Helloooo, So, I've been on a history kick recently, I'm sure some of you have noticed. And I became interested, in a morbid sort of way, in this movie Anonymous(2011), which deals with similar stuff to my historical novel, including my main protagonist as a villain. But it has quite nice and relatively accurate costumes for a Hollywood drama, and at least it's trying to be clever. Albeit that the "cleverness" derives from the relatively absurd suggestion that Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare, but instead was a patsy for Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford to write plays without being recorded as such. Join me on a magical journey of strangely watchable shittiness. So first of all, why the hell isn't Shakespeare, Shakespeare? Well the film starts with modern, real-life Derek Jacobi(and he actually believes some of this stuff IRL!!) presenting the premise to a modern day theatre audience. Shakespeare is really well-known and performed, but we don't know that much about William Shakespeare the person other than drab records of formalities. And he didn't mention any manuscripts in his will!!!(Nevermind that the Playing Company probably owned most of them and that not willing them to your relatives directly was normal). Also his daughters were "irrefutably illiterate" (lol, no they weren't). So some wacky special effects are visually shown making the scenery of a historical scene and suddenly we're in the early 1600s. It's all rather clever if it weren't so wrong. He's tryin' good old Emmerich, he's tryin' god bless him. If only he weren't shit at actually being artistic. Ben Johnson(other writer) is running from soldiers holding a bundle of stuff. He hides it underneath the stage floorboards of the Globe, and we see that it's a folio(I wonder who wrote it??). The soldiers burn down the Globe to "smoke him out", nevermind that didn't happen to till after this film in an accident. He's captured and brought to an interrogation room in the Tower of London. Sir Robert Cecil, in the spooky shadows, is in charge of the interrogation and wants to know about the plays. It was the plays in the folio. It's obviously supposed to be the First Folio, which is apparently written by Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford. Johnson refuses to give him the location. Then through a slap montage we transition into "five years earlier", be ready, from here on out we're going to transition back and forth with wild abandon and questionable sense of plotting. Oxford and Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton are going to the theatre. The touch of the planks in the street as a little walkway is quite nice, referencing the dirtiness of the London streets. Henry's outfit is S O S P A R K LY, I like it. One of Ben Johnson's plays, Every Man Out of His Humour, is being played, but when the play upsets a nobleman who resembles one of the characters, some soldiers arrest the actors and the outraged Johnson. Johnson being arrested for a seditious play places this as 1597 probably, but the play in that incident was Isle of Dogs with Thomas Nashe, so this doesn't make any sense other than that we have more actual text from Every Man and apparently they really wanted direct quotes. The denouncement is attributed to William Cecil, Lord Burghley, which seems iffy given that a public declaration should probably mention the Queen but whatever. Also Christopher Marlowe, Nashe and some other playwrights that were historically Shakespeare's friend circle are here watching. Oxford and Southampton go to Essex House, local residence of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex. He and Southampton play tennis and Oxford acts as judge of the match. He proposes to Essex that theatre has political power using the example of the controversy of the play he just watched. Essex likes swords though(this is very accurate to his character) and remains unconvinced. He and Southampton then have a secret(!) conversation where he says that Burghley is promising James VI of Scotland the crown as Elizabeth's heir, but he should totes be king. It's not that secret given a servant and Oxford are both outside, and Oxford listens in a sort of alarmed way. He talks to Southampton, who reveals that Essex's claim derives from being Elizabeth's rumoured bastard(???) but Oxford says that Essex is too bravado and they should be more careful. Apparently he thinks putting a bastard as an heir is a-okay and even implies that he is the "rightful" king. I'd like to note that Burghley never actually wrote to James, who's mother Mary, Queen of Scots he was instrumental in executing. Essex actually wrote first and it was Robert Cecil who then continued on. But here, I suppose to simplify things and because this film is obsessed with bastardy, he's essentially the "Cecil candidate" and totally-a-bastard Essex is the counter claimant. This is bullshit. Southampton is at court next and Robert Cecil, now actually illuminated properly, talks to him