a fool's musings

Fool, said my muse to me, look in thy heart and write...

Warning: Adult Content achromatic unfinished fic graveyard recs journal new stuff recent stuff my back pages January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 the five Ws, or, all about me profile e-mail victoria my livejournal the original P&R comments current mood: "pathological and unbalanced" Items of Interest People LiveJournal folks Baraita bishclone claritylit Jintian Kat Allison Kit Mason metablog mix-tapes Neil Gaiman Nestra Sarah T. Seema Shrift Sundry Mourning zendom Music Walk On - U2 Thunder Road - Bruce Springsteen If I Can't Change Your Mind - Sugar Sick of Myself - Matthew Sweet Town Called Malice - The Jam One - U2 The Space Between - DMB Books Lord of the Rings Catch-22 The Neely Trilogy Absalom! Absalom! Possession: A Romance Foucault's Pendulum Dreamhouse LA Confidential I Capture the Castle Sandman Waking the Moon Shows Angel Buffy the Vampire Slayer (in reruns) Alias West Wing The Simpsons webrings < ? fanfiction ! > < ? writers ! > diaryreviews.diaryland.com NYC Bloggers Comments by Haloscan.com all links, if I haven't screwed up somehow, should open in a new browser window

2002-04-16 - 10:40 p.m. Smallville - Stray Smallville thoughts. Turn back now, because spoilers ahoy for Stray. The kid - interesting. Nice bits of parallelism between Lex and Julian and Clark and Ryan, also Lex and Clark and Clark and Ryan. And Julian. Jesus. Lionel's got a thing for emperors, huh? At least it wasn't Augustine. SIDS is awful. I can't imagine losing a child like that. Of course, Lex would have had to have him eliminated later if he'd lived. I still wish for a sister. Livia. *g* Ah, those wacky Romans. Prick Daddy rocks my world. Lionel is a manipulative old bastard who is having the time of his life! Or maybe it's Glover who's having the time of his life. I dunno, but I love it and want to have his babies. "Join me, Luke, er, Lex," [wheeze] "together we will rule the galaxy [wheeze]. I swear I almost fell off the couch I was laughing so hard. So again, we see Jonathan->Clark, Lionel->Lex, and Scary!StepDad->Ryan. If Jonathan weren't such a good father, I'd think someone from ME had joined the SV staff, what with all the father issues floating around in this episode. I love the heavy-handedness of the "Warrior Angel" comics. "You're safe now." "He's bald." Hee. Poor Lex. He's *so* going to be betrayed when he finds out about Clark. And he's a comics geek. I guess we knew that. But still... Poor Chloe. Clark is a dumbass. The foil - talk about your phallic gifts. Jesus. And the look and smile Lex gave him afterward, as he got back in the limo. Still don't like Lana. Gack. No Pete *at all*. That sucks. Oh well, it was fun. Loathe the Five For Fighting song, and think its inclusion was an extra, unnecessary helping of cheese. Edge City nags at my mind. Is it where the Flash is? I know there's a superhero there. I guess that's all. Much email to catch up on now. Ciao. ~victoria [current mood: ] [current music: ] [random quote: ] ~*~ 2002-04-16 - 3:39 p.m. spin This, this, and this are all well and good, but I have to think it's simply a case of too little, too late. While I don't doubt that the Pope and his cardinals are, for the most part, men of faith who truly wish to help people (despite my disagreements with them on many matters), this smacks of spin-doctoring. I wish they would just get into the 21st century. Or at least the 20th. The way this whole scandal has been handled makes me ashamed to be Catholic. I mean, I am still able to separate the faith from the institution, but this ... seeming disregard of the situation before it ever reached these levels [i.e., putting the institution above the faith and protecting the priests instead of the children] makes me ill. It reminds me that power corrupts, and that any institution with as much wealth and power as the Church, and made up of many, many fallible human beings, will make egregious mistakes and commit horrible crimes, and do it in the name of God. I don't know what to think anymore. I only hope and pray that they figure out how to remove their heads from their asses on this, and various other, topics. ~*~ In fannish news, this is a funny little WW/X-Men snippet. I'm trying to decide if that's the story that should next get my attention. The Prodigal, Amnesiac!Rogue, Dreams In Red, and Eyes that Lied are also starting to clamor, though Consumption should have pride of place. And then there's CLex. God, I should write some CLex, but that muse is *very* recalcitrant. I think she takes lessons from Lex. *g* ~victoria [current mood: weary] [curren music: I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For - U2] [current mood: ] [current music: ] [random quote: ] ~*~ 2002-04-16 - 12:26 p.m. in the driver's seat "Whee! NotDL is done! Done, baby, and off to