More Links

Gah, you guys. I will be honest here: I am starting to get burned out. Following politics? Hella depressing. Every day people are doing things I don't agree with. All the time! Which is fine, I'm used to that, but in forty years when I don't have any medicare I am going to be pretty pissed off!

Anyway. You know, I was watching Rachel Maddow the other day, and she was talking some more about the union stripping stuff that's going on in Wisconsin, -- which is depressing on its own, and I haven't even gotten to their election yet -- and the stuff she's saying is sounding like a conspiracy theory. The idea that Republicans are trying to basically cut out Democrats' major sources of funding, I mean. And I have faith in Maddow! I think she's smart! I see what she's saying! But I also realized, if I were a moderate, I would mark her as a radical and consider it a conspiracy theory. Maybe not Glenn Beck level, but still. And I just was not sure what to do with those thoughts. Except realize that I am burned out.

But stuff keeps happening anyway, so what can I do?

I guess the U.S. government finally agreeing to something like budget is a good thing. And if it's still for Senate vote, Planned Parenthood might keep their funding, which is good. But my cynicism is getting to me -- the Democrats never seem to hold their ground very long, and I wonder what concessions they made. (I might be more hopeful if I hadn't seen posts like this and this earlier in the week.) (The Onion has their own take, of course. I laughed.)

And while I'm on the topic of budget, I must take a second and point you towards Gin & Tacos's satire of the whole tying-teachers'-wages-to-student-performance proposal, that is seriously being made by people, because ... I don't even know.

This doesn't look like a big deal -- FCC what? ISP neutrality who? -- until you remember that it means that Comcast can basically stop me watching Hulu and Netflix Instant. Not to product-place here, but I am not going to lie, I love me some Netflix Instant. They have all of the classic episodes of The X-Files! Also, it is wrong and I'm pretty sure not what Adam Smith meant by a free-market economy. (The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced I'd just live a happier life if I ignored absolutely everything the House of Representatives does.)

It wouldn't solve all my problems, though. Thinking about abortion and then falling down while pregnant is totally a crime, here in my country. This is so beyond off to me that I'm sure there must be something in the story I'm missing. Biased reporting, right? It has to be. I have to be missing something. (Google is apparently missing it too; the first three pages of search results for that story are all either the same article I read, or other articles by liberal bloggers basically saying "You've got to be fucking kidding me.")

Oh, riiiiight. Stuff like this is why I knew I couldn't trust the Daily Mail.

New video blog from Feminist Frequency in the misogynist tropes series. This time they tackle Women in Refrigerators (that is, women who are tortured and/or killed gratuitously or primarily to inspire growth in the male hero).

The same sex couples fighting Prop 8 in court have filed their brief explaining why the people who put it on the ballot should not have the legal right to defend it in court. (Courts will not hear arguments until early September; it's still legal nuances at this point.)

YMMV on this, but SocImages has an interesting post up about an artist who paints the "deconstruction of indulgence," that is, women eating sweets and junk food which are supposed to be private, guilty pleasures. It ends up making quite a statement, I think, although I'm not entirely confident in my opinion on art. (NSFW)

Sady from Tiger Beatdown wrote a piece about Phyllis Schafly -- female enemy of feminism -- that I found quite insightful. I don't get her, and I doubt I ever will, but the piece at least helped contextualize why, without falling into some of the more obvious traps.

Diana Wynne Jones died this week. I am full of sadface about that; some of her books are among my favorites. Other authors also remember her fondly.

And, since stuff is depressing, check out a little baby red panda. Cute!

Links Links Links

Seriously, I need a name for these end-of-week linky listy things. Suggestions welcome.

Much lighter than last week, for which I think we're all grateful.

So they're revamping the Wonder Woman franchise. Which might be a yay, right? Conceived in the 40s as a deliberately feminist superheroine! Amazon! Peace and justice and whatever! And ... the revamp is being done by David E. Kelley, so it's that peculiar brand of misogyny that disguises itself as feminism. (If you don't think it's feminist, maybe you're just not feminist enough, huh? No. No, that is not what's happening.) The Daily Beast has done a beautiful takedown of the pilot script.

TRIGGER WARNING. I'm not sure how reliable The Daily Mail is (I feel like it's the English version of Fox News. English posters?) but they have an article up about the virginity checks that women protesters in Egypt got when arrested. If that's true (and I can believe that it is) it is disgusting and infuriating. (Obviously.) (Without doing a lot of further research, the article presented the information fairly neutrally, and without obvious moments of victim blaming. It's bad that I consider that kind of a win.)

It's not especially feminist or current events related, or whatever, but if you spend time thinking about books (all of us here do!) you might check out Patricia C. Wrede's blog entry about themes in books and the divide between literary and genre fiction. (Full disclosure: I consider the hyper-thematic literary fiction almost universally obnoxious, and skew heavily toward genre in my own reading habits; that may be one of many reasons I love Wrede's books.) (Other reasons include the fact that her books are BOSS. Seriously. Dealing With Dragons is I think the only book I've ever read where I had to stop reading to laugh out loud for ten minutes and then resume. My own laughter was distracting me from the plot. In a good way. Anyway.)

