Herongale [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Herongale

[ website | My Website ]
[ userinfo | jf userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

I'm not sorry I met you, I'm not sorry it's over [Jul. 22nd, 2008|12:30 am]
When there's nothing left to burn, you have to set yourself on fire.
Stars, "Your Ex-Lover is Dead"

Note: All Spoilers Under Cut.

Avatar is not a series that needs me to recommend it, and I don't think I'm going to sway anyone's opinions no matter how convincing my praise. Nevertheless I feel compelled to talk about the last episode. So many promising series fall down in the end, piling disappointment upon confusion, showing either contempt for the viewer, or a lack of follow-through and insight on the part of the creator.

Not so, for Avatar: the Last Airbender.

Great ideas often have implications that even the creator doesn't realize at first. Some stories are plotted out from the start; some evolve with the telling. But no meaningful story ends well if the creator never took a step back from his work to do the hard work of understanding his own creation.

And trust me, it IS hard work.

( Spoilers under cut... as well as praise that h8ters might as well skip )


Oh the blood and the treasure--
and the losing it all--
the time that we wasted--
and the place where we fall.
Will we wake in the morning
and know what it was for?
Up in our bedroom, after the war?

Stars, "The Beginning After the End"

(crossposted under flock to my LJ)
Link2 comments|Leave a comment

Music Share: Belle and Sebastian [Jul. 9th, 2008|01:42 am]
Five million years ago, I promised [info]sepiamagpie that I would upload my favouritest Belle and Sebastian song of all time, Seeing Other People.

Finally I remembered!
Link2 comments|Leave a comment

Finally! A Meme I can do without Writing Stuff! [May. 8th, 2008|03:44 pm]
Here I am, as a teen and now! Drawn by moi.

( Yeah, I would have said 'Drawn by moi' back in the day... )
Link5 comments|Leave a comment

diversions of the mind and accusations of triviality [Apr. 29th, 2008|12:56 am]
(crossposted at my LJ)

Clay Shirky, internet/communications scholar and author of the book Here Comes Everybody, which I've been reading recently, has a very interesting interview transcript located here on the topic of cognitive surplus.

So, wtf is cognitive surplus?

As he explains it, various innovations of the 20th century created something that really didn't exist before for most humans: free time. And how did humans respond to this radical innovation of living? By sedating theirselves with sitcoms and other passive forms of entertainment found on television.

The idea is that people had a sort of collective crisis over the fact that they had all of this time in their life where they were not required to think about work, family, or other essential elements of living. Because this was such a new thing, the fact that it was liberating was almost completely masked by the fact that it was terrifying. One reason entertainment television was such a success, he argues, is that it filled in the empty spaces, a comforting experience for people who could not cope with the emerging chaos within their own minds.

From the article:

This hit me in a conversation I had about two months ago. As Jen said in the introduction, I've finished a book called Here Comes Everybody, which has recently come out, and this recognition came out of a conversation I had about the book. I was being interviewed by a TV producer to see whether I should be on their show, and she asked me, "What are you seeing out there that's interesting?"

I started telling her about the Wikipedia article on Pluto. You may remember that Pluto got kicked out of the planet club a couple of years ago, so all of a sudden there was all of this activity on Wikipedia. The talk pages light up, people are editing the article like mad, and the whole community is in an ruckus--"How should we characterize this change in Pluto's status?" And a little bit at a time they move the article--fighting offstage all the while--from, "Pluto is the ninth planet," to "Pluto is an odd-shaped rock with an odd-shaped orbit at the edge of the solar system."

So I tell her all this stuff, and I think, "Okay, we're going to have a conversation about authority or social construction or whatever." That wasn't her question. She heard this story and she shook her head and said, "Where do people find the time?" That was her question. And I just kind of snapped. And I said, "No one who works in TV gets to ask that question. You know where the time comes from. It comes from the cognitive surplus you've been masking for 50 years."

I found this extremely interesting, because one of the most dismissive things people say to each other online is "get a life." But the truth is, except for a small minority of people, most people DO have lives: they work, spend time with their family and friends, have hobbies.... traditional things that people have had for a while. But what does it mean to create an online life? Why do so many people spend time online chatting, sharing creative content, engaging in debate over everything from things profound (the economy, Darfur) to the trivial (what does it mean that Pluto is no longer classified as a planet?).

Spending time in a participatory culture is not what we do instead of going to the park. It's what we do to replace passive entertainment. It's a reflection of the fact that people are becoming more comfortable living inside their own heads, and communicating what it on their minds. Humans are profoundly social creatures, so the fact that technology has created a platform for allowing interactive activity in all sorts of realms has also coincided with a willingness of people to let go, somewhat, of the need for external sources of entertainment.

People CREATING their own entertainment, even by getting into seemingly ridiculous online arguments: shouldn't this be seen as a step up for humankind?

So that's the answer to the question, "Where do they find the time?" Or, rather, that's the numerical answer. But beneath that question was another thought, this one not a question but an observation. In this same conversation with the TV producer I was talking about World of Warcraft guilds, and as I was talking, I could sort of see what she was thinking: "Losers. Grown men sitting in their basement pretending to be elves."

