Sense and Nonsense

Ow! My brain!

2008-05-13T06:12:23Z

So, I finally watched Dungeons & Dragons, the movie. Oh, holy hell was it bad. And I watched it knowing it was bad. But it's depths of badness sunk even farther than I'd expected. It's the poster movie for everything you should never do when telling a story. I'm not sure it got anything right. Well, no, it surely had to have gotten something right, if only by accident, but at present I'm a loss as to what that might have been.

I'm not enough of a D&D geek to have every spell, creature, and item in the books memorized, but I didn't recognize anything in the movie as originating from the game. Er, perhaps I should say I didn't recognize anything as specific to D&D. There were dragons, after all, and thieves, and a thieves guild, and magic users, and an elf and a dwarf. But all of those things are stock fantasy. The magic system was unrecognizable, and the magic users were "mages," not "wizards" or "sorcerers." ... Though there may be mages in D&D...somewhere. And, I don't know, perhaps the magic system is recognizable to people who've used different sourcebooks than I'm familiar with. But if a D&D player looks at movie supposedly based on the game/game worlds and goes "What is this shit?" you've done something wrong. And, no, the fact that they refer to the mage as "low level" does not help.

The main characters are two thieves, a mage, a dwarf, and an elf. One of the thieves existed solely to provide (bad) comic relief and die of plot complications. (No, really, he died for no reason. None. Unless his character was really meant to be that stupid.) The other thief was the designated hero, destined hero (never explained, by the way, beyond the occasional "only he is meant to do _____") The mage spent most of the movie doing no magic, with no explanation of why. Which was doubly odd considering that her introduction showed that she knew several useful spells, one of which was never seen again, no matter how many times it would have been useful. The dwarf existed to...um...to...be a dwarf? (Seriously, I've got nothing. His character could be cut and no one would notice.) The elf was around to be a tracker (of course) and save the hero when he really ought to have died. (Apparently, being stabbed in the chest is really quite survivable if you've got The Fourth Doctor around to do a laying on of hands.)

The plot was less coherent than a D&D campaign run by a hyperactive chimpanzee. There were dragon control rods, a power hungry ~~wizard~~ mage who wanted to overthrow the Empress (who wanted to change the laws so everyone was equal...and, no, I don't know how that's supposed to work in a stereotypical fantasy setting), a death maze that made about as much sense as the corridor of doom in Galaxy Quest, and an evil henchman with blue lips. Oh, and the hero was apparently the chosen one, just for the heck of it. But I'm not really sure what the plot actually was. It seemed to be a race to get the second dragon control rod (even though they knew it was evil) and then destroy it dramatically so the villain could be eaten by a dragon which may...or may not have been under the control of the other rod. There was also something in there about dragons being necessary for magic, which suggested that the rods were a bad idea in the first place, never mind that both villains and heroes used them at the climax. Ah, well, good triumphed and the Empress decreed everyone free (and I still don't know how that's supposed to work). And then the main characters (including the dead one) turned into glowy balls of light and zipped off.

...

Oh dear god, does that mean they ascended!? *dies*

*revives*

Okay, the movie would be great fun to mock with friends, but as entertainment in the normal sense it fails. Sure, there are worse movies. I mean, this movie may be abysmal, but it's the funny kind of abysmal. Still, most of the D&D campaigns I've played in would have made a better script. I was even in one where the wizard was periodically spell-less, but, hey, we had an actual reason - she couldn't do magic without her spellbook. Sadly, said wizard was more useful without her spellbook than the movie's mage was with her bag of magic dust.

So, unless you're planning a mocking party with friends, do not succumb to curiosity and watch this movie.

Ah, advertising, how I hate thee

2008-05-03T04:37:31Z

Then again, if I continue my practice of avoiding all products and companies with offensive, drug use prompted, or moronic (or all of the above) commercials, I will soon have a very simple and healthy lifestyle. So there is an upside to my periodically staring at the television with a look of mixed horror and disbelief.

This weeks ~~winner~~ loser is Burger King. Oh, yeah, those ads really make me want to eat there. Who doesn't want to go to a fast food restaurant with moronic and/or insanely aggressive customers? What were they thinking? This is actually worse than the addictive air freshener ads thanks to the violent streak this burger apparently causes, and I really didn't think there would be ads that implied worse product affects than those. And yet, Burger King found a way. Go Burger King. Or, better yet, never go to Burger King.

In other news, I love my 70 year old apartment building, but even half foot thick walls aren't enough when the next door neighbors decide to throw a loud party. *sigh* Good thing I'm not planning on going to bed any time soon. -_-

Now it's snowing...

2008-04-16T23:32:46Z

Did I fall into the Twilight Zone when I wasn't looking? So far this week, I've had a bizarre shower wall malfunction, wildfires near the city I live in, and now the out of doors is a snowglobe. I'm beginning to think I should just spend the rest of the week in bed. That would save me from more oddness, right? Right?

No? Darn.

I went for a walk in the snowglobe, which was very pretty, and very, very damp. Giant, fluffy, wet snow is...wet. Ah, well, it was still worth it. A bit cold, but absolutely gorgeous. And the walk was also a good excuse to hit up the yummy taco place near here.

