BioGio

Pssst, dude, first rule of improv:  always say "yes, and..."

Gosh, with a move like that, you've made your character completely useless for the rest of this bit.  I hope you're happy with yourself.

I haven't read the book myself, but my sister (who was excited to read it initially) had the exact same criticism with the regard to the dialogue. Specifically she said: "Teenagers don't talk like this." It's not just this one, either, as his novel Paper Towns has the same issue. His characters in that are also obnoxious and unrealistic.

Teenagers, do, however, generally really wish that they talked like that (or at least I know precocious little self-aggrandizing I used to).

I once skimmed TFiOS and I tried to read Will Grayson Will Grayson (which qualifications I'm sure you'll find make me a bona fide John Green expert), and I've got to say that Green at least knows his audience very well.

As others have said, Green is rather crass and manipulative (I think "crass and manipulative" is a quote from the Guardian's review of the TFiOS film) in much of his oeuvre, in that he knows exactly what teens want to read and how to give them the "feels."  (Cf. also that stuff about teens wanting to talk like Hazel and whoever.)  Then again, I'm a real lit snob, so I find most accessible and popular books to be some synonym for "crass."

I also recall something about the Anne Frank House in TFiOS, and I recall that drawing some more moralistic outrage.  How do you lean on that issue?

In other news, on Sunday or Monday I will be writing a review for Apocalypse Now. I'm looking forward to seeing that movie!

 

24601

Oh, man, you will not be let down--Apocalypse Now is one of the best American movies I've ever seen. One recommendation before watching Apocalypse Now: Be sure to have read Heart of Darkness, and brush up on some of T. S. Eliot's poetry (especially "Hollow Men"). Of course, the whole movie is just a parallel of Heart of Darkness set in the Vietnam War, and several Eliot poems are quoted in reference to Mr. Kurtz.

I had to learn "new math." But who deserves the credit, and who deserves the blame? Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky is his name!

 

That being said, if someone disagrees with you, what's the purpose of calling them a bigot or a homophobe?

 

Because they are wrong and because that is what they are?

 

I think you may have misunderstood the entry. It clearly reads "what's the purpose of..."--not "why..."; Jink is asking what one gains by doing so. Your response appears to state that you gain some enjoyment by telling the truth. Is that the case?

Except Mentioning sites with forums = bad. That still gets blocked sometimes.

Actually, there are only a few sites with forums that are still filtered. The only major reason why you wouldn't be able to mention a forum would be if the forum is inherently unsuitable for minors (e.g., based on explicit topics). Just the other week, Black Six explained that we can even talk about 4chan, just not link to it. (Theoretically, one could even link to 4chan, if one were to find a thread without swearing or explicit images/language. Good luck with that.)

Allow me to put it like this, then. When someone's views conflict with established and proven facts, and they show a tendency to abuse their power to validate said erroneous views, I don't feel the slightest bit guilty about calling them objectively wrong.

Since this whole entry is so cagey and unspecific, I'll take your word and trust that you are totally correct in saying "objectively" wrong.

(BTW, feel free to PM me to clear up anything that you feel ought to be cleared up.)

Me, I try to keep my rants to eight paragraphs or so, but either my mind blanks or I write a college essay. D:

I know that feel. One always wants to be understood well, but unfortunately the Internet isn't particularly conducive to such complete descriptions; it's far more welcoming of snappy one-liners. (It's as if we have been collectively conditioned to expect nothing but ten-second AFV-style "fail" videos and cat pictures. One could also blame it on the glow of a back-lit screen, which glow becomes grating after a while.)

Although, I feel strangely compelled here to comment: I do not know what this post was made in response to (and you are more than likely in the right here), but if you go into a discussion believing that the other person is "objectively wrong," then I don't think any style of writing is likely to get you to agree with them. In other words, the problem is not always the length of an argument; very often, it stems from mutual obduracy. (Of course, in this case, one can easily see that a tiresome, lengthy, protracted response greatly exacerbates the problem: Who, unwilling otherwise to consider another viewpoint, would not be further irritated upon having to consider--or at least observe--it at great length? Thus, any post would irritate, but a fourteen-paragraph one would be sure to aggravate.)

