If maintaining your libido’s really that high a priority, please go take off the smut filters on google or duckduckgo and blast off to actual porn. There’s nothing wrong with sexy women; the problem comes when you act as if you’re entitled to all women being depicted as sexy or when you act as if it’s okay for a woman in a serious work to be depicted as nothing but a sex symbol.
Really, though, the whole post is awesome. Bravo times a bieberbillion.
RECOMMENDS! What have you been percolating lately?
53 comments:
So I feel like I'm a week or so late to this, but it's so very excellent I feel the need to share it everywhere. Bill Corbett, of MST3K and Rifftrax used a transphobic slur on Twitter. People pointed out to him that it was a transphobic slur, and - rather than getting angry or citing freedom of speech or accusing his critics of being humorless killjoy feminazis - he went and educated himself, he apologized, he repented, and he made reparation. This is how you do it, people.
Also, if anyone has 40 minutes to spare, the wonderful China Mieville delivers a really terrific talk on camp, kitsch, and being a leftist pop-culture consumer.
Heh... I'm probably guilty of overly sexualized characters myself, and I'm not the world's most talented artist, but at least I'm not that bad...
And I try to make them characters first, rather than 'how much sexay can I extract from this page...' at all times.
It just seeps in, whether people are aware of it or not. It's so easy to get the idea that that's what comic book characters look like. Well, not the worst of Escher Girls, of course, but the influence is there. I see it in the art of an artist friend and I'm sure I've at least drawn shrink-wrapped clothing on women a time or two.
But recognizing the problem's a good start.
I'm suddenly reminded of how annoyed I was by Champions Online's default male and female bodies and stances. When you go to create your superhero, the male default is a massively muscled guy in "heroic" pose, but the female default is a shapely slender woman in "vixen" pose.
I recommend a trailcam because sometimes there are critters you never expected to see in your yard. And I found and interesting blog investigating strangeness. Because strangeness is always an interesting read even if it mostly turns out to be a hoax.
That makes me so happy to hear that. I love the MST3K/Rifftrax guys, so that just makes me want to support them more. Awesome!
What gets me every time I see idiotic responses like that is that do they seriously not realize that women and girls read comics as well? Do they honestly think it's only for male audiences - specifically young male - only? What reality do they think they live in?
Frankly, I'm just tired of this idiotic, sexist idea that comic books and video games are the realm of nerdy men. :/ They're not. They're really, really not. Other people do buy and enjoy the storylines - and wish they didn't sexualize females and use such awfully disgusting tropes about them: http://www.feministfrequency.com/tag/tropes-vs-women/ I honestly think it is possible for these comic and video game creators to use their imagination and not use these tropes and to not sexualize women - but often they don't even try. Sidenote: I really like feminist frequency for her great deconstructions on various things.
And poor Anita has been suffering such a dreadful troll backlash for her Kickstarter campaign. It's horrifying to read those comments directed at her, just for PROPOSING to talk about tropes in games. She hasn't even said anything controversial yet!
Hey. I'm the girl who wrote that post and thank you for your praise. I found you from the Slacktiverse and I tried sharing one of your pieces in a disability safe space elsewhere on teh wobs. I hope that got a few productive comments going on here~
That post of mine has been, unequivocally, the most viewed one on my blag, first getting a link from Escher Girls (run by my amazing friend Ami) a month or two ago, and now from your site. Thank ye, for both the high praise and the pings.
(I have to say that I find it a tad bit funny that this post, which I wrote on a whim to trash a troll on Ami's tumblr, gets a whole magnitude more page views than some of the hard posts on activist culture and feminist white privilege, but right now I'm just whining and rambling due to not enough sleep/food.)
<3 //_^)
Hi.
Um... I see on your site that you make fiction, I have not read your fiction -I do not know it's topic, quality, or whatnot- but if you haven't seen it yet I wanted to direct you to this post here at Ana Mardoll's Ramblings.
If you write short stories and are interested in taking part in an anthology project or six* there happen to be some of them going in the works overseen by our benevolent overlord and friend Ana. Or, if you should write a full length book** and want an ISBN for free and the control that comes with self publishing with the exposure that comes from having a publisher with multiple titles to its name, you could do that too.
I hope to contribute to the anthologies, and based on what little I know about you from reading one page on your blog, it seems like someone with your perspective would make some nice contributions as well. Kind of risky thing to say since I haven't actually read any of your fiction, but I think I'd like to be in the same book as you.
-
* These are not for money but getting your published work out there, increasing name recognition and resume, that sort of thing.
