend on board games and puzzles, we spend roughly $18 on video games. In any case: the instinct to play some kind of game, with some kind of opponent, is extraordinarily common, and long-lived:

PILON: Just about every civilization with dates that go way, way, way, way, way back, they were playing games. Some of them were race games — so that’s what you think of a path with little markers that you move, trying to get ahead of an opponent. Some of them were more strategy-based. Some mimicked the world that was around them, and had warfare as a theme or religion as a huge recurring theme in early games. And often games were used by religious leaders as a way of fortune-telling, but also winners of games often had a spiritual aura about them, because they were able to win something that combined luck and skill.

Pilon herself is a gamer.

PILON: So, my family has taken to playing Settlers of Catan at holidays, and it’s an extremely popular game. It came out of Germany, like a lot of really fantastic games do. There’s many things I love about it, but it turns us into animals. It brings out the best and worst in us, particularly the adults. At least at one Thanksgiving, there had to be a handwritten apology note; there were accusations of theft; it really gets extreme. But it’s a great way for everybody to get together.

Tom WHIPPLE: Some people — I’ve heard some families, they get together at family gatherings and they think, “This will be pleasant. We will play a few games and we will have a lovely evening.” And I sort of just find it extraordinary.

Now I’d like you to meet Tom Whipple. We’ll get to his c.v. shortly.

WHIPPLE: I have an early memory from when I was 9 or 10, and we were gathered with extended family and we were playing a game — I can’t even remember the game, but what I do remember is that my Uncle Terry, when he beat me, this 9-year-old who he had seen grow up and play with his kids, he stood up, he jumped on the sofa and he pointed at me and with each point and with each bounce of him on the sofa he says, “I win, you lose. I win, you lose.” And that sort of taught me, I suppose, the morality of game-playing that I’ve taken with me. It’s about: I win and you lose. So I suppose this book was an attempt to codify that in such a way that I can eventually beat Terry.

Whipple has written a book titled How to Win Games and Beat People. In his day job, he’s the science editor for The Times in London.

WHIPPLE: I mean, “editor” is a very grandiose title. There are two of us who cover science for The Times and we try to read the major journals — Nature, Cells, Science — and see what the interesting and important science stories of the day are, and then we try to make them accessible in 600 or fewer words for the public.

DUBNER: And are you — or have you ever been — a scientist yourself?

WHIPPLE: I am a mathematician by training. I studied for a maths degree and then I left, possibly because I discovered I wasn’t as good at calculus as I was at writing about things. But I try not to let scientists know that I’m a mathematician because then they don’t talk to me like I’m an idiot which is—

DUBNER: Oh, and you want them to talk to you like you’re an idiot?

WHIPPLE: I want them to talk to me like I’m an idiot, particularly if I’m at CERN or something like that.

As we mentioned, the title of Whipple’s book is How to Win Games and Beat People. Nothing particularly bloodthirsty about that. But the subtitle: “Defeat and demolish your friends and family.”

DUBNER: I was hoping, and this is going to sound terrible — I gather if you still want to beat Terry, that he is still alive — I was hoping he’d meet a grisly death after doing that to you.

WHIPPLE: Terry is alive, and he is aware that I am on my way to take the advice in this book and try to get my own back, because it’s been a long time coming.

 Today, how to win any game — if not with grace, necessarily — with Tom Whipple as our guide and his book as our bible.

WHIPPLE: Really the premise for it — I suppose the elevator pitch — was: it’s preposterously overqualified people advising on games. So I have a Special Forces soldier on pillow fighting, and I have a structural engineer on Jenga. And game theorists all over the place.

DUBNER: But let me ask you, I guess, an obviously paradoxical question about your mission here. Let’s say I’m the only one who reads the book, and I learn how to win every game, then I plainly have an advantage. But if you read the book, as well, then you have the same advantage and then the game-theory puzzle becomes a very different one, does it not? 

WHIPPLE: I mean, yes. You’ve described a meta-game theory problem. It’s game theory about a book about game theory. How many people read my book before it’s a failure? I’ll just say — I think both my agent and publisher would agree with this — I’m very happy to take that risk. If enough people are prepared to buy my book, I’d consider that I’d won a completely different game which is the game to get a house in Kensington.

DUBNER: Let’s take Jenga. First of all, describe why you went to a structural engineer to figure out the best way to win at the game.

WHIPPLE: I spoke to a structural engineer who spent a lot of the time talking about how he likes to beat architects at Jenga because his fundamental hypothesis was they can do all their fancy drawings but he can play Jenga. But actually the most interesting person was a woman who invented it I spoke to. And she said that when she plays Jenga with people, she is often accused of cheating, because she likes to put her elbow against the tower when she is pulling out the blocks to stabilize it, and people say you can’t do this. And she says, “Well, look, I invented the game. There are only three rules!” You can only use one hand; you can only take out one block at a time; and if that block touches the floor then it’s over.

And her other tactic was — I don’t know if you played with those annoying people who aren’t trying to get as high as possible and instead of taking one from the outside, the ones on either side, they take the one from the middle, which means that that row is then useless to you; you can’t remove any more. Well, what she would do is: she would pinch the ones on the outside, the one on the left and the one on the right, and move them together so that she could then take one out and get another piece of value out of that row and again, she says, “People say I’m cheating.”

For the beloved sport of stone-skipping, also known as stone-skimming, Whipple spoke with a guy called:

WHIPPLE: Kurt Steiner.

Who had a relatively simple goal in life.

WHIPPLE: He said to his wife, “I want to quit my job to become the world’s best stone-skimmer.” And for five years he trained. But the interesting thing about this was: there is a lot of theory on this. It’s a standard undergraduate physics problem. And I was going to go to one of these physics professors to find out from them what the optimal way of throwing a stone is, and they all agree on the angles and the velocities and the spins and all of this and they get their undergraduates to work it out.

And obviously the problem with that, as I know well having studied maths, is there are — angles, velocities, and spins are all based on a perfectly spherical stone in a frictionless environment that does all these things. And actually what Kurt Steiner discovered was that none of it was true. And it’s one of these wonderful things where you think science is so advanced that normal people can’t do anything about it, but he’s definitively proved all this science wrong because he got 88 stone skims.

DUBNER: And does that make him something like a world champion?

WHIPPLE: It exceeded the previous one by more than 20. Essentially he stopped counting. The YouTube clip is up and I’d urge everyone to Google it because this is his Sistine Chapel. I mean he’s given this gift to the world of this stone that just floats along the lake; it’s absolutely extraordinary. And the way he did it was: he aims — rather than the physics which says you throw it in at angle and it comes out at that angle, he throws it at about 30 degrees and he throws so fast, he uses his whole—

DUBNER: Thirty degrees down or up?

WHIPPLE: Thirty degrees angled towards the horizontal.

DUBNER: What would look like straight down into the water.

