Will|22|Haggis Hellion|Slafennog
I blog about books and such here, and I was Sarah on Bookfighters.Note that this is a secondary account, so I can't follow you from here, but if you are followed by celticsafetypin, that's me.
 |
From A Series of Unfortunate Events DVD commentary track.
if you haven’t watched this film with the commentary then you are missing out, it’s hilarious. “Lemony Snicket” was completely unhappy with the film and wanted no real part of it and so in the commentary he just fucks about. Seriously, at one point he gets out an accordion and drowns out the director with his playing
omfg
My hero
(via lightspeedsound)
(I thought I’d post this here as well as the Paper Towns Q&A blog. It contains no spoilers. Thanks to Tamar for making it possible for me to post this publicly.)
Where did the strings metaphor inPaper Towns come from?
Someone said it to me once, after a friend had attempted suicide, that “maybe all the strings inside him broke,” and I liked that image a lot because 1. puppets, and 2. We are all aware that there is this emotional/psychological life inside of us, right? But it’s very difficult to talk about, because it doesn’t have a physical location.
When your back hurts, it’s relatively easy to address this problem using language: You say, “My back hurts,” and I can understand what you mean, because I also have a back, and it has hurt before, and I remember that pain, which makes it easier for me to empathize with you.
It is much harder for me to empathize with you if what hurts is abstract. When people are imagining sadness or despair, they often try to render it in terms we find familiar. You often hear, “My heart hurts,” for instance, or “My heart is broken.” This problem, of course, is not actually in the heart.
(I do think a lot of people feel emotional pain physically near the solar plexus, but it’s not the physical manifestation of emotional pain that makes it so difficult: It’s the emotional/psychological/spiritual/whatever pain itself, which you can’t describe easily in concrete terms.)
To talk about emotional pain (and lots of other emotional experiences), we are forced to use abstractions. (“My heart is broken,” is a symbolic statement.) And many people feel, in this world driven by data and statistics and concreteness, that abstractions are inherently kind of less valid than concrete observations. But emotional experience is as real and as valid as physical experience. And the fact that we have to use metaphor and symbolism to describe that pain effectively does not make it less real—just as abstract paintings are not inherently inferior to representational paintings.
You often hear in high school English classes, for instance, that thinking about symbols is dumb or useless or “ruining the book.” But underneath it all, this is why we have language in the first place. We don’t really need language to share the news of your back pain: You can point at your back and grimace to tell me that your back hurts, and I can nod sympathetically.
But to explain to you the nature and nuance of my grief or pain or joy, I need abstractions. I need symbols. And the better our symbols are, the more clearly we’ll be able to communicate with each other, and the more fully we’ll be able to imagine each other’s experience. Good symbolism makes empathy easier.
So why the strings? The strings inside a person breaking struck me as a better and more accurate abstract description of despair than anthropomorphized symbols (broken heart, etc.).
And this is very important to remember when reading or writing or painting or talking or whatever: You are never, ever choosing whether to use symbols. You are choosing which symbols to use.
(via murgatroid)
(Source: puttingmannersonafeminist, via bwarchive2-deactivated20121120)
The brilliant Letters of Note blog has reproduced a nice letter CS Lewis (author of the Chronicles of Narnia, among my favourite books when I was little) sent to a young fan. In it, he gives her advice about writing. He critiques hers specifically, and then goes on to answer some questions she had about grammar:
About amn’t I, aren’t I and am I not, of course there are no right or wrong answers about language in the sense in which there are right and wrong answers in Arithmetic. “Good English” is whatever educated people talk; so that what is good in one place or time would not be so in another. Amn’t I was good 50 years ago in the North of Ireland where I was brought up, but bad in Southern England. Aren’t I would have been hideously bad in Ireland but very good in England. And of course I just don’t know which (if either) is good in modern Florida. Don’t take any notice of teachers and textbooks in such matters. Nor of logic. It is good to say “more than one passenger was hurt,” although more than one equals at least two and therefore logically the verb ought to be plural were not singular was!Sensible advice from a very clever man.
(Source: chronicallyannoyed)
I interrupt this blog for a moment of outrage.
Okay, maybe “outrage” is too strong a word, but when I saw the title of this New York Times opinion piece—“Adults Should Read Adult Books”—my first reaction was something like this. It’s no secret that I love young adult fiction and I fully intend to read it until the day I die. After reading the full article, though, it’s clear that this guy Joel Stein is just an idiot, more deserving of my pity than my anger. Still, I feel like I need to chew this thing up and spit it back out before moving past it, so here goes:
The only thing more embarrassing than catching a guy on the plane looking at pornography on his computer is seeing a guy on the plane reading “The Hunger Games.” Or a Twilight book. Or Harry Potter.
Oh it’s on, Joel Stein. I’m sure you didn’t realize this, but people who proudly declare that they have never read Harry Potter and never will, like it’s somehow beneath them to even crack the cover, are among my very least favorite people in the world. My boyfriend was one of those when we first started dating, and upon learning this I proceeded to read the entire series aloud to him until he changed his mind. For the record, it only took about four chapters for that to happen, but by that point I was a train that would not be stopped until I reached the last sentence of book seven. It was very much a turning point in our relationship.
The only time I’m O.K. with an adult holding a children’s book is if he’s moving his mouth as he reads.
I’d like to believe this is a poorly executed reference to parents reading books to their kids, but I have a sneaking suspicion Stein is actually making fun of people who learn to read as adults. Gross.
I’m sure all those books are well written.Even when he’s trying to throw the counterargument a bone, he’s still wrong. The Twilight books are probably the four most terribly written novels ever to be published.