Still, I'd like spring. And my shower wall fixed. And no more wildfires. Is that too much to ask? (Okay, okay, the last one probably is, but surely I can get the other two, right?)

Agh! My state is burning down. (again)

2008-04-16T06:40:44Z

How did I not know this was happening today? O_o Okay, so Ordway isn't very close, nor Carbondale, but Fort Carson is quite close. As in, just south of town close. As in, what do you mean the smoke plume was visible from downtown Colorado Springs? I didn't notice it. How did I not notice it? My apartment faces south. Okay, the other half of my apartment building blocks my view, but still...smoke plume. And it isn't as though I spent the whole day inside. Did my exploding shower throw me off that much?

And this does not bode at all well for fire season. If we're burning down in April, what is summer going to be like. Great. So much for seeing much of my parents this year.

Good gad, though. All three of these wildfires sound bad. The entire town of Ordway evacuated? Okay, it's not a big town, but still - yikes. Two dead. Town evacuated. 7,100 acres burning. Not good. The Carbondale fire is a lot smaller, but it doesn't sound like they're having a lot of luck getting it out. And there are a lot of little communities and such in the area, so that's not good either. And the Fort Carson fire is unpleasantly close to home. One person dead and the news is really unclear about whether they're making progress with it. Great.

At times like this, and only at times like this, I miss Iowa. Iowa does not burn down every few years. It just has the occasional tornado. Then again, it doesn't have mountains and isn't Colorado. *sigh*

Denvention (Worldcon)

2008-04-14T23:25:17Z

It's not until August, but I'm already beginning to think I'm out of my mind for going. I mean, it's Worldcon! The sci-fi convention! And I'm going by myself. And I'm going because I want to meet my favorite (living) sci-fi author. Never mind that if I do meet her, I'll probably say something brilliant like "Blurbleglupflurbian."

But, at the same time...it's Worldcon! The sci-fi convention! Lois McMaster Bujold is guest of honor! They're holding it in my state! So the tickets and the hotel (and getting there by public transportation on acount of not wanting to mess with a car in downtown Denver) cost an arm and a leg, so what? It'll be awesomely amazingly cool!

When I stop hiding under my bed at the thought of going to Worldcon by myself. Never mind wandering around downtown Denver by myself.

Yeah, I'm winning the of two minds award over this. Bouncing between "Eeek!" and "Woohoo!" for the next fourish months probably isn't entirely healthy. Ah well. Wooooorrrrrrlllldcooooon!!!!!

Great, the 60s were more enlightened.

2008-04-08T21:44:40Z

I was bored (and suffering from temporary stupidity, apparently) so I watched the movie I Spy. Now, I've never seen the 60s television show the movie was (loosely) based on (I don't like Bill Cosby because of his attitude toward children...long story.), but my parents watched it, so I know a little about it. And what I know about the television show is what irked me about the movie. You see, the television show was more enlightened, racially speaking, than the movie - at least in premise.

In the show, Cosby's character was the experienced spy - his cover was as trainer to Culp's less experience spy, who was posing as a tennis star. In the movie, Eddie Murphy is a boxer, and not any kind of spy, who is supposed to provide cover to Owen Willson's spy. Gee, great, from experienced spy to boxer, that's really a step forward. Not.

Now, the movie was also boringly predictible, but it was the changes in the characters that left a bad taste in my mouth. -_-

smurasaki @ 2008-03-28T02:47:00

2008-03-28T08:49:46Z

It’s sad that in the twenty-first century, in the supposedly civilized world, I’m blogging against torture. Sad because this shouldn’t be necessary. We should have gotten it through our collective skulls that it doesn’t work, and even if it did, it would be wrong because it presumes facts not in evidence and because, well, damn it, it’s wrong. And yet, here I am. Or rather, here we are, since this affects everyone.

It doesn’t work. That is to say, information obtained under torture is highly suspect. This should practically be common sense. If someone was mock-drowning you, or stripping you naked and implying that they were going to rape you, or keeping you awake for days on end, or causing you physical pain, or otherwise torturing you, wouldn’t you say just about anything to get them to stop? Maybe not right away, but eventually. Be honest. You would. I would. Anyone would. Mind you, I said “anything,” I didn’t say “the truth.”

People have confessed to strange and bizarre (and quite untrue) things under torture or even highly threatening police interrogations because they thought it was what their tormenters wanted to hear. They thought it would end the situation. Look at history, at the witch hunts, at the confessions of the Templars, look at the various people who’ve been exonerated after confessing to crimes. It doesn’t work.

But pretend for a moment that does. Would it be okay to use it then?

No, because it presumes facts not in evidence. Torture (supposing it worked) only makes sense if you have the right people in your torture chamber. And there is no way to know that for sure. None. You might think you have the right people, but you could be quite wrong. Even if you sort of have the right person, say a terrorist you just caught in a terrorist meeting room filled with bomb making materials and all that good evidence stuff, that terrorist still might not have the information you want. And that’s assuming you didn’t accidentally capture the pizza delivery guy by mistake.