WHIPPLE: It would be pretty close to straight but he throws it so fast. What he does is he moves his entire body, so he swivels his shoulder — and he’s got colleagues in the profession who’ve had sporting injuries as a consequence of doing stone skipping — where he swivels his whole shoulder back and brings his arm and it’s almost like a whip and all of the movement goes into the very tip of his arm and out goes the stone as fast and with as much spin as possible. It looks likes it’s going almost directly down into the water. Except by the time it hits the water, it’s not going directly down, and it comes out at about five degrees.

DUBNER: Okay, so here’s the thing. Most people listening to this are probably not going to take up stone skipping, only because it requires a lot of things, you know: the water, the stones, an arm, a fair bit of lunacy, and so on. But many, many, many people who listen to this do routinely play games with their friends, family, people they love, people they might not love so much. And I would like to propose that you and I, right now, on the radio, play a few of these games against each other and see how it works out. Are you up for that, Tom?

WHIPPLE: I’m absolutely up for that.

DUBNER: I asked you to prepare a little bit by bringing into the studio a couple of the games that I’ve brought into the studio. And I do want to make an admission to you, which is: as a professional, I have not acted professionally here, in that typically, I would read the book, or at least most of the book, of the person I am interviewing. And in this case I purposely did not read it, because I did not want to know your secrets, yet. So let me apologize for not having read your book, yet.

WHIPPLE: That’s fine. I mean this slightly fills me with dread because it means it makes it all the more embarrassing when I lose.

DUBNER: Well that was kind of my idea, Tom. I was thinking that if I could maybe beat you — I thought we would play four games — and I thought if I could beat you at one where you have the optimal strategy for all four, that a 1-3 record might make me look a little bit like a hero. 

WHIPPLE: As game theorists call it, I think that would be our Nash equilibrium, because if I can only lose on one then I would be very happy as well.

DUBNER: So how would you feel about one victory and one draw for me? Would that push us over into the hero category for me, or not quite?

WHIPPLE: Well, if we are going to do games like Rock, Paper, Scissors, then there is an element of chance I can always blame. I can always say it’s only 60 percent in my favor.

DUBNER: Oh! Already blaming with the chance, yeah.

WHIPPLE: I’ve got to get the excuses in early.

*      *      *

Tom Whipple agreed to play four games with me. I have prepared by not reading his book. What follows is a substantially edited version of our battle, because it took us more than two hours to play, and I don’t think even the most devoted Freakonomics Radio listener is interested in listening to two grown men play board games for two hours. Whipple was in a radio studio in London; I was in a studio in New York.

DUBNER: I thought that we could begin with Connect Four. Does that work with you?

WHIPPLE: Yep.

DUBNER: Now, I should also say that in anticipation of this game fest, we have brought a couple of participants into the studio here to act as, well, might be referees because we want to make sure that — no offense to you — but I cheat a lot at everything, so—

WHIPPLE: Well, the point of this game, or this book, is that we shouldn’t really trust each other and we are all out to win, so, no, I understand.

DUBNER: Well said. Okay, so I’ve got here, Arwa Gunja. Arwa, can you just say hello?

ARWA GUNJA: Hello.

DUBNER:  And Arwa, is there anything you can say in a sentence or two, do you want to take a pledge of honesty as moderator or referee?

GUNJA: I will take that pledge. I also brought with me my iPhone, so I can record anything if we need it for the record. And I also have a very official referee’s whistle here.

DUBNER: I just have to say Tom that I didn’t know about the camera so my strategy needs to change very rapidly. And Tom, do you have someone there with you in London?

WHIPPLE: Yeah, I have, if Molly Fleming will say hello.

MOLLY FLEMING: Hi.

DUBNER: Hi, Molly. So, Tom, you apparently know how to win at this every time, presuming you go first, I understand, correct?

WHIPPLE: Well, yeah, it is possible to win every time presuming you go first; that’s been proven by computer. And I know a very good strategy for ensuring that so long as no one makes any stupid mistakes along the way, you always win if you go first. And probably if you go second, but it depends upon my ability and your ability not to make stupid mistakes along the way.

DUBNER: So I guess I should let you go first then.

WHIPPLE: You go first and then I’ve got something more to blame.

DUBNER: Okay, you want to play yellow or red?

WHIPPLE: I’ll play yellow.

Whipple and I each had a board in the studio with us but, because we couldn’t see each other’s board, we agreed to label the boards so we could replicate each other’s moves. So, we labeled the X axis with numbers 1-7, from left to right, and the Y axis with letters A-F, from bottom to top.

MOLLY: What I found really interesting was that this was a tactic used by Beyonce on Kanye West in Connect 4. And we’re on the side of Beyonce here, is all I’m going to—

DUBNER: I’m Kanye then?

MOLLY: Yeah. You’re Kanye.

DUBNER: Who won?

MOLLY: Well, Beyonce.

DUBNER: Did she go first?

WHIPPLE: I think you’ve heard of the Fischer-Spassky chess match.

DUBNER: I have.

WHIPPLE: This was the equivalent in Connect Four. It was, at least according to showbiz press, and if you can’t believe the show-biz press, then where are we in the world? Kanye West, Jay-Z, and Beyonce were backstage in 2009 and what do the three biggest names in world music do when they’re backstage? Well they had a Connect Four tournament and Kanye West, who describes himself in his music as God’s vessel, lost 8-1 to Beyonce.

DUBNER: That’s an argument for atheism right there.

WHIPPLE: She is indeed my inspiration for this game.

DUBNER: Wow, so you’re not channeling a mathematician; you’re channeling Beyonce, which is a much more formidable force.

WHIPPLE: Exactly, yeah. You don’t argue with Beyoncé Knowles.

Our Connect Four match went on and on for the next 20 minutes, until we were down to an inevitable finish:

GUNJA: That’s game Dubner.

WHIPPLE: Oh dear, it’s not good for Blighty.

DUBNER: Tom, so plainly I stumbled into a lucky progression there and happened to beat you.

WHIPPLE: Well, that’s very sweet for you to say that you stumbled, but what I will say in my defense: in some sense what we just had is the classic Connect Four game. Sometimes you’ll lose because someone will spot a cunning little fork or you won’t spot that someone has got three in a row. But often you end up filling it up and then you are forced in the last column to make a play that you know is going to give your opponent victory. It’s a German word zugzwang. Have you come across this?

DUBNER: I haven’t; I like it though.

WHIPPLE: The Germans have a word for everything, and it’s not surprising that maybe in the milieu of central European politics they had this word because it’s a word that means being forced to do something that will guarantee your enemy victory.

DUBNER: Oh, I zugzwang everyday, I have to say. I’m glad to know there is a word for it.

