tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046311533369716202024-02-19T00:40:08.607-08:00Ramblings of a Geek GirlIn which I discuss books, games, feminism and fangirl type things.Jaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11995247507289842016noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-304631153336971620.post-35617785200630895532013-06-07T14:30:00.000-07:002013-06-08T00:09:24.249-07:00Review: "Snow Crash" by Neal Stephenson I know, I know. I'm late to the party. But it's a really <i>awesome</i> party! So slip those goggles on and let's chat in the Metaverse!<br />
<br />
**This review is spoiler free, <b>except for the bits you need to highlight in order to read</b>. So feel free to read without worry of spoilers.**<br />
<br />
<b>Summary:</b> Set in a dystopian cyber-punk future, Hiro Protagonist and Y.T. are partners in the freelance information business. Hiro is a hacker, a prince of the Metaverse and general slacker. Y.T. is a 15 year-old Kourier, a skateboarder and general smart-ass. They uncover what might be the biggest information bomb of all time, a drug called Snow Crash. Sumerian myth, a computerized alternate reality and a man desperate to be the new Ozymandias, combine to make a surprisingly thoughtful techo-thriller. <br />
<br />
<b>The Good:</b> This was a really interesting and a really fun ride. The mix of fast chase scenes, cool tech and deep philosophical thought were well balanced. Do not be fooled by the back of the book! It will lie and tell you this is a <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/">popcorn</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator">explosions</a> sort of sci-fi, but there is way more linguistic theory than you might imagine. Fans of dystopian futures will dig the franchise-owned America, where nations are literally companies where you can buy citizenship. This is one that both fans of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ender's_Game">Ender's Game</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series">Foundation</a> will enjoy, with both complexity and action in droves.<br />
<br />
The protagonist, Hiro Protagonist (that makes me giggle every time), was fun and while I won't say I related to him very much, I enjoyed his story greatly. <span style="background-color: #9fc5e8; color: #9fc5e8;">He is a little too cool to speak exclusively to the socially awkward nerd, but he is a rather positive spin on the male power fantasy, so I'm down with him. He doesn't have a lot of flaws, and most of them seem to relate to his ability to understand women, but there was enough Y.T., who I talk about later on, that I didn't notice his lack much. </span><br />
<br />
The tongue-in-cheek humor is one of the best things about this book, and I loved every minute of it. If you're the type of person to name your <a href="http://www.wowhead.com/race=6/tauren">Tauren in WoW </a> "Nancy Moo" then you need to read this book. The word play and puns are just fantastic.<br />
<br />
<b>The Bad:</b> At times the book felt a little dated. Mostly in the focus on skateboarding, which is<i> just shy</i> of gratuitous. Mostly this is nit-picking, but unlike <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ready_Player_One">Ready Player One</a> which references a time in the past but takes place in the future, this is mostly referencing/taking place in the 90's with some callback to ancient Mesopotamia. It dates the story a little, but mostly in a fun way and not in an overly distracting way. (For the record I think <u>Snow Crash</u> is "better" in that is a lot more complex, but I think <u>Ready Player One</u> plays more to the thrills and the nostalgia of gamer culture.)<br />
<br />
A lot of the descriptions floating around about this book are misleading, and in a sort of bad way. The descriptions I saw play up it's playful, fast paced parts and don't even hint at the fact that a lot of the book is just two characters conversing. I think because of this, especially early on, those slower sections dragged a bit for me. Not because of the pacing or the writing, but because I was thrown for such a loop when it happened. It would be like if someone told you Ender's Game was a book about kids playing games in a Zero-G environment and saving the world. Which it <i>is</i>, but that is so incomplete as to be silly, and you'd be pretty upset that the "kids playing games" was actually "kids killing each other". We see half the book from the perspective of a character (Y.T.) who is not even mentioned in most synopses. So for her first few chapters I was also thrown and distracted by her rather than enjoying it. I was into her and the deep conversations enough that I kept going, but I wish I hadn't been so distracted by it.<br />
<br />
<b>The Awesome/<strike>The Ugly</strike>:</b> I really, really dig the female characters. Juanita and Y.T. are forces to be reckoned with in the narrative, and while they were different they were both very strong. I'm sad that they are left out of the blurb on the back of the book, but I talked about that already. Y.T. is a very believable, smart, tough and has the BEST one liners. Juanita is a brilliant, talented hacker who has and inspires some great lines about sexism that I found really provocative. They are three dimensional and fully fleshed out characters that I could get behind, which is a huge bonus.<span style="background-color: #9fc5e8; color: #9fc5e8;"> I'm not sure what I think about the sex(?) scene with Raven and Y.T., but I'll add something when I've digested it more. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: #9fc5e8;"><span style="color: #9fc5e8;">I have this thought floating around that since Y.T.'s name means "Yours Truly", we the readers are really supposed be identifying with her rather than Hiro, who is...well, the hero. Especially because so much of this is allegorical, and Hiro is literally supposed to stand in for a mythological figure. He's sort of like Odysseus or Achilles, recognizably human but rather out of reach. Y.T. is much more human, and is often in much more vulnerable positions. This allows for some interesting thoughts about the difficulties with identifying with larger-than-life heroes, and the need for a more human perspective. Plus she is younger, and I found myself wondering at times if this book was written for teenagers. They save each other pretty consistently, which gives rise to even more thoughts about how people give their heroes life and visa versa. </span></span><br />
<br />
Overall I really enjoyed the book, and would recommend it to anyone who enjoys science fiction, and even a few who don't.<br />
<br />
PS I'm testing out this style of reviews, let me know what you think in the comments!Jaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11995247507289842016noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-304631153336971620.post-70911216758414794792013-05-31T12:00:00.000-07:002013-05-31T19:54:40.272-07:00Can You Hear Me Screaming From Capitola?***Disclaimer- This was one I wrote some time ago (thus the reference to Rick Perry), and for some reason never published. The article in question happened a while ago, but I still think it's a good piece on what bookselling is and why it's important. So, here you go.***<br />
<br />
<br />
It is truth universally acknowledged that an outrageous and daft opinion is in need of someone to speak their minds loud enough to start some shit.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
It happens all the time. Someone says something <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_mz2FDD9sY">crazy controversial</a> and starts a ruckus, and while the world at large reels at their stupidity the shit-starter adopts a <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyQbzrBMf-62TE5r1B5LBBYI70fYUUjvHOA6lmi2AvaHuR9-IOfvugwmt-uWkj5ydIYd7gzojyz1Vq3niE0J5ANBTnwyGVXZKk9sPKScyLYO-kuv-uWQmeLuBAw3c5lNeGHEVk8w1KOxQ/s1600/come-at-me-bro-turtle.jpg">devil-may-care</a> attitude about it. Then everyone spends a good long time making fun of the individual, not really hoping to change his/her mind, but feeling the need to point it out nevertheless.<br />
<br />
So it is with<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/12/independent_bookstores_vs_amazon_buying_books_online_is_better_for_authors_better_for_the_economy_and_better_for_you_.html"> this article</a> written by <a href="http://www.slate.com/authors.farhad_manjoo.html">Farhad Manjoo</a>, which spawned such vitriol that the backlash could be felt from <a href="http://www.observer.com/2011/12/everybody-in-new-york-hates-slate-reporter-who-complained-about-indie-bookstores/">New York</a> to California. The subject matter is rather touchy for me, as it is for most people who love bookstores or gods forbid, work in one. To sum up, Manjoo's article is geared towards disabusing his reader of the notion that there is anything of real "local" value in patronizing local bookstores, and that while Amazon may be a thug, bookstores are not the magical places they have always been portrayed.<br />
<br />
I had to work really, really hard to come up with a summary that didn't involve calling him something my gun-toting husband would blush at reading.<br />
<br />
But I don't really want to talk about why his article is disingenuous, or about how ridiculously he has skewed the argument his way, or about how sad I feel for his wife. Partly because everyone has, and partly because people have heard the arguments a million times before. The reality of the situation is that a lot of people agree with the article, not because they hate people who work in bookstores, or even hate giving sales tax, it's that they don't understand the reality of the situation. It's a situation I have already touched on <a href="http://jaxofspades.blogspot.com/2011/07/e-death-of-bookstores.html">here</a>, but it's one of those things that is easy to misunderstand if you don't work in the business.<br />
<br />
I'm going to use one of Mr. Manjoo's own arguments here to demonstrate what I mean, and so thereby illuminate the particulars. In the article he begins by saying that Amazon price scan tactic was in poor taste because,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When you walk into Best Buy and get a salesperson to spend 10 minutes showing you a television, then leave empty-handed so you can buy the TV for less on Amazon, you’ve just turned Best Buy into Jeff Bezos’ chump.</blockquote>
<br />
He then goes on to make some disparaging remarks about booksellers only recommending the titles that they enjoy or have read:<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><br />
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Compared with online retailers, bookstores present a frustrating consumer experience. A physical store—whether it’s your favorite indie or the humongous Barnes & Noble at the mall—offers a relatively paltry selection, no customer reviews, no reliable way to find what you’re looking for, and a dubious recommendations engine. Amazon suggests books based on others you’ve read; your local store recommends what the employees like. If you don’t choose your movies based on what the guy at the box office recommends, why would you choose your books that way?</blockquote>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
There are so very many problems with this section I have pulled.* I could go on for hours about the ways that this is wrong, but it would only be preaching to the choir to those who know and annoying to those who don't understand. The thing here is that these statements are self-contradictory. It is somehow okay to use up the Best Buy Kid's time with getting his recommendation (who is apparently very honestly telling you which stereo to get, and not at all pushing the one they have a lot of, or the one that will get him a good commission...but I digress) but not okay to waste the bookseller's time. Apparently the Best Buy Kid needs to put gas in his car, put food on the table and pay rent, but booksellers have a job whether you buy the book at their store or not.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Oh, wait. <br />
<br />
<div>
I'm also baffled at the idea that Best Buy Kid deserves his job more than I do. I like him, and I certainly don't want to take away his job, which is why I don't buy online, but I like my job too. More than that, I work really hard at my job, at least as hard as Best Buy Kid. Even when I was a bookseller, I needed to be read up on the latest books, or at least read some reviews about them. I read all sorts of things that I might not have otherwise, just so I can have an opinion about them and so that I can recommend over a broad spectrum. I borrow books from work, and get a discount so that I will read/buy more books to be better able to recommend them.<br />
<br />
Huh, it's like how Best Buy Kid probably spends a lot of his money at Best Buy, because he gets a discount, and they want him to know a lot about the products so he can give his best advice. He more often than not will advise honestly because he wants you to come back and buy again, which you will only do if you are happy with your purchase. Which is, you guessed it, exactly how a bookseller operates. It is not in our best interest to sell you a book that you will not like, because then you won't come back for our recommendations again. We like making money, because it keeps gas in our cars, food on our table, and the rent gets payed. We buy tons of books that we then read, and must think analytically about, rather than just whether or not the stereo works. <br />
