lirazel: CJ Cregg from The West Wing and the text "Wow are you stupid" ([tv] wow are you stupid)
I just finished reading Lemuria: A True Story of a Fake Place by Justin McHenry, and I am so bursting with things to say that I can't even wait till next week's What I'm Reading Wednesday. This book deserves an entire post of its own.

Let me be clear: I do not recommend this book. But I do recommend you reading this post about this book because it is wild.

The content of the book is absolutely fascinating. A Victorian scientist, trying to figure out how flora and fauna got to Madagascar, theorized either a land bridge or a larger continent and cheekily named it Lemuria after the most unique and striking of that fauna, the lemur. Other scientists picked up on this idea, linked it to the shifting of continents and the evolution of humans--and hence to race science, this being the 19th century when everything was linked to race science. You will not be surprised to hear the word "Aryans" and many descriptions of tall, handsome, white beings pop up several times in these pages. Still, at the beginning, the idea of Lemuria didn't contradict any established science, and so all conjecturing was at least within the realm of the possible.

But then Madame Blavatsky adopted it and the woo-woo people were off to the races with it. Each person who got their hands on it added new layers to the mythos; it snowballed until today, when it's at the heart of a ton of the worst conspiracy theories and weirdest new religious stuff on the planet.

The book traces this development. There are chapters about scientists, about Theosophists, about early 20th century science fiction publications, and about the New Age movement. It's really incredible how many people have glommed onto this idea and used it to their own ends.

Like I said, this is fascinating stuff! And McHenry seems to have done his research well. I was actually really impressed by how he managed to trace all of this across decades and languages and genres (though maybe I shouldn't have been. More on that anon).

But y'all, the writing! It! Is! So! Bad!

At first, I was only noticing the repetition--sadly typical of nonfiction writing these days--and the weird amount of sentence fragments. Now, I am a huge fan of sentence fragments and use them often. But this guy was using them way too much--I'd say 70% more than is enjoyable to me, a known sentence fragment enjoyer. And the further I read, the further the prose devolved till I was thinking as much about the writing as I was about what the author was trying to tell me--sometimes more!

This isn't the bad writing of a person who is writing in a foreign language and just hasn't mastered the grammar; that's a very particular kind of "bad" writing that I personally am indulgent of (and respect. It has its own internal logic, and I'm fine with that!). Nor is it the bad writing of a person who's trying too hard to sound professional or, in the other direction, too hard to sound chatty; that's annoying, but it's readable. And it is not the stilted writing of an LLM "AI" bot that sounds like an alien trying to imitate human speech; if it were that, I'd at least understand how it came to exist.

But no. This book combines two kinds of bad writing that I can't remember seeing in published works before:

1. The bad writing of a first draft where the writer is just putting in placeholders and phrases that will be filled out/changed later. I wouldn't have been surprised if STUPIDEST VERSION was written on the title page or if I came across brackets with "insert later" written in them. This kind of writing is completely appropriate for a first draft and completely, completely inappropriate for anything that's actually published by anyone at any time. Y'all wouldn't even subject me to this kind of writing on a DW post. (For which I thank you.)

2. A kind of bad writing that I cannot even find the pattern of. Sometimes there would be the diction is so bad that I'm not actually sure what he's talking about (unclear antecedents, unclear whether something really happened or not, unclear who said what, etc.). There's an entire paragraph at one point that I think is a quote from someone else, but it's neither in quotation marks or block quotes, so I'm just guessing that the block quote got left out accidentally? But who knows! There were places where he suddenly mentions something esoteric that I've never heard of but either doesn't ever explain what it is or waits several more paragraphs to do so. Add in some very random tense shifts, and it's just horrific.

If I were either the author or the editor, I would be ashamed of myself. I seriously don't know how this made it to publication in this state. I kept lamenting the fact that I live alone because I kept wanting to thrust the text under someone else's nose and demand they read it. "Can you believe someone wrote a sentence like that?"

So let me do that virtually to you now! Here are some completely random examples of things that drove me wild:


Leadbetter possesses little redeeming value. Born in 1854, educated at Oxford, entered the clergy of the Church of England in 1978. A keen interest in spiritualism led him to the doorstep of Theosophy in 1883.
[Why this weird fragment? Nearly every paragraph has sentences constructed like this.]

In The Secret Doctrine, Blavatsky makes vague assertions of there being life on other planets, more like spirits, and they, in the form of spirits or angels, may have come down to aid the evolution of humanity. A proto-version of the ancient alien theory. It is all sourced out and tied together with the Bible, Kabbalists, science, and other occult matters.


The Martian seventh root race became Earth's third root race, Lemurians. They had to battle the second root race on Earth, which were beasts. Huge crocodile-like things and scaly birds. 'Savage reptilian creatures' they battled with. Humans at this tiem were gorilla-like, with egg-shaped heads, and standing between twenty-four and twenty-seven feet tall. And they were black. They were also cyclopes; this is something that Blavatsky claimed as well, with a central eye toward the top of the forehead. This eventually receded into the head, becoming the pineal gland, and the other two eyes slowly traveled their way across the brow. These beings from outer space taught much to the Lemurians so that they developed a mind of their own and an ego all theirs.


The best of these Lemurians would be chosen to go on and become Atlanteans. As Atlanteans, their skin color would change and the next root race would go about its evolutionary journey, along the way dabbling in black magic which would get them in hot water, and the rise of the Aryan race, the fifth root race. It is at the end of this root race that the seeds of the next one start to grow in America, California to be exact, in the twenty-eighth century. Blavatsky had spoken of America being the breeding ground for the sixth root race but did not specify California. How they came to settle in California is a bit of a mystery. Its proximity to the Pacific Ocean and the possibility of there arising from the Pacific a new continent could position California as a prime location for this new world. Whatever the case may be, it would stick in the literature that California was a chosen land, destined for future great things in the evolution of humanity. This would have major consequences for the future of Lemuria as well. At the end, Lemuria will rise again from its 'age-long sleep' and complete the spiritual evolution of the root races and of Earth.