At least they're doing something.


I highly recommend reading the entire article. There's a lot more that he addresses that I don't get into, simply because I was so struck by this one part of it.
Link1 comment|Leave a comment

[Jan. 30th, 2008|11:10 pm]
In the future, please remind me to phrase all of my pseudo-apologies in the form of Gandhi-level peace protests.

This is a reply to charges of plagiarism, btw.

It's so awesome I can hardly stand it.
Link4 comments|Leave a comment

[Nov. 28th, 2007|03:04 am]
My fandom secret is that I am the goddamn Batman.
LinkLeave a comment

[Nov. 10th, 2007|01:33 pm]
I find this race wank just as tedious as all of the others. It's not funny to see people earnestly discussing where the line is between racism/not racism. It is necessary. Otherwise how will people educate themselves on how to deal with (and hopefully better understand) people who are different from themselves?

I see people being assholes in that post linked to from f_w. I count at least one troll. Most people appear to be trying to put their POVs out there and discuss the topic at hand. Disagreement is NOT necessarily wank unless something really funny is going on. People who say, "but it's only about hair" don't know what the fuck they are talking about; although it's true that it is POSSIBLE that the mods are being oversensitive on the hair issue, it's a FACT that the hair issue is not a trivial one in the topic of race issues.

"Entertaining" is not an adjective that automatically applies to assholes! "Wank" is not a verb that is automatically synonymous with "disagreement!" "Fandom" is not a noun that automatically means "superficial!"

(And I say this here because saying it at f_w would just be lame)
Link2 comments|Leave a comment

[Oct. 16th, 2007|04:16 am]
Am reading old Cary Tennis advice columns at Salon, and I came across one about a woman who has an evangelical vegan friend, one who is always pestering her about how she can eat meat. What interested me is the following quote:

I sometimes hear people say things such as this: "I'm not arguing with you or putting you down, I truly, truly want to understand you!" I do not believe that. I hear that as "I truly, truly want to know how you can be such a wicked person and still go about in apparently normal fashion!" And to such an assertion I would say, if you truly, truly want to know, then truly, truly don't ask me; instead, study closely and honestly the world of people who are not vegans and truly, truly ask whether they can all be classified as murderers or immoral people. But do not try to clumsily lure me into a veiled exercise in character assassination.

I love this answer, and think it can apply to so many things. In fandom, for instance, there are often the endless "I don't understand how people can like slash!" posts, the "are people who like het really that prudish?" posts, the "how can you possibly like X character?" posts. You know what I mean. And often there is attached to the rant/screed the concept that the people who are making these posts are really "just trying to understand" some behavior/concept that apparently is not only exceedingly puzzling, but frustratingly enticing.

If you truly, truly want to know, then truly, truly don't ask me

This is excellent advice, because of course, most of the people who make these kinds of requests don't "truly want to know." All they want to do is pontificate on why they are right and why everyone else is wrong.

I like this advice, because of course I myself am one of those ranty type people. I enjoy the fun of a good bitch sesh, all the while knowing that it's nothing more than cheap theater. It rarely is a way to explore new thoughts or connect with people. Having learning this, I have tried (painfully, I have to admit) not to rant about things, even when it feels so right, ESPECIALLY when it feels "necessary." And in the context of fandom, it’s been actually pretty humbling to restrict my rants: because it turns out, as a fan I don’t have much of substance to say. I mean, I have squee, and I’m actually kind of proud that I have a lot of dumbass unnecessary things to say on the topic of Scar… and yet, it doesn’t make for great writing to turn my journal into an updated version of marginal love-scribbles on school notebook paper. So I keep my Scar babbling to PM, or better, inside my own head (where it often turns into a goofy smile and a benign feeling of love and peace towards the world). But for my fandoms (of which FMA is but one), I don’t have a lot of philosophy. No fresh insight, no startling discoveries. Just… rants. Things that irritate, annoy, infuriate.

But what are rants, really, except for a way to isolate oneself from others? To separate from the very fans with whom it is more meritous to form cordial relations with? Wait… screw “meritous”… it’s just more fun to be friendly. To mean well. And for me, in the online setting, this means to do a lot more lurking than participating, a lot more following than leading. Admiring the cleverness of others is a lot less stressful than indulging my worst habits, but it’s not easy. Having burned my bridges, it’s easy to feel bitter about the friendships lost or never gained, and bitterness is easily translated into greater irritation and judgmentalness.

There are a lot of things about fandom that perplex me. Why people like certain things, why they don’t like others. But I don’t want to be that person, the one who figures out people by requiring an auto de fe for every inexplicable, irritating point of view. I really don’t. And I like reading quotes like the one reproduced above, because it reminds me of the goal I’m trying to reach: that of really understanding other people, not only in real life (I’m not half bad there), but online as well.
Link2 comments|Leave a comment

[Oct. 14th, 2007|10:27 pm]
Dear JF friends list:

Did Harlan Ellison rape a llama again?
Link2 comments|Leave a comment

[Sep. 14th, 2007|10:47 am]
;;;;____;;;;.