final betaing. Finishing that, and doing actual work-related work, interfered with my plans for an entry this morning. Well, that and the fact that my head feels like it's made out of cotton. One day, I'm going to finish my breakfast before noon. Is it any wonder I don't go for lunch until 2? I'm sure none of this is interesting to any of you. Anyhow, many things to discuss. Over in the LJ, I gave links to a couple interesting conversations floating around out in the ether, including Destina's rant on cliches, which should be required reading for everyone. because, and say it with me now, there are no new storylines. Everything has been done before. [Jen, the folklorist, and Dot, the medievalist, would be so proud of me right now. *g*] It's how you do it that separates the wheat from the chaff in stories. At some point, I'd like to talk about the difference between "storytellers" and "writers" but this is not that point. No. Jenn has called on me for help, and I will do my best to answer. My thought processes being as slow as molasses in the Arctic and about as clear, I don't think it'll do much good, but let's see. *g* So you know, there are vague spoilers for the Connor arc of Angel. I've tried not to be specific, but if you're at all spoiler squeamish, beware. She writes... I did start out with a passion for plot and theme, using the characters to further what I saw were the important things. Now, to me, it's more about the personal journeys of the characters themselves, and how I write them, how I feel about them, and how I think they feel, decides how everything progresses. Which may be the reason I've become far more attracted to ship-based stories and plots involving those than plot based stories that have the characters in them. I want to know more about the experience, not necessarily the mechanics of it. I think that that's essentially it, right there. You've got it. What makes a classic is a story that takes the specific and makes it universal. Much easier to try to take a universal and make it specific, but also not as deeply felt. That's letting theme and plot drive, when they should both grow organically out of the characters. Obviously, that's just my opinion. That's all any of us can offer as to what we think a good story or good writing is, beyond mere technical competence. Though if one is plot- rather than character-driven, the technical stuff becomes slightly different, and a character-driven story *will* seem less satisfying to one who prefers and places plot above all else. Why one writes informs what one writes, much as why one reads informs what reading choices one makes. That seems like a pretty obvious statement, but I think we often lose track of it. "What I like" does not necessarily equal "what is good," but it's far more likely to influence my opinion. I mean, I can certainly, as Sarah T. mentions, recognize and evaluate good writing that doesn't much interest me. I can also be totally moved by something that's technically sloppy, because the raw emotion beneath it is so strong that it overpowers the errors. If all I want is a tightly plotted airplane or beach read, one that takes me on a thrill ride from Venice to Macao to New York to Lisbon, I'll choose a thriller by an author like Ludlum [or his ghosts] - the story, while perhaps incredible and requiring a huge suspension of disbelief, is about *the story*, the plot, what happens next. If I want a book about a character, and how their experiences made them change and grow, I'll choose something by Anne Lamott or Sharon Reynolds or somebody like that. If I want *both* - and in my humble, ten years out of a non-Ivy-League college, non-grad-school-attending opinion, that's the best kind of fiction - I choose an author who can bring the characterization and use it to drive the plot. Forster. Austen. Ellroy. Rushdie. Fitzgerald. Kingsolver. I'd put Stephen King here, because he makes his characters *real* and the only reason you believe half the shit he writes about is because the characters' voices are so *authentic* that you have to believe. Do I think that makes King as good an author as EM Forster or Salman Rushdie? No. Because I don't think he's much of a stylist - his prose is merely workmanlike. (That storyteller v. writer thing comes in here. One day I'll tackle it. In the meantime, see Jintian.) But that's not the point. The point is, for me, the best stories grow out of characters and finding out what they'll do in a situation the author sets up. I don't much care for trying to write to a theme or a theory. See my intense loathing of Theodore Dreiser, who was so het-up about proving his social realist theories in An American Tragedy that he forgot to make any of his characters truly well-rounded or *sympathetic* [except for the poor pregnant dead girl. Rebecca? I forget]. People who start with a theme -- "We're all alike