briefly. Essex is with the Queen privately because Burghley, Robert's father, is busy with work. Essex and the Queen then come in and Southampton offers her a gift from a mysterious someone. Some crazy fairy-dressed dwarves tell her they have a play written by "Anonymous", which IRL some of Shakespeare's plays were signed as. Robert Cecil doesn't like plays because he's an inaccurate caricature a Puritan, but Essex supports the offer. It's Midsummer Night's Dream, and Oxford is watching too, which he will do a lot in this film lurking in top levels of theatres and random hidey-holes because he's a creeper. F L A S H B A C K even earlier, near the start of Elizabeth's reign, and boy Oxford is playing Puck in a Midsummer Night's Dream which he apparently wrote while that young. An awkward backstage conversations ensues where Elizabeth declares her love of plays but his father and Burghley clearly him want to Do Important Stuff You Little Git. Oxford clearly knows he's expected to do that, but he can't suppress his Maverick Creative Needs (nevermind this is a time where artistic stuff is trendy at court, the film wants you to think art is edgy). Oh god are you tired yet? Cause I sure have a burning desire to both kill myself and keep watching. Anyway, back to Johnson in 97ish, who is being released from the Tower(?) on a favour. It's from Oxford, who he brings him to his house and tells him he wants Johnson to take credit for his plays because "one does not write plays in my world"(nevermind that one of the things used by Oxfordians(people who believe some of this shit) as evidence for his authorship is comparison with poems he wrote and the fact he was known to have written some kind of plays). And of course his servant threatens Johnson if he tells anyone the truth because He Can't Be Seen to Write Dammit. Now we meet Burghley who is being told of the Midsummer Night's Dream performance by Robert. He is unsurprised that Essex wanted to spite them, but is interested in the contents. He immediately recognises it because it's the same as in the flashback. He's worried that Oxford wants to choose the heir, even though they are arranging for James of Scotland, again, despite the historical fact that the actual Burghley never wrote to James. Burghley realises Essex is the opposition candidate, and proposes sending Essex to fight in Ireland where Southampton will follow. Robert actually gets a relatively sympathetic moment as we flashback to his childhood. Oxford, his father now dead and a bit older than the boy Oxford, is coming to past Burghley as a ward. Robert is a solitary little deformed boy in the corner, which seems more accurate than the rest of his portrayal. Oxford proves he is Super Sophisticated when Burghley mentions tuition, and then we see him fencing with the fencing tutor. He accidentally hurls his knocked sword at Robert who is playing chess in the background. Then he's a smug dick about it instead of apologising. I'm not sure if we're supposed to agree with this behaviour but I certainly don't. Fuck this version of Oxford. Burghley sends a servant to remove Oxford's poems he's been writing against his instructions, because of course the Cecils have to act like Oliver Cromwell on steroids. Oxford notices the servant and impulsively stabs him through a curtain. Back in 97ish, Ben Johnson is talking with William Shakespeare, one of the actors from the Every Man performance, about Oxford's offer although he refuses to give away too much who. Shakespeare suggest he can take the credit because Johnson doesn't trust in Oxford's skills. Burghley talks to the Queen about his get-Essex-killed-in-Ireland plan. The Queen seems weirdly ignorant of the obvious fact that Phillip of Spain likes Catholics revolting against her, despite the fact he's supported it before. But it hard to know what she's thinking, because she just says "Ireland?" like she didn't expect it. Anyway she agrees to send Essex and Burghley gets Robert Cecil on the Privy Council now he's away(even though that was in 1591 and had nothing to do with Essex). Given she's agreeing to the Ireland plan it must have reached late 598 now. Not that they tell you that. And she recalls the Midsummer Night's Dream performance from earlier as "last weekend" which makes it seem like 1597 or at least early 1598. IDK about this shit. Anyway when Elizabeth mentions Oxford's marriage to Burghley's daughter, we transition back to the wardship setting, and Burghley is outraged at Oxford killing the servant. That's justifiable; Oxford killed him just for snooping, and Oxford looked regretful when he did it. But now he's all "oh but he was stealing my poems, how dare you interfere with my life." Are we supposed to agree with him? Burghley proposes they say it was self-defence, but only if Oxford agrees to marry his daughter who has developed feelings for him. Oxford thinks he just wants an opportunity to claim rights to his estates but can't refuse under the circumstances. So he marries her of course. They...
