deviantART

Happy New Year! And... I have nothing much to say at the moment. I've been busy, though: I've been painting. I had a deviantART account back in the day, but after losing my job and getting flamed in the message boards, I closed it. Well, I've reopened it and am once again slaving away over my Bamboo tablet, struggling to reproduce the images in my mind without too much success. Here's the link, if anybody's interested:


You'll note that I really, really like trees.

Review of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

It's been two weeks since I saw the film, but I haven't had a chance to put my impressions into words until now. The following post is positively stiff with spoilers. Spoiler-free summary at the bottom.

Where do I begin? I take my Tolkien very seriously. I generally like his books the way he wrote them; yes, I am frustrated by the unfinished ones, but for the most part I'm a happy reader. I can't understand the point of view of those who grumble over descriptions of landscapes, whine that the pace is too slow, or gripe that certain scenes (eg, Tom Bombadil) seem out of place. For me, these are high points, virtues that never made it into genre fantasy. Some readers seem determined to judge the original by how much it resembles the imitations. I fail to see the appeal of these: they are generally too fast paced, too frenetically plot-driven, never pausing to let the reader become immersed in the world. The genre is too artificially smooth, lacking the cracks that give depth and meaning, cracks that mirror the ones always appearing in the rich but fragile fantasy world each of us knows as reality. Nope, none of that nonsense for genre fiction, but efficient, formulaic production with an eye on the clock, converting hours to dollars with all the soul of a Taco Bell employee.

Peter Jackson seems to have a knack for drawing together gifted actors, visual artists and composers. He seems to have enough respect for the serious Tolkien fan community to allow them to temper the worst of his impulses, and perhaps even has enough appreciation of the books to actually want to create the occasional faithful scene. In The Hobbit, I enjoyed seeing Bilbo run through Hobbiton carrying the dwarves' contract: his excitement was truly infectious. I liked the "Riddles in the Dark" scene very much, though the setting was not nearly as dark and impressive as I pictured it; Freeman and Serkis absolutely nailed it. So I'll give Peter Jackson that much: he seems to have some ability to recognize talent. Still, at heart, he's a Taco Bell chef: piling up tortilla, beans, cheese, and just a pinch of iceberg lettuce to appease the wholesome book fans; rolling it together with a little less care every time, and calling it a meal. Remember how I said the Rankin Bass film taught me goblins are scary and will eat your head? Well, that was not enough for Peter Jackson, who showed us that goblins are comical creatures who line up to be squished by a rolling rock or shoved off bridges with a handy stick, led by a scrotum-throated giant who cracks jokes whilst being disemboweled.

I seem to be alone in this, but I enjoyed the scene in the book. The chase down a pitch-dark tunnel with the flip-flap of goblin feet on stone drawing gradually nearer, the brief confrontation when the hunters round a corner to find two legendary swords glowing before their faces; the second meeting, where the goblins come up stealthily to grab the dwarves from behind in the dark. Perhaps all this "dark" makes it difficult to translate to a visual medium, but it was a genuinely scary scene and worth the trouble. But no, Peter "Subtlety" Jackson decided viewers would prefer to see multiple goblins squished by a rolling rock. Hey, I like references as much as anybody, but when it comes to Katamari Damacy tributes, World of Warcraft did it better.

As for my fear that there would be a "flattening" effect as the tale was stretched and made more similar to Lord of the Rings, that was well warrented. Sometimes it feels as though the filmmakers are running through a checklist, a sort of Tolkien blockbuster recipe: 1 tsp "dwarves are disgusting", 2 cups "archery is sexy" and a 5lb bag of "Galadriel poses dramatically". They even reused the music (though where the did spring for a new theme, the dwarves' song, it is one of the highlights of the film). The character development is also sped up in a way that will probably leave nothing for the other two films. Now, before ever meeting a spider and naming his sword, timid Bilbo has killed a warg, leapt between an unconscious Thorin and a murderous orc, slain the orc, and won the respect of the dwarves. Where can he go from here?