under the skin" or "Love can heal all" or whatever -- tend to have to force the work to fit the theme, and it shows in the writing. People who start with a plot... this gets more complex. I tend to start with two characters [I'm with Jenn on the pairing thing, because I like to know what goes on in falling in love, that realization. I realize that says something about my own psyche, but I won't bore you with it. Feel free to come up with your own theories] *and* a situation. What happens when Rogue does something so heinous that even Logan can't forgive her? Or can he? It grows out of my understanding of their characters. My belief - as a diehard W/R shipper - is that there's very little Logan won't forgive Rogue. So, it has to be a major betrayal, yet one that can still be somewhat redeemed in the end, either by Rogue's motivations or by her being insane (see Very Sickness. When I first conceived that story, I had two options: Rogue is insane, or Rogue is evil. I thought the first was more realistic, and more resonant, and more in character, so that's what I chose. I also think that it adds to the poignance, because if she was just evil, Logan would have killed her, and well, he'd have gotten over it. This way, he's stuck with it every day until she dies, because he'll never leave her now. Thus, she achieved her goal, yet she can't appreciate it, and everyone else suffers. God, sometimes I impress myself. (Oops, my ego got out again. I blame hormones), or by the grace of Logan's generous spirit of forgiveness toward the woman he loves. Ooh, even better example. Last night's Angel - Wesley acted with the best of intentions when he betrayed Angel. He did the best he could with the information he had. Someday, if I know JW and crew, Angel *will* forgive him, and he will forgive himself. Because that's generally a major theme of the Jossverse - that redemption and forgiveness are possible, even for the worst crimes, when one's intentions were good. So you take the characters of Angel and Wesley, and you take Angel's devotion to his son, and his belief that through Connor he'll find his redemption, that he's done something good in this world. And you take Wesley's vow to make sure that Angelus never escapes and if he does, to kill him at all cost. You end up with a great big tragedy. One that grows out of the characters and their actions. The characters drive the plot. I think you can look at most of the Western canon [and I leave debates about the validity of the Western canon, and all other such shit to people more suited to discuss it than I. I believe that many great works of literature are included in the Western canon. I also believe that many great works have been excluded. This is not the point at the moment, so don't write to me about it, okay?] and see that the best stories grow out of character. The Greeks believed in the hero's fatal flaw. Shakespeare's tragic heroes all have one. Ahab has one. Gatsby has one. It's about character, first. I don't know that I've given Jenn much help, but I feel kind of better now. *g* And NotDL is done! Woohoo! Also, Congratulations, Diana & Fernando! Feel free to comment, either via email, the LJ, or the guestbook. ~victoria [current mood: thoughtful] [current mood: It's Only Rock-n-Roll - The Rolling Stones] [current mood: ] [current music: ] [random quote: ] ~*~ 2002-04-15 - 1:02 a.m. Sex in fiction, part deux Stupid technology. I had half an entry written when everything just locked up on me. Grrr... So, anyhow, let's see if I can reconstruct... Oh yes, love Jenn. Give her great big mushy helpings of love for her wonderfully effusive, and quite unsolicited [okay, maybe I offered her some chocolate-covered Lexes. Lexi?] praise. I mean, she mentioned my name in the same sentence as Te? Jumping Jehosephat! So we love Jenn muchly. Bunches and bunches. But not in a gay way. *g* "I flitted through time. In a manly way, lest there be any confusion." Heh. Oh yeah, Angel musings over in the LJ. Too tired to type in the link. You know where it is. Argument on sex in fanfic - on fiction as a whole - still raging. Apparently, my mini-essay was not convincing, though numerous people have expanded upon it. I just... ::shakes head:: Sex or, if you prefer, love scenes are just another tool in the writer's toolkit. They can move the action forward [thinking of Consumption and how a sex scene - not a graphic one, but one that's a wee bit descriptive] precipitates the major action sequence. They can tell you something about the characters' states of mind - why they're having sex, where the relationship is at that point in the narrative, what bearing it has on other relationships that are important to the plot. I just... I can't wrap my head around saying that there's no place for sex in fiction, and that graphic sex cannot ever serve a function in a story. As an example from my own