“There is no cause so right that you will not find fools following it.” –Larry Niven
Thus it seems with fandoms. There is no story so good, so innocent, or so full of lessons worth passing on that you will not find even one fan prepared to stink it up.
I know that. It’s an unfortunate part of human nature; no matter how good something is, no matter how good most of the fans are, there are always a few out there who make the rest of us look bad. Continue reading
That should read “fictional overweight people,” but “fat” works better for the title’s rhythm. Also it’s fewer letters and some sites are weird about title length.
Anyway:
The problem that bugs me lately is overweight people in fiction. Specifically, the problem is how they are sometimes handled in fiction.
There are the obvious problems: the overweight person is treated like a slob, or lazy, or greedy, or any number of other reasons that translate to “they’re overweight because they can be,” and is usually the villain, while the hero has this super thin supermodel figure because of whatever reason.
Or the reverse, perhaps the thin person is sickly and the overweight person is considered “normal” by society’s standards.
The time the story is set besides the point, neither of these portrayals are particularly realistic, but that isn’t even the problem I have right now. No, my problem stems from the fact that authors need to point out the characters’ weight at all.
It’s fine if your story happens to include characters who are overweight; this, as I unfortunately know from personal experience, reflects reality.
It is just as fine to not include overweight characters, provided you either simply don’t call attention to it (that is, you never actually claim that none of the characters are overweight), or you have a good in-story reason for not including them (such as a dystopia in which everybody is starving… though even then, glandular disorders can still realistically create overweight characters).
It is fine to have a particular character fixate on their weight, if you are establishing this character as having an eating disorder, an odd personality quirk, or is just really into eating healthy… perhaps, in the last case, they have a family history of certain health problems and are trying too hard to offset that history.
It is fine to have a character fixate on their weight if you are establishing something about the world they live in, whether it’s that society’s definition of “beauty,” or some magical influence in which casting spells is as much a workout as running ten miles.
It is fine, even preferable, to have a considerable variety of characters and an equal variety of their reasons for their figures, just as you would with any other trait.
All of this is perfectly fine… provided you never actually mention a number or any other specific details.
Because once you start giving the reader specifics, you had best make sure those specifics are realistic. Otherwise you’ll find yourself offending a lot of people over what may well be an insignificant detail.
Do not, for instance, do not, give me a mother of three grown children who is lamenting the fact that she has to wear a size 12 as though only “fat” people wear something that big, unless you can give me a damn good reason the character should be unusually small.
Why? Because that isn’t fat!
Look, I have never been pregnant, so I don’t have that influencing my weight. I’m still in my thirties, so while I’m certainly not going to get younger, I should (theoretically) find it easier to lose my excess weight than someone in, say, their fifties. I have a medium frame… but I’m short.
Assuming I build some lean muscle and lose that excess fat, size 12 is right around what I should be wearing. I’m basing that, not on how big I’d like to be, not on what “seems normal,” but on how big my doctor says I ought to be.
But someone who has been pregnant, not once, but three times, is old enough for all three children to be fully grown, and gives not a single detail on her frame or height? Okay, so she “doesn’t think of herself as tall,” but she’s never claimed to be short, so I’m assuming she’s average for a woman. And since her frame isn’t mentioned either, I’ll assume medium. And she isn’t a runway model, nor a ballerina, nor an athlete, nor anything else that requires extreme attention to her weight. By all rights, she should be wearing a few sizes larger than me. Yet she with her size-12 “I wish I could still wear a size 8” attitude thinks she is fat.
And the only purpose this element served in the story is to show off that magical influence; she tires and sweats and yes, even loses weight, simply by casting what appear to be extremely simplistic spells in the form of songs. And even after another sorcerer had explained this effect to her, she still doesn’t understand how she is losing so much weight, and fears that she’ll eat enough to bloat back up because the spellcasting leaves her hungry all the time. There was nothing in the plot that required giving readers such a specific number….
I’m a member of one of the NaNoWriMo groups on FaceBook, and the question of how many male and female writers we read seems to appear a lot lately on those pages.