Spoiler-free summary: 2.5 out of 5 stars: a decidedly mediocre film. Good acting and a small amount of good (new) music, combined with classic Boyans & Walsh Velveeta™ dialogue and gratuitously silly video-game action.

I am Adam Lanza

I wanted to post about The Hobbit movie, but that will have to wait. The following post touches on (obviously) the Newtown shootings and the gunman, so skip it if you don't wish to read such things.

When I first heard about the Sandy Hook shooting, I reacted differently than I had to any previous such tragedy. That is to say, I probably reacted normally. I'm a mom. My second-youngest daughter is just the age of the shooting victims. I was enraged and appalled at the idea of someone who could even think of harming these little kids; was horrified, putting myself in the shoes of parents waiting to be reunited with children who may have been killed. I was angry enough to think, though I knew it was a terrible thought, "if only we could find the people capable of crimes like this and lock them up first!" It was not a thought I ever had before, or one I will ever have again, but I understand it.

Whenever there has been a school shooting in the past, my first thought has been "I bet the killer was someone like me". In the early 90's, I simultaneously started public school and middle school, as a painfully shy, socially awkward, previously homeschooled, poor, bespectacled, "exceptionally gifted" undiagnosed aspie, with predictable results. That is to say, for the next three years, I could not ride the bus or walk between classes without being spit on, harassed, and physically attacked. I didn't wish for a friend, I just wished for a sanctuary. There were times I hid in my room with my mirrors covered, beating my head on the wall. I attempted suicide, I ran away from home, and when my mother refused to listen to or help me (in all fairness, she really couldn't have), I had meltdowns and threatened her. Once, I hit her. I hated myself for doing these things, but I was a bundle of misery and self-hatred. I got to the point where I associated everyone with the bullies; I felt I was surrounded by enemies. I could not understand how to simply be left alone, let alone make friends; and trust me, I put most of my intellectual energy into trying (the rest went into the straight A's that earned me the only positive attention I knew). On the second day of high school I walked out the doors and never returned. I can't think of those days, now, without reliving the trauma, and when I see 12 and 13 year old kids (except my own daughter), I'm still a bit afraid of them.

In short, if Liza Long is Adam Lanza'smother, if Kate Geiselman is Adam Lanza's teacher, and Pamela Mirghani is Adam Lanza's sister, then I am Adam Lanza. I know what it is to be the "weird" person, the one who doesn't talk or look you in the eye. I've been fired from a job for my flat facial expression. I make people uncomfortable. If, during the time I described above, I had had access to guns, would I have done what he did? I highly doubt that. You see, aside from being on the spectrum, and having been isolated and scary and weird, I am not like Adam Lanza. My anger blows over quickly, and I abhor violence. I would however, almost certainly, have shot one person: myself. Maybe society is, objectively speaking, better off without people like me. I know there are plenty who would say so, and I've felt that way myself. Still, I believe every perspective, every consciousness is valuable for its own sake, and if someone is marginalized this is all the more reason to stop and hear his or her story. Sometimes the hardest person to apply that principle to is myself. But here is my perspective, for what it's worth:

First, this trend of publicly calling out people with ASD is not okay. Long posted under her real name, and was more often praised for her openness than criticized for betraying her son's trust and essentially turning him over to an angry mob. She was defended by other parents of aspies, who seemed to imagine she was being blamed for her son's disability, ignoring the actual criticism. Sadly, this seems to be a pattern. These parents always circle the wagons, pat one another on the back, and react with exaggerated defensiveness to anything adult aspies may have to say for ourselves. I have to wonder if they are similarly dismissive of their aspie children's thoughts and feelings. The odd thing is, I am one of them. I have a child, possibly two, on the spectrum, but I feel no kinship with these parents. My daughter is not a puzzle to me, nor am I afraid of her.