work, and one which brought up this very argument among my gusys (sic), Alive and Dying has fairly graphic m/m sex in it. It's not meant for titillation. It's meant to show how far into despair Xander has fallen, that he allows someone he purportedly hates to use him for sex... or rather, to comfort him with sex. Xander sees the sex as punishment and degradation. Angel sees the sex as an attempt to heal and comfort. But since it's from Xander's point of view, there's nothing softening the sex - it's graphic and fairly unpleasant, in my opinion, though others felt it was pornographic - in the way of being something to get someone's rocks off, when I didn't feel that it was, and didn't *mean* it to be [though if someone gets off on Xander's humiliation - and not in the fun way - that's not my problem, you know?]. I will say that it was pornographic by Ms. Steinam's definition, which is the title of the previous post here. It was not so much about Angel exerting dominance, though that was subconsciously part of it for him, as it was about Xander allowing himself to be dominated, punished for his supposed crimes. Or take Their Little Game [please. I don't know what I was thinking, except that watching SVU can be inspiring in a very dark way for your muses]. The sex isn't graphic, but you know they're having it, and it's tied to violence. And it's this combination of sex and violence that escalates, and it tells you that something is seriously wrong with Rogue, that she's conflating these things in what is allegedly a loving relationship. She's not being abused. In fact, if anything, she's the abuser, the manipulator, in getting Logan to give her the violence she craves whenever he beats up the men she hits on and inveigles them into rough sex. Which isn't possibly what was being discussed. That was definitely a plot propelled by sex, and by how sometimes we confuse sex or lust with love, or with violence and the idea that love is proved through violence. Or something like that. Even I'm not sure anymore. Anyhow, the point was, sex is a human experience. It can be enjoyable or it can be nasty. In the hands of a good writer, it can be transcendent, moving you and turning you on and making you feel *with* and *for* the characters. It can also be dirty and hurtful and nasty and all sorts of bad things that, again, a good writer will make you feel, and make you want to hug the characters and give them hot cocoa. It can make you want to shower because you feel filthy. Vachss can do that. So can Ellroy. So to make a blanket generalization that sex in written fiction is bad idea that never serves the story, quite frankly, strikes me as ill-informed. In the hands of a bad or mediocre writer, yes, sex is a weapon and again, not in a good way. It can be used as a bludgeon to bore the reader into sleep or a feather to tickle and titillate or a scalpel to cut to the heart of the characters. Granted, there's a lot of terrible sex written in fiction (both fan and pro), but still, just because 90% of it is crap doesn't mean *all* of it is crap or that it will *always* be crap. 90% of *everything* is crap, right? As for the argument that sci-fi or genre fiction shouldn't be *realistic* in its depiction of relationships by including sex [graphic when needed], isn't one just playing right into the hands of critics who have said for umpteen years that genre fiction isn't real literature because of its inability to handle relationships? What good is genre fiction if the *people* aren't recognizable? Isn't it supposed to be about characters we *relate* to in fantastical settings? And one of the ways of bringing about that sympathy and empathy with the characters is to delve into their relationships with each other, and sometimes, that includes the sexual. And I better post this now, or it will go on for days.... ~victoria [current mood: ] [current music: ] [random quote: ] ~*~ 2002-04-15 - 2:32 p.m. Pornography is about dominance. Erotica is about mutuality. I'm sitting here eating a brownie that cost more than the rest of my lunch put together. Its very, very chocolatey and good, which I deserve, seeing as how I just got my period. Okay, now that we've cleared out the squeamish... *snerk* I'm staring at NotDL. It's staring back at me. Somehow, I think I'm the one who's going to blink first. I have two freaking scenes left to write. TWO. 1. 