Categories
ask a geologist writing

[Ask a Geologist] Huge Tracts of Land

This should probably be more appropriately titled “Ask a Lady Geologist” but we all know I hate that term. But this is also not about the geology so much as the real estate.

You know, boobs.

Okay, so a dear friend of mine mentioned a descriptive phrase for body position oft-used in our genre: “She crossed her arms under her breasts,” and questioned the mechanics of it. And also why this needs to be described at all, which I think is a fair question because a lot of times it ends up being empty words that just break up a string of dialog, and at most serves as a tacit HEY THIS CHARACTER HAS BOOBS AND IS NOW PUSHING THEM UP SLIGHTLY WITH HER ARMS FOR YOUR VIEWING PLEASURE, HETEROSEXUAL MALE READER.

So yeah. And for some reason this just amused me enough that I wanted to write an entire blog post about it, so there you go.

First off, mechanics: do we breast-bearing people (who need not actually be “ladies,” by the by) cross our arms under our boobs or not?

The answer is, as is often the case: well, it depends.

Personally, I do the underboob arm cross most of the time. But that’s because on the relative scale of breast real estate, I’m somewhere between townhouse and single-family one-story ranch-style on a postage stamp. In general, the smaller the breasts, the easier it is to cross your arms under them because there’s just less mass you have to move. So I know people who are much more well-endowed than myself who just do the overboob arm cross because it’s too much trouble. And there is a point where the tracts of land are so expansive that arm crossing at all is just not comfortable. Also, the length of one’s arms relative to boob size are also a major factor, it seems. Shorter arms make the underboob cross much less comfortable too.

(And please, keep in mind that I am not the last authority on this issue, and there will be other experiences.)

There’s another factor to consider: clothing.

Certain clothes basically make the true underboob arm cross impossible. Sports bras, for example, just kind of squash the boobs flat  so the natural arm position goes on top of the boobs. Bodices and corsets make things kind of weird because they move the boobs up and thus provide an excellent shelf conducive to relaxed overboob arm crossing. Also, if you’re wearing an exceptionally well-tailored dress shirt or coat, most of the time that actually makes it uncomfortable to cross your arms that way at all, because women’s clothing has a tendency to pull across the shoulders–particularly if you have broad shoulders like me.

Other types of clothing may encourage or require an underboob arm cross. For example, on the rare occasions I am threatened at gun point to wear a dress at a formal occasion and am compelled to wear a strapless bra, all arm crossing immediately becomes under boob because I’m absolutely terrified that thing will pop off if I put any pressure on top of it. (The underwires, evil things that they are, also have an effect.)

And so on.

Another, potentially even more important factor: attitude and environment.

I’ve observed–and done this myself–women crossing their arms over their breasts as a defensive gesture. It’s a way to very deliberately shield yourself from unwanted looks or touches, or at least indicate that yes, this shit is very unwanted. Very. I personally have the tendency to do the overboob arm cross the more tense or attentive I am, because cheating my arms a bit lower requires a more relaxed posture. And I’ll even admit to once or twice IN MY ENTIRE LIFE doing an underboob arm cross as a subtle indication to a person whom I found attractive that hello I have breasts and wonder if you would possibly be interested in arranging to touch them at a later time. (I have included this final example for completeness, but for goodness sake this is an exception to the general case, not a rule, and you had damn well better keep that in mind.) [ETA at 1102:] On the other hand, a friend of mine has now said that she feels the underboob arm cross is actually a defensive, but not angry gesture, while the overboob is defensive and angry. So there you go. MAKE NO ASSUMPTIONS.

I imagine this is a YMMV for other breast-bearing humans.

So yeah. It’s complicated.

And I think the far more important question is to ask why it’s even really necessary in the narrative to mention this anyway. If it’s empty place holder action, why the fuck are you writing empty place holder action to begin with? (No really, ask yourself that because I have a really bad problem with doing that kind of empty action myself and I need to knock it off.) What is this action accomplishing? How does it add to the story? Does it say anything useful about the character? (And “The character has breasts, by the way” is not really that useful.)

Personal aside: by the by, when I write a female character crossing her arms, invariable she crosses her arms over her chest. Because I don’t considering the state of the breasts that important. Hm.

If the action is actually important to the narrative (eg: “She deliberately crossed her arms over her breasts to hide her cleavage from the creepy gaze of the Nice Guy(tm).”) then I’m all for it. But if all it really accomplishes is indicating that the character has boobs and they are Super Perky, well. Eh. Probably not the kind of book I’d be reading anyway, right?

Please file this next to, by the way people don’t usually “notice” they have breasts and then describe them in detail so it’s a little weird to the point of creepy when your POV character does it mmmkay?