** In this case you do get the money. The money from sales goes from the seller directly to you with the publisher taking nothing.
Exactly! It's insane and alarming how much hatred and misogyny exists out there. I'm glad she has a strong support network to help her deal with it all, and I'm also glad she's gone public with the abuse. It needs to be heard how terrible this is and how wrong it is. Though the out-pouring of support of her is pretty humbling at times. It's nice to know that despite all the extreme hate and misogyny out there, there's a lot of people willing and wanting this conversation.
On a more positive side, I also simply can't wait to hear her talks on tropes in games!
@Necklace ofShadow: I found you through Ana, and I love your blog. All the posts actually. Keep it up. : )
Welcome! And I had to LOL at the randomness of what gets popular. I'm kind of "that Twilight blog" and yet my top five posts have nothing to do with Twilight and one of them is a one-off rant on Scott Adams. So, yes, it is truly random!
{{hugs}} Did it get bad? It was already turning kind of nasty when I bowed out. I *really* do not understand the mentality that makes people who self-professedly Don't Read The Comments come out to complain when there's a new comment policy proposed. It's like... Dude? Of all the things in your life doesn't this affect you the least?? *boggle*
It's just energy sucking for me. Defending trigger warnings, having to go over the Froborr post that brought the nasty trolls again*, being told that the entire split was based on the question of sensitivity when I was there and it wasn't, the whole only things that the moderators like are allowed when we, the community, didn't even give them the power to ban until TODAY, and so forth.
It just sort of sucks all the energy out of me but I can't stop participating and then all of a sudden my whole day is gone.
I was going to write the beginning got the princess story I talked about, write the beginning to the mermaid story I talked about, and then write up my post for this thread for what I did this week all before local noon, almost nine hours ago. Didn't get the fiction written, and disqus tells me I only got the post in this thread done 2 hours ago.
My day, where have you gone?
Plus I'm very worried about one of my plants. As in, "Oh god, you're dying," level of worry because On the Willows There has already played.
Not my best day.
-
* The third comment was more than 2000 words strongly disagreeing with the post by someone who is still a regular commenter, what better signpost of, "This post is not universally agreed with here," could there be?
Things got vicious over on Slacktiverse? At page three, things still seemed civil but for one commenter or two providing exemplar gratis on why there need to be a new comment policy. If it got worse from there, then I suppose its a good thing I haven't been back to that thread?
Also, pantheons bless them, fifteen year-olds have a much easier time now finding actual material to burn off excess libido with. Although that may give them a different conception of the world with regard to women and men, depending on how wide their tastes are, and how much they believe that's how the way the world should work.
More on topic: I heard, Somewhere On The Internet, (and now filtered through my memory, which is at best spotty) something about the sigils and marques of costumed heroes being the major differentiating part by design. At least, for the male characters, anyway - (interpretation begins here) the female heroes have the same basic design (stripperiffic), but more variance in costuming, so they don't need to rely on their sigils as much, if they have them at all. Perhaps their intentional sameness is in their bodily proportions and code of revealing costume in normal working life? (If so, I'd classify it as Author Fetish Bait. Which suggests that we need more diversity of creators in our graphic novels.)
I'd like to think this sameness can be somehow turned into a backdoor "every woman can be a superhero, since they trend to be drawn and costumed the same in their civilian lives", but I can't quite get there from here.
And poor Anita has been suffering such a dreadful troll backlash for her Kickstarter campaign. It's horrifying to read those comments directed at her, just for PROPOSING to talk about tropes in games. She hasn't even said anything controversial yet!
I don't particularly like her shows, but what I heard of the trolls was just horrid. May end up watching that series when it comes out, although I'll probably hate it.
It's not that I neccessarily disagree with what she's saying, and a lot of the stuff she's talking about is overused (and badly), it's just... she seems to have an effect of 'That thing you like? It's bad, and you're bad for liking it.' The impression I get is of a very... absolute... attitude. Then again, it's no trouble to me.
Plus, she seems to have a serious problem with the idea of police being the good guys in police procedurals, which is just... what?
I'm not a big fan of Slacktiverse, but I don't go over there and troll them. The comment policy itself seems pretty inoffensive. (Pun not intended)
I believe chris the cynic is referring to the "Marchons, marchons!" thread at Patheos Slacktivist. (Which stands at about 9 pages now, and which started turning into a referendum on typepad Slacktivist on about page 2 or 3.)
