On Vacation but still had time for a little quiz…

Currently on my grand tour of Europe, already have hit Dublin & Barcelona I am currently in Paris but there’s always time for a quiz!

Your result for Which fantasy writer are you?…

Mary Gentle (b. 1956)

19 High-Brow, 19 Violent, 21 Experimental and 31 Cynical!

Congratulations! You are High-Brow, Violent, Experimental and Cynical! These concepts are defined below.

Mary Gentle is a UK author whose work has received some acclaim. Her great break-through came with 1984 fantasy novel Golden Witchbreed, which depicts the travels of a UK envoy on a planet, Orthe, where the inhabitants have, by choice, abandoned a high-tech society for a seemingly less advanced way of life. Though nominally science fiction, the novel is generally called fantasy, partly because Orthe has the feel of a fantasy world. Nothing is what it first seems to be on Orthe, however, and the envoy’s journey across the planet gradually reveals a vividly imagined alternate society, where nothing is ever over-simplified or, for that matter, easy. Gentle revisited Orthe in 1987, when the sequel Ancient Light was published.

Since then Gentle has written the White Crow sequence, starting with Rats and Gargoyles (1990), which has received some acclaim, not least from other writers; China Miéville, for example, put it on his list of “50 science fiction and fantasy novels socialists should read”. She has also written Grunts! (1992), a novel set in a Tolkien-like fantasy world, but told from the point of view of the orcs, as well as several other books.

Gentle is not one to shun away from difficult issues in her works and is equally unafraid of discussing and depicting violence. Neither has she settled to writing the same kind of story over and over, and, while being at her best a great entertainer, she has the ability of twisting and bending fantasy environments and themes at her will, making unafraid a key-word of her career as a writer.

 

You are also a lot like Gene Wolfe.

 

If you want something more gentle (no pun intended), try Philip Pullman.

 

If you’d like a challenge, try your exact opposite, J K Rowling.

 

Your score

This is how to interpret your score: Your attitudes have been measured on four different scales, called 1) High-Brow vs. Low-Brow, 2) Violent vs. Peaceful, 3) Experimental vs. Traditional and 4) Cynical vs. Romantic. Imagine that when you were born, you were in a state of innocence, a tabula rasa who would have scored zero on each scale. Since then, a number of circumstances (including genetical, cultural and environmental factors) have pushed you towards either end of these scales. If you’re at 45 or -45 you would be almost entirely cynical, low-brow or whatever. The closer to zero you are, the less extreme your attitude. However, you should always be more of either (eg more romantic than cynical). Please note that even though High-Brow, Violent, Experimental and Cynical have positive numbers (1 through 45) and their opposites negative numbers (-1 through -45), this doesn’t mean that either quality is better. All attitudes have their positive and negative sides, as explained below.

High-Brow vs. Low-Brow

You received 19 points, making you more High-Brow than Low-Brow. Being high-browed in this context refers to being more fascinated with the sort of art that critics and scholars tend to favour, rather than the best-selling kind. At their best, high-brows are cultured, able to appreciate the finer nuances of literature and not content with simplifications. At their worst they are, well, snobs.

Violent vs. Peaceful

You received 19 points, making you more Violent than Peaceful. Please note that violent in this context does not mean that you, personally, are prone to violence. This scale is a measurement of a) if you are tolerant to violence in fiction and b) whether you see violence as a means that can be used to achieve a good end. If you are, and you do, then you are violent as defined here. At their best, violent people are the heroes who don’t hesitate to stop the villain threatening innocents by means of a good kick. At their worst, they are the villains themselves.

Experimental vs Traditional

You received 21 points, making you more Experimental than Traditional. Your position on this scale indicates if you’re more likely to seek out the new and unexpected or if you are more comfortable with the familiar, especially in regards to culture. Note that traditional as defined here does not equal conservative, in the political sense. At their best, experimental people are the ones who show humanity the way forward. At their worst, they provoke for the sake of provocation only.

Cynical vs Romantic

You received 31 points, making you more Cynical than Romantic. Your position on this scale indicates if you are more likely to be wary, suspicious and skeptical to people around you and the world at large, or if you are more likely to believe in grand schemes, happy endings and the basic goodness of humankind. It is by far the most vaguely defined scale, which is why you’ll find the sentence “you are also a lot like x” above. If you feel that your position on this scale is wrong, then you are probably more like author x. At their best, cynical people are able to see through lies and spot crucial flaws in plans and schemes. At their worst, they are overly negative, bringing everybody else down.

 

Author picture by the talented artist “Molosovsky”. Visit http://www.flickr.com/people/25360041@N06/ for more!

 

Take Which fantasy writer are you? at HelloQuizzy

Manifesto! 5/5 – Not The Marrying Kind – Statements…The End

Previously – Not The Marrying Kind: Statements…(cont.2)

.

.

.