That famous scenario that proponents of torture throw around? The one with the terrorist who knows the location of the bomb that threatens your family? It’s a fantasy. It’s the fantasy that the entire torture debate rests on. This is why people want to use torture – they believe this scenario is possible. And, of course, they believe torturing this theoretical terrorist who you somehow know is exactly the person to tell you where the bomb is or how to defuse it or whatever is going to result in their honest confession. The problem is, torture doesn’t work, and you never actually know for certain that you have the right person and they have the information you want. You would have to have telepathy to know that, and if you did, why the hell would you bother with torture when you could just take the information from their mind while you were at it? So the famous scenario goes poof.

Then, of course, there’s still the moral issue. This is something of a personal thing, as morals always are, but I say that torture is just plain wrong. We are supposed to be the good guys, yes? (Yes, of course, the real world is not black and white, good and evil, whatever our current administration may think, but we do, nonetheless consider ourselves the good guys.) Why would we then commit an act that most people consider evil? Even if torture worked and we had the right people, wouldn’t we have lost in winning? Honestly, what is torture if not individually aimed terrorism? Aren’t we becoming the very thing we’re supposedly waging a war on?

Of course, here in reality where torture doesn’t work and we can’t know for certain that they people we’re torturing are even terrorists, torture reaches an even greater level of immorality. It becomes the infliction of harm on people for no certain end and possibly the infliction of harm on those who are innocent of any wrongdoing. How can that not be wrong? We cannot abandon our morals for vengeance and we cannot abandon our morals if doing so could result in us harming innocent people. Torture is forbidden by the Geneva Convention for a reason, folks. Let’s try abiding by that, shall we?

Ugh, life

2008-03-25T04:18:37Z

So, I vanished for a bit because I had a stomach bug, which led to temporary mental problems, as stomach bugs always do. (I have Crohn's Disease...any hint of digestive distress and I completely freak out. "Oh god! It's come back! Aaaaaaah!" *runs in circles*) I'm now done running in circles and have a ton of friends entries to catch up on. I'm sure coherency will follow.

Oh, look, a meme

2008-03-13T03:40:26Z

This has cropped up on a few people's journals and it could be interesting. So, what the heck, I'll jump on the memewagon.

Everyone has things they blog about. Everyone has things they don't blog about. Challenge me out of my comfort zone by telling me something I don't blog about, but you'd like to hear about, and I'll write a post about it. Ask for anything [within reason] : latest movie watched, last book read, political leanings, thoughts on yaoi, favorite type of underwear, graphic techniques, etc. Repost in your own journal if you are so inclined.

I wish I could combine the two MMOs I play

2008-03-09T20:32:05Z

And not because it would save me $15 dollars every month (which would also be nice). There are aspects of both games that I really, really like, and aspects that I dislike, but a game with the best of both would be the most awesome MMO ever. Well, in my opinion, anyway.

I play City of Heroes/Villains and World of Warcraft. CoH/V wins for character customization, but WoW wins for world design and crafting/professions. Game play is a tough call, since both games have rather a lot of kill X missions (or, in WoW loot X missions, which amount to the same thing), though both games also give you some missions that don't necessarily involve fighting and both occasional give you talk to so-and-so missions (though WoW gives you far more of those - I sometimes think half the world's populous must be engaged in grade school style feuds). Over all, though, I think CoH/V characters are slightly higher powered compared to their enemies, which means it's much easier to take on multiple foes without face-planting, but, at the same time, it has more of a death penalty than WoW (which is mainly a corpse run). If given a choice, though, I'd take CoH/V's slightly higher power and WoW's death penalty - mainly because I solo a lot and would rather not have to out-level missions or find help. (That would go in the category of why really shy people shouldn't play MMOs.) But the game play isn't the issue - I wouldn't play either game if I didn't enjoy it - it's the color, the extras, the stuff that turns people into addicts that the two games need to learn from each other on.

In CoH/V, you design your character's looks in pretty damn good detail. You not only pick their face (and adjust it with facial feature sliders if you so choose), their build, and, of course, their gender, but design their costume as well. You can create a superhero (or villain) who looks like you, or who looks like your idea of an alien from some other dimension. You also have a space to write a brief biography or description of your character, which other players can read. You even have a fair amount of choice when it comes to your powers - sure there are "classes," each of which gives you access to a different list of powersets, but with each class having primary and secondary powersets to choose from, you end up with a lot of variety. You also can add other powers (travel powers, for example) as you level up, and the powers in your powerset aren't dependent on one another, so you can skip one's you aren't interested in without effecting your later choices. This means that you end up with a character that seems very much like your own creation. Yes, there are limits, and, of course, players long to create things the game won't allow, but my CoH/V characters feel like my characters in a way that my WoW characters do not.

WoW feels a bit more like fantasy Barbie. I dress up the dolls and play with them, but they aren't mine. I still role play them (in my head - I'm far too shy to do so with other people), but not to the degree that I do my CoH/V characters. Fantasy Barbie (or GI Joe or other pre-made story doll) is still fun, but it's a far cry from having computer equivalents to pen and paper RPG characters. And, yes, I know there are people who role play in WoW and who do create back-stories and all of that for their characters. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that the game doesn't make that kind of thing as easy as CoH/V does.

