Lipstick Feminism

Recently, I’ve been re-watching one of my favorite series, The West Wing, a political drama that began in 1999 and lasted for seven seasons.  In its first season, the series won nine Emmys, and in all seven seasons, it won 27 Emmys.  In 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, The West Wing won the Emmy for Outstanding Drama Series.  It has been one of my favorite series for years, although I did not start watching it until it was in the fourth season.

In the second season, the season I mostly recently finished re-watching, a new guest actress joins the cast for several episodes.  Her name is Ainsley Hayes (Emily Proctor), and she is almost the complete opposite of those in power in the White House.  Ainsley is what they call a “blonde, leggy Republican,” and people often assume that she is “ambitious, mean, and stupid.”  However, immediately after she enters the picture, she easily defeats one of the main characters, Sam Seaborn (Rob Lowe), in a battle of wits on the hypothetical political debate show Capitol Beat.  The President is impressed by her and asks her to serve by joining the White House staff as Associate White House Counsel.

Sam and Ainsley actually become quite good friends after she joins the staff, despite their differences in the beginning.  She has a lot to teach him during her stay on the show, and he unwillingly learns from her, even when it comes to such touchy subjects as feminism and the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).  Ainsley openly shares her view on the subject of feminism, not scared to voice her opinion to the opposition and argue her point very well.

As a Republican, she believes in having only laws that are necessary.  She considers the ERA to be redundant, as the Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that every citizen of the United States is equal under the law, and therefore, the Equal Rights Amendment is unnecessary.  As Sam argues with her though, she slowly builds up momentum to the true reason behind why she opposes the ERA, as explained in the second season episode “17 People.”

In the third season, Ainsley shows up again in the episode “Night Five.”  During the course of the episode, Sam compliments Ainsley on her attire, and a woman who is working as a secretary for the week feels insulted by Sam’s choice of flattery.  Ainsley, however, was never offended by Sam’s words and later explains to the woman what feminism means to her.  Ainsley’s feminism of choice: something called lipstick feminism, which says that a woman is not weakened by her sexuality but empowered by it.  She explains:

Lipstick feminism is part of the third wave of feminism that claims that women are empowered psychologically, socially, and politically by wearing makeup, dressing provocatively, and being sexually aloof, and it states that women are NOT demeaned by sexual advances because of those things.  Some feminists, like the woman Celia in the video above, are offended by this because they feel that the lipstick feminist is sexually objectifying herself and therefore succumbing to the patriarchal society we live in.

Stiletto feminism, which the character Ginger mentions in the video, is a bit more radical.  It says that the idea of being sexual does not contradict feminism as a whole and that such activities as public flashing, strip teases, and lesbian exhibitionism are not un-feminist because they are done through the personal choice of the woman.  They are not forced to do anything they don’t want to do, and that makes them stronger.

Whether you agree with lipstick, stiletto, or a less radical version of feminism, Ainsley is right:  If a woman is offended by something, she should voice that opinion, not keep quiet.  However, that does not mean that all women should be offended by this.

Ainsley is exactly the strong kind of feminist we need in this society, willing to voice her opinion and not care that others disagree.  She is strong, capable, and yet still feminine.

Blue October’s Any Man in America

When I discovered my favorite band had put out another album and I hadn’t even heard of it, I was nearly devastated.  How could I have let that happen?

After my good friend Lana informed me of this, I then spent the next couple weeks wishing I had the money to buy the album, but to no avail.  However, instead of succumbing to defeat, I slowly meandered onto A-Z Lyrics to figure out the track list of the album and then to YouTube to listen to the songs in order.  (Albums are rarely as good out of order — if the artist arranged the songs in that order, they obviously wanted them to be listened to that way.)

Any Man in America is Blue October’s sixth studio album (plus three live albums), and it is the first album that they released under their independent label Up/Down Records through Sony’s RED Distribution for independent artists.  As the album was released on August 16, 2011, I was unhappy to learn how very long I had missed out on it.

But the second I began the play the songs, I felt relief.

The album is well-done, emotionally stimulating, and has good rhythm.  Justin Furstenfeld, the lead vocalist and guitarist, has a gruff and raw voice that fits so well with the rock/alternative style of the music.  But there is definitely something lacking.