I think there’s humor in the hypocrisy of a movement that fights for marriage equality while lauding a film like “Brokeback Mountain” as romantic when the core basis of the film is an extra-marital affair. But it seems being on the down’low is acceptable as long as those engaging in it are white and only betraying women. Although the theme of pretending to be something you’re not fits in quite well with the homogenizing view of the large GLBTQ organizations.

Manifesto! 4/5 – Not The Marrying Kind: Statements…(cont.2)

Previously – Not The Marrying Kind: Statements…(cont.)

I believe that the fierceness and power of the movement has been bled out by the constant focus on marriage equality as the only issue of importance perpetuated by large, wealthy, privileged groups such as GLAAD and the HRC who are looking out for themselves as opposed to the community as a whole.

Manifesto! 3/5 – Not The Marrying Kind: Statements…(cont.)

Previously – Not The Marrying Kind: Statements…

I don’t understand how fighting tooth and claw for inclusion in such a problematic power structure such as marriage is a fight for everyone’s equality. A marginalized group fighting for a bigger piece of the pie rather than the eradication of the system has never led to liberation.

Manifesto! 2/5 – Not The Marrying Kind: Statements…

Previously – Not The Marrying Kind: Introduction

.

.

.

I understand that marriage is a prison, has a historical basis in silencing women and trading them like pieces of chattel and that a mere fifty years of “change” or transgressive reinterpretations can in no way wipe out a history of oppression and inequality stretching back centuries.

Manifesto! 1/5 – Not The Marrying Kind: Introduction

So both my readings last week went exceptionally well. I got a bunch of compliments on my prose piece and am going to submit it somewhere this week and despite my fear the Manifesto reading went swimmingly. The audience got what I was saying and was whooping and hollering in agreement. In fact after the reading I had a few people come up to me and ask if they could find it online or if it was posted anywhere. I had been on the fence about putting it up online simply because it is pretty radical and the blogosphere is a very different environment than the very radical space I was in for the reading. I’m not up for some of the comments I’ll inevitably get but having folks ask me if they could find it online made me realize that if no one sees or hears a manifesto what is the freaking point?!

So my Manifesto, Not The Marrying Kind will be going up in five parts this week. I’m breaking it up, not to make more posts out of it (or at least not just because of that) but because it’s the way I wrote it – in a series of chunks - and I like the idea of it being experienced in that way. In fact at the reading since we had interruptions from the audience they got it broken into sections as well and I think it worked very well, allowing folks to take in the previous points before moving on. Keep in mind that this is an early iteration of the work and it may grow, shrink, shift during any future re-writes however the core of it will not alter.

Not The Marrying Kind: Intro

More Details On Manifesto Reading!

SFinX*
Poetry may be for lovers, and stories for children, but what form of writing wants to speak to us all? Reaches out to grab us by the collar and shake us until we listen?

The Manifesto!

The Bay Area has never been short of political/artistic fervor, and we’ll
be bringing you classic examples from around the world and brand
new statements about How Things Should Be, along with audience
participation at the Manifesto! show at for SF in Exile, May 1st at Modern Times Bookstore, 7pm.

Naamen Tilahun
Annalee Newitz
Danny O’Brien
Nick Mamatas
Liz Henry
Steven Schwartz
Zuleikha Mahmood

declaim the juiciest and most rabble rousing bits from:  The SCUM Manifesto, The Futurist Manifesto, The Bitch Manifesto, The Femme Shark Manifesto, the Dadaist and Provo manifestos, and more!

So, come, listen, and get hit by the shrapnel of the War of Ideas!
SF in Exile – Manifesto!
May 1, 2009
7pm- 9pm  (door at 6:30)
Modern Times Bookstore
888 Valencia Street, San Francisco

Two Chances To See Me Read

So if you’re in the Bay Area there are two chances to see me read in the next few weeks. The first is at the Soulful Reading Series on my school’s campus. Here’s the flyer:

 

Not only do I know most of the readers and can guarantee their collective awesomeness and soulfulness but the piece I will be reading features cannibalism. CANNIBALISM! People you should be asking yourselves, how can you not come!

The second chance to hear me read will be on 5/1/2009 at the Center of Sex & Culture in San Francisco as part of SFinX’s Manifesto Night. I will be reading a non-fiction radically extreme political manifesto (or at least part of it) that I’m working on right now. I’ll put the poster and more info up here when I get it.

LOGISTICS CHANGES:
4/28/09 – reading moved to 5:30
5/01/09 – location moved to Modern Times Bookstore

Seth Rogan, I Hate You.

So in my post about Adventureland ( “We Don’t Get This” ) there were some comments in the post itself and also in the comments between Kate and I that might have implied that I dislike Seth Rogan. At the time I was talking about Seth Rogan as one of the people that defines a certain genre of film and humor. But today…today I hate Seth Rogan! His new film “Observe & Report”? Apparently it contains a scene where Rogan’s character date rapes a woman intoxicated on high levels of tequila and anti-depressants. She’s so wasted she actually throws up on herself before it happens. But it’s still funny! Why? Well let’s just hear what Seth has to say:

In an interview with the Washington City Paper he states:

SETH ROGEN: When we’re having sex and she’s unconscious like you can literally feel the audience thinking, like, how the fuck are they going to make this okay? Like, what can possibly be said or done that I’m not going to walk out of the movie theater in the next thirty seconds? . . . And then she says, like, the one thing that makes it all okay:
BRANDI: “Why are you stopping, motherfucker?”

