Oh, hashtags. We have such a complicated relationship, you and I. As a rule, Leonard tries to avoid them. Hashtags, to the best of my understanding, are/were a way to categorize posts and things. For instance, this post is marked with "labels," "social media," "hashtags," and "David Tennant," among other things. (For the record, though, Blogger does not refer to them as hashtags; it says "labels.")
And I get that. If I want to search for posts -- particularly on Twitter or Tumblr -- on a specific topic, tags are very useful. I can find all the David Tennant fan fiction I could ever possibly want that way1.
But what about hashtags on posts on/in forums or social media platforms that don't really use that feature (read: Facebook)? And what about the hashtags we simply make up? Is anyone really going to go searching for #thatmomentwhenItrippedinfrontofmyboss? Or how about #sorrymythesisisshowing? What is it we're doing with hashtags that we simply couldn't do with the text itself?
The last two examples -- hashtags we make up -- Leonard actively tries to avoid, on the principle that they defeat the purpose of a hashtag. So why do we use them? Is it like giving a subtitle to your post? They are often funny, one-liners (or "one-phrasers"), something witty or clever or snarky, a rim shot or stinger to one's post (#askingforafriend and #sorrynotsorry are the only ones I can think of right now). Sometimes they seem to be instructing the reader what to think or feel about that particular post. So why use a hashtag to do that? Why not use the text of the post itself? I often stop myself when there is an itch to use a hashtag and ask, Why am I doing this? What am I trying to accomplish? If the post isn't funny without the hashtag, or if the reader does not come to the intended conclusion, then I'm doing something wrong in my writing. (Usually2.)
Do hashtags in their current form accomplish something rhetorically or textually that we couldn't otherwise do? These are the the things that keep Leonard up at night -- that, and acid reflux. Please weigh in with your thoughts regarding hashtags.
1Not really. Maybe. #AskingForAFriend 2Or maybe you're just reading it wrong! Leonard does sometimes give in to the hashtag temptation. C'mon, the hashtag #DroidsMoisturize is funny!
*patiently waits for everyone to finish humming "Seasons of Love" from Rent before carrying on*
When I first read this story about 365-day projects, I thought, That's cool. I should do that. That will take a lot of discipline. But it was towards the end of the year, so I thought, I should start this next year. Nowhere, of course, do the project rules state that it must take place in one calendar year, but for whatever reason, that is how my brain interpreted it. And so I filed it away.
Lo and behold, it was January 9th, and I had been reading a friend's daily haiku on Facebook and realized, It's a 365-day project! I was going to do this! Crap, it's too late now! Again, my brain seems convinced that 365 days = 1 calendar year.
Upon further reflection, I think I realized that attempting to do something (extra) once a day, every day would just be setting myself up for failure. Look at previous attempts for a reading list or even NaNoWriMo. Leonard does not have a good history when it comes to follow-through (don't even get me started on the broken-hearted failure [or at least postponement] of the Hobbit project). So attempting to do something new, every day, in addition to a full-time job and being a professional actor and, y'know, having four animals and a partner and making sure we don't just sit around in our own filth,....it may be asking too much.
But doing something once a week -- that sounds reasonable. So my proposal is this: at least one new blog post a week for 52 weeks (all year long). The rules are these:
It must be something new (no recycling of old material or simply reposting links to old things)
It must be at least once a week; it's very possible that I will post multiple times a week, but that doesn't mean I'll be "off the hook" for the following weeks.
I'm still of two minds regarding Blogger's "schedule" ability; I can schedule posts to be published in the future. Will those scheduled pieces "count" for the week in which they are published? Or do I still have to do something? Some things are time sensitive, some need to be on certain dates. Like I said, I'm of two minds about this (feel free to give your opinion in the comments).
I was delighted to find this little gem from the Parasol Protectorate universe, especially for only ninety-nine cents! It is a quick read (and satisfies the "a book you read in a day" requirement for my 2016 challenge). Even in this short story, Carriger maintains her kid-glove grip on the "free and indirect discourse" style initiated by Jane Austen; her use of language and tone is always spot-on for the time period.
That being said, I was a little surprised at how violent and, well, douche-y Alessandro Tarabotti is. Perhaps it's been too long since I read all of the original Parasol Protectorate, but his (spoiler; click here to read review in its entirety) Granted, we know very little about Alexia's father until her trip to Egypt -- like I said, it's been too long since I've read that book.
Carriger's blog says this story takes place approximately ten years before The Finishing School series, and it also ties in nicely with the first of Prudence's books, too.