2. That is all. Yet I cannot seem to do it. Grrr... How hard is a L/R confrontation/declaration of love? Not freaking hard at all, right? But for some reason, I'm stumbling over it. The last scene is easy enough. A Scott-Remy convo, a snippet of Remy on the phone, then the hose as the sun rises. I'm going to go with on the roof, like on H:LotS, unless someone points to a reason it can't be on the roof, like a nice clear screenshot of the mansion. Otherwise, I'll have to check when I go home. I know the Evo mansion has a flat roof. Sigh. [Speaking of which - Evo, I mean - there is a town of Bayville in Westchester, I believe, so it *is* possible they're still in the NY area, and not up in Maine or Mass. which is where I thought they were.] Other thoughts... I'm trying to pull together a defense of sex in fiction. Yeah, how ridiculous is that? It's for a discussion on zendom. I *do* think that a good writer can limn the characters through sex. I don't think it needs to be explicit; we pretty much all know how it works, right? But it can tell you a lot about how a character behaves in a very intimate, and in some cases, vulnerable, situation. It can also help contrast how different characters behave in the *same* sort of situation [see Circle of Life, which was written in response to just such a challenge]. How does Logan behave when having sex with someone he's not in love with? How does that change when the sex is more than just the physical, but with someone he cares about or loves? How does it change when it's after a mission, and he's afraid he's almost lost the one he loves? How does it change when it's simply a ploy for dominance? Or take Rogue. Rogue has very specific issues with touch and trust and any sort of physical relationship. I don't think those are going to go away any time soon, even if - and that's a big IF and one that rarely occurs in my fiction - even if she gains control of her skin. Someone who's been without touch for X number of months or years is going to respond very differently to sex than someone who hasn't. Then add in the same factors as above with Logan. Is it her first time ever? Her first time since she can touch? Her first time with the man she loves? The hundredth time with the woman she loves? Is it angry sex? Make up sex? Desperate for a connection sex? I think all these things are more important and more complex than simply stopping the story for a rollicking round of hide the salami. Not to say PWP doesn't have its place. I'm all for erotica and well-written hot, raunchy smut. But people have sex. It can be very revealing about their personality, their behavior, their values, etc. To say it doesn't need to be included in a story because Austen or Dickens didn't doesn't address the fact that some of us are not writing the same types of stories as Austen or Dickens. A well-written sex scene, where appropriate in the story, can tell you a ton about the characters, even if it's just a series of flashes of feeling and thought while the sex is happening, rather than a blow-by-blow description of who put what where. Whew. I think I might be ready to post my argument. *g* Tell me what you think. ~victoria [current mood: feisty yet crampy] [current music: Rosalita (Come Out Tonight) - Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band] PS: The quote in the subject is from Gloria Steinem [current mood: ] [current music: ] [random quote: ] ~*~ 2002-04-15 - 9:23 a.m. they don't call me The Shoe for nothing So it's supposed to be 80 degrees here today. Gotta love the June weather in April. I'm wearing one of the outfits I bought this weekend, a lovely dress/jacket suit. It's an odd color, a sort of slate blue with green undertones. And my new shoes. Which are the. Best. Shoes. Ever. stretchy and comfy and pretty and god, it's like I've died and gone to heaven with these shoes. Okay, they're from Payless, which means they'll fall apart by July, but still... $10 for the most comfortable shoes known to woman that still look pretty? Can't beat that. I used to love shoe shopping. I own more shoes than anyone not named Imelda really should. But a couple years ago, I started having trouble finding a comfortable pair. They all raised blisters in various painful places or rubbed or didn't feel right. As I hate wearing shoes to begin with, and would go barefoot all the time if possible, this was a problem. Because I was spending stupid money on shoes and walking around in pain all the time. This of course excludes boots. I've never had a problem with boots, which could be why I wear 'em so much. I should probably mention that I tend not to wear socks or stockings from April through October, and sometimes even in the winter [ask D. about the ice storm in Hoboken and me with bare ankles *g*], which is another problem, because that's how one raises blisters and winds up with calluses etc. So yeah. These shoes? Best. Ever. Hee! I'm just trying to stay awake now, and see if I can finish NotDL and also listen for Martha to speak to me. I still think her email addy should be redhotmama@ksonline.net. *G* ~victoria [current mood: sleepy] [current music: Roadies - Jackson Browne] [current mood: ] [current music: ] [random quote: ] ~*~ 2002-04-14 - 7:47 p.m. tricks and squicks So many thoughts, so little time. Interesting discussions going on that I need to absorb and synthesize before I