Okay that IS NOT consent! When you are so fucked up that you have vomited on yourself you cannot give informed consent! That line could have been about anything, don’t even assume at that point that’s she’s aware of her circumstances in any but the most random way. Trust me, on one or two occasions I’ve been that drunk and I have things I said recalled to me that I am absolutely horrified by and do things I never would have done sober. The argument that Brandi’s line somehow absolves him of raping her? NO! Let’s look at the fact that he never asked for consent before he started to undress her, he was obviously already set on the goal of sex whether she consented or not and nothing was going to stand in his way. The fact that her random ramblings while supremely intoxicated could be imagined to be INFORMED CONSENT allows Rogan’s charater to continue do what he was already doing while having some sort of balm for his guilt. It also allows the audience of mostly misogynistic and immature men to chuckle in public at something society tells them they should be horrified by. They don’t have to have guilt over having a fucked-up racist as a POV character or enjoying that scene because she said that line and that makes it humor! Funny!

No! 

Rape is NOT funny! Being violated is NOT a joke! Every time you mock sexual assault you make it more okay in the cultural discourse. It becomes a more acceptable act because after all even girls so fucked up they vomit on themselves want it? right? right?

I had heard that Superbad had it’s share of date-rape jokes which is the main reason I’ve never seen it. This film takes it a step further - not only is it acceptable to mock someones emotional anguish over being assaulted but it’s fine and dandy to perform the act! Fuck you Seth Rogan! Last week I hated you in an amorphous kind of way, now I want to punch you in your mouth!

P.S. We won’t even go into the fact that this scene and the violent rape scene from Last House on the Left made it past the MPAA but any hint of any alternative sexuality and there’s no way to get an R rating – ex. The Bruno film from Sasha Baron Cohen. Conflation, intersection of two mindset – firstly that women and women’s pain does not truly matter and so can be shown and mocked with impunity and secondly that any kind of sex act that GLBTQ people engage in is inherently dirty or sinful.

Hat tip to Jezebel: Is Date Rape Funny? Seth Rogan Explains It All To You

Talking Amongst Ourselves

Now something I’m sure most folks who are knowledgeable about anti-oppression politics and discuss them in their everyday life have seen is the attitude that you only hold those beliefs to be politically correct or to be argumentative about “the way things are”. I know when I’ve told people that “No, I talk about these things all the time because they effect my life everyday.” I’ve gotten disbelieving looks or right out accusation that I don’t discuss race when I’m with other People of Color, etc. Now anyone who knows me, has talked to me at a convention or has hung out with me for more than a few hours can tell you that’s bullshit but the attitude is always there, that thought that you only talk this way or feel this way because of the company you’re in or whatever other outside factors. First of all it’s straight out insulting to insinuate that I can’t form my own opinions or that my opinions are so ludicrous that there must be some outside force exerting pressure on me. Secondly it’s just untrue. 

Now the documentary U People which I’ve been desperate to see for months and is now up for free in it’s totality on Logo Online explores the conversation people have within their community. Hanifah Walidah a poet, rapper, actress and black lesbian was filming the video for her song Make A Move where she recreated a house party. Now black GLBT folks have a long history of house parties that stretches back for decades. It arose out of a number of factors but a major one was the racism they tended to encounter when they tried to enter GLBT watering holes and forming a vibrant community outside of that hostile environment. Since they couldn’t go to the limited number of GLBT bars/clubs at the time they made their own parties and clubs in each others houses. Some of the parties were exclusively for men or women and some were mixed. And this is not a tradition that has died out, it’s still alive and strong – moreso on the west coast than anywhere else but the legacy is all over.

Anyway, while Hanifah was filming this music video she heard the conversations that were happening all around her and decided that those were just as important as what was going to end up in the music video. She calls it an accidental documentary for just this reason but go and read about it in her own words at the website linked above.

But there it is: a group of 30 People of Color, mostly lesbian women and a couple of transfolk (I also believe there are two or three straight women who talk about being straight in a majority lesbian environment) talking amongst themselves. Talking about gender and the “definition” of woman, talking about coming out, talking about the intersection of race and gender, and all of it to each other, with each other, about each other. It shows not only the complexity and differences among the supposed monolithic horde of “you people” but is also a chronicle of community and the way we form it around ourselves.

Go check out U People even if you don’t think you’ll learn anything from it because it is a touching, smart and funny documentary that shows a segment of society so exceedingly overlooked by the mainstream.

Even leaving aside the personal connection I feel to this documentary despite not being a lesbian - because in so many ways these are the women I grew up around and connect with very well - it’s an amazing film. Now if only I could see black./womyn.:conversations sometime soon.