Second, people with ASD are only "potential killers" in the sense that all people are. We are not likely to commit violent crimes: something that should be very surprising when one considers that ASD is linked with lack of social support, depression, unemployment, and (being a victim of) abuse. Any group experiencing these could well be violent, but we are not. What we are, as far as I can see, is childlike, disabled, a little (or a lot) lost in a world that we don't fully understand. We are capable of empathy, but our ability to sense others' emotions is impaired: one could say we are half blind to things like tone, facial expression, and social cues (I am literally half blind, so I think I can make the comparison! I've often wished for social "contact lenses"). We can care very deeply about others and still miss the cues. We are sensitive. The world is intense to us. Things you don't even notice might cause us physical and emotional pain. Many of us are highly skilled, creative, innovative, and driven, but few of us have paying jobs. The workplace is not terribly friendly to weird, quiet, eccentric folk. Some of us are extroverted, some of us are introverted, but either way most are alienated and isolated.

I'm interested in the topic of aspie artists, and I've observed that though it's not unusual for an aspie to have a rich, vivid imagination and be driven to create, sometimes on quite an ambitious scale, we often lack the "self-consciousness" and focus on the presentation or packaging of our work that is necessary for success as an artist. In work, art and social life, I think a lot of us would benefit from a mentor. I also think we would be greatly helped by public education and awareness, to combat the bigotry that is the direct cause of so much of our suffering. You see, far more than you need to be protected from us, we need to be protected from you. Some very independent and proud aspies I know might object to that, but as a group, we are vulnerable.

When people talk about having a "conversation about mental health", I'm afraid of what this might actually mean. ASD is a developmental disability, not a mental illness. Yes, stigma against mental illness is a problem, but slapping that label and the related stigma on people with developmental disabilities, who are already marginalized, does not solve either problem. Legitimizing the knee-jerk impulse to hate and fear the quiet, awkward, smart kid is not a responsible course of action. I'm not asking that you love us, or like us. I'm asking that you think of us as human beings, as real people with real feelings and rights, people who are innocent until proven guilty.

There have been a few articles/posts recently that have spoken against the trend of scapegoating, some from aspies and some from allies. I would like to link to them and say that I am deeply grateful to these people for speaking up:

Debriefing: How Not to Have a Conversation about Mental Health

I have Asperger's; I am just like you

 Leave autism out of mass shootings

Autism, empathy, and violence: One of these things doesn't belong here

I also came across these photo stories, which aren't related to the shooting but also work to foster understanding, and brightened my day:

Pretending to be normal

A long-expected journey.

My introduction to the Hobbit was not that auspicious. When I was 3, I came into possession of a Fisher Price Record Player and a few records to go with it, including this one::

"Hobbit Book & Record: Rankin/Bass (1977)"

I set up the record player in my multicolored, foldable indoor playhouse (if I recall correctly, it came from Little Golden Books or Random House - something like that) and spent days listening to records. Mostly, to be honest, I was listening to other records: I forget which they were, but I had two that were identical with different B sides, and at first I thought the song changed by magic.  I solved this great mystery by teaching myself to read, which led to my real introduction to Tolkien four years later. As for the Rankin Bass record, the only impression it really made on me was "Goblins are scary and will eat your head!"

Yesterday I reread the Hobbit (for maybe the 7th time). Even after this many readings, I noticed new things, for instance this parallel between the Hobbit and LoTR, which made me smile:

"You asked me to find the fourteenth man for your expedition, and I chose Mr. Baggins. Just let any one say I chose the wrong man or the wrong house, and you can stop at thirteen and have all the bad luck you like, or go back to digging coal."

"Together we score one hundred and forty-four. Your numbers were chosen to fit this remarkable total: One Gross, if I may use the expression. No cheers. This was ridiculous. Many of his guests, and especially the Sackville-Bagginses, were insulted, feeling sure they had only been asked to fill up the required number, like goods in a package. ‘One Gross, indeed! Vulgar expression."

It seems being asked to fill up a required number is not such an insult!