Which thread? You mean "go-to person" as in HA-HA THAT'S NOT A REAL THING SO WHY DOES IT NEED A TRIGGER WARNING stuff? I never cease to marvel at that sort of trigger policing. I've never seen anyone banned for missing an obscure trigger warning like that, so the whole "we'll be banned for forgetting to TW for knitting!" thing is just a scare tactic.
Ah, I found it, thanks to QXZ. (Thank you!) I'm tickled and saddened. Sickled?
(And you were absolutely correct as to why the TW was included, that is was a heads-up to everyone who'd participated in the Ethics of Magic thread. Which got kind of nasty at points.
But I'm amused beyond that because I can imagine a LOT of triggering things attached to mind reading. Someone has *already* noted in the comments that Edward has seen/heard/experienced things that should not be seen/heard/experienced by others.)
Ah. Having looked at the correct thread, the nose turned up and wrinkled. Saddened, indeed, at the accusations thrown there. Much prefer the recommended item here.
Hi,
Some of you may be interested in this:
http://wearemany.org/a/2012/06/guilty-pleasures-art-and-politics#.UAMzUsCX2Rg.twitter
Its an interesting talk by China Mieville about politics and art, and about feelings of guilt that we might feel about liking art that is politically problematic. As with all his stuff its well thought out, well said, but lots of people dont get on with how he expresses himself. I enjoy how he talks (its like how he writes - lots of long words and convoluted sentances mixed with stunning insight, and things that you later say, yes, but what about...), but I acknowledge sometimes it can seem smug (heaven forbid).
I should also say that I have met him and he helped me with my novel at its embryo stages, so I am biased.
Also, although I am not a socialist in the comrade sense, I lean towards that position, so I dont mind the comrades or the occaisional references to lenin.
See Ana? I did post after our email exchange!
@chris: I hope today will be better for you. You deserve it as a reward for wading into that mess. Thanks for your eloquent defense of a community's right to set its own standards, not to mention that there's nothing inherently ridiculous or unusual in any of them.
I don't comment on either site as often as I used to-- and here I am leaving this comment here instead of at either of them-- but I still like to think of myself as a member of both groups. And I hate it when this kind of thing erupts.
Which thread? You mean "go-to person" as in HA-HA THAT'S NOT A REAL THING SO WHY DOES IT NEED A TRIGGER WARNING stuff?
Yeah, and it only occurred to me after I turned off my computer for the night that maybe I shouldn't be telling you that because, giving what you've been going through, I very much doubt you need to know that people are off somewhere else saying how bad you are.
It's good to see that you're taking it well.
Ah, thank you. :)
You know, I become deeply saddened with myself when people express that what I've written has harmed them in some way, but since these particular people weren't claiming harm and very clearly hadn't even read the piece, it didn't bother me so much as I found it tolerably droll. (It helps that you and Hapax had already made wonderful arguments so all I had to do was hit "like". I'm terribly sorry that you had to spend spoons on that, though. All the hugs.)
I must say, though, arguments over triggers that CAN'T POSSIBLY HAPPEN!1! always bemuse me a little. If it turned out tomorrow that Edward Cullen *did* exist, would the trigger warning suddenly become valid? For that matter, I'm a little weirded out by the go-to argument that TWs mean that someone "thinks their readership is so delicate!" I think there's a better-than-zero chance that someone on the internet has that trigger, sure. Do I think the majority of my readership does? Surely not. But does harm have to be done to X number of people before it's worthwhile? You know what, I'm just going to go write a post on all this. BRB.
Ana, have I mentioned that I love it here? Because I love it here.
I use your warnings, not only for their stated purpose, but also as a light summary of what's going to occur in a given entry. Ethics of mind control? Not triggery to me, but freakin' fascinating, and means I'm going to set aside some time to really pore over that post.
Also gives me a good idea that it might have turned into a repeat of Ethics of Magic when I wasn't looking, so I should approach the comments with care. ^^; Because, know what -is- capable of messing up an entire day and completely ruining a stable mood? Getting yelled at by random people in comments.
Hence why I'll be staying away from the comments of the last LB post, even though the post itself was awesome.
More on the OP topic, I really enjoyed that article. I've known some 15-year-old boys who did not comport themselves as poorly as many adult comic fans, or insist that comics, video games, genres of music, or other chunks of media were their sole province.
Also, I've never got the impression of absolutism from her. She's dissecting what messages the shows and commercials present and how this can be problematic. I probably end up agreeing with her more because I see the consequences of all these problematic messages these shows and commercials keep shoving down our throats. Sometimes it's just freaking tiring. Her discussion of it is refreshing for me.