WHIPPLE: Well, there you go. So, that’s zugzwang. We mentioned the epic struggle between Kanye West and Beyoncé Knowles. What was also reported at the time was that the reason she won was because she had read the master’s thesis of a guy called Victor Allis. Now obviously I could have interviewed Kanye West for my book; I could have interviewed Beyoncé Knowles. But why interview either of them when I could can go to a Dutch computer scientist called Victor Allis? He had designed a program that always played the optimal move in Connect Four. And it had been proven mathematically to be perfect. There are four and half trillion different combinations in Connect Four.

But what he said to me, he was a relatively keen player and he says, “I bet you’ve lost games of Connect Four where you feel ‘that was just bad luck.’’’ And I suppose before I had spoken to him I could have put what happened to us down to bad luck as opposed to extremely bad play on my part. And he says, “it’s not bad luck. It is not bad luck when you put that there, when you are forced into zugzwang.” Because actually if you go first, you will be in the situation where you will find that final four in the row — you’ve got these three dangling, waiting to be filled, and you will find that the final four in the row, it will be completed on an odd row. If you go second, it will be completed on an even row and that’s exactly what we found. If I did a three in a row, ready for completion on an even row, by the end of that game, I would have won. But you had won on row number 3. And you won, and that’s why.

DUBNER:  All right, shall we disgorge our checkers because that’s always been to me the most fun part of Connect Four?

WHIPPLE: Here they go.

MOLLY: I’m going to have to bow out, I’m really sorry. I’ve got to go.

DUBNER: That’s okay, Molly. It’s our fault for slow playing …

MOLLY: No it was really lovely; it was really fun. Good luck with the next one, not that you need it.

DUBNER: Thank you very much.

So we lost our London observer but, having one victory in hand, I wasn’t too worried. Our next game was Hangman. We would play two rounds – one with Whipple guessing my word, one with me guessing his. The guesser could guess 10 wrong letters before being hung, representing the head, torso, two arms, two legs, the rope, and three lines for the gallows themselves.

WHIPPLE: So all I need to know is how many letters.

DUBNER: Okay, and I’ll tell you there are four letters. Now tell me immediately, is that a good thing to go short, or bad?

WHIPPLE: Oh yeah, it’s a very good thing to go short.

DUBNER: All right. Go for it.

WHIPPLE: So, “A.”

GUNJA: That is a miss. Nine guesses remain.

WHIPPLE: That is a miss. I’m going to go down the vowels on this but you don’t always, so I am going to go “E.“ 

GUNJA: That is a miss. Eight guesses remain.

WHIPPLE: Oh you have done something with a “Y” or something, haven’t you?

DUBNER: Or have I?

WHIPPLE: Exactly, I can do nothing but stick to my strategy, so I am going to go for an “O.”

GUNJA: That is a hit. You’ve got an “O” in the second spot. Four letters, the second letter is an “O.”

WHIPPLE: Okay, and so now I am going to shift it, that was my attack, my sort of basic attack strategy. So now I am going to go for a “T.” 

DUBNER: Beautiful guess.

GUNJA: That is a miss.

WHIPPLE: That is a miss. Damn.

GUNJA: Seven guesses remain.

DUBNER: We don’t even have the gallows built yet, but soon we will get to your body.

WHIPPLE: I am going to go for an “S.”

DUBNER: That’s a negatory, Batman.

GUNJA: The gallows are complete.

WHIPPLE: The gallows are complete. Oh gosh, you’re marching me towards my doom. I am going to go for an “R.” 

GUNJA: Another miss. Five guesses remain.

DUBNER: If I wanted to march you to towards your doom, I would just challenge you to another game of Connect Four, no offense.

WHIPPLE: Okay, and at this point I am going to have to think, I’ve got to take the strategy that you’re being tricky and you’ve gone for something like a “J.” 

GUNJA: The first letter is a “J.” So you have a “J,” second letter is an “O,” and two blanks. Five guesses left.

WHIPPLE: Well, I am going to go for — this a good question. See now I am looking at what words would actually work.

DUBNER: I can’t imagine that there are that many four-letter words starting with J-O

WHIPPLE: So this is completely — I’m thinking “Jowl.” 

GUNJA: Game Whipple!

DUBNER: Beautifully done! Tom Whipple!

WHIPPLE: Oh you’re just overpraising after the Connect Four disaster.

DUBNER: I’m not. I’m really impressed. “Jowl” I thought it was a good word.

WHIPPLE: “Jowl” is a really good word.

DUBNER: And you emerged with everything but your head intact, which is, you know, something. So, that was really well done. So you’ve just proved that from the guesser’s perspective you’ve had a strategy that happened to work beautifully there. Could I learn that strategy as well pretty quickly?  

WHIPPLE: Quite boringly there is a table in my book which got the first letter on the board. The strategy for this, I should say I spoke to Nick Berry, who is a data scientist at Facebook, who looks into these things in his spare time. And what he said to me was, “Tom, I bet you think you’re good at Hangman. You’re not.”

And then he said, “People who think they’re good at Hangman, the more naive ones, what they guess first is vowels,” which is, indeed, what I used to do. So I was at the lowest level of sophistication on his strategy. And then he said, “If you get a bit more sophisticated, you learn about letter frequency analysis.”

It actually started in Baghdad in the 9th century. There was a guy who went through the Koran and wrote down — a guy called Al-Kindi — wrote down the frequency of every single letter that popped up, and he didn’t just do this for fun; he did it because cryptography at the time was almost always based on letter substitution. So for instance, you would change the word “cat” — you would add one to each letter — so you would change the word “cat” to D-B-U and then you would send your letter and he realized that if he knew that a particular letter popped up more and had a big enough corpus of data to decode, he could begin to work out which letters were which. So he blew apart cryptography by doing this.

So from that, we have the basic letter frequency in the English language. And he said, “Well I bet you think this makes you sophisticated.” And then he said, “well, actually it’s not.” Because if you think about it in Hangman what you’ve got is a lot of words you’d never use. A lot of the most common words. You’d never use the word “A” in hangman. You’d never use “and” or “of” or “the.” If you play hangman with somebody who puts down the word “the” then that really is the time to reconsider your friendships. And so then he produced a different letter frequency of the words in the English language excluding those. So previously it was E-T-A-O-I-N, and if you get rid of those words, you’re left with E-S — for “sugar” — I-A-R-N.

DUBNER: So that’s the optimal kind of first guessing streak, yes?

WHIPPLE: No. ‘Cause then he said, you’ve forgotten about the amount of information you’ve been given. I’ve just been told that this is a four-letter word. Well, the frequency of letters in four-letter words is completely different. Think about it. Think of all the endings that you can’t have. You can’t have the “-ing” ending. You can’t have the “-tion” ending. It would be mad if the letter frequency in four-letter words is the same as the letter frequency in the English language. So actually the most common letter in four-letter words is “A,” but the most common letter in five-letter words is “S.” It’s “E” in six-letter words, and it’s “I” in thirteen-letter words.

DUBNER: Once you land the first letter then you reassess the kind of word that you’re thinking about or no?

