Writer's Block: Thumbs down!

[Error: unknown template qotd]

I'm not a big fan of cheap thrills or mindless escapism, which covers a lot of territory. I don't like horror or pure action flicks that focus more on special effects and stunts than the plot that justifies them-- though I'm all for cool explosions in the context of a well-crafted story :-P

Pure romance doesn't often go over well with me, either. If the romance is part of a larger story of human psychology or society and presented sensitively and realistically, I can really enjoy it-- like Jane Austen novels or movies like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (for a story with a fantastical twist, it's one of the best depictions of love I've seen, lol). However, formulaic novels shelved under Romance or romantic comedies with their identical white covers with bold single-colored titles irritate me. Whoops, I fucked up in front of you but I like you and though I'm going to keep making stupid fuck-ups in front of you for the rest of the movie, after getting allegedly irrevocably pissed you will eventually find it endearing and we'll live happily ever after. Or, You're a selfish asshole and my friends, parents, entire walk of society, and even I hate you, but after I finally let you into my pants 300 pages in we're both going to be so impressed with the sex that 300 pages later I'll turn you into an honest man and marry you. Am I right or am I right? You know, there's a practical reason to avoid romance: I'm participating in a longitudinal study measuring how the effects of exposure to idealized romance in the media affects the perception of real love, and the findings so far suggest that people who read or watch a lot romance are actually ultimately unhappier with their own love lives.

Probably the only arguably-escapist genre I enjoy is comedy. Comedy often walks a thin line between mindless entertainment and social commentary, however, and that probably explains why periodically a *harmless* comedy will offend me.

I must be some sort of weird snobby hyper-moral Victorianesque reader/movie-viewer, because I prefer my media to have some sort of message or commentary, even if it's just a comment on the narrative process itself. I want to get something out of it, I want to think. Barring that, beautiful artistry can cover some sins. But unlike most of the American population I usually read books and watch movies to take expand my mind and take something away with me when I'm done, not just tune out of my own life for a few hours and come back to everything like normal. The best movies are the ones that keep creeping up in the back of my mind for the next few days; the best books are the ones that I find myself wanting to dog-ear every page and quote the hell out of because every word seems to resonate truth.

Do I make exceptions? If I don't like something, I don't like it, but I'll occasionally be a sport and watch a genre I dislike if my friends all want to see it (though I reserve the right to tease them afterward :-P). I'm also guilty of reading really bad romance novels for the fun of it simply because they're hilarious. Sometimes I try to be open-minded-- for instance, I read Twilight even though I was pretty sure I wouldn't like it, because it wouldn't be fair to condemn it without knowing what it was all about-- but at the end of the day I'm usually pretty vindicated in my tastes.

Do I feel left out? Not really. Since I read most books without requiring others to have any idea of my thoughts on the subject, it doesn't matter what my friends' tastes are. The notable exceptions would be series like Harry Potter and Twilight; I learned quickly with HP that I couldn't just assume others had read or liked it (or knew as much about it), so I learned to keep most of my spazzing amongst similar-minded friends and joined voluntary HP-devoted online communities so I didn't drive other people absolutely crazy. (Though I still did, a little :-P I mean, who was I supposed to go to the movie premieres with in college?). As for Twilight, I made a valiant attempt to appreciate the series and decided to opt out of that community, and maybe it's just because I'm slightly older than the most obsessive vein of readers, but this doesn't have any averse consequences on my social life.

Movies tend to be trickier, since they are often a social activity. While not all of my friends share my movie tastes, a lot do; I can depend on Henry to pick out great films, Jessica and Keith are quite reliable, and while Robert has broader tastes than I do he knows what I like and can predict what I'd enjoy watching. I most run into trouble with Lisa, who does prefer escapist entertainment with a happy ending, but we have a sense of humor about our differing tastes. Also, since I am willing to occasionally suck it up and watch movies or read books I expect I won't like, it's not like we can never watch a movie together. We just tease each other about it afterward, lol.

Amy (after watching The Lake House): What the fuck? They changed time simply because they love each other? Two people cannot change the laws of time and space just because they love each other. Or, if they can, they should at least present the possibility of the loophole earlier in the film!

Lisa (after watching The Fountain): Wait . . . you mean I sat through two hours of that just to find out, "You're going to die, get used to it?"

Writer's Block: Thumbs down!

