To call it an anticlimax would be an insult not only to climaxes but to prefixes

Subject:	True Blood
Time:	5:28 pm.
Mood:	eh..

Mostly, the first ep was all set-up, so I still can't wait for the season to actually begin ~~and by actually begin I obviously mean Chris Meloni shows up, preferably nakkid~~.

Comments: Add Your Own.

Subject:	Top 3 TV Tropes I Can't Stand
Time:	6:39 am.

1. The vampire double standard:
I don't mean treating the horrific crimes of vampires as acceptable (it's not easy to get right, but it's possible), but the double standard applied to the crimes of Obvious Romantic Lead Vampire vs. The Inevitable Sexy Evil With Possible Heart of Gold Vamp. Just because the ORLV happens to be not murdering humans at the time we (and the inevitably super special yet unreasonably young female love interest) meet him, does not automatically absolve him of all he's done before he grew a conscience, or of the stuff he will inevitably do later on, supposedly for love. Conversely, the Sexy Evil One isn't any more ev0l than his counterpart simply because he's snarky/not immediately in love with FLI/doesn't hide who he is and what he's done. Personally, I prefer the more truthful, less hypocritical, and harder to get to know one, be it Eric, Damon, Spike, or any of the bazillion others that fit the mold, but regardless of personal preference, and really, to each his/her own, the morality of dating/sleeping with/loving a mass murderer is tenuous at best, and any attempt to sell me one as nobler or more morally acceptable than the other is doomed to not only fail miserably, but to annoy the hell out of me in the process.

2. Unresolved Sexual Tension:
Anticipation can be hot and sexy and lovely and all sorts of good things, but if you keep it up too long, I'm bound to, at best, lose interest, and more likely just want to punch both parties in the face. Sexually active (or potentially so) adults don't sniff each other's bums for years without doing anything about it, unless they're seriously deficient in some way. Mutual attraction resolves itself reasonably quickly, because lustful or enamored people are not generally paragons of self control and/or rational thinking, and someone, some time, will make a move, and then it either works out or it doesn't. If you wait too long for that to happen, you've lost me, because even my fantasy and sci-fi loving levels of suspension of disbelief crumble in the face of contrived human behavior.

3. Contrived Misunderstandings:
That's kinda like #2, only not specific to UST (though it is often used as one of the many, many ploys to maintain the UST U'd). The point is, people talk to each other. Friends talk to each other a lot. Close friends talk to each other even more. If someone tells you something about your friend, or you think you heard your friend say something, or do something, that is unreasonable/out of character/annoying to the extent that it could change the very nature of your relationship, the sane thing to do is to talk to them. Making huge life and relationship altering decisions without even bothering to find out wtf is going on is fucked up behavior on a scale that is rarely seen in the wild unless there is a very good reason for it, and sadly, it's the rare writer who bothers to provide the appropriate level of reasoning for such extreme behavior. What's wrong with allowing the characters to have a fight in which they actually talk (or yell) things out? Seriously, if you need to get to a certain outcome, it's not that hard to do just using anger and stubbornness and pride and other similarly common and believable human traits and behaviors. Leaving the decision making point at the suspicion stage without bothering with some form of confrontation is lazy and stupid.

Comments: Read 8 orAdd Your Own.

Time:	8:54 pm.
Mood:	annoyed.

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm sick and tired of seeing naked women on TV.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a lovely female form as much as the next person who enjoys naked women.
I also can't stand the US Network approach, according to which, women always keep their bras on while having sex (and sometimes also their panties and other bits of lingerie, and not in a wild monkey sex way, but in a This-Sex-Is-Improbable way), as if there's nothing between pr0n (or Spartacus) and unrealistic "modesty." But then again, these are the same networks that refuse to acknowledge that people might need to do radical things like, for instance, pee, before fucking in the morning (or brush their teeth - never with any paste, though, because it doesn't look good on camera or something).

I've always been a fan of the UK's after-the-watershed approach to programming, where people who have sex tend to do it naked, or at least remove enough clothing between them to actually reach the genitalia, and they also do outrageous things like sweating, and the actors, while easy on the eyes, still look like people you might see walking down a normal street.

So, yeah, I'm all for cable doing sex right, or more realistically, or at the very least, more fun to watch. The Sopranos had its fair share of both sex and nudity, and the characters weren't exactly paragons of sexual equality, and there were hookers and strippers and the like, but we also saw quite a bit of partially clothed men, and the sex was mostly sex, as opposed to porn.

Now I watch things like Game of Thrones or Magic City and I just wish they'd let the women put some fucking clothes on, or else get the men to at least drop their pants to ass-level WHILE THEY'RE FUCKING. I mean, seriously, WTF, Cable TV?

Comments: Read 8 orAdd Your Own.

Subject:	State Of The Fall TV (non-spoilery)
Time:	2:21 pm.
Mood:	sick.

I'm having trouble with this season of Fringe. I think that, other than the ~~Pacey~~ Peter thing, it's that the characters that are supposed to be the same people I grew to give a shit about are now different. And they're not different in ways that I can predict or understand. And they're not alternate universe, groovy What If characters, whose uniqueness is a feature. They're just other people. And it keep taking me out of the story. The stories not being particularly good doesn't help, but it wouldn't be as much of a problem for me if I didn't feel like they killed everyone off and put impostors in instead.

