One Giant Ramble About Writing and Public Discourse

Reading this blog post about a reviewer and author trading words made me really think about two things. 

One: I've been meaning to read this series, I have the first one on my Nook.

Two: Sweet holy everything, Mr. Aarnovitch, while I didn't find your response bad, you should've taken your advice you wrote on the first line and not engage. 

~

As a budding writer, I fear becoming so defensive about my work that I am horrid to whatever fans I end up having. I don't want to do that. If you read my book and don't like it, then there you go. And fans, don't defend my "honor" or whatever. If someone doesn't like it, let them be. They have gone through the same trouble as you have and read the book, but didn't get similar feelings like you did. Leave them be. And I don't mind either way how someone feels. If they threaten me with violence, on the other hand, the gloves freaking come off. But that's less "my writing" and more "my person", which I consider more viable and worth defending.

I have, in the past, been very defensive about my writing (even on here, why? I ask myself). Since I've done a lot of growing up, I realized that I could've handled it all better and now with hindsight, know what to do. Just take the criticism, be civil in response, and wrap up this burrito before it gets too stuffed. Plus, there are ways to be engaging in discussions, even controversial ones. But people invest in feelings over facts (I've been guilty of this in the past) and it clouds judgment. I prided myself in being able to engage in hard topics without losing my grip, but I have failed many times. I now know better. 

I've read an argument that once the book is published, it no longer belongs to the author... I agree somewhat, but disagree with it more. It still belongs to the writer as a creative work and copyright. Now if those who said this meant more of an interpretative matter, then I see what they're getting at. Death of the author is alive and well, hur-hur. But if the author done effed up real bad, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the wrongs. That's why readers are important assets. They keep the authors from getting too big for their britches. Well, some writers anyway. (*cough*LaurellKHamiltion*cough*)

But reviewers and readers, I ask you this: if you interpret something one opposite way when the writer meant another, why does that make your opinion more right? Back in 2011, Bitch Magazine posted a list of 100 YA books and got some flak for featuring a few titles (I haven't read those three but I want to one of these days) that didn't explicitly address the problems with rape culture. The books instead showed them in a "this is something that happens and here's how the characters feel about it". No side comments of "rape culture is bad, okay?", which I would find patronizing (but some people want that, what?). Any decent human being would draw to that conclusion without the author's assistance. The author does have a job to present these difficult concepts and show the horrid complexity (like how in Sister Red, one character considers scantily-dressed girls "sluts" and later shows that she was in the wrong!) Yet, the mere fact that the first event happened, don't recommend the book? Uhm, okay. By that logic, don't read any book. Did you know that everyone comes into the world knowing everything? And if you don't know something is wrong, everything needs to be spelled out for you? Good Lord, no wonder feminism get some flak for being educated to the point of arrogance.

I do think that trigger warnings would've been a good idea (on the list, in this case), since there are folks who get seriously upset about depictions of violence (whether subtle or explicit), but to remove the titles and offer alternatives just because a few people had grievances? I didn't know a few people had that kinda power. With that in mind, I declare Fifty Shades of Grey unreadable crap and should be banned everywhere!*

Or you can read what John Scalzi* and Abigail Nussbaum said about the whole Bitch thing and not read my words, since they wrote all that in the heat of the mess, and here I am, reflecting over two years later.

~

*I'm being entirely sarcastic here, I don't think the books of the Fifty Shades series should be banned, but I stand by the "unreadable crap" part. People should be able to access the book and draw their conclusions. Even spark discussion on BDSM in mainstream culture!

*Seriously, I love this guy. I need to read his books very soon. He won a Hugo recently!

Why I May Not Return to Tumblr

There are such things as Tumblr blogs teaching people how to shoplift. One of them even said B&N is an easy place to steal from.

Alright, listen up, you entitled brats. Here's some breaking news for you: YOU'RE NOT SOLVING ANY PROBLEMS. You think you're getting the Man? The Man don't care. Really! If the Man cared, there would be more things us retail employees could do other than do our usual jazz hands.

(And the fact that people who need things resort to shoplifting shows us what the real problem is. Our society has an odd-ass view about low-wage jobs, education, living wages, and the like. All that seriously needs to be fixed. Taking it to the Man [I swear, last time I'll say it] is like giving someone a bandage for a broken back.)

Oh and by the way? Thanks for posting your tips. I now know what to look out for and I'll be extra-vigilant next time I'm at work. AND I'M TELLING EVERYBODY I KNOW AT RETAIL WHAT I'VE LEARNED.

With Two Middle Fingers,
Lindsey, a current retail employee

*memes do not belong to me*

Never mind

I just saw Joyce Carol Oates post on Twitter, calling the latest episode of Girls "a poignant new feminism". She likes Lena Dunham and thinks she is relevant and all that.