[Error: unknown template qotd]

I'm not a big fan of cheap thrills or mindless escapism, which covers a lot of territory. I don't like horror or pure action flicks that focus more on special effects and stunts than the plot that justifies them-- though I'm all for cool explosions in the context of a well-crafted story :-P

Pure romance doesn't often go over well with me, either. If the romance is part of a larger story of human psychology or society and presented sensitively and realistically, I can really enjoy it-- like Jane Austen novels or movies like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (for a story with a fantastical twist, it's one of the best depictions of love I've seen, lol). However, formulaic novels shelved under Romance or romantic comedies with their identical white covers with bold single-colored titles irritate me. Whoops, I fucked up in front of you but I like you and though I'm going to keep making stupid fuck-ups in front of you for the rest of the movie, after getting allegedly irrevocably pissed you will eventually find it endearing and we'll live happily ever after. Or, You're a selfish asshole and my friends, parents, entire walk of society, and even I hate you, but after I finally let you into my pants 300 pages in we're both going to be so impressed with the sex that 300 pages later I'll turn you into an honest man and marry you. Am I right or am I right? You know, there's a practical reason to avoid romance: I'm participating in a longitudinal study measuring how the effects of exposure to idealized romance in the media affects the perception of real love, and the findings so far suggest that people who read or watch a lot romance are actually ultimately unhappier with their own love lives.

Probably the only arguably-escapist genre I enjoy is comedy. Comedy often walks a thin line between mindless entertainment and social commentary, however, and that probably explains why periodically a *harmless* comedy will offend me.

I must be some sort of weird snobby hyper-moral Victorianesque reader/movie-viewer, because I prefer my media to have some sort of message or commentary, even if it's just a comment on the narrative process itself. I want to get something out of it, I want to think. Barring that, beautiful artistry can cover some sins. But unlike most of the American population I usually read books and watch movies to take expand my mind and take something away with me when I'm done, not just tune out of my own life for a few hours and come back to everything like normal. The best movies are the ones that keep creeping up in the back of my mind for the next few days; the best books are the ones that I find myself wanting to dog-ear every page and quote the hell out of because every word seems to resonate truth.

Do I make exceptions? If I don't like something, I don't like it, but I'll occasionally be a sport and watch a genre I dislike if my friends all want to see it (though I reserve the right to tease them afterward :-P). I'm also guilty of reading really bad romance novels for the fun of it simply because they're hilarious. Sometimes I try to be open-minded-- for instance, I read Twilight even though I was pretty sure I wouldn't like it, because it wouldn't be fair to condemn it without knowing what it was all about-- but at the end of the day I'm usually pretty vindicated in my tastes.

Do I feel left out? Not really. Since I read most books without requiring others to have any idea of my thoughts on the subject, it doesn't matter what my friends' tastes are. The notable exceptions would be series like Harry Potter and Twilight; I learned quickly with HP that I couldn't just assume others had read or liked it (or knew as much about it), so I learned to keep most of my spazzing amongst similar-minded friends and joined voluntary HP-devoted online communities so I didn't drive other people absolutely crazy. (Though I still did, a little :-P I mean, who was I supposed to go to the movie premieres with in college?). As for Twilight, I made a valiant attempt to appreciate the series and decided to opt out of that community, and maybe it's just because I'm slightly older than the most obsessive vein of readers, but this doesn't have any averse consequences on my social life.

Movies tend to be trickier, since they are often a social activity. While not all of my friends share my movie tastes, a lot do; I can depend on Henry to pick out great films, Jessica and Keith are quite reliable, and while Robert has broader tastes than I do he knows what I like and can predict what I'd enjoy watching. I most run into trouble with Lisa, who does prefer escapist entertainment with a happy ending, but we have a sense of humor about our differing tastes. Also, since I am willing to occasionally suck it up and watch movies or read books I expect I won't like, it's not like we can never watch a movie together. We just tease each other about it afterward, lol.

Amy (after watching The Lake House): What the fuck? They changed time simply because they love each other? Two people cannot change the laws of time and space just because they love each other. Or, if they can, they should at least present the possibility of the loophole earlier in the film!

Lisa (after watching The Fountain): Wait . . . you mean I sat through two hours of that just to find out, "You're going to die, get used to it?"

Writer's Block: Abandon hope, all ye who enter here

[Error: unknown template qotd]

I think it's reasonable to require posted warnings for adult content on the Internet the same as for movies, etc-- but, as with movies, I think it's reasonable to expect that many non-adults are still going to enter in spite of the warnings. The warnings would be just as useful to adults who aren't interested in certain material (such as when I learned to set the Google image search filters to "medium" when searching for "Remus Lupin") and for writers and artists themselves to prevent unwanted remarks about the indecency of their work. (Not that they won't get them anyway, but having a posted warning allows them to point out "You came in in spite of warnings, so any offense you take is YOUR FAULT"). Most conscientious and courteous retainers of web material post these types of warnings anyway.

As someone who regularly posts creative content to the Internet in the form of a blog and has also posted fanfiction and art, being asked to post warnings on certain material doesn't bother me. I regular self-select to do so anyway out of courtesy. I don't think it limits my creative self-expression in any substantial way; if anything, it gives me a more sympathetic and interested audience, which I would prefer anyway. (Though, lol, sometimes posting "adult content" gets you readers/viewers who simply are intrigued by the idea of it being "adult" :-P).