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha
no
shut the fuck up
everyone read whatever the hell you want
YA lit is badass
holy shit wow
w o w this makes me incredibly angry.
TELL ME, MISTER STEIN, WHAT EXACTLY CONSTITUTES AN ADULT BOOK?
IS IT DAN BROWN’S LATEST FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND HOW LANGUAGE AND HISTORY WORKS?
IS IT ONE OF THE CONSTANT STREAM OF PURPLETASTIC ROMANCE NOVELS HITTING THE SHELVES?
IS IT A PULPY SCI-FI NOVEL?
WOW, I DIDN’T KNOW THAT MEDIA AIMED AT ANYONE YOUNGER THAN THIRTY WAS INHERENTLY INFERIOR.
THAT BECAUSE CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS ARE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND AND LEARN FROM A BOOK, IT MUST BE EMBARRASSING FOR AN ADULT TO READ.
IT’S NOT LIKE CHILDRENS’ BOOKS LIKE THE PHANTOM TOLLBOOTH DISPLAY INCREDIBLY CLEVER WORDPLAY THAT CAN BE APPRECIATED BY ALL AGES.
OR THAT SERIES LIKE ABARAT AND THE OLD KINGDOM ARE WRITTEN WITH SUCH DEPTH OF WORLDBUILDING THAT HALF THE ENJOYMENT IS SEEING HOW THE UNIVERSE EXPANDS AS THE PROSE GOES ON.
I’M SORRY THAT YOU SEEM TO BE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT A BOOK, NO MATTER HOW SHITTY THE PROSE, NO MATTER HOW FLAT THE CHARACTERS, NO MATTER HOW CONTRIVED THE WORLDBUILDING, IS ALWAYS A BETTER CHOICE THAN A YOUNG ADULT NOVEL IF IT’S AIMED AT THE ADULT CROWD.
GOOD FOR YOU.
YOU’RE A FUCKFACE.
I’LL TAKE MY ARTEMIS FOWL AND LEAVE NOW.
#THIS IS NOT TO SAY PEOPLE CAN’T ENJOY DAN BROWN/SHITTY ROMANCE NOVELS/PULPY SCI FI #BECAUSE GODDAMN LIKE WHAT YOU WANT JUST ACKNOWLEDGE THE PROBLEMS AND /DON’T FUCKING CLAIM IT’S BETTER THAN ALL YA FICTION EVER/ #OH NO THIS BOOK DOESN’T USE ENOUGH FOUR-SYLLABLE WORDS IT MUST BE FOR BABIES!!!! #FUCK YOU #FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU #YOU ARE THE PROBLEM WITH ACADEMIA TODAY #YOU’RE PROBABLY ALSO A CLASSIST AGEIST FUCK AND I HATE YOU
Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.
- C.S. Lewis
good fuck you
and fuck anyone who thinks they have the right to shame people for stories, and for loving stories and loving characters and loving worlds, because of the type of language that they use and the idea that it somehow lacks the depth or intelligence of the ‘adult’ (read: ‘well-educated, literate, white and historically male’) language code because it is told in a different way. because it has a different focus. because it has different goals.
this is not a ‘grown ups versus babies’ issue.
this is a ‘people who have access to a wealth of literary history, traditions, and educations who are benefiting their privilege of speaking the standard english variety in addition to their privileged position as educated members of society by decrying anything that doesn’t match that standard versus people who might not yet have had or may never have had those opportunities and privileges’ issue.
this is a ‘people who are perceived as being allowed to produce meaningful thought and people who aren’t because of nothing but society’ issue.
if people are writing stories then that’s good.
if people are writing stories that can be appreciated by people who don’t have access to the dominant literary paradigm then that’s really good.
if people who are teenagers, or second language learners, or speakers of a non-standard dialect, or learning disabled individuals, or people who don’t identify with the people and language and ideas represented by other kinds of literature, or any other kind of people want to read young adult literature, that’s good.
(and furthermore, this is just looking linguistically at the issue — i don’t even want to get into the fact that young adult books are often just relatable because they deal with themes that resonate with people, and that sometimes people who are oppressed and lack privilege identify with stories about personal identity and strength and reclamation rather than stories about people who aren’t oppressed and don’t lack privilege.)
so basically if you are ever saying that the type of language you use determines the importance or intelligence of your thoughts and stories and ideas, that its complexity or simplicity (read: conformity to straight rich white western straight cisgender dude tradition) determines a certain level of value or worth or meaning, that a story must be told only by the educated and the privileged and the ones who are capable of writing in the narrowly-defined literary tradition that we’ve come to valorize,
then you need to sit the fuck down and think about what you’ve done.
I remember reading something a while back that was aimed at men trying to “pick up chicks at the beach” and it was giving some bullshit advice about how you should bring Shakespeare with you because “chicks will dig that” and not Harry Potter because if you’re reading Harry Potter down by the beach then girls won’t want to talk to you because girls will think you’re childish.
My friends and I thought it was the most hilariously awful thing we’d ever read.
Honestly, I’m into guys who read Shakespeare and guys who read Harry Potter.
I’m reblogging this AGAIN because the first time all I got was the op’s post, and all this lovely extra commentary was too good to skip.
(via casualty)
(Source: lizznotliz, via killiandonnellyswristcuffs)
“Books are the ultimate Dumpees: put them down and they’ll wait for you forever; pay attention to them and they always love you back.”
(Source: floydtalberts, via bwarchive2-deactivated20121120)
