Thursday, August 14, 2014

Actually, flogging is far too good for internet trolls.

Whatever religion you are (whether atheist, agnostic, some various christian denomination, or even the complete other end of the spectrum, with the most ultra-strict sect on earth) there are always things that the majority of humankind has in common. And one of those things is the belief that humans should be treated with humanity.

I hope the profundity of that word choice is not lost on you. That you really feel how powerful it is that we linguistically equate kindness and decency with what it means to be human.

I don't think anyone reading this could formulate any sort of argument for the other side. No matter how you insist that humans do not deserve the decency of a charitable hand and the benefit of a doubt, the world at large would rise up against you and state with the authority of a million million voices that you are incontrovertibly wrong.

I've seen it happen.

The 9-11 attacks are one such example. In the months following those plane crashes, no one stood up and said "So some people died. Who cares? They were probably annoying corporate jerks anyway." No one insisted that we just chill out, because the loss of human life didn't actually matter. Instead, dozens of people formed immediate rescue teams, risking life and limb to help those trapped in the wreckage. Hundreds of firefighters, cops, emt workers, and even ordinary civilians joined the ranks shortly thereafter. Thousands of people spread the word of courageous acts and selfless assistance given. And millions of people felt a little surge of pride in the way that humanity had come together.

Why, then, do internet trolls even exist? If we do, as a whole, agree that feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, and comforting the downtrodden are the worthiest of goals, why do we, as individuals, work so hard to bring about the opposite?

Yeah, humans are flaky by nature. We forget things so quickly. This post 9-11 world isn't so different from the pre-attack. Not anymore, anyway. We constantly need reminders.

SO CONSIDER THIS A REMINDER.

Tell me, who benefits from saying "Ooooh, dat gurl so ugly!"

What material or spiritual gain comes from "This is the stupidest @#%$ video ever. &^%#$%@ moron!"

Is anybody anywhere in the world better off because you made sure to let people know that some arbitrary chick's wedding dress is heinous, or because you drove a young girl completely out of social media by making evil commentary about the loss of her father, or by threatening death to someone who believes in a different religion than you do?

Well, are they?

You don't have an answer to that, because there isn't one. Nobody is better off, including the troll who said it. No one gains anything. No one wins anything. The net worth of trolling comments is completely negative. If you gain nothing whatsoever, it would seem logical that the most selfish thing to do would be to stop altogether. And the most humane thing to do would be to stop altogether.

Funny how we're all on the same side of this, and yet we continue to taunt. To jeer. To tear down. To post derp faces, and undisguised political propaganda, and vitriolic comments.

I'm not perfect. I've said dumb things before too. We all do. But HUMANS ARE BETTER THAN THAT. We've all seen it. We know what we can do when we come together. So come together, already.

**NOTE:

I would like to make a brief comment on the difference between constructive criticism and trolling. One is helpful, and the other is purposeless. "This song sucks" is trolling. "I like the chorus, but bridge doesn't connect very well. It's often helpful to use a g chord in this instance. See if that helps." is constructive feedback.

Learn the difference. Love it. Use it.

Peace out.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

I do not like the cone of shame

I haven't written a post in FOREVER.







I want to write more, but I keep not having ideas. What should I write about? We could play the short story game where different people give me story aspects, and I try to mash them up. Or whatever. Help me out here. 

0:)

Saturday, April 5, 2014

Frozen: You do realize Elsa's not the hero, right?

Anna is.

Don't get me wrong, Elsa's pretty fabulous. Who wouldn't admire some snazzy ice powers, a fractal palace, and Idina Menzel's singing voice?

But people have gotten the idea that Elsa is the to-be-idolized superhero. These are the top 24 image results if you google "frozen". 23 are actually about the disney movie, and 18 have people in them. Of those 18, 14 have Elsa in it, and 9 feature only Elsa, or have her as the central figure. (10 if you count that one where her and Anna are both central) Only 4 (5 if you count that one) feature Anna centrally or alone.
People have been going crazy with cosplays of Elsa. 
It's impossible to even count the number of blogs and statuses and tweets about letting it go, and not hiding "who we really are". You get the idea. 