Community is brilliant. It's not just funny and clever and chock-full of pop-culture references and homages and other goodies, which it is. It's that they manage to do some really complicated and complex storytelling in a 20 minute slot, which is pretty extraordinary. So top notch writing, plus, people actually have sex. It may be silly to want more sex on TV, but really, when it comes to the classic UST thing? I'm SO over it.

Speaking of being over the UST thing, I'm watching Castle because I love Nathan Fillion, and because the writers are geeks, but the whole Castle/Becket thing is getting seriously tiresome at this point.

Vampire Diaries is still cracktaskic fun, as is Supernatural, though both shows are not as good as they were when they were really really good, but then they both started out really fucking lame, so I guess I'm not expecting consistency. The Spike and Cordelia episode was fun, though. :D

Boardwalk Empire is still very good, and I still don't love it. There's nothing wrong with the show. On the contrary, it's well written, well acted, well directed, there's character development and plots and plot twists and all things good. I just doesn't spark that visceral attachment in me that I get from other (often lesser) shows.

In new shows, Boss (unsurprisingly) and Homeland (unexpectedly) are excellent.

American Horror Story is growing on me, despite a weak first episode. Once Upon A Time started out much better than I was expecting, which is more than I can say for Grimm.

I'm still undecided on Terra Nova (cheap Jurassic Park, but kinda fun, mostly?), Pan Am (hit and miss), Ringer (getting progressively better), and Unforgettable (I can take it or leave it). Secret Circle is rather lame, but I'm still watching, probably because TVD started out rather lame too, so I'm hoping it gets better, though, really, I'm not sure why.

Comments: Read 2 orAdd Your Own.

Subject:	Wikipedia Wants Me
Time:	11:48 pm.

I love Wikipedia. It's not perfect, but I love what it stands for, and I love what it's trying to achieve. I'm also very interested in issues surrounding intellectual property, copyright laws, users' rights, public domain, and the tremendously powerful lobby that is set on retaining the rights to our entire culture in perpetuity, so the decision to attend Wikimania (the annual international conference of the Wikimedia Foundation) was a complete no-brainer for me.

And then I spent two days listening to people talk about how much they want me. Well, maybe not me-me, but still. Wikipedia isn't attracting new editors at a sufficient rate in general, and not nearly enough women in particular. Now, I happen to be a reasonably well educated and articulate woman, who is both willing and able to contribute to Wikipedia.

The obvious question, then, is why am I not a Wikipedian?

Depending on who you talk to, it's because there are too many rules, or the rules aren't clear enough, or the seasoned editors aren't welcoming enough, or they're too controlling or rude or they don't even think there's a problem, or the user interface is problematic, or newbies start out writing a new entry which promptly gets deleted because it doesn't conform to community standards and so they leave, or Wikipedia is so large that there's simply not much left to write about, or potential editors are too used to things just being there and don't like looking under the hood, or seeing how the sausage is made, or other metaphors. I'm probably leaving some stuff out, but you get the picture. Wikipedia acknowledges that there's a problem, and a whole bunch of people are talking about why the problem exists and what can or should be done to fix it.

What none of these people have done is ask me why I'm not a Wikipedia editor, which is why I'm writing this. Because Wikipedia says it wants me, and I want to contribute to Wikipedia, and yet I don't, and it's not for any of the reasons I've heard so far (disclaimer: I haven't listened to every single editor-related talk at Wikimania, as there have been plenty of talks on subjects I was more interested in going on simultaneously).

When I first heard about the 2011 Wikimania, I found a call for volunteers. I was thinking I could volunteer, so I looked around to see if someone was in charge of coordinating this. Since there wasn't anyone I could contact, I figured the next best thing was to check out the discussion tab for that page.

The discussion tab says three things. First, that the page does not exist, but that I could create it. Second, that I should keep my contribution on-topic, and the third was a warning that I was creating a page that was previously deleted. It goes on to say:

You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. The deletion and move log for this page are provided here for convenience:

Excellent! There's a log I can look at, might help me figure out what's going on. It's provided for my convenience, right there:

07:15, 11 May 2011 Az1568 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Volunteers" ‎ (Author request: Blanked)

Oh. Okay, now I'm confused. I gather that Az1568 deleted the discussion page. I can even click through to his profile and learn more about him. There's also a link to "Talk:Volunteers" though it doesn't exist because it's been deleted. In fact, I'm looking at the log of its deletion. The added information "Author request: Blanked" links to nothing and might mean something to someone, but that someone isn't me. So, dead end there. Still, I'm not that easily deterred. I want to help, and there must be a way to do it. So I go back to the original call for volunteers page and start over.

The page includes two tables with lists of volunteers (one online, one offline). I guess I could edit myself in there and hope that someone contacts me. So I go to the edit tab of the page. Now, I'm no computer whiz or anything, but I can plainly see that the editable bit doesn't include the tables with the volunteers. It's just the top bit that talks about wanting people to volunteer, which I have no intention of editing. Still, I look for clues.

Scrolling down, I can see a whole lot of information regarding the editing of this page. There's a bit about agreeing to the TOS and the license and ticky boxes and a bunch of characters and symbols, something about not writing if I don't want to be "mercilessly edited" and about not using non-public-domain resources and a link to an editing help file, and even a request that on talk pages I sign my name using ~~~~, whatever that means.

At the bottom of the page there is a list of 8 templates used on "this" page.