WHIPPLE: Well, yeah, so his whole principle behind this, which I certainly subscribe to is: the really key thing is to get that first letter. So let’s say, as was the case with this, it’s a four-letter word, and I’ve guessed “A” because that’s the most common letter in four-letter words. Well if that doesn’t come up, you’ve just changed the search again. The frequency of letters in four-letter words that don’t include the letter “A” is completely different. So that’s your strategy for getting the first letter. And then obviously you could extend this if you had a lot of time on your hands. But I just went back to the letter frequency in the English language. Then I went to the letter frequency for silly buggers and just decided to go “J,” so I went a bit off piece there.

DUBNER: All right that was very stressful though, that was fun. Can we play another?

WHIPPLE: I’m sweating, yeah.  

WHIPPLE: I’ve got a three-letter one up on my end of things.

DUBNER: All right, so I’m going to use your chart because that’s what it’s for. And I see that if I have a three-letter word, the optimal calling order is A-E-O-I-U-Y-H-B-C-K, so I’d be a fool to ignore your advice, except for the fact that you wrote the advice.

WHIPPLE: Well, exactly.

DUBNER: So I have to think that you would have been thinking, “Well of course he is going to call ‘A’ because it says ‘A’ right there” and therefore why would you put an “A” in, especially when I told you I was going to use your advice. And then I think, “Well is he the kind of person who would go to the second most frequent or maybe the third or maybe the sixth?”

WHIPPLE: Or I could have just done “cat,” because I would have just thought that you wouldn’t think this way.

DUBNER: Once again you’re deep inside my head. I would like to call “Y.”

GUNJA: “Y” is a miss. Nine guesses remain.

DUBNER: “O.”

WHIPPLE: “O” is not in it.

GUNJA: Dubner has 8 guesses left.

DUBNER: “A.” 

WHIPPLE: “A” is the second letter.

DUBNER: Oh, so you went easy on me. Either that or you thought you were pulling the double switcheroo because “A” is the first letter in the optimal calling order.

WHIPPLE: I’ve forgotten how many switcheroos we’re on now.

DUBNER: Now I think it calls for some psychoanalysis. So, what did you have for breakfast today, Tom?

WHIPPLE: I had toast and bagels.

DUBNER: Was there jam on your toast?

WHIPPLE: I couldn’t imagine where you were going. Yes there was lashings of jam of my toast.

DUBNER: I’m not familiar with the word “lashings,” but I’m focusing on the jam. Do you have pets at home?

WHIPPLE: I have pet tortoises.

DUBNER: But no feline-type pets?

WHIPPLE: No.

DUBNER: How do you feel about feline-type pets?

WHIPPLE: I’m ambivalent towards feline-type pets.

DUBNER: “C.”

WHIPPLE: That’s the first one.

DUBNER: “T.”

WHIPPLE: I think that would be the one I was going for. I think a treble-switcheroo on telling you it was “cat.”

DUBNER: The minute you said you were ambivalent, cause can I tell you why? Nobody is ambivalent about cats. Either love cats or you hate cats.

WHIPPLE: You’re right; you’ve got my tell. You’ve got my tell.

So Hangman ended in a draw — he won his round, I won mine — which meant I’d already achieved my goal of one victory and one draw in four games against the game expert, meaning I could afford to lose the last two games. Which was fortunate because – well, here we go:

DUBNER: How about we play Battleship?

WHIPPLE: Let’s do Battleship.

DUBNER: Is there a large advantage to going first?

WHIPPLE: I don’t think anyone has particularly done the maths on it, but I don’t think it’s huge.

DUBNER: All right, Tom you can go first then.

After multiple rounds of Battleship, Tom Whipple had taken out one of my ships and was dangerously close to taking out several others. I still didn’t have one hit.

DUBNER: So, I’ve got to wonder now. I’ve really scattered the board. Ten scattered guesses and not a single hit, and I can’t remember ever playing 10 first guesses and not a single hit. So I’ve got to think that rather than scattering, you’re maybe clustering and that there is quadrant that I haven’t wandered into where I will find the motherload. Would the quadrant include H8? 

WHIPPLE: It would not.

DUBNER: Again, you did put ships on the board, yes?

WHIPPLE: There are ships, there are photographs to prove it, they are just using their British pluck to evade your artillery. F8.

DUBNER: F8, hit and sunk. You’ve sunk my 3-hole ship. So you’ve now sunk a 4 and a 3. So I can tell you because you’re my friend, and I think your going to beat me anyway, I am worried about my strategy now. Do you understand why I’m worried besides the fact that I’m behind?

WHIPPLE: Is it because you’ve been putting ships next to each other?

DUBNER: Yes, thinking that I would—

WHIPPLE: Confound me.

DUBNER: Confound you, but if indeed I’ve done that consistently, then the confounding will come to a crashing halt.

WHIPPLE: But see you began that by saying, “Because I’m your friend,” so I think you’re just trying to gain my trust so that you can lie.

DUBNER: I appreciate your thinking of me as strategically as that and as nastily as that.

Clearly my strategy was a horrid failure. An embarrassment. I did finally get a few hits, including Whipple’s destroyer – that’s the ship with just two holes, the hardest one to find.

WHIPPLE: You’ve gotten rid of my most valuable ship.

DUBNER: All right, well, that’s something.

WHIPPLE: So people who play this competitively, which are vanishingly few, would not generally put many ships on the outside of the board.

DUBNER: Why’s that?

WHIPPLE: Well, if you think about the hunt strategy, once you’ve targeted it, once you’ve hit someone’s ship, you then have to look at the four squares either side of that hit to see which way the ship is going; to see if it’s going up, down, left, right. If you’ve got it on the edge of the board, you’ve immediately put it in that situation, and for exactly the same reason, ideally you wouldn’t put ships next to each other because then there is a chance in hitting one, just in your search strategy, you’re going to get a hit on two.

Now, because that’s a strategy, obviously you then have to mitigate it, which is why I put one of mine on the edge of the board, because people know it’s bad to put them on the edge of the board then it’s — sometimes, you want to mess around with them and put them on the edge of the board.

DUBNER: So it sounds as though you’re saying that your planting strategy, your setting-up-ship strategy, is to place them what seems to be randomly, while avoiding the edges.

WHIPPLE: Yeah, semi-randomly, avoiding edges and avoiding put them together but occasionally putting them together and putting them on the edges if that doesn’t sound too ludicrous…

DUBNER: Yeah, yeah that makes sense, that’s sort of an 80-20-ish sort of rule.

Finally, calling “J9,” Tom Whipple took out my last ship.

DUBNER: J9 hit and sunk to the winner Tom Whipple. Congratulations, well played.

WHIPPLE: You too.

DUBNER: I am so shamefully embarrassed by my horrible play here, but hopefully it can help another player win another day.

WHIPPLE: Yeah, it’s demonstrated a point. You are a cautionary tale in Battleship.