And extra points to Carriger for longest short story title :-)
Did you watch "The Abominable Bride" when it premiered on January 2nd? Leonard did! GAAAAAHH! We don't have "regular TV" of any kind (not even PBS), so I had to settle for the live-streaming PBS promised. Apparently, so did millions of other viewers as I was plagued with network errors, especially in the very beginning to I missed the set-up of why we were in Victorian London. However, before we go any further...
Spoilers Below!
Thank God for dear friends who are also watching live and have no problem texting you answers to your questions for things you missed! And who also offer hilarious commentary via text. Liz and John told me that our set-up to Victorian London was simply a "alternatively" tagline, and then ta-da! There we are. That is a little disappointing. I want a reason for being there, besides the obvious fun of dressing up and putting the show back in its original era.
But don't worry. Leonard did, eventually, get a reason, a very good reason.
If you've not yet watched the episode, it's airing again on Sunday, January 10th -- and for the last time, here come spoilers!
As Liz said, "It's so meta!" And that's about the best word I can use to describe Moffat's twisting, turning, there and back again, past-present-future Christmas special. There is a reason for the Victorian twist, more than just cosplaying fun. There are layers, people! Dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream layers (see also, "Last Christmas," the Doctor Who Series 8 Christmas special, also written by -- surprise, surprise -- Steven Moffat). Layers, like an onion.
I can't explain it better than that. Like some fiction, it simply is; if you try to look past that initial feeling you get, the first mind-blowing, ohmygoditallmakessensebutmybrainstillhurts sensation, it crumbles. Any textual or rhetorical analysis has to tread carefully (like when dealing with magical realism), or the whole thing shatters under the pressure.
When alternative-reality-Mycroft ("Holy shit, Gatiss! Way to throw your dignity into the creative furnace of accuracy," says Liz) says, "an invisible army, always at our elbow," I knew.
I knew exactly who/what he meant. I didn't know how it was going to take shape or all the details, but I knew.
I knew thanks to James Triptree, Jr.'s short story "The Screwfly Solution" -- rather, the radio play adaptation I was in back in October. Mycroft's lines sounded nearly verbatim from that script:
"The Devil has walked beside us this whole time. The Devil cooks in our kitchens. The Devil sleeps in our beds. The Devil watches over our children!"
No? Well, perhaps the phrase "the Angel in the House" rings a bell? It is the Victorian ideal that the wife is always there, silent and subservient, attending her husband's needs cheerfully and quietly. And in "The Abominable Bride," those quiet, submissive women strike back.
Moffat has often been accused of being sexist in his writing, particularly where Doctor Who is concerned (hello, 50+ years of having white straight men [usually over 40] being in charge!). For me, the reveal of the "invisible army" that Mycroft mentions feels like a partial apology from Moffat, or at least an acknowledgement of his sexist shortcomings in his previous writings:
"I get it. Women are important, too. I'm sorry they're always playing secondary roles to a whole bunch of straight white men. I'm trying to improve! Will you help me? Here are some suffragettes as an offering."
Do I think Moffat will improve/suddenly become less sexist? Probably not. Did I enjoy the costume-porn-time-traveling-suffragette-twist of "The Abominable Bride"? Abso-fucking-lutely. I will try to watch the episode again during its encore airing because I feel like I'm missing some of my original analytical thoughts here; although, my initial reaction to the whole episode was simply, "ALL THE FEELINGS!"
Grumpy Cat lies. Of course we did!
Please Note: Leonard has not once, ever, read any of the original Sherlock Holmes stories. Worst. English teacher. EVER.
I failed my reading challenge again. I even said I was "only" going to read 25 books this time around -- super easy, right? Wrong (apparently). I was seven books shy of my goal.
This year, instead of going for quantity, I think I'll go for type of books, as indicated by this list:
I found this list on Facebook, via at least two other friends. And it's "only" twelve books. I think this will work. Maybe. Some books may satisfy more than one requirement (a book that I've previously abandoned was probably both published before I was born and something I should have read [or finished] in school).
By the way, if you are a Goodreads user (Leonard is), what do you do with books you didn't finish, but you definitely stopped reading? Because you didn't really "finish" them (especially in terms of a reading goal), but you can no longer waste your time on their insipid prose. What then? Just curious. Leonard tried starting a shelf called "dead files" for them, but they are still listed on one of Goodreads' main shelves (read, to read, currently reading) that users cannot get rid of. Please leave your answer/suggestion in the comments.
Leonard has finally seen Ant-Man! Woohoo! I'm not sure the spoiler warning is entirely necessary as my Unit and I were probably the last two people to see the film for the first time, but here it is nonetheless:
Spoilers Below!