What does tl:dr even mean?

Too long; didn't read. It's just a blunt way of asking for a brief summary.

Also also, you can indeed talk about evolution on BZPower, because it's science, not religion or politics.

 

And this statement comes à propos of...?

(I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I'm a bit perplexed as to your motives for bringing it up.)

I would embed this but I don't know how

Looks like you actually don't know that you know how.

 

Well, if you want deep questions, here's one.

 

If you were a bulldozer driver in 18th century Nazi Germany and you were ordered at gunpoint to fill a mass grave full of still-breathing Jews, would you?

...did they have bulldozers in the 18th century

?

 

No. They also didn't have Nazis.

First off, I'd like to commend you: Your avatar conveys just the right type of uncertainty-approaching-disapproval that makes it perfect to accompany that resigned-yet-reluctant-admission-of-discontentment which is your entry's title.

Anyway, I'm sorry to hear that you can't post the image, since I am somewhat incredulous about what you knowing about wearing a fur fox skin, and I would have liked to see something to mitigate my doubts.

(I have no advice or comments about the Galaxy, though--I still own a dumphone.)

Princess Grr: Woah, it's like we agree or something. Crazy, man.

Gato: Funny, the whole "No. You're wrong." etc. thing was precisely what I thought was appropriate. See, in my experience, calling someone homophobic, sexist, evil, or whatever just assigns an undesirable label, and then the discussion changes from "Don't be hurtful" to an extended interrogation of the question of whether the shoe fits. It just encourages hurtful people to do mental gymnastics in an attempt to avoid that label. I think that we can even see that going on in here.

Oh, and I totally understand that "radicalization" (I think that it's the appropriate term, more or less, for what happened) happened. But it's also interesting to note that this trend of radicalism didn't just end at demanding equality more quickly. The civil rights movement rapidly branched out to previously unrelated issues that went beyond racial equality. A lot of civil rights circles changed not just the means with which they worked toward equality but also the ends that they hoped to achieve. (For instance, there were several socialist groups that gained more influence at this time.) Sadly, there was also a growing backlash against the civil rights movement at exactly this time. The 60s and 70s were a fascinating period in our nation's history, and way too complex to get summed up effectively on a LEGO forum.

Also,

>dissin' on Vergil

>2013

Anyway, I feel like this discussion has kind of reached an impasse (or maybe even a legitimate solution ), so I'll kindly excuse myself from this blog.

Let me start off by saying that there is very little more powerful than the overwhelming ability of logic. I love it. It's my go to tool when it comes to arguments. I took Greek as my foreign language just so I could translate Plato in his original language. I love it, and there's very little I hold more dear to my heart.

 

Nice--I'm more of a Latin guy, myself, but there's really no beating Plato.

 

While it is easily demonstrably proven as wrong, arguing "The Patriarchy is bad. It hurts everyone in society. As such we would overthrow it." often does nothing.

 

I'm not sure if I understand? What exactly is the antecent of "it" here? The patriarchy?

 

Perhaps I was wordy. Perhaps I was overly verbose. However nobody listened to my arguments. Nobody took me seriously. People ignored me, belittled me, and spat the homophobia I was trying to combat right back into my face. I would be lying if I said I wasn't upset. I would be lying if I wasn't hurt.

 

I remember those posts, and what I mostly remember now is that you made a lot of sense and played the bigger man. There was a time when I though that the correct response to intolerance was intolerance and name-calling: I compared homophobia to racism and religious prejudice, and now I sincerely regret that.