<br />
I'm being slightly unfair to Best Buy Kid, and I'm sure there is more to it than that. Any time you invest yourself into the selling of a product, there is a lot of work and effort that goes into it. Which is presumably why Manjoo has taken such pity on his plight, having to give time, energy and effort into something just to have those same customers listening to a recommendation and then go buy it on Amazon. Especially since he probably only makes minimum wage, and even if he doesn't get a commission then he relies on extra hours from being such a good seller.<br />
<br />
Sound familiar? The number of times I have recommended a title, then offered to order it for them (free shipping) at the price the book costs and then have them <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTklTJprnTA">walk away saying they'll get it online</a> is ridiculously infuriating. Keep in mind that there is only one of me, and the time that I am helping you is time I am not helping someone else who might have bought that recommendation here in my store. It's fine and dandy to cost people their jobs to get high quality shopping advice and then save money, but it is mean to do it to Best Buy Kid. I wonder what the difference is in Mr. Manjoo's mind, and is indeed in many customer's minds, between our jobs. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Look, I love my job. I am lucky, in this economy, to be getting paid to be doing what I love. But what I love is hard, what I love takes time, and what I love can and does get treated like a commodity that I sell. Manjoo's article paints booksellers as used car salesmen, and hopes to degrade us with it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Before I continue this metaphor too far or go on more about our "cult", I'll ask as <a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151054655195716&set=a.10150713239345716.711707.71346315715&type=1">Richard Russo did</a>: What is it that we should pay for books? Should we pay for the expert advice and go out of our way to make sure that that advice source is there, in case we need it later? While we are not gods and are often wrong, we are honestly wrong, and much less likely to be wrong than a mathematical algorithm that is trying to judge your taste in books. So who deserves the money more? And is the extra amount worth it? I can't say that you'll agree with me for sure, but I'd love to hear your opinion. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Also, I have this book you might enjoy...<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* We suggest books based on what you've read! The guy at the box office has probably seen all the movies that are out and why is his opinion less valid than the guy who is ranting on <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/">Rotten Tomatoes</a>?! Also <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/business/book-reviewers-for-hire-meet-a-demand-for-online-raves.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">book reviews online are often bought and sold</a>! AGHHH.</div>
Jaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11995247507289842016noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-304631153336971620.post-44357928690548526952013-05-27T13:00:00.000-07:002013-05-28T10:42:02.925-07:00Amazon/Fanfiction - PG (Warnings: Corporation!fic, DubCon)(Don't worry if you don't get the title, it's mostly for my own chuckles. Though anyone who <i>does</i> get it...amirite?)<br />
<br />
It seems that<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?docId=1001197421"> Amazon has made it possible </a>to "publish" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_fiction">fanfiction</a>.<br />
<br />
I say "publish" because as seen in <a href="http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/05/22/amazons-kindle-worlds-instant-thoughts/">this article</a> by <a href="http://whatever.scalzi.com/">John Scalzi</a>, it doesn't really seem like the authors are going to be getting a lot of compensation here. Basically, if you as a fanfic author get your work produced by Amazon, you may only get paid for it once, because after that they own it and any of your new material that you make, and they have the right to publish it elsewhere without your consent or giving any compensation to you. It also doesn't seem like you'd be getting a paper version printed, so it's more of an e-publish situation.<br />
<br />
As a bookseller, this effects me...not at all really. Not at the moment, based on what rights they have and the content they allow. I mean, shows/books like <a href="http://beta.abcfamily.go.com/shows/pretty-little-liars">Pretty Little Liars</a> didn't have media tie-in books anyways, so it's not really encroaching on my business. For those who aren't hip deep in bookselling, a media tie-in is a side story or a continuation of a world (usually a tv or movie world) through professional writers being paid to come up with something that then gets put on the shelf of a bookstore. A good example is Star Trek, which is a franchise that has <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_novels">quite a lot</a> of novels associated with it. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Wars_novels">Star Wars</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_(series)#Books">Halo</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Series_Adventures#Novels">Doctor Who</a>, all of these franchises have books for when you just can't wait for the next episode or the next film.<br />
<br />
What's the difference between media-tie in and fanfiction? Not a lot, except that one is free on the internet where the authors don't get paid, and one is endorsed and authors are paid for by the franchise itself. You could argue that the ones being paid have higher quality since they get editors and stuff, but <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/14424.Supernatural_TV_Show_Books">that's not always the case</a>. The really big difference that I can see, is that in most cases the major content of the media tie-ins are directed and decided upon by the people in charge of those franchises. So when it is decided that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_Prime#Main_spoiler_and_controversy">Chewy should die</a>, you know that decision isn't R.A. Salvatore's, although the details are left to him. There is a sense that the story is legitimate, not just something some random fan decided to go with. This explains why the books have the market that they do, and one I don't think is going to translate over to the fanfiction land.<br />
<br />
Am I worried about what may happen if one of those franchises <i>does</i> get added? Maybe. But for me the big kicker is if they aren't allowing porn, I'm not overly concerned. Here's the thing, and it may sound strange coming from me, but extra content from a franchise is often consumed differently based on gender lines.* It is a commonly held belief that women both create and consume the majority of fanfiction. (I could find surprisingly few statistics on this, but this has been both my personal experience and there are some figures<a href="http://ffnresearch.blogspot.com/2011/03/fan-fiction-demographics-in-2010-age.html"> here</a> and some scholarly opinions <a href="http://interactive.usc.edu/2009/10/29/why-dont-men-write-fanfiction/">here</a>.) And as <a href="http://www.cracked.com/funny-162-fanfiction/">Cracked points out</a>, the majority of fanfiction is...romantic in nature. So if Amazon isn't allowing erotic fanfiction, then they are taking out a huge portion of why <strike>women</strike> people read fanfiction in the first place. <br />
<br />
Let's look at the most successful fanfiction publication to date, shall we? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Shades_of_Grey">50 Shades of Grey</a> by E.L James, which is popular for a myriad of baffling reasons, but no one can deny the sex content. I would argue that it's because of the erotic content, and it wouldn't be nearly as big a deal if it wasn't in there. Then it would just be Twilight, set in an alternate universe where there is no magic. I know right? Who would read that? I feel then that female readers, who would generally be the ones to read fanfiction versus media tie-ins, wouldn't be as interested.<br />
<br />
So I'm not really sure what, if anything, there is to get excited over. Unless Amazon a) gets the right to franchises that already have a market like although even that is no guarantee of success or b) they allow erotic fanfiction. Though even if either or both of those things happen, with the terms of service the way they are I'm pretty sure most fanfic writers are gonna take a pass. And I would encourage them to do so, because that seems like a pretty shitty deal.<br />
<br />
Nice try Amazon, I see where you were going with it, just maybe get a beta before you try again.<br />
<br />
*Men do read fanfiction. I have seen them at it! But gender constructs being what they are, men don't read it as much, or own up to it often.Jaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11995247507289842016noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-304631153336971620.post-12929918024897308642013-05-23T12:00:00.000-07:002013-05-25T20:27:42.886-07:00Tumblr Taking Over?Browsing though some catalogs of graphic novels for my store, I came across this gem to describe <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17824752-young-avengers---volume-1">Young Avengers: Style > Substance</a> <span style="background-color: white; color: #181818; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;"> -</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #181818; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">Fight scenes! Fake IDs! And plentiful feels! (aka "meaningful emotional character beats" for people who aren't on tumblr.) Young Avengers is as NOW! as the air in your lungs, and twice as vital. Hyperbole is the BEST! THING! EVER!</span></blockquote>
This is not only what I see as a potential buyer for a store, which is also....odd because as far as I know we book buyers are not known for being on <a href="http://www.tumblr.com/">Tumblr</a> overly much. I mean, <a href="http://jaxofspades.tumblr.com/">I am</a>, but so far as I know there isn't a tag for bookstore book buyers.<br />
<br />
This is what YOU, random comic book reader, would see as the description online. This is how they are trying to sell the series to you, with an in-joke to a social media site known for gifsets and odd grammar. The Young Avengers fandom on tumblr must be bigger than I thought.<br />
<br />
Tumblr, I <a href="http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/moon+moon">blame</a> <a href="http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/superwholock">you</a> for <a href="http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/feels">this</a>, and I'm not sure if I should feel self-satisfied or deeply ashamed. It's true that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Avengers">Young Avengers</a> saw a<a href="http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/young+avengers"> lot of response</a> on tumblr, but this is <i>nonsense</i>. The only other explanation is that the person writing the blurbs is a) on Tumblr and/or b) is involved in the Young Avengers fandom on there. o_O Marvel, are you planting spies now?<br />
<br />
...I have also now ordered this and all other volumes of the current Young Avengers. So, yay marketing?Jaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11995247507289842016noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-304631153336971620.post-14847041438894171602013-05-21T21:17:00.002-07:002013-05-21T21:17:28.571-07:00Captain's Log - Star Trek Into Darkness<span style="text-align: left;">What? I've never done a review you say? Clearly I have. Just. In the future. VIA TIME TRAVEL. Yep.</span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
SET PHASERS TO SPOILERS!<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>The Good:</b> This movie was almost all of the good parts of the first Reboot!Trek. It moved fast, looked beautiful, and had tons of great one liners. Almost all our favorite characters got more development, and a lot of it was good. This movie felt very<a href="http://marvel.com/avengers_movie/"> Avengers</a>, in that the plot was secondary to the interaction between the characters and the cool fights and 'splody things. And they were quite cool! I enjoyed the ride quite a bit, and I'm certain that not only will it pay for a third movie, but the franchise will continue to bring in new fans. I loved <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Cumberbatch">Mr Cumberbatch</a> in this, and I thought he played a great and compelling villain. I don't even mind the lens flares, gratuitous though they may be. I had moments where I felt genuinely like I was watching Enterprise crew react and be awesome at problems together, and that's a big part of what I'm looking for in my Trek movie.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>The Bad: </b>So here's the thing, I'm a huge Trek fan (I forget if we're Trekkies or Trekkers now) so I have...opinions. Some of them are going to be "nitpicky", but I'll try to keep it to the big points. Things like my dislike of the uniforms and the lack of named characters not human (or Vulcan) are dumb and will be saved for my Nerd Rant diary. (Note to Self - Start Nerd Rant Diary)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<u>Revenge and Violence or The Confused Moral :</u> The overall theme or idea here seems to be that revenge, and to an extent, violence, is wrong. We know this because of the ending montage where Kirk claims that violence and revenge "is just not who we are". We also know this because of the "main" bad guy, the Admiral Forgettable-Name, was out for violence at any price. I also want to say that it would have made a LOT more narrative sense if the Admiral was out for vengeance as well (possibly his wife was killed by Klingons?) but apparently he just wants war for war's sake. Kirk sets out on his quest initially for vengeance and the death of his foe, but is called back to his morality by Spock. Here, as in every iteration of Trek before, the stance is taken that revenge and violence is wrong.<br />