ETA at 1107: And I am now having an interesting discussion with some friends about how certain kinds of body language have become over-simplified short-hand for emotional or mental states particularly in writing, probably influenced by bullshit ‘psychology of body language’ pieces. For example, putting your hands in your pockets supposedly means you’re hiding something–when often it really just means that you wanted to do something with your hands other than just let them dangle awkwardly at your sides. Or maybe your hands are cold. Or you’re trying to talk with your hands less. Or you’re just feeling casual. Or who knows what else.

There is no single meaning for any particular sort of body language. And while I understand the utility of making particular gestures shortcuts for complex emotional or mental states (eg: the way body language is used in Noh theater) there needs to be an understanding that there is a separation from reality if we’ve hit that point. Which I don’t think there is right now. And it’s also a valid question on if you want your character actions to be coded in a highly stylized way–and if what is perhaps useful for certain types of theater (where there is normally no inner monolog to inform us of the realities of a character’s thoughts and feelings) is really something that should be utilized in the written word.

And wow this got all next level all of a sudden.

ETA at 1126: 

Results of completely non-scientific arm position relative to boobs during arm cross data collection:

Underboob: 8

Overboob: 5

Both: 2

Neither: 2

Categories
science fiction things that are hard to write thinking out loud worldcon

Drawing the line

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking, these last couple of days. Well, as much thinking as possible considering I’ve been getting about five hours of sleep a night and work is slowly consuming my brain, my soul, and probably my major viscera. (But hey, workshop day is tomorrow! Then I get to relax have severe panic about all the end of month work that I didn’t get done because of the workshop wheeeeeeee.)

Anyway. I’ve been thinking drawing the line. You know. The Line. The Line That Must Not Be Crossed.

It’s an expression that can have some real macho bullshit baggage with it, I guess because it makes for nicely threatening language. See anything involving foreign policy. But that’s not what I mean, here. It’s not about denoting territory in a power struggle, be it between international powers or people. It’s not about maintaining physical safety. Those are the lines you draw outside of yourself, whether you’re a country or a parent with a cranky toddler or someone trying to hold the distance between you and an evil shitbag that doesn’t comprehend the meaning of No–and that’s a whole different matter.

The lines I’m thinking about here are the ones you draw inside yourself. They’re part of the way you define and shape yourself into the person you want to be. They are yours–only yours. You don’t get to force your configuration of internal borders on anyone else, and no one has the right to reach into you and redraw those boundaries.

These internal lines read: if I do this, if I am a part of this, I will no longer be the person I am or the person I want to be. I will no longer be right with myself. Crossing these internal lines will probably never hurt you physically, but will wound you in ways that never heal.

And make no mistake, other people aren’t going to have the same internal lines as you; it’s never easy to hit a point where you think something is unacceptable, but your friend is okay with it. Being human ain’t easy because no two of us are exactly the same, and that’s another thing you have to decide for yourself.

But these lines are important. These are the lines you draw between yourself and the dark.

#

So why all the navel-gazing? It’s not really my style when I’ve got movies I could be bitching about. As you might suspect already, this is another dispatch from the gift that keeps on giving: this year’s Hugo short-list. In my previous post, I said I’d be doing my best to read all the entries with an open heart. It was the best I could come up with at the time, because my first urge is always to ask what’s fair.

But then I made the mistake of getting lost down the comment rabbit hole of Natalie’s post, and one of the people there invoked Orson Scott Card, Roman Polanski, and Woody Allen as similar situations to the Vox Day being a Hugo nominee. (Insert your own feelings here on if you think that’s even a fair comparison to make on the scale of artistic merit versus complete shitbaggery.) And god I wish he hadn’t done that, because I’d almost managed to stop picking at this particular scab and let it retreat to no more than a nagging itch.

I’ve already searched through this little sector of my soul in relation to Orson Scott Card. (For me, he’s the only really pertinent example, because in all honesty I’ve never really liked Woody Allen’s work.) I fought with myself, blood was drawn, wounds were taken, and I came to the conclusion that I have a line. There is a point at which I can no longer separate the art from the living artist. I cannot escape the fact that my support of their art, however miniscule in relative scale it may be, implicates me in what they then use their platform to do and say. It makes me complicit, if only peripherally, in the harm they choose to do. I said of Orson Scott Card:

If you can separate the art from the artist, maybe that makes you a better person than me. Feel that way if you like. But I cannot support someone who believes that me and many of the people I love and esteem are not full human beings.