can comment: Naomi and Jenny-O with two sides to the coin on meta in fandom and what it is and what it should be. Me, I like discussing fandom itself, and I'm quite willing to define it. Well, I'm quite willing to use Kit's definition, which is somewhat broader than most. Maybe it's because I come from a sports fan background and am in a family of sports fans who also follow tv shows quite ardently [though not quite with the obsessed devotion I've got] and will read books by certain authors simply because that author's name is on the spine. But I don't see media fans [which is how I'd categorize people in online television/movie/book/comics fandoms] as much different from sports fans or opera fans or music fans. We just act out our devotion in different ways. The sports zealot might collect baseball cards or shell out cash for season tickets or play fantasy football. The Phish fan buys all the albums, reads all the articles, and follows the band (i.e., travels cross-country attending all their shows). The BtVS/Angel fan gets online and discusses the show ad infinitum or writes and reads fanfic, or creates visual fan art. I'm not seeing a difference, at base, really. Just in expression. Anyhow, to totally switch gears, in the past few days there has been a discussion in various stops along the blog highway about squicky topics and bad taste and plots that should be approached with care and what have you. Kate Bolin brings up one squick in this entry (and it's a plot/topic I've not really seen addressed in fic, and honestly, I don't want to) in her LJ, and Jenn weighs in on why there are no bad plots, just bad authors. I fall somewhere hmm... to the right? of Jenn's contention. I believe that yes, a skilled author can turn his/her ['hir' is a dumb word. Sorry. So is 'ze'. I'm a reactionary when it comes to certain things. I admit it. See the diatribe on fen and why I don't use it] hand to almost any plot and make it work. Obviously, everybody's strengths are different. I wouldn't be your first choice for intricately-plotted, romance-free action type stuff. But if you want lots of internal monologue, some snappy dialogue, and your lovers walking off into the sunset, then I'm your girl. Woman. So when you get to squicky plots, some are just not right for fanfiction. Kate's example, of a mentally retarded [developmentally disabled? What's the correct term these days] girl who falls in love with the heroine of the fic... let's just say that unless you've got a lot of firsthand experience dealing with the mentally retarded, or did some super in-depth research, I'm thinking this isn't a topic for the average, or even *most* above-average fanfic writers. Same goes with rape and incest. These are delicate topics. Am I a hypocrite because I've written one rape fic [and I define a rapefic as a fic in which the rape is the central mover of the plot - the character deals with the results of it. I'm not talking about a detective story where Our Heroes solve the rape of a random OC, though that, too, can be fraught with danger if the author isn't careful] and one incest fic [well, there was almost incest. But they didn't know they were related. So I'm doubly damned, since I took a serious topic and played it for laughs]? Depends. I think I did all right with both of them, though the incestfic definitely pushes the bounds of good taste. All I'm saying is, these are topics that require a delicate hand, an enormous amount of tact, and some really serious research. They shouldn't be tackled lightly, or simply as a way to get your One True Pairing(TM) together. Are there plots that give me trepidations when I see them listed in the summary? Yes, yes there are, and I'm not talking about my personal L/J squick. I'm very wary of most hurt/comfort fic, and find torturefic to be fairly uninteresting, and torturous to read. These are personal preferences, yes. But they're also a function of seeing such topics handled badly and not wanting to repeat the experience. I've said this time and again, but it bears repeating. One does not recover from being raped a week - or a month - later through great sex with one's OTL. Even more troubling, a man will have different issues when dealing with the aftermath of being raped. A powerful man, and one used to defending himself, is going to rocked to his very core by such an event, and it will probably inform his behavior for years, if not for the rest of his life. The other one that gets me is the "Luke and Laura" plot, where the woman [or man] falls in love with the rapist. ::Shudder:: I'm thinking this is another place 9944/100% of fic writers shouldn't go. Anyhow, to get back to plots that have no place ever being written, I can think of only one, really. MPREG. Unless it's a comedy, what the *HELL* are you thinking? I like babyfic. Hell, I'm writing a babyfic [sort of] with NotDL [still not