Heellloooo again! So, I've heard this notion quite a few times in politics in this era of anti-immigration populism. So I'd like to delve into exactly what it means. What is meant by multiculturalism anyway? The basic definition of multiculturalism is rather simple. Google defines it as: "the presence of, or support for the presence of, several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society." Dictionary. com defines it as: "the view that the various cultures in a society merit equal respect and scholarly interest". The federal social services department of Australia defines it as "cultural and ethnic diversity". So other than some minor elements of encouragement policies it's mostly just literally have different ethnic groups and their cultures. Taken very literally and without charity, opposing multiculturalism would essentially imply genocide. I don't suppose that's exactly what we're talking about here. So what exactly is the often rather vague notion referring to? It seems to be used to refer to three things. The first is permissive immigration. Since it is most commonly occurring as a phrase in relation to Muslim immigration and the fear of terrorism, it's only natural that one of the primary things this phrase is used to mean is that right-wing supposed flaws of such policies are causing significant damages. So in this sense "multiculturalism has failed" means "Muslim immigrants are causing significant damages". Which as we can see by comparison isn't particularly good use of the definition. This is a specific and very policy-related notion that refers to specifics religious groups among an also select group. The second meaning that seems to be inferred is to do with diversity encouraging policies like quotas. Now again, this isn't really the failing of multiculturalism. It's the failing of specific policies. While some definitions do include a meaning that is specific to encouragement policies; it's not always clear that people are actually against all of what would be "multiculturalism" instead of merely elements of a specific multiculturalism. Indeed in some cases it's readily apparent they aren't really opposing all. And thirdly is the notion identified that people shouldn't have "distinct separated cultures" within the same country. This seems like a thin line of thinking. Either you are saying something blindingly obvious and portraying it as something more left-leaning people don't understand; that obvious being that people should accept some of the basic rights and principles of a liberal democracy when they exist in it. Or, you're saying what is at best too close to white nationalism; if you take it to mean broader and less pivotal cultural ideas as well. In either case, there is no way you can even get close to screening for such ideas in people's heads as refugees or enforcing people's thoughts once they're here. And I thought trying to control people's thinking was what right-wing people hated about leftwing social justice supposedly. Neither is it sensible to talk about more action-based crackdowns on those issues; because such activities already happen. At worst; you're talking about somewhat lacking solutions. Nobody does not accept the notion of rejecting known terrorists or stopping their terrorist actions. There's no general philosophical notion of "multiculturalism" where people oppose such obvious enforcement of moral and legal standards we already posses. At worse you've got a hodgepodge of idiotic left-wing extremists who are permissive but when they do gain undue influence over leftwing governments the symptom if we want to complain about Europe is incompetence. Sweden's main problem with refugees is that the government has done a comparatively terrible job managing and integrating the refugees but all of the most ideological stuff has nothing to do with an ideological goal of" multiculturalism" it's about fear of being called racists and perception of racism in others. No left-wingers believes Muslims should be allowed to rape women. They are simply afraid that people saying there's a Muslim rape epidemic are racist, and some people clearly are. Simply naming multiculturalism when discussing these issues does a great disservice to their complexity and does a great disservice to a much more general word. In conclusion, why exactly is this phrase so popular when it connects with such a general and very basic concept? Why would Angela Merkel, who has notably positioned themselves as moderates in comparison with the nationalist populist movement, use a term in a way that makes her sound like white nationalist? When did a word that in my upbringing in Australia has always been a symbol of our modern identity and not being racist become a hated buzzword? And why is it being used in ways that make it sound like a much more extreme concept than it is? We got anyone here who can provide some insight? Some sort of argument from that position?