I just love your blog so much, Ana. : )
I use your warnings, not only for their stated purpose, but also as a light summary of what's going to occur in a given entry. Ethics of mind control? Not triggery to me, but freakin' fascinating, and means I'm going to set aside some time to really pore over that post.
This is part of why I tag my blog posts as I do, with notes about both the good and the bad of the content. Because unless you're Stephen King*, it's not unusual to want people to have some idea of what they're getting into with an article or an essay or a story, and doing it that way I think does a lot to disarm the people who are all whiny about being asked to use warnings.
(I saw while skimming that Chris mentioned my practice in the Patheos thread. So thanks for that, because I have very little desire to wade into that myself. I think I saw one person who seemed to be receptive to the values of the practice; others were more in the 'it's just an excuse for bullying' mode. Bleh.)
*So, King. One of his more recent (not that recent) novels, 'Under The Dome', has no synopsis on the cover or dustjacket. No idea what it's about, either in terms of mundane events or overarching abstract themes. People are just expected to buy it because it's got King's name on it. Is it unreasonable for me to think this is spectacularly arrogant? Hmm. I suppose it probably wasn't his idea. It also probably wasn't done over his impassioned objections. Well - somewhere in there, someone's got ideas about marketing and celebrity for which I judge them harshly.
I lurk the heck out of both your and Chris' blogs, and appreciate the tagging there, as well. :)
And yeah, that King thing strikes me as unnecessarily arrogant. Not gonna buy a novel because it has his name on it - there is all of one author I'll do that for, and he isn't it.
Well - somewhere in there, someone's got ideas about marketing and celebrity for which I judge them harshly.
I love this sentence. LOL.
I don't know, redsixwing. I mean, I ended up with "Under the Dome" because Wife bought it for me for my birthday, reasoning that I liked other King books, so I might like this one.
I guess I kind of see an issue with simply assuming that your name is enough to sell the book, though "Under the Dome" was a pretty accurate and descriptive title(The story follows a town that is placed.... under a dome).
I'm not sure, though. I don't necessarily see it as arrogant, but more of "Well, the story is about this town under a dome, so I'll call it 'Under the Dome'. That should be enought to tell everyone what it's about."
I dunno about that. The literal title doesn't actually say much. If I guess that it's set in the distant future when the ozone has deteriorated and humanity is limited to a handful settlements covered with large protective domes, and King is revisiting the existential horror of dwelling in a world that has been vastly depopulated and wondering if yours are the last generations of humanity, as he touched upon in The Stand but presented with a far more claustrophobic environment... I'm probably going to be disappointed. (I have read enough to know it's not about that. That would be a far more interesting premise to me, but that's not really my point - my point is that I truly have no idea what it's about unless I start reading.)
Ah, man, that's what I would have guessed, too, and I would totally read that. I'm all disappointed now. :(
Why else would a town be in a dome, if it's not a futuristic dystopia? With vampires OUTSIDE THE DOME.
I think I need to go lie down until the excitement wears off
You know what, I actually agree with you. That sounds tons better than the actual story.
I do see your point, though, about not really knowing what the story is about. I guess maybe the issue is that I'm reacting to the word "arrogant" - and that boils down to a personal issue.
"Poorly planned", maybe?
Under the dome says to me that it's about a city in a great geodesic dome, the first of it's kind (history or discovery or science channel or some such had a thing where the followed the hypothetical construction of the Huston dome.) The divide between those under the dome and not is unlike any divide previously seen, the demographics of those under the dome mirror those of those not under the dome as much as any city would. People or all incomes and races and job descriptions would live on both sides of the dome.
Many would live outside the dome but work within it.
Perceptions of the dome would be completely different, of course. From outside of the dome you couldn't miss it, but from inside, unless you were near one of the walls, you wouldn't even see it, like looking through a clean screen window from a distance, you don't see the screen,
Weather within the dome would be completely controlled, weather outside would be as it always has been. Some of the people commuting in might find themselves transported from vicious thunder storm to perfect day in the time it takes to get from one side of the barrier to the other (presumably a tunnel or gateway.) If, during the day, they should say something like, "Damn, that was some storm," an under the domer might respond, "What storm?" not even having been aware of it.
And then, within the context of this strangely divided society, something happens. Could be anything. Massive natural disaster, zombie hordes, the mist (which I have neither scene nor read and do not intend to) and everything changes.