Though I'm not sure which page that is or what these templates are, I figure it's my only lead at this point, so I click the link titled "Template:Offline volunteers" which takes me to a page that houses the volunteer list table separately. Result! Again, there's no discussion, but there is an edit tab, so I can add myself to the list and so, hopefully, eventually end up talking to someone about volunteering at the conference.

I'm not familiar with the format, but there's a copy-paste thing I can do and just replace the italicized bits with my info, which seems simple enough. Except I don't have a user name yet, so I register, and when that's done, I go back to edit myself into the list. Of course, the page my user name links to is empty, but that doesn't seem to matter, so I ignore it and move on. The thing is, I notice that the other people on the list have a system for the language part of the table where they note the languages they speak and at what level, and I'm not familiar with this system, so I go in search of the codes used for languages and proficiency levels. I can't find anything about it, but I remember seeing something on the profile of the guy who deleted the discussion page I was looking for earlier, so I go back there, and, true enough, there's a green box that says "En-N" and next to it it says "This user can read and write at a native level in English."

AHA! Now we're getting somewhere. N means native level. Also, the word English is in lovely link-blue, so I check it out, and there's an actual list of levels of fluency and their codes:

Also, there's a list of pages (apparently user profiles) who are in the useful category "User en."

So now I have the fluency codes from 0 to N, which, yay, but I don't have a list of language codes. Since I can't seem to find a comprehensive list, I go for the next best thing and look for users who speak the same languages I do. It takes a while, since I'm clicking through to a limited pool of profiles, and they don't always have that handy bit on the side with the languages they speak, and some profiles redirect to other places. Still, there's some interesting people there, so I don't mind sifting through profiles.

Sadly, this is the point where my memory fails me. I think I managed to find all the relevant languages eventually, but I never did edit that template to add my details to it. Thinking back, I can't remember why I made that decision at the time, though I might have come to the conclusion that even if I did edit myself in, there would still be no way for anyone to contact me about it, and I know that by the time I got to that stage, I didn't feel like creating a profile page for myself. Or maybe I just got distracted. I guess we'll never know. Either way, if you found this description tiresome and long winded (which, really, you should), imagine how I feel.

The process of editing this teeny tiny bit of a template within a page isn't technically demanding or complex, and doesn't require any particular familiarity with Wikipedia rules or standards. It also doesn't involve any contact whatsoever with seasoned editors, welcoming or otherwise. Those things are not the problem. The problem is at a much simpler and more basic level than people who are familiar with the system seem to be able to either imagine or remember.

I was talking to some people from the Hebrew Wikipedia earlier today, and they told me that once you edit a page, you get a Welcome to Wikipedia message with information on editing. As a potential contributor, this seems a bit ass backwards to me. I don't want to waste my time editing when I have no idea what I'm doing, just to get to the point where I get to find out how I should've done it. From their perspective, most people create an account and never come back or contribute anything at all, so there's no point in trying to welcome each new user individually till they've actually done something. I'm not saying this isn't a valid POV, but if that's the case, then there should probably be some way for those who do want to start contributing to get an idea of what's going on before they start. Well, as it turns out, there is actually a page with a list of experienced users who are willing to adopt a newbie, which is excellent. The only problem is that unless you know it's there, and where to find it, you won't know it's there or where to find it.

You need to know how things work in order to find out how things work. Unless you know where to look, you can't find the pages that tell you where to look. Those pages exist. They're tremendously useful. All you have to do to make use of all this wonderful information is reach the point where you don't need it anymore.

I'm a pretty resourceful woman. I can figure out the syntax and the UI and how to deal with other editors and what the rules and guidelines are. What I can't figure out is where they stashed the door. So, the answer to the question that no one asked me?

The only reason I'm not a Wikipedian yet is that I'm not a Wikipedian already.

You can comment on this entry using OpenID or your Google, Facebook or Twitter accounts. Sorry I couldn't enable anonymous comments :(

Comments: Read 8 orAdd Your Own.

Subject:	Southern Vampire AKA Sookie Stackhouse Books
Time:	10:58 pm.
Mood:	tired.

So, I finished the Southern Vamp series yesterday. It's weird, because even though I thoroughly enjoyed most of it, I'm finding it difficult to maintain my enthusiasm for the series after reading the latest installment.

I was pleasantly surprised to find that the books were as cracktastic as the TV show, and the narration from Sookie's POV actually made the show more enjoyable for me, because I got a better understanding of the character than I had before, which was an unexpected bonus, and I actually started to love Sookie around book 6. Also, the writing improved considerably, which made the whole thing that much more of a fun ride. Now that I'm all caught up, though, I honestly wish I'd stopped reading at book #9.

I think that book #11, Dead Reckoning, was a total mess. Where do I even start? There's just so much wrong with this book, IDEK.
Characterization was horrific and inconsistent.
The continuity went to hell (more than usual).
The plot was all over the place.
The writing took a turn for the worse.
There was a grand total of two scenes in the book that I actually enjoyed, which is pretty pathetic.

I can't properly convey my dismay without going into details, so, Yeah. Let's dissect this, shall we?

It's kinda sad that I managed to write so many paragraphs detailing what's wrong with the book, and I not only still had at least as many to add, but that I couldn't be bothered to finish, because the more I think about it, the less able I am to care anymore.