So with all the anti-PC movement stuff I thought it would be good to ground what gay people's problems actually are anymore. Trans is kinda obvious since it's this newer weirder thing and raises all kinds of medical rights debates. But what do the LGB bit still have going? Why with gay marriage is anyone still complaining except about people who want to reverse? Well obviously that is a problem in of itself and the statistics on bullying, homelessness, suicide and murder are still troubling because of homophobic people's effects. But is there really any problem with the existing rights? Yes, there is. And more than people talk about. So to start adoption is banned or limited for same sex couples in a number of states (a pattern here that emerges is state independence acts much as it did during segregation). Access to conjungal visits (visists from a partner to the prisoner) are severely limited with only four states recognising same sex partners. Hate crimes are also recognised unequally meaning in 18 states the federal law is the only recognition of orientation based crime. Access to guaranteed hospital visits is only protected via Obamacare rules which limits it to Medicare and Medicaid and this protection is threatened by repealing Obamacare on the Republican agenda. State employees are protected from being fired for their orientation in only about half the states. All employment about a quarter. About half the states have no laws that affect employment around sexual orientation. These include Texas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Georgia, both Dakotas, Florida and Wyoming. Considering Texas, Georgia and Florida are in the top ten populated states that's scary. Less than half have any state housing protections. Luckily Obama had federal employees and federal housing ban discriminatory practises on this subject. In some states the age of consenst for "sodomy", has an unequal age of consent. This is because sodomy laws banning homosexual sex where repealed with unequal age and the law has yet to be changed since then. Blood and tissue donations from MSM (Men who have Sex with Men) have to wait one year deferral or even be permanently refused on the basis of stereotypes about STDs, despite the fact they test for that and sexual practices are the defining factor not orientation, the correlation exists because of practices which would surely be the more useful factor. Other issues include unequal Romeo and Juliet laws (laws lenient to teenage sex e.g. in Aus 16 and 17 are allowed a self-contained bubble of consent) and also deportations to countries with a sodomy death penalty e.g. Iran. Source for further detail; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States# Thank you for your time! Have a beautiful day!
Okay, so I really think this whole SJW thing needs to be addressed. Both in the sense of further discouraging them and blocking them, and in the sense of it being a problematic talking point. The problem with this talking point is that inevitablely becomes associated with the whole group,because people talk about it too much. For the same reason the stereotypes of flaming Christian homophobe or racist redneck Trump voter should be dealt with equally carefully to avoid that same problem. If there's one thing pissing me off recently it's people who seem unwilling to respectfully and rationally discuss a nuance view of politics. It's far too often like a war, and you just hate on whatever is other. And like a war you are taught to see the worst in the enemy. It's not about authoritarian SjWs or angry unyielding bigots, these are just versions of extremity. Have you ever noticed that the most authoritarian political situations ended up more comparable than their more fair counterparts? Because you start taking on qualities of extremity; drawing on over-tribalism and sheer irrationality. Let's try to avoid this more shall we? I think recent political ideas and events show that this kind of thinking is becoming invasive. We have to dismantle the character assassination and address specific points and people as their own and with respect for the complicated and ultimately somewhat subjective nature of the discussion. Because remember: there is no right answer in politics. Not entirely. Only in lucky examples. Peace! Thank you for your time! Have a beautiful day!
I'm baaaack! Okay, so an interesting thing for me is to question things. It's an important value. "Question everything" as they say. Now, I've been looking at this site recently one or two times, because I like to look at the other side of things. Now, this site is on the Southern Poverty Law Center hate group list. And it's not hard to see why since there's so confident and relentless. (Though I notice most of the articles are written by the leader, I suspect there's not that many members in this group, especially given all the competing groups) Something interesting they bring up however, that I've seen before and always wondered about, is the explicitness involved in some pride events. You get images like this; And this: Displaying nudity and language. Now, language isn't too bad, but considering some people wear revealing costumes or do what's depicted above, isn't there a legal concern about public indecency laws? And how often does this stuff show up? Since I haven't been to one myself because I am kind of shy about it, (weirdly) I'd love to hear from people who have to better understand these events. (P.S if you've had bad experiences with these kinds of people, don't read their site. It might really hurt your feelings because they are quite disdainful. I am mostly just amused but I'm not you, I'm very comfortable and happy and a bit innocent) Thank you for your time! Hope you have a good day!
