#189 - A link-o-llection before I go to bed.

Tired of getting rickroll'd? How about getting Barackroll'd instead?

***

After 400+ pages of absolutely hideous wannabe thriller tripe (to say nothing of questionable theology and the morality that goes along with said questionable theology), Fred Clark conclude's in this week's Left Behind posts that the illogic and paradoxes of Left Behind stem not from unreliable narrators used in the literary sense, but unreliable narrators that stem from unreliable authors.

We readers come to this novel with certain expectations. We expect that it will tell us a story -- a coherent narrative that makes sense. Those expectations are so habitual and fundamental to our experience of reading novels that it can take us a long time to accept that such expectations are really being thoroughly frustrated. That's why it took me a very long time -- hundreds of pages -- before I finally conceded that the constant, flagrant contradictions between our narrators' perceptions and their reality weren't some kind of deliberate, meaningful narrative device.

[. . . ]

This chapter might have been more interesting if Buck had turned out to be only partly immune to Nicolae's enchantment and he had emerged from this room less than certain of what he'd really seen -- as though he really were having to fight to keep his sanity. He is, after all, a brand-new RTC, a mere infant in the faith, so the divine counter-enchantment might not have been fully operational just yet.

But that wouldn't work because that's not how the authors' notion of RTC magic works. It's a binary system. You're either 100-percent saved or you're 100-percent damned to Hell. There is no half-way, no partial, no blurring of categories. Truth is wholly true and lies are wholly lies. Good is wholly good and evil is wholly evil.

And that, ultimately, is why readers don't have to worry about things like unreliable narrators in this book. The authors can't have intended such a device because the authors don't believe in it.

***

From dark_christian: Focus on the Family prays to God for rain to "drown out Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention in two weeks' time. Word to FotF: I think you're better off using this as your guide for making it rain on Obama's parade. (Yes, I am being completely ironic in recommending anything from Spellsandmagic.com.)

***

I recently discovered the blog of author Kit Whitfield, who comments on Slacktivist under the pseudonym "Praline" and always has articulate and thoughtful commentary to add to any Slacktiposting. She has since been mentally added to Reileen's Roster of Awesome and Brilliant Bloggers To Whom She'd Like to Be as Awesome and Brilliant As Someday, which currently includes the Smart Bitches Sarah and Candy, John Scalzi, the blogginating team at Making Light, and, of course, the Slacktivist himself. Also, throw Vienna Teng in there. Because, y'know. Vienna motherfucking Teng. I wish she'd blog more on her site scrapbook, but in all fairness, she's busy recording her new album, so I'm not going to fault her too much, since anything she puts out - music or writing - is something I whoreship.

Anyway, a sampling of Kit Whitfield's blogging:

Writing sex scenes versus writing porn

The thing is, if your story is intended to be a piece of straightforward porn, you can pick a style and go with it. The usual objections to blunt writing are removed; graphic words for body-parts tend to leap off the page in a rather glaring way if your characters spend most of their time dressed. The reader gets to know the characters in, basically, a social context, like you'd get to know a friend, and if your friend suddenly whips out his genitals, it's a bit startling. Overly graphic sex scenes in otherwise fully-clothed books can feel like too much information, like the characters suddenly changing style and going from Regency elegance or lyrical melancholia to porn-speak, which is as disconcerting as if the vicar poured a cup of tea and then started talking dirty. All of which gives a sense of 'whoa!', which is not exactly the mood for sexual bliss. If, on the other hand, the story you're writing actually is porn, there's no reason at all not to use pornographic language. Direct language can be used all over the place without the style taking a lurch.

But if you're not writing porn, you need to match the sex scenes with the rest of the book.

The myth of the Macho Sue

A disagreeable variant of Mary Sue, often found in action films, cop shows and the more battly kind of science fiction. While Mary Sue is a fictional character who bends the universe around herself with her amazing specialness, Macho Sue bends the universe around his manhood. He has a particular ability to get away with behaviour that would be considered bad in a woman - to the point of behaviour that would be considered typically female by a misogynist if displayed by a woman.