As most of the band’s songs are usually angry or sad, the style may not appeal to many.  Almost every song is laced with the word “fuck,” and Justin Furstenfeld screams at the listener about his ex-wife.  However, Blue October’s previous albums were also laced with happier, more uplifting songs as well, such as “18th Floor Balcony” on Foiled (2006) and “Jump Rope” on Approaching Normal (2009).

Any Man in America is missing these happier songs though, with the exception of the opening song “The Feel Again (Stay).”  The twelfth track, “The Worry List,” shows resignation near the end of the album and “making the best of [the situation].”  Furstenfeld insists in the song, “I’m doing fine and I got plenty of friends around.”  And at the end of that song, he sends a message out to his daughter, over whom he only has partial custody because of his divorce:

This is what your story’s about.
My pretty little girl, can you figure it out?
If it helps to know so there is no doubt,
Just listen to the stories.
Not everything is glorious.
Some hurt. Some love. Some shout.
I fought the world and I lost that bout.
And you are what my album’s about.
I might’ve been gone but I never walked out.

Through his troubles, Furstenfeld is able to find peace and accept what happened with his family.  The anger is gone.  The album illustrates those emotions, telling his personal narrative throughout.  Interestingly, eight out of 13 song titles begin with the word “the,” and all of the songs are generally longer than the average song length.  Most of the songs are longer than four minutes, and some are even longer than six.  And the majority of them are ballads.

And while I love ballads, this album is not up to par — not for Blue October.  Those of us who enjoy Blue October are in complete adoration of them, but this album is definitely not their best work.  Foiled and Approaching Normal are decidedly better, Foiled being my personal favorite.  The songs on Any Man in America that struck me the most were the title song, “The Money Tree,” and “The Worry List” — all of these are excellent, but they are nothing like “Hate Me” or any other songs on Foiled.  The album is not as dynamic or varied as the two preceding it, and it is mediocre in comparison.

The first single off the album, “The Chills,” only made it to position 27 on the U.S. Alternative Songs billboard, and did not make it onto the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 at all.  Perhaps this is part of the reason I hadn’t even known an album had come out.  The second single, “The Feel Again (Stay),” did not rank at all.

Despite the album’s flaws, I am still excited to see the band come to Springfield in the very near future.  I bought my ticket to their April 15th show at the Gillioz Theater almost two months ago, and I have been excited to see them since I first heard they were in town.  Here’s hoping they will play more songs from Foiled and Approaching Normal than from this album.

3.5/5 stars.

Here are my two favorite songs from this albums.

And here are a couple of my absolute favorite Blue October songs.

Life is not like the movies.

In the film industry and in novels, people are intricate and entertaining.  They are good or evil.  They go on grand adventures.  They scale mountains, fall in love, make devious schemes, become president, and wage wars.  They have strong but stereotypical characteristics.  In their world, what seems normal to us would be dull, and what seems normal to them would drive us insane with the drama and stress.

So no, life isn’t like the movies.  Not even the movies that are a bit more realistic…

Romantic comedies, for instance, are never anything like a romantic relationship in the real world.  They are dramatic, adventurous, and worthwhile — and in the end, the man and the woman always — ALWAYS — get together.  There is always a happy ending.  Even to the romantic comedies that might be a little more realistic.

In this somewhat more realistic romantic comedy, Anna Faris plays a woman who is very different from the supposedly “ideal” woman.  Faris’s character is the beautiful Ally Darling, an average-intelligence, out-of-work artist who still has yet to “grow up” and find Mr. Right.  Her dating experiences haven’t exactly been the best either, and she is horribly upset to discover that the national average number of men that a woman sleeps with in her lifetime is 10.5 — horribly upset because she is almost twice that and the same article in Marie Claire claims that women who have slept with 20 or more men are more likely to remain single for the rest of their lives.

So yes, perhaps that part is a bit more realistic.

Ally then struggles to find all of her exes in the hopes that one of them has gotten better with time and become “marriage material.”  And her apartment neighbor Colin, who is played by the extremely attractive Chris Evans, agrees to help her track them as long as she saves him from the women that he has slept with and wishes to avoid.

