As you might have sensed from my previous post about irony, I have a thing about language. Namely, there's what words mean, and when you use them to mean different things, it doesn't change the meaning of the word but sure says a heck of a lot about you.
Now, what's about to follow is a less obsessive version of 'gay does not mean annoying' and 'retarded does not mean inconvenient' comments more commonly point out. But this is basically the same premise.
The Other One was telling me about a friend of hers who misused the word disinterested in an essay, because she "liked the way it sounded." When The Other One pointed out she had changed the meaning of the sentence by using a different word, the girl replied that most people use the word incorrectly and would thus understand her incorrect usage. Or -- and I believe this is a direct quote -- "You're only confused, because you know what this word actually means."
It is at moments like these that I want to introduce my head the my desk and make them roommates.
The only way language works is that we all agree about what words mean. Otherwise, I'll be going to Starbucks to get a dog by which I mean iced coffee, and they'll say they don't have hammers, by which they mean pets. Words mean what they mean.
I know, I'm probably a ranting crazy about this, but this will probably never stop being something I care about. Precision in language is not a waste. It is the beauty of it.
Thoughts?
Showing posts with label Ranting and Raving. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ranting and Raving. Show all posts
Monday, August 8, 2011
Friday, August 5, 2011
Isn't It Ironic, Don't You Think?
Just the other day, I was watching a video in which someone explained that he uses the word gay to mean stupid because he is "an ironic liberal." I am not linking anyone to this video, as the arguments it contained were ridiculous (not gay -- ironically or otherwise -- because arguments are not attracted to other arguments of any sort or gender, assuming that arguments even have genders, which I doubt).
Let's clear a few things up:
1) Irony is "the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning." Thus, using gay as stupid would imply that the concepts of homosexuality and intelligence were in any way related. This is incredibly untrue. Thus, there is no capacity for the use of the term gay to mean stupid and achieve irony. I would say sorry,but it would have to be ironically, because I in no way apologize for the meaning of these words.
2) As the word gay refers either to homosexuality or happiness (setting aside all overlaps thereof which would be puns and not ironic), the only way to achieve irony using this word would be to use it to refer to things that were either heterosexual or sad (including any overlaps thereof, which would not be puns or ironic). Thus, if I referred to two heterosexuals of the opposite gender kissing as gay, that might be construed as ironic, but more likely we would consider that annoying and ridiculous, and I'd look like a prat.
Ironic does not refer to things that are frustrating, accidentally offensive, or just don't make any sense. I'm sorry, that catchall, quick fix only works on people who don't know what the word means. I'd like to think most of us do.
Remember the song "Ironic" by Alanis Morisette? (Which I will link to, because it's a nice song.) Of course, the real irony of that song is how much of the song is not really ironic. But we know that now.
So, please, people of the internet, stop misusing the word ironic or assuming it's a quick cover for being a prat. You're damaging the English language, misinforming people about the meaning of words, and frustrating the people who know what that word actually means. And because you're making a fool of yourself. There's that too.
Are you a fan of irony?
Let's clear a few things up:
1) Irony is "the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning." Thus, using gay as stupid would imply that the concepts of homosexuality and intelligence were in any way related. This is incredibly untrue. Thus, there is no capacity for the use of the term gay to mean stupid and achieve irony. I would say sorry,but it would have to be ironically, because I in no way apologize for the meaning of these words.
2) As the word gay refers either to homosexuality or happiness (setting aside all overlaps thereof which would be puns and not ironic), the only way to achieve irony using this word would be to use it to refer to things that were either heterosexual or sad (including any overlaps thereof, which would not be puns or ironic). Thus, if I referred to two heterosexuals of the opposite gender kissing as gay, that might be construed as ironic, but more likely we would consider that annoying and ridiculous, and I'd look like a prat.
Ironic does not refer to things that are frustrating, accidentally offensive, or just don't make any sense. I'm sorry, that catchall, quick fix only works on people who don't know what the word means. I'd like to think most of us do.
Remember the song "Ironic" by Alanis Morisette? (Which I will link to, because it's a nice song.) Of course, the real irony of that song is how much of the song is not really ironic. But we know that now.
So, please, people of the internet, stop misusing the word ironic or assuming it's a quick cover for being a prat. You're damaging the English language, misinforming people about the meaning of words, and frustrating the people who know what that word actually means. And because you're making a fool of yourself. There's that too.
Are you a fan of irony?
Monday, January 17, 2011
Kids Are Different
(WARNING: Long post. For abbreviated version, skip down to the paragraph starting with the words "Okay, now that I've gone on.")
Recently, through the power of Netflix streaming, I rewatched the movie Quest for Camelot, which a voice in the back of my mind reminded me I'd once seen at a friends house at least a decade ago. Having rewatched it, I decided that aside from two nice songs, it's only got two real strong points (note: the point of this post is, actually, not to knock the movie).
Firstly, I felt that Warner Bros.'s inclusion a disabled character was, at one point, a step towards acknowledging that there are disabled people in America and saying, "Yes, even disabled people can help save their kingdom from evil." For once, we see a film breaking out of the more common Disney paradigm that the world can only be saved by ridiculously good looking, perfectly abled people (who often have bonus powers from somewhere).