I read it this time because I wanted to reinforce my own original impressions before seeing Peter Jackson's interpretation later this week. Though I think I read LoTR a total of nine times, I didn't reread it before seeing the movie, and this is something I regret. My Frodo and my Aragorn (among others), ones I liked far better than the movie versions, are now difficult to recall. Reading the books first meant my Middle-Earth was really my own, and though the longing to see those images realized is what brought me to the movie, what made them powerful was the degree to which they "matched" a world that had already existed for years in my mind's eye. The Shire, Gandalf, Gollum were much as I pictured them and this delighted me; hearing the songs set to music thrilled me, but it occurred to me just yesterday that if I hadn't read the book before seeing the movie I might not have read it it all..

The richness that sets Tolkien apart from the genre largely inspired by him, something I've spent a lifetime trying to put my finger on, does not really make it to the screen. The movie was mostly enjoyable because I had read the books. The world called to me, in part, because I'd found it the way Tolkien himself found it, starting with that intriguing sentence "In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit". It began as a world where the narrator joked with me and an ordinary person (who seemed, in size and experience, more like my 7-year-old self than like a middle-aged man) revealed himself to be a fellow "fan" of stories of dragons and elves, and this world evolved into a gradually darker, more epic, seemingly older one; a path taken in both the Hobbit and LoTR, but also spanning both. For me, Tolkien's anachronisms and changes in style are not a blemish (as some seem to think) but a key to what sets him apart. Most writers of fantasy take an ordinary character and thrust him or her over some threshold into another world - a classic part of the hero's journey - but Tolkien handled this in a more artful way, starting from an "ordinary" world that is itself fanciful and symbolic, a dream version of reality, and progressing from there into a deeper dream. I wouldn't call it escapist any more than I would say that of the dreams that keep us sane.

The movie on the other hand, taken by itself, is barely distinguishable from ordinary escapist mental junk-food; it would have entertained me but had no lasting impact. I would probably have scoffed and said something clever about male power fantasies, then promptly forget the whole thing. The striking contrast between the various parts of Middle-Earth, which even creeps into the voice of the narrator, would be gone. Tom Bombadil, who breaks the rules of the story (and the rules of storytelling!) so near the beginning would be gone, along with the philosophical weight he brings. The Scouring of the Shire, also "breaking the rules", would be gone, breaking the relationship between the Shire and the heroic world, and thus the implied relationship between reader and book. The movies followed the "rules", and in doing so take life out of the story. I still enjoyed them because I watched them with an overlay of meaning remembered from the books. 

I don't doubt the Hobbit movie will similarly smooth over the quirks and bumps, though in this case the story will be padded rather than condensed. Minimizing the differences in style between the Hobbit and LoTR (an understandable attempt to repeat a successful formula) will certainly have this effect. Following Gandalf might be interesting, but it violates the veil that is drawn around the story in the Hobbit and thus flattens the world, bringing the background into the foreground. I sometimes enjoy fanfiction, and I suppose that's what this amounts to, but fanfiction is not the best introduction to a work! I'll certainly enjoy seeing the characters, places and music "brought to life", but this phrase is misleading: they are already very much alive for me, which is why I want to see them.

European commission, I am disappoint.

Ok, it's not what I meant to post next, but I just stumbled upon this thing, from the distant, unenlightened days of earlier this year:

What?
Ok, let me see if I got the message right. Science is a girl thing, like looking hot, being fashionable, and posing as though you're selling a product? Well, considering that I (or, getting the target age group, my daughters) have little interest in those things for their own sake, the take away is something like: "science is something you feel obligated to waste time on in order to avoid ridicule". Great selling point.

Sure, the "girls are just innately into fashion/love shoes/are vain" thing is everywhere, but it's especially obnoxious when passed off as feminism. "Girls are socialized to worry about their appearance excessively" is kind of 101 stuff, right? I admit, looking at fashion blogs or window shopping can sometimes be a relaxing way to procrastinate. I like looking at pretty things, and some clothes are pretty (as are some plants, trees, artwork, buildings, etc.) but it really doesn't go any deeper than that. An interest in fashion can be an interest in art and design, but it's a pursuit women are specifically channeled into whether they enjoy it or not. Associating it with science is just stupid.