 

Now, my views have changed. I don't think that any sort of name-calling is appropriate--whether it's "cartoonishly evil villains" or something even worse. Hateful insults are not the response to hateful insults; that just perpetuates more malice. Honestly, I don't understand how insulting people for not having your views will help anyone come to see your side. It will just make the bigoted angrier and turn off the moderate.

 

I have come to believe that so much of this issue comes down to education. It's kind of strange, actually, how you've moved more toward one side while I've moved toward the center. (It's as though there were some sort of strange cosmic equilibrium that has to maintained, eh?)

 

I also don't speak of passive resistance by meek petitions against those who marginalize us. I speak of standing up. I'll let people push me around on a lot of things, but this is one thing I won't be pushed around on. We must take action. We must subvert the patriarchy.

 

What exactly do you mean by "passive resistance"? My vision of passive resistance is the SCLC, a group of people who were outraged over racism but stood up to it with compassion rooted deeply in their moral convictions. They didn't call names to any great extent, but they were certainly effective.

 

Of course, at the end of the day this all just comes down to personal ideology and belief.

Also, BioGio, I applaud you.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm a feminist, or something of the sort, and I strongly disagree with a lot of what you've said. All that I think is that we need to all have a bit more Democratic Spirit--even myself.

Responded in Georgia, black, etc. within the quote.

I don't see your point - it's not reducing the issue at all. It's saying, in response to people those who are pointedly denying the existence of this system, that its existence is obvious. Which is is. That's not simplifying any issue or denying the existence of other nuances (or indeed, other interelated issues) - it's merely stating the face that this oppression is visible if one opens his or here eyes. I find nothing bold nor reductionist in that.

Well, I suppose that that's because I feel that "its existence is obvious" is a bit extreme. I think that a patriarchy exists in some form (i.e., a cultural pattern of sexism that informs many related issues), but I feel that blaming everything on it takes it a step too far. For instance, when you said that "it would be folly not to recognize the influence of the patriarchy's umbrella over" the "nuances" related to oppression. That seems, to me, to deny the complexity of the issue by blaming these problems almost solely on men. (I may have misread that comment, actually. Just ignore this if I did.)

There's nothing "working strangely" about it - as I've been very clear about in this thread, the patriarchal systems in our society are harmful to both women and men, and to deny it is literally to be part of the problem, and I'm definitely not going to apologize for being upfront about that. You seem caught up in the fact that "the patriarchy" is an ephemeral, subconscious thing, and it is, and what I think you're ignoring is how much influence and impact that has on our society and behaviour. I've not once denied the (very obvious) existence of addition issues and nuances - but it is CRITICAL that the overarcing social fabric, and how it contributes to these issues (and how our action/inaction can reinforce it), is understood. How could we possibly change individual issues before understanding the social background of them?

 

Yeah, "working strangely" is definitely the wrong way to put it. I just meant to refer to the notion that patriarchy does not wholly hold back women and can in some cases hurt men. That seems like "working strangely" in the sense that it does not conform to the most basic definition of patriarchy (i.e., rule by fathers or more generally men).

 

My only issue with the "ephemeral, subconscious" nature of the patriarchy is the fact that this ephemeral nature has made it more difficult to define within this very discussion/comment section of a blog post. If someone is skeptical of this notion of a patriarchy, then I feel that they would see mostly circular reasoning in these posts. See, the main definition of "patriarchy" here given is something along the lines of "system of power and control" and cause of sexism against both women and men (again cf. your response to Draezeth). Thus, when an issue related to sexism or gender inequality should come up, the response is to attribute that to the patriarchy. I'm just afraid that that mindset leads to a sort of scapegoating mentality, one that--even if it does not deny actively the existence of "nuances"--at least leads to focusing more on the overall trends and less on the vital nuances.