finished. Sigh. Three more scenes to go], but men don't get pregnant. Let's repeat that: Men don't get pregnant. I'm willing to accept vampires and mutants and aliens and gay chocolate milk giving cows, but human males do not get pregnant and they do not give birth! Aside from the ishiness of figuring out the birthing process [I'd rather not know, thanks, but the idea haunts me, curse you, Beth!], it strikes me as [say it with me now] latently misogynistic to remove the female from the life-giving process altogether. If you want to write babyfic, why not write about your boys adopting, or having a surrogate mother, and arguing over which of them gets to donate the sperm, or something? Or skip that process all together and just say, "Hey, they adopted a baby. Here's Sara and her two daddies." and start the story there. But that's just me. I'm going to tell you not to write it, because I'm a tyrannical despot, but no one who wants to write this shite is going to listen to me, so I may as well piss into the wind. Or tug on Superman's cape. Or pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger. And now I'm showing my age, so I'll stop quoting old songs. My point, if I had one, and even I'm not sure anymore, is that no, there are no "bad" topics. There are just plots that need to be handled with care, and not doing so will result in a bad experience for your readers, who can, in turn, make posting fic a very bad experience for you. And nobody wants that. Wanna tell me to shove it? Feel free. ~victoria [current mood: talkative] [current music: Money - Pink Floyd] [current mood: ] [current music: ] [random quote: ] ~*~ 2002-04-14 - 3:03 p.m. another reason I love hockey You know, I do a lot of bitching about sports and about how it's a business and the fans are treated like crap by millionaires and billionaires etc. yada yada, blah blah blah. But occasionally, things remind me of why I love sports. This is why I love hockey. Read about Saku Koivu's return from battling non-Hodgkins Lymphoma and the 8 minute ovation Habs fans gave him. Then scroll down a little and read about the class move by Jacques Martin and the Ottawa Senators in allowing Roger Neilson (another cancer survivor) to be the head coach (he's an assistant coach there regularly), so he could reach 1000 games coached. Things like this remind me that sports isn't just corporations and billionaires. There are still people involved, and some of them are damned good people, though their actions are often overshadowed by the fuckwits and the criminals and the losers who crowd the sports pages these days. And the Mets just took the lead on a Mike Piazza single. Whew. More later, on squicks and bad plots and other such fannish business. Now, I'm going to pay attention to some baseball, and possibly finish writing NotDL. Or I might take a nap. *g* ~victoria [current mood: ] [current music: ] [random quote: ] ~*~ 2002-04-13 - 10:09 p.m. A rant on OOC-ness One more rant to enshrine in the pantheon: Laura JV on writers who don't care about their characters' out-of-character behavior. ~victoria avoiding writing the S/J make up scene... [current mood: ] [current music: ] [random quote: ] ~*~ 2002-04-13 - 6:50 p.m. WTF? Okay, I know I just posted an entry, but... but... ::sputters incoherently in anger:: Found in the divine Neil Gaiman's journal: From the Hannibal (MO) Courier-Post: Because the funds would start a new program to combat ''Goth'' culture, it was singled out with derision in a list of examples released earlier in the week by the Education Department. In an effort to defend the local projects, Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee are circulating a more complete list of the spending bill's earmarks. Goths -- kids who tend to wear black and think dark thoughts -- are an at-risk group of students, said Blue Springs Police Officer Colby Lalli. The students who shot and killed 13 people in 1999 at Columbine High School in Colorado allegedly were attracted to Goth culture. ''It's not just the clothes they wear,'' Lalli said. ''We're seeing kids on the unit, whether it be suicide or homicide, they're just one more culture in our community that is at big risk, and we need to deal with that. We need to educate people.'' Graves said: ''This is something that is a problem for the Blue Springs community. It's one of those priorities that my constituents asked me to fight for.'' Okay, what the FUCK? $273,000 for this? And PELL Grants are in danger? Good lord. This is one of those times I'm glad I don't live in Middle America. In New York, everyone expects you to wear black and be depressed. I worry about the future of this country sometimes. The idiocy, the sheer smallmindedness... ::shakes head:: I just worry. ~victoria [current mood: baffled, angry and worried] [current music: Dazed and Confused by Led Zeppelin... scarily apropos] [current