On the other hand, WoW offers a beautiful, varied world to explore. Oh, sure, it's a cartoony world, but that doesn't keep it from being a very, very pretty world (at least to me). Sure, the zones in CoH/V are different, too, but only a few of them aren't simply different takes on "city." The names of the games pretty much sum up the difference here - World of Warcraft, City of Heroes/Villains. And, at least for me, a world is automatically more interesting to explore than a mere city. WoW also did a better job with its crafting and professions, probably because they weren't tacked onto the game the way they have been in CoH/V. If I'm going to engage in crafting, I would rather run around picking different flowers, mining veins, skinning the wildlife I kill, or disenchanting items I have no use for than hoping what I need drops at random. (Yes, yes, there's some random dropping of items for crafting in WoW, but in CoH/V it's all random. Not fun.) WoW also did a better job with their crafting by naming everything you craft - not having non-rare crafted items simply be "crafted item." Sure, the basic crafted enhancements in CoH/V are better than the dropped enhancements, but I'm not going to replace neat looking and neat named items with boring looking "invention damage" or whatever. It ruins the flavor and look of the enhancement screen. (Yeah, I'm picky. :P)

While I long for a game that really does have the best of both worlds, I guess I'll have to just keep playing the games I have, even if I long for World of Heroes/Villains (or something).

The Fates Are Against Me

2008-03-08T04:45:43Z

My parents have been trying to visit for over a month now, only to be thwarted every time. Work issues, snow, inconvenient illnesses, and now their Jeep's radiator blew up. -_- Damn it. I look forward to seeing them all week only to have Friday bring some disaster that prevents them from visiting. And, of course, because I think I have plans for the weekend, I don't make any with friends. It's not that a weekend at home with books, the internet, and my cat is terrible, mind, but it's getting old. What gods do I need to appease? Do I have to make an offering to the travel fairies? What?

And, no, I can't go visit them. My car needs work before it can make it over the mountains to the other side of the state. Actually, it needs work, period. *sigh*

Well, now I feel really whiny.

Sad News for Gamers

2008-03-05T03:29:45Z

Gary Gygax died today. I never played the original D&D, although a friend did give me his old original books (I've forgotten why), but I've certainly played 2nd and 3rd edition, and any number of other role playing games that probably wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for D&D. As a gamer geek, I am sad. Sure, D&D in it's many incarnations has been criticized for being too complicated (THAC0 anyone), too aimed at teenage boys, and responsible for too many bad fantasy books that sound suspiciously like novelizations of D&D sessions, but it was the original role playing game and I have a fondness for it. So, thank you, Gary, wherever you are, for giving us sci-fi/fantasy fans yet another fun geeky hobby for our weekends. One with really awesome dice. Perhaps I'll see if I can find those old books and see if my gaming group can figure out how to run an original D&D game in tribute.

Pitch in if you can

2008-02-27T05:59:56Z

Rachel, an independant comic artist/author needs surgery for a messed up jaw and, like many independently employed people in the US, doesn't have insurance. (For a country that supposedly loves the entreprenerial spirit, we sure do like making it tough for them. Not to mention everyone else. But that's another rant.) So, if anyone can help out at all, she and some friends have a donation drive going.

If you can help, go here or here.

Guess the movies (meme)

2008-02-20T00:24:26Z

From Ami who got it from

sandwichartist7
1. Pick 10 of your favourite movies.
2. Go to IMDB and find a quote from each movie.
3. Post them here for everyone to guess.
4. Strike it out when someone guesses correctly, and put who guessed it and the movie.
5. No Googling/using IMDb search functions

1) ~~"Well, I'm not saying I'd like to build a summer home here, but the trees are actually quite lovely. "~~ The Princess Bride, Westley. Guessed by jinnayah
2) "~~We are in an enemy wessel. I did not wish to be shot down on our way to our own funeral. "~~ Star Trek 4: the Voyage Home, Chekov. Guessed by* lost_angelwings
3) "If we get out of this alive, remind me to thank you. "
4) "Would I *BE* in a *DOCTOR'S OFFICE* if I *WAS* feeling all right? "
5) ~~"Uh, we had a slight weapons malfunction, but uh... everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here now, thank you. How are you? "~~ Star Wars (A New Hope), Han Solo. Guessed by shininghalf
6) ~~"Dad, they come in through the doors."~~ Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Indiana Jones. Guessed by shininghalf
7) "You don't think I'd steal something that didn't belong to me, do you? "
8) "Woo! All right! We're being invaded!"
9) "We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing."
10) ~~"All right. Here's the plan. In the dead of night, you and I grab some provisions, hijack one of those... one of those longboats... and then, we... row back to Spain like there's no mañana!"~~ Road to El Dorado, Tulio. Guessed by shininghalf

I'd have made slightly different choices if the quotes didn't have to be in the IMDB, but I found good quotes from 10 movies I like. So...have at it.

*since she got the character, too

Ah, prejudice...how far we haven't come.

2008-02-19T00:49:05Z

I have something of an addiction to old books, which is why I bought an obscure mystery novel from 1929 a couple days ago. I'd never heard of the authors or the book before (and googling them didn't make much difference), but I have old book addiction so I bought it and read it. Card 13 was an all right story, but suffered rather from blatant sexism and racism, which may explain why it and its authors have vanished into the ether. The love interest gives up all thought of career when she falls in love with the main character. The murder is pinned on a dead Chinese immigrant to save the (also dead) murderer's family from scandal. All Chinese people are involved in Chinese Gangs. People casually use ethnic slurs. People from India are mysterious and mystical. Basically, the book had a bad case of "we haz prejudice, yay."