All good things. She's pretty cool. But while the story does revolve around her and her gifts, she's not the hero. As a matter of fact, she causes half the problems in the story, albeit unintentionally.

With all the explosions of "Let it Go", people seem to have drastically and tragically undermined Anna, who is the actual hero. Why is she the hero?

1) Her courage

 Well, it's not because her courageous sacrifice was the one that saved the day. Don't be silly.



But seriously...

Sure, she was silly about some charming guy. But let's all be honest, who here hasn't been, at least once? (You may replace "guy" with "girl" if applicable.)

Anyone who says "no" is either lying or a severe sociopath. Anyway, yes, she made some bad choices. But so did Elsa. So does everyone. There's no such thing as a good story hero who makes all the right choices all the time.

BUT

she made the brave choices when they really mattered. Anna was the one who ran after her sister, even when everyone else was afraid. She had enough guts to try to make things right, even though she nearly died multiple times. All of the choices that took real courage were made by Anna.

All Elsa did was push people away, hide away, and run away when the going got tough.

Not saying I blame her. She had good intentions, and many of us would have done the same thing. But if we're going to idolize someone, let it be the brave girl. Let it be the one who chose to sacrifice true love, and her own life, in order to save her sister.



2) The "Let it Go" Message

People talk about Elsa and Let it Go in "inspiring" ways. And I don't quotation inspiring because I'm being sarcastic. Their message is that we should have courage to like the music we like, or wear the clothes we want, or go into the career that we love without fear of silly people who would make fun of us for it. As if it actually matters that someone likes some music that isn't popular. And that's a fine message. Worthy. Excellent. Etc.

But I honestly think that this message is conveyed by Anna a whole heck of a lot better than it is by Elsa. Elsa just happens to be the one who sang the song.

Elsa's example tells us that running away and hiding from the world is the way to solve our problems. But Anna chased after her sister, and loved her anyway, whatever had already happened. And it was that love that ultimately saved the day, both for the kingdom, and for Elsa's ice-queen problems. She's the one that tells us that we should love people, even when they're different.

And that's the message that we should be getting.

3) Anna is better to relate to

While this is not necessarily a technical aspect of what makes someone the MC, as opposed to just an important side character, I think it's something that most of us don't realize about this movie.

Part of why people idolize Elsa is because she was different than the others, and then broke away from it all in an attempt at understanding who she really was. We look up to that because every one of us, at some time or another, feels like we're so different, and no one gets us, and blah blah blah.

But let's be brutally honest here. Is any one of you really different in the ice-queen way?

(If the answer is yes, message me immediately. Because I need to see the cool awesome element powers.)

But for most of you, (read: all) the answer is no. I'm not. But I do still feel different all the time. Judged. alone. But whatever your differences are, they are human differences. They may seem hard at the time. It may seem like no one else gets it. You may feel very, very alone.


 But you aren't a magical queen. You aren't a monster or a demigod or an alien. You're human just like we all are.

And, surprise surprise, everyone one of us feels like that sometimes. The best thing about Anna is that she shows that in a human way. She's a girl that hates being alone, but is a lot. She wants to love and just enjoy life, and she's locked in this empty, dreary castle. Her sister shuts her out. Her parents die. Things aren't totally rosy for her. But she handles it in an optimistic, exuberant, positive way. A way that we really could take a lesson from.

So yeah, I've never felt what it's like to have to hide secret magic powers from my subjects, and I never will. Pretending like my problems are even a little bit similar to that is... well, pretty silly. But I have felt alone. I have felt sad. I have felt neglected or shut out. And I'd like to hope that I can face all of it with as rosy a demeanor as Anna did.

4) Screen time

Let's just get silly and technical for a moment. But usually the main protagonist of a story has the majority of the screen time in a movie/page time in a book. Same is true here. Anna is shown at least twice as often as Elsa is. Maybe more. But I'm not going to go time it.

All in all

Yeah, they are both important. And I'm not trying to diminish Elsa or anything, because she is cool. But I just wanted people to realize how cool Anna was, and let her get a little of her share of the limelight.

I liked the movie as a whole. Especially the sisterly cuteness. It's not a relationship aspect that gets much attention, and it really should.










In conclusion, I'll just leave this here. Ciao. 










Tuesday, November 5, 2013

I'll say it once again

People who get uber picky about book-to-movies DRIVE ME CRAZY.

Sure, I'll be the first to admit that this is partly because I hate feeling judged. And if I liked a movie translation, but everyone else hated it, they give me this look. I'm sure they don't even mean to, but they do. It's like their opinion of my intelligence has just fallen once again.

(I give the same look to people who actually liked Twilight.)

BUT

The rest of the reason that this bothers me is because it makes no logical sense. Like at all.

If you feel like something about it was badly done, then by all means, crucify it to your heart's content. Badly made movies make me sad. But if "they changed stuff" is the only reason that you didn't like it, then I feel sorry for you, because you probably find very little enjoyment in life.

Here's Why:

Now before we continue, let me just clarify. I'm not saying that people should be okay with a crap movie being made out of their favorite book. (Or tv show, for that matter.)

(Why is Shyamalan still allowed to make movies?)

It is perfectly acceptable to be sad about this stuff.

But here's the thing. Writing stories and making movie stories are two totally separate genres. The basics of storytelling in both are essentially the same (which is why books can be made into movies at all), but the specifics are very different.

Let's take the Hunger Games as a prime example. Enormous sections of that book are of Katniss running around in the woods. It's interesting reading because we are in her mind, seeing what she thinks, following along as she plots stuff, and feeling what she feels.


But if the movie had stuck to the book with 100% accuracy, this would be the entire movie:




Do you see what I mean? The movie makers HAD to change things. They had to take what was essential narration in the book and turn it into dialogue or images or somehow transfer that knowledge to us without using wildlife-documentary-voiceover.

Movies can not be the same as books. They don't work. It's like taking the score to an opera and trying to translate it into a painting. The ups and downs and fasts and slows that work in a moving piece of music can not come across by copying them with brushstrokes.

Its the same for a movie. The length has to change. The dialogue has to change. The type of show vs. tell has to change. Inner monologue is no longer a function of narration, but of the look on an actor's face, or a twitch in the actor's hand. Scene setting is no longer a function of nicely combined words, but of an actual picture spliced together by talented design artists.

Pacing, characterization, and action sequences all have to change in order to actually work in an audiovisual format.

And sometimes that means shortening your favorite scene. Sometimes it means leaving some things out and making it work without them. Sometimes it means adding some random other things in, so that the pacing of the story even makes sense visually. That can be disappointing.

But sometimes, for the greater good, things have to change.

Sometimes those changes fail. And we all weep.

And sometimes, though not always, those changes actually make things better. Just because something is the original doesn't make it the best choice. If that were true, every published book would be a first draft. No editing. No proofreading. Nothing.

And libraries would be the most useless places on earth.

Taking that a little further still, lots of these choices are entirely subjective. Just because you hated that choice doesn't mean it was a bad decision.

I admit, I was glad when they left Tom Bombadil out of the LOTR. Some people love him and were really angry that he got cut. But I fail to see the point of him in any way whatsoever. Random dude in yellow boots who prances around in the creepy forest. Right.

These same people also very often refuse to admit that LOTR is a tour-guide type fantasy. It's not plot-driven and it's not meant to be. This isn't bad, by any means. I mean, Tolkien did it on purpose. But it does mean that Tom isn't there because Tolkien had some kind of important role for him to play. He's just there because it was the only way the hobbits could get safely through both the old forest and the barrow downs. Neither of which actually matter, in the grand scheme. But they're on the tour. They exist in his world, and therefore must be seen in great detail.

Only Tolkien could have even gotten away with something like that. If I wrote a Tom Bombadil into one of my stories, I'd get form rejected faster than Bilbo can lunge for the ring on Frodo's throat.

Movies can't do that either. Not only does it not advance the plot, but there is just not time in a movie. If you want a tour movie, go to the non-fiction. As far as actual plot goes, the story is straight up better off just getting to the freaking point.

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble. But what I am saying is this: If the acting is good, and the camera work is good, and the music is good, and the effects are good, and the script is good, and the pacing is good, and the costumes are good, and the editing is good, that means it is a good movie. You don't have to like it. But your disapproval does not change it from a good movie to a bad one. And if it is a good movie...

what are people getting upset about?

But Harry Potter is supposed to have green eyes, and Daniel Radcliff has blue!!!!!! The apocalypse is upon us!!!

Yes, I digress into sarcasm here. But the point remains valid. Has the world ended? Has the non-inclusion of green contacts actually ruined the story?

Uh, no. No it didn't.

As long as the stuff they change was changed well or at least non-intrusively, then no problem exists.

You're allowed to still not like them. That's fine. Not everyone likes every movie. But don't be getting all "BUT THEY CHANGED STUFF!" on me. I will punch you in the face. It can be a good movie AND have changed stuff in it at the same time.

MIND FLIP!!

I reiterate:  If you feel like something about it was badly done, that's fine. But if "they changed stuff" is the only reason that you didn't like it, then I feel sorry for you, because you probably find very little enjoyment in life.

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Cultural Destruction

This is going to be a very difficult post for me for two reasons.

1) It is enormously difficult for me to strip down a 5 or 6 dimension idea down to 1 dimension (ie words). It always has been. But it is even more difficult for me to do so with a real topic or concept, as opposed to when I'm just joking around, which is most of the time.

2) I hate admitting weakness in any form. Hate it. So much so that one of my biggest personality flaws is my tendency to stretch the truth. Without actually lying, I constantly try to phrase everything in such a way that no blame for wrongdoing ever falls to me. This is actually something I really despise about my personality, but it always seems to happen before I realize it.

And in this post, I will attempt to do both.

Recently, on facebook, I had a sort of mini-discussion that really got me thinking about certain things. The prompt: "This isn't me being annoyed. I want an actual answer if anyone has one. But why is it that, as a very general rule, guys have no problem with non-jokingly saying stuff like "yeah, I'm pretty great" or "It's just because I'm really hot" whereas girls don't?"

I got a lot of answers. And most of them were pretty wise. One being "Girls are culturally raised to believe we're not good enough. We don't measure up to some imaginary bar of success. Guys are traditionally taught they can do anything they want to. Thus many of our cultural inequalities."

That, obviously, was posted by a girl. Then another later comment (which is far too long and wordy to repost here at the moment), pulled out the standard guy retort (which I have heard so many times I almost want to gouge my eyes out). That being the whole "Guys like that are boys, not men, but too many girls go for them anyway. Then they brush off the ones that ARE there, saying "I like you, but only as friends." and then wonder where all the men are."

Ok, so that is true to an extent, but the reason it bothers me that so many males spout it as the real problem is this: If you're claiming to be one of the "real men", and you're not chasing down those girls solely based on beauty, don't you want one of the "real women" and not the dumb girls that do act that way? So why are you complaining? Where exactly is the problem?

I'll tell you. The problem is that men stereotype the women as ALL doing this just like the women stereotype the men as ALL being idiots. When it's not true on either front.

I could write an entire post on that answer. But I won't, because this is about something different.

Anyway, at the end of the standard retort, this comment basically said "I don't agree that we raise girls to think that way. I believe it is our choices in life that make us feel this way."

Another part of the above long comment: "Most women I know and that I associate with are strong and independent women. I remember thinking when I met your mother, this is a women that takes care of herself and succeeds without a man in her life, physically, spiritually, and emotionally. She was already stable not waiting for a man in her life to accomplish these things."

I agree. Most of the women I know are all of those things too.

Well, if that's true, what about me?