And of course, in the end, they do get together.  That’s the way it always works.  That’s the ever-unrealistic part — because it wouldn’t be a romantic comedy without them getting together in the end.

But along the way, the movie has a couple tips that ARE a bit more realistic…

Ally insists that the good guys are the ones that care about a woman’s number, and Colin insists otherwise — and I have to agree that this is the area where Ally has no idea what she is talking about.  From my own personal experiences, the men who cared about that sort of thing were never the good guys — they just came under the guise of being good guys.  And this holds true in the movie as well.  Because she became friends with Colin and falls for him, she realizes that the kind of guy that cares about how many men she has slept with won’t care about her the way he should, won’t accept her for who she is, both the good and the bad.

This is a point not often found in film, and I am impressed by any movie that addresses that aspect of reality.

Two big thumbs up!

Concrete: The New Frankenstein

Every year, we renew old stories.  That is the way of writing fiction.  We strive and strive to find something original and unique, it is extremely difficult.  Most of the stories written are based on old stories.  In fact, my fiction teacher once said that all stories come from the same three original stories:  Cinderella, Jack and the Beanstalk, and Adam and Eve.  We recycle and reuse these stories because they are meaningful and appeal to our interests.

So many stories today are based on old fairy tales, Shakespeare plays, and classic novels.  And the graphic novel Concrete is no different.  In fact, Concrete’s origin story, Strange Armor, has many similarities to the story of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley.

Concrete, much like the Frankenstein monster, is forced to deal with the harsh parts of society because of his physical differences.  He sees how people treat those they believe to be inferior to them, and he is psychologically imprisoned by it.  The world is dangerous and harmful, he learns, but he also discovers a side of the world that still has beauty and kindness.  While at a young child’s birthday party, he has the most fun he has had since he became this concrete monster — because the children do not fault him for his physical appearance and instead shout “We love you, Concrete!” at his arrival.

The Frankenstein monster goes through a similar experience when he runs away from his creator.  He spends days watching over this poor family living in the woods and helps them through their poverty.  However, the difference appears when the monster reveals himself to the family:  While Concrete was accepted by his peers, the monster is not.  Instead, the monster is spurned and run off the family’s land — all because he looks different and it frightens them.  It does not matter that he helped them and protected them.

In order to escape this harsh reality, both Concrete and the Frankenstein monster leave to go on an adventure.  The monster runs away in an attempt to escape.  During his escapade, he learns to speak English, and because of his experiences with the family in the woods, he learns sadly to hate humanity.  Concrete, on the other hand, only goes on his own adventure after his main troubles with the darker side of humanity.  Concrete does not run away from his troubles, but instead he goes to find himself once more, to explore the world in his new body and rediscover the meaning of freedom and knowledge.  Both Concrete and Frankenstein illustrate that freedom is found within and in the natural world, as both creations explore to find themselves.  However, it is important to realize that just exploring the world is not what frees them; they are made free by their own consciousness, and it is only through themselves that it is possible for them to gain happiness.

Of course, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is highly recommended.  But the Concrete series by Paul Chadwick is also an excellent read.  Strange Armor is the sixth volume of the series but can be read separately as it’s an origin story.

The Flying Tomato

Driving toward downtown, Alyssa directed us safely toward a new restaurant in town.  Although I’m not sure how long it has been open, this the first time I have been on the square in quite a while and the first time I have seen the restaurant.  Kate, Alyssa, Marily, and I parked a couple blocks away and then moved toward The Flying Tomato.  It was quite easy for us to find, as a large green sign hangs atop the building’s façade.  The restaurant is located right on the square, technically transformed from bar/restaurant into two parts, so that they could separate the family-friendly area from the more adult-oriented bar.  The Flying Tomato is, of course, the former.

The four of us entered the restaurant and were greeted by our server, who allowed us to sit wherever we pleased.  I was rather surprised to see that it wasn’t very busy on a Thursday night, but then I remembered that the downtown area is mostly only big on the weekends.  That must hold true for restaurants as well, as only two tables were occupied on this evening.  The atmosphere is friendly, relaxed, and warm, I noticed as we settled down at a table as far from the other customers as possible.  We didn’t want to interrupt their dining experience, and we definitely wanted to enjoy a nice quiet evening ourselves.  Then, we spent a little time perusing the menus.