If that’s true for OSC, whom I have met and actually liked as a person, it’s just as true for Vox Day. And I’m ashamed of myself for not having considered this sooner. Though I guess that explains why I’ve been so damn uncomfortable about this entire mess.

I may still read Vox Day’s story if it’s in the Hugo packet, because what little of his prose I’ve seen has been downright florid, and I have this “hobby” (some might call it a “problem”) where I watch or read terrible things and then go on seething rants about the awfulness I witnessed. So I might give this embarrassing shitstain in the shorts of humanity that much of my time. Or I might just watch a couple episodes of Master Chef reruns instead. The series where it’s all kids is super cute, after all.

But I will not be putting Vox Day above the No Award line. I gave up Ender’s Game because being right with myself was more important than a novel I treasured as a teenager. This isn’t even a contest.

#

You don’t have to agree with me. I don’t expect you to. These are my lines, not yours.

Feel free to discuss this with me. Feel free to offer me arguments (I’ll do my best to consider) or ask questions if you’re going to actually listen to the answers. If you think less of me as a person for my melodramatic little choice, well, it is what it is. This is personal. I didn’t make this decision for you, and I sure as hell didn’t make it just to spite some guy I wouldn’t recognize if I bumped into him on the street.

It’s the end of the day, and I feel right with myself.

Categories
science fiction worldcon

Reading stories, wrestling pigs, the repetition of history. You know, the Hugos.

I edited my post from yesterday to add this, but I’m going to make it as a statement all its own too (with a little expansion), since I don’t think I made this point as strongly as I wanted.

While my sideeyeing here is mighty, I’m going to do my best to give the fiction in the Hugo packet an open-hearted read, within time constraints. I feel like if I’m going to complain about this uber-pathetic deck stacking, then it’s my obligation to not play into the game by letting my choices be made by anything outside what I read in the stories. This might be a good place to whip out that old Samuel Clemens chestnut about not wrestling pigs (because you both get dirty and the pig likes it). I’m pretty sure whichever way the awards fall this year there will be politics invoked as the reason whether it is or not.

I’m also well aware that I’m operating from a pretty privileged position here, so please don’t read this as a finger-shaking exhortation or some kind of judgment. (And feel free to argue with me on this one, I’m just doing my best and my best ain’t perfect.) At the end of the day you do what you have to do to be right with yourself. Where you draw the line for yourself is your choice, not mine. Relevant update on this notion here.I’ll be doing my best to read everyone fairly… minus one.

To be honest I feel a bit bad for anyone that’s gotten unwittingly caught in the crossfire of Correia’s incredibly unsubtle “sad puppy” campaign thing because it adds an unhappy shadow of doubt to the nominations, and that seems unfair. Then again, guys, you got nominated for a Hugo! It’s not like you need some random person on the internet feeling bad at you for that.

Also, you should read Kameron Hurley’s post. And remember that this kind of stuff ain’t new.

That is hopefully all I’m going to need to say about that. I might try to blog a bit as I’m reading. If I have time to read.

Until then–IT’S LEG DAY MOTHERFUCKERS ARE YOU READY

Categories
science fiction worldcon

Happy Hugo Nomination Day! (In which I go “Yay!” and sideeye simultaneously.)

I know, I drop off the internets for two weeks (I have a massive slate of excuses that I’m planning to elaborate on…soon-ish) and then two posts in one day! Zomg! But the Hugo nominations just got released, so I’m going to react in between moving my plate so my cat can’t get to my sandwich.

So, here’s the list of nominees!

First off, I’ll cop immediately to the fact that I don’t have as many opinions as I would like about most of the categories because the amount of reading I got done last year was somewhere between deeply pathetic and downright sob-worthy. (And much of what I did read was not published in 2013. Boo.)

I’m super happy for Sofia Samatar; Selkie Stories Are For Losers is one of those rare 2013 stories I did actually read and I loved it so much I nominated it so woo! I helped!  The Graphic Story category is very exciting this year (and god I’m already looking forward to throwing Ms. Marvel on the 2014 ballot, you have no idea) and I’m very happy to see Gravity and Pacific Rim in the Dramatic Presentation, Long Form category. Also An Adventure in Space and Time and The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot are my faves out of the Best Doctor Who Dramatic Presentation, Short Form category. Semiprozine and Fanzine both look exciting this year. And Skiffy and Fanty got nominated in the Fancast category and I love that podcast ferociously so YAY.

Standard congratulations to everyone who got nominated, particularly the five writers up for the Not a Hugo award!

So then there are the things that I’m just sideeyeing so mightily.

