In the meanwhile, and I know this is rather late notice, have some Valentine’s Day cards.

Valentine’s Day Card 2010 Series 1 by HyelPochi
Create note cards onine with zazzle

-

Valentine’s Day Card 2010 #3 by HyelPochi
Browse more Love Cards

-

Valentine’s Day Card 2010 #4 by HyelPochi
More Valentine Cards

-

Valentine’s Day Card 2010 #5 by HyelPochi
Make personalized note cards on zazzle.com

-

Not a card, but lovey:

Tentacle Monster In Love Sticker by HyelPochi
Browse other Tentacles Stickers

(Also available as magnets or buttons.)

-

There are more up at the Zazzle store, but you may not be able to see them without logging in, because I marked them PG-13 to protect the sacred innocence of all those people who don’t know that women have nipples.

Guys, I think I have a new favourite word.

Apophenia means seeing patterns where there are none, specifically without wanting to, coupled with the sense that these patterns are significant.

Signs from God, anyone? But of course we tend to specifically look for those, and in using divination techniques we intentionally put ourselves in that state in order to pick out a divinatory explanation – so we’d be talking about voluntary or self-induced apophenia. (Which I still think can be beneficial, mind you – but that’s a whole another post to be written about the sort of woo-woo I tend to enjoy and apply and why.)

I don’t think I’d heard of the word before today, but I’ve certainly observed the phenomenon. The Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson delved rather into it, and Principia Discordia’s*1 the Law of Five, which also appears in the trilogy, was always a good joke because it so well illustrated self-induced apophenia. (The Law goes, ’scuse my paraphrasing: Everything in existance is linked to the number five. The prophet says, “I find the Law of Five to be all the more applicable the harder I look for it.”)

Ignore the connection with psychosis and autism in the Wikipedia article for the moment. I’m neurotypical as far as I know and I see people around me all the time using this for fun, profit, and lubricating delusions, cultural studies and formation and to win arguments. I do so myself. Divination is just the obvious example. More examples include:

Fun: Six degrees of Kevin Bacon.
Profit: Selling conspiracy theories, for one. Ancient constructs in the shape of constellations are proof of alien involvement… Come to think of it, what is the difference between constellations and the willful application of self-induced apophenia? You don’t really think that Ursa Major looks like a bear, do you?
Lubricating delusions (meaning, by “lubricating”, making daily life more comfortable and easier to get through, and I’m not really helping getting your minds out of the gutter, am I?): This woman looks just like a woman I used to know who was incompetent, so she must be also be incompetent. I drink coffee and eat croissants for breakfast because the successful people around me do, and there must be a connection.
Cultural studies: There’s the study of emerging patterns in any cultural context that must be tempered by the understanding of the researcher’s own apophenia; patterns can be discovered in just about anything.
Winning arguments: Ignore your opponent’s argument and instead focus on certain key words that he or she said, put them together and claim that you can see s/he is actually making a completely different argument and then criticise that. So, “I don’t think it’s fair to put Old Yeller to sleep without first seeing what the treatment can do for him” becomes “I’m opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds”. I swear I’ve had this stuff shouted at me all my life, and probably so have you.

Aw, man. Good word. Of course I’m probably reading more into it than fits in the plain definition, because I love thinking about language, communication and presentation and how those are manipulated to manipulate us. But I’m definitely adding self-induced apophenia to the list of the behavioral, social and literary patterns to look out for.

Zing!

—
*1 One of the most important philosophical tomes of the 20th century as far as I’m concerned, so you better respect.

Help_Haiti is a creative charity auction hosted on Livejournal and organized by private individuals in which you can purchase creative items – stories, art, crafts, whatever – but instead of sending the money to the artist you provide proof of having donated a given amount to one of the listed, trusted charities working on getting aid to Haiti. You can also offer your own art, words, knitwork, whatever, for the same cause. Auction closes on the 20th, so hurry up.

 Of course you can just send money – a good list of charities is also up on the Help_Haiti journal here.

I feel like I have to mention this: over the weekend, the LJ communities ONTD_StarTrek and ONTD_AI – crazy macro-lovin’ communities for the Star Trek and American Idol fandoms - organized a competition on whose members donate more. To quote a GQMF: Best use ever of a petty internet rivalry.

I finish with a thought. Giving money doesn’t make you awesome. Actually being there, surviving and pulling people out of the rubble and getting them aid – that would make you awesome. But money helps.

Is a dream a lie if it don’t come true or is it something worse – Questioning Transphobia posts about a woman whose gender transition is being reversed while she’s comatose, because otherwise it woule be “too confusing for the staff”. Incredible.

Exoticize My Fist is a Dreamwidth community for POC/minority discussion on cultural appropriation. Just a couple of posts, but they’re great reads.

-

Section: Suggestions

Geek Feminism proposes for ladies to resolve to not buy and wear geek shirts men’s sizes, to show that ladies want their math joke shirts too.