It was time for our final game of the day: Rock, Paper, Scissors. We agreed to play best of nine throws.

DUBNER: We used to say, “Rock, papers, scissors says shoot.” That’s our rhythm, but tell me what you do.

WHIPPLE: I normally do “1,2,3” and then “present.”

DUBNER: You don’t say “shoot” though?  It’s a very pacifist version of Rock, Paper, Scissors. “1,2,3, present.”

WHIPPLE: It sounds like what baboons do with their bottoms, doesn’t it?

DUBNER: So you’re running the show here so we will say “1,2,3 present” is what we are going to say?

WHIPPLE: Yeah.

DUBNER: All right and we will say it at the same time? Are you ready to play then?

WHIPPLE: Okay, let’s do it.

DUBNER: So let me just say something before we go. On the first throw, I’m throwing rock, OK? Ready?

WHIPPLE: Okay, let’s do it. 

WHIPPLE & DUBNER: 1,2,3 Present.

WHIPPLE: Paper.

DUBNER: Rock.

GUNJA: A win for Tom.

DUBNER: A win for Tom, and I told the truth.

WHIPPLE: Yep, okay.

WHIPPLE & DUBNER: 1,2,3 Present.

WHIPPLE: Paper.

DUBNER: Scissors.

GUNJA: Scissors cuts paper, that is a win for Stephen.

WHIPPLE & DUBNER: 1,2,3 Present.

WHIPPLE: Rock.

DUBNER: Scissors.

GUNJA: Rock crushes scissors and that is a win for Tom. So it is 2-1, Tom.

WHIPPLE & DUBNER: 1,2,3 Present.

WHIPPLE: Paper.

DUBNER: Scissors.

GUNJA: Scissors cuts paper. That is a win for Dubner. So it’s two all.

WHIPPLE: Two all.

WHIPPLE & DUBNER: 1,2,3 Present.

WHIPPLE: Rock.

DUBNER: Scissors.

GUNJA: Rock crushes scissors, that is a take away for Whipple; that is 3-2 Whipple.

DUBNER: You may have noticed by now that I have employed four scissors consecutively.

WHIPPLE: I have. I have, and I think you flagging it up means I’m definitely going to do rock next time.

DUBNER: It’s what I call the super-seamstress. A seamstress I understand is three scissors in a row, but the super seamstress — I think I may have invented the super seamstress. I’m not sure.

WHIPPLE: I think that’s accepted in competition play.

DUBNER: I know there are many names for these patterns. So let’s see what we’ve got, ready?

WHIPPLE & DUBNER: 1,2,3 Present.

WHIPPLE: Rock.

DUBNER: Scissors.

GUNJA: OK, rock crushes scissors; that is a win for Whipple. It is now 4-2.

WHIPPLE & DUBNER: 1,2,3 Present.

WHIPPLE: Paper.

DUBNER: Rock.

GUNJA: Paper covers rock, that is a win for Whipple, it is 5-2 Whipple.

WHIPPLE & DUBNER: 1,2,3 Present.

WHIPPLE: Scissors.

DUBNER: Rock.

GUNJA: Rock crushes scissors, that is a win for Dubner, it is 5-3 Whipple.

WHIPPLE & DUBNER: 1,2,3 Present.

WHIPPLE: Paper.

DUBNER: Paper.

GUNJA: That’s a draw.

WHIPPLE & DUBNER: 1,2,3 Present

WHIPPLE: Paper.

DUBNER: Rock. Well done. That was a beautiful …

WHIPPLE: Oh that was really tense; it was just good for the game.

DUBNER: Very well done, very well done. So now that we’ve heard me get crushed by you, the master, give us your masterful advice on Rock, Paper, Scissors.

WHIPPLE: Well, the first thing to say about Rock, Paper, Scissors is that there shouldn’t be a strategy. The optimal strategy is that everyone plays randomly, and you are equally likely to win or equally likely to lose, which makes it a fantastic psychology problem, because humans are incapable of being random.

The reason I know what to do is because there was a bunch of Chinese researchers who decided that they were going to find themselves a phenomenally indulgent grant awarding body, and they were going to get 300 students to play 360 games of Rock, Paper, Scissors and then they were going to look for strategies or look for ticks. The non-randomness that could be exploited.

And the ones they found — it’s almost embarrassingly as an insight into how the human brain works. So if you lose, if say, my rock beats your scissors, then you’ll think, “right, I need to make these scissors more powerful. I’m going to go to a more powerful thing, so I’m going to go to rock.” So if you lose, then I have to think, next time, if you lost on scissors, you’re going to play rock, so I need to shift up to paper. And if you win, then you think, “well that went well. I think I’ll stick with that one.” So if you won on rock, then you would be likely to stay on rock, and so I should go on paper. It gives you an edge.

I mean, I don’t think it’s — there’s a huge element of chance, and I can’t say it would have actually made the difference in our game as opposed to being chance, but it gives you just that small edge in a game that is meant to be purely random game of chance.

DUBNER: So, I assume that according to your master strategy, that my subversion strategy of throwing five scissors in a row to create the appearance of basically lunacy is a bad strategy.

WHIPPLE: I was just sticking with that particular strategy so I wasn’t particularly noticing. The only thing I would say is that when we drew, I went with a different strategy, which is I went paper, because scissors, contrary to what you what you were doing, are actually the least used statistically of all of them.

DUBNER: Scissors are the least? I assume that rock is the most?

WHIPPLE: Yeah, they are used — the other two, paper and rock are pretty equal but scissors are 29.6 percent of the time, when they have been analyzed.

DUBNER: So, Tom, you have crushed me at Rock, Paper, Scissors. You beat me soundly at Battleship. We hung each other once in Hangman and I got lucky on Connect Four. So here’s my question for you: having become master or at least a surrogate master for the proper masters of all these games and having written this book about how to win games and beat people, is there any element of joy that’s diluted when you win by knowing the optimal way? It’s not cheating, but it’s kind of a different version of gaining an advantage over someone else.

WHIPPLE: I think joy is the wrong paradigm for this. Joy is a sort of thing that people say, “Oh it’s the taking part that counts.” It’s the battle cry of the loser. Losers look for joy; I look for victory. And that’s what I’ve got and then I’ll go and live my cold, shallow life, but I’ll have won. And so who’s the real loser?

*      *      *

Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Dubner Productions. This episode was produced by Arwa Gunja. Our staff also includes Alison Craiglow, Greg Rippin, Harry Huggins, Alvin Melathe, and Zack Lapinski. Our theme song is “Mr. Fortune,” by the Hitchhikers; all the other music was composed by Luis Guerra. You can subscribe to Freakonomics Radio on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts.