Okay, so I promised I would do the sequel and here it is! Now that we've done something to address the notion of Australian being full of dangerous animals, let's talk about what some of what actually is. These, you should be afraid of. Though, they are just animals, don't think of them as evil. And as a pacifist and animal rights believer, I must stress killing these animals in revenge hunts adds nothing but more death. The Inland Taipan is the most venomous snake in the world. It is probably one of the biggest contributors to fears about Australian wildlife. ""OMG, Australia has the most venomous snake in the world!"But the Inland Taipan is also one of the less aggressive snakes. It's quite shy and prefers to run. It uses it's venom to kill prey and to deter predators. So you'll be fine unless you piss it off, the main risk is accidentally stepping on one, which is luckily uncommon since they like the arid places. The Coastal Taipan is the third most venomous snake. Unlike the Inland, it is quite territorial and bitey, and tends closer to the more populated coasts. This includes the most populated region, NSW, although snakes avoid humans generally. It is larger than the Inland too. So, the Coastal is actually more lethal to humans. Don't think people just get killed all the time though, you can still just give it a safe berth and it will leave you. The Stonefish is one of the most venomous fish. It is also exceptionally camoflaged, when in the ground it looks much like a rock. And it uses this to catch fish. But it's poisonous spines that protect are also easily stepped on by unsuspecting divers. And when this happens it can be fatal. The main relief is that this animal isn't usually encountered by humans, so it doesn't cause much damage. The Blue-Ringed Octopus is one of a small list of venomous octopi. It is quite small, and so uses it's venom to kill prey and defend itself. It is quite venomous, so should be taken seriously. However, like many animals here, with one exception, it has no reason to attack humans outside of defense, and this one isn't very aggressive. Just don't bug it when you see one. View attachment 22948 The Blue Bottle (Portuguese Man of War) is a colony of jellyfish relatives. It has a very painful sting, that can be fatal. In case it isn't obvious, these things don't attack you so much as touch you accidentally. It has a nasty tendency to end up beached, where it can be stepped on. Fortunately, it is relatively easy to spot, most incidents occur at night with drunken idiots who go swimming after having some stag night or whatever. Okay, so those are all dangerous, but they don't freak me out really. Not like this does. To me at least, this is the scariest, though actually not the most fatal, Australian animal. View attachment 22949 The Saltwater Crocodile is the largest crocodilian in the world. It has a tremendous bite force, and is also territorial and doesn't mind the taste of human at all. They are most common in the Northern Territory where they have this handy guide if you want to go swimming; https://nt.gov.au/emergency/community-safety/crocodile-safety-be-crocwise/introduction. Don't worry, they're not super common and even they aren't THAT aggressive. They can even be kept safely in zoos, and handled by professional keepers. But, just look at that face. Imagine it swimming slowly towards you at night, unseen, ready for an ambush... Again please don't hate any of these animals for having defense systems and/or predatory behaviour! It's not like humans don't kill other animals (and each other) back! Just be safe! Thank you for your time! Have a beautiful day!
Okay, so to be clear this is my opinion. This isn't "why it is factually for certain" although I do find it rather simple. In my very strong personal opinion, cultural appropriation is a meaningless concept. Let me provide you with the perfect example. . In this video this woman, who believes it is appropriate to only respect black viewers despite marketing civil rights, (Segregation anyone?) explains how she believes black ghetto culture belongs to it's inventors. (She also misrepresents the argument against her) (Also, dividing people's culture by race?) Which is an okay point, despite my moral misgivings. Until you realize her username (incorrectly) uses a Greek academic term and a French word (correctly). And that English is littered with other languages, and we use their cultures. Do the ancient Greeks own democracy? Do the Romans own plumbing? Do the French own baguettes? Do the Chinese own tea? Does India own Buddhism? Heck, does the Middle East own the Abrahamic religions, seeing as they started there? (Including Christianity) If cultural appropriation is a thing why do we spend so much goddamn time not respecting this supposed principle of cultural ownership? Now, I'm not saying white people should scream "nigga!" at black people or whatever. That would be very rude. And some uses can come off as condescending (The Washington Redskins). But I am saying the promotion of cultural ownership flies in the face of how often we have elements of other cultures in our lives. It is hypocrisy for each and every one of us, because we're all involved in borrowing. So maybe when someone wants to join in on your culture, you might want to consider not excluding them because of race (Are we "separate but equal"?) Why do you need ownership of this thing? Just consider it. I'd argue that people wanting to join in on your culture to be often a positive thing, because that shows people think of it in a positive way. It's now "cool". Thank you for your time! Have a beautiful day!
