butterflyslinky: (butterfly slinky)
Well, it's comment wars time again, and this time, it's on the crossover review for "Accidental Racist" by Todd in the Shadows and Rap Critic.

I wasn't initially going to get involved with the comments on that one. I've never listened to the song all the way through, and what I heard of it in the review made me want to avoid it as much as humanly possible. But then Todd mentioned on his Twitter how some people were defending the song, and like any fool, I took the bait and went to see what was going on. Because honestly, there is no better form of entertainment than conservative assholes defending an outdated viewpoint in video comments. (Note that I do not think that all conservatives are assholes. I understand that there is a conservative viewpoint and when it is argued correctly, I respect it. When I say conservative asshole, I mean to obviously sexist/racist/homophobic people who feel the need to defend their worldview by shouting down everyone who disagrees.)

And I was actually kind of disappointed to find that there was only one asshole there saying that the Civil War wasn't about slavery and that slave masters were good people and black people owned slaves too and the Confederate flag wasn't a racist symbol and on and on and on. Naturally, having grown up with two parents who teach rhetoric, I refuted the points made as intelligently as possible, because the only entertainment better than reading the conservative assholes' comments is to argue against them and see how butt hurt they get. Okay, I'm just kidding about that-- I really did want to make the point that the Confederacy might not have been a good organization that that Southern pride is a bit misguided.

I'm not going to repeat the whole argument here-- it's on the first page of comments for that video if you're interested. But like clockwork, another conservative asshole immediately jumped into the mix to tell me in no uncertain terms to shut up and not make my arguments against Conservative Asshole Number 1's points.

I have already refuted Conservative Asshole Number 2's point that I should keep my mouth shut, but I feel that I can expand upon the topic here without being told I'm an idiot-- which, if my history of using my rhetorical skills to engage in comment wars stands, will be the next point made in the discussion. So this article isn't necessarily about racism and Southern pride. You want to know what I think about that? Okay-- racism is wrong, slavery was wrong regardless of how nicely slave owners treated slaves, and Southern pride is an attempt to keep racist ideas alive even though the rest of the country has moved on. And I say this as someone who lived in Texas for several years. And not the liberal bubble of Texas-- I lived right next to George W. Bush's hometown. The very heart of conservative Southern pride. There you go.

No, this article is on the loss of rhetorical debate in this country, especially when it comes to politics. Now, I realize that a comment war on a comedy review is hardly the place to go if you want a good debate, but I expect people to have a better argument than "shut up I'm right" if we're going to discuss political issues. (I suspect that's why Spoony disallows political discussion on his videos.) A debate is when both sides form cohesive arguments to make their points and pit them against each other until one side concedes that the other may be right. It is not formed when one side refuses to listen to the other, actively insults the other, or tells the other that they need to shut up and stop whining about the points made. Yes, I was told to stop whining about every point. Go figure.

It's not that we can't have good debate in comments. If you read "I am Wonder Woman," you'll remember that I actually had quite a nice discussion on gender roles with a young conservative woman, and we both came out of it understanding and possibly even respecting the other's viewpoint. It can happen if both sides are willing to talk to each other.

The trouble is that our political climate has grown so polarized and so ugly that real debate doesn't happen anymore. Even in real political "debates," the two sides stand at their podiums and take potshots at each other without giving much reason for anyone to believe them. Even Barack Obama-- who is actually pretty good at rhetoric-- was reduced to saying "that's not true" to every one of Mitt Romney's points in the last round of presidential debates. That climate translates into our every day conversations, and makes it difficult for anyone to get their point across. We're taught to say "I'm right, you're wrong" and not find any middle ground because finding middle ground supposedly indicates weakness.

I do not believe that. I believe that we should revive real debate, learn to form cohesive arguments, and listen to each other when we make our points. We should not tell each other to shut up when we disagree, we should not stoop to petty insults when making our points. I realize that I have done so in this article, and I'm sorry for it, but this isn't really a debate, it's a LiveJournal rant, and no one's going to read it anyway. Rhetoric is fast becoming a lost art, and it's one that we need to revive for the sake of our country. After all, if we can't have good discussion, we can't have good democracy.

As to the conservative assholes in the comments, I'll probably continue to argue with them until the discussion fizzles out or the next Todd video is posted. Whichever comes first.
butterflyslinky: (butterfly slinky)
First off, I must apologize, but the next chapter of "Even Without Him" will not be finished before "Marauders to the End" starts. Sorry for anyone who cared.

Now that that's taken care of, let's talk about Twilight.