First off, Wheel of Time. The whole series. In best novel. Look, I get that it’s technically okay by the letter of the rules, but seriously? I just… I can’t even. And don’t take this as me just being some WoT hater. I mentioned the nomination to Mike, who has read the series and owns many of the books. He likes that massive wood pulp trainwreck in his own way. And when I told him about the nomination, he frowned and said, “Really? That had better not win.” SO IT’S NOT JUST ME.

I’m super disappointed that Her didn’t get nominated in the dramatic presentation, long form. I’m guessing it’s because it wasn’t as massively popular (or well-advertised) as any of the other movies, but goddamn it was phenomenal. (It very much deserved the Oscar it received for best screenplay, and every one of its nominations.) And of course Europa Report, but I had no illusions about that one even having a chance since it was a relatively teeny independent film.

Then the dramatic presentation, short form category. The Best Doctor Who category. But really, The Name of the Doctor? And frankly, I have such a hate/love relationship with The Day of the Doctor that I just can’t even start on that. I guess I’m just glad The Time of the Doctor didn’t get a nomination or I might have punched my fist through my laptop screen. Boy I can’t wait until next year when The Loofah of the Doctor and The Worrying, Hairy Mole That Should Probably Get Looked at of the Doctor battle it out against Game of Thrones: The Lion and the Rose. (I have never watched nor read GoT, and yet it’s very likely even I would vote for that episode because I am an adult human being with an internet connection.)

And then there’s this thing where my sideeyeing hits the sort of level that might indicate incipient eye strain. Natalie Luhrs posted at her blog and there’s also a bit about it over at File770, which is basically the fact that several of the nominees were on sample ballots pushed by the dreaded Vox Day and the not-dreaded-and-is-probably-a-perfectly-nice-dude-in-person-but-online-sounds-like-a-real-asshole Larry Correia.

Now, I have no idea about the quality of most of the work on the ballot this year. I didn’t put nominees in a lot of the categories because I didn’t get to read much new stuff, which is kind of the point. It goes without saying that you shouldn’t nominate things you haven’t read. And for all I know right now, these are all equally fantastic damn stories; I look forward to finding out when I read them. In fact, I had no thoughts beyond, “Oh hey, good for you Brad Torgersen, two nominations!” and so on until I heard about this grossness. (Exception: I did think, “Wow, the Prince of Darkness got nominated for a Hugo? What the hell does that story do, press and iron your shirts while you read?”)

People post their personal ballot picks all the time. I actually look at those when the nomination period is drawing close so I can try to squeeze in a few more things to read and get a better spread on my own nominations. But there is a subtle but very important distinction between, “So this is who I’m going to nominate” and actively exhorting your followers to pony up the $40 for a supporting membership and participate in a “Sad Puppies Hugo stacking campaign” because it’ll… make liberals cry or something.

Bonus points for VD trying to blame it all on the subject of his massive internet hateboner, John Scalzi:

It should be interesting to see how this all turns out. But after John Scalzi – how entirely unsurprising – laid the groundwork for the open politicization of the Hugo Award, it was inevitable that what had always been done quietly behind closed doors would come out in the open.

See! He totally did it first! We’re just doing it better or something!

I get that there is an element of politics inherent in award giving, particularly when it’s “big” awards–all you have to do is observe the Academy Awards to see that. And I get that there is a lot of deck stacking when it comes to platform. (Shit, man, I was just bitching about how a movie I thought was fucking amazing didn’t get a nomination because it was insufficiently popular.) Yet all you have to do is really look over the nominations to see that it’s not just the 900-lb gorillas that get on the slate for these things.

While it might feel good to tell yourself that the only reason the people in your in-group aren’t raking in all the awards is because fancy schmancy people who write stories you don’t like because there’s too much global warming and not enough guns are having a massive circle jerk and didn’t invite you, it’s also pretty goddamn sad. It’s “you plebes just don’t get my genius” in a different form.

It just seems really…pathetic. Yeah, that’s the word I’m looking for.

ETA on 4/20: And since I feel like I didn’t make this point strongly enough in the original post–while my sideeyeing here is mighty, I’m going to do my best to give the fiction in the Hugo packet an open-hearted read. Because if I’m going to complain about this uber-pathetic deck stacking, I feel it’s then my obligation to not play into their game by letting my choices be made by anything outside what I read in the stories. I’m also well aware that I’m operating from a pretty privileged position here, so please don’t read this as a finger-shaking exhortation or some kind of judgment. (And feel free to argue with me on this one, I’m just doing my best and my best ain’t perfect.) At the end of the day you do what you have to do to be right with yourself. Relevant follow-up here.