I read Go Fug Yourself for a lot of reasons, too (some of them being that it is boss, and its writers are hilarious) but it's not exactly where I go to get my daily dose of feminism. Which is why posts like this (wherein they say: shut UP, Rolling Stone) put a huge smile on my face. It's like a surprise bit of caramel syrup in my coffee, or a reference to my hometown in the novel I'm reading. Word, ladies. Rolling Stone should shut up, and quit it with the non-edgy exploitative nudity on their covers.

 John Scalzi wrote a piece for FilmCritic about the dearth of female writers and directors in the sci-fi and fantasy genres. It was a little off-putting to me how neutrally (and almost conservatively) it comes across; he doesn't lambast anyone or offer up blame, he just sort of ... notices, without a lot of analysis. Interesting, though.

Bitch told me, and now I'm telling you: there's a new website all about birth control! Actually, I enjoyed poking around it (rimshot!). So. Don't say we here at FnBs never did nothin' for ya.

Feministing takes on some of the more insulting female TV Tropes in a new series of video blogs. The first one is an excellent analysis of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl. (I'm impressed with the job they do partly because feminism and TV tropes are two great tastes that ... you know the rest, and partly because their analysis is more than throwing up their hands and saying "GOD, the MPDG is so motherflipping ANNOYING," which is what I would have done.)

GRAPHIC SEXUAL CONTENT WARNING. So I forget which blog recommended this to me (Slog, maybe?) but that blog is awesome because I never would have found this on my own. There's an article up at Pluck wherein a guy describes how his understanding of women changed after he and his girlfriend started experimenting with penetrative sex. (Him on the penetrated end, that is.) If you don't mind the descriptions (he doesn't get too graphic, but he doesn't exactly leave things ambiguous, either) it's a fascinating read.

Sociological Images and SCOTUSblog have posts up about the massive lawsuit by female WalMart employees about the company's sexist policies. (The issue before the court is whether this suit is legitimate as a class action lawsuit or not.)

Oh, and Tomato Nation is having its annual contest this month. (It's not a skill contest. It's a let's-see-how-much-money-we-can-raise-for-charity contest.) Amazing, inspiring, and totally full of prizes you can win for donating. Go forth!

Late Links

Yeah, these should have gone up last week. That was not a good blogging week for me. Sorry. Here they are now, and stay tuned for an essay-post in the next 24 hours or so.

And now for something completely different. You've probably already seen this, as I'm late in the game on it, but for the three of you who haven't, check out Sandia Labs' Report. Setup: You want to bury nuclear waste in the desert. Complication: Nuclear waste takes ten thousand years to decay into something reasonably safe to go near. Problem: How do you tell our many-great grandchildren (or, who knows, lizards' many-great grandchildren) to stay the hell away from this particular valley? Can YOU think of any direct, distinct, immediate communication from 10,000 years ago?

Remember that scene in Back to the Future, when Marty caught George up in a tree trying to peer into Lorraine's window? There's an app for that. (Finally we can all relax. I know I'm never happy unless dudes are busy believing that they're entitled to see me naked.)

I'm not writing about Libya because in bad, horrible, stupid American citizen form, I am quite ignorant of the details of revolutions abroad. If you're likewise ignorant and want to catch up, Rachel Maddow has all the details. If you're not thinking about it either, for whatever reasons, then the money perspective may not have occurred to you. (I have no opinions on this topic. I am too ignorant. I offer only places where you can get info from people who know more than I do.)

Shock, surprise, Yes Means Yes has another awesome post up this week (it's like they do it on purpose). Thomas looks at studies into the supposed communication barrier that leads rapists to claim they didn't understand that the victim was refusing. All bullshit, you'll be shocked to hear.

From the department of "and how would you like it if somebody did that to you?" pro-choice protesters are picketing Christian-run crisis pregnancy centers. I certainly see the appeal emotionally although I'm not convinced it's the smartest long-term tactic.

People spending a lot of time protesting (specifically internet-commenting) stuff they hate is what's bothering Cruella this week. It takes quite a bit to get me to comment on a blog other then our own here; I can't remember the last time I did. (Maybe to enter a contest?) And I rarely read comments; too many of them raise my blood pressure unacceptably.

In another move sure to shock our readership (yes, both of you) -- Hollywood has cast the lead in the upcoming Hunger Games movie; she's thin, blonde, and pretty. So, one out of three in terms of sticking true to the book? I'm not a huge fan  of the book but I have no problem calling bullshit on their casting criteria.

Skin tone again -- this time in a Dove ad. Is it scarier if they meant to do that or if they didn't?

Did you know conservatives used to be for Planned Parenthood? Keeps the welfare queens in check, yo. (Nope, not making this up.)

Sarah Palin thinks the NEA is frivolous. Of course she does.

Those brave residents of Florida stand up against political correctness and insist that they'll keep blaming the victims if they goddamn want to. And they'll make it law, too.

And of course, this week's links would be incomplete without mention of how the GOP wants to turn the IRS into the morality police. Ahh, I love the smell of fermented Calvinism in the morning. (Also if you think about this for thirty fucking seconds it makes no fucking sense. GOD SHUT UP BOEHNER.) (via caudoviral)

Depressed yet? I am. Go look at a baby aardvark, that's the best I got.

Links & Leeks

All right. It's 5:30 on Friday afternoon and I've had one beer so far, which is in no way enough to take the edge off the week I've had. So here are your links for the week, and if they suck do me a favor and don't tell me about it for twenty-four hours.