And this is where my love affair with Ms. Oates comes to an end. I just like her now.
Oh Angela Carter, never let me down.

I was mad for a while...

when I read this article by Joyce Carol Oates concerning Lena Dunham (who I SEVERELY dislike with a passion). But after reading it, I realized something. It is the equivalent of

Ms. Oates offers very little to no praise for Ms. Dunham herself, doesn't exhibit any true emotion other than "this is a thing that is happening".

Never mind, not mad anymore. You've been forgiven, Ms. Oates.

*meme does not belong to me*

Good Lord, Quotation Marks Won't Kill You (Or Why I Didn't Enjoy No Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthy)

I am currently trying to read Aimee Bender's The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake (is it bad that I want every character to get punched in the face?*) and all I can think is

I'm so sick of writers's excuses for not using them: "It makes people pay attention to the dialogue more", "It's outside the norm", "I don't want to do what everyone does", "It's too traditional". NO. You're just showing off. Don't care. No exception. The end. And guess what? Most of the time, your writing isn't that f***ing special to begin with. Try actually writing something good without an overuse of flowery prose before you begin to break some rules. Sound good?


Lionel Shriver wrote an article about her feelings about this trend. Oh thank God. I was getting scared that there weren't any writers that thought this quotation mark-less trend was total nonsense. She argues that the very excuses her fellow writers use don't really amount up to anything. She even cites an example from No Country for Old Men, where she placed quotations in a passage that previously had none. How odd! None of the mood changed. It wasn't any less streamlined or "punchy", as I read one person describe dialogue without quotation marks. God, I hate it when people want to be arty for the sake of it.

If you don't want to use quotation marks, fine. No really. It's your choice. But don't expect me to understand nor care. Because yeah, I don't understand nor care.

*I have a rule that if I'm reading a book and I hate the characters, I ask myself "If everyone died suddenly in a nuclear explosion, would I care?" If the answer is a gritty, in-your-face "no", I stop reading. That doesn't mean I don't like nasty, "terrible people" characters per se, it's if they are caricatures more than actual people, nuclear annihilation seems like a better option.

On The Hunger Games movie...

The Hunger Games was an underwhelming film. It lacked the urgency, the horror, and pathos of the book. To me, this is the most grievous thing a book-to-film adaptation can do. I know the violence would've given it an R rating, but at this time, that might've been better.

It also relies heavily on the fact that its audience has read the book already. Don't believe me? Take a step back and pretend you've never read the book. Story seems a little rushed and simplistic? Characters underdeveloped? Yep. I can't believe the film did that to its viewers. I feel bad for those who've never read the books and wanted more nuance from the film. They were not the intended audience. So yeah, if you realized all that too, don't worry, you're not the only one.

"The movie is heavily faithful to the source material?" HA! And I'm a Pulitzer Prize-winning author.

The movie was already plagued with casting problems (e.g. only white actresses were allowed to try out for Katinss, though the book describes her as having a dark skin tone), so without even trying, I found two more strikes against the film. And it's out.

If you've enjoyed the film, that's wonderful. Really, it is. Just please, do not tell me I'm being a spoilsport and ruining everyone's fun. That says more about you than it does me.

/rant

Okay, I wasn't gonna say anything about this, but now I'm gonna!

VH1 recently released a revision of the 100 Greatest Women in Rock 'n Roll (now just Music, probably better since all the ladies were in different genres) and as Flavorwire pointed out, they made some odd choices. Not to say these particular ladies of music didn't earn their time in the sun, they worked hard and sold many records, heaven knows. Not bringing one down to celebrate another. That's not how we roll here.

I understand that the new list is a reflection of new trends and a crop of new, very talented people that are now staking their own claims in this tough and misogynistic world of music. But y'all, they threw a TON of the previous list under the bus. Where the f*** is Stevie Nicks? Etta James? Aretha Franklin is not there anymore! Not even Sheila E.! (My "I wanna break everything" moment was Tina Weymouth.) Maybe it makes sense that they changed the name of the list, so the two lists could exist together? Okay, so you wanna get specific? The 1999 list reflects that. Wanna get more broad? The 2011 list reflects that. I guess.

I got curious and counted both lists to see how many women of color were represented. The 1999 list had over 35 women, the new list only 27 (I may have missed some people, so please correct me if I'm wrong). While the 1999 list could've included more, it did somewhat a better job in the genre department. The Supremes over in Motown pop, Tracy Chapman in folk , Aretha Franklin with her gospel/rock blend, and Gloria Estefan with her take on Latin pop. The new list has some variation, but it has more pop than R&B or even folk.

So maybe the new list should be 100 Greatest Women in Pop, since damn, most of them could fit there. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not an excellent representation of genres. I guess you could argue that for the 1999 list, but you don't have to strain to find more than just a variation of pop.