TBH I feel a bit bad for anyone that’s gotten unwittingly caught in the crossfire of Correia’s incredibly unsubtle “sad puppy” campaign thing because it adds an unhappy shadow of doubt to the nominations, and that seems unfair. Then again, guys, you got nominated for a Hugo! It’s not like you need some random person on the internet feeling bad at you for that.

Anyway, good luck to all the nominees! And may the odds be ever in your favor.

Categories
silly spam

OH MY GOD GUYS I’M GONNA JOIN THE ILLUMINATI

from: candis.alston@xxxxxx
bcc: katsuhiro@gmail.com
date: Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 1:37 PM
subject: INVITATION TO THE GREAT ILLUMINATI

Your email was selected among the ten lucky people giving the opportunity of becoming rich and popular by joining the great Illuminati network for more details please contact email ([redacted]) for more details.

Er. Wait. No. I’m not being given the opportunity, I’m giving the opportunity.

HOLY SHIT I’M ALREADY PART OF THE ILLUMINATI! AND I DIDN’T EVEN KNOW! That’s how amazing and secret this great network of rich and popular people is. I was already in the Illuminati and I didn’t even know it! Well, I’m glad to know that in addition to being rich and popular, I’m also so generous I’m helping people join an organization I didn’t even know I was part of.

Though I’m kind of disappointed that the Illuminati are about being rich and popular. I mean, rich, okay. But doesn’t popular kind of defeat the purpose of being a super secret and shadowy organization? And I thought there was going to be like…globe-dominating power. Manipulating heads of state like little marionettes and laughing with a rich deep voice while doing so. Can I have that instead of the popularity? I’d rather be the creepy shadow behind the throne rather than having an entourage of people who think I’m cool. That just seems kind of exhausting.

For more details I will be certain to contact the e-mail address (which is f-ing hilarious and I am sad that I had to redact it on the principle of the thing but let’s just say that apparently the GREAT ILLUMINATI use Outlook.com) for more details. The GREAT ILLUMINATI know that being redundant is the secret to being rich and popular and so is being redundant. DO NOT QUESTION THEIR METHODS. I mean OUR methods. Because I’m already there. I’m so rich and popular I didn’t realize I was rich and popular THAT IS HOW RICH AND POPULAR I AM.

Categories
movie

[Movie] The Grand Budapest Hotel

As Wes Anderson a movie as was ever Wes Andersoned by Wes Anderson, to be sure. The Grand Budapest Hotel is basically everything I could have wanted it to be and then some. The entire movie feels very carefully unreal, in a way that reminds me of cartoons that are made entirely of cut paper moving in stop motion rather than actual animation. It’s all models and intense colors and confections that look like they ought to be made out of play-do but you know they’ll taste amazing.

And Willem Dafoe with a bulldog underbite.

I think the glue that holds The Grand Budapest Hotel together and makes you believe all the careful fakery is that just before the unreal silliness of it hits the point of twee, something shocking happens. Fingers get chopped off. People get stabbed. Ralph Fiennes suddenly starts cussing a blue streak. And even when it’s not necessarily funny, you can’t help but laugh anyway because it’s just so damn startling.

Also, allow me to share with you my favorite exchange in the entire movie. For context, know that Dmitri is Madame D’s son, and has spent pretty much all of his screen time relentlessly attacking M. Gustave’s sexuality.

Dmitri: If I find out you laid one finger on my mother’s body, living or dead…

M. Gustave: I thought I was a faggot.

Dmitri: [moment of confused silence] You’re bisexual.

I almost snorted iced tea out my nose.

The only thing in the movie I wasn’t really wild about was the three layered narrative. I still don’t get the point of adding the third layer, which we only even see at the beginning and the end of the movie. As it is, you get a bit about the “author,” then the author meeting Mr. Moustafa, and then Mr. Moustafa relating the story to him. I don’t see the necessity of that top layer, unless it was self-consciously to mimic the three-tiered design of the Courtesan au Chocolat confection, which really seems like it’s trying too hard. (Or maybe you could tease something out about looking back into the past and looking back into the past again, but that also seems like trying too hard.)

The story is pretty much as presented in the trailer. I suppose if this movie is about anything, it’s the intrusion of war and death–and reality, really–into this carefully unreal place. It’s funny, but for all the death that occurs in the movie, none of it ever feels real until the end, when suddenly the film goes from bright color to black and white. Maybe it’s even a bit about how people form their own family units. But I think the real point is the hectic, fantastic journey. It was weird and hilarious and I loved it.

Categories
movie

In which I talk to myself about why I like Thor best, don’t mind me

Look, I’m just going to talk to myself about superhero movies for a minute, so don’t you mind one bit. Move along, nothing to see here.