And yet, when I thought about it, I realized that the book was also a great example of "the more things change, the more they stay the same." The main character actually came off far less ethnically prejudiced than his world - he didn't seem entirely comfortable with the framing of the dead immigrant (who the book portrayed as more a victim of circumstances) and he was the only character who treated the Indian as a person, not just a mystical odd bit. Disturbingly, I think the book could be re-written slightly (drop the ethnic slurs and re-phrase a line here or there) and no one would notice. Women in books still give up their desire for a career when they find love, Chinese immigrants still tend to be portrayed as members of Chinese Mafia groups (and/or have super martial arts skills just 'cause), and the mystical Indian stereotype is also still alive and well.

In a way, the blatant prejudice in this old book is easier to deal with than the more subtle prejudices in modern books, precisely because it is so blatant. You can't miss it. You can't not acknowledge that it's there. You have to address it. Subtle prejudice can slip under the radar and color one's thoughts in ways one is less aware of. Oh, I'm not saying that anyone should start slathering their prejudices all over the printed page or that we should bring back ethnic slurs or anything like that. Those are all bad, bad things. But so are the subtle prejudices that haven't gone anywhere. Or rather, I'm afraid the prejudices haven't gotten more subtle over the years - what's gotten more subtle are the words used to transmit those prejudices. Honestly, the book did a better job of pointing out what's so bad about using stereotypes than any modern book (that I can think of) could. Not that the book meant to, of course.

I know I have prejudices, I think everyone does, but I don't want to spread them. Hell, I try very hard to squelch them in myself when I do stumble across them. After reading Card 13, I'll be trying even harder. And, considering stereotypes (which are damn hard to kill), I think I'll add an ethnic stereotype test to my gender stereotype test. "Would I write this character this way if they were of a different ethnicity?" (To go with "Would I write this character this way if they were of a different gender?")

It's still funny that it took an old book's blatant prejudices for me to see just how bad stereotypes are. Not that I ever thought they were good, mind you, but there are different levels of bad. And the damned things haven't improved in 80 years! 80 years!

How to Offend Everyone in One Simple Article

2008-02-09T04:35:50Z

This was so ungodly annoying and offensive that I had to rant about it.

Lori Gottlieb's Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough in the March issue of Atlantic Monthly is the most offensive writing on relationships that I've encountered since The Rules. Not many people can write something that is so thouroughly offensive to both men and women (and, by denial of their very existance, anyone who isn't straight and cisgendered). In fact, the article is so offensive I can barely write coherently about it. What I really want to do is put her child in a good home and sentence her to counseling and ten years community service in a battered spouse's shelter - as a janitor. I wouldn't want her talking to anyone there; they'd kill her.

In this poorly thought out screed, Lori, who has a child via sperm donation, bemoans her lack of a husband, mainly, it seems, because raising a child is hard work. No shit. I'm single, childless, and have no siblings, but I know that. How sheltered do you have to be to not realize that until you actually have a child? Then again, this woman seems to think that sit-coms and romantic movies are a good guide to reality, so I think I can safely say that she wins the sheltered person award.

She also thinks she has psychic powers. She declares that "every woman I know—no matter how successful and ambitious, how financially and emotionally secure—feels panic, occasionally coupled with desperation, if she hits 30 and finds herself unmarried," realizes that there might be some women out there who'd argue and dismisses them with this: "And all I can say is, if you say you’re not worried, either you’re in denial or you’re lying. In fact, take a good look in the mirror and try to convince yourself that you’re not worried, because you’ll see how silly your face looks when you’re being disingenuous."

Say what? She knows that, just because I have a uterus and am over the age of 30, I'm worried about the fact that I'm single. And if I don't think I am, I'm in denial? Really? I couldn't possibly be happily single and happily childless? I can't even assume that she'd dismiss me since I'm, ah, genderqueer or something along those lines, because I really don't think she realizes people like me exist. She'd probably think I was in denial about my femininity, too. I don't even want to know what she thinks of lesbians. I'm sure they're mythical unicorn people to her.

Ignoring the fact that at least 10 percent of women will never, ever, ever, want a man, she goes on to advise people to solve their terrible single status by settling for whatever man next wanders across our path. The basis for this advice is her analysis of the relationships on sit-coms and her theories about what happens if you do marry someone you love ("many of those who marry with great expectations become more disillusioned with each passing year," she tells us, having, I assume, used the same crystal ball that told her I desperately want a husband and kids). Love, of course, having nothing to do with marriage in her mind, anyway. It's all about finances and an extra pair of hands.

She talks for a bit about women having too high a standards. And, for this part of the article, it's not too gag worthy. I can believe that there are people out there who have a ten-mile long list of qualifications that the man of their dreams absolutely must have. What I can't believe is that many of those people are over 18. Well, other than Lori, herself, who quickly drifts from sensible "settling" (dumping qualifications like unblemished handsomness or height) to serious what the fuckage.

"Take the date I went on last night. The guy was substantially older. He had a long history of major depression and said, in reference to the movies he was writing, “I’m fascinated by comas” and “I have a strong interest in terrorists.” He’d never been married. He was rude to the waiter. But he very much wanted a family, and he was successful, handsome, and smart. As I looked at him from across the table, I thought, Yeah, I’ll see him again. Maybe I can settle for that. But my very next thought was, Maybe I can settle for better. It’s like musical chairs—when do you take a seat, any seat, just so you’re not left standing alone?"

I think there may be some very good reasons why this man has never been married. Not that there aren't good, decent people who struggle with depression, who write scripts about comas and terrorists, or even who are rude to waiters, but all of the above, put together, doesn't leave me with a good feeling. And I'm a mystery writer. But there's an even bigger issue with this. This woman actually looks at marriage as a game of musical chairs. Who the chair is doesn't matter, she just wants one, badly. This offends my belief that people should never be means to ends.

She goes on to talk about all the books out there about snagging a man once you've become an old maid. It's difficult to tell how bad the books are because we're only given them through her distorted vision. One contains "tales of professional, accomplished women happily dating a plumber, a park ranger, and an Army helicopter nurse." According to her "The moral is supposed to be 'Don’t be too picky,'" but I have a feeling the moral is actually supposed to be "don't just look in the usual places," but Lori assumes its about settling, not finding love somewhere other than the executive lounge. Not only is she sheltered, she's a snob.

At this point in the article, she starts whining about how tough it is to be a single mother. A privileged single mother, mind. One who can afford babysitters and online dating services. But the poor dear never gets a night off, like a divorced mother would. A well-off divorced mother who has shared custody with her ex-husband, that is. She really is the most sheltered twit in the world.

Her brief discussion of thirty-something single men doesn't help. "Everyone knows," she reports a single male friend of hers as saying "that a single middle-aged man still has appealing prospects; a single middle-aged woman likely doesn’t. And he’s right." So, single middle-aged men (and when was thirty-something middle aged? Isn't that forties and fifties?) know they're not appealing prospects? Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't seem likely, unless they've got self esteem problems. And if they aren't appealing prospects, why should anyone marry them? Also...who said you had to marry someone your own age? Or of the oposite sex?

By the end of the article, she admits that there are problems with settling in "middle age," especially for people with children. "It’s one thing to settle for a subpar mate; it’s quite another to settle for a subpar father figure for my child," she says. Apparently failing to remember that, had she settled for a subpar mate, she would have had children with said subpar mate, since a baby was such a must-have for her that she had one without any mate. Which should mean, of course, that settling at any time has this problem.

But no, Ms. Privileged Sheltered Twit sees this as proof that one should settle and settle young. I suppose she thinks this would at least make dating easier, should your marriage of convenience end in divorce, since the poor sap you settled for would be shelling out child support payments and watching the kidlets while you date. Yes, Lori, all men are checkbooks and possibly helping hands, and all women are willing to whore themselves to get the money and aid. Not.

Now, excuse me while I go puke.

Gender Headache

2008-02-06T07:02:31Z

Because babbling to the internet is cheaper than therapy.

The more transgendered people I know, the more I feel like I'm missing the whole gender identity thing. You see, it's easy to miss how important gender identity is to people if they don't talk about it, and most cisgendered people don't. Unless, of course, they incounter a transgendered person (in person, in the news, in fiction). As far as I can tell, most people have a strong gender identification. I, on the other hand, have...something.

A rare case of brake fluid, probably.*

As a kid, I had the gender identity of, well, neither. Or both. Or empty set. Okay, I wasn't any less confused/dissatisfied/whatever I am back then. Perhaps I made a mistake when I decided that the problem was the usual treatment of/place of women. Because all these years later, I still feel like something's off somewhere.

I care about women's issues, but I don't see them as women's issues, I see them as human issues. I don't hate my body. It's a perfectly acceptable body. And I know it's female. But I don't know that I really identify as female. I'm not sure what the hell I do identify as. I don't wander about thinking me=woman, but if I watch a movie (or read a book) with a male lead there's a good chance I'll wander about thinking me=man for a bit. Until, you know, physical reality intrudes. Most of the time, I think I think me=neutral. But then we're back to the whole not minding my female body thing.

Then there's the fact that, even though I think the world of fiction needs more competent strong female characters (and I do write them), my viewpoint characters tend to be male. (Not that I think this is a telling thing one way or the other, it's just part of the whole confused mess that is my brain on gender identity.) Actually, most of the fictional characters I write tend toward gender neutral in a sense - the men are rarely Men (manly men!) and the women are rarely Women (womenly women?). Oh, never mind, this probably has nothing to do with anything.

Except, of course, I'm still wandering around wondering what the hell gender identity means anyway. *groan* I need a drink? I need chocolate? I need a chocolate drink? ... Ew.

*Obscure movie reference. Soapdish (scroll down to [reading unrehearsed lines off the TelePrompTer] bit)

The World Has Gone Mad And I Want Off

2008-02-01T06:56:02Z

All right, maybe it isn't the entire world, but it is the United States, or, more specifically the state of Mississippi. And I thought Clinton getting the Republican lobotomy was going to be tonight's worst news. But, no, this tops that.

Mississippi House Bill 282 is a proposed law that will bar restaurants in the state from serving, and I quote, "any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the state department of health." Representative W.T. Mayhall, Jr. wants to save us from ourselves by turning restaurants into the food police, armed with whatever is necessary to determine whether prospective patrons are obese or not. This is so fucking insane that I can barely come up with a coherent response. Mayhall is clearly out of his mind.