<br />
Except that here, every single problem was solved by violence and seeking revenge.<br />
<br />
Instead of allowing Uhura to diffuse the situation with the Klingons with her impressive language and diplomatic skills, Klingons are shown to be just too barbaric and blood thirsty to listen to reason. (Odd given where <a href="http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Khitomer_Accords">cannon goes</a>, but I digress) Harrison/Khan has to come in and save them with violence. They are never given the chance to talk the Admiral down, or even see him waver, the only way to deal with him is violence. Khan can not be reasoned with, so his ship must be blown up. Because NO ONE thought to tell Khan (who's ship was still somewhat functional) that they still had his people on board, Kirk was forced to sacrifice his life to save the ship. Which then in turn meant that Spock, <i>in a quest for vengeance</i> had to track down and defeat Khan violently (again, why did no one use Carrot O'Popsicle People?).<br />
<br />
Now, are we watching an action movie that we all expected to be more violent than the series? Yes, yes we are. I'm not disputing that. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_II:_The_Wrath_of_Khan">All</a> the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_trek_iv">best</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_VIII">Trek films</a> are a little less philosophical and more <strike>saving of whales</strike> killing Borg, though there are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_VI">exceptions</a>. We're here to see a blockbuster, and those have to have cool explosions and Kirk punching something really, really hard. But generally <i>something </i>diplomatic manages to go through, or the movie has some other theme in mind or the adversary has resisted all overtures of diplomacy for legitimate and believable reasons.<br />
<br />
None of these things happened here, which in my opinion made this film much less than it could have been. The premise was interesting, at least one of the villains was compelling, but because they didn't explore what would happen if diplomacy was given a chance. (Khan as a permanent uneasy ally? Admiral talked down and brought on board the Enterprise to face Khan? Klingons as allies because they are <i>awesome</i>? Possibilities are endless!)<br />
<br />
This meant that when they pulled that end moral out, I was super confused and wondered what film Kirk had been watching. The moral<i> </i>could have been "trying to rush war and advancement is a bad idea" and I would have bought that. Saying something about needing to proceed at our own pace and let things happen naturally would have been way more on point. The moral we did get felt off and very forced and confused the whole issue.<br />
<br />
<b>The Ugly:</b> Spock screaming Khan's name. I know some people actually enjoyed this moment or at least thought it was funny, but to me it summed up what the real problem is with this movie - it wasn't inventive enough. What was so great about the first reboot was that while it preserved a lot of what was great about Trek, it took on a whole new story with beloved characters reacting to completely new circumstances. If I wanted a cheesy scream, I'll watch Wrath of Khan. What I wanted was for Spock to express his emotion in that same subtle and repressed way that Zachary Quinto had been beautifully channeling, but instead just got a rehash with a slightly different exterior. So much of the climax was just taken directly from the source material it felt like they were afraid to do anything new, while not staying true to the themes they set out to convey. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<br />
Overall I felt okay about this movie. The good was really good, though the bad was pretty bad, it balanced out to be worth the $10.50 I payed for it. And you know, it used to be that every other Trek movie was terrible, so I'll take great alternating with good. I do hope that they take a few more risks and trust the audience to follow high minded ideals just a little more. That is, after all, why we're watching Star Trek and not Fast and the Furious V or even Iron Man 3.<br />
<br />
P.S. I thought really, really hard about including a couple paragraphs about how sad I was about how Uhurha's character turned out to be whiny and needy and useless, but the review was already super long. So this note is to say I was sad, she was lame, the end. </div>
Jaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11995247507289842016noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-304631153336971620.post-65808245611460341582011-12-18T17:00:00.000-08:002011-12-18T17:00:32.063-08:00Time Flies When You're......Opening a new store.<br />
<br />
For those who don't know, the reason I have been MIA for the past two months is because Borders went out of business, taking my job with it. We (lead by my manager Dorothy) decided to do something crazy, like partner with people who run a toy store and open up our own bookstore.<br />
<br />
The store is open now, and anyone who lives near Captiola, CA should come <a href="http://inklingsbooksandthings.com/Home_Page.html">check it out</a>! I will be making posts regularly again soon, hopefully stating today. Thanks for your patience!Jaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11995247507289842016noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-304631153336971620.post-26200627336986207512011-10-16T01:23:00.000-07:002011-10-16T01:23:07.646-07:00Bookstores Take a Stand - ComicallyAs you may have read in the news,<a href="http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=34637"> DC comics</a> has released 100 of their titles to Amazon exclusively, meaning that the Kindle Fire is the only device that will be able to support them in an electronic format. Don't have the Kindle Fire? You can still get those titles at a brick-and-mortar store, or at least you could until earlier this week when Barnes and Noble <a href="http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/10/07/barnes-noble-pulls-watchmen-sandman-and-100-dc-graphic-novels-from-their-shelves-over-amazon-kindle-fire-deal/">decided to pull </a> <a href="http://www.zdnetasia.com/barnes-and-noble-pulls-comics-over-exclusive-kindle-deal-62302438.htm">all of those titles</a> <a href="http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=34815">from the shelves</a>.<br />
<br />
As you see in the articles, many (including the employees) felt that this step was a little drastic, and would ultimately hurt the company rather than help it. Certainly customers who are unaware of the stakes are unhappy, and even those that are still have to deal with not being able to buy their favorite comics at the stores they like to support. The war for digital content is one that is hard to understand unless you are working in that environment, and even then I can understand the frustration on the store employee's level. When customers depend on you to have the thing that they are seeking, it is hard to have to explain to people that may or may not care that your company has made this decision, and you do not have any way to change it.<br />
<br />
That being said, when I first heard about this, I was majorly impressed. Barnes and Noble has been saying for some time now that they will only continue to provide "showroom space" for those titles for which they also have electronic access. (This was in a PW article some months ago, which I cannot find now but I promise my word is good for it.) At the time I thought that this was a load of hot air, quite frankly, because who would risk that much to take a stance against that behemoth of Amazon? Again, I understand the objections to it, but you have to admit to the sheer amount of chutzpah that a move like that takes. I also have no love for Amazon, who does not even have the redeeming aspect of employing booksellers to soften the blow of how many stores they have helped put under. So I admit that I did not regret that DC might have had their noses tweaked a little for relying so heavily on Amazon.<br />
<br />
I also think B&N has a point. Booksellers everywhere can understand the frustration of having someone come in, ask you to find a book, and then go buy it online. Watch <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTklTJprnTA">this video</a> from the Harvard Bookstore, which humorously but accurately depicts the frustration of watching your hard work benefit another company. For Indies, they rely on the goodwill of their customers to support their local bookstore to get people to buy actual paper copies, and people respond to that. B&N, who can't reap the benefits of being a "local", relies on being able to sell their products electronically as well to keep their customers loyal. Without that ability, it really doesn't profit them to keep a title in stock that people will just come in and look at, listen to the employee recommendations, and buy elsewhere.<br />
<br />
Do they lose the sales from people not being able to buy the paper copy? Sure, but they've seen <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2011-07-20-Borders-Effect_n.htm">what happens</a> when a company relies on just being cheap and there, rather than aggressively expanding into the electronic world. Right or wrong, they seem to be taking a stand against the idea that they exist solely as showroom space, and refuse to participate in a system in which they are not seeing any benefit for themselves.<br />
<br />
Now it seems that Books-A-Million has <a href="http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2011/10/books-a-million-also-pulls-dc-graphic-novels-over-kindle-fire-deal/">joined the embargo</a>. If I may make a Star Trek reference, it's as if one of the non-aligned worlds has joined the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquis_(Star_Trek)">Maquis</a> forces and lent them a semblance of legitimacy so they look less like a spoiled child throwing tantrums over things that they cannot change. It will be interesting to see if this move will sway customer sympathy in their favor. This "alliance" make the issue less about Barnes and Noble, and more about the book industry as a whole. While I'm sure B&N comic book revenue is nothing to sneeze at, adding BAM numbers to the equation makes things a little more serious if DC wants to continue this way.<br />
<br />
It will also be interesting to see how the Indies react to this "call to arms". I would venture to say that since there is nothing that would really benefit them to help either Barnes and Noble or BAM, they will probably sit this one out. More than either of these chains, the Indie relies on having the physical product for the regulars and for the walk-ins. They therefore can't really afford to do anything drastic over electronic content, and in any case a lot of them don't offer their own e-reader anyway. However, it may benefit the book-selling industry as whole to remind publishers that they need their showroom as much as book stores need the product.<br />
<br />
Surprisingly, I don't really feel strongly one way or the other about this battle. I think it is intensely interesting, and I have always had something of a soft spot for lost causes, but the objections against this move are very valid. Beyond the question of whether or not they are right to be doing what they are doing, there is also the chance that this won't pan out, and they will have alienated their customer base for nothing.<br />
<br />
What about you? Do you feel that bookstores have the right to refuse to carry product that they do not have access to electronically? Or do you feel that bookstores have a responsibility to the community that they are in to have the good titles in stock, and that they are only hurting themselves in the long run? I'm curious to hear what people at other bookstores or even those not involved in the industry think. While the book industry has always been rather insular, I think the most important thing going forward is to hear what the concerns and responses are of the community you serve.<br />
<br />
After all, isn't that what rebel causes are for?Jaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11995247507289842016noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-304631153336971620.post-54458988172579980892011-09-17T21:42:00.000-07:002011-09-17T21:42:45.695-07:00The Question of Queer in YAMost people are aware of the problems queer Young Adult literature faces in the publishing industry, and indeed the media in general. As a bookseller, I am often saddened by the lack of queer protagonists, with some notable exceptions (<i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Grayson,_Will_Grayson">Will Grayson, Will Grayson</a></i>, <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_(novel)">Ash</a></i>, <i><a href="http://www.maureenjohnsonbooks.com/books/the-bermudez-triangle/">The Bermudez Triangle</a></i>). Anyone who has any contact at all in the book industry will tell you that this is a problem.<br />