The menu is sorted into several distinct sections.  Of course, they have their appetizers, drinks, lunches, and dinners.  But among their dinners, they also have more choices.  There are many traditional Italian dishes and a few American dishes, including sandwiches, American-style pizza, and chicken fingers.  All meals come in small and large sizes, but our waitress just smiled and told us that the small is plenty for one person.  The price difference is not a large gap between the two, ranging from around ten to fifteen dollars.

We decided that we should try a couple of appetizers, so Alyssa and Marily ordered one, and Kate and I ordered another.  We settled on beef ravioli with marinara sauce, and I was rather impressed, considering I generally don’t care for beef ravioli; I prefer cheese.  I didn’t try it with the marinara sauce, but Kate seemed particularly keen on it.  Marily and Alyssa, on the other hand, ordered chips and spinach dip, which they allowed us to try.  It was also quite good, despite the fact that I don’t like cooked spinach.

Our waitress was attentive, eagerly refilling our drinks and bringing us more bread.  Kate and I were particularly fond of the bread.  The waitress was kind and courteous, and easily joined in with our conversation throughout the evening, making small talk and laughing along.

Before the main dish, we each had a house salad, and their house dressing was surprisingly tasty.  However, they used iceberg lettuce, which I abhor because it adds no flavor or nutrients to the salad; it is usually cheaper than other lettuces though.

Next came the main dish.  I ordered the fettuccine Alfredo, which was quite impressive.  The noodles were of the right consistency, and the Alfredo sauce was had a nice flavor, even if it was a little bit spicy.  As we talked amongst ourselves, we discovered that most of the dishes we ordered were a little spicy, though not overpowering.  It went quite well with the bread and butter they provided without charge.

When the waitress brought our checks, I found the price to be a little higher than I would have preferred, but it was not really expensive either.  Adding the grilled chicken to the fettuccine Alfredo cost extra, and so did the salad, which surprised me.  Most restaurants I ate at as a child provided a house salad without charge with any main dish order.  All in all, I spent around $13 on the meal, plus a couple dollars for the tip.  The waitress certainly deserved more than I could afford to give her.  After the whole meal, all four of us took a box home, as we were unable to finish even the small orders of our food.

Overall, the food was good, much better than I expected, because the original Trolley’s served more as a bar than as a restaurant.  The Flying Tomato surprised me though, and I was quite impressed.  The salad could have been much better, but the pasta itself was delicious and definitely worth eating again, and I would like to try more of the meals they have to offer.

You should definitely check this place out.  4/5 stars.

Why complicate life?

I recently came across this image on Lessons Learned In Life‘s Facebook page, and couldn’t help but be reminded of the quote by Carlos Ruiz Zafon from which I created the title of this blog.  In his book The Shadow of the Wind, Zafon states, “People tend to complicate their own lives, as if living weren’t already complicated enough.”

Both Zafon and the author of the above GIF are correct.  People in general over-analyze everything.  We over-think, we plays scenes over and over in our heads, and we dramatize incessantly.

We complicate things.

Not because we want things to be complicated, but because we are afraid.  Afraid to take chances and make decisions that we can’t take back.  We like to pretend we’re perfect, pretend that nothing bothers us, and that nothing can possibly make us feel inferior.  We like to pretend, but deep down, we know it’s not true.

The truth is, no one is perfect.  We’ve all made mistakes, we all have issues.  And if there’s one things I’ve learned throughout my college years, it’s those mistakes are rarely as crazy or traumatizing as we make them out to be in our heads.  I, for one, refuse to apologize for those mistakes for the reasons that most people tend to forget:

Danny DeVito in Renaissance Man

The choices I’ve made have turned me into the person I am today, and all those faults and issues are a part of me, what make me whole and complete, what make me human.  Without those faults, we become flat, boring, unimportant, simple, and static.  This perfection that we strive so hard to reach is a lie.

So yes, we complicate things when we don’t need to.  We make a big deal, throw tantrums in our heads, and we analyze the words others say, trying desperately to figure out the meaning within.  For those reasons, we tend to put more faith in other people’s opinions than our own, to write ourselves off instead of learning and fully appreciating ourselves and our own thoughts and opinions.

For the most part, we are all equally good and equally bad.  We all make those mistakes, and we all over-analyze those mistakes, ours and others’.

Likewise, we can all overcome these fears and tribulations.  Honesty is always the best policy, and if you really want something, you have to go after it.  You can’t hide in the background, wishing and hoping for it, because that will only bring you sorrow when you do not reach your goal.  So yes, if you miss someone, call them.  If you want to hang out with someone, invite them.  If you want to be understand, you have to explain yourself.  If you have questions, ask them.  If you don’t like something, say so.  If you do like something, say that too.  If you want something, ask for it.  And if you love someone, you should tell them.

The point is, you have to reach for your goals, you have to do more than try, and you have to grab life by the balls.

Action: The American Addiction

Americans are obsessed with action, drama, and excitement — more than any other country I have found.  The American idea of a good movie involves explosions, huge machine guns, screaming breakups, hysterical slapstick, romantic kisses in the rain, and anything else that makes a movie over-the-top to the point that it’s near ridiculous.

This doesn’t make them bad movies.

And a foreign film that is more relaxed and subdued isn’t bad just because it isn’t as action-oriented or dramatic as an American one.  British films, for instance, are totally different, despite the fact that we share the same language — technically speaking.

Yes, technically, we both speak English.  But the different in colloquialism, pronunciation, spelling, and intonation make for a totally different language.  Americans are more upbeat, dramatic, and to-the-point.  Brits are a bit more long-winded, relaxed, and articulated.  And these differences become apparent when one country remakes a film from the other country.

Death at a Funeral, for example, is one of my all-time favorite movies.  The British version.  The acting on all parts is superb, the screenplay is well-written, and the direction is perfect.

The premise of the film:  It is the day of Daniel’s father funeral, and everything is falling apart at the seams, from the mix-up of coffins to accidentally consumed acid to, of course, the discovery of his father’s homosexuality.  In fact, his father’s gay lover blackmails the family for 15000 pounds.

Here is the movie trailer:

So imagine my surprise when I discover that Hollywood decided to remake the movie.  A mere three years after the original.  Not only that, but a cast of Chris Rock, Loretta Devine, Martin Lawrence, Tracy Morgan, Zoe Saldana, Luke Wilson, and James Marsden was not exactly what I would have pictured for the American version.  As I only care for a select few of those actors (Saldana especially), I was not particularly keen on the idea, but nevertheless, I decided to give it a try.

For comparison, the American version‘s trailer:

Zoe Saldana and Peter Dinklage, the only actor in both films, are probably the few saving graces of the American version.  And I’m not even sure about that.  Saldana perhaps, but Dinklage’s performance is far superior in the original.

The entire atmosphere of the film is totally different.  The language and culture differences make for a completely different movie, despite the fact that the screenplay is barely different.  The exact same things happen in both films, but the entire attitude is different.  Take for example, the situation of my two favorite characters: Simon and Martha in the British version (Alan Tudyk and Daisy Donovan), and Oscar and Elaine in the American version (Marsden and Saldana).  Simon is nervous to see Martha’s father, who hates him, so Martha gives him a Valium from her brother’s apartment.  What she doesn’t realize is that it isn’t actually Valium — her brother has made some acid for a friend and brings it with him to the funeral.  Simon, therefore, spends the majority of the movie on acid, and Martha and her brother are forced to take care of him and try to keep him as calm and quiet as possible.  Compare these two clips of the moment during the eulogy when Simon/Oscar thinks that the coffin is moving…

James Marsden may be a good actor, but nothing compares to Alan Tudyk’s performance.  Marsden pales in comparison.  His reaction to seeing Luke Wilson kiss Saldana is also decidedly different than Tudyk’s.  James Marsden not only climbs farther up the roof, but he also incessantly calls her a “cheater,” and when Saldana ascends onto the roof, Marsden tells her not to because it is “a man’s job.”  Unlike Marsden, Alan Tudyk did not have to resort to petty name-calling and sexist remarks to get his point across.