Okay, lets take this apart calmly and rationally. First off, obesity is not contageous. Eating in a restaurant with fat people will not cause a thin person to become fat. Seeing fat people is not a cause of obesity. Health conditions can be, overeating can be, emotional problems can be, genetic quirks can be, but it is not now, nor has it ever been, a disease caused by proximity to fat people. Second, barring obsese people from restaurants will not in any way help them lose weight. One does not lose weight by not eating or not being allowed to socialize normally with one's friends. One loses weight by exercise and calorie reduction, within reason, or, in very extreme cases, surgery...which still requires one to engage in exercise and calorie reduction. Third, weight and health aren't as tidily linked as the self proclaimed weight police want us to think. Visceral fat, fat around the organs, seems to be consistently linked to health problems, but even a thin person who is inactive can have dangerous amounts of visceral fat. This means that a physically active obese person might well be healthier than a thin inactive person. (And, no, the solution is not to arm restaurants with the ability to measure our visceral fat instead.) Finally, and most importantly, discrimination is not okay. Not, not, and not. Period. End of discussion.

Clearly "Here's to the State of Mississippi" needs a new, modern verse. It's still the state that doesn't understand the basics of this country. (Not that the country at large is doing a great job of that. Would that the founding fathers would rise from their graves and storm Capitol Hill. "What have you done to our country!?")

Being Chosen Means Never Having to Choose

2008-01-31T05:30:54Z

And other thoughts on the popularity of chosen heroes in fiction.

As you may know, I'm not a big fan of the Chosen One or even lower-key chosen heroes, like Mercedes Lackey's Heralds or Kristin Britain's Riders, though I sometimes enjoy stories with chosen heroes of one sort or the other anyway. I think there are a lot of problems with the idea that only certain people can be heroes, even if the certain people are supposedly chosen because they have the right heart. When the chosen person - the Chosen One - is special because of other people's deeds or their bloodline or anything else that boils down to what they are rather than who they are, the problems are gigantic.

I’m really not sure what message authors think they’re sending when they write about Chosen Ones who have done nothing to warrant being chosen. In The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, the kids are Chosen because they are “sons of Adam and daughters of Eve.” In the Harry Potter books, Harry is only special because his mother saved his life (somehow) and because he became an accidental horcrux (can’t explain that one either). In both of these instances, the character(s) specialness has nothing at all to do with who they are. Any humans would have provided what Narnia needed. And Harry, well, he really was only valuable as an object. He could have died at any time in the books and fulfilled his role.

What message is the reader supposed to take away? Was C. S. Lewis just telling us that humans are special? I suppose that fits in with Christianity, so perhaps he was. But J. K. Rowling’s message completely escapes me. Why literally turn your hero into an object? Did she not notice what she’d done?

Even when not taken to that extreme, the idea of chosen heroes divides the world sharply into inherent heroes and everyone else. You either are a hero, whether because of your blood or your heart, or you are not. This robs everyone of choice. A person can’t rise above their failings and become a hero, and its rare that a chosen hero ever fails. (In fact Chosen Ones can’t – by definition.)

This predestination by external forces strikes me as a problematic message. Not only does it suggest that people have proper “places” in the world (which they really shouldn’t argue with or attempt to change), but it denies the reality that most people must make choices about who they are and what they do with their lives. If your heroes are chosen, then their choice to be a hero is automatically the right one. These heroes may struggle with that choice, but only because there was something else they wanted to do, never because they aren’t sure whether heroing is the right option.

At heart, the chosen hero story is really about embracing your duty, not deciding what you, personally, want to do with your life. A duty, of course, imposed from outside, not whatever an individual defines their duty as. It really is a very conservative fantasy. Considering how many of these stories are about preserving the status quo (or returning the world to a previous ideal state), I shouldn’t be surprised.

I do, in a way, understand the appeal of chosen heroes. They are safe heroes. They don’t challenge one’s own choices or beliefs in the way that non-chosen heroes can. And fantasizing about them is safe, not just because they’re fictional, but because the choice remains external. You can’t choose to become a chosen hero. Of course, the very thing that makes chosen heroes safe makes them less inspiring than non-chosen heroes. You can’t choose to become a chosen hero.

Perhaps this is especially important to me because I struggle continually with what to do with my life. I don’t know if following my dreams will lead to success. I don’t even know which of my dreams I really want to follow. And I’m not going to find inspiration in a story of a chosen hero; it won’t show me how a person (albeit a fictional one) weighed their options and made a choice. And somehow, I really doubt that any of my dreams are going to be prompted to choose me.

But, as I said, I do see the appeal of that. It would take the weight off my shoulders, after all. I’m just not sure that’s a weight that should be lifted.

Geekery

2008-01-23T00:25:19Z

Which sci-fi crew would you best fit in with? (pics)
created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Heart of Gold (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

You are a light and humorous person. No one can help but to smile to your wit. Now if only the improbability

drive would stop turning you into weird stuff.