Feministing notes that the Obama administration has rescinded the federal regulation commonly called the "Conscience Clause". This has been mentioned before (STILL need to do a proper post about it, but don't hold your breath, I've got eight million Deep Thoughts I feel the need to share and this is only one). I will go ahead and say "Yay!" because this is practically speaking, a great step for feminism and equal rights.

Keep up with the whole Prop 8 debate over at the SCOTUSblog. (Yeah, I'm just going to keep posting those updates until stuff stops happening about it.)

Sociological Images has an article about how video game characters' breasts have gotten bigger and bigger as the games go through new versions and get more popular. (I'm tempted to joke that this is a link that women and men will find interesting. But that would be insulting and sexist. I will say merely that it includes some telling images.)

Okay, Arizona, I admit that I'm not particularly in touch with your culture. But after the shooting of several weeks ago, your new gun legislation baffles me (and this Slog writer, apparently).

This blog/FAQ post by an abortion doctor is a must-read, in my opinion. It's candid, fascinating, and both thoughtful and thought-provoking. (It's over at The Hairpin; I'm not sure what the status is on this writer and whether she has her own blog.)

Yes Means Yes has done two great posts recently about the studies done on men and women's different responses to offers of casual sex. Full disclosure: I haven't read through these fully yet (see above re: the week I have had) but I feel pretty confident recommending anything posted on that blog; I don't always agree with everything but I'm always interested.

And, because I don't have the energy to link to some of this week's more depressing stories (oh, you want your day wrecked? Okay -- TRIGGER WARNING ON THE REST OF THIS PARAGRAPH AND THE LINK: you know the story that recently broke about the 11 year old gang rape victim? Guess what she's being called! Gin and Tacos calls it a failure of journalism; I call it misogyny.)

That's all I've got for now. What are you reading?

Links & Larks

Yep, good news. I'm not going to break my new rule the same week I make it. Go me! (Links list might be slightly longer than usual -- I've been saving them up for a while.)

Caudoviral gave us a great shout-out last week, because he is awesome. Go read his blog about biology and sciences, which is full of cool and interestingly explained articles and things you didn't know about medicine. (Full disclosure: yeah, we're friends; no, I wouldn't say his blog is awesome if it weren't.) (Caudoviral)

In less-awesome news, the U.S. House of Representatives recently voted to cut all funding to Planned Parenthood. I’m sorry; did I miss the memo? Do we want everyone to drop out of college all full of babies because the pill costs $70/month at Wal-Mart and no one can get it for $20/month at PP anymore? Is that how we’re going to fix the economy? Really, John Boehner? This page has a link to a petition where you can tell the Senate to cut this crap out immediately, plus a bunch of fun ideas for protest signs. (Bitch Magazine)

Keeping up with the Prop 8 debate? A review has been set. On the one hand I am absolutely opposed to Prop 8 in every respect and I wish they would get this matter of basic human rights settled already; on the other hand I’m kind of finding the legal ins and outs really interesting. (Yeah, I read Supreme Court decisions for fun when I was in high school.) (There’s a more recent update – about the Court’s unwillingness to speed up the schedule – here.) (SCOTUSblog)

Speaking of marriage, feminists caused your divorce! Did you know? Bitch has something to say about that. (Bitch Magazine)

It’s preaching to the choir, I know, but this post is an insightful and eloquent report of the way the conscience clause can be horribly misued and in fact lead to the deaths of women with no benefit to the fetus. I have a lot I want to say about that when I can find the time to put it into words (I am actually much more conflicted about it than I thought I was); meantime read Thomas’s clear and straightforward view. (Yes Means Yes)

On a similar topic, two reporters (or a reporter and an intern, rather) at Slog did some interesting investigative journalism, going to crisis pregnancy centers in the area. Their findings were interesting -- much of the information given about abortion was (surprise!) inaccurate. (Slog)

Elsewhere on Slog: whether you saw the Oscars or not, I think you should read Lindy West’s recap of the ceremony. (Actually I think you should read everything Lindy West writes, because she is awesome. And besides being funny and feminist and interesting, she gets a million bonus points for this.) (Slog)

Speaking of movie stars giving each other awards, someone made a word map analyzing word frequency in the Oscar acceptance speeches. Did it seem to anyone else as if the ladies were all “Oh, I can’t believe you’re giving this to ME” and the dudes were all “Yep, I’m awesome and I own it”? Maybe it’s my feminism, ruining everything and wrecking your marriage. (OverthinkingIt)

While we’re Overthinking things, I kinda wish I’d written this awesome post comparing Clueless and Mean Girls to each other... and to  political revolutions and their effects. (OverthinkingIt)

This article on the sexiness of ladies who read is about 80% charming, but I think it says a lot about me that my reaction to the first half was “Don’t buy her a coffee and hit on her, she’s trying to read. She’s busy!” (The Monica Bird, and thanks, caudoviral!)

And just for fun, go read this Married to the Sea comic. I should analyze why I like it, I suppose, lest I like it for the wrong reasons, but that would kill the frog.

Link Round-Up

Too many links sitting on my computer in the sort of vague idea that I should share them. Well, here they are.