At the beginning those under the dome seem completely protected, possibly obvious, there's massive resentment from outside, but then things begin to change, infected people make it through a check point and the dome, now overcrowded with refugees, is subject to a zombie outbreak, or the disaster is so bad as to threaten the integrity of the dome itself and what looked like a safe haven may turn out to be a death trap. Or keeping out the strange and evil mist is forcing them to recycle air, which normally wouldn't be so much of a problem (there's a lot of it, they have trees and such) but it's so thick it's cutting off photosynthesis which means that air really is being used up as fast as they breed, the hope is that things will solve themselves before the time comes, because there's strange scratching noises near all of the air intakes, scratches with force no living thing should be able to produce, and no machine should be present to make. As the usable air dwindles, and the tension mounts, with everyone trapped under the dome with nowhere to go all the old problems come out, bitter divisions are rehashed, and it becomes clear that whatever is waiting outside the dome, when it finally makes it in what it will find is not a united front, but a population at each others throats.
-
Or, you know, anything that one might reasonably expect from a work titled under the dome. It could be about religious disputes in the shadow of the dome of the rock, or I might like a fantasy with dragons set in a place where the dome of the sky is a tangible thing.
Certainly dome has strong religious connotations, so one might expect something in a cathedral. (I know everyone's first thought is St. Peter's but I recommend the Doumo in Florance, you could not ask for a more perfect setting for demons to come to earth requesting amnesty or at least parole and resulting in protracted international legal battles mixed with a lot of unwanted paternity tests when officials determine that it is important to know who the half humans are. Actually, regardless of the story, you could not ask for a more perfect setting.)
Your brain amazes me. I tried to keep count of how many ideas in there I love and yet would never have thought of on my own, but I lost track when I got to the paternity tests.
@Ana Yeah, I think I like "poorly planned" or maybe "not well-thought-out" better. I think it's the difference between accusing someone I don't know of having a serious character flaw and pointing out the results of what they've done.
@Chris Damn, now I wish I hadn't read the book, so I could still be part of the wavefront in which that could have been the story.
It seems like I'm the minority, but I would (and have) read books purely because I recognize the author without reading the synopsis. In my experience, a lot of hardcover books don't have summaries, and instead just have quotes from book reviews about how good the book is (which I find entirely useless, since no one has ever included quotes from book reviews saying "This book was mediocre."). And my main love in books is delightful characters, so I'm generally better off reading an author who can write fascinating, witty people than I am reading one with a subject that I'm nominally interested in.
I am the same in practice - I don't need to read what Terry Pratchett's new book is about in order to know that I will buy it - but the back or inside of the dustjacket will still include some hint of what's going on. Maybe said synopsis is nothing about themes or setting, maybe it's a few seconds of a character in thought or action. It's the totally blank dustjacket - you will buy this because Stephen King or you won't buy it at all - that vexes me.
In my experience, a lot of hardcover books don't have summaries, and instead just have quotes from book reviews about how good the book is
Really? I thought it was standard practice for hardcover books to have the quotes on the back and the plot info on the front inside flap of the dust jacket?
-
Anyway I don't think that that anyone is objecting to those who read books purely based upon only the authors. The objection seems to be based on ignoring every other potential buyer on the planet, many of whom are probably great fans of the author's previous work. Not to mention anyone who loves most books by the author, but can't stand others, and is faced with a gamble when they could have hand a sure thing.
All of which adds up to a clear message, intended or not, of "We're banking on the idea that there are at least as many people who will buy this book in the absence of information who won't like it and wouldn't have bought it if they'd been given information, as there are who won't buy this book in the absence of information, even though they would have bought and liked it if we'd given them info. The fact that both of these groups will end up less happy than they would have been if we'd followed standard practice is their problem. We don't care about them. At all."
-
That's kind of wordy, let me introduce symbols.
Some people will buy a book in the absence of information, call them A.
Some people won't buy a book in the absence of information, call them B.
Some people would by this book if it had the usual information, call them 1
Some people wouldn't buy this book if they had the usual information, call them 2.
Everyone in group A1 would have bought the book either way, the decision affects them not in the least.
Everyone in group B2 would have bought the book either way, the decision affects them not in the least.
What the decision does do is is make it so people in group A2 bought a book they probably won't like that they otherwise would have chosen not to buy, and make it so that people in group B1 didn't buy a book they probably would have liked and otherwise would have chosen to buy.
The decision banks on the idea that A2 is equal to or larger than B1 because otherwise sales would take a hit.