I mean the Thor franchise collectively, since I’d be a massive liar if I claimed I liked Thor the character better than his utterly cracked little brother. But I’ve been thinking and thinking about this, since I was so super excited about Thor: The Dark World coming out last year, and now that The Winter Soldier is upon us I’m kind of…meh. Like I’m going to go see it and enjoy the hell out of it I’m sure, but for me it’s in the category of “when I have time” as opposed GIVE IT TO ME NOW, FUCKERS.

I was just re-reading my complaints about Man of Steel, and in particular the ridiculous way the movie tried to make freaking Superman all dark and angsty, and I realized that it’s. That’s why I love Thor and I really like Iron Man. I even liked the first Captain America way more than I thought I would. With all of those movies, no matter how grim things are temporarily, there’s a very definite angst limit before going back to banter and fun and just getting on with the ridiculous life of a superhero.

Tony Stark is a messed up guy with some issues, but he’s also made of 100% supercharged sass and he never really quits. He’s not a dark character in any sense of the word. Then Thor is like the anti-dark character. He doesn’t have a tragic past. He’s not self-hating. He doesn’t spend all of his time isolating himself or trying to destroy the relationships he has to remind us that he’s fucked up. He is, in fact, shockingly un-fucked-up when you compare him to most other superheroes.  The closest he gets to angst is a couple minutes of staring off into the distance while looking super pretty, plainly wishing he could go visit his girlfriend and that his little brother would just stop being such a douche already. And that’s given him a pretty refreshing arc for his character development, because (in my opinion) it’s mostly been about him coming to terms with the fact that the world isn’t a black and white place and learning to deal with it.

And I’m not saying there’s necessarily anything wrong with the traumatic backstory trope but damn, it’s so nice to have a break from it.

Really, the only character that goes for the angsty narrative at all in the entire Thor franchise is Loki, and like >70% of it is his inner bullshit I’m-totally-the-victim-here monolog that he then covers over by being a sassy little dickbag. All the rest of the characters are solidly in the laughing while poking things with a sword category, and I’m totally behind that when it comes to my escapist genre movies.

Which brings us to The Winter Soldier, which I’m sure I will enjoy, because yay Black Widow, and I’ve seen enough clips to know that there is going to be plenty of sass to go around. But Steve is… I wouldn’t in a million years accuse Steve of being a dark character, but he’s generally quite serious, which isn’t really my cup of superheroic tea. Considering the plot for this movie, I’m really wondering just what kind of BAWWWW levels it’ll hit. Guess I’ll find out this weekend, since the current plan is pizza and The Winter Soldier at the Alamo as a reward for unpacking at the new apartment.

Anyway, this is also all part of the reason why I’m a devoted Marvel cinematic universe fan, and I’ve basically given up on DC. Chris Nolan managed to put enough meat in the Dark Knight trilogy that slogging through the grimdark was a rewarding experience, but it probably says a lot that I’ve yet to feel the need to rewatch the third movie, and I can count the number of rewatches of the first two on the fingers of one hand. And then you get to Man of Steel and it’s like reaching for that level of sheer broodiness with absolutely none of the substance and I’m just done.

I’ll just be over here, enthusing about the coming of the RACCOON WITH A MACHINE GUN.

Categories
free read writing

I wrote a story! The Heart-Beat Escapement (and a little bonus)

I have a new story out today from Crossed Genres: The Heart-Beat Escapement

Please read and enjoy!

This story is one that went through a lot of drafts–nine in total. It started out about 1500 words longer than it is now.

Something about the way Greensmith says but grates. “I already know that,” Owen snaps. The baby, abandoned in an alleyway and dying; the doctor and the engineer who found him and replaced his malformed heart with one crafted of delicate gears. It was his favorite fairy tale, growing up.

Most of those 1500 words I ended up cutting out of the story were the fairy tale Owen refers to here. Bits of it were interspersed throughout the story to act as section breaks. It ultimately didn’t work right and slowed the story down way too much, which is why I cut it, but I’m still pretty fond of those words. So I thought I’d share those sections (plus a bit extra to make them more coherent) with you as a little bonus–Owen’s bedtime story.

Categories
books

Anonymous reviewing on Amazon and the HWA letter

HWA wrote an open letter to Jeff Bezos requesting to change the way Amazon reviews work. (ETA: Whoops, URL for that link was borked, it’s now fixed, sorry about that!)

In our view, beyond profanity and spitefulness, an inappropriate review would be one that:

  • indicates the customer has not read the book, but only a small portion of it, such as a free electronic sample;
  • includes spoilers which, once revealed, could significantly reduce interest in the work;
  • includes negative personal remarks about the author; and/or
  • is focused on the work’s price rather than its content.