Okay let me stop you there. This isn't "democratic debate." This isn't "Let's calmly talk about issues." This is oppressed people lashing out against their oppressors. The entire entry, with is "ominous tone" (I'd use the term "furious," personally) was harldy out of the blue - it was more of a direct response to pointed dismissal. You bet I'm telling people that they not dare harm my sisters, my people, my friends. This has gone on far, far too long. To deny the hurt I see every day, the hurt I suffer - that IS deplorable. That IS reprehensible. To tell a woman she needs to suffer that is downright insulting.

 

I cribbed the term "democratic spirit" from David Foster Wallace's essay "Authority and American Usage," which essay defines the term as "one that comes rigor and humility, i.e., passionate conviction plus a sedulous respect for the convictions of others. As any American knows, this is a difficult spirit to cultivate and maintain, particularly when it comes to issues you feel strongly about. Equally tough is a DS's criterion of 100 percent intellectual integrity--you have to be willing to look honestly at yourself and your motives for believing what you believe, and to do it more or less continually."

 

Also, I'd like to point out that I never once in my original post used the word "calm" or any derivation thereof. I requested integrity and a DS, and those notions were belittled as hopelessly idealistic.

 

By the way, I wasn't aware of all of the direct basis for this post; it's been a while since I've been on BZP.

 

See, there's the root of your problem, I think. If you're on a totally intellectual level, then you're removed from a significant portion of reality. To focus purely on an "intellectual level" ignores the emotions, pain, and hardship that are integral components of the issue - and the struggle - in the first place. I can't stand a philosophy that ignores emotion and pain - those things are a DEFINITIVE part of humanity and pointedly flavour experience, interaction, and truth...issues like this, in particular.

I think you're approaching my post here through a suppostition that it was intended as a measured essay, so let me note upfront now that it's not. Do I think there is a place for those? Absolutely; I havent spent years studying the academic side of gender issues for no reason. Indeed, I've even written feminist literary criticsm that I've contemplated submitting for peer review.

But this is not that. This is me, casually and angrily responding to a pointed denial of the pain my sisters - and even I - suffer daily. There's a time to educate and I'm a huge huge huge proponent of that because I feel it's absolutley essential to continued progress.

 

Oh, it my understanding that the purpose was in fact to educate. I never thought that it was a masterful thesis, but I did think it was to educate the underinformed. I see now that the audience was totally different. Forgive the presumption.

 

I didn't call people who are ignorant "cartoonishly evil" - read my post. I called people who don't care "cartoonishly evil." And You'd better believe I'll fight against people like that!

My issue was with the possibility that the ignorant would seem to be those who don't care, since on some level they are. That sort of name-calling turns people off.

I'll be straight with you (ha haha): it was not intended to be humourous. I was downright aghast that he was suggesting that sexual assault and emascualtion were equivalent issues, and my sardonicism was, I suppose, intended to drive home the serious disparity between the two, which you've noted here as well.

This is not for a moment to suggest that emasculation of this caliber is all right, or worthy of joking about - it is indeed a serious and terrible thing. I've participated in campaigns to raise awareness about it (and sexual assault of men in general), in fact. But to place emasculating teasing in the same company as sexual assault; I can't abide that assertion.

 

OK, I get you. I think we've both agreed to drop this topic, so let's let that one lie.

I skipped directly responding to some of your paragraphs because I feel I adequately responded in other areas but if I missed something you want to know, inform me.

 

I did the same!

Comments such as "If you can't see the cultural misogyny hurting EVERYONE here, you're blind," which comments appear to attempt to reduce social issues for both men and women to the single matter of the patriarchy are where I get the idea that there is a great deal of reductionist thinking going on here. The issue with such comments is that they go back to such a vast and almost invisible (i.e., subconscious) matter that it becomes extremely difficult to effectively and rigorously explain the matter at hand.

In fact, it can easily become circular reasoning: In even more radical (and less intellectually honest) circles, it has many times before. I don't think that you personally have clearly engaged in any circular reasoning in this entry, but you've at least gotten close, and your rhetoric has encouraged it. The main deal is that you have effectively shut down any criticism of your viewpoint by effectively saying "that's just the patriarchy backfiring or working strangely" or, worse, summarily dismissing an individual as "part of the problem." That's the "excuse," because what often happens (again, not necessarily here) is that people get shut down before a valid argument is given by either side.