<br />
It is a problem because kids who are queer, and even those that aren't, need to see queer themes more often. While I've never had someone ask directly for a title in that section with those themes, I well remember how much I longed for something like that when I was a teenager. I would never have asked, but it would have meant the world to me, to see myself represented in that fashion. I was always looking for the subtext, always looking for themes of tolerence and acceptance but through the lense of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men">genetics</a> or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek">aliens</a>... I don't really have the words for how happy I would have been, to find a story that actually put it out there. I never found such a title, but I am glad they exist now, but there still aren't enough. Kids that don't have the support network I did need it, and they need more than a couple titles on the shelves.<br />
<br />
Growing increasingly problematic are the responses to this issue that have begun to crop up recently. <br />
<br />
When I read <a href="http://blogs.publishersweekly.com/blogs/genreville/?p=1519">this</a> article on the Publishers Weekly blog, it was not shocking, that they had been rejected based on a character's sexual orientation. Sad, but not shocking, as evidenced by how few titles are on the shelves that deal with this issue. Again, subtext is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albus_Dumbledore#Sexuality">great</a> in it's way, but it doesn't really count as a morale booster for kids who are queer. Then there are those who are actively <a href="http://www.raintaxi.com/online/2011summer/card.shtml">working</a> <a href="http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html">against</a> queer acceptance in YA literature, which actively hurts those who are young enough to be impressionable. As in the <a href="http://jaxofspades.blogspot.com/2011/08/sulking-in-clubhouse.html">post</a> I made previously, it seems that people who fit the hetero-normative profile won't read things about people that don't, even though the reverse is true. I liked this article when I first read it, as it talked about concepts I agreed with and was trying to generate support for those wronged and held hope that the system could be changed.<br />
<br />
Then <a href="http://theswivet.blogspot.com/2011/09/guest-blogger-joanna-stampfel-volpe.html">this</a> article was released, which basically claims that the authors at the very least misunderstood the criticisms they were given, at the worst that they were exploiting the issue. Now, I won't pretend that I actually know one way or another what exactly is going on in this situation. In any case, the agency in question claims that it wasn't about the sexuality of the characters, but the overall writing choices to which they objected. The rebuttal to the rebuttal can be found <a href="http://blogs.publishersweekly.com/blogs/genreville/?p=1533">here</a>, if you are interested in the back and forth of the situation.<br />
<br />
I feel the situation is in danger of becoming one fueled by drama. It's a topic that pushes a lot of buttons, and generates a lot of emotion. It makes me sad that what could have been a lovely opener on this issue has, warranted or not, lost some of its validity due to the circumstances surrounding it. This is all the more disheartening because there are those that would argue that there is no need for representation of minority characters. These detractors would say that if there <em>are</em> authors who say that they have good stories about that they can't sell, they are making it up. I'm not saying that this is what has happened here, but I wonder at the motivation behind calling out someone who may only be trying to begin the conversation. However, given that the issue appears to be devolving into a he-said-she-said affair, will people outside the industry still be willing to listen? I hope so, but they might not be, and the missed opportunity saddens me most of all.<br />
<br />
Even more distressing, The Mary Sue released <a href="http://www.themarysue.com/ya-publishing-industry-de-gays-books-what-are-the-options/">this</a> article about the subject, which was written by Aja Romano, an author I have read before and very much admire. The article itself is well written and raises good points, yet I find I must disagree with the solution that she proposes. She suggests that rather than wade through the mire of the publishing industry, that authors should just self-publish on the internet, or release their work for free.<br />
<br />
One problem with this argument is the issue of editing. While one could argue that an determined (and finanically independent) author could do the same marketing job as agents and publishing houses, they do serve a very vital function: they edit and critique. Now, it is possible that an author knows someone who is very good at doing these things and is willing to do it on a freelance basis. Again, the issue here is money, and an author could sink quite a bit on an editor for a work that may not ever be bringing in profit. A lot of authors do not have this resource, and so must rely on friends or family members to help where they can. A friend is good for overall impression of your work, but they most likely have not been trained to be an editor, and would not give you the same feedback. Anyone that is your friend first and your editor second is also going to have a hard time being objective about your work, which is critical to the process. This leads a lot of self-published works to reflect the low quality of the editing, even though the story itself may be good. The reality is that often consumers don't bother with buying self-published titles on Amazon and the like, because there is such a plethora of un-edited, terrible works or just plain plagiarized titles that it gets to be <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/16/us-amazon-kindle-spam-idUSTRE75F68620110616">too much to wade through</a>.<br />
<br />
Most authors talk about their editors <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLwJT-HhhB0">the same way</a> some athletes talk about their coaches: while they are behind the scenes and never get much credit they are completely vital. Could one still self-publish a book and have it be good and profitable? Of course. I have no doubt that many people can and do, but to not mention the downsides to doing it without an editor or an agent would be a little disingenuous. Although agents don't do as much in the editing side of things, they still perform a <a href="http://literaticat.blogspot.com/2011/09/not-all-about-benjamins.html">vital function</a> in terms of representing your work, negotiating the legal side of things, and just in general being the person who is completely on your side. Rejecting the idustry in its entirety also ignores the agents and publishing houses who <i>do</i> publish queer or minority centered books, and rather than reward them for their courage, denies them the chance to continue publishing such works.<br />
<br />
The second problem with this solution is, as you might have guessed given my current profession, is that works self-published online will never go through a brick-and-mortar store and thus contributes to the dwindling state of bookstores. I acknowledge my bias in this case, but I don't think that it invalidates the point.<br />
<br />
While the internet allows your work to be seen by many thousands of people who would not otherwise have seen it, you are also <i>limiting</i> who sees it. People who don't use e-books, and there are still those out there who do not, will not get a chance to read your work. This is particularly important when we talk about the YA genre, since the main point here is that queer teens would benefit so much from seeing themselves represented and teens use e-readers much less than adults. While e-readership has grown among teens recently, what about the teens who cannot afford e-readers? Many kids still only read what is required reading in schools, and most teachers still teach print only books.<i> </i>College is moving away from print text books and the like, but the younger a student gets the more teachers rely on paper to teach. These younger students are the ones it is most important to reach, and the ones most likely to be left out.<br />
<br />
Taking the bookstore out also takes the book<i>seller</i> out of the equation. When people ask me why it is important to have brick-and-mortar stores to sell books, I usually say that a mathematical algorithm doesn't really understand why you like certain books, and couldn't help you find something that would suit your taste but is outside of what you normally look at. There is something about a bookstore itself that allows a sense of discovery, that pushes at your boundaries a little, that invites you to try something new. As <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-12/us/first.borders.bookstore.closing_1_borders-rewards-bookstore-woolworth?_s=PM:US">this</a> piece points out, there is a reason that people say that a bookstore closing is a sad thing. Part of the power of books lies in the ability they have to force the reader to see things from another point of view. Kids who aren't looking for it won't get those titles put in their "suggested" list, and so miss out. The same is true for adults who might also benefit from having their horizons broadened.<br />
<br />
Parents also rely on booksellers to recommend titles that are good and appropriate for their kids. YA is a broad age range, and what is appropriate for a 17 year-old is not always appropriate for a 13 year-old. Parents utilize booksellers as a way to know the difference, so that they can be sure they are buying books that won't suddenly throw a sex scene at a kid who is perhaps not ready to handle it. Or, if they are okay with their kids reading such material, they want to know it is in there so that they can be prepared to talk about it with them. I worry that more parents will react like <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576357622592697038.html">this</a> to the young adult genre without the aid of booksellers to navigate the section. I don't want parents to get to the point where they start restricting what their kids read blindly because they can't find anyone whose opinions they trust. <br />
<br />
I do believe that the internet is an awesome place to put free, queer friendly things for teens. As a teenager, I found solace in fan-fiction that expressed what real books did not, so I completely understand where that sentiment is coming from. However, I still always had the sense of missing out on something, because I had to stare at a computer screen instead of reading one of my beloved books to get the stories I wanted. If you wish to release your work for free on the internet, please do so, but don't do it just because it is easier than fighting for what is right.<br />
<br />
Self-publishing online is indeed a viable option, but I feel it is only one that should be used if you have exhausted all other options. As this agent <a href="http://literaticat.blogspot.com/2011/08/so-what-if-your-book-doesnt-sell.html">says</a>, it takes time to sell a book, and sometimes all that is required is patience. It hurts the book-selling industry, especially those who rely on good works being printed in order to keep their jobs, when talented people give up before they even try. I would argue that it also hurts rather than helps the many teens that are starved for stories of themselves, and does nothing at all to change the minds of people who would dismiss the topic out of hand. This <i>is</i> a problem, one that needs to be addressed, but the solutions are not to give up, or cause unnecessary drama about it.<br />
<br />
So let's all take a deep breath, and get back to the business of writing, promoting, buying and reading these works that are so desperately needed.Jaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11995247507289842016noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-304631153336971620.post-80569891412198134102011-09-08T12:12:00.000-07:002011-09-08T12:12:48.031-07:00Moment of Squee - Thermal InkOkay, so this has not been a weekly thing, but I am going to try to post "Moment of Squee" more often.<br />
<br />
Today's squee comes from an article at Brain Pickings about Jordan Crane's new kids book <b>- Keep Our Secrets. </b>In a blend of science and whimsy that is full of awesome, it uses thermal ink to hide messages and images in the book, which are revealed at the touch of your hand. Check it out!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/hOEF29Fgwio?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