This led to the slim work The Lost Lemuria (1904), which confounds in its stated goal of scholarly research. All he does is use the sources that Blavatsky already provided in The Secret Doctrine like Haeckel, Wallace, so no new ground is being trod there; the other set of research relies on the Akashic Records [note that these records have not been mentioned before], which were already coming from clairvoyant means like Leadbeater himself. Proving with the proof provided.

He does supply some additional fun details concerning Lemuria and Lemurians, such as that they began with giant gelatinous bodies and slowly evolved to have bone structures. And when they first were able to stand up on their own they could walk as well backward as forward, due to the shape of their heels and the third eye helping see them better. Also, the 'Chinese language' is the lone descenant of the Lemurian tongue. Venutians, beings from Venus, came here and showed the Lemurians how to cultivate grain. Lemuria existed many, many million years ago. Well over five million years ago and during the time of the 'age of the reptiles,' seemingly meaning dinosaurs.


Augustus Le Plongeon was a semi-professional archaeologist who teamed up with his spiritualist photographer wife Alice to travel to the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico to prove the Mayan civilization was the oldest on earth and the cradle of all the world's civilizations. Somewhat selective and flexible with the archaeologist record in Mexico, the couple saw patterns in the Mayan artifacts that would lead them to proving this Mayan cradle of civilization theory. Their findings caught the attention of Donnelly and Blavatsky, both of whom cited the Le Plongeons' research in their works. They forged ahead doing major excavations at Chicen Itza and Uxmal, the first to do so, and presented an alternative, metaphysical history of the New World.


Perhaps the most interesting thing about Churchward's Mu is that it is Lemuria. Same location, dimensions, and descriptions, even cribbing Blavatsky's origin story of being taught a secret language while in India to be able to read Niven's tablets. What everyone else thinks is Lemuria to Churchward, it is Mu. He seemingly goes out of his way throughout multiple books to never mention or utter the name Lemuria. That does not mean it does not still play a part in Lemuria's saga. People saw the 'M' and 'U' in Lemuria, and Mu became synonymous with Lemuria and a vital part of the Lemurian myth, as Mu would be a part of Edgar Cayce's ancient mythmaking and of many in the New Age Movement. [Aside: Churchward is never mentioned when we get to Cayce, so we never learn the details of this] Though they borrowed Churchward's Mu name, that was about it. And they have brushed aside his in-depth analysis of Pacific Islander symbology and cultural studies.

Despite the lack of Lemuria, Churchward's Mu shared some key similarities with it, such as being the cradle of mankind, that the people from there would go on to colonize Earth, and that it was destroyed by volcanic activity....Mu was also a very paradisiacal place. So whatever Mu was, it shared a whole heck of a lot with Lemuria.


Of course, certain segments treated his views with derision and certain others accepted it as confirmation. [Note that this is is the beginning of a paragraph that immediately follows a direct quote from a source.]

One thing that Churchward pioneered in populating Mu/Lemuria with actual people with names. Prior to this, Lemuria was full of 'pudding sacks' or beings described but really given nothing to connect with. Churchward actually discusses some of the individuals from Mu, most significantly the Emperor/High Priest Ra-Mu, who materializes time from time as an ascended master that channels like Elizabeth Clare Prophet and Uriel summon to spread his wisdom to their followers.


Listen to me: ALL OF THESE WERE FROM ONE CHAPTER. And they were just the most egregious examples; I bookmarked a ton more pages than I transcribed here.

Here are a few more excerpts that I couldn't not share:

For Shaver, the paranoia came first. Thoughts of being watched and followed crept inside of him. Next, the voices came. At first they only began to appear at work. Being broadcast via his welding gun. Something in the wiring got crossed that allowed him to overhear the conversations of all the plant workers: Richard's a Commie. Richard's gay. Richard. Richard. Richard. Day after day these voices assaulted the inside of his head.


While on stage, beyond preaching their pro-American, white nationalist rhetoric, they also came out in favor of celibacy and that you should not eat anything with a face nor consume alcohol or tobacco. And that there was hope in America, for a golden age was coming. That your true self is divine and can accomplish anything it wants in this world through the power of thought. And borrowing nearly verbatim from Theosophy the notion that Ascended Masters had all been ordinary but through reincarnation, they realized their ascension through spiritual realization, a la Phylos in A Dweller on Two Planets.


This was the beginning of the rise of the Reptoids. Which might not have too much bearing on the Lemurian story, other than tales of being abducted by Lemurians and taken underground, or Shaver's deros doing similar things [note, he throws around the word 'dero' about fifteen times before he actually defines it], or Bernard's remnants of Lemurians flying UFOS around having already been established. [We have heard nothing of Bernard so far.] And who's to say that the Ultraterrestrial beings from another dimension, plane, or parallel universe, theorized by the lacks of John Keel, Jacques Vallee, and Mac Tonnies [again, none of these people have been mentioned before] are not the same as the Mt. Shasta Lemurian sightings or the earlier tales of fairies and other mythical beings.


The Lemurian Fellowship arose from a collaboration between Robert Stelle and Howard John Zitko. They combined to turn the Fellowship into a mail-order citizenship-building school built around the concept that Lemuria was the first great civilization, followed by Atlantis, with America poised to be the next one. A new type of citizen was needed to inhabit and lead this new great civilization. Everything is new: "A New Race is emerging in America. A New Civilization is being born. A new kind of human being is being created for a new kind of world.' Not just a New Age being born, it is a whole New Earth--where you need to get on board to gain citizenship in this "New Race of Christ-honoring, divinity-conscious' America. Lemuria is going to rise out of the Pacific and when it does, it will fulfill biblical prophecy, and the United States of America will ascend to the status of Lemuria and Atlantis, with Americans transforming into Lemurians and Atlanteans.