Granted, the real questions were about how many male versus female authors male readers read, but it inspired me to examine my own personal library. Continue reading
Otherwise known as, my personal failings as an artist. 😉
Not exactly a “New Year’s Resolution” list–I’m nearly a month late on posting that–but it could serve the same purpose.
Anyway, the things I’m trying to overcome as an artist:
1. I’m impatient.
I can take a long time to get a story written down without trouble, but I can generally see the event unfolding in my mind only slightly faster than I’m capable of typing.
But with a single drawing, I see the entire image in my head, all at once, and I want to get it down! Right! Now!
I’ve long ago learned that what looks like a simple sketch might take a more practiced artist (which is to say, one with any practice at all) several hours to draw, so I know I’m being unreasonably impatient with my own work.
But there is a fine line between knowing this and being able to act on it.
And on the subject of projects that take far longer to create than to imagine, I’ve recently taken up woodcarving, and would also (once I have the tools) like to give wood burning a try.
So now I really need to work on drawing; I’d like to make some of my own patterns, instead of relying entirely on images other people provide… though there’s nothing wrong with using a premade pattern for practice, or occasionally for gifting under certain circumstances.
2. I hate to waste resources.
It is almost entirely for this reason that I prefer working digitally. Granted, the ability to undo a mistake with the click of a button is nice, but what really interests me is that I can never “use up” my papers and pens.
But I do have plenty of sketchbooks, bought over the years with practicing in mind. As I admitted to a friend on deviantArt, how is that not waste if I never use them?
3. To follow up with the digital art, I like to experiment.
I take very much a “what does this button do” approach when trying out different tools and features. I’ll willingly use any shortcut for the sheer curiosity of seeing what it does.
That being said, I still try to make something good.
4. And another “digital” flaw–I am terrible at drawing on one surface (graphics pad) while looking at another (computer monitor).
I think a lot of people who do digital art have this problem.
The other common problem is that computers break down. If I rely entirely on digital art, never practicing on paper, then the loss of such a tool represents time that I am not practicing. Note that this is just as much a problem for writing as for drawing. And a digital file is much more easily corrupted than a piece of paper.
5. I am forgetful.
In seeking advice, I might ask an artist how he or she achieved a particular effect… and then ask that exact same question the next time that artist puts up something using the same effect.
This is also why I don’t enter many contests, or don’t often reply to comments or thank people for following/liking my work (or for offering constructive critiquing), in spite of leaving such messages in my inbox for the very purpose of reminding me.
6. In spite of being a writer by choice, I don’t always convey my intended meaning very well, especially in “real” communication (as opposed to all those fantasy narratives I dream of publishing).
Case in point, if I ask what tools you used to achieve a particular digital drawing, I’m not asking what program you used–I’ll actually ask what program it was if I want to know that, and I’ll usually only be interested in that for financial reasons.
No, if I ask you about tools, I’m asking about details like line thickness, opacity, number of layers, and so on. I consider those to be the tools. The program you’re using is merely the canvas you use those tools on, and makes less difference to me than whether the piece is digital or hand-drawn.
And speaking of which–the tools we use do not make the artist, but they can make a difference to the art, else why do we choose certain kinds? Why would we need to?
The answer: we choose them because they make a difference. Different tools work better for different projects, and our talent allows us to learn those tools and decide which one is best for the effect we want.
I see it one of two ways: either the time and talent, as “things” used to produce our art, are just as much tools as the physical implements (in which case tools most definitely do make the artist precisely because talent does 😉 ) or….
The talent makes the artist, the artist chooses the tool, and the artist uses both talent and tool to make the art.
I could go so many ways with this one.
There are the “commonly confused word” lists, words that sound a lot alike but are spelled different and have obviously different meanings, like “its and it’s” or “there, they’re, and their.”
There are the (apparently) less commonly recognized, yet still commonly confused or misspelled words like “nitpick” or “knitpick.”
And there are words that aren’t really words (or so grammar teachers keep telling us) like “irregardless.”
