This made me so mad when I read it on the bus the other day.
Now let me get this straight; he claims she consented because
""I thought she gave me the come-on - the body and eye contact was there and she did not give me the brush-off.""
and "she did not stop him helping her take her jumper, bra, tracksuit bottoms and underwear off"
and, worst of all
"he thought that the woman had enjoyed the sex.
"She groaned," he said. "I'm not saying she had the time of her life, but she was there," he told the police. "She gave the impression she was enjoying it.""
So from this we can deduce: firstly, if a woman looks at you, or touches you, and doesn't make it explicitly clear that she does not want to have sex with you, she is giving you a come on, and it's ok to have sex with her.
If she does not attempt to stop you taking her clothes off (no matter whether she is capable of stopping you or not), then she wants to have sex.
And finally, a woman enjoys sex if she was "there". So any sex where the woman is present, she enjoys. And therefore there's no such thing as rape.
This is the problem when you assume consent until told otherwise. If the woman is then not capable of making herself clear, because she is drunk, or drugged, or whatever, then according to this judge and jury, she cannot be raped. Well thank you very much Patrick Hooton, your honour. You prick.
According to him "the woman's comment that she could not give consent because she was drunk was "completely wrong".
So I take it he was off sick the day they covered "diminished responsibility" in law school?
And Ms Kahn, the defense lawyer obviously skipped that class too, if she can say "there was no evidence that the woman had given consent or not, and that drunken consent is still consent." ... so, there was no evidence that she had consented either? But because of the way our stupid, stupid law is at the moment consent is presumed until proven otherwise.
What if this woman had been unconscious in a hospital bed, instead of drunk? Or if she'd been severely autistic? Or there was some medical reason where she could not give informed consent? What kind of sikko would he be portrayed as then, taking advantage of her? Why is this any different? Because she consented to getting drunk. Not sex, getting drunk.
It is still seen as the Woman's responsibility to a) not get into a situation where she can be raped, and b) if she does, issue a loud and clear "NO!" to the man involved (whether she is capable of doing so will not be taken into account.) It's practically Biblical - Deuteronomy 22, v24. "The woman is to die because she did not cry out for help"
Sadly, the woman was not right when she said "'the law has been changed for f like you, if you are too drunk to give consent it's rape', or something along those lines',", but she should have been. And it's worrying that a solicitor could have made such a mistake. If she could, who else could have? How many women are there out there who've been getting drunk, believeing that the law offers them the same protection as it would if they were sober? Because that's what this ruling says. It says you are no longer protected by the law if you are drunk.
And the worst part is, the guy is now complaining that his life has been ruined because of a false rape charge hanging over his head. Well surely, the solution to that would be don't f***ing sleep with women when they are pissed. It is called "Taking advantage". Guys, if you're really concerned about being brought up on rape charges, then it's really simple: think to yourself, "Does she really want sex, or is she just doing this because she's drunk? Is my need for sexual gratification more important than her physical and emotional wellbeing?" and if there is any doubt at all on the first question, remember the answer to the second is always, always No. If you respect a woman as a human being, and not just as a walking vagina, you will have nothing to fear.
Seriously, do you care that much about getting sex, and that little about the woman involved that wou're willing to take the risk that she might not actually want this and sleep with her anyway? She collapses on the bed, fully clothed, completely hammered, and any normal person would tuck her in and let her sleep it off. Instead, he decides to undress her and have sex with her?? And doesn't think this is in any way a violation of her rights?? That is rape, no matter which way you cut it, and to think that this man has been aquitted??? I feel sick.
Seriously, I've been that badly drunk once or twice (and I've known boatloads of men who get worse drunk regularly, and have nothing to fear from it) and right now, I'm just counting myself lucky that all the guys who've walked me home in that state have been kind enough to plonk me on the bed, leave me a bucket just in case, and quietly let themselves out. Because apparently, if they had decided to rape me instead, they'd be getting off scot free.
If I honestly thought anyone reads this who has any power to change things, I'd be down on my knees right now, begging them to campaign to change the law, so that consent is not presumed, and women can have a little bit of justice for once.
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
Monday, 16 March 2009
Mens Rea
I have often argued that in rape cases (and only rape cases) if it comes to court, the burden of proof should be on the Defense.