As a bookseller these kinds of things are really exciting, especially because I think that creative projects like these are what will help keep the brick-and-mortar bookstores in business. After all, you can't do that on a Kindle.Jaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11995247507289842016noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-304631153336971620.post-70836925047663571632011-08-21T12:01:00.000-07:002011-08-22T11:54:13.044-07:00Sulking in the Clubhouse<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">I have this game I play every Christmas. It's called, "Find A Book For My Little Brother".This game is much harder than it sounds, because while my brother is extremely intelligent he won't seek out books on his own. I've been playing this game since he was 14 years old, so I've gotten pretty good at it. He likes books with a lot of action, and he prefers them with a male protagonist. For those of you who have never tried to buy these kinds of books, they are sometimes hard to find in an age appropriate section. It's a struggle at times, that's why I spend a good few weeks thinking over before making my final purchase. </span>The thing is, every year I find something. Some years are harder than others, and I'm not ashamed to say that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lightning_Thief">The Lightning Thief</a> series supplied a few Christmases, but every year I give him one and he reads it. I'm not saying he loves every single one, but I can at least get him to read it.<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">When I hear about how hard it is to get boys to read, I can sympathize with the concept. It's a struggle to get my brother, who doesn't outright hate reading, to read for pleasure, so I can imagine the frustration of parents with kids who actively avoid it. I get to hear about it frequently at work, as parents try desperately to find something, anything that will spark their child's interest. But again, I always find something. Most often the parent comes back, saying that he wants more of the same. Those are good days, made nicer because it was somewhat of a challenge.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">So I hope I don't sound too dismissive when I say that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/books/review/boys-and-reading-is-there-any-hope.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&seid=auto&smid=tw-nytimesbooks">this</a> article by Robert Lipsyte was the whiniest and most self righteous article I've read in a long time, and that's saying something. This article is purportedly about finding the cause for the lack of boy readers, but it seems to be doing more blaming a large female readership than being concerned with how boys are taught at a young age that they should never try to understand girl things, including books. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Lipsyte begins the article with a story about a panel at which he and some other male authors have been asked to speak, in hopes that they, as successful and talented writers, could enlighten the audience as to how they can reach out to boy readers. He says, </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><i>"We guys had mixed feelings about the game plan: boys’ aversion to reading, let alone to novels, has been worsening for years. But while this certainly posed a problem for us male writers, we felt that we were being treated as a sideshow.<br />
<br />
And so we turned from men into boys. Though we ranged in age and style....we easily slipped into a cohesive pack. We became stereotypes, smart-aleck teammates — and we were very much on the defensive. It was Us vs. Them.</i> </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">This is exactly what boys do, in the classroom and in the library, as well as in the clubhouse."</span></i><br />
<div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">First of all, if they had intended to treat you as a sideshow, would there be a bunch of authors, any number of whom are probably talented, hardworking and have much better things to do with their time, be waiting to listen to you? If they didn't care to hear your thoughts on it, why would they be there? Oh, right, because it was an "overwhelmingly female audience", they must have just been there to cry and wave their dollies at you. Why <i>did </i>you feel the need to go on defensive? Why the "Us Vs. Them" mentality? If you really care so much about boys reading, why don't you want women to write those books?</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Also, this is what <i>boys</i> do because<i> </i>they are <i>children</i> who don't know any better<i>. </i>Just like girls do stupid things when they are small, boys do nonsense that they eventually grow out of if they want to be treated like adults. This happens for both genders, and part of growing up is learning how to tell the difference between you feeling uncomfortable about a certain subject and someone attacking you for talking about it. You learn to distinguish the two and react accordingly. Except for when they are intelligent male authors being sincerely asked their opinions, apparently. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">I get that boys not reading is a problem, although I'd really have loved to see some statistics backing up these claims of lower reading numbers. Instead of this hard evidence, Lipsyte names the "standard answers" to why boys don't read, including that boys, "<i>don’t feel comfortable exploring the emotions and feelings found in fiction. . . . Boys don’t have enough positive male role models for literacy. Because the majority of adults involved in kids’ reading are women, boys might not see reading as a masculine activity.”</i></span><br />
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">I...what? No positive male role models for literacy? Are you kidding? Kids, think back to when you were in school, and since Lispyte writes YA, let's focus on high school. How many of the books you can remember reading were written by male authors? For myself, I remember mostly male authors, certainly most that are regarded as "classics" were written by men. I do remember reading a good number of contemporary books by women, but I went to an all girls school, and I've heard it is less like that at co-eds. Perhaps we are speaking of contemporary role models? While it is true that there are more women authors on the shelves of the young adult genre, there are certainly more than zero. Yes, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Angel_Experiment">James Patterson</a>, I'm looking at you. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">My favorite part comes next, when having acknowledged the "standard" (and in my opinion, more pressing) problem of boys feeling that reading is an inherently effeminate activity, he moves on to what he feels is the real problem. What might that be, you ask? </span><br />
<br />
<i>"The current surge in children’s literature has been fueled by talented young female novelists fresh from M.F.A. programs who in earlier times would have been writing midlist adult fiction. Their novels are bought by female editors, stocked by female librarians and taught by female teachers. It’s a cliché but mostly true that while teenage girls will read books about boys, teenage boys will rarely read books with predominately female characters."</i><br />
<br />
TOO. MANY. GIRLS. How DARE these women want to w<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">rite books that girls would relate to, and how dare women teach as they have been doing ever since we told them they couldn't join the business world?! Quick, run up to the tree-house until the sea of estrogen has ebbed! I also love the casual back-handed compliment paid to the female authors of YA, "talented sure, but they should really be writing in the male-dominated adult fiction section so that their works don't get as much attention". Then the diatribe reaches new levels by suggesting that female teachers don't take into consideration the needs and tastes of their male students, which is even more insulting, if that's possible. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Lipsyte's ending solution is for people to buy/teach kids <i>his</i> book, or at least write things like it, which he apparently feels are the only good contemporary offering for boys. I don't doubt that his books have inspired children to read (after all people who win awards are <a href="http://www.rachelpopkin.com/2009/04/21/orson-scott-card-and-the-trouble-with-the-gays/">ALWAYS</a> suitable to be teaching life lessons to children), and I'm a fan of anything that gets kids reading, but seriously. The solution is to put MORE books by male writers on the syllabus? Especially ones that, oh gee, have sports as the main subject line? Well fellas, we could only reach you if we do it through sports, which if you don't like then clearly you are a girl. Christ man, it's almost like you'd <i>rather</i> not have guys learn to read books by women. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">This, I feel, is the real sticking point of the article. Rather than try to tackle the issues of shaming and gay bashing that are a staple of a young man's life by standing against them and insisting that there is nothing wrong with reading things from a female perspective, it seems that he would rather hide in his club-house and blame it on the girls. Ah, it is indeed amazing how many solutions are MORE SPORTS AND LESS GIRL, and how caring and intelligent the men are that suggest it. Again, I do believe that he believes in getting boys to read, he just seems to think that somehow this could be solved if women just wrote less, or if we had more books that are clearly not selling anyways. </span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Are there a lot of female authors on the shelves in the YA section? Yes. Is a lot of it too focused on the romantic attachments between girls and their oddly elder supernatural boyfriends? I mean, I think so. But my definition of what makes a good book is my own, and it may differ from others. I have learned not to behave like a spoiled child if not everyone likes what I like. If it allows a bridge between the unrealistic Disney Princess movies into the realm of the written word, then, well, maybe that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vampire_Diaries">Vampire Diaries</a> fan will read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_Towns">Paper Towns</a> next. It will be interesting to see if this crop of girls who are growing up in this YA boom will be more active readers in the future. My guess is that they will. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">As with the last rant I did on critiques of an entire section, I would also argue that a good bookseller will help you navigate these apparently treacherous shores, and find something that will appeal to boys to recommend. Do I wish there were more authors who wrote for boys? Sure, but somehow I think they become less inclined to do so when the male author they go to for advice starts ranting about how their inherent female-ness gets his back up. I also think that this is more of a problem of how the books are marketed as opposed to their content, but rather than asking books to all conform to a male sensibility, there has to be a way to get to the root of the problem: our faulty gender stereotypes.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">What infuriates me beyond belief about this article is how much it de-values the cognitive capacity of young male readers. Boys are just as capable of reading girl books as visa versa, it is only that we do not expect them to do so. Women don't have some special gene that allows them to enjoy reading from a male perspective, they read male authors because as <a href="http://www.maureenjohnsonbooks.com/2010/09/22/sell-the-girls/">Maureen Johnson</a> says, "We have little choice in the matter." Women read things by and about boys because they must, but you might notice that before all those female authors burst onto the scene, girls read less in their teenage years than they do now. </span>(If you don't believe me on YA reading rates increasing recently, check out <a href="http://www.nea.gov/research/Readingonrise.pdf">this</a> NEA survey on reading, which ironically has male readership numbers up as well as female.)<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"> It's just that there wasn't the ridiculous amount of shaming on girls who read "male" works, so they could at least read <i>something. </i>This is mostly due to the fact that men write <i>good</i> things, and women write <i>girly</i> things, which are not good. If you don't believe me on this, ask any bookseller why Nicholas Sparks is in the fiction section instead of romance. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">I propose that instead of shaking the finger at women authors and readers, who have every right to be proud of their success, instead ask why it is that a boy might hide the book he is reading for fear of being called a sissy. Ask why playing sports is a "male" activity, while reading is a passive and "female" activity. Then, stop asking why and start working to undermine that conception. After all, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Trouble">gender is a construct</a>, so maybe we should be asking how to show boys that they won't turn into girls if they read about trying on dresses, just like girls don't turn into boys when they read about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Catcher_in_the_Rye">refusing to sleep with a prostitute</a>. I may not have liked that book, but it gave me insight into the struggles that boys sometimes have. After all, isn't learning to read inherently the task of learning to view the world through another's eyes? Why is the female perspective on the world any less valued and needful than the male?