Confer your otherwise commendable response to Draezeth.*

I get the impression that you have swept under the rug the "vast myriad of different nuances" because I was the first to bring up the additional "nuances" related to the wage disparity. Above all, I get the sense that you are attempting to nip in the bud opposition to your beliefs. This very entry begins with a lot of ominous "Don't you dare" mandates, which mandates effectively dismiss in advance all possible objections to your beliefs and underlying assumptions. This runs contrary to the democratic spirit of a legitimate conversation, because it attempts to utterly halt said conversation before it begins..

I say this on a totally intellectual level, from that meta-cognitive position of reasoning and rhetoric, which perspective of course informs my diction, such as using the term "point" rather than your preferred word "struggle." And I totally understand that one should get mad about these issues,** but name-calling is never a valid means of argumentation; it's hardly a step above the ad hominem argument.

And I talked about the effect of your rhetoric because I fear that your post forgot its basic purpose as a call to action. When you say that the ignorant (which is, as I have said before, a value-neutral term because the natural state of man is ignorance) are "cartoonishly evil," you have attacked your audience.

It's like every freshman composition class teaches: Don't forget what your writing is for. In forgetting what it's for, we tend to misplace our rhetoric. When you just insult your audience, it's almost universally counter-productive.

As to your picking up an underlying implication that people should not get angry or upset: There is a time and a place for anger in a discussion. In fact, it can often drive a debate that civility cannot so drive. This anger is perfectly justified: I agree--it's rational! But too often it isn't productive.*** The goal of this entry was clearly to inform a larger audience about issues that are very important to you--and to a HUGE portion of the population. You need to accomplish that goal effectively, and often, that means using appropriate rhetoric.****

So I'm not asking you to talk about these matters "calmly." "Calm" is not the end goal. Educating others is the end goal. I'm asking for you to talk about them in an intellectually rigorous manner. We don't need a Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus on an Internet forum, but we do need valid reasoning that is expressed clearly. All that we need is the democratic spirit of conversation and aggressively thorough argumentation.

On, now, to the answers to my questions. Thank you for the concise and informative answers. These really are teaching something, and I appreciate it.

-- Absolutely. Why would it be any different?

Simply because comedians are well-known precisely for their making jokes. Take Louis C.K.: He's particularly well-known for his hyper-offensive brand of comedy, making jokes left and right about 9/11, the Holocaust, and pretty much anything else that will get a strong response from the crowd. There's very little reason not to know this, and I've seen him many times say that people who can't take an offensive joke simply should not attend his shows. He'd say, then: "What's so difficult about that?"

-- I'm a big believer in satire....

Oh, I'm also very partial to Colbert, so I don't think that I have any further questions in this line.

--I believe there's a little bit of wiggle room...

It's not hard to understand, but clearly it's worth saying and explaining. (If it weren't worth saying, after all, then Daniel Tosh wouldn't have a job.)

-- Depends on if...

So, was your paraphrasing Draezeth's post by saying "sometimes men are made fun of, boo-hoo" funny? It certainly comes across as a joke. (To me at least, it does, specifically for the use of the word "boo-hoo," which I have almost never seen used in a truly serious discussion.) And it is a joke about sexual assault. See, I'd say that the institutional bias against men who have been assaulted is an issue--certainly not as large an issue as the matter of sexual assault against women, but an issue that affects about one in twenty men nonetheless--and joking about that seems pretty awful. At the very least, that comment seemed terribly belittling. Why exactly did you say that? Is that offensive, or is it justified? Isn't that something of a double standard?

-- See Toa of Pumpkin's post!