Seventy-eight thousand years ago on the continent of Mu/Lemuria, a select few outstanding individuals organized the first human society when they realized there was a better way to live. They acquired an understanding of universal law, taking baby steps towards social harmony through teaching those who chose to live cooperatively in abeyance [yes, abeyance!!!] with God's laws. This Lemurian society, the Mukulian Empire, grew in to the ideal land, but over time as it grew and grew the proletariat increased their power, while the citizen philosopher-kings sharnk because so few sought out citizen training; this led to Lemuria's downfall. Then, it sank.
[And then the next paragraph goes on to talk about something completely different!]


And here is a random quote that I'm not including because of bad writing (it's relatively unobjectionable) but because I thought it was so damn interesting:

It all owes a heavy debt to Oliver's (or Phylos') A Dweller on Two Planets, offering a modern spin with new thrills--although not all so new, seeing as Oliver's family sued the Ballards' Saint Germain Foundation for plagarizing parts of A Dweller on Two Planets. But the lawsuit was thrown out because the judge agreed with the argument that, since Oliver never claimed to have been the author but only the transcriber, writing down whatever Phylos told him to, he was left with no right to the copyright.




Do you see what I mean???????

And on top of all this, he doesn't really spend much time telling us about how Lemuria is being used today? There's a long long quote from an 8chan post and a bunch of handwaving in the conclusion about how people can use Lemuria for whatever they want and so it will probably be used more in the future. He mentions that it's tied to QAnon but doesn't tell us how. After the detail of the scientific stuff of the first few chapters, this felt especially obnoxious.

Why did I keep reading this nonsense? Because I actually find the topic really interesting and wanted to learn about it!

AND THEN. At the very end of the book, there's an author's note that says, "Btw, I got most of this from a scholarly book called The Lost Land of Lemuria: Fabulous Geographies, Catastrophic Histories by Sumathi Ramaswamy." And friends, I was so angry! I could have just read that book! I would bet my life that it's better written than this one!

Anyway, if any of you ever decide to brave the prose and read it yourself, please, please come and tell me whether I'm overstating. I need external validation.




Two final thoughts:

1. This book is full of people from over the past few centuries who have incredible imaginations. I kept thinking, "Why didn't these people just write fantasy novels because all this stuff is really compelling even if it is demonstrably not true." They didn't have to try to sell it as fact!

2. If anyone knows of any good books about Theosophy, please point me towards them. All the ones I'm finding are written by Theosophists or fellow travelers, and that is not what I'm looking for.
lirazel: The three Bronte sisters as portrayed in To Walk Invisible looking out over the moor ([tv] three suns)
I am not pleased about the new film that's coming out soon that purports to be about Emily Bronte. I am not pleased about how it invents whole-cloth a romance that never happened. I am not pleased about how it implies that women's stories are not worth telling unless they contain a romance. [I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only romances the Bronte sisters needed was with writing. CHARLOTTE/WRITING OTP. EMILY/WRITING OTP. ANNE/WRITING OTP.] I am not pleased about how it seems to center men ~encouraging her~ to be a writer as though she needed men to nurture her genius. Above all, I am not pleased at the implication that she had to experience something in order to write about it.

I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate the cultural inability to understand that writing is a work of imagination and that it does not have to be built on experience. The idea that of course Jane Austen must have had some star-crossed romance or she wouldn't have been able to write her novels is just so stupid and insulting. It's so reductive that pretty much every story about a real writer becomes, "Here's how that writer lived the thing they wrote!"

NO! That's not how writing works! Not every work is a thinly veiled roman à clef! Some things are just made up! And that is a skill and it takes work! It is so lazy to just assume that anything some (especially historical) writer wrote about was a variation on something they experienced! It makes me so mad!

Maybe this pisses me off in particular as an asexual person who sometimes writes romance (and occasionally porn). I have zero experience with romance, but I don't need it. And frankly I'm offended that you think I and Emily Bronte and Jane Austen and whoever are not good enough writers to come up with that stuff all on our own.

I find myself quoting Terence over and over and over again: I am human and nothing human is alien to me.

I am also irked by the idea that only people of one demographic can write characters of that demographic. I realize that this tendency at the moment is a pendulum swing--for so long, writers of color were so marginalized that it was really necessary for people to say, "Uh, can you let us write about our experiences? And actually publish us?" I get that! That is a good thing! We need lots more writers from all kinds of diverse backgrounds and perspectives getting published!

But it does not therefore follow that people should only write about characters who are just like them. Anyone can write about anything! They just have a moral responsibility to do that as truthfully as they can and to do the research necessary not to perpetuate lies or hurt readers. And of course they have to be prepared for criticism if/when they get it wrong.

But just because publishing companies tend to let mediocre white writers who haven't done their research and have underdeveloped empathy publish nonsense that hurts people DOES NOT mean that white people should only write about white people or only queer people should be allowed to write about queer people. For god's sake, the entire point of the novel as an art form--regardless of whether you're the writer or the reader!--is to practice radical empathy and climb inside the head of someone who is not you.

NOT EVERYTHING THAT'S GOOD IS AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL. UGH!

In closing, the perfect Bronte biopic already exists and it's called To Walk Invisible thank you and good night

'tis a rant

Mar. 7th, 2014 01:50 pm
lirazel: An outdoor scene from the film Picnic at Hanging Rock ([btvs] i'm a bitch ask me how)
I hate infinite scroll/lack of pagination that is the new trend on websites now. Hate it. It can occasionally be useful (Google image searches or other sites where you can scan lots of pretty pictures quickly), but on general websites, nothing makes me angrier.