Okay, so you guys all know the stereotype that Australia is full of deadly animals. And we do have some notable examples, and a general tendency towards it. But I guarantee you it is not so-many-deadly-animals-all-over-the-place-oh-god-how-does-anyone-live-here. Though that might seem like a crazy idea. So I'm going to talk about how damn cute some of our human-friendly native marsupials are. Along the way I may or may not turn into a wildlife advocate. The Bilbi is a small harmless insectivore (insect eater) that lives in the desert. It actually has very soft fur. They are quite endangered so any of you who feel like being charitable and can donate money online could give to one of multiple Bilbi conservation funds. https://taronga.org.au/conservation/wildlife-conservation/conservation-partnerships/greater-bilby. This is the rock wallaby. There are multiple species and they are all bloody adorable. There are also a bit endangered so feel free to donate to conservation funds for them. They're not as lucky as their larger, more evolutionarily durable relatives. View attachment 22947 Brushtail possums are quite cute. My dog hates them but I love them coming over to check out our mango tree. We're building a possum house for the vulnerable little 'uns. Luckily these guys are doing okayish. Wombats. You've all heard of them. They're cute, 'kay. (Don't fuck with them though they are furry tanks) Not so endangered but they're a little vulnerable ecologically. The shy but harmless sugar glider is extremely cute. If you cannot recognize this you have something wrong with you. They have only one rival for the cutest Auzzie animal: Quokka's are so cute and friendly they started an adorable internet meme called Quokka selfies about them. Be warned: your brain may not be able to handle the cute. Unfortunately these guys are so friendly they are extremely endangered (damn you past humans!!!) and exist only on a few islands. Definitely donate to help these guys. http://www.quokkarescue.org/. This link has a bunch of cool Auzzie animals (including all those mentioned here) for anyone interested in doing a little biology reading. https://taronga.org.au/animals Thank you for your time. Hope you have a good day.
So, before anyone freaks out, I'm not saying there is no element of rational, practical review. Let's be clear. However, something that really salts my apple (grinds my gears, get my goat) is when people forget no entertainment (books, movie, tv, theatre, games) is designed for them. It's never designed for you. It's designed for whoever likes it. And if you simply don't like where it goes, and there's no indication they just screwed up the execution, then that's just not you. To explain this concept further here is my favorite quote on the subject. "A design everyone likes but no-one loves will fail."-Mark Rosewater. Now this is the key thing. The idea of entertainment is not to appeal to everyone, and indeed this is a bad idea. It is far more important and useful to be very appealing to a large enough market. Because things that try to appeal to everyone few people will love. Because it's too broad-spate, it will come of as mediocre and probably non-committal. But why does this happen? Let's connect the threads here. You have the fact that no entertainment is designed for you. Well why is that? Because of the illusory element of objective entertainment. Now there are certain general qualities, and key guidelines you can follow. And there is certainly an element of more-or-less objectively improving what you're doing. But it all relies on pre-set goal posts. What those goal posts are is not objective, it's not universal, and yet it makes a whole load of difference. Any guideline or normally sensible idea can be broken in a beneficial way as long as you know what your doing and your doing it for something that wants it. Something normally trash is the highest art done in the right way. Just look at abstract art. So with that in mind what am I saying? I'm saying that you should take all opinions about entertainment as philosophical propositions and not a proven scientific theory, to use a weird analogy. It's only as good as it is convincing. And if enough people like your thing, whatever it is and whoever those people are, then it is good in some sense. Different strokes for different folks. Who are your folks? Now of course you can believe strongly in element you know are personal. Not everyone has my character complexity obsession But that doesn't mean I don't consider other's opinions, because I accept we can't always agree. I believe in and love diversity. Humans are always going to have times where we just have a different mindset. Some people talk differently than others. And in the same way, some people like different things. We might argue about them because we like to convince others, and we might get passionate ("Why don't you just wank them while your at it?") But different writers write different things and different readers read different things. There is very little in entertainment that's objective. It depends on what you want out of it. Thank you for your time. Hope you have a good day.