 Here’s where you can learn more about the people and ideas in this episode:

SOURCES

Tom Whipple, science editor of The Times and author of How to Win Games and Beat People: Demolish Your Friends and Family at Over 30 Classic Games with Advice from an International Array of Experts

Mary Pilon, author of The Monopolists: Obsession, Fury, and the Scandal Behind the World’s Favorite Board Game

Gil Hova, board game designer

Greg May, founder of The Uncommons, a board game cafe in Manhattan

RESOURCES

How to Win Games and Beat People: Demolish Your Friends and Family at Over 30 Classic Games with Advice from an International Array of Experts by Tom Whipple (Dey Street Books, 2015).

“A Knowledge-based Approach of Connect-Four: The Game is Solved: White Wins” by Victor Allis (Vrije Universiteit, 1988).

“Social cycling and conditional responses in the Rock-Paper-Scissors game” by Zhijian Wang, Bin Xu, Hai-Jun Zhou (2014).

EXTRA

Watch Kurt Steiner set the stone skipping world record.

Read this Quora forum for an explanation of how to win Connect Four.

MUSIC

Pat Andrews – Get Faster

Olav Rasmus -Vorren Victory

Stuart Rau – Samurai Funk

Interkosmos – Goodnight (from London Sessions)

Matthew Reid – Coventry Variations

Phil Symonds – Bar Fight Blues

Milan Grajetzki – Pixel Dude

Leon Ayers Jr – Survival Game

Eleggua Productions – SUV

Marco Pesci – That Funny Clown

Joshua R Mosley – The_Main_Event

Pat Andrews – Bombed_Bluegrass

Pat Andrews – Network_Sports_theme

Eric Tingstad – Durango (from Mississippi)

Whalehawk – Alligiance Of War

Paul Avgerinos – Enemy Ship

Tim Besamusca – Valiance

Johnny Sangster – Levanto Adventure

The post How to Win Games and Beat People (Ep. 247 Rebroadcast) appeared first on Freakonomics.

from Dental Care Tips http://freakonomics.com/podcast/games-rebroadcast/

[whatsappstatus2017]

Whatsapp Status {*2017 FRESH*} Coolest Whatsapp Status Quotes!

Whatsapp Status  

Cool Whatsapp Status

1. I look at people sometimes and think... Really??? That’s the sperm that won.

2. When I die, I want my grave to offer free Wifi so that people visit more often.

Advertisements

3. I love food and sleep. If I give you a bit of food or text you all night, that means something.

4. Diets are hard because I get hungry.

5. We live in the era of smartphones and stupid peoples.

Advertisements

6. Just saw the most smartest person when I was in front of the mirror.

7. God is really creative, I mean...just look at m!!!

8. I'm not lazy, I'm just on my energy saving mode.

9. Please be patient even a toilet can handle only one ass hole at a time.

10. Whenever i have a problem, I just sing, Then i realize my voice is worse than my problem.

- Cool Whatsapp Status: Best 100,000+ Whatsapp Status Quotes!

Advertisements

11. When I’m on my deathbed, I want my final words to be “I left one million dollars in the.

12. I always learn from mistake of others who take my advice.

13. “F#%K It.” – my final thought before making most decisions.

14. If I delete your number, you’re basically deleted from my life.

15. Some people need to open their small minds instead of their big mouths.

16. Whenever I think of quit smoking, I need a cigarette to think. 17. Relation of friendship is greater than the relation of blood. 18. When I miss you I re-read our old conversations and smile like an idiot. 19. When I miss you it seems every song I listen to is about you. 20. My silence/smile is just another word for my pain. - Cool Whatsapp Status: Best 100,000+ Whatsapp Status Quotes! Advertisements 21. Sometimes It’s better to be alone…No one can hurt you. 22. The most painful goodbye’s are those which were never said and never explained. 23. Sometimes one middle finger isn’t enough to let someone know how you feel. That’s why you have two hands. 24. Sometimes I’m not angry, I’m hurt and there’s a big difference. 25. My silence doesn’t mean that I quit… It simply means that I don’t want to argue with people who just don’t want to understand!

26. Don’t be so happy, I don’t really forgive people, I just pretend like it’s okay and wait for my turn to destroy them. 27. If you want to make your dreams come true, The first thing you have to do is wake up. 28. I don't have dirty mind, I have sexy imagination. 29. The greatest advantage of speaking the truth is that you don't have to remember what you said. 30. I'm not failed... my success is just postponed.

Latest Cool Status Messages for Whatsapp 31. Everyday is a second chance. 32. If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. 33. Do not give up, the beginning is always the hardest. 34. The only way to do great work is to love what you do. 35. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Advertisements 36. You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else. 37. Life is like riding a bicycle to keep your balance, you must keep moving. 38. You're already a successful personal. The things we take for granted someone else is praying for. 39. Dreams is not what you see in sleep, Is the thing which doesn't let you sleep. 40. I will win, not immediately but definitely.

Cool Status for Whatsapp for Boys 51. I love to walk in fog, because nobody knows I'm smoking. 52. I'm not drunk, I'm just chemically off-balanced. 53. Oh, so you wanna argue, bring it. I got my CAPS LOCK ON. 54. I'm so poor that I can't pay attention in class. 55. Warning!!! I know KARATE and few other oriental words.

56. I'm not virgin, my life fucks me every day. 57. I talk to myself because I like dealing with a better class of people. 58. Save water drink beer. 59. Virginity is not dignity, It is just lack of opportunity. 60. Not all men are fools, some stay bachelor.

Attitude Cool Whatsapp Messages 61. Phones are better than girlfriends, at least we can switch off. 62. I love my job only when I'm on vacation 63. Friends come and go, but enemies remain and build up. 64. Behind every successful man is a surprised woman. 65. In my house I'm the boss, my wife is just the decision maker. Mostly collectors are including Hindi Status in every collection due to content unavailability that spoil the collection and user experience. However, we have always picked English status and WhatsApp status in English language. Therefore, now you can directly come and choose WhatsApp status as per your wish and desire :) Check Out Now: Whatsapp Status in English (in English with Pure Grammar) 66. How is a poor man a lot like a rich man? they both have an iPhone. 67. Some people call me Mike, you can call me tonight. 68. Sometimes you succeed and other times you learn. 69. I always dream of being a millionaire like my uncle... He's dreaming too. 70. Scratch here ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ to reveal my status

  Cool Status for Whatsapp for Girls 71. My "last seen at" was just to check your "last seen at". 72. Not always "Available".. try your Luck.. 73. Hey there Whatsapp is using me. 74. Life is Short – Chat Fast! 75. Time is precious, waste it wisely. I wish every desire and wish of you get completed asap. However, we have specially submitted one of the best collection to inspire you to reach our goals in your life.

76. I'm not single, I'm just romantically challenged. 77. Trust in God, But lock your car. 78. AwesoME ends with ME and Ugly starts with You. 79. Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud. 80. It hurts when you have someone in your heart but not in your arms. Damn Cool Whatsapp Status Quotes 81. Please don’t forget to smile :) 82. Get up every morning, imagine a future then make it happen. 83. Everyone is beautiful in their own way because God makes no mistakes. 84. You're right. I'm NOT perfect. But I'm unique! 85. Always remember that you’re unique. Just like everyone else.