Kit Whitfield's lexicon of issues in fiction

Phantonym
The feeling you get when you're searching for the perfect word: that there is a word for this concept that's not in the thesaurus, but you can't quite remember it. Usually this is not the case, and you're forced to go with a word that's slightly wrong, or else rewrite the whole bloody sentence. (Reileen sez: "I get this one all the time.")

[. . .]

Naglet
A concept or action that you have the nagging sense really should have a single word to describe it-the action of a dog putting its head between its paws on the ground to invite you to play is one that always bugs me - but most unfairly, it doesn't. (Reileen sez: "This is often a jumping-off point whenever I'm doing in-novel conlanging for SF/F. What concepts exist in such-and-such culture to the point of ubiquity, and thus would probably require a word or a short phrase describing it?")

[. . .]

Subconscious-Packing
Reading and absorbing as much as you can in the way of good stylists and general information, on the understanding that it'll mesh together in your subconscious and make your writing richer. Not to be confused with procrastination. (Reileen sez: "It's probably the equivalent of eating past being full, but I follow this philosophy for my art, my writing, and my music. Needless to say, it drives me nuts, but it drives me nuts if I don't at least attempt to do it, so I'm pretty fucked either way.")

The tricky business of defining national insults

It strikes me that a key element of English insults is the idea of self-awareness: a great many of the insults denote someone who, were he aware how he was coming across, wouldn't be acting so stupidly.

The kind of insults a nation creates are an unusual insight into its general character: you wouldn't bother to invent an insult for something that nobody does or nobody minds. Whether this means that, say, England has more wankers and America has more jerks, or that England notices wankers more and America notices jerks more, I couldn't really say. (As an interesting side-note, many English people feel that 'arsehole' is a stronger insult than 'asshole', even though the only real difference is in pronunciation. Curious, huh?)

***

From Strange Horizons, an online speculative fiction magazine: Stories We've Seen Too Often and Horror Stories We've Seen Too Often.

***

METALLICA IS PLAYING AT THE ALL-STATE ARENA ON JANUARY 26 NEXT YEAR. WANTS TO GO PLZ. D:!

***

For a while now, I've been looking for a decently plain white blouse that I can pair with different items, such as a sweater vest or a plaid skirt (...probably both in my case), and today, I finally found one.

It was from Avril Lavigne's new Abbey Dawn fashion line.

I'm trying to figure out whether I should be embarrassed by this or not.

-Reileen
fortune, fame, mirror vain

#190 - Posting about this because it means I can use this icon now. :D

sannion has recently written two posts regarding spirituality that have caught my eye.

First off, the SRS BSNS one: On the trend of Pagan apologetics

I do agree with you that the whole effort of Pagan apologetics is an interesting and at times amusing field. I think it's good in that it forces people to reflect on what they believe, and why, which can certainly be a good thing, since I'm not generally one to favor mindless adherence and blind, uncritical acceptance of ideas. However, I also feel that when it comes down to it, the intellect plays less of a role in the formation of religious acceptance than most people realize. We believe usually because it intuitively feels right, or our experiences confirm it for us - logic is often just a retroactive prop we use to support ideas we have already decided are true for us.

I think part of the reason Pagan apologetics can be so earnest and thorough lies in the predominance of pseudo-/anti-intellectualism we've been seeing from many members of the Right in America, some of whom are Christian dominionists. We as pagans don't want to be seen as Those Folk, Only With the Goddess, so we try to explain, in as logical a manner as possible, why we follow the faith that we do.

Alternatively, since paganism of all stripes is still a minority faith, it feels like we have to do more work to gain "legitimacy" with the majority, to dispel the myth that we're doing this for the lulz/orgies/whatever. This may mean coming up with all sorts of sound theological arguments as to Why We're Not [insert faith here]. Doing so has a number of benefits: we learn more about our religion and other religions, we give our brain a workout, and the end result may possibly convince skeptics that we're not completely crazy.