Of course, if we're going to legally require web pages to post warnings, we need a consistent rating scale-- something like the G/PG/PG-13/R/NC-17 system we have for movies, where if you have so many swear words, sex scenes, violent scenes, or adult themes you know what category you fall in. (Actually, wasn't there a quiz that attempted to do something like this?). I repeat that it has to be consistent and widely publicized. The sanctions for failure to post proper warnings need not be huge, because it's so easy to accidentally leap into the next tier (one PG-13 piece on an otherwise PG DeviantArt page, one R-rated post in an otherwise PG-13-rated blog, etc) and it's difficult to truly harm anyone, merely momentarily disgust or confuse them-- which, come on, you can be a big girl/big boy and deal with. I'd support some sort of flagging system that grants the retainer of the content a grace period to either censor or post a warning before the offensive content is removed-- or, in the case of hosted sites like LJ, Blogger, Deviantart, etc, simply placed under a warning veil automatically by the site retainers. Automatically jumping to remove people's work without warning (or just some bitchy "Guess what? We took down your stuff" email after the fact) pisses me off and can be quite destructive, since not all uploaded content is saved in alternate locations. (I actually rely on the Internet to keep a lot of my work, since I've rotated computers so many times).

I do not think the government (or host websites themselves) should do anything more than demand posted warnings, however. I would rather a piece of artwork or writing be placed under a veil with a warning than have the government or host website place a black bar across offensive visuals, remove offensive words, or-- heaven forbid-- remove the entire piece without warning in order to make it suitable (by their definition) for public consumption. If I choose to post a censored, public-friendly version myself, that's my business, but I find that sort of censorship to be way more offensive and stifling.

Though I do have to add . . . Good luck getting all countries of the world with web access to use and enforce the same rating system!

Writer's Block: Abandon hope, all ye who enter here

[Error: unknown template qotd]

I think it's reasonable to require posted warnings for adult content on the Internet the same as for movies, etc-- but, as with movies, I think it's reasonable to expect that many non-adults are still going to enter in spite of the warnings. The warnings would be just as useful to adults who aren't interested in certain material (such as when I learned to set the Google image search filters to "medium" when searching for "Remus Lupin") and for writers and artists themselves to prevent unwanted remarks about the indecency of their work. (Not that they won't get them anyway, but having a posted warning allows them to point out "You came in in spite of warnings, so any offense you take is YOUR FAULT"). Most conscientious and courteous retainers of web material post these types of warnings anyway.

As someone who regularly posts creative content to the Internet in the form of a blog and has also posted fanfiction and art, being asked to post warnings on certain material doesn't bother me. I regular self-select to do so anyway out of courtesy. I don't think it limits my creative self-expression in any substantial way; if anything, it gives me a more sympathetic and interested audience, which I would prefer anyway. (Though, lol, sometimes posting "adult content" gets you readers/viewers who simply are intrigued by the idea of it being "adult" :-P).

Of course, if we're going to legally require web pages to post warnings, we need a consistent rating scale-- something like the G/PG/PG-13/R/NC-17 system we have for movies, where if you have so many swear words, sex scenes, violent scenes, or adult themes you know what category you fall in. (Actually, wasn't there a quiz that attempted to do something like this?). I repeat that it has to be consistent and widely publicized. The sanctions for failure to post proper warnings need not be huge, because it's so easy to accidentally leap into the next tier (one PG-13 piece on an otherwise PG DeviantArt page, one R-rated post in an otherwise PG-13-rated blog, etc) and it's difficult to truly harm anyone, merely momentarily disgust or confuse them-- which, come on, you can be a big girl/big boy and deal with. I'd support some sort of flagging system that grants the retainer of the content a grace period to either censor or post a warning before the offensive content is removed-- or, in the case of hosted sites like LJ, Blogger, Deviantart, etc, simply placed under a warning veil automatically by the site retainers. Automatically jumping to remove people's work without warning (or just some bitchy "Guess what? We took down your stuff" email after the fact) pisses me off and can be quite destructive, since not all uploaded content is saved in alternate locations. (I actually rely on the Internet to keep a lot of my work, since I've rotated computers so many times).

I do not think the government (or host websites themselves) should do anything more than demand posted warnings, however. I would rather a piece of artwork or writing be placed under a veil with a warning than have the government or host website place a black bar across offensive visuals, remove offensive words, or-- heaven forbid-- remove the entire piece without warning in order to make it suitable (by their definition) for public consumption. If I choose to post a censored, public-friendly version myself, that's my business, but I find that sort of censorship to be way more offensive and stifling.

Though I do have to add . . . Good luck getting all countries of the world with web access to use and enforce the same rating system!