AU Big Bang challenges you to write a 15,000 word alternate universe fanfic.

-

Section: Can You Believe I’ve Never Seen Her Show

Questioning Transphobia transcribes Rachel Maddow on Amanda Simpson.

-

Section: Resources! Lists! Woo woo!

Omniglot lists and compares the world’s current and bygone writing systems, Awesome.

Sunvenus lists books of esoteric (as opposed to what’s usually called fantasy) fiction here on Livejournal.

Sacred-Texts.com is just what it says – sacred and magical texts in handy digital format.

RuneSecrets.com – The discussion on the mystical modern meanings of the rune gets pretty deep is interesting whether you’re Ásátru, runemaster or think it’s all bollocks.

E-book privacy comparison.

Pagan therapy – for when you just can’t make your therapist stop thinking you’re nuts for believing in fairies.

***½~ (3.5/5)

-

Before we went in to see Sherlock Holmes (2009) – I feel the year must be mentioned since the producers didn’t grace the film with a more unique title – I told my girlfriend that we should consider a few things in advance in order to get our money’s worth in enjoyment out of it. One: It will have the characters and plot, rather than be particularly true or false to the original, amped up – a carriage crashes into a wall and EXPLODES, sort of thing*1. Two: Don’t expect too much or you’ll inevitably be disappointed – better to go in suspecting it’s going to be mediocre.

I wasn’t wrong, at least about the carriages.

The film falls in the category I call “filmed fanfiction”. It’s not based on any particular Arthur Conan Doyle adventure. An occultist called Lord Blackwood has been kidnapping and murdering young women in occult rituals. He’s publicly hanged, comes back to life and goes about saying spooky things about the new world order and killing more people. Meanwhile, Watson is courting Mary Morstan and Holmes acts jealous and clingy. Irene Adler wears that dark red lipstick that’s unfashionable now but that many of us secretly miss and kicks ass in a display of what started out as Girl Power and has become All Women Know Kung-Fu.

My rule of low expectation is generally a good rule, I think, but this time it didn’t seem to work for me. I did enjoy the film, but not in the full, childlike way I was hoping for. It had plenty of things to delight and interest, but I kept getting distracted with my adult self going, “no, that’s not right”, or “that wouldn’t work”. I may have to watch it again after writing this review just to capture that enthusiasm. I DO like to get my money’s worth.

One thing that kept distracting me was trying to figure out the Ceremonial Magicians. The first scene involves Holmes and Watson interrupting a ritual where a young woman is tied to a table and apparently hypnotized in a vaguely sinister way, and I kept wondering if they mean to show how this is evil for some other reason than it being spooky. Then we get introduced to the Order of the Four Corners, and I think, oh, great, it’s going to be “good” Freemasons against “bad” Ceremonial Magicians. But no! I’m pretty sure the writer wanted to make the villains Masons, but could be the producers didn’t want to piss off Masons or were Masons themselves, or maybe thought it was done to death (as if evil Magicians aren’t).

And then I started wondering if Lord Coward was played by the actor I thought (wasn’t). Then I found myself trying to remember the dates of various electrical inventions, trying to recognize whether Watson’s coat was fashion or military, and wondering if it was period accurate. And wasn’t that “pentacle points as murder sites” thing used in Alan Moore’s From Hell? I wonder if he lifted that out of Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution, too? I wonder which one I should refer to when I write my review.

See what I mean? Stupid chattering adult brain won’t let me watch my film.

Let’s talk about the stuff I liked.

- Watson kicks ass. Doyle’s Watson always kicked ass, but this is often lost in the (more or less canon-loyal or filmed fanfiction type) Holmes movies. Jude Law’s Watson kicks ass in an amped up exploding-carriage kind of way. Also his cane is a sword-pimp-cane, holy shit, just look at that Watson take on London’s underworld and throw them around like a motherfucking wrath of… moustachioed Victorian gentleman doctor. Rawr. Also he’s pretty – and pissy, straight-laced and constantly bitching. N’aw, I like him, though.

- Holmes was filthy, emotionally stunted, egotistical and alternately brilliant and wallowing in self-pity. So, spot-on, really. But we like him too, because he’s funny. (Okay. I’m being facetious. There’s a whole ‘nother article here about Holmes’ crippling bipolar disorder. I’m sure it’s already been written. I’m taking cheap shots at an egotistical character I’d otherwise be in danger of disliking. More on that in a moment.)

- And because you have to have the girl – or rather in this case, the Woman – there was Irene Adler. She’s not just an intelligent “adventuress” (whatever Doyle meant by that), she’s a thief and, because this is a Hollywood film made in the early 21st century, a fighter. She wears either gaudy and impractical gowns or practical but completely unconvincing male attire and matches Holmes and Watson step for step, except when they need a girl to rescue. …What the hell, I liked her too. (My adult brain wants to know whether the writers considered the Adler/La Maupin connotations in deciding to make her a fighter, too.)