Secondly, Garrett now faced some difficulties the other characters didn't (such as having to flee from a dragon -- which he couldn't see -- by jumping on rocks -- which he couldn't see -- across a pit of lava -- which he couldn't see. Thank goodness for assist birds). This made his struggles as a character all the more engaging. To be blunt,in terms of the story, it rather raised the ante on everything that he had to do. He had a harder time than the female lead, because she could see what she needed to do. Also, his experiences gave him the skills he needs to help save the kingdom. Helpful, that.
Thirdly, his experience of how he'd been treated when he lost his sight shaped his view of himself, her family, and their homeland. These factors all went into the motivations that moved him through the story and escalated the conflict. Garrett manages to both make strong points as to why he shouldn't be defined by his blindness and simultaneously define himself by it. (Oh, character angst.)
Okay, now that I've gone on and on about why Garret is definitely my favorite part of that movie, I'll circle back to my thesis. Namely, the rarity of disabled characters in books and movies. When they're included, it's generally in a "disability genre" and the books focus on being disabled instead of treating disabled characters like the abled ones.
Generally speaking, Disney -- the paragon of "kid appropriate" -- doesn't include things that it thinks will scar little kids, such as scars. Ever notice how the only characters in Disney films that maintain serious injuries throughout a flick are the bad guys?
If 18-20% of Americans are disabled, that would suggest that most kids, if they aren't disabled themselves, know or are related to a person with a disability. So would it really be traumatizing to see a disabled character in a book or movie treated the same as the other characters?
My previous works have not included a large number of disabled characters; however, I do have on character in my head with a disability, and her day will come. Disabilities are a fact of life, even in modern times, and I think it might be nice if books and movies written for kids reflected that.
What do you think? How do you feel about disabled characters in books and movies for kids? Have you ever written a disabled character?
** The title for this post derives from the song "Kids are Different," which is the theme song for the group Kids on the Block, a puppet troupe that teaches children about living with disabilities.
Recently, through the power of Netflix streaming, I rewatched the movie Quest for Camelot, which a voice in the back of my mind reminded me I'd once seen at a friends house at least a decade ago. Having rewatched it, I decided that aside from two nice songs, it's only got two real strong points (note: the point of this post is, actually, not to knock the movie).
- Cary Elwes voicing the leading guy, because, you know, he's Cary Elwes, and his voice ROCKS.
- Garrett (as voice by Cary Elwes) is blind.
Firstly, I felt that Warner Bros.'s inclusion a disabled character was, at one point, a step towards acknowledging that there are disabled people in America and saying, "Yes, even disabled people can help save their kingdom from evil." For once, we see a film breaking out of the more common Disney paradigm that the world can only be saved by ridiculously good looking, perfectly abled people (who often have bonus powers from somewhere).
Secondly, Garrett now faced some difficulties the other characters didn't (such as having to flee from a dragon -- which he couldn't see -- by jumping on rocks -- which he couldn't see -- across a pit of lava -- which he couldn't see. Thank goodness for assist birds). This made his struggles as a character all the more engaging. To be blunt,in terms of the story, it rather raised the ante on everything that he had to do. He had a harder time than the female lead, because she could see what she needed to do. Also, his experiences gave him the skills he needs to help save the kingdom. Helpful, that.
Thirdly, his experience of how he'd been treated when he lost his sight shaped his view of himself, her family, and their homeland. These factors all went into the motivations that moved him through the story and escalated the conflict. Garrett manages to both make strong points as to why he shouldn't be defined by his blindness and simultaneously define himself by it. (Oh, character angst.)
Okay, now that I've gone on and on about why Garret is definitely my favorite part of that movie, I'll circle back to my thesis. Namely, the rarity of disabled characters in books and movies. When they're included, it's generally in a "disability genre" and the books focus on being disabled instead of treating disabled characters like the abled ones.
Generally speaking, Disney -- the paragon of "kid appropriate" -- doesn't include things that it thinks will scar little kids, such as scars. Ever notice how the only characters in Disney films that maintain serious injuries throughout a flick are the bad guys?
- Ex: Scar has a scar for all of Lion King.
- Ex: Dorie's scars from the jelly fish attack only last on scene in Finding Nemo.
- Ex: Mulan. Every good guy in the movie gets seriously beat up on. Does it show? Nope. They bruise once then are magically restored. They can even regrow teeth.
- Exception: In Finding Nemo, Nemo has a bad fin, as does Gill. However, these aspects define the characters. They are not incidental aspects. They are essential aspects.
- Exception: The Hunchback of Notre Dame has a hunchbacked MC. On the other hand, that's the primary thing we learn about his character, and he still loses the girl to an abled, and ridiculously good looking (read: Disney ideal) supporting male.
If 18-20% of Americans are disabled, that would suggest that most kids, if they aren't disabled themselves, know or are related to a person with a disability. So would it really be traumatizing to see a disabled character in a book or movie treated the same as the other characters?
My previous works have not included a large number of disabled characters; however, I do have on character in my head with a disability, and her day will come. Disabilities are a fact of life, even in modern times, and I think it might be nice if books and movies written for kids reflected that.