The decision ignores that A2 and and B1 are both getting screwed over. One is being tricked into buying something they probably won't like, the other is being tricked into not buying something they probably would like.
A lot more words were used in defining and describing the symbols, but I think that the actual point did end up being less wordy by introducing symbols.
Well, there are the people who won't buy something on the basis of author alone, but will test-read a library copy. Some B1's will get the information that they should buy it that way, some B2's will waste a bit of time but no money.
(Usually, if I won't buy something on the basis of author alone, I won't buy it on the basis of back-cover description either. I don't know how common that is.)
Mm. I think I must've communicated that rather poorly; sorry about that.
I am not saying it's a bad idea (or that I wouldn't do it; I have) to buy a book based on author name alone. Every time C. S. Friedman writes a new book, I rush out and buy it, because I love the way she handles characters, I enjoy how deeply she thinks through her premises, and her treatments of both dark fantasy and sci-fi settings really appeal to me. King I don't give that presumption, largely because I fell in love with a large subset of his books and then got severely disappointed by another large subset. I'm in set B, either 1 or 2, not sure - because I don't know what the book is about. Schrodinger's book buyer.
None of which is to say that anyone in group A (which I'm in, for Friedman but not for King) is bad or wrong, or that King has some kind of gaping character flaw - merely that I think this single decision is kind of silly, and that attempting to sell large numbers of books on name alone is an attempt at selling a personal brand rather than a single work of fiction.
I know everyone's first thought is St. Peter's but I recommend the Doumo in Florance, you could not ask for a more perfect setting for demons to come to earth requesting amnesty or at least parole and resulting in protracted international legal battles mixed with a lot of unwanted paternity tests when officials determine that it is important to know who the half humans are. Actually, regardless of the story, you could not ask for a more perfect setting.
Can haz? Please? *big eyes* Because I would so read that.
Hm. "The" dome. Maybe there's only one dome left? Or, at least, one *public* dome? One single dome behind which humanity has gathered to keep the Dome Eaters from striking?
A world where humans must wear cubical hats to protect the . . . let us not call it 'dome' . . . of their skull.
A world where the Doom Song must never be mispronounced.
A world where, stripped of their yurts, people can no longer constrain their yurnings.
Chris: Most hardcovers have summaries, but I've found enough that haven't to register it as a Thing. I don't care about summaries very much, maybe because my entire current reading list is "borrowed from people I like's libraries" but I see from this thread (and your neat subdivision of people!) that lots of people really like them. So I guess it is kind of silly to not have one, if they annoy no one and please some.
Redsixwing: Actually, maybe King is an author particularly poorly suited for a summery-less cover. Since he writes in at least two different genres, and I know a few people who like his horror novels but dislike his fantasy. In contrast, with someone like Terry Pratchet, you pretty much know what you're getting when you see his name on the cover.
Can haz? Please? *big eyes* Because I would so read that.
I should keep a list of statements like this, both for my own mental health and so I have a good idea of what to try to get back to when I have the energy.
Yes, you should. Because you are awesome and deserve to feel awesome. And because ideas, and generating more ideas, and content, and yay.
There should be some kind of app to track ideas like that. Maybe there is?
A notebook? ;)
Jokes aside, but yes, Chris! I always recognize when it's your flash fic even without looking at the poster's name (don't usually pay attention to them. Maybe I should? But it feels like that what people have to say is more important than who said it so I often just skip to the message.) and they rock.
There's an app that's the equivalent of post-it type notes for Android, and it comes with widgets that let you access the note from the home screen. (well, okay, several apps, but they do exist)
Just in case you wanted to keep a note-taking device handy in something that you usually have with you.
Also, if I had enough talent to do so, I think I could turn a very good career simply out of the castoffs of chris the cynic's mind.
Also note the likes you get, and remember that most people don't comment or like, so for every one message, there's probably several more folks out there who'd take kindly to your stuff. At least, that's the impression I get from polls Ana puts up where hundreds of votes are cast or something; a lot of folks just Lurk Moar.
^Liked 4 truth*
Seriously though, Chris, you are an amazing writer and you have these ridiculously brilliant ideas that I wouldn't even think of considering.
*I don't think there's a spelling of that word that properly conveys how I want you to read it. The "u" sound is that of "tough" rather than "booth". It's probably because there's no word (that I can think of) that has the same vowel-sound as "tough" but ends in a soft "-th".
Troth does the job nicely, I believe, although there's the pesky r getting in the way. Maybe Toph, which has additional connotations of awesome? (although those might be too aw for what you want...)
Post a Comment