Comments: Read 2 orAdd Your Own.

Subject:	For Bib (not proofread due to atrocious lack of sleep)
Time:	7:21 pm.
Mood:	sleepy.

For some reason, when I'm feeling really bad physically, I read. Since I've been feeling shitty this past week, I read the Kate Daniels books by Ilona Andrews (Magic Bites+Burns+Strikes+Bleeds+Slays).

I stumbled onto this series by looking through various Urban Fantasy books on Amazon, so I don't know if anyone on here reads them, which I guess means that this is destined to be my first ever spoiler-free semi-proper book review. I'm all aflutter.

The back cover type synopsis, if I had to write it, would go something like this: In a world where a magical backlash occurred after centuries of technological advancement, alternating waves of magic and technology wash over the city of Atlanta, where shape-shifters, necromancers, guilds of mercenaries and an Order of Knights struggle for domination. Kate Daniels, a trained killer with a big mouth, a magic sword, and a personal history that, if revealed, would put her and everyone around her in mortal danger, steps out of the shadows in order to avenge her guardian's death, which forces her to navigate the murky waters of power politics and dangerous romantic entanglements while attempting to fight nightmarish monsters without revealing her identity.

The Kate Daniels books are built along the familiar lines of a central mystery each book, with a thread of slow-developing, slow-reveal series arc weaved in. Standard tropes abound, some better executed than others. Personally, I'm a sucker for the antagonistically hot love/hate relationship with the romantic interest, which is very well done in this series. It's not dragged out so much that you're just sick of it, and fights, arguments, disagreements and misunderstandings are generally resolved in a reasonably timely manner, so the books manage to avoid these two annoying traits of the trope, making it that much more fun to read. It also helps that I actually like both the male and female leads, even though I want to punch them both at times, which, in this case, is an indication that the writer made the characters and their relationship work for me, as opposed to making me hate them. Sadly, other plot threads don't work as well.

In the first couple of books, Kate's origin story somehow manages to be simultaneously too obvious and too opaque. The information that is hinted at comes across as not juicy enough to merit the attempt at drawing out its reveal, and it's only after the initial (unsurprising) reveal is out of the way that we start getting pieces of information that are actually intriguing. Laying out the basic facts earlier in the series and then portioning out the actual meat of the matter in morsels would've worked better. As it stands, we got way too much hinting at the basic facts in a not very subtle way for way too long, without any particular reason to see the basic facts as something that's worth building an arc over. I was mostly thinking that it's gonna be a series with a weak overall arc, which is fine, but 5 books in, it doesn't seem to be the case anymore, so I think they dropped the ball on that one, though they're picking it up now and seem to be running with it.

The bookly mystery/big!bad plots are generally the weakest aspect of the series. They're pretty basic fare; stumble-onto-bad-thing, realize bad!thing is worse/more mysterious than it might seem, figure out who's behind bad!thing/what bad!thing is, and finally, win big fight. Each such plot is interspersed with a red herring or two, danger due to investigating the bad!thing, and a large helping of lovingly cannibalized mishmash of various mythologies. The plots aren't bad so much as they're just not particularly exciting. There are some nice touches here and there, but mostly, the plots only serve as a background or, at best, a catalyst for character development, which is the real saving grace of the series.

The heroine, Kate, though she initially comes off as a standard Man with Breasts type, actually turns out to be a well crafted character. Even though she has some not-so-mysterious ancestry that gives her some extraordinary powers, and a slightly more mysterious upbringing that gives her some extraordinary skills, those assets are (mostly) balanced out by her being genuinely fucked up emotionally, which is portrayed very realistically, and by her complete lack of skills in areas in which she wasn't trained or gifted, which includes not just atrocious social skills, but also her being a truly terrible detective, which is rather refreshing for an urban fantasy series of the mystery/crime/horror variety. She is flawed in ways that are not only understandable and relatable, but are also consistent with her back story, and, perhaps most importantly, she's flawed in ways that affect both her work and her personal life to an extent that is neither minor nor insignificant, and, shockingly, she actually learns from her mistakes and grows as a character and as a person.

Characterization in general is a strong point in the series. Even though the story is told from Kate's limited (despite her exceptional observational skills) POV, most of the other characters are properly fleshed out, consistently portrayed, and easily differentiated, which is a huge bonus for me, as I suck at remembering names, so I have a hard time following even otherwise compelling storylines if I can't easily recognize the players.

On the cusp of characterization and world building, we have the Order and the Pack, two of the central organizations featured in the books, each with distinct structures and goals that are clearly laid out. Despite Kate's tendency to view everyone as an enemy, the information and the characters are sufficiently fleshed out, so that we can get a well rounded view of these two cultures, even though we see them through the protagonist's POV.

I also really like both the concept and the execution of the alternating waves of magic and technology washing over the world like weather. You get a real sense of the magic waves eroding technology, and of tech waves washing magic away, and somehow it just clicks, without having to read chapters (and sometimes several books) of long winded exposition just so you can wrap your head around the basic premise.

This premise also makes for an interesting and sometimes thought-provoking background, as people have to go without certain things entirely, due to the unreliable nature of the environment, while doubling up on other things so that they'll be available both during tech and during magic. Lighting, for instance, comes in two varieties, one magical and one tech, and they switch automatically when the "weather" changes, but you gotta pay your bills for both, which is a nice little touch, and similarly, if you want to protect your home, you need wards for magic time and solid, lockable doors for when magic is down, as physical barriers might not be enough to keep things out during magic, but wards won't work during tech, and things like weapons and transportation pose similar challenges. And then there's all the stuff that's simply gone, like air travel, and on the flip side, stuff that always works, such as horseback riding or swords.