The bad (Trigger warnings on all):

Oh, House Republicans. You keep finding new ways to make me hate you. Listening to people is SO for sissy Democrats, right? Keep on keepin' on with your badass ignoring of your constituency.

I have a whole post I want to write about the conscience clause, and its nasty paternalistic nature. Meanwhile, check out Yes Means Yes.

In other news, South Dakota. I am, as always, impressed by what total assholes run your government.

The good:

Sociological Images has an extremely interesting post up about nudity and what it means for men and women.

Lindy West already rocked my world. Now she rocks it more.

In Other Book News

I haven't posted this week on account of being pretty horribly ill and not having a lot of coherent thought to share. But as kind of an addendum to Wordwrestler's post about the NY Times Book Review, I thought I'd toss this out there, for our international readers and anyone who hasn't caught this yet.

So, the Bitch Magazine debacle.  Sequence went something like this. Bitch makes list of 100 Awesome Feminist YA Books. Cool! I read it, and I think it has the same issues most "best x number of books in given genre" lists have; it leaves off some of my favorites, includes a few that are like, the hell?, and a few that were like, you've got the author right but for heaven's sake don't start with that one. And there are a million I haven't read, so I should maybe get on that, but probably won't any time soon. Whatever, I have those kind of issues with every book list I read -- doesn't everybody? We don't agree, that's why it's fun to make lists. So anyway. People start commenting. And two or three of the books get called out for being triggering to rape survivors.

Now, you're Bitch. What do you do? As a reader, you know that everyone's opinions about books are different, you can't possibly please everyone, and taking books off a YA list for being "too disturbing" smacks of condescension and nasty censorship. As a feminist, you want to honor rape survivors and not say that triggering people is awesome. As an editor, that's a hundred book list, and I'm betting each individual editor has not read all 100, and there may be some in there that are based on reader suggestions, which no one has read. Dilemma.

What Bitch does is remove three books from the list. And the shit, she flies. Scott Westerfeld and Maureen Johnson, two well-known YA writers on the list send in respectful, grammatical, fuck you letters. Westerfeld asks that his book be removed, as he doesn't wish to be associated with the list anymore. (Personally I wasn't terribly enamored with his book, but that's neither here nor there.) Bitch gets called out by writers. And readers. I looked on some of my favorite feminist websites and couldn't find much supporting either side; mostly they're busy protesting HR3 (which I wrote to my Congresswoman about, and if you're a US citizen, you should too, because it's basically codified misogyny, thank you SO much, GOP). But anyway.

So there's another wrinkle up for debate. Who do you listen to in a case like this?

Fictional Turnoffs

So here’s some news that’s going to be a shocker to everyone who has ever met me. You may want to be sitting down. Ready? Not everything I like to read and watch and listen to and play is strictly intellectual. Not all of it is strictly feminist. Not all of it is strictly clever, or strictly original, or strictly groundbreaking. Not all of it is even very good.

Most of the things I enjoy are at least one of those things. In fact, I would argue that there is some sort of minimum sum I require, that a lack of cleverness is made up for by the existence of a feminist message, and intellect can make up for a lack of originality. I think that’s more or less true for everybody, with their own criteria, of course. If after the first few minutes or pages or whatever, the sum is too low, I stop it and go entertain myself with something else. I was thinking about doing a whole post about that and saving this one for next week, but for whatever reason (read: I'm tired, and that seemed hard) this is the one that wants to be written today.

All that is well and good, but there are some things that multiply the whole equation by zero, that make it impossible for me to like something, or impossible for me to recommend it, or at the very least impossible for it to move into my high-tier favorites list where it might otherwise deserve a place. And because bitching is hella fun, I am going to write out a list.

Warning: This list contains strong language. I know, I know, you're shocked again.

1. Whininess. See my white guy entertainment post. Okay. Problems suck. I am there. I think my own problems are pretty goddamn sucky, and there are billions and billions and billions of people with whom I would not trade. But there are two problems with whining. One is that it demands center stage. It forces everything else to be put on hold: others’ problems, understanding the reasoning behind one’s own problems, and – and this is the kicker – finding solutions to one’s problems. So, really effective there, especially in a fictional context, when the plot has to either stop moving, or interrupt you rudely. (Not as clever as you think, authors.) Also, at a certain point, repetition gets boring. And whininess, after awhile, is repetition. I see this (and the next two or three on the list, actually) as the main reason(s) I don’t like contemporary literary fiction. (Let me quickly make it clear that I whine all the time in real life, and I try to support my friends when they need to whine in my direction. Fiction is different. I read fiction to escape real life. Whining I can do anytime.)