So, this one is going to be one of the more angry rant pieces. You ready for the ride? (Clicks imaginary pen menacingly) Have you ever noticed how sometimes in fiction, especially in television shows, people seem to sometimes talk very private things in not so private places while people are around? Like one guy student will be in the middle of a hall full of other students and yet confess how he's dating a closeted guy also from the school. Or two agents dicuss that they work for some secret organisation devoted to saving the world from secret aliens while walking down a main street. Or two culprits discuss their plans for dealing with a police investigation while in a ballroom. It just seems like it's easy enough to either move, or wait, rather than have a risk someone might, you know, OVERHEAR. Now, I'm a pretty bloody honest person, but I do have some things I don't just tell. And some of those things I'm very careful with. I wouldn't just go blurting them out where someone might here. Not unless I slip up. Which is the issue, nobody regrets it, and nobody stops the other and says "hey, could we do this someplace else?" Not in the scenes I'm talking about. Other scenes do have the grace to do one of those and spare my keyboard from angry high-speed typing. Which brings me to the question: why do writers write these scenes? It seems like they are doing it for no reason. Why didn't they just write the scene with the character have a better sense of location? It's not like it's harder. Just design the scene differently. You don't have to change anything as long as you don't set up the stupid version. ANYTHING but the stupid version! It just screws with my suspension of disbelief, however much I'm suspending it, when I see this occur. I end up spending half the time reading/watching the scene thinking, why are you doing this HERE? "Oh, I have this secret thing I want to talk about, let's do it where FIFTEEN OTHER PEOPLE COULD HEAR!!!!" Does anyone know why this happens? Because it really pisses me off. Maybe it's because they're hoping other conversation will distract people/drown out the sound? But that seems too risky to me, why bother taking that risk? Especially when it's with characters dealing with really serious secrets that affect hundreds/thousands/millions of people. Can't they just pick A BETTER SPOT?!! I'm very picky about this stuff, I admit. I often think that they should be going for maximum possible realism. If it's a plot point, like magic, fine, but everything else why not just be realistic? I mean, my thoughts on writing are obviously superior, right? I'll never understand this weird race called "other people". Urgh. But seriously, this one I struggle to forgive. Why?? Anyone got any thoughts on this they'd like to share? Thank you for your time. Hope you have a good day.
So I've noticed not very many people seem to read webcomics here. And by that I mean no-one talks about them at all that I have seen. I decided it was therefore my duty to introduce you to this wonderful medium. Webcomics are free comics on the internet. I seriously mean free! It's an interesting medium, because the format ends up gravitating them often towards more quirky ideas For example; the fantasy adventure Supernormal Step is kind of inspired, it seems, by a mixture of superhero comics, video games and classic fantasy tropes. Or Let's Speak English which is a delightful account of life in Japan for an American English-language teacher, and is always amusing. There's this site Topwebcomics where most of them are listed. Or Hiveworks Comics or Sparkler Monthly if you want to expand your reach. Seriously check some out. Thank you for your time. Hope you have a good day.
So an important part of today's culture is navigating offense. A lot of people have said that 2015 was "the year everything was offensive" or some such. Now. there are two ways to treat this subject wrong. There are those who are too offensive, and there are those who are too offended. How do you consider this when writing a character of politically sensitive group e.g. a gay or an African-American? This is my thoughts on the subject: First of, the most important rule. One character is just one character. Only a very assumptive person thinks one character is somehow a standard of representation for an entire minority. Even if they're the only person of that group in your book, if you've got positive representation elsewhere it's actually a good thing because it's acknowledging that the group is human and therefore can be diverse. For example, I've heard people say Piper Chapman from Orange is the New Black is perpetuating negative bi stereotypes. However, if we don't allow one character to be like that, then all we are really demanding is that group gets to be represented with special privileges. That they get to be immune to negative stereotypes even when those people often give negative stereotype representations of right-wing religious people. Everyone gets to be portrayed with bad examples. Second, stereotypes are only bad in one character if they dominate the character. If you have , say, a Muslim extremist character, as long as there are characteristics of that character that aren't complete stereotypes, that is fine. Some people of groups are like the stereotypes, and to suggest those characteristics are automatically shallow or something is actually kind of offensive to them. In fact, a lot of stereotypes are kind of true. It's quite possible that gays are more often effeminate. And we all know black-dominated neighbourhoods in America are more likely to be poor which also increases the crime rate. Like you would always, presuming your interested in a three-dimensional and serious story, write them humanly and they will be just as great as a good non-stereotypical character. No kind of character you should think you can't write well, it's a illusionary obstacle that it will make a character bad to have elements of stereotype. Third, play with representation. This is more of a extra thing, but I love to have characters with stereotypical elements that then surprise you by having other elements you wouldn't expect of that kind of person. For example, Luke is a jock and he's a reasonably blokey Australian jock, but he's also quite gentle, very sensitive, and reads literature. And he's gay. I think characters like that are in some ways some of the best reminders of humanity. Thank you for time. Hope you have a good day.