I'm trying to catch up on a couple of websites's old articles that I didn't read when they were posted. But these websites no longer have pagination options in their archives (they aren't automatic infinite scroll--you have to click "read more" to get previously-posted content, but THERE ARE NO PAGE OPTIONS). So if I read page 1-4 today in the archives, there is no way for me to jump directly to page 5 tomorrow. This isn't such a big deal at the beginning when I just have to hit the "load more" button a couple of times, but by the time I'm to page 25 or whatever, this becomes a truly annoying thing, not to mention once you get past a certain point, your computer starts to freeze up because you have too much stuff loaded.

And google search is resulting in NO extensions for any browser that will render these sites in page form. I could yank all my hair out and cry, I'm so frustrated. Honestly nothing on the internet causes me this much anger at the moment. NOTHING.

UGH!

Oct. 8th, 2013 11:58 am
lirazel: An outdoor scene from the film Picnic at Hanging Rock ([btvs] not happy)
WHAT THE HEEEECK SOMEONE EDITED THE INFINITE WIKI PAGE SO IT DOESN'T HAVE THE LITTLE CHART WITH ALL THEIR BIRTHDAYS AND THEIR NAMES IN HANGUL ON IT. WHAT A JERK. DOESN'T THIS PERSON REALIZE THEY'RE MAKING MY LIFE HARDER THAN IT HAS TO BE?
lirazel: An outdoor scene from the film Picnic at Hanging Rock ([misc] when the revolution comes)
That thing is a rant about social justice on tumblr. And I thought about posting on tumblr, but then I realized I didn't want to deal with the very people I'm talking about in my rant. But I wrote it because I needed to get it out of my system, and so I'm going to post it here instead.

So there’s been talk again on my dash criticizing the specific kind of over-the-top social justice warrior-ing going on on tumblr, and I think this is a good conversation to have. My biggest problem with it is that it doesn’t leave any room for actual humanity—be that either mistakes or the fact that different people have different levels of education/access to educational resources.

The expectation seems to be that people will be 100% perfect in their social justice-ing all the time. And meanwhile the ott warriors are just circling below like sharks waiting for someone to slip up JUST ONCE so they can attack. You see this a lot with celebs: every single time a celebrity comes to the attention of tumblr culture, it’s like a competition to see who can find the thing to discredit them the fastest. And I have zero problem with people calling out behavior that is problematic. I do have a problem with the glee with which tumblr does it and the way they smash it in the faces of the ones who like that celeb. It’s not like all people who like a given famous person are the kind of fans who refuse to admit that oppar could possibly do anything wrong. There are fans like that, of course, and there’s no exucse for them, but there are also loads of people who like the work of a given person or who are fond of their face or just think they’d be cool to hang out with and who will readily admit that that person has done things that are NOT OKAY. But they still like that person (for whatever value of ‘like’ applies) and there’s no need to make those ‘fans’ feel terrible about themselves for still enjoying that person/their art. I’ll use a personal example: I like Amy Poehler a lot. I love Parks and Rec and I like her as a person and I think the way she wants to encourage young women and girls is inspirational. I also think that time she posed in a ‘Native American’ headband with the feather was gross and wrong. And there are other things she’s done that are not okay. But I still like her. AND I admit that she’s done things that aren’t okay. I can do both. And face it: if we stopped liking everyone who ever said anything problematic, there would be no one left to like. No one is a paragon of social justice. No one. Everyone slips up, everyone does and says stupid and offensive things, everyone has blindspots. The key is whether you admit to that and try to do better. And since most celebs aren’t called out on those things…we don’t know whether they’d admit, apologize and try to learn. We just don’t know. [Note: there’s a big difference between someone saying or doing something thoughtlessly offensive and someone, say, unrepentantly beating someone they claim to love. I am not conflating the two, so don’t think I am.]

And so the celebrity thing is exhausting. But celebs are a distance from us, and they have a huge amount of privilege to protect them, and so the tumblr attitude towards them is not nearly as bad as when I see this level of self-righteous zealousness leveled at other tumblr users. Honestly, as someone who comes from a very conservative religious background, it reminds me of nothing so much as those people in religious groups who seem to LOVE it when other people ‘sin’ and who lurk around waiting to find out that other people have messed up and then jump on them and badmouth them to everyone and basically just act like the exact opposite of how the tennants of their faith call them to act.

So many people forget that tumblr is full of really young people. I mean, I’m a dinosaur in my mid-twenties, and I’m in a constant process of educating myself. But when I was the age of the majority of tumblr, I knew NOTHING about systemic oppression. Nothing. I grew up in a very sheltered evangelical environment where I was taught to treat everyone with respect and kindness and politeness and that that would pretty much keep me from doing anything wrong. I was never, ever taught about systemic injustice. I didn’t know it existed. Yes, I was one of those ‘stupid’ people who thought that, say, racism was about actively hating/being cruel to people of a different race than you, and since I would never dream of doing that, I couldn’t possibly do anything racist. It was only when I got to college and started reading more widely on the internet that I discovered this whole new world of ideas about how the world was set up. That’s how I discovered feminism and the need for it, the idea of systemic oppression and the patriarchy/kyriarchy and heiarchies in general. Up until then I knew nothing. And I think of what would have happened to me personally if I’d said something unintentionally offensive/hurtful when I was that age and people ripped into me. It would have crushed me. It would have. And I realize that’s nothing compared to the constant grinding under the heel that people who are oppressed go through every day—but God, I used to think feminism was a bad thing! I did! Now it’s as necessary to me as oxygen, but I would have been turned off to it completely if I had felt attacked using it, despite how desperately I needed it…because I didn’t know that I needed it.