Another favorite aspect of mine is how the knowledge that was gained during the technological era (before the first magic wave hits, at some point in our near future), is retained and can be applied to magical phenomena. Contraptions meant to detect and test magical traces have been built and added to the existing arsenal of forensics labs, and there are dual-purpose cars, built to run normally during tech, and on some form of enchanted water engine during magic. Fields like forensic science, medicine, biology, even surveillance, have expanded and incorporated magical aspects, instead of being replaced, so that while most of the technology-based structures, such as sky scrapers, for example, have mostly been reduced to rubble, the world hasn't become a stone age Swords and Sorcery type place, and has retained its urban aspects and feel, which I believe is rather important in urban fantasy.

The writing itself is neither spectacular nor horrendous. Most of the time it's straight forward, without drawing too much attention to itself and without too much self indulgence, and it gets the job done. The dialog tends to be solid, and the descriptions aren't too flowery and don't suffer from an overabundance of adjectives, which happens to be a pet peeve of mine. On the other hand, there's at least one writing tick that seriously got on my nerves. It seems like the writers are in love with this particular sentence structure:

Lean and phlegmatic, with a narrow, intelligent face, he looked more like a campus intellectual than a bartender.

Thirty city blocks long and eight blocks deep, it cut through what used to be Midtown like a dagger.

A couple of inches taller than me, the Beast Lord gave an impression of coiled power.

All but invisible from the highway, the fortress sat in the middle of a clearing.

Dangerous as hell, they had raised necromancy to the level of art.

Syntactically bizarre, this structure is nevertheless repeated over and over again. A mere smattering, these are all examples from flipping through the first book. Lacking any stylistic or substantive justification, this repetitive writing tick drove me nuts. I think I've made my point.

To be fair, the writing does improve in subsequent books, including less of that ^.

The following, also from the first book, gives a better idea of the overall tone and style:

I glanced at Derek. The boy wonder didn't melt into a pile of goo, although his gaze was glued to Rowena's chest. Avoiding eye contact. Good strategy.
"Sorry we're late."
"Not a problem. Please follow me."
We did, climbing the staircase up the long hallway.
"You've been here before?" Derek asked, his gaze firmly fixed on Rowena's ass shifting under the shimmering green silk a few steps above us.
"Wiggles," I told him.
He blinked, then realized I wasn't referring to Rowena's backside. "Wiggles?"
"She's about fourteen feet long, triangular head, gray and blue scales…"
He was clearly drawing a blank. "Nataraja's pet snake," I explained. "It bolted a few weeks ago. I found it for him at the request of the Guild." Mentioning that I spent four solid days camped out in a swamp, covered in peat and muck, without a change of clothes, would have completely cramped my style.

The Kate Daniels books start out a bit shaky, but quickly become a fun, easy read. The KD world really worked for me, with its solid premise and lots of little touches that help ground it in reality. The wide range of characters was an unexpected bonus, as was the existence of actual couples who aren't the boring friends/parents but actual players who have personalities and are allowed to be both interesting and sexy(!) without being either perfect or all the same. Both the plots and the writing are hit and miss, and the overall series arc takes too long to get going, but these things do improve as the series progresses. I'd classify it as not genius but still thoroughly enjoyable romantic horror in an urban fantasy setting. If apocalyptic chick-lit sounds good to you, then I'd definitely recommend this series.

Comments: Read 9 orAdd Your Own.

Subject:	Book List Meme Thing
Time:	5:32 am.
Mood:	blah.

Gakked from

lea724:

This list is the NPR Audience Picks of the 100 Best Beach Books Ever (Beach Book? These people are insane! -R.B.)

It's the usual drill: Bold the ones you've read. If you remember reading them on a beach, then italicize them as well! (No, there's no code for indicating books you've started, or want to read, or heard of; that stuff's for sissies. You read it, or you didn't.) Give us your count at the end!

So that's 29 read, two DNF (I never did manage to get through an entire Tolkien book), three currently reading, one that got lost while I was reading it, and one that I actually really want to read but haven't yet.

Comments: Read 1 orAdd Your Own.

Time:

9:55 pm.

I normally can't stand singing competitions, but I'm finding The Voice surprisingly enjoyable. I'm also dangerously close to developing crushes on both Beverly McClellan and the country singer judge/mentor whose name escapes me (I never heard of him before the show).

I've been meaning to mention, about the Bones season finale,

Finally, the entertainment industry needs to get its head out of its ass and realize that their electronically available products have gone global. If it can be transmitted over the internet, it will be transmitted over the internet. Local distribution concepts may work for physical objects (to the extent that people choose to buy products in stores and not order them online), but when it comes to electronic media, it's an obsolete system, and instead of sending their platoon of lawyers and lobbyists to fight it, they need to get with the program and make the situation out here in the real world work for them.