Or there are the words that have no connection between them, that one couldn’t imagine how anybody could confuse them for each other, yet the confusions still happen.
My nitpick here is thus: What is with this trend of using the word “cannibal” to describe a man-eating creature regardless of what that creature’s own species is?
Are professional writers using a dictionary that is magically available only to them? Because I can’t find any definition of the word that specifically means eating people. A person eating other people, yes, but every definition I’ve seen is that a “cannibal” is something that eats its own kind.
Case in point: a cannibalistic human like Hannibal Lecter would eat other humans, yes.
But a cannibalistic tiger would eat other tigers.
A cannibalistic giant, as Doyle called the Allegewi in The Secret Saturdays, should eat other giants (not necessarily humans as the Allegewi was actually known to do and which was Doyle’s reason for calling it a cannibal).
And a cannibalistic tree would eat other trees, or “seeds and cones” as one kid claimed a carnivorous tree would do in… well, I’m not sure where I’d heard that one.
I thought it was an episode of Sleepy Hollow, but I can’t seem to find that dialogue in any transcripts. Or maybe it was Grimm, but I’m having the same problem finding dialogue transcripts.
(I do recall quite clearly that the tree in question was found to be full of human skulls, so the double incorrect word choice besides the point, the kid was still wrong about that tree’s “diet.”)
That’s not to say that cannibalistic creatures would not also be man-eaters, just that that isn’t what the word means.
And there’s no way to tell whether this is the author using the wrong word for the purpose, or that the character is. There’s usually nothing else in these stories to suggest that the author–or the character–typically misuses different words, just that one instance with that one word.
And on the subject of words that are completely wrong for the context, how about one that’s less “nitpick” and more “blatantly annoys me?”
What about “deluxe” sandwiches at burger joints?
Now, I can understand using that word way back when, when burgers (or chicken sandwiches in my case) used to be fairly plain, and the lettuce and tomato on the “deluxe” version simply wasn’t provided on the regular cheaper kind.
But not any more. Rare is the sandwich without those toppings, and therefore rare is the need for a “deluxe” sandwich that adds only those toppings.
Deluxe means luxurious. And there is nothing luxurious about a sandwich with a poorer cut of meat, full of gristle, and fewer toppings than what the restaurant previously carried (like many of McDonald’s apparently disappearing Premium Chicken sandwich options like the Ranch BLT that I prefer), yet still costs just as much as that previous offering.
Or the “Ultimate” Chicken Grill at Wendy’s. Ultimate means “final” or “best”… so why does Wendy’s bother promoting their Asiago, or any other kind of chicken sandwich, if they themselves believe that their plain “chicken lettuce and tomato” with no other toppings is better than anything else they could ever make?
is my two front teeth.
Oh wait, didn’t I do that joke already?
*Ahem*
Anyway, my Christmas wishlist for this year, in no particular order:
A job doing something I enjoy. Or right now, any job.
Making enough money on so I can pay off my student loan while putting money into the bank, not depleting my account. The more money I earn, the faster I can pay off that loan.
A winning lottery ticket.
And on the “student loan” front, that means I either need a jackpot winner, or the Cash for Life on one of those scratch-off tickets.
Not that I expect to get either one, but I can dream, no? 😉
A Windows tablet, Android, Chromebook, or even an iPad.
I need: a keyboard to work on my fiction, a touch screen and stylus support to practice drawing, and good enough guts to run PhotoShop or a similar program. And maybe a bit better hardware so I can take it to school and use it to do my classwork instead of using the school’s computers.
Also it has to be small, but not too small. The 10-11 inch models sound good.
A better digital camera/camcorder, or both.
One that can record high definition video, and can support at least a night-time filter similar to the night-time lenses I keep with my motorcycle gear.
And has a long video battery life–I want something I can use to record our day-or-longer motorcycle trips, and the one-hour battery life most such cameras report is a dealbreaker.
Even if I use a separate camera for photography, which I’m seriously considering if and when I can afford it, I’ll still want those three things for the bike rides.