</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">I'll give you a hint Mr. Lipsyte: it isn't. The sooner we come down off our fences and work together on this, the sooner we can get those sensitive grown men you so desperately desire. </span></div></div>Jaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11995247507289842016noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-304631153336971620.post-91950920296276891232011-08-04T19:03:00.000-07:002011-08-04T19:03:36.350-07:00Weekly moment of Squee - SteamPunk MinionsWork week got you down? Homework piling up, or perhaps you just don't have enough minions to do your Evil Villainous Deeds? Try these little guys out, created by the amazing <a href="http://www.krop.com/piggyson/#/">Joseph Drust</a>. <div><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://cache.krop.com/piggyson-4e1f6b4ee49386.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://cache.krop.com/piggyson-4e1f6b4ee49386.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Look how cute they are! They also do things, like the one below makes sounds! </div><div><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://cache.krop.com/piggyson-4e1f70f6e494e2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://cache.krop.com/piggyson-4e1f70f6e494e2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This one is a FREAKIN' MAGNET!</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://cache.krop.com/piggyson-4e1f7807e495d8.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://cache.krop.com/piggyson-4e1f7807e495d8.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div>My personal favorite, who just wants to give you a hug SO BADLY.</div><div><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://cache.krop.com/piggyson-4e1f6fcfe494ab.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://cache.krop.com/piggyson-4e1f6fcfe494ab.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">At the very least, they are so cute they will cheer up any crappy day. Originally found on <a href="http://www.themarysue.com/steampunk-minions/">The Mary Sue</a>, which is a cool geek/girl/all things awesome web site. Check them and Joe Drust out!</div><div><br />
</div>Jaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11995247507289842016noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-304631153336971620.post-23323285995817055332011-08-02T00:44:00.000-07:002011-08-02T00:44:00.596-07:00Geeks in the MirrorI would love to say that the inspiration for this piece is <b>not </b>an article written by a more famous person in a more comprehensible manner than I ever could. Sadly, this post is brought to you in part* by Max Barry and his post on <a href="http://www.maxbarry.com/2011/07/08/news.html">Smurfs and Dogs</a>. I swear that it's relevant, and you should probably read it before reading this post. Go ahead, I'll wait.<br />
<br />
Right, so we are probably all familiar with the concepts he is talking about in the article. Female protagonists are theoretically not as universally identifiable as male protagonists. This is more or less a fact of life for the early 21st century. While there is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Games">lot</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollhouse_(TV_series)">of</a> <a href="http://www.watchtheguild.com/">progress</a> being made, you still cannot convince a large part of the American viewing/ reading public to take a female protagonist seriously. I say "American public" not "men" because women go to movies and read books too, and if a large percent of women decided that they are going to do something, they would make it huge. *cough*Twilight*cough* So, it tends to be that if there is a woman in the book or movie, it is usually a side character whose main selling point is that she is female. I don't want to get bogged down in going over this, so watch Nostalgia Chick's <a href="http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/team-nchick/nostalgia-chick/16616-the-smurfette-principle">video</a> on it, if you really don't believe/ get what I'm saying.<br />
<br />
The downsides to this phenomenon are pretty self evident. Not only does it de-value women and their life experience as something that could never be interesting enough to be the main plot, but it also expects that men can't and shouldn't identify with these life experiences. It also means that these characters have to stand for ALL WOMEN EVERYWHERE. Which, lets face it, is impossible. Any character who tries to stand for all of <b>anything</b> is going to fail, because the range of female/human experience is infinite. So they generally go for lowest common denominator, which means that these characters are going to have qualities that most people associate with the word female.<br />
<br />
The trouble is, this is not just a problem for teh ladies. This is a problem for every sub-set of mainstream culture who gets "token-ized". I'm not going to talk about ethnic minorities much because well, I'm not super qualified, but if I see <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?q=the+lightning+thief&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1C1AVSA_enUS430&tbm=isch&tbnid=wlahb4v7T1emlM:&imgrefurl=http://www.coversdaddy.com/covers/percy-jackson-and-the-lightning-thief-r0-customized-covers.html&docid=2xPfmAPrgpuE-M&w=591&h=400&ei=7080Tti5HejViALT3cnDCA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=137&vpy=131&dur=356&hovh=123&hovw=164&tx=196&ty=143&page=4&tbnh=123&tbnw=164&start=24&ndsp=9&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:24&biw=853&bih=419">one</a> <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?q=iron+man&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1C1AVSA_enUS430&tbm=isch&prmd=ivnsu&tbnid=UQlR53jNe20CTM:&imgrefurl=http://marvel.wikia.com/Iron_Man_(film)&docid=3-Uw7XR0AxuZZM&w=510&h=755&ei=LlA0Tv2rBezZiAKC1pzECA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=241&vpy=59&dur=505&hovh=129&hovw=87&tx=75&ty=262&page=1&tbnh=129&tbnw=87&start=0&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0&biw=853&bih=419">more</a> <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?q=avatar+the+last+airbender+movie+poster&hl=en&rlz=1C1AVSA_enUS430&tbm=isch&tbnid=vtUEeZWs5mfIZM:&imgrefurl=http://torontocar.blogspot.com/2011/06/avatar-movie-review-movie.html&docid=nRHCDUe0P-smQM&w=540&h=800&ei=iVA0ToqbJMnkiAKNj8HDCA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=134&vpy=35&dur=54&hovh=273&hovw=184&tx=91&ty=176&page=1&tbnh=117&tbnw=83&start=0&ndsp=12&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&biw=853&bih=419">film </a>where there is only the <b>one</b> non-white character who is EITHER cool or evil, I might go crazy. Again, I shouldn't have to expound on why this is a bad thing. Hollywood has this perception that audiences won't "get it" if they don't present us with these stereotypes. That we would be completely flabbergasted and uncomprehending when presented with anything that isn't a straight white male to identify with as our main protagonist. Again, a lot of progress is being made, but these are exceptions that prove the rule.<br />
<br />
My biggest problem with all of this? The fact that geek culture does not seem to be trying to pull itself out of this bias. If we want to talk about straight white males as main characters, think of <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs50/i/2009/335/d/7/Captain_America_Movie_Poster_by_Facelift_Persona.jpg&imgrefurl=http://facelift-persona.deviantart.com/art/Captain-America-Movie-Poster-145385700&h=1343&w=900&sz=223&tbnid=DcWrgOJjHUhYbM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=60&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcaptain%2Bamerica%2Bmovie%2Bposter%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=captain+america+movie+poster&docid=T5enA1QoB9G6bM&sa=X&ei=r1M0TtuRGbLbiALsoNHDCA&ved=0CE4Q9QEwAw&dur=310">all</a> <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://sophosmoros.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/darkknight-returns-fan-poster.jpg&imgrefurl=http://sophosmoros.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/batman-3-poster-featuring-the-riddler/&h=792&w=560&sz=348&tbnid=HJ747prpsu_NdM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=64&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbatman%2B3%2Bmovie%2Bposter%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=batman+3+movie+poster&docid=BdvHL-fo_tDazM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=61M0Tu_RBaPciAKmtZW6CA&ved=0CB8Q9QEwAg&dur=1">the</a> <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?q=wolverine+origins+movie+poster&hl=en&sa=X&pwst=1&rlz=1C1AVSA_enUS430&tbm=isch&prmd=ivns&tbnid=FjZSUfm_7HhQoM:&imgrefurl=http://hwhills.com/final-wolverine-origins-movie-poster/&docid=o3VcG6a47oK2VM&w=480&h=709&ei=GlM0TqyuCq3RiALm4OjECA&zoom=1&biw=853&bih=419">comic</a> <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mikeafford.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/green-lantern-movie-posters-ryan-reynolds.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mikeafford.com/blog/2009/03/the-times-pick-up-on-my-green-lantern-trailer/&h=467&w=560&sz=54&tbnid=mO8EEHNfOjHUkM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=108&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dgreen%2Blantern%2Bmovie%2Bposter%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=green+lantern+movie+poster&docid=KvIKi-74JxLokM&sa=X&ei=V1M0TpnqKO3SiALbhNXDCA&ved=0CGIQ9QEwAQ&dur=17">book</a> <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?q=thor+movie+poster&hl=en&sa=X&pwst=1&rlz=1C1AVSA_enUS430&tbm=isch&prmd=ivnsu&tbnid=MPyFCjS_uy07ZM:&imgrefurl=http://screenrant.com/movie-posters-thor-your-highness-super-8-haunted-mansion-pauly-105844/&docid=776c53wy_STzTM&w=570&h=844&ei=6lI0TsPrGq7WiAL_q7S6CA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=440&vpy=44&dur=492&hovh=133&hovw=82&tx=88&ty=266&page=1&tbnh=133&tbnw=82&start=0&ndsp=6&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0&biw=853&bih=419">movies</a> that have come out recently. Think about all the video games, with the exception of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_(video_game)">Portal</a>, where you play a guy as the default. <a href="http://www.bioware.com/">Bioware</a> has been working on the "not-straight" part, and you certainly can play as a girl, but neither of those options have gotten much press in the past. It's like, if we can have a nerdy protagonist we still prefer him to be straight and white.<br />
<br />
What I don't understand is why this is still going on. As geeks, shouldn't being counter culture come as second nature? There are women on the Avengers, why did none of them get an origins movie? (Ok, only one in the coming movie, but still) Women are a minority among geeks, but becoming less so all the time. I know I said I wasn't going to talk too much about it, but <i>seriously</i> with <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?q=lord+of+the+rings&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1C1AVSA_enUS430&tbm=isch&prmd=ivnsb&tbnid=-VofReIyiIGNrM:&imgrefurl=http://www.moviewallpaper.net/w/The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Return_of_the_King_Wallpaper_1_1024.html&docid=RoCnnV666Y5XKM&w=1024&h=768&ei=8JY3TvP2DK_ZiALtlJnwDg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=125&vpy=198&dur=1170&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=185&ty=134&page=1&tbnh=103&tbnw=137&start=0&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&biw=1024&bih=504">no</a> <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?q=game+of+thrones+poster&hl=en&rlz=1C1AVSA_enUS430&tbm=isch&tbnid=881S1450Cx0lcM:&imgrefurl=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/see-official-game-thrones-poster-166561&docid=7wpsq8Q7O-J9eM&w=2700&h=4000&ei=IJc3ToTeFK3SiALO5NHgDg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=33&page=1&tbnh=125&tbnw=84&start=0&ndsp=14&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=40&ty=63&biw=1024&bih=504">non-white</a> <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?q=harry+potter&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1C1AVSA_enUS430&tbm=isch&prmd=ivnsubo&tbnid=KUSKsdMs3_quIM:&imgrefurl=http://harrypotterseason.blogspot.com/&docid=JjzMCzmYXhmMtM&w=1600&h=1200&ei=bJc3TueLB4PjiAK1xtjTDg&zoom=1&biw=1024&bih=504">main</a> <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?q=eragon&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1C1AVSA_enUS430&tbm=isch&prmd=ivnsb&tbnid=7GNDT-jt3Q6bzM:&imgrefurl=http://www.movies-wallpapers.net/Wallpaper-Eragon/Eragon-11.jpg.html&docid=hVHoTrJlVnqIAM&w=1280&h=1024&ei=Lpg3TvzBKOjSiAKB4fXmDg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=57&page=1&tbnh=101&tbnw=126&start=0&ndsp=12&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0&tx=43&ty=58&biw=1024&bih=504">protagonists</a>. I'll give you that maybe in an urban fantasy or perhaps even a comic book reality, which is still set during our own time, it may be "problematic" to write from the point of view of someone who is not you, i.e. white or male. I qualify this because there are people who are not white or male working in these industries, so I'm not sure it's really all that hard to find a voice for it. However, giving the benefit of the doubt, it is somewhat understandable to not want to offend by "telling it wrong", especially when writing a book rather than working with an actor of color to tell a story honestly.<br />
<br />
So what's your excuse, <a href="http://www.dadt.com/lots/dvd/index.html">high</a> <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/merlin/">fantasy</a>? Theoretically, you should have the same freedoms of science fiction, since racial tensions are a thing of the present and not necessarily of the Ages Ago or Future. And <b>don't </b>give me the whole, "But we're in England past!" argument, because ELVES. I'm pretty sure it won't strain anybody's disbelief, especially if handled with the same aplomb Star Trek has always handled it, i.e."This character is not white. It does not in any way effect the story or his ability to tell it, so we are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Sisko">MOVING ON</a>." Also with the no women! I mean, when was the last time since <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xena">Xena</a> that we saw some ancient fantasy past woman as the actual main character? Shouldn't magic be the great equalizer? Science Fiction has more, but still not a lot. I'm starting to feel like even the kick-ass girl side-characters aren't enough, because despite being better role models it still creates the illusion that there is only one Girl, and she is only THIS WAY. Being weak or kick-ass is not inherent to a gender, and sometimes being strong doesn't mean you aren't <a href="http://theuniblog.evilspacerobot.com/?p=5959">objectified</a> needlessly.<br />
<br />
What I love about being a geek is that on the internet, your visual self matters far less that your actual self. The whole "it's what's on the inside that counts" means a whole lot more when the people you are interacting with literally cannot see you. It's more important that you like David Tennant when you get on a chat about Dr. Who, because no one can tell and therefore can't care. You could literally be that <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?q=trixie+toy+story+3&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1C1AVSA_enUS430&tbm=isch&prmd=ivns&tbnid=IpwhGgVvKGovgM:&imgrefurl=http://www.fanpop.com/spots/toy-story-3/images/13477079/title/trixie-rex&docid=LJ6hjgFnmk8XOM&w=650&h=486&ei=LqA3ToDlPMHniAKWvfn0Dg&zoom=1&biw=1024&bih=504">dinosaur</a> from Toy Story Three for all anyone would know. I enjoy that and I enjoy the message that it sends. That we don't care about all of that bullshit that keeps us apart IRL, but we can come together around the things we enjoy. So...wtf? Why in our biggest contributions to culture are we confined by the same nonsense that keeps Hollywood from hiring Asian actors for <a href="http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/07/15/akira-american-remake-movie-not-dead/">Akira</a>? Why do geek girls constantly feel like they have something to prove, and why can't <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?q=justice+league+tv+series&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1C1AVSA_enUS430&tbm=isch&prmd=ivns&tbnid=2FmsCEbZnJqvEM:&imgrefurl=http://mediafirefreaks.blogspot.com/2011/06/justice-league.html&docid=LNIEJ3gkt0DmkM&w=1024&h=768&ei=cp83TvrFMoTTiAK_8bDgDg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=39&page=1&tbnh=126&tbnw=180&start=0&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0&tx=71&ty=54&biw=1024&bih=504">Green Lantern</a> be African-American in the movies too?<br />
<br />
I know what all of the easy answers are, but I want the answer that explains how the people who routinely reject reality continue to accept it. If you don't have that answer, then maybe you should start <a href="http://selfcentent.com/blog/dan-didio-inadvertently-summed-mainstream-comics-problem/">asking</a> the question yourself, and finding <a href="http://womanthology.blogspot.com/">ways</a> to help change things.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* Max Barry does not actually endorse this post. Nor do any of the other thousands of things I've linked to in this post. At least...I don't <b>think</b> so *peers into internet*.Jaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11995247507289842016noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-304631153336971620.post-44671217214139379372011-07-20T20:35:00.000-07:002011-07-20T20:35:11.598-07:00Your Weekly: D'AWWWW MomentI decided that this blog was quite ranty, and while I am a firm believer in ranting when it is appropriate, I am also a big believer in teh cute.<br />
<br />
This week's moment of cute is brought to you by <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/">The New York Times</a> in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/books/review/childrens-books-picture-books-about-bears.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimesbooks&seid=auto">this</a> article about children's books. Besides just being a well written post about the beautiful whimsy in those particular children's books, there was this quote:<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><i>The book is a bit Hayao Miyazaki-esque in the way magical fancy interrupts an otherwise naturalistic setting; one picture even shows the bear and Emma side by side under umbrellas, in patent homage to “My Neighbor Totoro.”</i><b style="font-style: italic;"> But who among us wouldn’t want a Totoro-like companion to call her own? </b>(Emphasis mine) </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><i><br />
</i></span></span><br />
Who indeed? I'm sort of in love with this writer now for her nonchalant reference to an incredibly geeky childhood cute thing. Thank you Pamela Paul, for giving me hope that working at the behemoth of NYT does in fact allow you to enjoy whimsy and cute. Go read the article and support a geeky girl!<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><b><br />
</b></span>Jaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11995247507289842016noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-304631153336971620.post-43917935260879849962011-07-18T23:32:00.000-07:002011-07-19T20:45:45.500-07:00WTF Mate? Promiscuity = rape now?<b>A small warning</b>: I talk about sex in this post. Nothing graphic, it's PG-13 for the most part, but if the subject of sex in general bothers you, you should not read this post.<br />
<br />
A lot of people are angry about <a href="http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/07/05/hookinguprealities/the-economic-effects-of-promiscuity/">this</a> post by Susan Walsh, specifically <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v92/wolfychan/Cost_of_Promiscuity6-1.jpg">this</a> chart (can we call it a chart? I'm pretty sure it insults the good name of charts everywhere). I can't really say anything better than <a href="http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2011/07/on-not-taking-bait.html">Holly</a> or <a href="http://manboobz.com/2011/07/14/chart-breakers/">Man Boobz</a>, but I do think it's important to point idiocy like this out, mostly because it is dangerous idiocy.<br />
<br />
For the record, rape is not a forgone and necessary conclusion to having habitual casual sex. That's like saying because you go out for walks, at some point you're going to have someone stab you for your wallet. That's just the way it <i>is</i>, people. In this country we have this thing about people getting to live life in the pursuit of happiness, and we have laws to protect us against people who would hurt us while we go about doing that. Rape is never excusable, never justifiable, and it is certainly never a guaranteed outcome.<br />
<br />
Also apparently gay people don't count at all, since they can have casual sex without making babies, so it's fine? But probably also going to end with rape/ loosing money. I'm not sure where the idea that you're supposed to get money from sex that isn't prostitution came from in the first place. Does that make prostitution okay, since at least you're going to come out ahead financially?<br />
<br />
I'm also not really sure where all of this "Women <b>lose</b> by having casual sex!" <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/14/economy-of-sex-its-cheap-these-days/?page=all#pagebreak">nonsense</a> (also fisked by<a href="http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2011/06/invisible-dick-of-adam-smith.html"> Holly</a>) is coming from. I'm <i>really</i> not sure why it is that now some women, like Susan Walsh, feel the need to go about "helping" women understand this. If a woman wants to wait, then that's fine. If a woman wants to have sex with everyone on the god damned planet, then that's fine too. Why is it widely held that the woman who wants sex is hurting the woman who wants to wait? Can men only have sex with one woman and then they have to remain celibate forever, like some kind magic chest where sex is the treasure and once one woman takes it out THERE IS NO MORE FOR ANYONE ELSE! Then the cock-nabbing woman runs off into the night laughing maniacally while the "pure and celibate" woman cries at home alone. Then, these "pure" women are FORCED to go have casual sex to try to get a man, because the only way to get that treasure back is to sleep with them outside a relationship?<br />
<br />
I know it's a hyperbolic metaphor, but I DARE you to try to make sense of this in a sane and logical way. It assumes that all men are stupid jack-asses who only ever want casual sex all the time, and that women who are saving it for marriage are limited in their choices for partner because of women who show men that they <i>can </i>have casual sex. This theoretically leads to women to feel pressured into having sex before marriage, and then are left crying and broken as Barney Stinson wanders off to fuck someone else. Because all most women are looking for is marriage and 2.5 kids. Right?<br />
<br />
Let's be clear here. Sometimes people, men and women, will tell someone that they want to have sex with that they are serious about them when they are just trying to get into their pants. This is not in any way right, and I do not condone lying to someone to have sex.<br />
<br />
That being said, I don't think that sex should ever be used as a bargaining tool. If you want to have sex, have sex. If you want to wait until you are in a committed relationship, then wait. Trying to convince someone that you should be in a committed relationship so that THEN you can have sex seems, well, silly. If all that your partner wants to do is have sex, then trying to bargain a certain amount of time or emotional attachment out of them is not going to work. If someone want to really be with you, they will wait for you. If they don't, then that's not what they are looking for and <b>that's okay.</b> It does not mean that they are a bad person OR that you aren't good enough. It just means that it's not going to work out.<br />
<br />
Regardless, none of this is Random Evil Woman #3's fault for wanting casual sex. That's all that she is looking for, and the type of men that want to have casual consensual sex are not the kind of men that are looking for a committed relationship. There ARE men who want committed relationships, even if it seems like they are scarce on the ground. It is an unfortunate side effect of wanting to wait that, well, you have to wait. If you are jealous that Random Evil Woman is having sex more than you, then <b>you can go get sex</b>. If you think she is happier than you, and you want to be happy like her, have you tried having the casual sex? Having casual sex at one time doesn't mean that you can't later decide you want to wait, or that it ruins you for long-term relationships later. Just realize that the men who sleep with you casually are generally going to want to keep it casual. If you know that this won't work for you, then that is completely fine, you are not being judged by this ridiculous standard of how many people you've fucked.<br />
<br />
<b>News flash</b>: women no longer need to choose between the Virgin and the Whore. We are people, not cardboard cut-outs who can only make stereotypical decisions. Our decisions about who we have sex with, or when we chose to do so, are no one's business and they are certainly not hurting other women who make different decisions. You may disagree with how one person chooses to live their life, but you should always support their right to<i> </i>have a choice.Jaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11995247507289842016noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-304631153336971620.post-30497563352185526052011-07-14T15:45:00.000-07:002011-07-19T20:40:06.376-07:00e-Death of BookstoresSince I'm ranting about book type things, I thought I'd take this opportunity to clear up some misconceptions about the relationship between brick-and-mortar book stores and online book retailers*.<br />
<br />
Yesterday I had a customer come into the store, who said he had come in to pick up his copy of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dance_with_Dragons"><u>A Dance with Dragons</u> </a>. This wasn't out of the ordinary, we had quite a few people reserve their copies with us, so I smiled and said sure, and asked what his name was. I couldn't find a slip with his name on it, so I asked when he had reserved it. He said he had paid for it already. "Oh," I said. "You pre-ordered it. That means that it will <i>ship </i>today, and it will come here in a few days."<br />
<br />
The customer then proceeded to rant at me for the next ten minutes or so about how ridiculous it was that he had pre-ordered something and then didn't get it on the day it came out. Now, I can understand the need to have a book on the day it comes out, so part of me sympathized. But the other, stronger part of me reacted the same way I do when people complain that books are so much cheaper to buy online: with anger and frustration at the way some people not involved in the industry misunderstand the system.<br />