Heart of Gold (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

81%

SG-1 (Stargate)

75%

Moya (Farscape)

75%

Babylon 5 (Babylon 5)

75%

FBI's X-Files Division (The X-Files)

69%

Millennium Falcon (Star Wars)

69%

Bebop (Cowboy Bebop)

69%

Deep Space Nine (Star Trek)

63%

Enterprise D (Star Trek)

63%

Serenity (Firefly)

63%

Andromeda Ascendant (Andromeda)

56%

Galactica (Battlestar: Galactica)

56%

Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix)

44%

Heh. I'm all right with that. Though I'm a little bummed that I scored so low in regard to the Andromeda.

Blog for Choice Day

2008-01-22T21:59:16Z

I am blogging for choice because the alternative isn't an option.

Abortion is a difficult topic for me because I don't really like the idea, myself. That doesn't mean that I would presume to judge anyone who has made the choice to get an abortion, only that I don't think it's a choice I would make unless I felt like I had no other option. Regardless of how, I, personally feel, or what choices I would make, abortion has to remain an option.

I know history well enough to know that when abortion was illegal, people still got abortions. The wealthy were slipped out of the country to somewhere it was legal, and the poor made due with street doctors, at best. And I don't even want to look into what this situation did to the mortality rate of children. This wasn't a good idea then, and it's still not a good idea. It will never be a good idea.

I also feel like many pro-life (anti-choice?) people are naive and very deluded about what life is like for others. If they really wanted to cut down on the number of people having abortions, they would make birth control free and widely available to all people, they would work to make adoption a viable choice, make sure all people had access to good prenatal care, make sure all people had living wages, make sure all people had access to day care, and whatever other family-friendly things I've missed.

I know I want people to have all of those things. To me, that's part of being pro-choice. I want a world that supports whatever decision a person makes about having kids. Instead, I'm living in a world where insurance pays for Viagra, but not for birth control.

Winter, Why Must We Have It?

2008-01-17T03:44:12Z

Don't get me wrong, winter can be very pretty, but it's so darn cold. I have this suspicion that I'm not actually a mammal, but some kind of evolved cold-blooded creature who just happens to look human. As a lizard-person, I really don't like it when the temperature drops into single digits. Oh, sure, I used to live in the midwest, where the temperature would drop into negative digits, but I reserve the right to complain even here in Colorado.

For one thing, when the temperature drops, I get very reluctant to leave the house, especially on foot. This is not good for either my physical health or my mental health. I need some amount of physical activity to stay in a good mood. I did manage to drag myself out yesterday to try a new taco place near my house, but today I was a house-slug. *sigh* At least the flannel lined jeans I ordered finally showed up. And, miracle of miracles, fit me. (I am a scrawny lizard-person.)

So, tomorrow, I must drag myself out of the house to walk, single digit temperatures or not. Perhaps I can bribe myself with tacos again. They were very good tacos.

I have pens!

2008-01-12T02:48:25Z

After all the posting jinnayah and shininghalf have done on fountain pens, I got curious and asked for pen advice. Since I'm not exactly swimming in money, they were kind enough to send me a couple of starter pens. ^_^ Which I just got today. Granted, I've got to hunt down some ink for the lever fill one, but that's not too difficult. The cartrige one, however, I loaded and tried out.

Intriguingly, it seems to give me better handwriting. Which is a good thing, considering I can't always read my own handwriting. Of course, this also means I've become a member of the cult of the fountain pen. Now I must find ink for the lever fil pen, and more cartridges. And more pens. And it's all their fault!

On the curative powers of Chinese food and the stupidity of television

2008-01-06T04:21:09Z

I can't say I'm completely well, but a few days of rest and Chinese food has vastly improved matters. I'm quite certain that hot and sour soup has curative properties. It's soothing if one has a sore throat and generally good in the same sorts of way that chicken soup is. So, I've improved from cottage cheese for brains to, oh, cheddar cheese for brains. All right, perhaps I'm further along than that.

While sick, I've been watching too much television, and even with cottage cheese brains, something struck me as rather stupid. Besides the commercials, that is, which are rather stupid at best. Court TV has become Tru TV, catch phrase "Not reality. Actuality." I cannot take a network called "Tru TV" seriously, which is bad, considering it's line up of true crime, dramatic stuff caught on tape, and Cops-esque shows. I rather think it wants to be taken seriously, it just also wants to sound cool and exciting. But...it sounds cute, not dramatic. Or, stupid, not dramatic, depending on one's point of view. I doubt it sounds dramatic to anyone. Then there's the catch phrase. Reality and actuality are synonyms, which means the catch phrase might as well be: "Not reality. Reality." Which, from the point of view of trying to be extra dramatic, might actually work better, if said properly. Still, it raises the question of whether or not anything shown on that channel is real, considering that even that catch phrase doesn't seem certain. Or perhaps this is all the cheese brains talking and it sounds perfectly reasonable to everyone else.

Being Sick Sucks

2008-01-03T19:49:15Z

Not that that's some kind of brilliant new insight. Then again, I think my brain has turned to cottage cheese, so brilliant insight is right out. But being sick is extra lousy when one lives alone. I have no one to send out for chicken soup or anything. (Well, okay, I could call my grandparents, but that's the solution being worse than the problem.)

I don't even remember being around any diseased people. :(

Perhaps I'll just go back to bed and hope it's better when I wake up again. Or order in...maybe Moo Goo Gai Pan would work. It's certainly better than sitting around whining at my computer.

*goes off in search of not-so-ancient Chinese cures*