So, for a while, as some of the people who know me well will know, I have consider my romance/drama "All The Odd Things" to be my debut novel. It's been the main candidate for first publish ever since I started writing scenes of it for my best friend. I decided; "heck, I'm already writing it, why stop now?' But recently, I had another idea. It's called Strange Days. Like a number of my ideas, it includes elements from previous scrapped ideas. And I started writing a prologue for it and I'm really pleased with the plot and character outlines I have. The main consideration between them is impact. Something I quickly realized early on about ATOT is that with two gay narrators and a romance plot between them, it's kind of intimate for a straight guy. If it was one character, it probably wouldn't be an issue. But I'm going in-depth with sex and love here. I'm not sure it's good for my future career to start with a book that screams "I am gay!!!" before I get a job. I'm extremely against being closeted, but maybe I should wait till I have a decent, reliable job if not my ideal career before I go screaming it from the rooftop. Should I do it with a pseudonym? I could publish it as Oscar Leigh I guess. The thing is this other book has a gay main character, but he's one of multiple leads, and it's a secondary plot point at best. And it's actually the writing style I prefer, ATOT is first-person present-tense diary like. I'm instinctively what I call "third-person switch" which is quite different. So perhaps it would be better to save ATOT till I've got some experience writing in my normal style before I experiment? What do you guys think? I'm happy to elaborate if you need more info.
I'm someone who has a lot of arguments. At home, at school, here on this forum. And so I've had to learn how to handle them. I find there is a key principle some people don't get or refuse to apply. One argument should not mean anything. It doesn't matter how pissed off you are, it doesn't mean they're a bad person automatically. Never judge someone on the basis of one argument. Some of the people you argue with most are the ones you love. Just because someone can make you temporarily hate them more than you value your own life, doesn't mean you should then hold a grudge. Literally think about something else. Literally move on. Are you going to read a book now? Or go onto a different thread? Have dinner? Do some work? Got to sleep? Think about that. Go to your happy place if you must. Pat a dog or cat, it's soothing and they're adorable so they make you happy. Or at least my little dog does. At the end of the day, if we cannot give each other a little tolerance and leeway, we cannot have a stable modern society. Negotiability and respect are important principles. So please don't grudge someone here because of one pointed disagreement. They might turn out to have a lot of interesting conversations you could have with them. And more importantly, it's just unfair. Thank you for your time. Hope you have a good day.
As a socialist, I want to explain why I think things like healthcare and education should be free, but things like business practice not so much. Why do we favour healthcare and education as socialist? Here a little thought. What hurts someone; the tool, or the action of using it? Well, the tool doesn't hurt anyone by itself, does it? It's the action. To apply this on a more philosophical, political scale it's the choice, not the opportunity. So what right is more hurtful by this logic, the choice to deny access in the name of business practice, or the opportunity to get heath-care and education? Health-care and education are universal human rights, literally, and they have no necessity to be controlled by businesses. Think about this; who is a business obligated to look after? Legally, officially, it is themselves. A CEO's or chairperson's responsibility for however much time he spends acting as that official is to their employees. Doesn't matter if they're a good person, they aren't a charity. A government is obligated to the people. Regardless of whether you trust them or like them or think they are good people, it is in their direct interest to do what is deemed good and stays good. So why do trust the caretaking of the entire populace's universal human rights to people who's interest is to their select group not the whole nation? You do realize private healthcare and education systems are universally less affordable than public ones? They will never give it out cheaply, they need to make a profit. But a government can take the costs as taxes, and give the cost back in how affordable (perhaps even free) the healthcare and education is. There's little question to me which one is right. I believe in freedom of opportunity because it is our choices that hurt people. And I believe that universal human rights should be a free opportunity maintained by those who we elect to represent us, not by those who rise to power on their own terms and interests. Thank you for your time. Hope you have a good day.