My main reasoning for this being it's much easier to prove that something did happen than it didn't - ie in cases when it's already been established that sexual intercourse did take place, it's easier for the defense to prove that the woman did give consent than it is for the woman to prove that she didn't.
The whine then comes from every section of male society (even some of the nice ones) "but if we actually make it easier for women to secure a conviction after they've been raped, then what's to stop all women who've had a one-night-stand and regretted it the next morning from hauling that poor little innocent man in front of the judges and ruining his life?" (I paraphrase, obviously.)
There seems to be this paranoia from men that if female consent is not presumed whenever they have sex, and must explicitly be given, then women in their thousands will start vindictively ruining men's lives on trumped up charges of rape. Guilty conscience/ fear of revenge much?
Why is it so hard for men to just suck it up and deal with the fact that women are not just there as something to stick the vagina to? What is so hard about treating women with respect, and making sure that sex is something she actually wants before you do it with her? Apparently it "kills the mood" - well sod that! Any man who puts "the mood" ( ie his pleasure) before a woman's safety and/or wellbeing isn't worth the time of day (I have a similar argument for men who won't use condoms). Similarly, if a woman's obviously drunk - what is wrong with, I dunno, not taking advantage of her?? Is a man getting his jollies really that important?
Presume non-consent until proven otherwise, and no-one's going to try and convict you for rape. It's that simple. The onus should NOT be on a woman to stop herself getting into a situation where she might be raped, it should be on the man to not create such a situation in the first place.
And even if a change in the system would lead to abuse - and I don't believe it would - I don't care. That is a problem for another day, and not an excuse to not change the system which is already open to horrific abuse, only the other way around. It is vanishingly rare these days to get a conviction on a rape case. Go look at the stats if you like, they're not hard to find. Sorry, guys, but with a system as crappy as this, you have no right to whinge that a positive change for women "might possibly be open to abuse". Boo fricken hoo.
But here I have it, the one piece of evidence that should finally shut men up about this "open to abuse" "problem": Mens Rea.
It means "guilty mind" (and not "men's excuse", as I would love to joke...) and means, in British Law, that if a man honestly believes that the woman was consenting, he is not guilty of rape. Seriously. Check it out on the 2003 sexual offenses act.
Now stop whining.
My main reasoning for this being it's much easier to prove that something did happen than it didn't - ie in cases when it's already been established that sexual intercourse did take place, it's easier for the defense to prove that the woman did give consent than it is for the woman to prove that she didn't.
The whine then comes from every section of male society (even some of the nice ones) "but if we actually make it easier for women to secure a conviction after they've been raped, then what's to stop all women who've had a one-night-stand and regretted it the next morning from hauling that poor little innocent man in front of the judges and ruining his life?" (I paraphrase, obviously.)
There seems to be this paranoia from men that if female consent is not presumed whenever they have sex, and must explicitly be given, then women in their thousands will start vindictively ruining men's lives on trumped up charges of rape. Guilty conscience/ fear of revenge much?
Why is it so hard for men to just suck it up and deal with the fact that women are not just there as something to stick the vagina to? What is so hard about treating women with respect, and making sure that sex is something she actually wants before you do it with her? Apparently it "kills the mood" - well sod that! Any man who puts "the mood" ( ie his pleasure) before a woman's safety and/or wellbeing isn't worth the time of day (I have a similar argument for men who won't use condoms). Similarly, if a woman's obviously drunk - what is wrong with, I dunno, not taking advantage of her?? Is a man getting his jollies really that important?
Presume non-consent until proven otherwise, and no-one's going to try and convict you for rape. It's that simple. The onus should NOT be on a woman to stop herself getting into a situation where she might be raped, it should be on the man to not create such a situation in the first place.
And even if a change in the system would lead to abuse - and I don't believe it would - I don't care. That is a problem for another day, and not an excuse to not change the system which is already open to horrific abuse, only the other way around. It is vanishingly rare these days to get a conviction on a rape case. Go look at the stats if you like, they're not hard to find. Sorry, guys, but with a system as crappy as this, you have no right to whinge that a positive change for women "might possibly be open to abuse". Boo fricken hoo.
But here I have it, the one piece of evidence that should finally shut men up about this "open to abuse" "problem": Mens Rea.