What do you think? How do you feel about disabled characters in books and movies for kids? Have you ever written a disabled character?
** The title for this post derives from the song "Kids are Different," which is the theme song for the group Kids on the Block, a puppet troupe that teaches children about living with disabilities.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
October PSAs
October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
One year, when I was in high school, one of the organizations put up signs that said, "Support B
reast Cancer." I think we can all realize that they meant "Support Breast Cancer Research" but really it felt like one of those occasions when the jokes made themselves. "Really," my friends and I would say, "you want to support a disease that kills millions of women? Not sure we can get behind that."
Within two years, two women I love found lumps in their breasts. They're both better now, but it's scary. It's one of those things you don't think is going to happen to you or people you know. But it can, and early detection is incredibly helpful in the treatment and cure of cancer. So get mammograms and perform regular self-screenings. (Guys who might be reading this post, this goes for you too. A Y-chromosome does not except you from breast cancer. Sorry.) Combat breast cancer!
Or, as one friend used to say, "Save the ta-tas!"
October is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender History Month.
While I could seize this opportunity to go discuss ad nauseum various members of the LGBT community who have done great things for history, culture, literature, etc, I won't. (Even though my love for Oscar Wilde knows few bounds). Instead, I want to link to this youtube channel.
This is the channel for the It Gets Better Project, which was started by Dan Savage and his partner Terry Miller started in memory of Billy Lucas, who committed suicide at the age of 15 because of the sexual-orientation related bullying he endured.
It want to say this to anyone on this site enduring bullying and harassment right now. Life might suck right now. I remember when life sucked in high school. Trust me, I know what that harassment looks like and sounds like, and I know what it can do to a person. I also know it gets better. I think my friends who got harassed in high school would agree with me that it gets better. You'll go out in the world, and you'll find people who love you and accept you for you are. People who can love like that do exist. You've just got to hold on until you find them. Because it gets better, and you should be there to see it.
One year, when I was in high school, one of the organizations put up signs that said, "Support B
reast Cancer." I think we can all realize that they meant "Support Breast Cancer Research" but really it felt like one of those occasions when the jokes made themselves. "Really," my friends and I would say, "you want to support a disease that kills millions of women? Not sure we can get behind that."Within two years, two women I love found lumps in their breasts. They're both better now, but it's scary. It's one of those things you don't think is going to happen to you or people you know. But it can, and early detection is incredibly helpful in the treatment and cure of cancer. So get mammograms and perform regular self-screenings. (Guys who might be reading this post, this goes for you too. A Y-chromosome does not except you from breast cancer. Sorry.) Combat breast cancer!
Or, as one friend used to say, "Save the ta-tas!"
October is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender History Month.
While I could seize this opportunity to go discuss ad nauseum various members of the LGBT community who have done great things for history, culture, literature, etc, I won't. (Even though my love for Oscar Wilde knows few bounds). Instead, I want to link to this youtube channel.
This is the channel for the It Gets Better Project, which was started by Dan Savage and his partner Terry Miller started in memory of Billy Lucas, who committed suicide at the age of 15 because of the sexual-orientation related bullying he endured.
It want to say this to anyone on this site enduring bullying and harassment right now. Life might suck right now. I remember when life sucked in high school. Trust me, I know what that harassment looks like and sounds like, and I know what it can do to a person. I also know it gets better. I think my friends who got harassed in high school would agree with me that it gets better. You'll go out in the world, and you'll find people who love you and accept you for you are. People who can love like that do exist. You've just got to hold on until you find them. Because it gets better, and you should be there to see it.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
STOI
Hello, hello, fellow denizens of the Universe En Violet. I understand we have some new friends with us this week. Glad to see you all. Nice to have you with us. ^_^ Sit down, take a load off, stay a while. I'd offer you cookies and milk, but I've been given to understand that offering people internet cookies is considered poor form in many circles. At any rate, there's some cyber-milk (good for your cyber-bones) to my left. Enjoy.
Now, because my regular posting schedule is about to be interrupted by a blogfest, this Wednesday post is going to be lighter fair, Some Things Of Interest (STOI -- for those of you who missed my creating of that acronym) and linkaging. Enjoy.
First, some Ranting and Raving: I've done my share of ranting and raving on this site, and I'm sure there's more to come somewhere. But, until that time, these two women have done it so excellently that I've decided to share their words.
Kiersten White does a great post on the importance on owning one's genre and not being ashamed of it. Right on, girl!
And Tara Maya's post on the self-imposed deadlines (they do exist!) is awesome and imbued with plenty of fire.
Some Other Things: Justine Dell is having a contest to celebrate having 250+ followers. Go over and say hi! :-)
Also,a while back, Vicki gave me the Versatile Blogger Award, and I've been remiss in thanking her for that. It was very sweet of you to think of my, Vicki.
(As I have already participated in this Award previously, I think I'll skip posting the seven secrets again, but if you really want 'em -- can't say I blame you, it's an interesting list --, here's the link to my original list.)
How are you all doing today?
Now, because my regular posting schedule is about to be interrupted by a blogfest, this Wednesday post is going to be lighter fair, Some Things Of Interest (STOI -- for those of you who missed my creating of that acronym) and linkaging. Enjoy.
First, some Ranting and Raving: I've done my share of ranting and raving on this site, and I'm sure there's more to come somewhere. But, until that time, these two women have done it so excellently that I've decided to share their words.
Kiersten White does a great post on the importance on owning one's genre and not being ashamed of it. Right on, girl!
And Tara Maya's post on the self-imposed deadlines (they do exist!) is awesome and imbued with plenty of fire.
Some Other Things: Justine Dell is having a contest to celebrate having 250+ followers. Go over and say hi! :-)
Also,a while back, Vicki gave me the Versatile Blogger Award, and I've been remiss in thanking her for that. It was very sweet of you to think of my, Vicki.
(As I have already participated in this Award previously, I think I'll skip posting the seven secrets again, but if you really want 'em -- can't say I blame you, it's an interesting list --, here's the link to my original list.)
How are you all doing today?
Monday, September 20, 2010
Time to SPEAK
Today, I had other plans for posted material; however, due to a post by Janet Reid, a certain disturbing situation has come to my attention. A man named Dr. Wesley Scroggins wrote an editorial for the News-Leader in Springfield, Missouri. I've linked to it, because I'm sure you'll find it enlightening. I did. Until I read it, I hadn't realized that the book Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson is soft porn.
That's right. He called it soft porn.
Now, I've read the book Speak. I've listened to the audiobook. I've watched the movie. And let me tell you this, it is not porn. In no way, shape or form, do I believe these things could be confused.
In case you have not previously read the book or seen the movie, Speak deals with the story of a young woman who is raped and chooses not to speak out about it. It's a rough book to read, as it deals with the challenging topic of rape, elective mutism, and PTSD.
Yes, the book and movie contain rape scenes. They are not pornographic. I can only characterize Mr. Scroggin's assertions that they are as terrifying. If you think I might be wrong, read the book, watch the movie. Double check me. I'm begging you.
I am not a Christian, but I do know many, and I've yet to meet the one who finds these books out of keeping with the tenants of their faith. I've yet to meet any religious person who's said that of Speak.
I am not a parent, but I know that I would not shrink from letting my teenaged daughter or son read this book. I know my parents didn't shrink from letting me see it as a teenager, nor did the parents of my friends.
What I am is a human being, and what I know is that the best way for us to grow and understand ourselves as people is to turn to others and hear their stories, even fictional ones. To find the truths in the stories of others and allow ourselves to be moved by and to learn from them. I know that the book Speak had nothing but a positive impact on my life.
Today, I will begin writing letters to the school district where Mr. Scroggins lives and encourage them not to ban the book. If you would like to do the same, you can get the addresses from a link on Ms. Anderson's response on her website.
To hear another Myra McEntire speak out on this issue, click here. I found her response considered, eloquent, and pointed.
To read one of the most moving pieces I've ever seen on the Internet, click here. C.J. Redwine is one of the most qualified commenter on the subject I could possibly imagine, and her response demonstrates a poise and grace I don't think I could have managed.
That's right. He called it soft porn.
Now, I've read the book Speak. I've listened to the audiobook. I've watched the movie. And let me tell you this, it is not porn. In no way, shape or form, do I believe these things could be confused.
In case you have not previously read the book or seen the movie, Speak deals with the story of a young woman who is raped and chooses not to speak out about it. It's a rough book to read, as it deals with the challenging topic of rape, elective mutism, and PTSD.
Yes, the book and movie contain rape scenes. They are not pornographic. I can only characterize Mr. Scroggin's assertions that they are as terrifying. If you think I might be wrong, read the book, watch the movie. Double check me. I'm begging you.
I am not a Christian, but I do know many, and I've yet to meet the one who finds these books out of keeping with the tenants of their faith. I've yet to meet any religious person who's said that of Speak.
I am not a parent, but I know that I would not shrink from letting my teenaged daughter or son read this book. I know my parents didn't shrink from letting me see it as a teenager, nor did the parents of my friends.
What I am is a human being, and what I know is that the best way for us to grow and understand ourselves as people is to turn to others and hear their stories, even fictional ones. To find the truths in the stories of others and allow ourselves to be moved by and to learn from them. I know that the book Speak had nothing but a positive impact on my life.
Today, I will begin writing letters to the school district where Mr. Scroggins lives and encourage them not to ban the book. If you would like to do the same, you can get the addresses from a link on Ms. Anderson's response on her website.
To hear another Myra McEntire speak out on this issue, click here. I found her response considered, eloquent, and pointed.
To read one of the most moving pieces I've ever seen on the Internet, click here. C.J. Redwine is one of the most qualified commenter on the subject I could possibly imagine, and her response demonstrates a poise and grace I don't think I could have managed.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
French Books and My Inability to Find Them
I hereby issue an advance warning that this post will constitute a rant. It is also not particularly related to writing. [In a deep ominous voice] You've been forewarned.