Kathy from Her Five Dollar Radio also put together another problem with the list (and maybe the problem with the previous list too). God forbid that VH1 acknowledges any woman's contribution to the band she's in, let along she kicks ass at her instrument of choice. And as for the last paragraph of Kathy's excellent take-away from the list, it is amazing that people (not the writer, of course) still think that women have to be invited into the rock world, let alone bust in, do their thing, and let the guys just kindly deal with it; which a lot of the women from both lists have done. They had to break the rules in order to become who they are. And yet, there are so many limitations these musicians have to battle.

No, we haven't come a long way. We have a long way to go.

Got news back from Michener...

and I was denied. To be honest, I wish I was completely shocked and throwing a "why me" epic tantrum, but it's just not in me. It's really a case of "oh hai maturity" and also that getting in was very unlikely (message boards equated it with winning the lottery. Not a bad analogy, actually). Not because I suck at writing or anything, I mean, I'm a great writer. Maybe it's a case of "not just yet" or in all honesty, going there would've been a bad idea. Who knows?

So will you apply for grad school ever again? Oh yeah, I still will love to go, but it may now have to wait. In all honesty, I need to get a full-time job and move out first. That was partly the reason I wanted to go so bad. I wanted a huge damn excuse to get myself together and do something with my life. And I feel that was my biggest error in this whole thing. Ah, the old saying "putting all your eggs in one basket" applies here.

Will you apply for Michener again? To be honest, I don't know now. I feel, in a strange way, I might've applied there and hoped for admission to prove to myself that I'm a good writer. Sure, the money is great, but I really didn't know a ton about the program and its professors. I mean, it could be a decent school and going somewhere else would've been better, for all I f***ing know.

What now, Frustrated Lady Writer? Time to just write and find a full-time job that will take me further north from here. As for grad school, it may have to wait.

Thanks to those who wished me well and also helped me with my application. Time to dust myself off and move on to other things.

Damn you, hipsters...

It's been known that hipsters practically worship Pitchfork Media, a music website that prides itself in reviewing obscure stuff. No big deal, gotta give the unknowns their time in the sun. Well, as obvious parodies show, they have become something more worthy of scorn.

I checked it out to see what it was all about. I decided to type in Talking Heads and see what they had to say. Of course, they worship the live album The Name of This Band is Talking Heads. I mean, damn, 9.2? That's serious liking. I mean, the album's good, but I wasn't expecting that.

But the review that had everyone going WTF (at least what I heard) was this one: Kid A by Radiohead. Oh my God. A ten. And read the review and don't tell me that is just overblown. Dude, did you find Jesus in that experience or what?

I raged when I saw this tidbit review of True Stories. Okay, you obviously dug the film 'cause it was kitchy and-- hold the phone. Did y'all just call Stop Making Sense an "overrated synth-flap"? You didn't. You didn't just do that. You did. Wow. Allow me to have Dr. Cox verbalize my rage:



Look, I'm all for respecting opinions but since these are likely hipsters, that respect died. I bet $20 and win that they're hating on it only because it has been called a great film by folks like Rolling Stone and Leonard Maltin. In other words, their opinion is "wrong wrong wrong" ONLY because this is likely how they reached the conclusion.

Just when I calmed down, I had to look up Steely Dan. Bad move. I mean, read the first paragraph and tell me that I'm not the only one who thinks it's just mean-spirited. Now I didn't like the album, but way to go to insult the band's larger fan base at the first go, Pitchfork. Hope y'all are proud of yourself, feeling like you made a genuine funny. Oh? Sorry, I was wrong. That "funny feeling" was actually me throwing the Klencke Atlas at y'all's heads.

I don't feel that my hatred against them is unique, but the means to get there were. Either way, no. Tact, Pitchfork. You lack it.

Yeah, no.

More news about the second Silent Hill movie.

This just proves that this isn't going to work. Make it accessible? They already did that with the first film!

***SPOILER***

I mean, hello! That scene with Alessa explaining the whole damn thing. If that isn't accessible and being the total opposite to the games, I don't know what.

***END SPOILER***

*calms down* Look, I honestly believe that some Silent Hill fans (not all, but some) are in serious denial with the movie. I'll be the first (no the second, but anyway) person to say that visually... It. Was. Spot. Freakin'. On.

However, the story was about as convoluted as a labyrinth designed by a bunch of drunk monkeys. And the dialogue there makes my own look amazing (i.e. it's pretty bad).


All I wanted from the movie was an original story. All I got was a neutered take to the first game. And there's another one coming in game form, mind you.