I'm just glad that that's all that you advocate. I've seen other radicals demand nothing but verbal abuse or even cutting someone out of your life for an insulting joke and for differing (i.e., conservative) viewpoints. That sort of overreaction really does scare me, because for a while it informed my behavior (I believe I said things along the lines of "don't tolerate the intolerant" on this very site), and it hurt my personal relationships with others.

*I am in no way attempting to apologize for or suggest that I agree with Draezeth's opinions, which were in many regards wholly counter-factual and disconcerting. However, I take issue with some of the argumentation that was used in response to his post.

**I, for one, am particularly "mad" about issues that pertain more directly to the economy and related matters.

***Partly because, too often, it doesn't appear to be rational anger. At least, to the underinformed, it so seems.

****If the effect of an argumentation style (e.g., getting mad in the discussion) largely results in people just dismissing the argument over its tone (i.e., the "go back to the kitchen" phenomenon you referenced supra), then it may be time to reconsider how you can get your points across. If you really want to reach an audience and teach them, then you need to effectively reach that audience. That doesn't mean catering to every ridiculous demand that an ignorant audience may make, but it does mean using appropriate rhetoric for the situation. There is a time and a place for anger. Isn't it possible that this entry was not the place?

Or maybe this is the place: That's a very real possibility. Then, you must ask yourself, "Is this the appropriate means of expressing said anger? Does it support my thesis, or will it detract from it?" Take, for instance, the speeches of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: Many of his most famous speeches bear the marks of barely-concealed anger--rage against the horrific system that he worked against. However, what makes his speeches so commendable, so inspiring, is that they used that anger effectively. MLK was a master of rhetoric, and we can't possibly all be such geniuses. But it's certainly worth trying--because the happy reality is that MLK used tools that everyone uses: the tools of basic rhetoric. My only goal in this post the other post supra was to encourage a democratic spirit and the scrupulous use of appropriate rhetoric. That's what it all boils down to.

Funny, I've always heard "egalitarian" rather than "equalist."

And apparently, so has Google Chrome, because it doesn't even recognize "equalist" as a word. This just in: Chrome does not recognize the existence of equality.

I agree with your fundamental points here (particularly re: assault), but I felt like responding to explain some lapses in the argument's validity and in rhetoric.

I'd like to first make a quick point w/r/t the wage gap, as it tends to be overstated. There are a multitude of factors which to contribute to the wage gap, and when one takes those factors into account, the Department of Labor found that a woman makes roughly 93% to 95% of what a man makes over their respective lifetimes. See the Department of Labor's report from early 2009 (the most recent gov't report I could find.): http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

I mostly bring this up because I feel that the notion that all sexist attitudes and all can be traced back to the patriarchy is rather reductionist, and it strikes me as somewhat intellectually dishonest. After all, when every issue can be described as caused by a single root cause, every analysis of sex/race/trans/religious/class/cetera issues is almost exactly identical. They all just blame the patriarchy and move on. It's too easy. This strikes me as uncomfortably similar to scapegoating.

What's more, this mode of thought has a noticeable way of de-emphasizing personal responsibility--on both sides. If a woman makes less than a man, it's far too easy to just blame the patriarchy and move on, but we can't just leave it at that if we want to be intellectually rigorous. Similarly, if a man reinforces oppressive gender norms, he's basically got an easy out: "It was just the patriarchy causing me to think or act that way." We need to allow for a greater deal of personal responsibility, rather than blaming everything on some monolithic, subconscious institution.

---INTERPOLATION---

You wrote, "And most of all, don't you DARE deny that this oppression exists just because YOU don't suffer it."

That's precisely why people need articulate opponents of sexism/the patriarchy/cetera, as you seem to be. But moreover, people need to be confronted with particulars, statistics, numbers, and facts, rather than polemic blanket statements. If you make people feel as though they are being belittled, that often results in an emotional response from them, rather than an intellectual and rational one. (Take for instance, the argument that privileged persons are not wholly responsible for their success. That's a huge insult to someone who has actually worked hard to succeed at something, and now we've effectively brought a whole mess of other issues and emotional baggage into the fold.)