I'm sick and tired of being actively prevented from legally purchasing items (that I can download for free much more easily) based on my billing address or location at time of attempted purchase, by the very corporations that are bitching about people "stealing" from them. If I give you my money, fucking take it already. I can't even imagine how many millions of people around the world are willing, able, and even eager to BUY ebooks, music, movies, etc., but end up downloading those things for free because the companies that hold the rights to them simply refuse to sell them, in a stupidly stubborn attempt to maintain a status quo that no longer exists.

On an unrelated, and more positive note, I think I might attend Wikimania 2011. :)

Comments: Read 4 orAdd Your Own.

Subject:	Double Meme!
Time:	9:30 pm.
Mood:	sore.

This is the first such quiz that correctly places my origins in the West, as opposed to the mid-west. It's hard to tell where I'm from by my accent, but still, the only flawless USian accent I've ever had was my original Californian one, as opposed to the more unplaceable mongrel accent I've developed over the years. I think I only ever met one person who right off the bat asked me if I was from California, and turns out, it was because she'd heard me say "I was, like, um..."

What American accent do you have?
Created by Xavier on Memegen.net

Western. Like Midland, Western is another accent that people consider neutral. So, you might not actually be from the Western half of the country, but you definitely sound like it.

And if you're not from the West, you are probably one of the following:
(a) A Pittsburgher - the quiz can't tell the difference;
(b) Someone from Canada (probably southern Ontario) who doesn't have a Canadian accent;
(c) Someone from northern New England who doesn't have a New England accent; or
(d) Someone from Texas or the Heartland who was born after 1980.
You are definitely not from New York, New Jersey, Chicago, Detroit, the Deep South, etc.</font>

Take this quiz now - it's easy!

Now the ABC one...

I pulled a neck muscle or something yesterday and it's making me all achey and weak and miserable :(

Comments: Read 2 orAdd Your Own.

Subject:	Golden Globes
Time:	6:28 am.
Mood:	blah.

Finally sat down to watch the Golden Globes.

Thoughts in no particular order (even though they're numbered for convenience or something):

1. I want Hugh Laurie to win for House. This bugs me.

2. The Social Network's script was full of holes, misogyny, anachronisms and other icky things. It's definitely not the best this year, nor is it anywhere near Sorkin's best, and it makes me sad that so many people think it's good.

3. The Social Network was not a good film. It was cliched and mediocre work from people who are capable of much more. More importantly, it was the weakest of the nominees overall. Well done Sony for the publicity, though.

4. Oh, Fincher. He's done such amazing work, and hopefully will do more of it, but like Sorkin, TSN was far from his best work, and though I haven't seen The Fighter yet, both The Swan and Inception had more inspired directing.

5. Natalie Portman is pretty.

6. This was the least fun/relaxed and most tense/mean spirited GG I've seen yet. Not sure if it's that Hollywood's decided collectively that they no longer find Ricky Gervais' being full of himself funny, or the humorlessness of the crowd, but I got a really nasty, unpleasant vibe. Just didn't feel good natured to me.

7. Seems to me that quite a few stars have gained some weight. I approve. I was getting a bit sick of seeing skin barely stretched over bones and the occasional muscle.

8. Yay for Chris Colfer!

9. As much as I love Jane Lynch, I think that Julia Stiles gave an absolutely outstanding performance on Dexter, as did Kelly MacDonald on Boardwalk Empire.

10. I love Katy Sagal.

11. I really enjoyed Boardwalk Empire, I don't watch Good Wife and haven't watched the latest Mad Men yet, but Dexter had a spectacular season, and I found The Walking Dead much more engaging than Boardwalk Empire, so that's at least two shows I'd pick over Boardwalk.

12. Now that I think about it, other than Colfer, Portman, Sagal and Colin Firth, none of the choices made me happy.

13. Inception should've gotten some more recognition.

14. Though I've seen Michelle Williams in a few films since then, I can't stop thinking about her as the chick from Dawson's Creek.

Comments: Read 2 orAdd Your Own.

Subject:	This Is Not About WikiLeaks
Time:	11:19 am.
Mood:	tired.

The US government is now using its considerable power to shape both foreign governments and corporations into tools for its unprecedented international persecution of a news gathering organization and its smarmy leader.

So far, WikiLeaks has been subjected to DDoS attacks, it's been booted off servers and DNS services both in the US and abroad, had its Swiss bank account frozen, its PayPal account suspended, Visa and Master Card have both decided to block donations to WikiLeaks, and both Facebook and Twitter have suspended WikiLeaks accounts. Hell, even some free data visualization site booted the WikiLeaks data.

This isn't conspiracy theory/behind the scenes/national security stuff. It's right out there in the public domain for all to see. The US government has abandoned any attempt to even appear as if its actions are guided by anything other than self interest, as well as any pretense that it does not view itself as above the law, federal and international, and is publicly resorting to brute force and bullying to achieve its goals without even attempting to cover its ass.

Now, Julian Assange seems to me like a smarmy self-aggrandizing creep and a shameless attention whore. I'm undecided about his organization, WikiLeaks, mostly because they're so fucking secretive I can't tell what they're doing or why. I certainly have no problem with Assange being extradited from the UK to Sweden to face criminal charges.

I do have a problem with American politicians publicly calling to assassinate Assange as a leader of a terrorist organization.