I love all the Silent Hill games (even Homecoming), but it's getting real hard for me to remain calm about all this for much longer. Honestly, Shattered Memories (it is a remake, I don't care what the game developers claim) is not even necessary. Like another unnecessary remake of a classic first game. It's turning into Resident Evil (a series that was actually good... until the movies and the cash-in games came along).

I'm not asking for the series to go back to being a niche thing, something hipsters could latch themselves onto. I'm only asking for the initial spirit of the games to remain, something that seems to be missing since Homecoming. I ask for originality, necessary changes to gameplay that still retain the helplessness of being a "regular Joe" stuck in a haunted town. To quit explaining every damn thing, after all, the Golden Rule of horror is to "never explain or show everything". To quit using Pyramid Head and try out new villains, because creative thinkers don't rehash. To be subtle, make references to cool things (see Jacob's Ladder and Phantoms).

Is it too much to ask?

Maybe it is.

ETA: Oh, yeah. Which reminds me... there's a remake of Jacob's Ladder planned.

...

FFFUUUU... /rageguy

Oh, here we go now...

There's going to be a second Silent Hill movie.



Well, all I hope is that they write an original story and have some decent dialogue in there.

But, I'm not expecting it.

No, Hollywood. *hits them with newspaper* No.

No movie in existence has angered me... until this came along.

The trailer is horrifying, and not in the way you would think. It is ridiculous and disgusting that they're profiting off of something that is pretty serious business.

Lemme just say this: this s*** ain't funny, y'all. Don't go around and make movies about this stuff. I bet you that people will spaz out after this film's out. People will be going to my bookstore and buying all those 2012 books that are just gathering dust right now. It'll be the Y2K thing all over again. There's being cautious, and then there's blind paranoia. Guess what I think it would be?

Side note: I honestly do not think anything world-ending will happen on 12/21/2012. There has been proof that this date isn't the end of the world. Yet, I do think something will happen. Dunno what, but I'm not totally cynical about this date.

Well, I need sleep. Good night...

P.S.: Blues is 20,000+ words in. Whoo!

A little discussion...

I have a REAL problem with the first line in this article.

"Decaying corpse of genre fiction"? Whoa, someone needs to get off their f***ing high horse.

I don't have the beef with Mr. Chabon. In fact, according to his Wikipedia article, he deserves a freaking high-five. Along with Margaret Atwood, too.

~

Anyway, this reminded me of what I'm trying to do with my writing. I think literary fiction has its place, but I can't stand most of it. At the same time, let's not kid ourselves fellow writers, genre fiction needs a kick in the pants. And apparently, such a phenomenon is already occurring. Well, thank God that I wasn't the only one who thought this. I felt alone in my feelings on this, especially in fiction workshops. And most classes, for that matter.

I once wrote a paper on how Toni Morrison's Beloved was a horror novel (a book that ended up winning a Pulitzer Prize, mind that y'all). Some of my classmates thought I had freaking insulted the book. Though I know the paper could've been better written, I knew that it was far from an insult. It was basically me asking everyone "can literature have genre fiction elements?" And the answer is: YES, YES IT CAN.

/rant

Alright, well, lemme see where I am at right now on Blues... I'm about 903 words away from today's goal. Because of exhaustion following the Coldplay concert, I was unable to write last night. So, not too bad. It's hard to force words out, I want my stuff to be quality. But, it's a first draft. It would be a miracle unto God if the first draft is flawless. So, I have to write what I feel will work in the piece and then edit like hell when it comes to that time.

Until next time...

Oh. My. God. O_O

There may be a Silent Hill remake. On the PSP.

I think I'm going to jump for joy. Or have a spaz attack of anger. Not sure which one. Maybe both?

Hello, Academy Awards?

...the Romance slideshow?

YOU FAIL.

YOU F***IN' FAIL.

You have reached a level of fail that didn't exist until now.

Hey! Wanna see evidence of humanity's eventual downfall?!

I found these last night, but was too f***ing lazy to post.

WTF?!

I love this for the sheer WTF***ery.

WTF?! 2.0

This... this is... no. Just no. Watch the trailer (link to Youtube in original post) and be horrified. Thank God it will flop and everyone will forget about it as just one big mistake.

I leave you, cowering in the corner and trying to justify why I'm a misanthrope...

-Lindsey

LOLwhut?

What is this f***ery?!



When I told my mom about this, she said, "Are they [Hollywood] running out of ideas?"

Apparently, this movie is coming out NEXT YEAR. Uhm... missing the point there, dudes who are responsible for this.

And plus, WTF on The Shining trailer music. I was expecting elevators gushing blood to appear any minute!

Hollywood needs to stay the hell away from stuff like this. Many cultures believe something big is gonna happen on December 21st, 2012. And somebody thought it would make a great action movie... God help us. *headdesk until forehead draws blood*

/random rant