Insult isn't a motivator; in anything, it makes people shy away from changing themselves. It causes some degree of cognitive dissonance, or else something very similar to it, so people start rationalizing things, performing mental gymnastics.

All of this is why I object to statements such as the following: "If you don't care about oppression unless you're part of the group being actively oppressed, you're a cartoonishly evil villain."

Think about your audience, which is most likely people who have not given real thought to these issues before. Imagine how they must have reacted to a comment like this one. I'd imagine it went something like this: "'A villain?' Where does this guy get off calling me that? I [insert charity work here] every week! Some of my best friends are [insert marginalized group here]!" You see, by insinuating that ignorance is a moral failing, you have just alienated your audience, because the fact is, ignorance is man's natural state. One must learn about (or directly experience) these issues in order to become aware of them. So why not help them learn? It's far more constructive than name calling.

---

I also have a few semi-elenctic questions regarding your demand that people "[c]all out misogynists when they make [assault] jokes":

Does this also go for comedians? Why or why not?

"Bad things aren't funny, but jokes about them can be." What do you say to that notion?

Are all potentially offensive jokes totally impermissible? If not, which are and which aren't?

Is there any wiggle room or leeway in which to make a potentially offensive joke?

What if the joke is directed against the privileged group/"oppressors"?

What exactly is "calling out" supposed to look like?

And finally, I would like to remind everyone that these are just my opinions, informed by my worldview, and by my experiences most of all. You are more than free to disagree with them, but please just tell me why you do. I'd like to learn, and I hope you'd like to teach. Isn't that the best way to further your cause?

EDIT: Sorry for the super-long post.

Both are too long. I'd shoot for 200 words maximum, and both of these are around 300.

I don't like either of the first paragraphs. A's seems too cliche, and B's is very overwrought.

Also, the last paragraphs of both synopses are way too self-congratulatory. "tands in a category all its own?" That's a huge promise, and overselling is the last thing you want to do.

I also have some really specific issues with working, etc., but that's a bit too nitpicky.

I'd say that the best would be the middle two paragraphs of A (minus the sentence beginning in "Now it's a"). But why is Clayton's father never mentioned in the first synopsis?

If your general rate when you read is your issue, then work at improving your pace. If need be, speed-read (i.e., run your eyes down the middle of the page for as long as that doesn't hurt comprehension). Community and recreation centers often hold entire classes on speed-reading (which encompasses a lot of other techniques and is really a learned skill set).

And, yes, it is detrimental to your understanding of the book--not necessarily from a plot or character perspective, but with respect for your appreciation of the prose and such. I mean, to take the extreme, consider listening to The Sound and the Fury rather than reading it. How would the massive, rambling sentences sound? Certainly not as good as on paper, as words alone. In the ears, for some reason, words take on a completely different life. There's also the point that Eyru raises about skipping back and forth. Imagine trying to check the reliability of a narrator when you have to rewind and listen to an entire chapter all over!

I'm still waiting on feedback from those folks who offered to give that story of mine a look, so if you're reading this... sometime soon-ish? I know it needs work, I just want some other eyes to help me figure out where.

UGH, yeah, I've still got to do that.

Sorry for the wait, but I'll get to it this weekend. THAT'S A GOAL.

The two are now off by 13.

QUICK POST!

No mention of John Milton and his massive but apparently very well-written saga?

 

~B~

Of Ryuujin's First Reference, and the Post

On that Forbidden Blog, whose mortal sight

Brought Confusion into Ballom, and all our woe...

Woah guys we should start a club

 

I always use my right pinkie finger to hold down shift and let up for punctuation and junk

Huh. I use my left pinkie finger. Kind of ironic, since that's the finger that could most easily press caps lock.