NO.
Link5 comments|Leave a comment

Fullmetal Alchemist Art Pimpage [Aug. 27th, 2007|10:40 am]
Look! Hime took my crack "Ed-is-a-guardian-angel-sent-to-prevent-Hei-from-becoming-the-antichrist" idea and made something credible out of it. Ed is hauntingly gorgeous in that emo!angel kind of way.
LinkLeave a comment

I am a feminist, damn it. I may even be a feminazi!!! [Jun. 15th, 2007|12:44 am]
From a reply I made on ffrantsrants here:

( this is mostly reproduced here for my own archiving purposes, feel free to skip the tl;dr on feminism )
LinkLeave a comment

[Jun. 13th, 2007|02:55 am]
[info]tigerwolf, referring to a woman who is almost certainly his only female friend, as "my faghag".

Possessive AND dismissive? Now that is some impressive misogyny!
LinkLeave a comment

[May. 31st, 2007|04:50 pm]
For this wank circle to be complete, I'm just waiting for the obligatory crossposting of links for the latest [info]news posts to both [info]customers_suck and [info]bad_service.
Link1 comment|Leave a comment

[May. 25th, 2007|05:02 pm]
I'd like to propose a law:

As the unreasonableness and viciousness of your definitions of what constitute "good parenting" increase, the odds that you are a childless snot-nosed teenager yourself approach one.
Link2 comments|Leave a comment

A public apology. [Jun. 19th, 2006|10:44 pm]
I debated long and hard on how to do this. It's been weighing on my for a long time now, and I guess now is an appropriate time to say what I really am obliged to say:

Christina and Your Mom: I own you an apology.

I was involved... shamefully involved... with Charitygate, here. This is the worst thing I think I've ever done online. I don't feel bad, exactly, about doubting the story, or having a skeptical stance on online charity pleas in general... I will always feel leary about people who ask for money online, and I don't make any exceptions about this. However, I was completely and utterly wrong about stating my doubts in public, and I was also wrong to be so mean and superior about it. It was (and remains) none of my fucking business, no matter that I had made a donation to your cause before I even made my replies to the fandom_wank post (which is what makes it so surreal when I see my real-life name on your thank-you page that lists your benefactors... I really am unworthy of your thanks, and it makes me feel even more guilty that I did what I did).

At the time, I had felt (wrongly) that my donation gave me the right to call attention to what I thought were inconsistencies in the evidence. I was being an ass, because even then I knew that whether the cancer was active or not, it was clear your mom had an array of unfortunate and crippling medical issues which certainly were documented well on your page. Calling it "cancer" even if it was in remission was not as disingenuous as I claimed, because the overall medical picture was so complex, and so much of it involved problems that directly resulted from either the cancer or the treatment for it, that calling it "cancer" was a useful shorthand. I knew this, but I was being stubborn, and more than that. I was being vindictive. I had felt "duped" even though I knew there was no intention to dupe, and I lashed out. This was wrong of me. So wrong of me. I don't know of a way to put it so I am making it clear how strongly I feel this was wrong: but it was, and I know it down to my bones.

I reject, utterly, my reasons for calling you out. Your credibility is something that each individual person should have decided for themselves, and in any case was credible enough to get ME to donate. So I had no point in anything I said at fandom_wank, other than to be an arrogant, superior little prick and brag about how closely I follow the wanks.

I'm not actually going to call your attention to this post, because I don't know if an apology from me would help or actually create more pain. Nor am I going to make this post "known" by making a link to it in the current MsScribe shakedown posts. That would take attention away from the issues at hand, and more importantly, make it look like I care more about my ego than in setting things straight. If you find this post through serendipity, or if concerned friends who know you well see fit to point you to it, the apology is here and will stay here for as long as I have this journal. I would like you to actually read this apology, of course, but I think I understand a little bit more about being kind to people than I did then, and I'd rather you find this because you need it, and not because I needed you to hear it. None of this was about me to begin with, and I promise you: I'm never going to get involved with critiquing anyone else's problems like that again, not unless I'm either directly or involved or explicitly invited to comment.

I am a hard and wrathful person. I sinned against you through nothing but my own grievous fault, and for that I truly, truly beg your forgiveness. I'm so sorry.



++
Also: this is just an aside to anyone else who might read this, but I'm screening comments. I've always known that I should not just let this go without an apology, but I put off saying anything about it because I had the impression that Christina's family were really trying to forget all about it. I still have that impression, but it is not as strong as it used to be, and I get the feeling now that apologies might help them achieve closure, and so I am happy to do what honor demands. Comment screening is on not because I'm afraid to face the music, but because I don't want to make this about me. It's not: it's about the people I wronged, and what is owed to them. If Christina or her mom do ever see this, I will unscreen their comments no matter what they say, but I certainly will not tolerate people taking this opportunity to wank about things or hurt them further, so.. comment screening.
Link20 comments|Leave a comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]