I think it’s good to call people out on problematic things they say. I really do. And I think anger is powerful and necessary. But I think that sometimes that anger should be at the system or at people in power who perpetuate oppression, not at some kid who’s probably got no clue what they said was wrong because they’ve been brainwashed by the culture they live in not to see the oppression around them. I’m not saying people need to pander to offensive people, especially when they’re privileged. But there’s a big difference between a matter-of-fact, “Hey, you screwed up big-time here”/“hey, that think you said really, really hurt me”/“hey, you seem to have some ideas about people who are different than you that are very incorrect” and someone’s inbox being flooded with insults. I realize this skates perilously close to the tone argument, and I want to emphasize that I’m not telling people they can’t be angry about things. BE ANGRY. But maybe don’t unleash the fullness of your anger on someone who maybe has no idea what they’re doing is wrong. Rant and rave and scream on your own blog about it. Talk about how it represents just one more terrible thing you have to deal with day in and day out and how sometimes you think you’re going to explode from trying to carry all of that around. But before you contact the person who said or did whatever pissed you off, take a moment to think: is this something that shows real malice or is this something that perhaps signals that this person is just really ignorant? It’s hard to tell sometimes, but I do think we should take the time to think about it. You don’t have the responsibility to educate anyone. But if you do decide to contact them, I think it’s a good thing to take their possible situation into account. Intent doesn’t lessen the pain or anger that person stirred in you. But intent can give us some idea of whether that person could be brought around to enlightenment. Don’t we want everyone to come around to our team? Isn’t that the goal?

People can be eduated. Even deeply, deeply ignorant people. I’m living proof of that. But it probably wouldn’t have happened if I’d been a very young, very vulnerable, and very sheltered girl who felt overwhelmed by people older, more educated, and more articulate than I was telling me what a terrible person I was. That would have triggered my anxiety on a profound level. I know it would have. I just want people to be careful with each other.
lirazel: An outdoor scene from the film Picnic at Hanging Rock ([misc] Calvin and Hobbes euphoria)
So despite my typical complete disinterest in sports that don't involve doing pretty twirling on ice or doing flips on four-inch-wide beams, I actually quite enjoy the Olympics. Mostly because of the ideal behind them--the idea of the whole world getting together peacefully to just have some serious fun. Like, that's beautiful (I wish there was something else where everyone in the world got together that way--something that doesn't involve sports, but what can you do?). And I know it doesn't always live up to the ideal (Munich 72), and I also know that there's really nothing fair about modern sports (the amount of training and the facilities the rich countries get skew everything horribly towards them), I still like it.

Mostly I like hearing the stories about the competitors--those little mini-documentaries we get--and I'm always on the lookout for a good story, some beautiful transcendant moment like that one swimmer from Equatorial Guinea who had never swum the length of a pool and yet kept going a few games ago, or the time the runner hurt his leg while running and his dad came down and helped him struggle through the end of the race--people, even if sports are silly (which, they really are when you think about it), that is gorgeous.

So I'm always on the lookout for things that construct narratives out of something that is essentially narrative-less (which I think is why I can enjoy sports movies without actually enjoying sports). Yay that.

But you know what I hatehatehate about the Olympics? NBC'S COVERAGE. The way they chop things up--we get fifteen minutes of swimming, then we're back to gymnastics for thirty minutes, then we're back to swimming, then we move over to diving. NO. DO NOT WANT. It's stupid because of the time difference--you absolutely could show all of each event at the same time. I feel like they're trying to manipulate me into watching things I don't want to watch--into keeping the TV on even during events I don't care about so as to make me watch ads so they can get money. Gross.

I would watch things online where you can do it all in one sitting, except that I like making icons while I watch, and I can't do both. So I'm stuck with muting the TV during things I don't care about while keeping one eye on the screen so I can turn the volume back up when something I like comes back on. UGH.

Also: Ryan Seacrest, go home. I cannot take you seriously.

I bet y'all in other countries have better coverage than we do, don't you? Tell me about it and make me jealous.

To close on a happier note: as I was watching the countries come into the arena on Friday night, the only thing I coud think of was I HAVE NEVER SEEN SO MANY ATTRACTIVE PEOPLE IN ONE PLACE.
lirazel: An outdoor scene from the film Picnic at Hanging Rock ([misc] Calvin and Hobbes euphoria)
So despite my typical complete disinterest in sports that don't involve doing pretty twirling on ice or doing flips on four-inch-wide beams, I actually quite enjoy the Olympics. Mostly because of the ideal behind them--the idea of the whole world getting together peacefully to just have some serious fun. Like, that's beautiful (I wish there was something else where everyone in the world got together that way--something that doesn't involve sports, but what can you do?). And I know it doesn't always live up to the ideal (Munich 72), and I also know that there's really nothing fair about modern sports (the amount of training and the facilities the rich countries get skew everything horribly towards them), I still like it.

Mostly I like hearing the stories about the competitors--those little mini-documentaries we get--and I'm always on the lookout for a good story, some beautiful transcendant moment like that one swimmer from Equatorial Guinea who had never swum the length of a pool and yet kept going a few games ago, or the time the runner hurt his leg while running and his dad came down and helped him struggle through the end of the race--people, even if sports are silly (which, they really are when you think about it), that is gorgeous.

So I'm always on the lookout for things that construct narratives out of something that is essentially narrative-less (which I think is why I can enjoy sports movies without actually enjoying sports). Yay that.

But you know what I hatehatehate about the Olympics? NBC'S COVERAGE. The way they chop things up--we get fifteen minutes of swimming, then we're back to gymnastics for thirty minutes, then we're back to swimming, then we move over to diving. NO. DO NOT WANT. It's stupid because of the time difference--you absolutely could show all of each event at the same time. I feel like they're trying to manipulate me into watching things I don't want to watch--into keeping the TV on even during events I don't care about so as to make me watch ads so they can get money. Gross.

I would watch things online where you can do it all in one sitting, except that I like making icons while I watch, and I can't do both. So I'm stuck with muting the TV during things I don't care about while keeping one eye on the screen so I can turn the volume back up when something I like comes back on. UGH.