I hated Twilight. Or at least, I hated the first book and the first movie, which was all I looked at before forming that opinion. My problem wasn't just the terrible writing-- as a fan fiction aficionado, I have dealt with much worse writing. My problem wasn't even really the hype. I'd be a hypocrite if I said it was, considering my decade-long obsession with Harry Potter. No, like many people, my problem was with Bella.

But my problem is different from other people's. I don't hate Bella because she's boring. I don't hate her because she's a horrible person. No, I hate Bella for the reason many girls love her-- I see why too much of myself in Bella Swan. But that's not a good thing, because the parts of myself that I see in Bella are the things I hate about myself. Manipulative? Check. Dependent? Check. Obsession with boys named "Cullen?" Check. Pretentious interests? Check. Emotionless? Check.

Now, keep in mind these were the qualities I had when I first read Twilight at the age of sixteen. Since then, I like to think that I have improved on all of these deficiencies. I still have my failings, but I'm working on it, and I certainly didn't settle down with some guy at the age of eighteen. But the fact still remains that Bella is everything I don't like about myself, which makes all of these things even more repulsive in another person. But since I saw all these qualities in Bella, I was able to change them in myself-- but that's a topic for another blog.

So I read the first book, and I saw the first movie, and then I just ignored the rest of the phenomenon as much as I could, a difficult feat when my sister liked the books and my dad took her to see the first three movies since he also read the books (I don't know if he enjoyed them), and when the franchise refuses to go away. I occasionally joined in the mocking, and I did watch all of Spoony's vlogs on the topic, which are all hilarious, even the one he did while completely smashed. (I say this in all respect-- Noah Antwiler has balls if he got through all five of these films.) And that was the end of it.

Or I thought it was until "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part Two" came out. I watched every single vlog on the movie except for the Cinema Snob's, and that's only because Brad Jones guest starred in Spoony's review so I had already heard his opinion. And every single one of those videos ended up saying the same thing: Go see this movie.

As you probably know, I have the deepest respect for the reviewers, current and former, of Channel Awesome, so when seven of them tell me to go see a movie, I will definitely make an effort to see it. Obviously, I wasn't going to pay nine dollars to watch Twilight, so I had to wait a while. But it was date night for me and JoJo tonight, so we decided to rent a bad movie, and since the video store in Fucking Nowhere doesn't have the Star Wars prequels, our next choice was "Breaking Dawn Part Two."

I just finished watching it, and let me tell you: all seven of those reviewers were right. This movie is brilliant. It is so hilariously bad that JoJo and I couldn't stop giggling through most of it. The creepy CG baby? Laughably bad. The scene where Jacob strips for Billy Burke? Hilarious. Michael Sheen's epic squee when he sees the child? Fucking genius. We both already knew about the twist ending, so we weren't terribly disappointed, but it was still a dumb cop-out, and that was so epically bad that I couldn't resist laughing.

But the one thing JoJo and I agreed on was that this movie was mis-focused. As mentioned above, I haven't seen the middle three Twilight films, but a common complaint about them is that all the side characters are far more interesting than Edward and Bella. That was abundantly clear in this movie. We spent most of the movie saying that it should have been about Garrett and Kate, who have more chemistry, more personality, and a generally much more interesting story to tell. Hell, Noah Antwiler said that Edward and Bella were no longer driving the conflict of the story, and he was right. Breaking Dawn Part Two isn't about them-- it's about Renesme and Jacob, and at a more basic level, Michael Sheen and Alice. It's the story of a dictator trying gain a weapon shown through the eyes of two boring side characters. Or if you want a romance (between a werewolf and a child-- creepy), it's like Sleeping Beauty told through the eyes of the King and Queen. The action is not centered on our two leads, so why do we keep following them?

I don't know.

The big problem with this movie, though, is it leaves room for a sequel. Now, as epically bad and enjoyable as this movie was, the last thing we need is another one. Please, Stephanie Meyer, do not write more of this shit. It won't get better.
butterflyslinky: (Luminosity)
So, after a solid two months of what I'm referring to as the New Critic Era, I think it's time to check in with my feelings of it, mostly because there are still people upset about it.

Now, before I get too far into how the show's doing, let me address my own personal feelings when I heard the Critic was coming back: I was fucking excited. Yes, I liked Demo Reel and was sad to see it go, but I didn't have the same relationship to it that I do to the Nostalgia Critic. While it wasn't the first Internet review show I ever saw, it was the one that got me fired up to see more, that made me think critically about what I watch, and that referred me to all the other great shows out there, so when the announcement came, I was happy, even though it meant letting the new show go.