Therefore, the point is not that women aren't capable, but that they don't feel they are. Because I know a lot of women who are those things in ALL THE WAYS. And yet those people are the same ones that constantly talk about how they aren't as good as everyone else, and how they suck at things.

Like me.

I was raised in a super great family. With good parents and good schooling and plenty of the material necessities in life (but not too many to make me a snot. I hope.) I feel reasonably confident in saying that I have done my very best to make good choices in my life. I have never (to my knowledge) done something so stupid that my life is forever altered by it. I try every single day to be a good person. I am smart and brave and strong and loyal and tough and happy and amusing and semi-responsible and flexible and slow to anger and good at an enormous number of crafty things and great at 3D puzzles and enthusiastic and nerdy and solid and sturdy and....

I won't go on. You get the idea.

Yet, despite being all of that, I constantly feel inferior to just about everyone I know.

Judging by the reactions of the perfectly good and upstanding men (and some women too) who replied to my earlier query, men clearly don't agree that they are teaching the girls to think this way. Most people don't agree that anyone is teaching girls to think this way.

Still, an overwhelming number of perfectly competent and excellent women are constantly degrading themselves and taking anti-depressants and live that secret stressful existence of never being up to par.

I do every single day. (Not take anti-depressants, of course. I'm nowhere near as wussy as that.) But every single time I look in the mirror, I remember how not-as-pretty-as-everyone-else I am, and somehow that trumps all of the awesome things in that earlier list I just made. Every time I fail at something, that somehow trumps every great thing I've ever accomplished. Every time I think of all the cool women that I know, I think about which things they can do that are better than things I can do. I think about which accomplishments they've achieved that I still haven't managed. I think about their sense of fashion vs. my incompetence, or their sense of humor vs. my awkwardness, or their social skills vs. my incompetence and awkwardness.

And I'm 143% certain that I am not the only one.

But if this isn't being taught, per se, why does it exist?

I have a theory. The theory of the subconscious. Because let's think about it. How many times in a movie or book or song or tv show do you hear the woman say "I'm coming with you" and the man replies "No, it's too dangerous"?

Harmless enough, right? Until you realize that when a man is talking to another man he never says "it's too dangerous" but "Get your butt over here. Stop being such a girl."

(I've lost count of how many times Arthur has done this in the 4 seasons of Merlin I've watched thus far.)

No one is saying women are incapable. No one is trying to imply it. But the implication is still there. Little girls watch these movies and get this subconscious idea in their heads that men can face danger, because men can do whatever they want. But women can't go with them because the danger is too much for them, and bad things will happen.

This would both explain why girls feel this way, and why men don't have a clue that it's a real thing.

How many times in a show or a book do you see the heroine get into mortal danger, and the only way out of it is when the hero comes to the rescue?

How many video games do you see where the main character is a man, and one of the objectives in the game is to seduce some scantily clad lady, as though a woman is worth nothing more than a bullet point on a list of things to accomplish?

How many times do you see the "strong female character" become as masculine as possible in order to accomplish her strong female goals?

How many older movies have the plot revolve around the monster capturing the helpless woman (who faints every time it is near) over and over again. If I remember correctly, in the Creature From the Black Lagoon, that woman screams and faints in front of the creature like 6 or 7 times.

And above all other things, how MANY FREAKING TIMES do you see some girl cast as "the fat character" when she is skinnier than most average women? How often are the "ugly girls" actually very attractive? How frequently do the men fall in love with the beautiful character based on a 3 second glance from across the sidewalk?

I just googled strong female character and got pictures of a bunch of scantily clad ladies in sexy poses. WHAT?

I won't go on. Again, you get the point.

Thus 

I agree that this doesn't happen so much anymore. It's getting better. There are more and more "strong female characters" that don't rely on steel bikinis and seduction, or masculine muscles to be epic. There are more male characters that don't say "You can't come. It's too dangerous." There are more plot arcs where the women do as much rescuing as the men do. And I'm glad. Maybe the little girls who are growing up now won't have the self image problems that the already grown women have.

But many grown women still have it. And I think this is why.