2. Look at Me; I’m So Fucking Deep. It goes hand in hand with the first one, but there is a certain tone in some kinds of books that drives me mad. I can best describe it as a desire to be congratulated for identifying sources of unhappiness in one’s life. The internet has made me feel so fucking disconnected, maaaaaaaan. Our modern world, duuuuuude. People just don’t get what’s real, know what I meeeeaaaan? It’s not about getting credit for solving a problem. It’s about getting credit for identifying a problem, and then claiming that the problem one has identified is part of the universal human condition and is therefore deep. Two things. 1) It’s not necessarily universal. My problems may or may not have anything to do with whatever the hell you’re talking about, and you really have no idea how the problem affects my life even if I do find it applicable. Especially if it relates to The Challenges of Living in the Modern World. And before you say anything, let me remind you that your idea that you understand my problems better than I do is condescending and inappropriate. 2) Something actually being a universal-human-condition problem does not necessarily make it deep or interesting to read about. Unless you’re approaching it originally, I don’t really care what you have to say, because I identified that problem a long fucking time ago. You get no credit with me for figuring this out; some stoned college freshman beat you to the punch ages ago. (To veer off on a tangent for a moment, the reason this is tied so closely to #1 in my mind is that it always seems to carry with it a lack of perspective. I'm going to save you some suspense. The problems that we face as a society now, including the kinds of hypocrisy we enjoy, are different in some ways, but no better or worse or more interesting or more important than those faced by any society at any time. New technology and change has always freaked people out and made their ways of interacting with the world undergo a change. Go read a history of the Industrial Revolution and get the fuck over yourself.)

3.  Misogyny/Lack of Social Awareness. Yeah, that’s kind of self-explanatory. It’s why the novel of The Princess Bride will never compare with the film; ignorable borderline misogyny is a hell of a lot more tolerable than overt misogyny tinged with self-awareness. Grow up, folks. Ladies is people now, and we have been since the mid-seventies. (In other news, black folks is people, trans folks is people, queer folks is people, folks what don’t agree with you is people, and all of us people are sick of your whiny "depth.")

4. Poor Pacing. I don’t like acknowledging it, but I am very much of the millennial generation, and as such have an unfortunately short attention span. Your scenes should have a point. (Remington Steele, I wanted to like you so much! I will give you another chance someday.) Conversely, if your scenes have a point, and move in a particular direction, each step you take in that direction should make a noticeable difference. BONES. If you're just treading water, you lose your stakes, about which more later. But you can't simultaneously keep your characters in a holding pattern and falsely portray movement. It's irresponsible and shows a lack of respect for your audience.

5. Narrative Shortcuts That Backfire. Look, people. First person narrators should not drop hints, in some sort of smug I know something you don't know kind of way, unless your point is that your narrator is a fucking asshole. (Third person narrators may drop occasional hints. One every 100 pages or so.) Let’s think about why for a minute. One reason is that it’s obnoxious. I will fucking read the story because the story is good, not because you have lured me with your secret weapon of “it was a decision I would come to regret.” Secondly, people don’t talk like that. I’m a teacher at heart, and I overexplain everything (welcome to my whole family) but in real life, a person is far more likely to run off on a tangent so that you get the FULL CONTEXT OF THEIR POINT than to drop a hint about who and what they are and then go back to what they were doing. Even Holden Caulfield, who explicitly refuses to give the reader background, goes off on tangents rather than dropping hints. The only people who drop hints are storytellers, who don’t have faith in the interest their story generates on its own and feel the need to manufacture some. This is why it’s so egregious in a story told in the first person. James Patterson, are your ears burning?

6. Expecting Charm to Work/General Laziness. I consider #2 to be a particular subset of this. In the Turkey City Lexicon – which I adored growing up, back when I thought I wanted to be a writer – there’s an item about knowing the difference between a conceit and an idea. It’s called the Jar of Tang, go look it up. Anyway, the fact that you have a good idea, or a unique viewpoint (you probably don’t) or a new perspective (see above re: you don't) is not enough to make your work quality without mastery of other storytelling devices. Your possibly good idea does not elevate excrement into art. If you write shit dialogue, it lowers the tone of your idea, and makes you look like an idiot. In other news, give your audience some credit. It is annoying to guess a twist fifty or sixty pages in advance. It is even more annoying -- by a factor of hundreds -- to guess a "twist" seventy or eighty pages in advance and spend those seventy or eighty pages watching the author drop gleeful hints as they imagine that they have you completely fooled. Kate Mosse, I am talking specifically to you.

7. Awkward Writing. Yeah, occasionally you have to go listen to how people actually talk. I have this theory that this means you’re doing a kind of writing you’re either 1) not practiced in, or 2) not meant to be doing. It was a great relief when I realized I am better at writing essays than writing fiction and quit trying to write fiction. Patricia Cornwell, maybe you should try grocery lists for a while?

8. Stakes Shortcuts. Sometime, when you are trying to put your finger on something within a piece of entertainment, ask yourself what the stakes are. I learned about the idea of stakes from a director mentor of mine, and it’s drastically changed the way I look at entertainment. To break it down a little – there are high stakes and low stakes. You want entertainment to be about high stakes, because if it doesn’t matter what happens, nobody will read to the end. So the entertainers do their best to make the stakes high. Now, there are easy high stakes, and hard high stakes. Easy high stakes come cheap. The world is going to END and EVERYONE WILL DIE unless this particular plot thing happens! I call stakes like that cheap because they don’t require you to particularly care about any of the people on screen (or in text). Everything is going to go wrong if the plot goes wrong, therefore, if the audience doesn’t invest in the plot, they must hate humanity. Great. Sold. Hard high stakes mean that if this particular plot thing happens, a person’s identity or relationship or place in the world will be destroyed. That’s harder to pull off effectively, because the audience has to actually care about the character(s). If they don't, they get bored, and it’s a huge waste of space. Now, that’s not to say that one form of stakes is better, exactly. But if you want to engage the minds and the emotions of your reader/viewer, pure easy stakes aren’t going to be enough (unless you luck onto some symbol that means a lot to them emotionally, which – hey, look where I’m going with this). There’s a multitude of ways to take shortcuts and artificially raise your stakes, no matter where you start with them. Want people to care about the world ending? Blow up a well-known landmark with some emotional connection to your audience. Or show characters that they can identify with flee from destruction. (Sounding familiar?) Want to make people care about characters’ relationships? Give the characters quirky and endearingly eccentric traits, because everyone considers zhirself kind of quirky and endearing on some level, and thus can identify. But those are shortcuts. Good entertainment means you care about the characters for their sakes, not just yours. You care if their world ends, or if their relationships end, because they resonate as people, in addition to just reminding you of yourself. It requires both commitment and trust from the creators.