For my purposes, a feature like GPS capability would be nice, but isn’t a requirement. Wi-Fi, on the other hand, is simply redundant, though wirelessly connecting to a separate (not smartphone!) display might be useful for the rides if I go with a helmet mount.
A FitDesk or similar compact exercise equipment.
Something I can use to exercise while working on the computer. Taking breaks may be fine for an occasional workout, but why not find something that lets me stay active even when I get back to work?
Assorted wood for carving.
Basswood seems to be recommended for beginners, but I wouldn’t mind trying other types of wood when possible.
Also graphite paper for transferring patterns to the wood.
Also patterns to try. 😉
Also a case or sheathe for my Murphy knives.
A PlayStation 4 and/or PlayStation Vita.
No, I’m not talking about the TV show Supernatural. 😉
Just supernatural concepts, be they religious, paranormal, so-called fringe sciences, cryptozoology, anything along those lines.
This post has nothing to do with what I believe or don’t believe; I’m simply trying to understand the “scientific” attitude towards these topics.
In fact, what specifically prompted this question was an episode of Bones: The Truth in the Myth.
In this episode, the crew is investigating a murder that was seemingly related to cryptozoological studies. The character Bones does not believe that cryptozoology can be scientific because according to her:
Cryptozoology starts with a conclusion and then works backwards to prove it. That’s the opposite of science.
Let’s explore that notion, shall we?
Cryptozoology uses prior observations (reported sightings)
to form a testable hypothesis (the “conclusion” Bones claims they start with, that a certain creature exists)
and then sets out to find evidence to, well, test this hypothesis (looks for the creature and/or further evidence of its existence).
Now, I’m no scientist–most of what I know I learned in high school–but isn’t that basically the scientific method? I know there’s more to it than that, but still….
In fact, as far as I can tell, the only thing that truly makes it “unscientific” is that a scientific theory has to be negatable… that is, it must be possible to prove that the theory or hypothesis is incorrect. And, well, I’m not sure how you’d scientifically “prove” that something doesn’t exist.
Same problem with the “atheist versus religious” debate, as far as I’m concerned, both in the real world and in shows like this one.
Bones frequently disparages religion throughout the series for one reason or another, the anthropologist who seems to ignore cultural beliefs as largely irrelevant to her cultural studies, a symptom of other factors but never a cause worth investigating for itself… apparently not even when it relates to a criminal’s motives.
But that’s an argument for another day.
And to return to the particular episode in question: sure, they proved that the victim was not killed by the chupacabra, that that particular instance was a hoax.
But in what universe, in what “science,” does disproving one single instance disprove all sightings throughout history? Again, how does one “prove” that something does not exist?
Those situations that would have made for the perfect photo… except I don’t have my camera ready.
I’ve made up my mind to carry my camera as much as possible after a few such missed opportunities, like a triple rainbow that disappeared before I got home.
But even when I have my camera on hand, and even when I have it prepared for any split-second photos (usually by cheating and taking video), it isn’t always possible to get every perfect picture. There will always be something I see
Case in point:
On a motorcycle ride with my parents, and this huge bird (crane?) takes off right next to us. I had the camera mounted to my bike… on the other side.
On another ride, and a hawk dove down right in front of me, practically filling my view of the windshield… the batteries had just died.
In both cases, the camera was set to video–I can’t very well take photos while I’m riding, now can I? 😉 –but I could easily have broken that video up later into its individual frames. But I never managed to record the event to begin with.
Riding in the car after dropping off my mother’s motorcycle off for its regular maintenance, and another hawk takes off from the grass in front of us… and not only was my camera not out, but my dad was on the phone with me, discussing I don’t remember what.
Another bike ride, and we passed by what might have been an amazing landscape… yet I was trying to conserve my battery power and we’d passed the area before I could switch my camera back on.
And, like that first bird, plenty of things I might miss on a bike ride, simply because it’s impossible with my mount to aim the camera at every little thing.
So, my readers, what things have you seen that you’d love to have taken a picture of? Or better yet, what unexpected photos have you taken?
How do you prefer to prepare for these opportunities?
Side Quest Publications 