I'll start off by saying that I did very much enjoy it. I had heard some differing opinions after it first came out, so my only expectations were to be entertained by more Marvel goodness, and the movie did that. It is definitely more of a comedy than some of the more recent Marvel films. The Avengers universe has been getting fairly dark lately, with bits of comedy and funny lines tossed in; Ant-Man is comedy and funny lines with semi-dark bits tossed in.
My Unit and I both agreed that we like Paul Rudd as an actor. He's funny, and his "boyish charm," as they call it, works well for this particular kind of comedy.
My Unit: "I like him. He's a good actor." Me: "Me, too. He's very likable on screen." Her: "Which means he's probably a huge asshole in real life."
After seeing the movie on opening weekend, a friend of mine commented on the dialogue. She said it was pretty cheesy and at times she couldn't believe someone was paid to write it. I kept an ear out for that, and there was only one bit of dialogue that rang false when it happened. It was during the scene with Hope and Scott in the car, and he's explaining to her why her dad (Dr. Pym) won't let her do this job (more on that bit in a moment). When Rudd says, "I'm expendable," it just sounded flat and fake to my ears. I'm not sure if that's a dialogue issue or an acting issue, but those handful of lines did not ring true.
Speaking of the car scene: I saw it coming -- this is the "dramatic moment" where we convince you we're right, your dad is right, that a person has to fight for the right thing to do, yadda yadda yadda. You know these scenes; they happen in every superhero movie (and sometimes in Ocean's 11). While I'll admit I wasn't expecting the "I'm expendable" bit (I was only expecting Scott to tell her why her dad wouldn't let her go, not why it's okay for him to go instead; there's a difference), the whole scene felt a bit drawn-out, as in:
Your dad isn't letting you go on this mission because he already lost your mother; he can't lose you, too, Hope!!! Are you new here?!? This has been implied since the first flashback scene in 1989 where we heavily airbrushed your dad!!!
I was surprised that it took over half of the movie for someone to say this out loud because it was subtext (and barely "sub") in almost every fucking scene. C'mon, Hope! Get it together! The movie also reinforced Leonard's creepy talent for saying lines (verbatim) before they're said on screen in things we have never ever seen before. Either the writing is just that predictable, or Leonard is just that creepy and clairvoyant -- probably some combination thereof (see also True Lies, Prison Break, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Bones, and Lewis Black's stand-up).
Edited to Add: Oh my God, I can't believe I forgot this part in the original review! Ant-Man reinforces Leonard's theory that if a character is bald, they must be evil. Laugh if you will, but check out:
Captain America: The First Avenger
Iron Man
Iron Man 2
Daredevil
Superman
Avengers: Age of Ultron
The Harry Potter series
That, of course, does not mean that all villains are bald (helloooo, Loki!). But if you are bald, you have a 70-90% chance of being evil, unless your name is Jean-Luc Picard.
The other piece of criticism comes from my very astute Unit. When Scott and the Pyms realize they have to "expand their team" and their bring in Scott's criminal friends (who are, admittedly, kinda funny), my Unit says, "I'm kind of uncomfortable with the racist stereotypes they're portraying here." And she's right. The criminals without Master's degrees in Electrical Engineering are our only non-white named characters: a black who is the get away car driver, a Hispanic guy with a van that plays "La Cucaracha," and a vaguely Eastern European guy with a thick accent who believes in gypsies.
Wow. When you type it out like that, it's kind of disgusting -- not to mention the fact that all three are used for comic relief. And while I know actual individuals with the same senses of humor and speech patterns of these three characters (minus the criminal element), it's a pretty good (read: "horrible") example of continued racism in Hollywood.
With all that being said, will I still purchase the DVD? Yes, I will. Will I continue to watch it and laugh at the funny stuff? Yes, I will. Am I a horrible human being? Sometimes. Depends on the day.
I can honestly say that I've never thought to myself, Now would be a good time to load this piece of weaponry and shoot it randomly in celebration. Granted, I'm not a fan of guns to begin with, but WTF, people?!? For starters, it's a waste of ammo.
So many effin' gunshots last night, so very close to Leonard's house. As a friend mentioned, who remembers the old PSA's "What goes up must come down. Think before you shoot"?
I remember the first time I read one of those billboards in this city. I was so confused. I thought maybe it was a joke that I wasn't getting. People really need to be told that? People really shoot their guns at New Year's Eve?
And Leonard grew up in the Midwest, people! Often, out in the "country," and still no random gunshots to "celebrate" things.
Leonard does not understand it, and it just adds to the idea that most gun-owners are morons who shouldn't be out and about, let alone with weapons. But hey, now we have a pretty good idea who is armed on this block.