Once upon a time, I decided that since I'd dedicated a decent amount of time and passion to learning French, it would be a rather nifty thing if all that French stayed in my brain. I rapidly came to the conclusion that a great way to do that would be to read French books. Sounds like a good plan, no?
That's when I hit the roadblock. Namely, it's really hard in the US to find books that aren't printed in English.
Is it because the people who run these stores don't believe there are enough multilingual Americans to have a market? Is this because they think everyone should just speak and read only in English?
I'm curious, where did this idea come from that Americans should only have to know one language? Or the idea that the rest of the world should learn to speak as we do? I was never consulted on these issues. What gives?
According to the 2000 census, 17.9% of Americans speak more than one language, and that number was on the rise from previous polling. To me, that seems to indicate some potential market for non-English books. So why are none being stocked?
Admittedly, I'm currently in a rather monotone, monolingual area, so I can almost understand why there aren't many alternate language books for sale in my area. (Though why my local bookstore carries so many English-French or English-Spanish dictionaries but no French or Spanish books is beyond me.)
But I've checked in other areas. Last time I found myself in Chicago, I checked out a bookshop. Number of French books, probably 15. Number of Spanish books, I'd say less than 50. It's Chicago! You'd expect some sort of diversity in product represented, right?
On some level, I'm willing to cede this idea of monolingual stores. In some areas, it is not cost effective to stock books that are not in English. I can accept that. But this problem, it seems to me, has extended to Internet book retailers.
A certain book retail site that shares a name with a river, a basin, and a population of warrior women has what I'd consider a very limited selection of French books. Sometimes, to find a book I'm looking for, I'd actually have to buy in Canada. Personally, if I wanted to spend all my time shopping Canadian, I'd move to Canada, or at least a lot closer to the border. But that might just be me.
Am I the only one frustrated at a lack of non-English material available for purchase in the US? Or am I alone in having trouble finding these things?
Once upon a time, I decided that since I'd dedicated a decent amount of time and passion to learning French, it would be a rather nifty thing if all that French stayed in my brain. I rapidly came to the conclusion that a great way to do that would be to read French books. Sounds like a good plan, no?
That's when I hit the roadblock. Namely, it's really hard in the US to find books that aren't printed in English.
Is it because the people who run these stores don't believe there are enough multilingual Americans to have a market? Is this because they think everyone should just speak and read only in English?
I'm curious, where did this idea come from that Americans should only have to know one language? Or the idea that the rest of the world should learn to speak as we do? I was never consulted on these issues. What gives?
According to the 2000 census, 17.9% of Americans speak more than one language, and that number was on the rise from previous polling. To me, that seems to indicate some potential market for non-English books. So why are none being stocked?
Admittedly, I'm currently in a rather monotone, monolingual area, so I can almost understand why there aren't many alternate language books for sale in my area. (Though why my local bookstore carries so many English-French or English-Spanish dictionaries but no French or Spanish books is beyond me.)
But I've checked in other areas. Last time I found myself in Chicago, I checked out a bookshop. Number of French books, probably 15. Number of Spanish books, I'd say less than 50. It's Chicago! You'd expect some sort of diversity in product represented, right?
On some level, I'm willing to cede this idea of monolingual stores. In some areas, it is not cost effective to stock books that are not in English. I can accept that. But this problem, it seems to me, has extended to Internet book retailers.
A certain book retail site that shares a name with a river, a basin, and a population of warrior women has what I'd consider a very limited selection of French books. Sometimes, to find a book I'm looking for, I'd actually have to buy in Canada. Personally, if I wanted to spend all my time shopping Canadian, I'd move to Canada, or at least a lot closer to the border. But that might just be me.
Am I the only one frustrated at a lack of non-English material available for purchase in the US? Or am I alone in having trouble finding these things?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Have People Lost Their Minds?
It's occurred to me lately that some people are bonkers. I know, most of you realized this a while ago, and I thought I knew it. But, every now and then I get surprised by the sort of things that push people over the edge. I'm talking about things like books and television shows.
That's right, people have threatened murder of books and things on TV.
Are they kidding me?
These people realize we're discussing things that occur in books and on TV, right? These, almost invariably, are not real, or, at least, aren't real enough to get this worked up over. So why are people contemplating murder because of them? I haven't the foggiest.
Now, because death threats will invariably be linked in my mind to this man, I'm embedding a video of Russell Brand. It's definitely worth watching. (WARNING: This movie would, if there were a Ratings Board patrolling it, probably weigh in with an R-rating, because of the cursing and some minor sexual references. I, personally, would call this more PG-13, but I'm told I'm not the one who gets to make these decisions. So, you have been warned.)
Okay, for those of you who haven't/wouldn't/wanted to but for various reasons involving monkeys and screw-drivers couldn't watching the clip, I'll pull out the main bits:
"How do you get riled for something on the telly? 'I'm not enjoying this. I'm really not enjoying it. I don't like him. I don't like him at all. I'm gonna kill him!' What's the tipping point? It's silly. Turn over, or turn it down, or look over there. There are so many options. I mean, take murder a bit more seriously."