9. Solving One Problem Means Solving All Problems. Dear Rom-Coms of the World: Finding a mate does not instantly repair other relationships, work problems, financial hardship, or low self-esteem. Please take note. Love, Real People.

10. That Goddamn Plot Where Someone Who Realistically Would Die So Fucking Fast Without Their Resources Manages to Survive and Connect With Nature. I have hated this fucking thing for twenty years, and I reaffirm my commitment to hate it for twenty years more. Twelve-year-olds of nearly any era are not equipped to live off the land for any length of time. That is ridiculous. Also, reading about root-digging and animal-watching is boring. If I wanted to connect with nature vicariously I would go to the goddamn zoo.

Those are mine. What are yours?

Some Harry Potter Thoughts

So I have two great posts outlined, but I spent ten and a half hours on Amtrak today and as such can barely spell my own name. So you get a smart post next week.

This week, you get a quick (and spoiler-filled) list of my impressions on the latest Harry Potter, which I saw over Thanksgiving with my cousins. If you haven't seen it yet, go read something else. I recommend something coherent.

1. So let's get this out of the way: it was a fairly decent movie. I feel like I've been watching the evolution of Steve Kloves's writing skills over the last ten (or however many) years, as he has gone from super-sucky to eh, nothing to write home about. A not inconsiderable improvement.

2. That said, there were still some clunker lines. The most obvious among them being, to my mind: Harry: We should get moving. Hermione: Ron's not strong enough to Apparate. Harry: Guess we'll go on foot. Next scene: Them in a completely different locale with none of the same geographic features. Me: Eyeroll. Exactly how many miles do three teenagers, one of them wounded, who are trying to keep out of sight, walk in a day?

3. That said, there were good lines. For example,  how awesome was it that Harry finally got the whole "dead parents" thing turned on him? That was epic. (I have an actor friend who, when he needed to build up frustrated teenage angst for a role, used to say he was channeling Harry Potter, circa movie number five. "My parents are dead!" he would yell, and then pop in and do an angsty scene, note-perfect, against all his natural inclinations.) Finally, finally, Ron, in the exact same tone of voice as Harry made so famous, yells "What do you know about it? Your parents are dead!" And despite the sadness that the line implies and the importance of it in terms of plot, I chortled.

4. SPEAKING of dead parents, where was the Harry Potter memorial? AHEM. I thought that a vital and beautiful part of the book, and was sad when the movie showed only a burned out house. The movie was two and a half hours already, Kloves. Another ninety seconds won't do much either way. Christ.

5. You can really see the camaraderie among the three leads now that they've been making movies together so long. It's nice; it mirrors the camaraderie the characters have in the books. The kids are clearly comfortable with each other, which I liked. (Not at all like the early movies.)

6. Still, though. I don't know if it's me or them, but those actors? LOOKED SO YOUNG. And TINY. I once saw Emma Watson in real life, and she is ridiculously small; but the whole movie I was going, I'm not sure you're old enough to be doing this! All the adult actors are still taller than you! Eat some spinach or something!

7. In other I-am-turning-into-someone's-grandma news, they should have been wearing way more winter clothing. They're on a camping trip in England in winter. I myself have lived in England and spent a couple of winters there. (I had the sense never to camp outdoors during that time.) I know that as a native Californian I expect to be rather warmer than England can generally provide. But still. Trust me when I say, a turtleneck and a sweater is going to do nothing for you. You need about four more layers, and at least two of them should be waterproof. It was distracting, how freezing I imagined all of them being. Don't even get me started on the whole stripping, diving into iced over water, coming out, putting on one shirt, and being fine scene. Because when you're magic you don't get hypothermia!

8. Something done really well: The opening scene, where Hermione removes her parents' memories of her. Beautifully done, and done in a cinematic, not literary, way. Unlike so many other scenes in this series.

9. Something done quite poorly: Assorted lines wherein someone yells, "But that's so dangerous!" Mates. I do not want to be the one to tell you this. But you are past that level. It was "so dangerous" back in movie two. Now it's just your life. Love it or leave it.

10. Proof that my gay and gay-friendly friends have totally rubbed off on me: In the dramatic moment, when Ron is destroying the Horcrux, it's taunting him with Harry and Hermione kissing, naked. (Tastefully fogged out for the younger viewers.) Ron, in love with Hermione himself, gets a determined look on his face and stabs it to stop the scene. Me (in my mind): You go Ron! Kill the heterosexuality! You know Harry really loves you! (My sister, when I told her that: God, you can't even pronounce "heterosexuality," can you? England was so bad for you.)