Overall, although I’m sure I’m biased because I saw the British version first, I must say that the original is far better.  Five stars.  And the American version… gets maybe… 2.5 stars.  And that’s me being nice.  But either way, the movie ends on a good note of remembering those we’ve lost and accepting others despite their faults.

On a side note, it’s interesting that both versions contain an actor from the TV series Firefly, Tudyk in the British version and Ron Glass in the American version.

And check out this Eddie Izzard skit about the differences between American and British films:

The Hero’s Journey and other overused, cliched fantasy conventions.

People have certain expectations for certain genres.  This is a natural occurrence simply because we have genres.  People go into romance expecting something written by Nicholas Sparks, and people go into fantasy expecting something written by J. R. R. Tolkien.  People very rarely expect something broader than that.

Which is a shame.

Not that ignoring a genre’s criteria is necessarily a good thing, or that adhering to that criteria is bad.  Neither of those is true.  However, there are more options than simply adhering to that list of criteria, and we lose our ability to be truly creative when we tie ourselves up with “criteria” and “genre conventions.”  John Truby, for instance, a screenplay writer and director, is caught up in the same system:

Here, Truby refers to something that he mistakenly identifies as a necessity in fantasy fiction.  What he really means is something known at the Hero’s Journey, which is a common convention used in fantasy — but NOT necessary.  The Hero’s Journey is the story of a hero going on a quest, in which he achieves as much within himself as he does without himself.  Many stories featuring this journey include the ancient tales of Odysseus in The Odyssey, Jason in Argonautica, King Arthur and his knights of the Round Table in Le Morte d’Arthur, and more recently the tales of The Lord of the Rings and the Harry Potter series.

While the Hero’s Journey is a very common convention, Truby identifies it as necessary to the fantasy genre, and I am happy to inform you that that is not so.  Many fantasies — though arguably not as many as ones that do — do not include a Hero’s Journey, and they do not all suffer because of it.  Many others include a warped and distorted version of the Hero’s Journey in an effort to give new meaning and mix things up.

Other common fantasy conventions include the use of medieval weaponry and what everyone has decided to call a “Dark Lord.”  Now, there are at least twenty different well-known Dark Lords in fantasy — like Sauron in The Lord of the Rings, Voldemort in Harry Potter, Darth Vader or the Emperor in Star Wars, and many others — and people look to these to learn from.  So often, young writers include a Dark Lord simply because that’s what they think fantasy should have.  Or they set it in medieval times simply because that is the way it is done.

This is NOT TRUE.

If there is one genre — perhaps other than romance, specifically Harlequin romance — that is horribly cliched, it is fantasy.  Sure, Tolkien’s writings were original for the time — monumental even.  Before Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings and all his other stories set in Middle-Earth, the fantasy genre was almost non-existent.  He brought fantasy to life and made it his own.  But now, people seem to think that that is the only kind of fantasy you can write.

For instance, people often include Orcs in their fantasy — a magical creature that Tolkien created.  The most well-known background story that Tolkien made for the Orcs was that they were once Elves who were enslaved and tortured by Morgoth so that they became his soldiers.  However, Orcs are now so often used in fantasy, but the writers include them for the wrong reasons.  Orcs are brought in to become the evil soldiers, something for the hero or heroine to slay — but the writer does not include the background that Tolkien created for them.  Without that background, the Orcs lose depth and purpose; they are a weak convention that writers include simply because “that’s the way it’s done.”

Editor Beth Hill says,

When you write and rewrite and edit, keep in mind that you’re not restricted to one or two choices. Yes, you’ll want to write in a way that brings cohesion. But you don’t want to write in a way that limits your characters or your story, that restricts your expression.

And she’s right.

Because writers take these elements from the great fantasy novelists like Tolkien but do not carry the depth and the weight of the elements with them, the fantasy genre has grown cliched and meaningless — this coming from a girl who grew up with fantasy and wanted to be a writer after reading The Lord of the Rings at age ten.  The majority of the fantasy novels I have read in the last five years are meaningless copies of the Tolkien-esque stories — European, medieval fantasy with a Dark Lord, a quest, and a magical object that must be destroyed, created, or recreated to stop the end of the world.  Some stories can work with this and still be creative and original.  Not very many.

No, people need to look beyond this system of cliched criteria and “necessary” conventions that leave us with little choice.  If we simply adhere to the generalized criteria of a genre, we make no progress, no impressive bounds.  Instead, we block ourselves into a dystopian prison cell with no creativity, no imagination, no evolution of form and ideas — and quite frankly, no fun when it comes to finding good books to read or movies to watch.

For another look at the fantasy genre’s need to evolve, check this out:

“Oh this is a great chapter — for a filler” and other avalanches of bullshit.

I am a writer.  I’ve written anything from original fiction to memoirs to online role plays to, yes, even fanfiction.

And when you write fanfiction, people either respond to your chapters in one of three ways:  (1) Most of the time, readers’ reviews are one-dimensional.  They tell you how amazing your work is, what they wish you had done, and how much you really, really, REALLY need to update.  These are flattery posts.  (2) In fact, even the ones that aren’t flattery posts are just as one-dimensional.  These are calls flames.  And flamers hate just to hate, even if there’s nothing really wrong with your story.  Because these are bullies, and they just want to make you feel bad about yourself.  (3) Occasionally, you will actually get reviews that are not one-dimensional.  Reviews that are succinct, well written, constructive, and critical.  These are rare.

One of the many things that I have personally heard while writing a story is this notion that there are “filler” chapters — the idea that I just wrote in chapters that add nothing to the plot of characterization.  This is complete and utter nonsense.  In normal fiction, all you have before you is the story, and you cannot ask the writer what he or she meant.  In fanfiction, this is a little different, considering you can submit reviews and the author can respond to them.  But asking a question or assuming that one chapter is merely “filler” without having read the rest of the story is ridiculous.  For all you as a reader know, something small and inane in that chapter could be extremely important to the plot or character later on, and making that assumption without all the information is extremely presumptuous and rude.  Once the story is complete, this is of course a different story.

But with an incomplete story, any legitimate reader or writer should know that a story’s focus might require a bit more than what you think it does.  If a whole chapter adds nothing to the story, it should be cut entirely, and therefore, no “filler” exists.  However, because that chapter was not cut, the reader must assume that the writer left it in for some reason.  Perhaps it advances plot, character, scene, or some other important aspect of the story.  And as a reader who views a story serially instead of all at once in a book, it is more difficult to understand what the author is thinking because you don’t have the rest of the story to base your ideas on.  You can only assume that the writer made his or her choices on purpose.

As editor Beth Hill says,

Use focus as a map to guide readers. Only reveal what you want them to see, what the story needs them to notice. A story can’t be all things. It must be one thing, one complete package. And it must be separate from all else. That is, a single story shouldn’t try to touch on every possible subject a character might have an interest in. You’re not writing someone’s life, the mundane moments as well as the  newsworthy ones. You’re writing the good stuff, the moments that entertain, the parts that get readers laughing or thinking or crying.

Decide what to include. Decide what to exclude. Make conscious decisions about what makes it into your story.

Ask why something should be included. Does it advance plot? Reveal character? Increase tension? Establish or change tone? Does it do these things better than any other option would do them?

Go with the best option for the story as you want it to be.

This is of course assuming that legitimate writers are writing fanfiction — and to be fair, some are.  In fact, even if it weren’t for the fact that the majority of the people who read fanfiction barely know anything about writing, the actual plot or characters of the original work, or even the English language… the majority of people who write fanfiction are just as bad.

For an example of bad fanfiction, take a look at this motion picture version of the Lord of the Rings fanfic Legolas by Laura:

For the life of me, I can’t understand why fanfiction gets such a bad rep.  But then I look at fanfics like the one above and I remember why.  The problem is, people associate bad writing with fanfiction, despite the fact that fanfiction itself is not inherently bad.  People bash on it and assume that if they find one badly written fanfic, all fanfiction is inevitably bad.  I’ve even had a friend say that if he were to become a popular published author, he would do what some other authors (like Anne Rice) have done and deny fans the ability to write stories based on his own.

This, as I see it, is an abomination.