And I understood why it happened. Channel Awesome is a business, and Doug Walker is an entertainer who makes a living off that business, so when Demo Reel was poorly received and didn't make him the money he needed, it was only natural to cancel it and go back to something that he knew would make money. That happens in the entertainment industry all the time. That's how it has to go, and the people who are complaining about it... well, I won't say they're dumb or anything like that, since I do understand where they're coming from, but they don't seem to realize that as a man who needs to make money, Mr. Walker has to do what's going to make money. And I respect that. And the people who are acting all butt-hurt, even two and a half months later, need to get over that.

Now that that's out of the way, let's get to what I think of the New Critic.

I love it. I'm not just saying that because I'm a fangirl who blindly accepts everything that Mr. Walker gives me. He's taught me better than that. I am saying that the new series is truly really good. I felt that the old series was starting to burn out a little bit, and I was glad that there was a break, because when the new series started, it was fresh, it was more energized, and it's truly some of the funniest stuff I've seen from Mr. Walker in a very long time. Last week's review of "The King and I" had me laughing more than I had since "Quest for Camelot." "Son of the Mask" the week before was similarly funny.

I love how he has incorporated other people into the videos and started doing more sketch shows instead of just sitting in front of the camera for 20-30 minutes. It helps break the review up more, and Rachel Tietz and Malcolm Ray are both incredibly funny and talented actors. If I'm going to be honest, I'd have to say that the New Critic is better than the final episodes of the old. I like the editorials every other week, which are refreshing and give me a lot more to think about and help me to think critically.

But that's just after the first two months. I'll probably check in again after a few more to see if it keeps improving.
butterflyslinky: (Luminosity)
As mentioned before, I have been reading and writing fan fiction for more than ten years, ever since I discovered the medium. Over the last seven years, I have written more than forty fan fics and am quite proud of most of them (a few exceptions are/will be noted).

Then one day, my friend Melanie as me, "why?" Why do we write fan fiction? What's the point?

I tried to answer, but I really needed to think about it. Because, really, writing fan fiction, is, well, kind of silly. All it is is either ridiculous AUs, wild speculations, or porn, with a few serious characters studies here and there.

But then I realized that's exactly why I write fan fiction. I've read or watched all the canon stories, and I want more. I want to explore the characters and setting more, see how they react in different situations and to other characters they didn't necessarily interact with in the books. I like writing character studies and really exploring how they feel and react to canon or even non-canon events. I like speculating about what will happen next, even if it's in a series that's over.

I write fan fiction to try new things that help me become a better write in other ways. Most fan fiction communities are non-judgemental and offer constructive criticism, so trying new styles or topics is always rewarded. I would never attempt second-person perspective in my regular writing, but in fan fiction, it's okay and kind of fun, and maybe someday I'll be able to write a whole book like that.

So why do we write fan fiction? Simply put, it helps us become better writers by allowing us to experiment with style and address important topics without the pressure of creating characters. It's a way to bring fans together and express their love for the creation. It's a chance to explore the world and learn more about characters we didn't spend too much time with in canon. It's an excuse to write events and see how they affect everyone, not just the main character.

Or we just want free porn.

Matilda

Feb. 28th, 2013 12:39 pm
butterflyslinky: (Luminosity)
So last night, I saw the movie Matilda for the very first time. I am twenty years old.

Before all of you wonder how I missed this movie as a kid, let me explain. I read the book when I was about eleven and was on a big Roald Dahl kick, and I loved it. It's not just one of my favorite children's books-- it's one of my favorite books ever. I knew there was a movie, but I was hesitant to see it since I know Hollywood tends to fuck up adaptations like nobody's business. Seeing the Nostalgia Chick's review didn't make me any more confident.

But then last night, I was browsing through Netflix bored out of my skull due to having finished my work for the week, and I saw that it was on instant and thought, why not? After all, Mara Wilson herself seemed to have pretty good memories of the film, and while the Chick's review wasn't positive, it wasn't really negative, either.

And... I really like the movie. I know it's not a great film from a technical standpoint, and having Danny DiVito be both the father and the narrator was probably a bad choice, but as an adaptation, especially of a Roald Dahl book, it worked really well. The few changes made did add to the story, except the subplot about the FBI-- funny as it was, I just don't think Matilda would go out of her way to save her father from being arrested since it's made pretty clear that she doesn't like him and punishes him herself on a regular basis. But it does show that Matilda is a good, loving girl, so I let it slide.

The scene that really got to me was the bit where Matilda and Miss Honey break into the Trunchbull's house to recover Miss Honey's doll. While the scene was not in the book and didn't do too much to further the story, it was probably the most intense scene in the entire film (yeah, where were your psychic powers on that one, Matilda? Fear of death wasn't enough to unlock the door?), and it didn't raise the stakes a bit.

I liked that the Trunchbull was not toned down in the film adaptation. That happens a lot, especially in kids' films because parents are afraid of scaring their children. Then again, this was made back in the '90s when people weren't so anal about that kind of thing. Kids can handle more than we give them credit for.

But the thing I liked most about the movie was the scale. The Trunchbull is made to look larger, the shots of the children set up to make them seem tiny, and even the proportions of the children to each other are done well. I liked that Hortensia is made to look so much bigger than Matilda and Lavender, and then is herself dwarfed by the Trunchbull. Miss Honey is larger than the children, of course, but she shrinks when around other adults, not just physically, but in her personality as well.

The only change I really hated was that Matilda got to keep her psychic powers at the end. In the book, when Matilda is promoted to the top class and is being challenged, her brain is occupied enough that she doesn't have space for her powers anymore, and doesn't need them to be special. Letting her keep them undermines the concept that she's really being challenged mentally.

So those are my thoughts on Matilda. Next time I watch a beloved children's film, I'll let you know.
butterflyslinky: (Luminosity)
I know this blog says that it is a place for bad fan fiction and insights about that. However, due to several recent discussions I have been following, I feel a need to write this post. Besides which, I think there is a grand total of three people who actually ever look at my blog, so I doubt anyone will mind.

As you can probably guess by my fan fiction output on this blog, I am a fan of the web series Atop the Fourth Wall, and have a rather embarrassing crush on Lewis Lovhaug, despite the fact that I have never met the man and our total interaction thus far has consisted of a few rather one-sided witty exchanges on Twitter. And no, I'm not saying what my Twitter name is because I never want the good Mr. Lovhaug to know I spend my spare time writing terrible fan fics about his alter-ego. As a fan of the series, I usually read through the comments on ThatGuyWithTheGlasses and skim through the ones on the blogspot. Occasionally, I will add my voice to the conversation if I find it especially thought-provoking, or, more often, populated by bigoted assholes.

Never has there been a more egregious example of the second type than in the comments for last Monday's video, a review of Frank Miller's All-Star Batman and Robin #5, in which Wonder Woman, the most recognized, admired, and unfortunately most mishandled female superhero in the entire comic book industry, was portrayed as a man-hating straw feminist who was angry at the world and just needed a good, strong, authoritative man (Superman) to show her the way. Mr. Lovhaug, ever giving me more reasons to love him, spoke out against this portrayal of Wonder Woman and feminists as a whole. And my thought was: why are there not more men like him in this world?

So you can imagine my anger when some people stood up in defense of Miller's portrayal of Wonder Woman, saying feminists were actually like that, and that feminism is bad because women are more suited to staying in the home while men take charge of the world. (I'm paraphrasing here-- there were at least three people between the sites defending this viewpoint and frankly, their arguments were a little bit lost on me.) This discussion has gone on for almost four days, and frankly, I'm getting rather tired trying to follow it, so I just want to say my piece here, even though no one will read it, and then get on with my life.

The basic thesis of the arguments boiled down to this: Men and women are biologically unequal and should mold to the prescribed roles of modern western society wherein the male is the strong, authoritative person and the female is the nice, submissive person. I do not prescribe to this viewpoint, and as a woman, I am deeply angry at the suggestion that my only purpose in life is to have babies. However, I would be willing to dismiss the defenders of that viewpoint as misogynistic morons if not for one important factor: one of the people arguing for it is a woman.

I won't say her screen name here-- that seems a little bit unfair. However, this lady has stated that she believes that women should stay in the home and that she herself wants to be a homebuilder. And I say to her, more power to you, because homebuilding is one of the most unfairly marginalized roles in modern society, mostly because it carries the stigma of females. However, I don't respect her opinion that every woman should want to be a homebuilder. I'm not suited to that role. I know lots of women unsuited to that role. And I know plenty of men who would be suited to being house-husbands in spite of society's expectation that men go out an work. To presume to speak for every woman is a crime, and her views set feminism back about fifty years. Another reason I'm writing this here-- Mr. Lovhaug expects people to be respectful to each other on his blog and I'd rather not anger him at the moment.