What I Want (from Stephen Fry)

I've been thinking a lot about this Stephen Fry debacle, and how it ties into having standards, and fitting in with Word's middle ground, and reconciling things he says with other things he does, etc., etc., etc. And the way that I can express my various thoughts is to spell out clearly the response I wish had come from him, (which, by the way, it's not too late for him to give).

I am presupposing that for some reason, he said things to a reporter like "women just have sex to trick men into a relationship," and that that leaked out. Obviously, we would all be happier if that had never happened, but that's not the point. Now, Stephen, play close attention here.

1) Stop complaining about how unfair all of this is to you. I am sure you have a different impression of what happened at that interview than the reporter does/did. I'm sure your what you think happened is NOT the version that is making the rounds of the interwebz. You know what I don't want to hear? How you were so misrepresented, and how it isn't fair, and they took advantage of you, and life is so hard when you're Stephen Fry. Everyone's life is hard, even when they're not Stephen Fry. Everyone gets misinterpreted, and misquoted, and misrepresented, and if you're famous, the odds are very good that you will be mis-somethinged on a massive scale. It comes with the territory. If you don't want that to happen to you anymore, be very clear in your interviews or live the life of J.D. Salinger. But whining about it makes you sound like a big baby.

2) Acknowledge that what you said sounds really misogynistic. Maybe you said it in a joking tone. Maybe you were being ironic. Maybe you were being serious but you had a whole bunch of background logical reasoning that alleviates the misogyny somehow, at least in your mind. (Not sure how that would work but: benefit of the doubt.) For whatever reason, we missed something that somehow vindicated you. But the thing is, without whatever that thing was, you sound like a total douche, and if you don't acknowledge that, it makes it look like you don't understand what you did wrong. A simple statement of, "wow, reading these remarks in the press, I really understand how women would assume that I am sexist," is what it takes so that I don't feel the need to kick you in the shins. Otherwise, I feel that I have to justify my own outrage. That is tiring, and often unproductive. You want back on my good side, you show me that you are different from all those douches who say something nasty and then go all big-eyed and "What are you so upset about? Crazy bitch."

3) Apologize. This is not difficult. If you were misconstrued, you may tack on the optional phrase, "that wasn't what I was trying to say," to the end of your "I'm sorry." Further elaboration is not necessary. Switching the order of your phrases, e.g. "I didn't mean that, I'm sorry" is acceptable but ill-advised. "I'm so sorry that I sounded like a douche" is what I want to hear from you.

4) Explain to me what you really think about this topic. Don't waste my time telling me that this person or that person fucked you over and that's why you came across sounding like you're a douche when you're really not. Do take a little time of your own to tell me that you think men's and women's sex drives are different, that you see things going on in gay dating that don't happen in straight dating, that you think culture fucks women over in these particular ways, that you think culture fucks over men in these particular ways, that you're a dude and so you understand this better and you don't date women but this confuses you, whatever. Whatever it is you wish that the reporter had expressed, whatever statement you think would not misrepresent your views, make it. Give me your reasoning in detail. You're a smart man, Stephen; that much is and has always been clear. If you want to get credit for your intelligence, you have to make intelligent statements.

And that? That is how to get out of whatever dog house you are in.

Everyone but everyone says misogynist crap sometimes. Just like everyone occasionally says racist crap and sizeist crap and heteronormative crap and pro-cis crap, and every other kind of crap. A lot of us fight the kyriarchy, and sometimes we lose. We lose in our own minds and in our own thoughts and without meaning to, and that's life. And getting sulky because "that's not what I meant!" is childish.

A couple of months ago, I was hanging out with Word and another friend, watching Veronica Mars. For some reason we got on the topic of Buffy -- yay, Buffy! And we started talking about the pilot that was first filmed but never aired, when the role of Willow was played by a different actress (Riff Regan). You can watch parts of it online, and I have. Regan is quite a bit taller than Sarah Michelle Gellar and the other female actresses on the show, and she's also rather heavier. They recast Willow after that pilot, and in the show she was played by Alyson Hannigan, who is about sixty pound soaking wet and spends the first two seasons looking like she's twelve.

We were talking about that, and I said, trying for irony "Of course they couldn't have a fat Willow," as in, wow, the producers have such a limited view of what women have to look like. Word gave me a Look.

That Look was an important thing. "Wow, I didn't mean that from my own point of view," I hastened to clarify. "I meant, that was what the producers were probably thinking." Word nodded, satisfied. Would it be appropriate for me to get pissed at her, because she should have known what I meant? Because she should have realized from my tone, or from her knowledge of me, or from some other superfluous piece of information, that I was joking and trying to point out hypocrisy in someone else? Of course not. I didn't mean to be playing into sizeist prejudices, but the fact remains that the words coming out of my mouth were exactly the same as the words that would come out of a sizeist bigot's mouth. And Word was absolutely right to call me on that, because if I had said that in a larger group? And someone hadn't gotten the irony, so clear in my mind, so unclear in my speech? There's me, justifying someone else's prejudice and labeling myself a problem.