86. Don’t compare yourself with anyone in this world… if you do so, you are insulting yourself... 87. Create your own visual style… let it be unique for yourself and yet identifiable for others. 88. Motivation is what gets you started. Habit is what keeps you going. 89. It is almost impossible to smile on the outside without feeling better on the inside. 90. No matter how strong of a person you are, there’s always someone who can make you weak

Daily New Cool Whatsapp Status Updates 91. It’s funny how people say they miss you, but don’t even make an effort to see you. 92. Life is like Facebook. People will like your problems & comment on them but no one’s gonna solve them because everyone is busy in updating their. 93. Attitude is like underwear Don’t show it just wore it… 94. I Am Not Special , I Am Just Limited Edition :P 95. I got less but I got best!

96. Get as rude as possible and don’t let anyone tell you how to live. 97. The only reason I am fat is because a tiny body couldn’t store all this personality. 98. Adjustment with right people is always better than Argument with wrong people. A meaningful silence is always better than meaningless words. 99. If a hug tells you how much I love you, I would hold you in my arms forever. 100. Silence is the most powerful scream. 101. Some poeple are like clouds. When they go away, it's a brighter day. 102. I changed my password everywhere to 'incorrect'. That way when I forget it, it always reminds me, 'Your password is incorrect.' 103. Don't know where your kids are in the house? Turn off the internet and they'll show up quickly. 104. A best friend is like a four leaf clover, hard to find, lucky to have. 105. When you wake up at 6 in the morning, you close your eyes for 5 minutes and it's already 6:45. When you're at work and it's 2:30, you close your eyes for 5 minutes and it's 2:31. 105. My goal this weekend is to move... just enough so people don't think I'm dead. 106. I don't need a hair stylist, my pillow gives me a new hairstyle every morning. 107. Have some patience, I'm screwing things up as fast as possible. 108. It's a good thing I brought my library card because I'm totally checking you out. 109. You're like a sharpie - super fine. 110. I know I'm a handful, but that's why you have two hands. 111. I always carry a knife in my purse, just in case we're having cake. 112. Forget the butterflies, I feel the entire zoo in my stomach when I'm with you. 113. Bought a talking parrot today and taught him to say "Help, I've been turned into a parrot." 114. I made a huge to do list for today. I just can't figure out who's going to do it. 115. At night, I can't fall asleep. In the morning, I can't get up. 116. I wonder how police on bikes arrest people. "Alright, get in the basket." 117. Guys are like stars, there are millions of them, but only one makes your dreams come true. Love starts with a hug, grows with a kiss, and ends with a tear. 118. Yesterday is history. Tomorrow is a mystery. Today is a gift. That's why it's called the present. Life isn't about how many breaths you take but about the moments that take your breathe away. 119. This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 30 dog, seconds dog! … Now read without the word dog. 120. My ex girlfriend’s status said suicidal and standing on the edge. So I poked her. 121. Got a problem with me? Solve it. Think i’m trippin? Tie my shoes. Can’t stand me? Sit back down. Can’t face me? Turn around. 122. Single is not a status. It is a word that best describes a person who is strong enough to live and enjoy life without depending on others. 123. Facebook should have a “no one cares” button. 114. If your relationship status says, “It’s complicated” then you should stop kidding yourself and change it to “Single” 115. I’d really post your name here every minute if facebook keeps on asking me what’s on my mind 116. Delete me , Poke me, Like me, Limit me ..The choice is yours.. Welcome to facebook, where no one is really your friend. =P 117. I’d rather check my Facebook than face my check book. 118. I’m wondering why logging onto Face book has become part of the everyday routine?… Do I really have nothing better to do! 119. Your intelligence is my common sense. 220. That awkward moment when you change your Facebook status to ‘single’ and your ex likes it. 221. Weather forecast for tonight: Dark with a chance of tomorrow in the morning. 222. I intend to live forever, or die trying. 223. Being nice to people you don’t like is not being two faced, it is called growing up. 224. The kids next door challenged me to a water balloon fight. I’m just updating my status while waiting for the water to boil. 225. Sometimes I wish life was like facebook, you can delete anyone off your page and go back and delete everything you have said and done! 226. …did a lot of nothing yesterday, but I didn’t finish, so I’m going to do it again today! 227. Trust me I am a liar. 228. Got a new job with the local hostage negotiators and tried to phone in sick but they talked me out of it. 229. Girl: Why do you constantly keep posting my name as your Facebook status every 2 minutes? Boy: Facebook keeps asking me what’s on my mind? And honestly, it’s always you. 230. I’ve officially been diagnosed with OFCD (Obsessive facebook checking disorder). I have also been told that I am beyond cure. Please pray for me. 231. Roses are red, Facebook is blue, No mutual friends, Who the hell are you? 232. Facebook is the only place you can write whatever you feel on a wall. Grrrr Facebook won’t stop asking what’s on my mind even if I tell it, it keeps on asking. 233. I’ve gone out to find myself. If I should arrive before I get back, please ask me to wait. 234. I Know Wat You’re Doing Right Now… You’re Reading On My Wall, Right ! 235. Facebook is like prison, you write on walls and get poked bu people you don’t know. 236. Call me anorexic, call me fat. I can put on or I can lose that. Call me annoying, call me dumb. Excuse me miss; but I’m having fun. Call me a flirt, call me fake. That’s just me, so give it a break. Call me weird, a nerd & a geek. Call me what you want, I’m just unique. 237. Facebook should have an ‘Enemy List’ 238. Adding you as my friend doesn’t mean I like you, I did it just to increase my friend list. 239. You can't please everyone, you're not a Nutella jar. 240. Hmmm this text message is a little too harsh, I'll add LOL at the end. 241. Seeing a spider in my room isn't scary. It's scary when it disappears. 242. I'm not running away from hard work, I'm too lazy to run. 243. I miss the days when you could just push someone in the swimming pool without worrying about their cell phone. 244. Some people have "aha" moments, I just have "Oh Seriously?" moments. 245. Dear humans, in case you forgot, I used to be your Internet. Sincerely, The Library. 246. Don't worry, the spider is smaller than you. "Yeah. So is a grenade." 247. They say "don't try this at home" so I'm coming over to your house to try it. 248. For you, I would swim across the ocean. LOL, just kidding, there are sharks in there. 249. Sure, I do marathons. On Netflix. 250. Your eyes water when you yawn because you miss your bed and it makes you sad. 251. Always be positive. *Trips down the stairs* Whew, I got down those stairs fast. 252. Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, and the pig likes it. 253. Dear automatic flushing toilet... I appreciate the enthusiasm, but I wasn't done yet. 254. If you keep annoying me, I'll give your phone number to all the kids and tell them it's Santa's hotline. 255. Facebook should have “So What” button! 256. As Facebook has a “Poke” button, it should have a “Kick” button as well. 257. My greatest fear is that I will accidentally use the status update as the search bar. 258. I don’t like to commit myself about heaven and hell – you see, I have friends in both places. 259. Whoever said facebook was a good idea, “Let me share my dull life with the rest of the planet.” ? 260. No matter what anyone says, my cooking is excellent, even the smoke alarm seems to be cheering me on! 261. Facebook is the red carpet for pretty girls who have no talent. 262. …It’s Not That I Hate You… But Let’s Put It This Way If You Were On Fire And I Had A Gallon Of Water I’d Drink It. 263. He who went to facebook and left myspace is wise. 264. Am quitting face book to face my books. 265. Facebook should add a “dislike button” some updates are just too senseless. 266. Facebook is where hypocrisy, falseness, double standards, rumors and depression meet up for coffee. 267. I’d say we should have a “You Bore me” button on Facebook! 268. Single doesn’t always mean lonely and relationship doesn’t always mean happy. 269. Paper cut: A tree's final moment of revenge. 270. People like me great. People don’t like me great. As long as I like myself that all that matters. 271. Thank you to every person who has ever told me I can’t. You are just another reason I will. 272. I made my Facebook name "Benefits," so when you add me now it says "you're friends with benefits." 273. Marriage is like a walk in the park... Jurrasic Park. 274. How does a train eat? Chew, Chew... 275. I'd walk through fire for my best friend. Well, not fire because that's dangerous. But a super humid room... well not too humid, because you know... my hair. 276. What did the traffic light say to the other traffic light? Don't look, I'm changing. 277. You know you're an adult when you get excited about a new cleaning sponge at the kitchen sink. 278. Yes of course I am athletic... I surf the Internet every day. 279. I'm not weird, I'm just limited edition. 280. Dear Diamond, we all know who is really a girl's best friend. Sincerely yours, Chocolate Cake. 281. Of course I talk to myself... sometimes I need expert advice. 282. If Monday had a face... I would punch it. 283. I drank so much Vodka last night that this morning I woke up with a Russian accent. 284. I wasn't mad, but now that you asked me 7 times if I'm mad.. yes, I'm mad! 285. I enjoy taking long romantic walks, to the fridge. 286. I really should do something with my life... maybe tomorrow. 287. I have reached a point in life where I feel it is no longer necessary to try & impress anyone. If they like me the way I am, good & if they don’t, it’s their loss. 288. You can’t compare me to the next girl. Because there is no competition. I’m one of a kind, and that’s real. 289. An attitude is an inward thought that wiggles its way out. 290. I’m not cranky. I just have a violent reaction to stupid people. 291. I might not be someone’s first choice, but I am a great choice. I don’t pretend to be someone I’m not, because I’m good at being me. I might not be proud of some of the things I’ve done in the past, but I’m proud of who I am today. I may not be perfect, but I don’t need to be. I am the way God made me. Take me as I am or watch me as I walk away. 292. There can be no positive result through negative attitude. Think positive. Live positive. 293. A bad attitude can literally block love, blessings and destiny from finding you. Don’t be the reason you don’t succeed. 294. Like me for who I am and not for who you want me to be. Take it or leave it. That simple. 295. What others think of me is none of my business. 296. Love me or hate me I’m still gonna shine. 297. Keep your face towards the sunshine, you will never see the shadow. 298. I’m only responsible for what I say not for what you understand… 299. Some days I wish I had the wisdom of a 90 year old, the body of a 20 year old, and the energy of a 3 year old. 300. I know that Einstein's theory of relativity is correct because every weekend goes by twice as fast as normal. 301. Smiles are contagious... be a carrier. 302. Every weekend I do what I love most, absolutely nothing! 303. Relax, it's the weekend... just don't blink or it will be all over. 304. To thrive in life you need three bones. A wish bone, a back bone, and a funny bone. 305. It's so hot outside that I went to buy vegetables, and by the time I got home they turned into soup already. 306. Please cancel my subscription to your issues. 307. I tried looking at the bright side of life, but it hurt my eyes. 308. I'm a Nillionaire. I have little to no money! 309. Square box, round pizza, triangle slices, now that's confusing. 310. Never judge a book by it's movie. 311. Maybe if we tell people the brain is an app, they'll start using it. 312. Exercise? I thought you said extra fries! 313. I hate mosquitoes. I mean, I know I am delicious, but I don't give out free samples. 314. Isn't it funny how red white and blue represent freedom, unless they're flashing behind you? 315. So you’re a player? Nice to meet you, I’m the coach. 316. If taking a shower is bad for the environment, I know I’m doing the world a big favor!;) 317. For those of you complaining you can’t sleep, LOG OFF FACEBOOK! It’s a proven fact that it’s impossible to sleep while facebooking. 318. David loves animals. Especially the sweet and sour chicken. 319. Liking your own status is like high fiving yourself in the face. 320. I wish that I could put my status to what I am really thinking. 321. I should change my name to No One, that way when I request you as a friend it will say “No One wants to be your friend”. 322. I should change my name to No One, that way when I request you as a friend it will say “No One wants to be your friend”. 323. The person who has ruined my life is one and only Mark Zuckerberg :D 324. Who needs TV we got Facebook DRAMA.