mood: ] [current music: ] [random quote: ] ~*~ 2002-04-13 - 6:30 p.m. mother's little helper Okay this entry is going to be personal, then wander into the fannish. You may want to skip this first part if you're squeamish about knowing personal stuff. Typically, I've tried to avoid having too much really personal information in here, but those of you who read closely or regularly (and you know who you are. I do, too *g*), know that I see a therapist, anywhere from once a week to once a month, depending on scheduling (and the insurance sitch). I'm also on paxil, and have been since, oh, October 2000. It's not a huge secret, but it's also not something I've explicitly told most fandom people, for no reason except it didn't come up in conversation. Well, this spur-of-the-moment trip to the parents' meant that, in addition to not having my glasses with me (no biggie, I just wear my lenses until it's time to go to bed), I didn't have my medication. Which, you know, isn't such a big deal on the surface. Except that the doctor, the psychiatrist and the pharmacist have all warned me about skipping doses and discontinuing the medication without supervision, because it does something to your brain chemistry or something, and you need to be weaned off. No going cold turkey on this baby. And the few times I skipped a dose (for various reasons. Shut up!), I definitely noticed an odd dizziness and disorientation that didn't really fade for a day or two. So, I figure, I'm screwed this weekend, I guess I have to wait until Monday evening to take it, when I get home. Except, the last time the psychiatrist gave me the prescription, I lost it, so she wrote me a new one, and then I found the old one. So I still had a script in my wallet, and drugstores are thick on the ground out here, so we went to CVS and dropped it off on the way to the mall (where I bought three lovely work outfits that can live out here for just such occasions as this, when I come without a bag), three pairs of shoes at Payless [black slides, tan slides, and skippy slides], and then headed back to CVS (with a detour to my sister's to see how the new brickwork is coming]. Well the pharmacist tells me that the insurance company won't cover the prescription, because I just filled it a week ago, a thirty-day supply, and it hasn't been thirty days yet. So I explain the whole, "I didn't pack it" thing, and he says, why don't you just go home and get it? Grrr... That's not really an option. I'd rather spend the money on a new prescription than the time to go home and come back (on the LIE) on a Saturday. Maybe that's just me, but I'm the customer, gimme my pills, dammit! So he suggests giving me 17 pills, which will add up to thirty days since the last prescription was filled, and then after that, I can get coverage again. So that's what I did. $63 for 17 pills. Insuance companies, and pharmaceutical firms, are evil. They should be forced into non-profit status. ::nods firmly:: What all this means is that I feel really weird and disoriented and dizzy since I'm used to taking my meds at 7:30 in the morning, and I didn't take it today until 5 pm. So yeah, there's the big TMI entry. As for fannish things, I noticed that Jenn is looking for musical inspiration. I offer August and Everything After by the Counting Crows. The whole album. Also, Achtung Baby, All That You Can't Leave Behind and Joshua Tree by U2. Thunder Road - hell, anything by Springsteen triggers Logany and Xandery thoughts, and some Lexy ones occasionally. Yeah, I'm a classic rock queen. *snerk* Um, THC's Need to Destroy and Overfire are good for angsty sexy stuff, and so is anything from Portishead. Ani DiFranco is good for disintegrating relationship stuff, and Napoleon could be a CLex themesong of sorts. And always, when in doubt, Nine Inch Nails. But I tend not to listen to music when I write, so I don't know if this is helpful. These are just songs and albums that have words and music that get me every time, hit me where I live and make me realize their emotional truth. Which is what we're trying to accomplish with writing, so... make of that what you will. Over in the LJ, the details of my Lionel Luthor dream. *g* ~victoria [current mood: dizzy, literally] [current music: Don't Fear the Reaper - Blue Oyster Cult] [current mood: ] [current music: ] [random quote: ] ~*~ previous - next DiaryLand Disclaimer: Reading this diary is not required by law. If you do not like or agree with the contents herein, or find them to be offensive on more than one occasion, please go elsewhere and don't come back. Management is not responsible for any adverse reactions to content within. The painting is "Boreas" by John William Waterhouse. Again, not a muse, but I like her. She suits the color scheme. The quote is from Sir Philip Sidney. This site is best viewed with IE4+ | 1024x768 | true color | verdana | tables