You know what else? When I examined my thought processes, after that incident, I realized I have a hard time picturing Regan portraying Willow over the course of the series. Whatever, she didn't  portray Willow, it doesn't matter. But what does matter is that I can't quantify in my own mind how much of that difficulty I have, picturing this other actress playing this part, comes from a lack of imagination, how much comes from her being a very different type of actress and it being difficult to picture her responding to certain developments, how much from other innocent concerns -- and how much comes from my own sizeist prejudices, the ones I didn't think I had.

I didn't mean to send this post off on a tangent, but what I'm trying to say is that Stephen Fry making a mistake is not the problem. Okay, it's not ideal, but his mistake wouldn't have to stand alone and piss people (like for example me) off, if he had taken the mistake and used it as a way to educate himself and others. (You know who did that? Emma Thompson. She's a friend of Roman Polanski, and she signed the petition asking to get him off the charge. A group of students -- from my university, which is awesome -- were like, dude, Emma, you look like you're trying to defend child rape. She took her name off the petition when that was pointed out, and made a statement explaining why. That? Was an awesome response.)

It's not about never making a mistake. It's not about trying to over explain everything, so that you can never be misinterpreted. It's about how you react when someone points out to you that something you said sounds douchey. It's about how you express your frustration when you are misinterpreted. (Or hey, owning your remarks, if you weren't misinterpreted.) It's about having respect for the people who respect you.

Things I Learned From the Movie Waitress

Certain things in my life are messy right now (seems problems of that sort hit many of the FnBs contributors simultaneously, which figures). Anyway, I'm not in much state to write a fresh perspective on something, so here's the next best thing: a list I wrote a few months ago after watching Waitress. Next week, look for a post about more current and more general media. Meantime, enjoy. -- Arcadian

Okay, yes, I watched Waitress. Any distress I feel is of course my own fault.  I caved! I wanted to see Nathan Fillion playing a straight romantic hero, instead of an anti-hero, or a tool-hero, or a goofy, womanizing hero. Surely it will be interesting to watch him play straight, I thought. It wasn’t like I paid any money for the privilege.

And, okay, I did not hate Waitress. I don’t think it was worth two hours of my life, but I didn’t hate it. I learned things from it! It was like going to school. You learn stuff, but not necessarily true stuff, or stuff you want to know, or stuff you’ll ever use again, and it takes much longer than it’s worth. Actually, the way I felt about this movie was more like a Bible-thumper going to an evolutionary biology class. Or an atheist going to a Bible study.

Okay, maybe I hated it a little.  But here are the things I learned. (Spoilers abound.)

1)    If thou art pregnant, thou shalt deliver. No matter how much you don’t want a baby, no matter what sort of environment you’re living in, no matter any other circumstances in your life, abortion is absolutely off the table. Having no money is no excuse to get rid of an unwanted baby. Being unable to make sense of your life is no excuse. Not feeling ready to take on the task of motherhood is no excuse. An abusive rapist of a husband is no excuse. Pregnancy means birth, dammit, and your feelings and circumstances are immaterial.

2)    Once thou deliverest, thou shalt adore thy baby, forever and ever amen. Giving birth is magical, and no matter what your feelings were before or during your pregnancy, when you get the baby you will have no mixed feelings whatsoever, but be filled with all-consuming love.

3)    Having thy baby will give thee the strength and courage to fix any problems in thy life, and will also potentially bring thee financial gain. Because giving birth makes you exhausted and in need of rest and relaxation in a really powerful, feminist way. Always. No matter what your previous feelings or behavior might have been.

4)    Afterbirth is totally for sissies. Never happens to you if you’re pretty, or Southern, or both. Also, the first sign of impending birth is not contractions, but your water breaking.

5)    If thou requesteth drugs of thy doctor, and thy doctor giveth thee drugs not, thou shalt never bring it up again, and it really maketh no difference at all. A request for drugs is the kind of thing doctors should take lightly from a woman in labor (especially if he's sleeping with her) and they should really just not listen when she talks at all!

6)    Thy abusive husband shall always take it crazy well when thou deliverest his baby and then immediately after requesteth divorce papers. Abusive husbands totally listen to you and believe you, they never try to bully you, they put up only a slight fuss and then they disappear from your life. They will never stalk you, or threaten you, or harm you, or make life difficult in any way (besides moderately financially) despite what their behavior up to this point might indicate.

7)    Thou dost not need a man to be happy in life, so long as thou hast a baby. I mean, you are a woman, right?  See above re: adoring the baby without any mixed feelings, and remember, you’re happier as a single mom than you ever could be alone.

8)    Someone announcing after a five-minute date that he is wildly in love with thee, stalking thee at thy place of work, and refusing to leave when thou clearly asketh him to is great husband material. Especially when you can see the hell your best friends are going through with their abusive and unhappy marriages.

9)    Boinking your married OB/GYN while you’re pregnant and have an abusive husband will never, ever backfire on you. In fact, it is the best plan ever, and will save you from yourself. Or something like that. Anyway, it’s okay to have an affair, just as long as you never ever have an abortion. Or even say the word “abortion.” That’s totally what makes bad people.

10)  Nathan Fillion doth not in fact have chemistry with all members of the tribe of Woman. Thank you, Keri Russell, for being the exception. We can all rest easy again, now that that question has been answered and Nathan is no longer trying to eat her face. (Have a sandwich, dude. You’ll feel better.)