I have a problem with the State Department declaring publicly that Assange and WikiLeaks are criminals engaged in illegal activity, and using this supposed "fact" to intimidate organizations and companies into kicking them in the balls, when neither Assange nor WikiLeaks have even been charged with anything in any US court (let alone convicted - apparently the entire judicial system is superfluous). And the reason they haven't been charged with anything is that there is no statute (yet - Congress generously offered to rewrite some laws for this special occasion) that they are in clear violation of, and if the government did manage to find something that might stick, they'd have a huge problem with the 4th Amendment, and if they did manage to circumvent the constitution and create a dangerous precedent regarding the publication by a third party of leaked documents (in effect making journalism illegal in the US) it likely wouldn't be enforceable under most, if not all, current extradition treaties.

And so, I support Anonymous and Operation Payback and whatever loosely organized anarchic online groups that are doing the online equivalent of a sit-in, more commonly known as DDoS attacks, on those companies and organizations, governmental and otherwise, that chose to bow down to pressure and participate in this persecution, because the people have no power against attacks such as these unless we do something when the smarmy ones are being shat on. Also, they threw in an attack on Palin for free, which is just icing on the moose.

This isn't a comprehensive post. I've been reading stuff for several days now and I have a lot of OPINIONS (and almost as many bookmarks), but I really wanted to say something, even if no one's listening, because I think it's important; not because I agree with WikiLeaks, but because I find the US government's actions to be both despicable and really fucking scary.

Oh, and they even got Encyclopedia Dramatica to remove an entry about Operation Payback, which, WTF? Though, to be fair, as far as I could tell, at least there was a court order involved.

Also, in serious business, there's a legal analysis written by what the EFF says is an independent, non-partisan legal office that does research for Congress, which covers the legal options and issues relating to possible prosecution of WikiLeaks and/or Assange. I've read it and found it extraordinarily informative, so if you feel like it, it's here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41404.pdf

Comments: Read 1 orAdd Your Own.

Time:	2:32 am.
Mood:	amused.

Also, Funniest Episode Ever.

Comments: Read 1 orAdd Your Own.

Subject:	I'm trying to be good about the updating thing.
Time:	4:11 pm.
Mood:	blah.

Here's an Icon Meme!

MAH ICONS.

default	oldest	newest


saddest	happiest	angriest


cutest	sexiest	funniest


fave ship	fave fandom	fave animated


best quote	best textless	best stolen idea


use the most	favorite	honorable mention

HOW MANY ICONS DO YOU HAVE: 100
OUT OF HOW MANY AVAILABLE ICONS SPACES: 138
IF YOU COULD BUY SPACE FOR MORE, WOULD YOU: I doubt it. The ones I already have are underused, and I always think I need more but never do anything about it.
DO YOUR ICONS MAKE A STATEMENT: If they do, I don't know what it is. Unless we're talking about specific icons, in which case, yes, some of them make statements.
WHAT FANDOM DO YOU HAVE THE MOST ICONS OF: Doctor Who.
AND THE SECOND MOST: BtVS/AtS
WHAT SHIP DO YOU HAVE THE MOST ICONS OF: 9th Doctor/Rose, though I'm not sure how truly shippy they are.
ARE YOUR ICONS MADE MOSTLY BY OTHER PEOPLE: No. About 25% are from other people, the rest are mine.
DO YOU MAKE ICONS: Not nearly as much as I used to, or as much as I'd like to.
ARE THEY ANY GOOD: Some are, some aren't. Or, most aren't, a few are.
ANIMATED ICONS ARE: Mostly badly done, but can be extraordinarily useful/funny/poignant in the right hands.
FINAL WORDS: I didn't choose the categories, obviously, and chose icons so that they wouldn't repeat. For instance, my actual most used is my default, but what's the point in that? Also, my favorite could fit into other categories, but I went with something else for ship and for textless etc. so as not to bore myself to death. I also added an honorable mention, because I felt like it. And these final words. What can I say, I suck at following instructions.

DO THE MEME.
Coding can be found here

Comments: Read 3 orAdd Your Own.

Subject:	The Social Network
Time:	5:29 pm.
Mood:	nauseated.

Aaron Sorkin would have us believe that in writing The Social Network, he has not written a definitive account of a young man's life, but a multi-layered one, based on the accounts and testimonies of various people. More than that, we're meant to gain some insights not just into the specific subculture of young men in Ivy League schools in the 21st century, but into modern life itself, into social networking online and off, into generation Z, into the (obnoxiously overused) "zeitgeist."

I would've loved to have seen that movie, but The Social Network is not it.

The acting is pretty good. The visuals are rather dated and cliched, but adequate for the story. The misogyny is literally nausea-inducing in places. The script is full of inconsistent characterization and plot holes and lacks any imagination or any attempt to glean any sort of meaning or raise any interesting questions. The dialogue is quick and mostly clever. Despite its mediocrity, I'm guessing it's gonna win some awards.

Finally, for the record, everything I've said here is based on my personal memories and impressions. I may well have gotten some of the specific details (like names) wrong, but I'm not watching this thing again, and I don't think I could stomach reading any more about it. Also, no proofing or rewriting has taken place, and for this I apologize.

Comments: Read 21 orAdd Your Own.

Time:

5:53 am.

Sherlock Holmes is, for obvious reasons, one of my all-time favorite fictional characters.

The new BBC Gattis/Moffat modern-day TV adaptation Sherlock, is by far the closest to the Arthur Conan Doyle characters as I've always understood them, as well as just being brilliantly executed. That's not to say that I didn't enjoy RDJ in the role, but that though I enjoyed the film, I had to set aside the source material to appreciate it, and so ended up not really seeing it as a Sherlock Holmes movie, if that makes sense.