On the other hand, religion is by its very nature irrational, and I wish more people would acknowledge - and even celebrate - that irrationality and absurdity - and to not be ashamed of something that is built into the framework of religion. Everything has its domain, and irrationality and the unexplainable rules over the domain of spirituality and religion. That's not meant to be an insult, by the way - I do think it's a fair way of explaining and describing the nature of religion and the myths it is based on. I mean, come on, a guy who died and rose from the dead three days later? A goddess who was born, fully-grown, from the head of her father? Reincarnating endlessly until one of your lives gets his or her shit together and achieves nirvana to break that cycle? None of it makes any sense to us with our mortal perceptions and senses, and we can't definitively prove any of it. But that sort of thing is the root of religion. Instead of trying to cover that up, we need to acknowledge that religion is the place where you have to play by different rules. Endless theological explanations and arguments only help make sense of things if you accept the irrationalities that they are based on.

I follow Artemis because, for me personally, it feels right. It's not like I sat down one day with a big-ass encyclopedia of deities and made a list of pros and cons for following each one, then concluded that following the Bitch Upstairs had enough pros to outweigh the cons. There's no real logical reason why I should have left Jesus for Artemis. In fact, if we were doing a pros vs. cons thing, it would probably make more sense for me to continue to follow Jesus. Jesus is a compassionate figure, who becomes angry in his myths only when, by our mortal perceptions, he has just reason for it, such as the moneychangers in the temple. The man has an admirable love and respect for all humanity. In contrast, Artemis changed a hunter into a stag that got torn to shreds by his own dogs for the mortal sin of...accidentally looking upon Her naked while She was bathing. (There are a number of different ways of accounting for Her hostility, some of which are detailed here.) She does not forgive transgressions to Her easily; She certainly does not love everyone. Unlike Jesus, who is widely considered to be almost wholly benevolent (save for the Rambo!Jesus that tends to pop up in dominionist mythology), Artemis' standing in mortal eyes is more troublesome. She, like many of the Olympians, embodies both light and dark aspects of life. She is the protectress of animals...but She is also the one who hunts and kills them. She offers no universal promise of salvation from evil or from ourselves (this applies to the entire Olympic pantheon). If I were going about choosing my religion in a sensible manner, logic would seem to dictate that I should follow the more comfortable, compassionate figure of Jesus Christ.

But, as y'all know, that's not the case.

I am also uncomfortable with attempts to convert others. This, unfortunately, is often a big part of contemporary Paganism - an effort to win masses to one's side, and a feeling that our religion is somehow inferior because of its minority status. While I am sympathetic to that plight, and would certainly like to have a lot of people with whom to celebrate my festivals - I think this preoccupation with winning the masses over to our side is incredibly unhealthy, and frankly dangerous.

[. . .]

Frankly, I'm against efforts at conversion because when it comes down to it, I'm a misanthrope at heart. I like the fact that our numbers are small, and most of the people who are drawn to the faith are passionate, pious, and rather smart. Once we pass a critical mark - that is not going to be the case. We'll end up with the same ignorant, bigoted, superficial, and lukewarm individuals that swell the ranks of every other religion.

Agreed with sannion here. I seem to be drawn to things with a small following, and am uncomfortable with massive groups of people. What I want for paganism is not necessarily great numbers of followers, but the legitimacy accorded to movements or institutions with a great number of followers.

I suppose when it comes down to it, it's about fear and insecurity. Attempts to convert others usually originate in the individual's insecurity regarding their own faith. They figure if they convince others it will banish the specter of their nagging doubts and prove the validity of it, because why else would people convert if it wasn't true.

Because I'm a cynic, I used to think this was true across the board, but now I figure that there must be some people who convert because they genuinely believe (by sometimes jumping through the hoops of doublethink, but not always) that their faith is Right, True, and Good. I don't know which one is statistically more common, though. And I think there's something to be said for the types of conversion individuals engage in, which can be traced to the reason they engage in conversion attempts in the first place. People who try to convert through words and hard-sell preaching may be more likely to be more insecure about their faith than those who live conversion attempts - that is, they evangelize by living the Word of God.

And then, for the lulz: Who do you think would win in a match - Zeus or Jesus?

-Reileen
our revels have just started, many lifetime friend