Must See:

Attitude Dp For Girls

Best Dp For Whatsapp

Attitude DP For WhatsApp In Hindi

attitude dp for girlz whatsapp

325. Go away don’t talk to me right now cause it’s my break time and I’m on FB mode… 326. Has implemented a healthy routine, affecting immediately . Very basic and it’s free – Nap Time!! 327. If the world really ends in 2012, I wasted my whole life in school. 328. Dear Facebook: They are not “Suggested friends.” They’re people I’m intentionally trying to avoid. 329. I don’t care what you think of me! Unless you think I’m awesome – in which case, you’re right! Carry on… 330. Don’t run after him who tries to avoid you..! 331. I just want to be left alone, is it hard. I don’t wanna talk because it ain’t going anywhere, let me be. I’ll be fine because I’m stronger than you think I am, I will not be defeated. 332. Treat me like a queen and I’ll treat you like my king. Treat me like a game. And I’ll show you how it’s played. 333. I’m just a mirror for you, You are good, I’m best, You are bad, I’m worst. 334. Don’t get my personality and my attitude twisted, because my personality is me, and my attitude depends on you! 335. Life: Besides gravity, nothing keeps me down. 336. I don’t follow others, I only follow my orders because I am my own boss. 337. Whatever life gives you, even if it hurts, just be strong & act like you’re okay. Strong walls shake, but never collapse. 338. My attitude is based on the way you treat me. 339. I let my haters be my motivators. 340. Attitude is not what you learn from school, it is part of your nature from within. 

read more