In other news, I got my very first work-related dongle this week. Getting a job is good. Getting wonky over re-upped-meds is not so good (my stomach? not at all happy), but I think, overall, better than before. Also, boss lady seems to like me, and my mad computer skillz.

A to Z Meme gacked from

strangefrontier:

Comments: Read 1 orAdd Your Own.

Subject:	I Write Like...
Time:	6:32 am.
Mood:	amused.

Random update things are mostly Stephen King or Chuck Palahniuk, with the occasional Margaret Atwoods and Dan Browns, but then there's this, for an entry recounting some of my personal experiences with sexual and emotional abuse (so weird):

I write like
P. G. Wodehouse

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

Three separate meta posts got me this:

I write like
H. P. Lovecraft

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

Amusingly, I got this for discussing my pre-performance anxiety:

I write like
George Orwell

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

And on an entry describing some hectic insanity in my life, only with good things, I got this:

I write like
Douglas Adams

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

Talking about my dead dad and two entries about shitty circumstances got me...

I write like
Kurt Vonnegut

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

A relatively random one and a WTF LIFE one got me Nabokov which, I WISH I could write like fucking Nabokov, seriously.

I write like
Vladimir Nabokov

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

And a list of random goings on gave me...

I write like
Isaac Asimov

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

I love this game! :D

Comments: Add Your Own.

Time:	4:54 am.
Mood:	ouch.

A couple weeks into my Twitter use, and I remain unconvinced. I'm mostly finding it boring, except for the very occasional bit of instant-info, and maybe a few giggles. As I suspected, even the smartest, most entertaining people's lives are mostly incredibly uninteresting, and I know that this somehow relates to my decision to stop answering the phone several years back (unless I really feel like it or am waiting for a specific call), though I don't have a coherent thread running through the whole thing atm, possibly due to oncoming migraine.

In TV non-news, I've decided that someone needs to take all six seasons of Lost and re-edit them, chronologically. I'm almost done rewatching the whole thing, and I'm already feeling like I should go back a couple seasons and start over.

Also in TV non-news, I loved Vincent and the Doctor. It's often creaky when DW goes into historic figure territory, but then tackling a historic figure who suffered from mental illness within the confines of an optimistic family show, with monsters? I groaned at the concept, but was pleasantly surprised. Doctor Who could never be a documentary or an adult drama, genres that could maybe tackle Van Gogh's life fully, but with a few delicate touches, they managed to acknowledge the pain and tragedy involved in Van Gogh's life, while still preserving the tone and structure of a humorous, scary, silly and emotional, optimistic family show, with monsters. Very well done indeed. So far, I have to say that I'm loving the 11th Doctor and what the new team are doing with him.

In plumbing news, bathtub suddenly filled with BLACK WATER last night. Today plumber plumbed it away. I ended up having to clean the bathroom, twice. I suspect the migraine is a result of the fumes from the detergents. Dealing with black gunk bubbling up and the resulting headache is causing alarming empathy for BP. I suspect it'll pass soon enough.

PS: I need an icon saying "A Thing - it's like a plan, but with more greatness"

Comments: Read 6 orAdd Your Own.

Subject:	Bitch, Please.
Time:	7:49 pm.
Mood:	bored.

"NAVY commandos held gun to baby's head to force a boat's captain to change course?" Seriously? NO, SERIOUSLY?

I mean, if you're gonna lie, maybe at least TRY to make up something approaching the realm of earth logic?

Here, let me help: "Being ruthless infidels, they needlessly shot the elderly, peaceful, saintly, crippled captain in cold blood, before taking over the steering, as, being the fucking NAVY, they somehow managed to find SOMEONE capable of steering a fucking boat."

Still works on propaganda level, admittedly not as well as threatening to shoot babies in the head for no reason, but still, slightly less obviously a lie, which surely is to their advantage? Or maybe not. After all, everyone knows that the blood of babies is a key ingredient in Matzos.

Comments: Read 1 orAdd Your Own.

Subject:	POLL!
Time:	1:30 pm.
Mood:	curious.

Poll #1568852 TWITTER - I NEED TO KNOW!

Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All. Participants: 15

What do you use as your Twitter username?

View Answers

real name, or variation of it

2(13.3%)

established online handle

6(40.0%)

new name chosen for Twitter

1(6.7%)

I have more than one account with different names

2(13.3%)

I don't have a Twitter account

3(20.0%)

I impersonate someone else

0(0.0%)

I am someone else

0(0.0%)

no I'm not

1(6.7%)

yes I am

0(0.0%)

Other

0(0.0%)

What's your preferred method for tweet-related interactions?

View Answers

Texting is the way to go!

0(0.0%)

Everything must be emailed everywhere!

0(0.0%)

I go to the site itself, old skool!

5(25.0%)

I have the best app/addon ever!

6(30.0%)

Flamethrowers are the only way to deal with tweets.

1(5.0%)

Ticky box!

3(15.0%)

I use whatever electronic device is closest to me, naturally.

3(15.0%)

all of the above

0(0.0%)

none of the above

2(10.0%)

other

0(0.0%)

Who is the one person/entity that everyone NEEDS to follow on Twitter?

View Answers

Comments: Read 2 orAdd Your Own.