It means "guilty mind" (and not "men's excuse", as I would love to joke...) and means, in British Law, that if a man honestly believes that the woman was consenting, he is not guilty of rape. Seriously. Check it out on the 2003 sexual offenses act.
Now stop whining.
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Evidence grows to support the former theory - that I am, in fact, plain stupid sometimes. It's long enough after the event that I can say this without ruining it for anyone...
I tuned into the first episode of the new season of Heroes* just a bit late. And by that I mean I caught the last, say, 5 minutes. The scene - some sort of flying craft, many characters from the show in orange jumpsuits, strapped to their seats. The hull of said craft has just been accidentally breached, and air is rushing out at an alarming rate, we see inside the cockpit, the view out the front, they're about to crash horribly... roll credits.
My reaction? "Wow! Heroes in Space!"
I am politically blind, sometimes. Orange jumpsuits still say to me "astronauts" rather than "Guantanamo". I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing.
...
In other news, Microsoft have delved to a new level of moral cowardice.
I was discussing this with a friend, and he pointed me towards this further example.
Now, I don't know about you, but I think this kind of attitude is absolutely abysmal. It comes down to Microsoft and Blizzard and similar organizations actively condoning homophobia. You just do not ban anyone from using your services because they're openly gay: that is called discrimination, and as far as I am aware that is illegal, never mind completely unethical. It's like saying "no, you can't eat at my restaurant, you're openly black" - you see how prejudiced this sounds now?
This kind of homophobic attitude seems to be endemic on the interwebs. I've even seen some dude on Youtube suggesting that being harassed online is the gamer's fault for self-identifying as gay, and she should expect that kind of prejudice. Oh, and that if you have to tell people you're gay, then you obviously have no personality. Most people seem to think that a blanket ban on all references to sexuality is ok online, because it avoids the issue entirely... well, no it doesn't. As Lambda say in the above mentioned article "although preventing harassment is an admirable goal, a requirement that LGBT people remain invisible and silent is not an acceptable means of reaching that goal."
And it doesn't seem to apply the other way at all, despite what Microsoft may claim. Seriously, go onto any online MMO like WOW or X box live or similar, and you will find people regularly using terms like "gay" or "fag" as perjoratives, and no-one's pulling them up for it. To use my previous metaphor - do you really think this would be ok if they were yelling stuff like "Shit! I lost a life! That is so Black!" or, "Dude, you killed me! You are such a nigger!"... Something tells me Microsoft wouldn't be quite so blase. And yet apparently it's ok to bash queers. Joy.
I find it really odd/cowardly/abysmal that when a woman complains that she is being harassed by other gamers for being a lesbian, she is the one who gets banned. They're effectively condoning the actions of the bigots. What Microsoft are doing is saying that this woman asked to be harassed because she told people she was gay. That's a lot like saying a woman asked to be raped because she was wearing a short skirt. It's exactly the same logic, and it's disgusting.
I can see how it must be easier for the big companies to do that - I mean, what's easier, tackling one lesbian, or a whole crowd of bigots? I've heard suggestions that it's almost impossible to effectively police harrassment online, that "considering that it's an environment in which almost all communication is over unmonitored and unmoderated voice channels, there is nothing they can to to prevent anonymous Nazis from being vocally offensive - you can report a player but with no proof they can't take any action." but that didn't seem to stop them when someone reported Theressa for identifying as gay. Or when Andrews was plugging her LGBT friendly guild in, again, an unmonitored chat channel. People reported them, and the companies took action. Obviously they have the ability to prevent harrassment, but the moral cowardice to tackle a prejudice that has become endemic on their systems.
As someone famously said: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good [people] to do nothing.
...
In happier news, chimps might be conscious.
...
Also went to see Watchmen at the weekend. It's good.
It's probably the most faithful adaptation of the Graphic Novel possible - a lot of the dialogue and shots are lifted almost verbatim. Obviously they had to change a few things, but that's understandable, and thankfully, what they did change wasn't too glaring - it was only in retrospect when we were all sitting around afterwards that we started to notice some of them.
As a film in and of itself, it's fab. Beautifully, beautifully shot, but then from the director of 300, you'd expect that. You can definitely tell he was behind it. He does like his slo-mo, but in context it does work, and the colours and the choice of shots show so much care and attention to detail, it's stunning. It really captures the look of the book, if anything even more gritty and dark, because you can do more with shades of dark colours on film than you can in print.
The actors are absolutely fantastic, some stunning performances - none that stand out above the others, but no weak links either. It really is an ensemble piece.
The only possible point where it lets itself down is in the music. It's all fantastic music (with the exception of the worst rendition of Hallelujah I have so far heard.) but it's just not always appropriate to the scene. It's not quite as bad as having Live and Let Die at a funeral (Shrek III... oh dear) but it's stuff like that Hallelujah over a rather gratuitous sex scene - a little distracting, and doesn't quite work. And All Along the Watchtower as Nite Owl and Rorschach are approching Veidt's Antarctic base. At the same time, there are a few moments where they get it spot on - The Times, They are a Changing over the opening credits, which are in themselves The most stunning montage I have ever seen on film. Ever. Without exception. And there are a few moments that I thought it worked, but I'm sure people would argue with me over - Mozart's Requiem near the end, and The Sound of Silence at Blake's funeral (much more appropriate than Live and Let Die...)
A couple of things bugged me - mainly to do with the Sally/Blake stuff, in that the film comes out much more apologistic than the book - I'm sure for some naffy PC reasons that suggest someone just didn't think it through - but I'll leave that for a later date. I'm actually quite happy, in some ways, that they did what they did - simply because it gives me more to put in my thesis :D
Also, I think the focus of the film has changed a little from the book. Whereas the book is very much about universal decay and collapse, because of time restrictions, and the fact that the film has to focus soley on the protagonsits (I want to say Heroes, but no...) it comes out a lot more about individual tragedies. Which makes the end feel a little tacked-on, but there you go. It still works as a film, and I'm still going to see it again (partly because the Thesis demands it) and will almost certainly get the DVD.
*First Episode of volume 4, which I think is something like the beginning of season 3, or half way through it, or something.... It's complicated. But it's the first one of the new lot they've just started showing in the UK
I tuned into the first episode of the new season of Heroes* just a bit late. And by that I mean I caught the last, say, 5 minutes. The scene - some sort of flying craft, many characters from the show in orange jumpsuits, strapped to their seats. The hull of said craft has just been accidentally breached, and air is rushing out at an alarming rate, we see inside the cockpit, the view out the front, they're about to crash horribly... roll credits.
My reaction? "Wow! Heroes in Space!"
I am politically blind, sometimes. Orange jumpsuits still say to me "astronauts" rather than "Guantanamo". I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing.
...
In other news, Microsoft have delved to a new level of moral cowardice.
I was discussing this with a friend, and he pointed me towards this further example.
Now, I don't know about you, but I think this kind of attitude is absolutely abysmal. It comes down to Microsoft and Blizzard and similar organizations actively condoning homophobia. You just do not ban anyone from using your services because they're openly gay: that is called discrimination, and as far as I am aware that is illegal, never mind completely unethical. It's like saying "no, you can't eat at my restaurant, you're openly black" - you see how prejudiced this sounds now?
This kind of homophobic attitude seems to be endemic on the interwebs. I've even seen some dude on Youtube suggesting that being harassed online is the gamer's fault for self-identifying as gay, and she should expect that kind of prejudice. Oh, and that if you have to tell people you're gay, then you obviously have no personality. Most people seem to think that a blanket ban on all references to sexuality is ok online, because it avoids the issue entirely... well, no it doesn't. As Lambda say in the above mentioned article "although preventing harassment is an admirable goal, a requirement that LGBT people remain invisible and silent is not an acceptable means of reaching that goal."
And it doesn't seem to apply the other way at all, despite what Microsoft may claim. Seriously, go onto any online MMO like WOW or X box live or similar, and you will find people regularly using terms like "gay" or "fag" as perjoratives, and no-one's pulling them up for it. To use my previous metaphor - do you really think this would be ok if they were yelling stuff like "Shit! I lost a life! That is so Black!" or, "Dude, you killed me! You are such a nigger!"... Something tells me Microsoft wouldn't be quite so blase. And yet apparently it's ok to bash queers. Joy.
I find it really odd/cowardly/abysmal that when a woman complains that she is being harassed by other gamers for being a lesbian, she is the one who gets banned. They're effectively condoning the actions of the bigots. What Microsoft are doing is saying that this woman asked to be harassed because she told people she was gay. That's a lot like saying a woman asked to be raped because she was wearing a short skirt. It's exactly the same logic, and it's disgusting.
I can see how it must be easier for the big companies to do that - I mean, what's easier, tackling one lesbian, or a whole crowd of bigots? I've heard suggestions that it's almost impossible to effectively police harrassment online, that "considering that it's an environment in which almost all communication is over unmonitored and unmoderated voice channels, there is nothing they can to to prevent anonymous Nazis from being vocally offensive - you can report a player but with no proof they can't take any action." but that didn't seem to stop them when someone reported Theressa for identifying as gay. Or when Andrews was plugging her LGBT friendly guild in, again, an unmonitored chat channel. People reported them, and the companies took action. Obviously they have the ability to prevent harrassment, but the moral cowardice to tackle a prejudice that has become endemic on their systems.
As someone famously said: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good [people] to do nothing.
...
In happier news, chimps might be conscious.
...
Also went to see Watchmen at the weekend. It's good.
It's probably the most faithful adaptation of the Graphic Novel possible - a lot of the dialogue and shots are lifted almost verbatim. Obviously they had to change a few things, but that's understandable, and thankfully, what they did change wasn't too glaring - it was only in retrospect when we were all sitting around afterwards that we started to notice some of them.
As a film in and of itself, it's fab. Beautifully, beautifully shot, but then from the director of 300, you'd expect that. You can definitely tell he was behind it. He does like his slo-mo, but in context it does work, and the colours and the choice of shots show so much care and attention to detail, it's stunning. It really captures the look of the book, if anything even more gritty and dark, because you can do more with shades of dark colours on film than you can in print.
The actors are absolutely fantastic, some stunning performances - none that stand out above the others, but no weak links either. It really is an ensemble piece.
The only possible point where it lets itself down is in the music. It's all fantastic music (with the exception of the worst rendition of Hallelujah I have so far heard.) but it's just not always appropriate to the scene. It's not quite as bad as having Live and Let Die at a funeral (Shrek III... oh dear) but it's stuff like that Hallelujah over a rather gratuitous sex scene - a little distracting, and doesn't quite work. And All Along the Watchtower as Nite Owl and Rorschach are approching Veidt's Antarctic base. At the same time, there are a few moments where they get it spot on - The Times, They are a Changing over the opening credits, which are in themselves The most stunning montage I have ever seen on film. Ever. Without exception. And there are a few moments that I thought it worked, but I'm sure people would argue with me over - Mozart's Requiem near the end, and The Sound of Silence at Blake's funeral (much more appropriate than Live and Let Die...)
A couple of things bugged me - mainly to do with the Sally/Blake stuff, in that the film comes out much more apologistic than the book - I'm sure for some naffy PC reasons that suggest someone just didn't think it through - but I'll leave that for a later date. I'm actually quite happy, in some ways, that they did what they did - simply because it gives me more to put in my thesis :D
Also, I think the focus of the film has changed a little from the book. Whereas the book is very much about universal decay and collapse, because of time restrictions, and the fact that the film has to focus soley on the protagonsits (I want to say Heroes, but no...) it comes out a lot more about individual tragedies. Which makes the end feel a little tacked-on, but there you go. It still works as a film, and I'm still going to see it again (partly because the Thesis demands it) and will almost certainly get the DVD.
*First Episode of volume 4, which I think is something like the beginning of season 3, or half way through it, or something.... It's complicated. But it's the first one of the new lot they've just started showing in the UK
Thursday, 12 February 2009
Either I am stupid, or Comma need to link properly...
Alicia Flagged this up on Wednesday; apparently I am actually published online. It's just a bit difficult to find the link from the Comma Website.
Tuesday, 3 February 2009
And the answer is...
Groucho Marx.
Though I was actually thinking about Noam Chomsky when I wrote it. Perhaps you had to be in my head...
I get the feeling that I should be posting more often than monthly - perhaps I will when I have more on the writing front to report. Though in that vein - I was really happy to have been shortlisted for the Comma Press short-story competition a while back (should have blogged that one when it was more relevant) but am slightly concerned that there seems to be nothing about the competition, the translations or the winning story on their website. Hmm...
I'm just putting the finishing touches to the "Hall of Mirrors" short story which I'm thinking of sending to comma, and wondering what I'll do for the Bridport this year. Have been doing a bit of research into stage-magicians and illusionists. Perhaps there's some material in there...
I note that there's been a lot of tailing off my paragraphs today - perhaps it's something to do with the fact that I'm craving ice-cream...
Though I was actually thinking about Noam Chomsky when I wrote it. Perhaps you had to be in my head...
I get the feeling that I should be posting more often than monthly - perhaps I will when I have more on the writing front to report. Though in that vein - I was really happy to have been shortlisted for the Comma Press short-story competition a while back (should have blogged that one when it was more relevant) but am slightly concerned that there seems to be nothing about the competition, the translations or the winning story on their website. Hmm...
I'm just putting the finishing touches to the "Hall of Mirrors" short story which I'm thinking of sending to comma, and wondering what I'll do for the Bridport this year. Have been doing a bit of research into stage-magicians and illusionists. Perhaps there's some material in there...
I note that there's been a lot of tailing off my paragraphs today - perhaps it's something to do with the fact that I'm craving ice-cream...
Monday, 5 January 2009
Time Flies like a Banana
I have to start getting up earlier.
This is not because my Mum keeps saying so, nor because The Fiancee's mother keeps saying so, nor because both of them are up at 6:00 am to walk the dogs, practicing what they preach and making me feel guilty.
No, this is because I don't have time to read everything that I ought to, and still have time to do everything that I want to.
I've never managed to see how the average busy person can ever read the entirety of the paper before work, unless it's the Metro (and I'm not knocking that publication by any means, simply because it is free [a point I now actually want to discuss - so will come back to it] and easily digestible in the space of a 2 minute bus/metro ride to one's place of travaille.) Perhaps this is because I've never really had to spend longer than 20-30 minutes traveling to get to school/uni/etc except during bad traffic getting to a 9AM lecture at Warwick, when the road between campus and Leamington Spa was just one long queue that, if it hadn't been so cold out there, I would have decided to walk faster than.
The other possible option is that I am a product of the digital age, which means that (supposedly) I have no attention span, and can only concentrate on one thing for a fraction of a second, and a whole wodge of paper like a novel or a newspaper has to be digested in teeny tiny bites (or bytes) but I think it's fairly safe to say that this is bollocks.
I have actually come to the conclusion, that my inability to read an entire newspaper (assuming that these days I went out and bought one, instead of just looking at the BBC website) is because I don't get up early enough in the morning.
Neil Gaiman always seems to have loads of links to things like articles and newsworthy stuff and interviews, and I keep wondering how he finds them to post. I have decided it is because he too is part of the getting-up-earlier brigade, and must, like anyone who reads the newspaper, get up slightly earlier, just to find out what's going on in the world. And that is admirable.
So, - and this is not a New Year's resolution, because I don't make them (except for the one I made this year, which is to finaly pass my driving test, preferably before The Small Sibling does) - I intend to start getting up earlier in the morning. This should be made easier because The Fiancee is starting a new rotation at the hospital which means getting up at 7:00, and I have requested that I be kicked out of bed at the same time. It kind-of worked this morning, in that I got up, showered and out of bed (not necessarily in that order) by 8:00... only it's now 10:49 and I still haven't done any work. But I feel pretty well caught up on what's happening in the world: Detox diets don't work (surprise surprise) Kids are depressed (no sh1t, sherlock - but that's a rant for later) and Wedgewood have gone bust (shock horror!) I'm not entirely sure why people are having blood tests done at ASDA, but apparently it's happening, oh, and if you missed the Johnathan Creek special over Christmas, fear not.
On a more fun note - I'm very much liking the stuff they have over at Threadless.com, especially TypeTees. Apparently The Small Sibling got me this one for Christmas. It just hasn't arrived yet.
I am also wearing my lovely new gloveses today, which, what with the cold, and the fact that I am also huddling on the sofa, surrounded by piles of paper and wrapped in my snowman fleecy blanket, makes me feel like a very well-dressed bag-lady.
PS) 10 points to anyone who can get the titular reference.
This is not because my Mum keeps saying so, nor because The Fiancee's mother keeps saying so, nor because both of them are up at 6:00 am to walk the dogs, practicing what they preach and making me feel guilty.
No, this is because I don't have time to read everything that I ought to, and still have time to do everything that I want to.
I've never managed to see how the average busy person can ever read the entirety of the paper before work, unless it's the Metro (and I'm not knocking that publication by any means, simply because it is free [a point I now actually want to discuss - so will come back to it] and easily digestible in the space of a 2 minute bus/metro ride to one's place of travaille.) Perhaps this is because I've never really had to spend longer than 20-30 minutes traveling to get to school/uni/etc except during bad traffic getting to a 9AM lecture at Warwick, when the road between campus and Leamington Spa was just one long queue that, if it hadn't been so cold out there, I would have decided to walk faster than.
The other possible option is that I am a product of the digital age, which means that (supposedly) I have no attention span, and can only concentrate on one thing for a fraction of a second, and a whole wodge of paper like a novel or a newspaper has to be digested in teeny tiny bites (or bytes) but I think it's fairly safe to say that this is bollocks.
I have actually come to the conclusion, that my inability to read an entire newspaper (assuming that these days I went out and bought one, instead of just looking at the BBC website) is because I don't get up early enough in the morning.
Neil Gaiman always seems to have loads of links to things like articles and newsworthy stuff and interviews, and I keep wondering how he finds them to post. I have decided it is because he too is part of the getting-up-earlier brigade, and must, like anyone who reads the newspaper, get up slightly earlier, just to find out what's going on in the world. And that is admirable.
So, - and this is not a New Year's resolution, because I don't make them (except for the one I made this year, which is to finaly pass my driving test, preferably before The Small Sibling does) - I intend to start getting up earlier in the morning. This should be made easier because The Fiancee is starting a new rotation at the hospital which means getting up at 7:00, and I have requested that I be kicked out of bed at the same time. It kind-of worked this morning, in that I got up, showered and out of bed (not necessarily in that order) by 8:00... only it's now 10:49 and I still haven't done any work. But I feel pretty well caught up on what's happening in the world: Detox diets don't work (surprise surprise) Kids are depressed (no sh1t, sherlock - but that's a rant for later) and Wedgewood have gone bust (shock horror!) I'm not entirely sure why people are having blood tests done at ASDA, but apparently it's happening, oh, and if you missed the Johnathan Creek special over Christmas, fear not.
On a more fun note - I'm very much liking the stuff they have over at Threadless.com, especially TypeTees. Apparently The Small Sibling got me this one for Christmas. It just hasn't arrived yet.
I am also wearing my lovely new gloveses today, which, what with the cold, and the fact that I am also huddling on the sofa, surrounded by piles of paper and wrapped in my snowman fleecy blanket, makes me feel like a very well-dressed bag-lady.
PS) 10 points to anyone who can get the titular reference.
Thursday, 11 December 2008
Sorting out the Pros from the Cons...
Having just read this article from the NY Times, I've been having a think.
For anyone who wants a quick precis (you lazy person) the article is putting forward the suggestion (albeit not entirely seriously) that too many people are writing nowadays more because they want to be a writer than because they actually enjoy writing. Consequently, publishers are suffering from what the article calls "snow blindness" - there is too much coming in for them to be able to cope and sort out the good books from the heaps and heaps of manuscripts in their slush-piles, and so this author is suggesting that the government offer salaries to this kind of writer to stop writing - much in the way that the EU subsidizes farmers to have set-asides.
The thing is though, I don't honestly think it's necessary. At least, not if the aim is to get rid of the people who just want to be the next JK or Dan Brown. The recession will probably do that for us. It's hard enough for writers-on-the-make in the best of times. Almost every writer that ever there was has had a day-job first, and when you're working hard all day to support yourself it takes a special kind of someone to sit down at the computer for another few hours every evening and tax their already overstretched brain just a bit further to write another thousand words of the novel. In a recession, those with jobs will be working just a bit harder and tightening the belts just a bit more, and it'll be just a bit harder to sit down at that computer every day. Those without will be even more stretched to make ends meet, and since we all know that writing isn't the most well paid of jobs, not at first at any rate, you would have to be an idiot (or more optimistic than really justified) to try and depend on that as your only means of income in difficult financial times.
In the end, if you don't love writing, you don't need any subsidy to force you out of the profession; the profession will do that for you. I've heard so many people say they've had great ideas for a book, or they'd love to write one someday but they just don't have the time, that if you gave me a pound for each one, I wouldn't have to write to support myself. Everyone, it is said, has at least one book in them, but not everyone has it in them to write it. You've got to need to put pen to paper, more than just wanting the money or the fame (because they will be a long time in coming) and it's only that which will keep you going through the bad times as well as the good. If you don't have it, well... you won't even get as far as someones slush pile.
For anyone who wants a quick precis (you lazy person) the article is putting forward the suggestion (albeit not entirely seriously) that too many people are writing nowadays more because they want to be a writer than because they actually enjoy writing. Consequently, publishers are suffering from what the article calls "snow blindness" - there is too much coming in for them to be able to cope and sort out the good books from the heaps and heaps of manuscripts in their slush-piles, and so this author is suggesting that the government offer salaries to this kind of writer to stop writing - much in the way that the EU subsidizes farmers to have set-asides.
The thing is though, I don't honestly think it's necessary. At least, not if the aim is to get rid of the people who just want to be the next JK or Dan Brown. The recession will probably do that for us. It's hard enough for writers-on-the-make in the best of times. Almost every writer that ever there was has had a day-job first, and when you're working hard all day to support yourself it takes a special kind of someone to sit down at the computer for another few hours every evening and tax their already overstretched brain just a bit further to write another thousand words of the novel. In a recession, those with jobs will be working just a bit harder and tightening the belts just a bit more, and it'll be just a bit harder to sit down at that computer every day. Those without will be even more stretched to make ends meet, and since we all know that writing isn't the most well paid of jobs, not at first at any rate, you would have to be an idiot (or more optimistic than really justified) to try and depend on that as your only means of income in difficult financial times.
In the end, if you don't love writing, you don't need any subsidy to force you out of the profession; the profession will do that for you. I've heard so many people say they've had great ideas for a book, or they'd love to write one someday but they just don't have the time, that if you gave me a pound for each one, I wouldn't have to write to support myself. Everyone, it is said, has at least one book in them, but not everyone has it in them to write it. You've got to need to put pen to paper, more than just wanting the money or the fame (because they will be a long time in coming) and it's only that which will keep you going through the bad times as well as the good. If you don't have it, well... you won't even get as far as someones slush pile.
Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Contented
"This is a public service announcement
This is only a test"
- Greenday, Warning
It's always difficult to know what to put for the first post of a new blog - this is the post that will define the blog, it's functions, will provide justification for the whole endeavour, will set the tone for all the posts to come... maybe. There's certainly a tendency not to bother.
The rest of my website is almost finished, however, which is good news. The first chapter of Zombie Nation is getting there, and may actually be finished to deadline as well, which is also good news. The PhD on the other hand... but let's not dwell on it.
Instead, here's a warning for anyone on Facebook; Beware!
Actually, much as I may scoff (who, these days, ever downloads anything they don't know what it is?) but I got taken in by one of these not that long ago. When a virus is pretending to be from a friend that you trust, sometimes you'll just click the link without thinking. Best advice - it never hurts to just message your friend and check that what's been sent is legit.
And here's a fun thing for the day, and a great Christmas present idea for the Geek in your life.
This is only a test"
- Greenday, Warning
It's always difficult to know what to put for the first post of a new blog - this is the post that will define the blog, it's functions, will provide justification for the whole endeavour, will set the tone for all the posts to come... maybe. There's certainly a tendency not to bother.
The rest of my website is almost finished, however, which is good news. The first chapter of Zombie Nation is getting there, and may actually be finished to deadline as well, which is also good news. The PhD on the other hand... but let's not dwell on it.
Instead, here's a warning for anyone on Facebook; Beware!
Actually, much as I may scoff (who, these days, ever downloads anything they don't know what it is?) but I got taken in by one of these not that long ago. When a virus is pretending to be from a friend that you trust, sometimes you'll just click the link without thinking. Best advice - it never hurts to just message your friend and check that what's been sent is legit.
And here's a fun thing for the day, and a great Christmas present idea for the Geek in your life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)