What I would prefer to see is a video of some actual female scientists showing off some of their more exciting work, without anyone beating the viewer over the head with the fact that they're female.  My hypothesis (based on over 30 years experience as a girl) is that girls are more than capable of finding science interesting in its own right. I'd say what's actually needed is the reassurance that getting through college and grad school, and having a career, doesn't mean fighting their way through a wall of mansplaining manflesh (although such reassurance isn't exactly honest). If anything, videos like this make matters worse, portraying the female scientist as a strange new creature rather than simply a scientist and implying that the important thing, even in science, is a woman's physical appearance rather than her work. And guess what? I may be right.

But all of this is quite obvious, isn't it? This video would have been controversial when I was a kid. I think I'll just tell myself it's a delightfully ironic July fools joke. Keeps me happier.

Word association: guilty pleasures

I just read Margaret Atwood's "Oryx and Crake" in one sitting, something I find rather embarrassing. I'm usually embarrassed when I get hooked by a story, because, as a master of literature, I know very well that gripping stories rarely coincide with the type of writing that an educated individual ought to enjoy. But what the hell, I'm anonymous here, and I feel like talking about "Oryx and Crake", whether my undergrad advisor would have found it "intellectually stimulating" or not.
You see, it had several things going for it from the outset. Number one, it was post-apocalyptic, and I'm a sucker for that sort of thing. The old, tired last-human-on-earth-struggling-to-survive image gets me every time, ever since I stole my dad's copy of "Earth Abides" as a kid. It always seems to promise to get to the heart of the matter, to reveal something essential about what it is to be human, which is odd for a creature we hear over and over is a "social animal". Maybe it's because I'm an autistic introverted misanthrope with social anxiety? I don't know, but I know I love a good dystopia, where all the nastiness of humanity can burn itself out and maybe, if we're lucky, leave a gem among the ashes. Or something like that. I'm a reader, not a writer, ok?
So anyway, that brings me to the other thing that grabbed me: there are people with Asperger's in the book (among whom is title character Crake). Apparently Atwood did a bit of research, because they use the term "neurotypical" or "NT". Still, these aspies are very nearly your basic evil geniuses, devoid of empathy, viewing humans as cattle and blah, blah, blah, except that (and again, this may be an autistic reading) they are actually somewhat sympathetic. The world they live in is degenerate, violent, tawdry and soulless. Crake's desire to put an end to this world and replace it with a better is understandable. Even his friend Snowman, neurotypical that he is, seems to understand and, perhaps, work to realize Crake's vision in the end. I'll avoid a spoiler here, but he is left in position to pass judgment on humanity, and, as the curtain falls, that judgment passes to the reader. Very nice, actually. I enjoyed some of the symbolism: the "whuff" of air, the rakunk, the parrot, and the snowman (which, unfortunately, was spoiled when Atwood felt the need to explain it). Sometimes the writing seemed too self-conscious, but at best it was vivid and intense. I enjoyed it. But I'm embarrassed by this, because if I learned one thing in school, it's that books that keep you turning pages are never good.

Oh well.

On an unrelated note, you can participate in an interesting-looking study on word association through a link found here:

"On average, an adult knows about 40,000 words. Researchers in psychology and linguistics are interested in how these words are represented mentally. In this large-scale study we aim to build a network that captures this knowledge by playing the game of word associations. "

Neuroskeptic associated several words with "pain". Me? I repeatedly associated words with "sex".
Word association is fun!
I'm reminded of a website I found years ago (and referred to in a bullshit essay about Borges):
Now there is a database of word associations, and a degenerate and tawdry one at that. But what are words without their associations? They are like naked, lonely NTs wandering a post-apocalyptic beach, slowly dying of infected wounds. Or maybe like references with no point. Or blogs without readers.

Well, 'til next time. I'm probably going to talk about the Hobbit movie (before I see it). I may imitate the bigwigs at The Tolkienist & try to convince the masses to read the book before seeing the film. A futile task, most likely. I'm told Tolkien is too slow-paced and dry for today's young'uns (which brings to mind another fun dystopia).

Eowyn, Mulan, and that dude who doesn't talk in vent

You know that feel when you're the only female in some tech course & get the best grade on a test the dudes failed? Or when you're top dps in a pug raid and speak in vent for the first time? It's kind of like this:

 or maybe this:

 and it's awesome, right? In both cases one could say you're incognito: in the class your achievement is hidden, in the game your gender is, but the moment you get to reveal that you are both the girl and the winner is sweet indeed.
I've been thinking about this trope lately and how it relates to the issue of girls/women in geek culture. I'm sure I'm not the only female who often participates in this culture either without revealing her gender (that "dude" who doesn't talk in vent) or, when her gender is known, feels the urge to keep quiet about her accomplishments. Another example I came across recently was in "She - Understanding Feminine Psychology" by Robert A. Johnson, which is based on the tale of Psyche and Eros. An interesting read, but the essentialism is irritating (that's how it goes with Jungian stuff). At one point in the myth Psyche is given the quest of retrieving fleece from the (violent and dangerous) golden rams, she sneaks in under cover of darkness and gathers the fleece left on the trees. If we are to take Johnson's word for it, this illustrates how a woman should take just enough "logos, the masculine rational scientific energy... for her purposes without a power play" because apparently to do so openly would be to "leave much destruction in her wake".
Ugh. Not even gonna touch that one.
I relate to Psyche, though, in my way. I relate when the blueprints I drew up are approved only when presented by a male friend; when I find remaining androgynous online is the best way to have my ideas heard and evaluated on their own merits, when I see female public figures judged on aspects of their appearance and personal lives that would never matter if they were male. I want to sneak in at night, dress in drag, pretend my microphone is broken, simply pursue my goals without the burden of sexism. So, when possible, I do.
But I can't help but wonder why this story has such mainstream acceptability. I love Tolkien, but I'm not about to call him a feminist, nor do I find Disney movies (or Greek mythology, or Jungian psychology) to be the ultimate in enlightenment. These stories are inspiring, but if you're the dude who never talks in vent - when do start talking? Only the greatest heroine, after all, can be openly female without setting feminism back! Once you're known, your accomplishments become suspect. You risk having them attributed to someone else. If you're only second best, better to stay hidden. If you're still learning, do it quietly (if my examples seem unrelated, think "women participating in male-dominated activities" - either in work or play. Work and play seem to have a lot of overlap in the geek world, anyway).
You also can expect to have your motives questioned. Coming back to Eowyn, I have to think of how her "crush" on Aragorn is seen as a flaw, how some critics seem to feel the need to explain it away in order to redeem her. The thing I don't get about this is Aragorn himself is (in part) trying to impress a woman. In fact, impressing a love interest seems to be a perfectly respectable motive for a man (not to mention I like to read this as a projection of Eowyn's shadowed "masculine side", and her stint as Dernhelm as a way of integrating this - but that's another matter). The point is, the understandable desire to impress someone you share interests with and find attractive is suspect in a female. The problem with the "fake geek girl" is not that she is nothing like the real geek girl, but that the distinction is too blurry. It comes too close to saying that an attraction to geeks makes one a fake geek (apply that to guys and see how silly it sounds!) I would argue that a girl who wants to attract geeky guys probably is a geek, but that would go against the great and eternal law that the highest ambition of every female is to get as much attention from as many males as possible, whoever those males may be and whatever her own sexual orientation, relationship status, age, interests, etc.. You know what I mean.

So yeah: we can't always feel comfortable pursuing our interests openly, and the compromises we make by pursuing them in a subtle way, though they might help us as individuals, work to maintain the "boys only" image these activities have. I'm not judging: I like to learn, work and play without dealing with sexism the whole time - but perhaps some of that burden is self-imposed. Perhaps it's better to be an openly female n00b than to pretend your mic is broken until you top the charts. I don't know. Do weigh in. There is a small chance I will buy you one of these

if you do!