Speaking of which, I was even willing to let our poor backwards little housewife off until another woman, a strong feminist, attacked her and said that this girl and people like her are the problem with society. While I may agree that the views presented are outdated and harmful, I was also offended at the feminist who attacked another woman for having a different viewpoint. Honestly, it probably set the argument back quite a ways, since the whole thing started with people saying that the angry, man-hating Wonder Woman was an accurate portrayal of feminism. And this girl, by acting like an angry feminist, kind of made their point for them.

So what's the point of all this? Well, first, that there are still horrible chauvinistic people in the world. But second, that we forgot in having this discussion, what the original point was, and I would like to make that point now.

I am currently studying to become a journalist, which is a field that is acceptable for women to go into. But I'm not going in as a woman. I am going in as a superhero. I am Peter Parker instead of April O'Neil. I am Clark Kent as opposed to Lois Lane. It is unfortunate that the ladies get the shaft, but there you have it.

I am a strong woman who gets put down into stereotypes. I am a woman, so I must be submissive and make babies. I am not and I will not. I am a feminist, so I must be a man-hating butch girl. As said above, I do like men, and I am a feminine person by nature. I wear dresses on Sunday, I can run in heels, I like jewelry and can put on mascara with my mouth closed.

I am Wonder Woman. I am the strong, the kind, and the too-often misrepresented girl trying to save the world. I can be a superhero worthy of taking on Batman or Superman, and nothing you say can stop me.

And Mr. Lovhaug, if you ever read this, thank you for allowing us to have this discussion, even though I'm sure you're sick of it by now.
butterflyslinky: (Luminosity)
I have been reading and writing fan fiction for well over a decade now, mostly of the Harry Potter variety, though as you can tell from my entries here, I've started branching out. I read a lot of fan fiction, most of it of a rather erotic variety, and I have learned one very important thing:

Reading too much erotic fan fiction will irreversibly destroy your ability to read any book normally.

Allow me to explain. I am currently in my second year of college and one of the classes I am taking is British Women Writers. It's about as exciting as it sounds. In this class, we are reading "Lady Audley's Secret," a Victorian novel by Elizabeth Braddon. Without giving too much away (for all two of you who read my journal and are actually interested in reading the book), the story is that Sir Michael Audley marries Lucy Graham, who is beautiful and mysterious and generally perfect. You know, the sort of character all of us hate in fan fiction. Meanwhile, Sir Michael's nephew Robert has a friend named George who left his wife and took off to Australia. If you're familiar with any story ever, you probably already know where this is going. Sure enough, George goes missing and Robert begins to investigate his friend's disappearance, going to great lengths to find out what happened to him. Along the way, he meets a colorful cast of characters and hijinks ensue. Your basic Victorian mystery.

Here's where fan fiction comes in.

First, the first reaction I had when I encountered Lucy Graham was "MARY SUE!" Seriously, if I came across an OC this beautiful and mysterious in a fan fic, that would be my cue to stop reading immediately due to the incompetence of the writer. Of course, the ability of mostly anonymous writers to create non-Mary Sue OCs is sketchy at best, but there have been good OCs in fan fiction before, so the Mary Sue-ness of Lucy Graham bothered me all the more here.

Second is my perception of the relationship between Robert and George. Now, I'm not the only one who reads into their friendship as repressed-by-the-time homosexuality, but I do know that I would not have interpreted their relationship that way if I did not read a lot of (generally male) slash fan fiction. In fact, my first thought was that if the Internet had been around in Braddon's day, she would have found a lot of women writing George/Robert erotica. Actually, based on Rule 34, I could probably find fan fiction about it if I really looked for it. Fortunately, I don't like the book that much.

But it's not just "Lady Audley's Secret" that was messed with by my love of fan fiction. The relationship between Darcy and Bingly in "Pride and Prejudice" can be rewritten very easily, regardless of the ending of the book. And of course there are modern books that are quickly reinterpreted through the lens of a lonely fangirl like myself. Luckily, there's already fan fiction about most modern fandoms that gets not only erotic but does so in excruciating detail.

So what's the point of all this? Simply put, reading too much erotic fan fiction will cause a person to start seeing erotic (usually homosexual) relationships in almost everything, even stories that are very clearly played heterosexually. Needless to say, this makes English papers a lot more interesting to read, and not necessarily in a good way. I know that I, for one, intend to stay as far away from the relationship between Robert and George as I possibly can when writing my paper for fear that it will degenerate into barely-disguised pretentious fan fiction.

I should probably stop reading so much of it.

Nah.

Profile

butterflyslinky: (Default)
butterflyslinky

June 2017

S M T W T F S
    123
456789 10
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 11th, 2025 10:50 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios