#YAsaves

So yesterday, there was an article at the Wall Street Journal called Darkness Too Visible that complains that contemporary young adult novels have too much violence.

There are so many things wrong with this article. My thoughts:

1. Violence, depravity, bullying, abuse, molestation, cutting, child prostitution, exploitation, incest -- it all does happen to kids. Writing about this and showing how kids can, or might not, survive it is a good thing. Not writing about it doesn't make it go away.
2. There's a tweet explosion using the #YAsaves, where people tweet about how young adult fiction has helped them cope with the issues in their lives, or giving them compassion for others. There's a slideshow of them at the WSJ site.
3. The Hunger Games = the daily survival of bullying, abuse, and/or poverty that millions of kids deal with in real life.
4. Judy Blume, who the article author holds up as a good example of YA writing, doesn't support the article's premise.
5. There's a sidebar of books the article writer does approve of, and it's offered as a list of books for boys and a list for girls. headdesk.
6. The kids reading these books lived through Sept 11, 2001. They know bad things happen.

I have not suffered any of these terrible things that the children and teens in these books survive. I think the article is more about parents wanting, wishing they could shield their kids from bad things; parents wishing the world wasn't a place where bad things could happen to their children.

Afterall, the article doesn't even interview actual young adult readers.

Romancelandia

I've been on a romance novel reading kick. Over the last week I've read:

• Beyond Heaving Bosoms: The Smart Bitches' Guide to Romance Novels by Sarah Wendell and Candy Tan, of Smart Bitches, Trashy Books. Fun, fast, funny book. They do talk about why they read these novels, the criticism that it's mindless dreck for women, and the issue of rape in Old Skool romance novels and gender and power. They also provide a Choose Your Own Adventure romance novel in the contemporary (what I think of as chick-lit), Regency England, pirate, and paranormal/urban fantasy settings. Hilarious! And a Mad Libs style game for each style too. This book had me giggling out loud, especially at the euphemisms for male and female genitalia. The Smart Bitches take a critical look at the serious and fun sides of romance novels (and the covers. Oh, my eyes.) I highly recommend it.


• Bet Me and Faking It by Jennifer Crusie and Agnes and the Hitman by J Crusie and Bob Mayer. Each one took about 6 hours to read. I think I'm done with that author. I don't want to burn out on Crusie. I want to be able to come back and read her other books. I had previously read Wild Ride by Crusie and Mayer which made me think of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.


• Rude Awakening of a Jane Austen Addict by Laurie Viera Rigler. A young woman from the Regency era wakes up in the body of a 21st century woman in LA and has to figure things out. It's the sequel to Confessions of a Jane Austen Addict which I haven't read yet. Rude Awakenings came available at the library first.


• currently working on Tommy's Tale by Alan Cumming, yes, the actor. I think this qualifies as a romance because Tommy is involved with Charlie who has a son. This gets party boy Tommy thinking about love and starting a family. If this isn't Romancelandia, a term I got from the Smart Bitches, then I don't know what is.

In other notes, I'm going to NYC later this week and have borrowed from the library and loaded onto the Nook:

• Where's My Hero: a collection of short stories from romance authors that give a romance to a male character who was also very appealing but wasn't the hero. Will now have to read the books where these characters came from.


• Manhunt by Janet Evanovich, set in Alaska


• Vision in White, book one of the Bride Quartet by Nora Roberts. I have never read Nora Roberts before.

What got me going on this whole romance kick was discussions on NPR's Monkey See blog and podcasts about genres that don't get any respect in the larger culture. As should be abundantly clear by now, I am a big science fiction fan. Not a genre that gets a lot of respect. The same with romance novels.

My favorite romance novels, heck any kind of story, has a heroine who is good as what she does, has lots of skills beyond her job, is sassy/feisty/fiery, has a sense of humor, and rises to the challenge of whatever the plot of the story throws her into. She has a group of friends who also are competent, sassy, funny, etc and have their own plot lines, not just around to support the heroine. The hero is similar and they are both in a situation where they both have to deal with an unknown situation and both experience character growth. I really don't like stories where the heroine is bumbling at her job, needs the hero to save her and solve the case, is described as mildly unattractive (oh, noes, her hair isn't blown-dry!) and yet one or more men, including the hero finds her irresistable. Stephanie Plum, by Janet Evanovich, I'm looking at you.

Dreaming of a Russian River Cruise

Recently I went to DC for a conference, again, and stayed with Sister, again. On Wed, we both took a vacation day and hung out.

The plan was to go to the botanical garden where she's getting married this fall, but it started raining, so we went to Fiber Space yarn shop, where I got the above:

Circular knitting needle case by Della Q

Sock Yarn by Miss Babs in the colorway Raven

I also got a itty bitty circular needle, just 9 inches long, size 2.5 mm. I could use them for socks, but probably will use them to knit stuffed snakes in the round.

Still working on the green shawl, on 2.5mm needles, so that's slow going, but portable and mindless. Perfect for watching the view go by as we go cruising down the Volga River for a month.

That's what Husband and I have been dreaming of for vacation. A river boat cruise, from Moscow to St. Petersburg for a month. Or from Singapore, through the islands of Malaysia and Indonesia, with stops in Australia and New Zealand.

That's not going to happen this year, nor next, but it's fun to dream about. More realistically we are looking at a 3 or 4 day cruise down the Hudson River from NYC to Montreal. Just sit, knit, and watch the world go by.

ETA: Work is incredibly stressful this week. There was a board meeting on Saturday where I was to be evaluated by the board of directors. That's always fun. Then they dropped the news that an anonymous complaint was lodged against me so they want 5 years worth of financials, reports, etc. Plus I feel like all they did was tell me what I did wrong, nothing about what I did right. Then after the meeting, we started a national training and I'm supposed to be all happy, encouraging and upbeat, after all that? I started e-mail all the requested stuff to the board chair and of course a lot is getting bounced back because her mailbox is full.

What is a hero?

Here is a post at Newicue listing the author's top 10 Whedonverse heroes. It certainly has sparked a lot of controversy. Part of it stems from the fact that different people have different definitions of the word "hero."

This is the list of Newicue's top 10 Whedonverse heroes:

Runner Up: Andrew

10. Spike

9. Wash

8. River

7. Giles

6. Jayne

5. Angel

4. Mal

3. Anya

2. Illyria

1. Wes

Right away, you can see the controversy. There's No Buffy (or Willow, Xander, Faith). On a list of Whedonverse Heroes. My other gripe is that Newicue left off Zoe, who with Mal, are the Big Damn Heroes.

If you define Hero as a person who fights the hardest for the side of good, then Buffy certainly belongs on the list.

However, there are many definitions of hero. In Serenity the movie, Mal and Zoe define a hero as someone who gets other people killed. Well, that's certainly not the case with some of the people on this list. Certainly Wash didn't get anyone killed, at least not directly. I suppose as part of the Serenity crew he got Book killed as well as the others who gave them sanctuary.

Newicue certainly has a list of great characters, but I think more of protagonists rather than heroes.

Because of the pushback they got, Newicue is doing a poll on the readers' favorite heroes. And of villains.

My definition of hero is someone who fights hard for the side of good. My favorite heroes are the ones who do it despite their own shortcomings (okay who doesn't have flaws?) and despite the odds of them succeeding. I'm also including characters who grew and changed in interesting ways. I guess in some ways, my criteria is similar as the criteria used by Newicue.

So here's my list by order of shows:

1. Buffy

2. Willow

3. Xander

4. Faith

5. Wes

6. Cordelia

7. Mal

8. Zoe

9. River

10. Simon

11. Adelle

12. Topher

My favorite all round characters, though not necessarily heroes, would include

1. Dawn

2. Wash

3. Sierra

4. November

5. Fred

6. Connor

7. Jayne

8. Spike

9. Lindsey -- but that may just be because I think Christian Kane is hot. Loving him on Leverage.

10. Drucilla

Avatar and Moff's Law

Saw Avatar in 3-D over the weekend. My thoughts, in no particular order:

1. the 3D use was not egregious. Nothing coming at you to scare you or show off, but used well to literally give depth to the movie.

2. nothing on Pandora looks like it had fur. everything was slick or leathery. very few things were feathery or furry. I know it's hard to make CGI hair because each strand of hair reflects light individually and that's a level of detail that's either impossible to achieve or prohibitively expensive. It make me think about how easy it is to spot a bad hair dye job. The hair is dull and doesn't shine and reflect light the way hair naturally does.

3. the story was subpar. It was like Dances with Wolves with tall skinny Smurfs. I would have liked it more if Neytiri was like a middle status hunter and not the princess of the tribe. And her parents seemed awfully ready to adopt Jake. Why?

4. Jake's progress from Marine grunt to avatar driver to being sympathetic to the Na'vi was well done.

5. Why is the US military working with some corporation to get the mineral unobtainium?

6. Really, could they have been more obvious about the name unobtainium? And was it really necessary to bomb the Na'vi all the hell for minerals underground? Couldn't they just have tunnelled their way underneath and get the minerals that way?

Given that I work with refugees, people who had to flee because their homes were destroyed and their personal safety was threatened, I became really angry at the military/corporation.

Then today I read this post at Racialicious which I think is awesome:

http://www.racialicious.com/2009/12/21/and-we-shall-call-this-moffs-law/

AND WE SHALL CALL THIS “MOFF’S LAW”

In the comments to Annalee Newitz excellent io9 post on racial fantasies in Avatar (and other works of sci-fi), Moff, another io9 contributor created one of the best rants I have ever read on the nature of critique:

Of all the varieties of irritating comment out there, the absolute most annoying has to be “Why can’t you just watch the movie for what it is??? Why can’t you just enjoy it? Why do you have toanalyze it???”

If you have posted such a comment, or if you are about to post such a comment, here or anywhere else, let me just advise you: Shut up. Shut the fuck up. Shut your goddamn fucking mouth. SHUT. UP.

First of all, when we analyze art, when we look for deeper meaning in it, we are enjoying it for what it is. Because that is one of the things about art, be it highbrow, lowbrow, mainstream, or avant-garde: Some sort of thought went into its making — even if the thought was, “I’m going to do this as thoughtlessly as possible”! — and as a result, some sort of thought can be gotten from its reception. That is why, among other things, artists (including, for instance, James Cameron) really like to talk about their work.

Now, that doesn’t mean you have to think about a work of art. I don’t know anyone who thinks every work they encounter ought to only be enjoyed through conscious, active analysis — or if I do, they’re pretty annoying themselves. And I know many people who prefer not to think about much of what they consume, and with them I have no argument. I also have no argument with people who disagree with another person’s thoughts about a work of art. That should go without saying. Finally, this should also go without saying, but since it apparently doesn’t: Believe me, the person who is annoying you so much by thinking about the art? They have already considered your revolutionary “just enjoy it” strategy, because it is not actually revolutionary at all. It is the default state for most of humanity.

So when you go out of your way to suggest that people should be thinking less — that not using one’s capacity for reason is an admirable position to take, and one that should be actively advocated — you are not saying anything particularly intelligent. And unless you live on a parallel version of Earth where too many people are thinking too deeply and critically about the world around them and what’s going on in their own heads, you’re not helping anything; on the contrary, you’re acting as an advocate for entropy.

And most annoyingly of all, you’re contributing to the fucking conversation yourselves when you make your stupid, stupid comments. You are basically saying, “I think people shouldn’t think so much and share their thoughts, that’s my thought that I have to share.” If you really think people should just enjoy the movie without thinking about it, then why the fuck did you (1) click on the post in the first place, and (2) bother to leave a comment? If it bugs you so much, GO WATCH A GODDAMN FUNNY CAT VIDEO.

From now on, we will refer to this as “Moff’s law” and apply it alongside our comments policy here at Racialicious.

Charting Character Interactions

This is from xkcd.com, but I found it at io9.com.

Can you imagine trying to chart out the character interactions from a book or TV series? Those charts would be huge.

I sent it to Sister who asked "Who has the time to do this?"

Answer: you could do it next time you watch your favorite movie for the umpteenth time. Or professional illustrators/cartoonists do it as their jobs.

Buffy in college

I've started season 4 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and have to say that I like this season better so far.

I think it's because I had a great time in college so just am more charitable towards it. Plus students at college have so much more freedom that it's a bit more believable (the demons and vampires aside) that Buffy et al could be student by day, demon-hunter by night.

Plus the relationship issues are more realistic. After all, college is where people start having the casual flings, like Parker. Or is that just me?

I like the Riley/Buffy parallel, if not the relationship. Riley working for the Initiative also calls to mind "Chuck vs. the Alma Mater" with the students working undercover for the CIA or who ever.

I'm looking forward to seeing how Xander/Anya unfolds. I like that she's like Cordelia -- straight forward, telling it like how she sees it. Like Luna Lovegood. Again with the Harry Potter comparisons, but that's a standard character trope.

Speaking of which, I've found a fun website, http://www.tvtropes.org/. It analyzes books, movies, comics, and yes TV shows for the story telling tricks of the trade.