I've got to agree with Mr. Brand. People should take murder a bit more seriously. (Pause: I am not, in this post, condoning any sort of murder. However, I do believe that murder should, by and large, be taken seriously. Which means, people, that I think it should be committed for good reasons. Not, say, because you didn't like someone's joke, or you thought their book was in some way sacrilegious, or really any motivation involving Carmel Machiattos. I take murder seriously.)
This thought process all came about because of a post I read online, which contained an article about two authors who are adapting Little Women by Louisa May Alcott to include paranormal aspects. While I have no specific feelings about rewriting older novels to include paranormal creatures, I was absolutely stunned to hear that these authors had received death threats.
Seriously?
Seriously, people?
These authors are actually in pretty good company. J.K. Rowling has received threats. (Because, you know, when she wrote love is the most powerful form of magic, what she obviously meant was, 'Okay, kiddies, let's go worship Satan.' Yeah, I think not.) I'm told that Stephenie Meyer is not immune either. (Regardless of my opinion of the series, it's certainly not something I'd ever die or kill over.) And a bunch of people apparently threatened to kill a reality TV show star because they thought she was dating Justin Bieber. What gives people? What happened to moderation, self-control, and priorities in life?
I have, in the past, been seriously riled up things I read in books or on the internet, heard on TV or the radio, or realized were actually comments made in earnest and not amusing parodies of win-nut crazies. And, despite this fact, I have never sent someone a death threat.
Why? Because, as mentioned above, I take murder seriously (most of the time). Oh, and because sending people death threats because of books or jokes they tell on TV is pretty freaking stupid. There's that too.
So, a shout-out to, well, everyone. Please, don't kill anyone, and, I beg of you, reserve your death-threatening for truly deserving situations.
Okay, minor rant over. Have a charming day, all. :-)
That's right, people have threatened murder of books and things on TV.
Are they kidding me?
These people realize we're discussing things that occur in books and on TV, right? These, almost invariably, are not real, or, at least, aren't real enough to get this worked up over. So why are people contemplating murder because of them? I haven't the foggiest.
Now, because death threats will invariably be linked in my mind to this man, I'm embedding a video of Russell Brand. It's definitely worth watching. (WARNING: This movie would, if there were a Ratings Board patrolling it, probably weigh in with an R-rating, because of the cursing and some minor sexual references. I, personally, would call this more PG-13, but I'm told I'm not the one who gets to make these decisions. So, you have been warned.)
Okay, for those of you who haven't/wouldn't/wanted to but for various reasons involving monkeys and screw-drivers couldn't watching the clip, I'll pull out the main bits:
"How do you get riled for something on the telly? 'I'm not enjoying this. I'm really not enjoying it. I don't like him. I don't like him at all. I'm gonna kill him!' What's the tipping point? It's silly. Turn over, or turn it down, or look over there. There are so many options. I mean, take murder a bit more seriously."
I've got to agree with Mr. Brand. People should take murder a bit more seriously. (Pause: I am not, in this post, condoning any sort of murder. However, I do believe that murder should, by and large, be taken seriously. Which means, people, that I think it should be committed for good reasons. Not, say, because you didn't like someone's joke, or you thought their book was in some way sacrilegious, or really any motivation involving Carmel Machiattos. I take murder seriously.)
This thought process all came about because of a post I read online, which contained an article about two authors who are adapting Little Women by Louisa May Alcott to include paranormal aspects. While I have no specific feelings about rewriting older novels to include paranormal creatures, I was absolutely stunned to hear that these authors had received death threats.
Seriously?
Seriously, people?
These authors are actually in pretty good company. J.K. Rowling has received threats. (Because, you know, when she wrote love is the most powerful form of magic, what she obviously meant was, 'Okay, kiddies, let's go worship Satan.' Yeah, I think not.) I'm told that Stephenie Meyer is not immune either. (Regardless of my opinion of the series, it's certainly not something I'd ever die or kill over.) And a bunch of people apparently threatened to kill a reality TV show star because they thought she was dating Justin Bieber. What gives people? What happened to moderation, self-control, and priorities in life?
I have, in the past, been seriously riled up things I read in books or on the internet, heard on TV or the radio, or realized were actually comments made in earnest and not amusing parodies of win-nut crazies. And, despite this fact, I have never sent someone a death threat.
Why? Because, as mentioned above, I take murder seriously (most of the time). Oh, and because sending people death threats because of books or jokes they tell on TV is pretty freaking stupid. There's that too.
So, a shout-out to, well, everyone. Please, don't kill anyone, and, I beg of you, reserve your death-threatening for truly deserving situations.
Okay, minor rant over. Have a charming day, all. :-)
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
The F Word. Really?
Once upon a time, when my friends and I had consumed much too much soda and consequently decided we were the most amusing people in the world and understood the secrets of the universe (seriously, what do they put in coke these days?), we got around to talk around people who really bugged us. Not specific people, just certain types of people. Topping the list were people who cussed for no apparent reason. You know, those people who, when a pencil point breaks, say, "Oh $*@#."
(Second on the list were people who, whenever someone curses would say, "Oh, you said the $*$#-word." Because a) yes, indeed, they did, we all heard, why do you feel compelled to repeat it? and b) yes, you git, and so did you. But those people are mostly besides the point. Except that I knew one and he bugged me.)