As a writer I admittedly have almost zero (but not quite zero!) reviews on Amazon, so I’m kind of at the career point where I just wish people would acknowledge that I exist and have, you know, written stuff at all. I do have a single two star review, which I will treasure forever and ever because it’s beautiful and made me giggle. I also admittedly don’t tend to use Amazon reviews too much when it comes to buying reading material; most everything I pick up, it’s because a friend recommended it to me. Probably because I don’t read nearly as much as I should. So I honestly have no idea if the Amazon review system is the sort of wretched hive of scum and villainy we’re used to seeing at, say, Youtube.

All that in mind, eh. I feel like the above points could be argued one way or the other, but would also need to be better defined.

What constitutes a spoiler? I have friends that are allergic to spoilers to the point of near melodrama, who might count mentioning any plot point or character development at all as spoilers–which sure makes writing a meaningful review difficult. Personally, I like spoilers, since with rare exception it doesn’t hurt my enjoyment of a film or book, and I kind of like to know if the wheels come off the bus in the third act and I’m just going to end up pissed off because it was all just a massive copout dream.

What constitutes a negative personal remark? Obviously, “you shouldn’t buy this book because the author is ugly” or even “you shouldn’t buy this book because I think Orson Scott Card the author is a terrible human being” would be personal remarks. But what about criticisms of the writer’s style? Complaints that the writer really needs an editor or seems way too in love with one of her heroes? I wouldn’t count those as personal, but I’ve sure seen some writers take such comments very personally.

Isn’t price a valid factor? I feel like “I liked this book all right but it sure wasn’t worth the $25 I shelled out for it” is a very valid criticism.

And so on. On a lot of these, your mileage may vary. To be honest, a lot of the issues brought up in the HWA letter really sound to me like they could be solved if Amazon just enforced its existing policies better. And maybe added a “flag as inappropriate” button or something. You can already comment on reviews and rate them as helpful or not. I’d argue the rest of the slack could probably be picked up by better moderation, but whatever.

Where I do come to a screeching halt on this letter is:

We recommend that Amazon strengthen its customer review policy to address the above issues and also require customers reveal their actual identity, which removes the cover of anonymity that enables trolling and the ability to simple re-enter the system under a new identity once banned.

Emphasis mine.

To be clear, the anonymity they’re complaining about still requires that people sign in under an Amazon account (one that has successfully completed at least one purchase) in order to post a review to begin with. So yes, sock puppet accounts can be an issue, but the real point here is that there is an identity that a review is attached to, and there is a trail that can hopefully be followed in the event of actual harassment.

What kind of blows me away on second reading here is actually the complete naiveté displayed by the notion that this is actually some kind of solution. To sign up for an Amazon account, literally all you need is A name (which need not even be real) and an e-mail address. That’s why it’s possible to create sock puppet accounts to begin with. Amazon doesn’t exactly check your state issued ID when you sign up. Requiring people to reveal their full names/real names is not in any way going to prevent sock puppet accounts.

I’m honestly not a fan of true anonymity when it comes to comment systems; I actually do want there to be some kind of account involved just so you can at least feel like there’s someone you can respond to, which also allows for banning and potentially provides a trail to follow if things escalate to harassment. Yes, that kind of thing still allows trolls to make sock puppet accounts, but let’s be honest–if someone is that determined to be an asshole and has that much time on their hands, they’re going to find a way to do it.

I’ve had way too many friends who have been harassed because they’ve had their real names found out. Sometimes it’s because their name has revealed their gender or ethnicity and opened them up to really nasty personal attacks. People with really uncommon names can easily have their personal details searched out. And in the age of companies googling their potential employees as a matter of course, I can’t help but think this could really hurt the ability of certain genres (particularly LGBT books and erotica, but even certain kinds of horror) to get reviews.

To be clear, we are not asking for a policy that ensures only positive reviews. We are asking for a policy that focuses reviews on content and helps to eliminate public harassment of Amazon’s partners.

The way to eliminate public harassment is with better moderation. And while the aim may not be to ensure only positive reviews, you’re kidding yourself if you think this wouldn’t have a chilling effect. Particularly when we’re talking about the work of relatively well known authors who have a loyal fan following, or ones who have been known to go after people who write negative reviews.

When authors complain about remarks that cross the line, they are often told by Amazon to engage the customer directly. The author never wins these confrontations; instead, engaging with anonymous people who are exhibiting trolling behavior only hurts the author him/herself.