<br />
Let's be clear here. The customer who pre-ordered got the book at 46% off at our online store. I have no idea what the pre-order price was at Amazon or other retailers, but I'm sure it was comparable.Why such savings? Well, partly because in order to run an online site, you need quite a few people, but nowhere near the man-power you need to run a physical store, and you sell to so many more people because you are not limited by geography. As the foreman says in "Jayne's Town" (Firefly) "We can then pass on the savings directly on to you, the customer." It's so much cheaper because it CAN be. They don't have to charge as much to make a profit.<br />
<br />
They also have to charge shipping, so they make it cheaper so you still want to buy it with them instead of going into the store. This is where most of the difference is made up. If a $7.99 book is 30% off it makes it $5.59, which means you saved about $2.40. Shipping and handling is $3-$4, sometimes more depending how much you ordered. So, in reality. you paid $8.59 for the book, WHICH IS THE SAME AMOUNT AS IN THE STORE. So, you have saved nothing other then getting to avoid talking to a human being while buying your book.<br />
<br />
Time. That is the other commodity you "pay" by buying online. Since it isn't gaining you money, it's pretty worthless to you, until you want a book RIGHT NOW. Then, that's a pretty precious commodity. When you buy online you have to wait at least a day before you can start reading the latest by your favorite author. Which is why most book stores get their sales by selling big-name-author-series books. Because then you are willing to sacrifice your hard earned money to save time.<br />
<br />
This brings me to my final point: space. Book stores have finite space. Because we are only so many square feet, we can only stock so many books. While every single bookstore in the world would LOVE to carry all the little known authors, we can realistically only afford to keep those titles that will sell. Online stores keep everything in a giant warehouse where no one needs to browse, a giant claw picks the book out of a box like one of those arcade games. Again, they stock it because they can, and if the only one buying the book lives in Ohio they don't need to worry about keeping it in a store in California. So yes, it is possible to get that obscure book for a discount online, but book stores must charge full price so that they can justify having it in their store. Most brick and mortar stores have ways of ordering the obscure titles for you, and they often don't charge you shipping. Again, the only price is time, which for some reason people seem less willing to pay once they've driven all the way there. It's not going to come faster just because you order it from home, folks.<br />
<br />
All of these things combine in such a way that if you didn't know the WHY of all of these things, you would wonder what the hell brick-and-mortar stores are doing with themselves. You'd wonder why they charge so much when Amazon is so cheap, and you'd wonder why a book from the same company would cost more at it's physical location as opposed to their website. So please, remember that all of these factors are far beyond the control of the actual person who is selling you the book. He/She loves working at their store, and it drives them a little crazy when people come in complaining about online issues especially because <b>they have no control over it</b>.<br />
<br />
This is to say nothing about the competition of e-books, that are so cheap because they don't even have to send you a physical copy. But for every e-book that is sold, that's a paper copy that goes unsold, which hurts the real stores. I'm not saying you shouldn't buy e-books, mostly because that's a futile battle. Book stores are going to have to drastically change their business model in order to be successful, and that goes for Mom and Pop stores as well as the big chains.<br />
<br />
As I'm writing this a major book retailer is looking like it's about to go out of business. People feel a lot of different things about Borders, but no one can deny that a lot of towns will lose their only local brick and mortar stores if they close. Libraries are coming under fire as well, as they lose funding all over the country. Instead of being able to browse the stacks, customers will be forced to rely on Best Seller lists or computer generated lists of similar titles, as is touched on by<a href="http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/018_02/7780"> this</a> article by Michael Dirda. Now there will no longer be the possibility of getting a staff recommendation to go along with your Tom Clancy or Patricia Briggs. Books like The Hunger Games, which at least at my store was sold purely by booksellers who loved it, would get forgotten and passed over.<br />
<br />
I don't know what the solution to all of this is. But if you, or someone you know, decides to start gripping at the actual booksellers for the way things are going, stop. Take a moment to remind yourself of all the factors beyond their control, that are actually controlled by consumers like you. Are you taking responsibility for your local bookstore closing down? Or are you rejoicing at save $2.50 on a paperback you could have just as easily picked up at your local store for the exact same price?<br />
<br />
<br />
*When I say bookstore, I mean observations and realities as pertains to my bookstore, and ones like it in my town. Perhaps your book store has a different situation, and if so I'd love to discuss how it is effecting your store in the comments, but just saying OMG YOU'RE WRONG isn't helpful.Jaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11995247507289842016noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-304631153336971620.post-21178858947078548492011-07-09T02:05:00.000-07:002011-07-09T02:05:45.306-07:00Dark Thoughts about Young Adult ReviewersI thought about doing an introductory post, but decided that intros are for suckers. Also they are probably too cool for me.<br />
<br />
What better way to kick off this post than to respond to <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576357622592697038.html">this article</a> by Meghan Cox Gurdon. I do suggest that you read this in full, if only to realize just how ridiculous some people can get when they become "adults". To sum up, Gurdon posits the idea that the YA genre, a genre geared specifically for teens, is becoming darker. When I say dark, I mean that the themes and language used are adult and upsetting. So dark in fact, that parents should be steering clear of that section, and writers need to get off that depressing and violent crack they are on.<br />
<br />
I will allow that she has some valid points. It is true that some YA books are incredibly dark. It is also true that "tweens" sometimes read YA because they are too advanced for the younger books, and sometimes come across things that are too complex for them. It is even true that parents need to become more involved with the content that their children are reading. You have no idea how frustrating it is when a parent buys <u>Twilight</u> for their 10 year old, and doesn't seem to mind all the anti-feminist content, not to mention the violence and the sex. I agree that there are some books that are not suitable for young children, and parents should be aware of this.<br />
<br />
However, to suggest that the <i>entire</i> <i>genre</i> has been rendered useless is ludicrous. In her opening Gurdon tells of the woes of parents just trying to find books for their kids, beginning with this one,<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"><i>She had popped into the bookstore to pick up a welcome-home gift for her 13-year-old, who had been away. Hundreds of lurid and dramatic covers stood on the racks before her, and there was, she felt, "nothing, not a thing, that I could imagine giving my daughter. It was all vampires and suicide and self-mutilation, this dark, dark stuff." She left the store empty-handed.</i></span><br />
<br />
Um, what? If a parent is flabbergasted at the selection in YA, she should have asked one of the helpful booksellers who would have been happy to point out any number of titles that end happily, are done tastefully, or even ones without violence at all. No one expects a non-bookseller to have a handle on all the different YA titles out there. That's like someone staring at a display of shoes, and when they fail to see one in their size on display they leave, without asking one the people whose JOB it is to find them shoes. Would you blame the shoemaker? The person selling them in the store? Or would you blame the customer who apparently didn't care enough to ask. Must not have wanted that book <i>that </i>badly.<br />
<br />
Leaving the fact that <b>not all young adult books are dark</b> aside, there is the issue with the actual dark books. As a bookseller, I am very aware of how dark the books can get. Most of the ones I've read are not violent for violence's sake, nor are they dark just for shits and giggles.<br />
<br />
The books, and the authors who write them, are trying to grapple with the issues that face teens every day. This is the time that they are learning that no, Santa isn't real and yes, it is indeed possible that life sucks. Life sucks an unbelievable amount at this age, especially because it had never previously occurred to them that it <i>could</i> suck this much. All of the cute Disney tales they were fed as small children are revealed to be a hoax, nothing more than a lovely fantasy. Things don't just magically work out, and for many teens this realization is earth-shattering. The world doesn't give two shits that "they are really just children", and pretending that things are otherwise is unhelpful. Bad things happen to teens. It isn't fun and nobody likes it, but that's the reality. It's not even a matter of teens already being exposed to it in other entertainment mediums, it's that they see it every. day. On the news, at school, sometimes tragically within their own homes.<br />
<br />
So, if you were a YA reader, do YOU want to read about happy fluffy bunnies, rainbows and how nothing bad happens to anyone ever? Probably not. Later you'll come to realize that life doesn't always suck and happy endings are possible if not magical. Right now though, you would gravitate towards those books which deal honestly with you and your life. Books like <u>The Outsiders</u>, which Gurdon references as the first YA book. This is significant because it is one of those books that is dark, deals with violent issues, and is one of the books most taught in schools. Are we saying now that half of America's teachers don't know what's good for kids to be reading? It is also one of the few books that is almost universally enjoyed. Ask a teen, any teen, why they liked <u>Outsiders</u>. They will tell you that it was honest and real, and that they could relate to the characters.<br />
<br />
Most teens just want it told to them straight, so they know what to expect and can prepare themselves. When we give them otherwise we become Wendla's mother from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Awakening_(play)#Act_II">Spring Awakening</a> who fails to tell her daughter where babies come from for fear she'll go out and try it. But it is her ignorance of the subject that inevitably causes her to end up with, you guessed it, teen pregnancy! The lie damages more than the truth, and we would be lying to our children if we tell them that the world is never a dark place.<br />
<br />
All of that being said, there are indeed some books out there that are gratuitous in their violence and sex. Still others fail to handle it tastefully, or the message of how to deal with it gets lost in the narrative. Being fair here, Gurdon has a point. Parents need to be aware of what their children are reading. Not so that they can forbid them from reading anything with violence in it, but so they can <i>talk</i> to them about it. Parents can and should be reading their teen's books with them so that they can be prepared for questions and discussions, so that they can, you know, do some parenting.<br />
<br />
Or, if having read the book himself, Dad decides that the book has no redeeming qualities, then he should indeed prevent his son from reading it and explain why. I find teens react much better when they are told, "I read the book and I didn't like it. I don't think you would like it either, it's kind of gross for no reason, and the writing is awful. If you want to read something about this topic, try this other one which is much better." You know, talking to teens like they have something between their ears and can think and reason. The easiest way to ensure that the kid will find a way to read it on his own is to tell him, "No. I said no, I mean no, and that's a NO." <br />
<br />
In the end, I don't blame the authors, as there are bad books in any genre. I don't blame the booksellers for keeping bad books in stock because, well, we still sell <u>Wuthering Heights</u>. I blame parents who are too lazy to read or too frightened of the dark places their children are in to help them deal with the process known as growing up.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold;">Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed. - </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold;">G. K. Chesterton</span>Jaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11995247507289842016noreply@blogger.com2