Luckily, such people, who cussed all the time and for no apparent reason, were relatively rare. Otherwise, I probably would have gotten in a lot of trouble in my past for slapping people silly. Because, sometimes it's just really hard to resist.
If you're wondering what inspired this little rant, well, a while ago I saw several blog posts about the use of the f-word in YA and cursing in general. There were a lot of good thoughts brought up, such as whether or not the word is appropriate in the context, whether using the f-word might be being edgy for the sake of being edgy, and what the swearing does to the size of one's audience.
Well, I admit, some of my characters in my contemporary works curse sometimes. That's for a couple reasons:
~Teens swear these days. It's true. It occurs. So, sometimes, it just feels like the way the character might have reacted, felt, or spoken.
~Sometimes, the situation calls for it. (You don't almost run someone down with your car and so, "oh my goodness." At least, I wouldn't. If I thought I'd almost killed someone with my vehicle, I'd have to be bleeped out. Unless my mother were in the car. No, maybe even if my mother were in the car.)
~Yes, some people are just like that. They curse. Even if I'd have wanted to slap them in real life, some people are the sort of people who will curse, just as other people are the sort that won't. So we have to let them do that.
Still, my characters don't swear all the time, and they don't chuck out the f-word, and they don't curse for no apparent reason. This is also for several good reasons:
~There's a time and a place for such language, and a large part of YA events occur in places that are not the time and place. Last I checked, most teens won't use the f-word or sundry other curses in the presents of a teacher or their parents or their boss. Situations may vary based on relationships involved, but a lot of people have some list of places where they can't/won't swear. Since those places probably include schools, houses, and work, that's a real limit to where a character in a YA can curse.
~It's annoying. This is probably a belief more related to my views, but I can't stand people whose vocabulary would entirely need to be bleeped out on the radio. I just want to slap them upside the head with my thesaurus and say, "Don't you know any other words?" Seriously, it gets old.
~Not everyone cusses. Some people don't. So, one can't just have every character swearing everything six ways to Sunday. It won't make sense from all of the characters. Also, it could alienate or discomfort readers who don't like a lot of cursing, or, in YA and MG, readers whose parents don't like a lot of cursing.
How do you feel about cursing in your writing? In other people's writing? In real life?
(Second on the list were people who, whenever someone curses would say, "Oh, you said the $*$#-word." Because a) yes, indeed, they did, we all heard, why do you feel compelled to repeat it? and b) yes, you git, and so did you. But those people are mostly besides the point. Except that I knew one and he bugged me.)
Luckily, such people, who cussed all the time and for no apparent reason, were relatively rare. Otherwise, I probably would have gotten in a lot of trouble in my past for slapping people silly. Because, sometimes it's just really hard to resist.
If you're wondering what inspired this little rant, well, a while ago I saw several blog posts about the use of the f-word in YA and cursing in general. There were a lot of good thoughts brought up, such as whether or not the word is appropriate in the context, whether using the f-word might be being edgy for the sake of being edgy, and what the swearing does to the size of one's audience.
Well, I admit, some of my characters in my contemporary works curse sometimes. That's for a couple reasons:
~Teens swear these days. It's true. It occurs. So, sometimes, it just feels like the way the character might have reacted, felt, or spoken.
~Sometimes, the situation calls for it. (You don't almost run someone down with your car and so, "oh my goodness." At least, I wouldn't. If I thought I'd almost killed someone with my vehicle, I'd have to be bleeped out. Unless my mother were in the car. No, maybe even if my mother were in the car.)
~Yes, some people are just like that. They curse. Even if I'd have wanted to slap them in real life, some people are the sort of people who will curse, just as other people are the sort that won't. So we have to let them do that.
Still, my characters don't swear all the time, and they don't chuck out the f-word, and they don't curse for no apparent reason. This is also for several good reasons:
~There's a time and a place for such language, and a large part of YA events occur in places that are not the time and place. Last I checked, most teens won't use the f-word or sundry other curses in the presents of a teacher or their parents or their boss. Situations may vary based on relationships involved, but a lot of people have some list of places where they can't/won't swear. Since those places probably include schools, houses, and work, that's a real limit to where a character in a YA can curse.
~It's annoying. This is probably a belief more related to my views, but I can't stand people whose vocabulary would entirely need to be bleeped out on the radio. I just want to slap them upside the head with my thesaurus and say, "Don't you know any other words?" Seriously, it gets old.
~Not everyone cusses. Some people don't. So, one can't just have every character swearing everything six ways to Sunday. It won't make sense from all of the characters. Also, it could alienate or discomfort readers who don't like a lot of cursing, or, in YA and MG, readers whose parents don't like a lot of cursing.
How do you feel about cursing in your writing? In other people's writing? In real life?
Monday, March 1, 2010
Brillinace
I am kicking over to this rant, because I think it is genius. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Okay, what happened to English?
No, this is a serious question. What happened to the English language? We all used to speak it. I know I'm still speaking. I thought the people I knew were still speaking it. Apparently, I thought wrong.
Today, in rehearsal for Arcadia, we ran across the line "Mr. Chater being engaged in closing the door." In the script it functions as a pun, because Mr. Chater is standing in a stable. But he's trying to close the door after the horse (his wife) has already run away (already slept with another character). Neither of the actors of stage knew that, because they were both, wait for it, unfamiliar with the idiom.
Unfamiliar with the idiom!?!
What?
How does that even happen? Some idioms, such as this one, have achieved a certain level of usage in English writing that they are tantamount to cliches. Writers abandon using them in their traditional context, because they are so over-used. And yet, in a group of maybe ten people, only two knew the expression. Two!
And this isn't the first time I have experienced this. Not too long ago, I used to the expression "avoid something like the plague" -- a simile so cliche that it should be avoided like the plague -- and the person to whom I was speaking just stared at me blankly. He had never heard the expression before. All I could think was, 'My god, what is happening to English?'
Seriously, what is happening to it? Sure, not everyone reads idiom dictionaries when they're bored -- did I mention I really am a loser? -- but these are expressions that are ridiculously common. How did they fall out of peoples minds? How could they have dropped from the general lexicon? What language quake occurred that these once common expressions have slipped from use?
What happened?
Today, in rehearsal for Arcadia, we ran across the line "Mr. Chater being engaged in closing the door." In the script it functions as a pun, because Mr. Chater is standing in a stable. But he's trying to close the door after the horse (his wife) has already run away (already slept with another character). Neither of the actors of stage knew that, because they were both, wait for it, unfamiliar with the idiom.
Unfamiliar with the idiom!?!
What?
How does that even happen? Some idioms, such as this one, have achieved a certain level of usage in English writing that they are tantamount to cliches. Writers abandon using them in their traditional context, because they are so over-used. And yet, in a group of maybe ten people, only two knew the expression. Two!
And this isn't the first time I have experienced this. Not too long ago, I used to the expression "avoid something like the plague" -- a simile so cliche that it should be avoided like the plague -- and the person to whom I was speaking just stared at me blankly. He had never heard the expression before. All I could think was, 'My god, what is happening to English?'
Seriously, what is happening to it? Sure, not everyone reads idiom dictionaries when they're bored -- did I mention I really am a loser? -- but these are expressions that are ridiculously common. How did they fall out of peoples minds? How could they have dropped from the general lexicon? What language quake occurred that these once common expressions have slipped from use?
What happened?
Friday, March 6, 2009
Censorship
Anyone who's ever had their work overseen by a more conservative body probably knows that pain of censorship, not to mention the annoying angst of wait, can we say that? that comes with it.
Now, I get to experience censorship's manifold joys as we begin rehearsing our new production, Tom Stoppard's Arcadia. The play is witty, hilarious, and deep. Sadly, after reading the script, many of us dread the announcement of which laugh-out-loud lines were going to be sacrificed to the puritanical censors. When my director said that only the F-word would have to be excised, we cheered.
Still, we may not be safe. Arcadia commits some of the cardinal sins of "adult" work.
- It uses real words, the kind people use in everyday life (read: the kind of language the school administration would like to pretend none of us know). Somehow, I doubt they were all hit on the head and forgot that none of these words are unfamiliar to, well, anyone. Still, they probably won't be happy when Hannah is called a bitch. And, I think if someone actually used the F-word, heads would roll.
-In between historical debates and philosophical interludes about the nature of truth and time, Stoppard's characters talk about sex -- the force they didn't teach you about in physics class. The administration lives under the misguided impression that nobody knows what it is. I think they're hoping that if no one mentions it, then nobody will ever figure it out. Too bad for them. I just want to see my administrator's face when they get to the line "the Byron lot will get their dicks caught in their zips." It should be priceless.
Bugger censorship. Who needs it? If someone doesn't like the picture, they should look at something else. Though, since Arcadia, isn't showing anything but the real world, I wonder what there will be left to look at.
Now, I get to experience censorship's manifold joys as we begin rehearsing our new production, Tom Stoppard's Arcadia. The play is witty, hilarious, and deep. Sadly, after reading the script, many of us dread the announcement of which laugh-out-loud lines were going to be sacrificed to the puritanical censors. When my director said that only the F-word would have to be excised, we cheered.
Still, we may not be safe. Arcadia commits some of the cardinal sins of "adult" work.
- It uses real words, the kind people use in everyday life (read: the kind of language the school administration would like to pretend none of us know). Somehow, I doubt they were all hit on the head and forgot that none of these words are unfamiliar to, well, anyone. Still, they probably won't be happy when Hannah is called a bitch. And, I think if someone actually used the F-word, heads would roll.
-In between historical debates and philosophical interludes about the nature of truth and time, Stoppard's characters talk about sex -- the force they didn't teach you about in physics class. The administration lives under the misguided impression that nobody knows what it is. I think they're hoping that if no one mentions it, then nobody will ever figure it out. Too bad for them. I just want to see my administrator's face when they get to the line "the Byron lot will get their dicks caught in their zips." It should be priceless.
Bugger censorship. Who needs it? If someone doesn't like the picture, they should look at something else. Though, since Arcadia, isn't showing anything but the real world, I wonder what there will be left to look at.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