Also: Ryan Seacrest, go home. I cannot take you seriously.

I bet y'all in other countries have better coverage than we do, don't you? Tell me about it and make me jealous.

To close on a happier note: as I was watching the countries come into the arena on Friday night, the only thing I coud think of was I HAVE NEVER SEEN SO MANY ATTRACTIVE PEOPLE IN ONE PLACE.
lirazel: An outdoor scene from the film Picnic at Hanging Rock ([misc] Calvin and Hobbes euphoria)
So despite my typical complete disinterest in sports that don't involve doing pretty twirling on ice or doing flips on four-inch-wide beams, I actually quite enjoy the Olympics. Mostly because of the ideal behind them--the idea of the whole world getting together peacefully to just have some serious fun. Like, that's beautiful (I wish there was something else where everyone in the world got together that way--something that doesn't involve sports, but what can you do?). And I know it doesn't always live up to the ideal (Munich 72), and I also know that there's really nothing fair about modern sports (the amount of training and the facilities the rich countries get skew everything horribly towards them), I still like it.

Mostly I like hearing the stories about the competitors--those little mini-documentaries we get--and I'm always on the lookout for a good story, some beautiful transcendant moment like that one swimmer from Equatorial Guinea who had never swum the length of a pool and yet kept going a few games ago, or the time the runner hurt his leg while running and his dad came down and helped him struggle through the end of the race--people, even if sports are silly (which, they really are when you think about it), that is gorgeous.

So I'm always on the lookout for things that construct narratives out of something that is essentially narrative-less (which I think is why I can enjoy sports movies without actually enjoying sports). Yay that.

But you know what I hatehatehate about the Olympics? NBC'S COVERAGE. The way they chop things up--we get fifteen minutes of swimming, then we're back to gymnastics for thirty minutes, then we're back to swimming, then we move over to diving. NO. DO NOT WANT. It's stupid because of the time difference--you absolutely could show all of each event at the same time. I feel like they're trying to manipulate me into watching things I don't want to watch--into keeping the TV on even during events I don't care about so as to make me watch ads so they can get money. Gross.

I would watch things online where you can do it all in one sitting, except that I like making icons while I watch, and I can't do both. So I'm stuck with muting the TV during things I don't care about while keeping one eye on the screen so I can turn the volume back up when something I like comes back on. UGH.

Also: Ryan Seacrest, go home. I cannot take you seriously.

I bet y'all in other countries have better coverage than we do, don't you? Tell me about it and make me jealous.

To close on a happier note: as I was watching the countries come into the arena on Friday night, the only thing I coud think of was I HAVE NEVER SEEN SO MANY ATTRACTIVE PEOPLE IN ONE PLACE.
lirazel: An outdoor scene from the film Picnic at Hanging Rock ([misc] story of my life)
OMG Y’ALL YOU HAVE TO READ THIS ESSAY.

Okay, does anybody remember SurveyFail? Anybody? If you were following metafandom a couple of years ago, no doubt you do. Two researchers who had nothing to do with the fannish community decided to survey fandom about its kinks, pretty much. In doing so, they revealed ALL KINDS OF FAIL. Fandom went crazy—in the amazing, snarky, intelligent way that we tend to do when outsiders are trying to pain a particular picture of us that has nothing to do with reality. [eta: Here's the FanLore entry, in case you want to do some digging. ]

Anyway, we kind of kicked them out? Or so I thought. Apparently they JUST PUBLISHED A BOOK which is full of still more fail. And a brilliant [livejournal.com profile] anivad has written an excellent, excellent critique of their both their methods and the ways in which the kyriarchy silences those it sees as Other.

One of my favorite parts of the essay is where [livejournal.com profile] anivad talks about the way in which the internet can be used as an equalizer, as a way of the voiceless being able to speak. When the mainstream media, owned by huge conglomerates mostly headed by white guys, refuses to let the oppressed speak, the internet gives us a voice and at least the potential to be heard (admittedly, most of us aren’t heard beyond communities of like-minded people, but the potential is there. By the way, did I mention that you should all go read this essay about livejournal in Russia? Because it opened my eyes to so many things. GO READ NOW).

And all of this just reminds me—AGAIN—of how dismissing internet relationships is just another way to silence people. I was thinking specifically of those of us who have anxiety struggles or other mental health problems. One of the hardest parts of my depression/social anxiety disorder is that way it makes me feel alienated. I don’t want to go out and be around people—it’s too tiring, too awkward, too draining. But, like most people, I still want relationships. I still want to connect to people.

And the internet lets me do this. I connect with people like me, I have conversations with people who are passionate about the same things I am, I build relationships with people I would never had a chance to be with otherwise. My sister jokingly says that my family and the internet is my social life, and you know what? These last few years, while my emotional problems and life situation have made me spend so much time at home, it’s true. And it’s not a bad thing. I hatehatehatehatehate this cultural conception of people who have friends on the internet as stinky losers sitting in their mom’s basement, unable to make friends in real life. It’s so not true of most of us, and even if it is, so what? I know some people whose moms have quite comfortable basements.

The internet is amazing. It’s been a lifesaver for me, and for so many other people. Obviously, as a tool, it can be used for destructive purposes as well (from hate groups organizing to child predators to leaked sex tapes/naked photos). But it can be used for beautiful things. It can let my social anxiety-riddled self connect to other people. It can let people who feel very, very alone and alienated find people who are like them, who share interests or struggles or perspectives. Geography is no obstacle. The boundaries of distance are melting away before our eyes.

And when people dismiss internet-formed friendships or mock them or ignore them or stigmatize them, what they’re really doing is marginalizing us. The ones of us who aren’t neurotypical. The ones of us who are different or Othered. The ones of us who are voiceless.

And look—I’m a privileged person. I’m a white, straight, thin, Christian, middle class white girl from America. I have nearly every single kind of privilege imaginable. The only two areas in which I suffer oppression—my gender and my mental illness—do render me voiceless and marginalized in some areas, but there are far more areas in which I belong to the oppressing group. And if the internet and the communities we form are so important to me with all of my privilege and with my relatively easy life, I can’t imagine how life-saving, life-affirming, life-giving it might be to someone whose very identity comes under fire even more often and with even more violence than mine does.

Anyway, all this to say: the internet is a beautiful tool. My mama often compares my “friends in the computer” to relationships that a lot of literary figures used to maintain via mail and written letters. It really is similar…except that it’s even more convenient, because it can be instantaneous if you want it to (or not, if you don’t want it to—one of the things I love about the internet is that I can literally turn off the conversation and walk away if I need to!) and the conversation can involve as many or as few people as you want it to. That is truly amazing.

--

And as a little aside, I went back on whedonesque yesterday. *sigh* Yes, I did. I just wanted to see what people were saying about that super weird interview with Jane Espenson and Georges Jeanty (um, Jane, I love you. Madly. Passionately. BUT PEOPLE QUESTION BUFFY'S AUTHORITY ALL THE TIIIME). Instead I ended up reading a bunch of people poo-pooing the idea of trigger warnings with the argument of “Well, if someone gets assaulted in a Laundromat, then seeing a washing machine might trigger them, and I can’t know that, so obviously I can’t warn for everything, so I shouldn’t have to warn for ANYTHING!” Which is the biggest bunch of hogwash I’ve heard in a while and made me roll my eyes majorly. I wrote up a big long reply and felt much better. I didn’t post it because I didn’t want to get sucked back into that vortex, but it made me feel better to type it. And the whole thing reminded me of why I stay in the spaces I do on the internet. Oh, beautiful flist, I love you.
lirazel: An outdoor scene from the film Picnic at Hanging Rock ([misc] story of my life)
OMG Y’ALL YOU HAVE TO READ THIS ESSAY.

Okay, does anybody remember SurveyFail? Anybody? If you were following metafandom a couple of years ago, no doubt you do. Two researchers who had nothing to do with the fannish community decided to survey fandom about its kinks, pretty much. In doing so, they revealed ALL KINDS OF FAIL. Fandom went crazy—in the amazing, snarky, intelligent way that we tend to do when outsiders are trying to pain a particular picture of us that has nothing to do with reality. [eta: Here's the FanLore entry, in case you want to do some digging. ]

Anyway, we kind of kicked them out? Or so I thought. Apparently they JUST PUBLISHED A BOOK which is full of still more fail. And a brilliant [livejournal.com profile] anivad has written an excellent, excellent critique of their both their methods and the ways in which the kyriarchy silences those it sees as Other.

One of my favorite parts of the essay is where [livejournal.com profile] anivad talks about the way in which the internet can be used as an equalizer, as a way of the voiceless being able to speak. When the mainstream media, owned by huge conglomerates mostly headed by white guys, refuses to let the oppressed speak, the internet gives us a voice and at least the potential to be heard (admittedly, most of us aren’t heard beyond communities of like-minded people, but the potential is there. By the way, did I mention that you should all go read this essay about livejournal in Russia? Because it opened my eyes to so many things. GO READ NOW).

And all of this just reminds me—AGAIN—of how dismissing internet relationships is just another way to silence people. I was thinking specifically of those of us who have anxiety struggles or other mental health problems. One of the hardest parts of my depression/social anxiety disorder is that way it makes me feel alienated. I don’t want to go out and be around people—it’s too tiring, too awkward, too draining. But, like most people, I still want relationships. I still want to connect to people.

And the internet lets me do this. I connect with people like me, I have conversations with people who are passionate about the same things I am, I build relationships with people I would never had a chance to be with otherwise. My sister jokingly says that my family and the internet is my social life, and you know what? These last few years, while my emotional problems and life situation have made me spend so much time at home, it’s true. And it’s not a bad thing. I hatehatehatehatehate this cultural conception of people who have friends on the internet as stinky losers sitting in their mom’s basement, unable to make friends in real life. It’s so not true of most of us, and even if it is, so what? I know some people whose moms have quite comfortable basements.

The internet is amazing. It’s been a lifesaver for me, and for so many other people. Obviously, as a tool, it can be used for destructive purposes as well (from hate groups organizing to child predators to leaked sex tapes/naked photos). But it can be used for beautiful things. It can let my social anxiety-riddled self connect to other people. It can let people who feel very, very alone and alienated find people who are like them, who share interests or struggles or perspectives. Geography is no obstacle. The boundaries of distance are melting away before our eyes.

And when people dismiss internet-formed friendships or mock them or ignore them or stigmatize them, what they’re really doing is marginalizing us. The ones of us who aren’t neurotypical. The ones of us who are different or Othered. The ones of us who are voiceless.

And look—I’m a privileged person. I’m a white, straight, thin, Christian, middle class white girl from America. I have nearly every single kind of privilege imaginable. The only two areas in which I suffer oppression—my gender and my mental illness—do render me voiceless and marginalized in some areas, but there are far more areas in which I belong to the oppressing group. And if the internet and the communities we form are so important to me with all of my privilege and with my relatively easy life, I can’t imagine how life-saving, life-affirming, life-giving it might be to someone whose very identity comes under fire even more often and with even more violence than mine does.

Anyway, all this to say: the internet is a beautiful tool. My mama often compares my “friends in the computer” to relationships that a lot of literary figures used to maintain via mail and written letters. It really is similar…except that it’s even more convenient, because it can be instantaneous if you want it to (or not, if you don’t want it to—one of the things I love about the internet is that I can literally turn off the conversation and walk away if I need to!) and the conversation can involve as many or as few people as you want it to. That is truly amazing.

--

And as a little aside, I went back on whedonesque yesterday. *sigh* Yes, I did. I just wanted to see what people were saying about that super weird interview with Jane Espenson and Georges Jeanty (um, Jane, I love you. Madly. Passionately. BUT PEOPLE QUESTION BUFFY'S AUTHORITY ALL THE TIIIME). Instead I ended up reading a bunch of people poo-pooing the idea of trigger warnings with the argument of “Well, if someone gets assaulted in a Laundromat, then seeing a washing machine might trigger them, and I can’t know that, so obviously I can’t warn for everything, so I shouldn’t have to warn for ANYTHING!” Which is the biggest bunch of hogwash I’ve heard in a while and made me roll my eyes majorly. I wrote up a big long reply and felt much better. I didn’t post it because I didn’t want to get sucked back into that vortex, but it made me feel better to type it. And the whole thing reminded me of why I stay in the spaces I do on the internet. Oh, beautiful flist, I love you.
lirazel: An outdoor scene from the film Picnic at Hanging Rock ([bh] scandalized)
1. Most important: I got hopelessly, hopelessly behind on my flist over the past week or two. As such, I’m certain I missed some things I didn’t want to miss. I’m going to try to wade through this weekend, but if you posted something (or saw that someone else posted something) that you know I’d want to see and I didn’t comment on it? Could you please give me a link? I’d love you forever! Not that I already don’t, because I do. But I’d love you forever longer.

2. Probably RPF will be popping up in my journal at some point. I know this makes several of you DELIRIOUSLY HAPPY and several more of you completely squicked. BUT I CANNOT RESIST THE AWESOMENESS THAT IS ANDREW/JESSE/EMMA/CAREY, OKAY? So that will probably happen. Fair warning.

3. I read a delightful little fic earlier that I think probably quite a lot of you missed. If you like Gilmore Girls, and you like Rory/Jess (and who doesn’t?), you should read Alice, about the next Gilmore girl. Awesome characterization and fun prose. I enjoyed it immensely.

4. The brilliantly wonderful in every conceivable way [livejournal.com profile] laeria wrote me ELEVEN AND RIVER BABYSIT LITTLE PONDS FIC. OH YES. THAT HAPPENED. I am so obsessed with the idea of little Ponds, y’all don’t even know. If I had my dream!season of Doctor Who, it would involve skipping forward in time about ten years and Amy and Rory AND THEIR CHILDREN running around in the Tardis with the Doctor and River and generally being so awesome I can’t even think about it.

5. BEING HUMAN. IN A MATTER OF DAYS. I MIGHT DIE OF EXCITEMENT. ANNIE ANNIE ANNIE AND GEORGE AND MITCHELL AND NINA. OMG SHOW! If you’re not watching that show, you really, really should be. I can’t think of a single reason not to. Except lack of access, I suppose. But other than that—no excuses.

6. I am having the world’s hardest time casting the James Garner character in my Great Escape gender swap. I’ve figured out everybody else! Why is he so difficult? Any suggestions? HARD.

7. I want to rant about something, and it involves spoilers for last night’s Community, so the rest of this is going behind a cut where I can rant about Community, Supernatural, hipsters, irony, and meta-ness, among other things )

Anyways. Sorry for that ridiculous rant. I just needed to get it out of my system. I now return you to your regularly scheduled fangirling. Always in progress.
lirazel: An outdoor scene from the film Picnic at Hanging Rock ([bh] scandalized)
1. Most important: I got hopelessly, hopelessly behind on my flist over the past week or two. As such, I’m certain I missed some things I didn’t want to miss. I’m going to try to wade through this weekend, but if you posted something (or saw that someone else posted something) that you know I’d want to see and I didn’t comment on it? Could you please give me a link? I’d love you forever! Not that I already don’t, because I do. But I’d love you forever longer.

2. Probably RPF will be popping up in my journal at some point. I know this makes several of you DELIRIOUSLY HAPPY and several more of you completely squicked. BUT I CANNOT RESIST THE AWESOMENESS THAT IS ANDREW/JESSE/EMMA/CAREY, OKAY? So that will probably happen. Fair warning.

3. I read a delightful little fic earlier that I think probably quite a lot of you missed. If you like Gilmore Girls, and you like Rory/Jess (and who doesn’t?), you should read Alice, about the next Gilmore girl. Awesome characterization and fun prose. I enjoyed it immensely.

4. The brilliantly wonderful in every conceivable way [livejournal.com profile] laeria wrote me ELEVEN AND RIVER BABYSIT LITTLE PONDS FIC. OH YES. THAT HAPPENED. I am so obsessed with the idea of little Ponds, y’all don’t even know. If I had my dream!season of Doctor Who, it would involve skipping forward in time about ten years and Amy and Rory AND THEIR CHILDREN running around in the Tardis with the Doctor and River and generally being so awesome I can’t even think about it.

5. BEING HUMAN. IN A MATTER OF DAYS. I MIGHT DIE OF EXCITEMENT. ANNIE ANNIE ANNIE AND GEORGE AND MITCHELL AND NINA. OMG SHOW! If you’re not watching that show, you really, really should be. I can’t think of a single reason not to. Except lack of access, I suppose. But other than that—no excuses.

6. I am having the world’s hardest time casting the James Garner character in my Great Escape gender swap. I’ve figured out everybody else! Why is he so difficult? Any suggestions? HARD.

7. I want to rant about something, and it involves spoilers for last night’s Community, so the rest of this is going behind a cut where I can rant about Community, Supernatural, hipsters, irony, and meta-ness, among other things )

Anyways. Sorry for that ridiculous rant. I just needed to get it out of my system. I now return you to your regularly scheduled fangirling. Always in progress.

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
4 56 78910
11 1213 14 151617
1819 20 21222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 22nd, 2025 01:28 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios