?

Log in

Feh. I need to go leave for work in a half hour. I have a site that needs to be live Monday morning. I hate working weekends. Hopefully I can locate a better pizza place than we usually get food at.
Snagged from weesta 

Type out the sentence you end up with in the TITLE of your post.

here be the directionsCollapse )

spelling question

Stripy vs. Stripey
[That is, something having, or made of, stripes]

The second looks correct to me (and a Google search shows many people using it) but the dictionary tells me the first is the actual word. However, Google spell check isn't flagging the second as misspelled. Logically, I know that the first should be correct (take off the "e" of "stripe" and add a "y").

Is the second British? Is it simply spelled incorrectly so frequently that I have grown used to it? And yes, I know "striped" would mean the same thing and possible be more correct than either, but it is also more formal and stuffy. I'm looking for cute.

Context: I am considering buying a domain name for a pet related site that will contain this word. I will buy both spellings so that the site can be found either way, but what spelling should be in the formal name?

Just some rage and 3 kinds of yes

My musical taste stagnated in the '90s. I've been making an attempt to be more current. Here are some songs from the last year or 2 that I'm really loving. (Part one, "Bands that people compare to Joy Division)

cut for 3 embedded videosCollapse )

But I feel fine

So, I didn't come anywhere near my goals for NaNoWriMo. But you know what? I'm totally OK with that. I realized early on that this was not the month for me to write a novel. I have way to much going on already and the pressure to write as well wasn't helping anything.

I did get a lot of thinking about my novel done, and I'm in a much better place to work on it now. I realized I'm not the type of writer that can just write without knowing where things are going. It's how I've always tried to write, and I always get frustrated and stop. I need to outline first. I need to write up psych profiles of my characters. The time structure of "write 50,000 words in a month!" is not the structure I need, but I do need structure.

So instead of writing this past month, I've been thinking and reading other people's work. I'm reading classic horror lately, finished up Frankenstein and I'm about 2/3 of the way through Dracula. The 2/3 point is where you stop saying, "Stop dicking around, Van Helsing, and just tell Seward about the fucking vampires already!" and start saying, "Wow, Victorian men were self-involved assholes. How can they not see that Mina is being attacked just like Lucy was?" Basically, the whole book is these guys (2 doctors, a lawyer, a lord, and a... cowboy?) standing around saying, "Huh! If only I wasn't sitting on my ass thinking I was so smart last night, the women folk might not be dropping dead around me." Mina is the only character with a brain and they deliberately shove her aside as soon as she has finished unraveling the mystery (and literally typing it all out) for them.

And on Frankenstein, people don't believe Mary Shelly wrote this herself? Obviously those people have never read 18 year old girl fan-fiction. Because that book reads *exactly* how I would expect an educated 18 year old to write; implausible flashback within flashback (within flashback) structure, overwrought emotions, and a bizarre author stand-in. Victor even has a slashy relationship with "best friend" Henry. In contrast to this, Victor's feelings for "true love" Elizabeth are a pale second best. But then, Mary Shelly was dating (and soon to marry) Percy Bysshe Shelly, and hanging out with Lord Byron, so maybe she thought that was normal. I'm sure there are feminist essays on this delving into how the Monster - thrown out of society for his outward appearance despite his intellect - is a comment on women's reduced role in the society of the time? She even made the monster a vegetarian, just like she was.

I'm doing NaNoWriMo this year. For Reals.



People on my F-list, feel free to add me as a writing buddy. http://www.nanowrimo.org/eng/user/441026
A friend sent me this link yesterday. Remember back in the min '90s when you tried to watch "The Wizard of Oz" while playing Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon"? Well apparently "Logan's Run" works equally well with that soundtrack. And now, with the power of YouTube, there is no awkward button pushing of two antiquated pieces of technology to get them to play at the same time.


And here is also a good place to post a picture of my newest cat, Logan. He looks a bit like Micheal York, don't you think?

Puppies!

I linked this on Facebook last Friday, for the rest of you; one of the cutest things on the internet:

Book meme

* Grab the nearest book.
* Open the book to page 56.
* Find the fifth sentence.
* Post the text of the sentence in your journal along with these instructions.
* Don't dig for your favorite book, the cool book, or the intellectual one: pick the CLOSEST.

As the page starts in the middle of a sentence, I am including 2 sentences. If you count the first, incomplete sentence as [1], then the first below is [5]; however is you only count complete sentences, then the second is [5].

"Take plenty. With regard to Policy, I expect you already have your own views."

From "Scoop" by Evelyn Waugh, the book I am currently reading. As an aside; wow is this book racist. The plot revolves around a reluctant British reporter sent to cover a civil war in Africa. This being Waugh, I was prepared for the sarcastically bitter political humor. I know he hates most things British; and all things Non. But still, the casual dismissal of the Africans the main character lives amongst is shocking to me.

I think it is because, living in 2008 Massachusetts, I am accustomed to racism being deliberately mean. But in the 1937 British mindset of the novel, there is no conscious hostility to the remarks and attitudes. They simply are. Even the most virulent racist in the modern world is aware that there are people - somewhere - who disagree with their beliefs. Seventy years ago? Not so much. No one even thinks to question their attitudes any more than the would question a comment on the weather. The Africans (and the few Arabs and Indians who wander through the story) are backdrops to the action; local color, comic relief, chess pieces for the Europeans to move around for their amusement and greed. An angry goat is attributed with more human thoughts than any of the non-European human characters.

All this is, of course, not the point of the book. The author seems as oblivious to it as his characters are. The point of the book is how journalists make shit up to sell papers, how rewards and punishments are completely random with no regards to merit, and how humans are generally horrible and stupid. And on those issues it is very funny. But in my overall feelings for the book I am conflicted.