Fanfiction is something written not to change the way a story is written or to make improvements that the author did not want.  Authors, like my friend, view fanfiction as something that infringes on their own creativity and completely erodes the decisions the author made within that story.  But this is not true.  Fanfiction is something that children, adolescents, and even adults write not to mock or improve stories, but to pay homage to those stories and authors.  Any published author should be flattered that someone would choose to use their characters and ideas to makes new stories and webs of intrigue.

And yes, there are some badly written fanfics.  But there are also fanfics that are well written enough that the author should have their own work published.  I like to think my own work was always somewhere in between.

Fanfiction is an easy way for a young writer to learn how to write.  As children, most of our ideas come from the things we have read or seen.  I mostly wrote fanfiction based on the Harry Potter series, but even my supposedly original work at age ten was hardly unique.  Inspired by The Lord of the Rings, many of my characters in my fantasy worlds were based on characters from Tolkien’s Middle-Earth (a wizard similar to Gandalf, a hero similar to Aragorn, etc.), and my writing was anything but exemplary.

Nevertheless, without having written those stories, even the ones based on another author’s work, I would not be nearly as experienced with writing as I am today.  I would not love to write, I would not write much more unique stories, and I doubt very much that I would be an English/Writing major and work in Drury’s Writing Center.  Our past experiences shape us into the the people we are today, and that past is no less important or meaningful if it included writing fanfiction.

A look at the Internet blackout of 01/18/12

It’s a bit late to jump on the SOPA/PIPA bandwagon, at least on this blog.  I’m not quite sure where I first heard about the debate, but somewhere in late December I signed up for emails from Vote for the Net and Fight for the Future.  I signed some petition after reading a short summary of the situation, and lo and behold, I was bombarded with at least a hundred emails about SOPA/PIPA in the next month.

For those of you out there that still do not know about SOPA/PIPA, Wikipedia has a brilliant article about the blackout that occurred on January 18 and about the bills themselves.  In explanation of SOPA/PIPA, the Wiki page says this:

SOPA (the “Stop Online Piracy Act“) and PIPA (the “PROTECT IP Act“) are bills in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, respectively. These bills are presented as efforts to stop copyright infringement committed by foreign websites, but in our opinion, they do so in a way that would disrupt free expression and harm the Internet … [I]n its current form, SOPA could require Wikipedia to actively monitor every site we link to, to ensure it doesn’t host infringing content. Any link to an infringing site could put us in jeopardy of being forced offline. The trust and openness that underlies the entire Wikipedia project would be threatened, and new, restrictive policies would make it harder for us to be open to new contributors.

By the time January 18 rolled around, I had learned more than I had thought that I ever would and I had signed every petition that came my way.  And when websites like Wikipedia, Reddit, Google, Wired, xkcd, icanhazcheezburger, Tumblr, and Mozilla blocked their resources all over the web, I was there every step of the way, signing yet more petitions, posting links all over Facebook, and reading as much as I could about the developments.

The Internet blackout on January 18 was a monumental day, and I am proud to say that I participated in it, spreading the word and blocking out my own Tumblog, despite the fact that I hardly use it anymore.

A gallery of websites’ images during the blackout can be found by following the link connected to this image:

The editors of Techdirt have kept me up-to-date even since that day, posting more and more information about the situation, and I read the majority of their articles now, even the ones that have nothing to do with SOPA/PIPA.  If for no other reason, I’m glad I learned about the situation so that I could discover this website and many others like it that look at the world not through the eyes of corporations that desire only to make money, but through the eyes of normal people that want to make a difference and genuinely care about the freedoms this country is supposed to protect.

There are still those of us out there that believe in a better tomorrow.  Because of our current economic situation, people spend so much of their time looking back at better times, but they ignore one important fact:  This is bad, but even if there were better times in the past, they weren’t the best they could be and there’s always more room for improvement, whether that improvement is in regards to our economic standpoint or our democratic standpoint.  The American ideal of progress is not achievable if we idealize the past.

As a last note, Jon Stewart of The Daily Show addressed the issue on the night of January 18 in an entertaining way, pointing out that most members of Congress do not have enough experience with the Internet to know what they’re talking about.