Yeah, no shit. This is why rule number one of the internet is “don’t feed the trolls” and “don’t respond to reviews” should really be somewhere in the top ten rules for all writers.

If a writer is being harassed, that is a problem, and that needs to be dealt with using stricter moderation. (And potentially even bringing in law enforcement if harassment has hit the point of threats, etc.) But frankly, the majority of what I’ve seen in regards to negative reviews hasn’t been about harassment; it’s been about someone not liking the writer’s work, and the writer taking umbrage.

I get it, I really do. It sucks when faceless people are saying mean things about you. I’ve had that happen to me in my personal life before, and it feels bad, man. But at the same time, this is the price of admission. No one is required to like what we write, let alone be kind about it. And the reviews aren’t for us to begin with.

The onus isn’t on reviewers to be nice; it’s on us to be graceful when they aren’t.

Categories
feminism rants

Three Non-Exhaustive Lists

Things that are none of your business (a non-exhaustive list):

  1. My decision to not change my last name
  2. The last time I shaved my legs
  3. The conversations I have with my gynecologist
  4. If and when I’m going to have kids
  5. If I’m on birth control and why

Things that are none of my business (a non-exhaustive list):

  1. Your sex life and the consenting adult(s) with whom you conduct it
  2. How many kids you decide to have
  3. Your weight and how you choose to manage it
  4. How you deal with your crippling anxiety disorder
  5. The way you want your end of life care handled

Things that “my” money gets spent on that I dislike immensely (a non-exhaustive list):

  1. Tax breaks for religious organizations
  2. The TSA
  3. No Child Left Behind/Race to the Top (not to be confused with education in general)
  4. Drone warfare
  5. Professional sports venues

I hope you can take a look at the three above lists and catch my drift. But if not, allow me to summarize: My personal life, which includes my medical decisions, is none of your fucking business. Your personal life, which includes your medical decisions, is none of my fucking business. No one gets to pick and choose so that their money only gets spent on things they personally like when they are part of a societal collective, whether we’re talking about a government budget or group health insurance.

You’ll notice the third list is entirely about things the government spends “my” money on that I don’t like, rather than health decisions people make under their insurance that I would decide differently. I tried to make a list like that (for example, if I suffered a traumatic brain injury and thought I even had the right to make those choices, I’d probably cut you off after three kids, max) but I found the entire concept so deeply repugnant I couldn’t do it. Because your medical decisions are none of my fucking business.

As you may have already figured out, this is about the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court is hearing right now. That this is even a question disturbs me more than I can really articulate. I was under this strange impression that when a company employed me, it purchased my time, my effort, and my skills–not the manipulative right to weigh in on my life outside of work.

I’ve seen people point out a lot in this argument that you know, there are other reasons people take birth control pills. Not just contraception. Which is true, and does point out a nice hole in the moralistic bullshit. But that argument also bothers me, because it can effectively legitimize the unstated claim that it’s anyone’s business to begin with. It can be heard to imply that well, there are certain uses of the pill that are legit, it’s not just for sluts who want to sleep around. Just like the whole “rape and incest” exception for abortion tacitly supports the idea that some abortions are totally more legitimate than others.

Your abortion is none of my fucking business, by the way. Just like your use or non-use of birth control. Just like your sex life. Just like your type II diabetes or your depression. Your health and the maintenance thereof is not mine to control.

So let me tell you a story that’s none of your fucking business. I was on birth control pills for well over a decade, and it wasn’t because I had crippling cramps or endometriosis. It was because I was an adult human being in her twenties who didn’t want to have kids, and who believed (and still believes) that sex is part of being human and living life, as opposed to a crime punishable by pregnancy.

Don’t like that? Good thing you have your own life to live.

When I was unemployed and paying ridiculous amounts of money for COBRA on my old healthcare insurance, I had to drop off birth control pills because my plan didn’t cover them and I was struggling to make my mortgage payments. I’d just met someone (Mike) with whom I was head over heels in love–but neither of us were in any kind of place where kids were an option, and we still aren’t now. It was pretty scary until I could afford to buy the pill again, which involved Mike helping me out financially. And that’s always fun.

Oddly enough, if I’d been a man who couldn’t get it up, the plan would have still covered my Viagra. Even more hilariously, if I’d become a failure statistic for condoms, the plan would have covered my much more expensive pregnancy. A pregnancy which likely would have made it significantly harder for me to find employment, and probably prevented me from going back to college at that time.

That’s why I was so indescribably happy when the ACA mandated birth control in healthcare plans, because of bullshit like that. These things matter. When you have no money, these things matter a hell of a lot. These things shape the course of a person’s life.

And that should not for Hobby Lobby or anyone else to decide.