- Okay, and I liked that the film dealt with Ceremonial Magicians, even if once more they got to be the evil/deluded ones. I’ve always been attracted to the dualism of Victorian upper-class love of magic on one hand and science on the other, and the attempt to combine those two.

- London was filthy. Whoo!

On to stuff I didn’t like.

- I just don’t think Blackwood’s plan would have worked. You don’t make people president because they’re good at killing people with black magic, not even in London.

- I find this recent trend of naming remix films based on original concepts the full, original name somewhat annoying – because I don’t think it’s appropriate or accurate. This film is not the definitive version of Sherlock Holmes, the franchise, same as Star Trek (2009) is not the definitive version of Star Trek, the franchise – both are rather remixes on the original characters and setting intended to start the entire thing over in a more modern, box-office favourable flavour, hopefully to go on for several movies. I can only hope the trend ends soon and we’ll be spared Star Trek II (no, not Wrath of Khan) and Sherlock Holmes 2! (My spoilery suggestion for this film’s title: Sherlock Holmes: The Fight For the Remote Control. I think it beautifully references both the plot-under-the-plot as well as Holmes and Watson’s domestic bickering.

- Okay, do you have to amp it up THAT much? While it’s not entirely out of character for Holmes to go have a boxing match just to snap out of his apathy, and while I do like that they address his emotional states in the film rather than presenting him only in the role of the brilliant detective… it kinda was just an excuse to put in some violence, wasn’t it? But, then, I guess we also needed to have amped!Sherlock! re-affirmed as an ass-kicker after we’d just seen him crawl around on the floor of his dark pigsty of a study.

- While I found the pull between Watson and Holmes interesting and it had its own kind of warmth, I missed the part where Watson also respects Holmes. Granted, I love seeing Holmes put down; pretty much all egotistical characters need someone to knock them down a little in order for the audience to like said egotistical character. At least that’s how it works for me – some characters seem to be able to pull off being Marty Stus and still have people like them*2. However, in this film it sort of came off as if Holmes was Watson’s addiction first and friend only superficially.

Which doesn’t mean that this film wasn’t a total slashfest. Unhealthy or not, Holmes and Watson were pretty much married.*3 The writers seem to recognize that and have fun with it. I’ve seen articles and heard TV personalities call this a bromance, but it’s more like a brodivorce. You know those romantic comedies where the couple has recently divorced or broken up and are now forced to be together again, hashing out all their grievances and why they’re glad they’re not married anymore (well, why one of them is, anyway – the other one still wants to get back together), only to end up making out again in the end?*4 Yeah, it was like that. Except without the making out. That’s what fanfiction is for.

Oh, another thing I liked: Holmes doesn’t kiss people. People kiss Holmes. Well, if they’re amped!Adler! they do. Mmm, tasty tasty Victorian repression.

So, conclusion? Not perfect. Better than I thought it would be. I am troubled by the trend of super!awesome!action!wow! remakes of tasteful, downplayed originals. It was kind of fun. I like repressed Victorians. This is probably the worst review I ever wrote, and a day late too. Well, chin up, stiff upper lip, there’s always next week.

-

*1 I got this impression from the trailer – not that it wouldn’t have been easy to guess from the posters in any case. I found the first trailer so horrible I went from wanting to see the movie just for the lols and the wrong to the point where I’d decided it was too bad to even see for that. Luckily the next trailer was better.
*2 I’m thinking of Lestat de Lioncourt of Anne Rice’s Vampire Chronicles. Yeah, I don’t get it.
*3 “Gladstone is our dog.”
*4 Examples of this that I can think of off the top of my head: The Philadelphia Story (1940) and His Girl Friday (also 1940) (which, by the way, was based on the play The Front Page in which the “guy” and “girl” were two men in a relationship situation almost identical to Holmes and Watson’s in this movie).

The list so far includes dating and dieting sites. I want no dating, dieting or scam ads on my site, thank you very much. To be more exact, on the list there’s one site for men looking for disabled women (hello chasers) , one advertising rich women, one Chinese women, one Russian women, one “love advice”. And then there’s one diet site.

I mean, these dating sites COULD be perfectly legit and uncreepy. Right. And unicorns could fly out of my ass. Even so I wouldn’t want to advertise for them.

As the ads are regional, though, if you’re not in Belgium/Netherlands and keep seeing dating, dieting, or otherwise creepy sites advertised on the sidebar, please let me know – preferably not by typing out the full address because that’s just Googlejuice for the creeps, but calling it, say, “spammers r us dot net (without spaces)”.

And for heaven’s sake, don’t click on them!

Sorry about all this. I’ll probably get rid of the Google Ads at some point and remove the issue. I thought I’d give the experiment another month or so, first.

Sexting-related bullying cited Hillsborough teen’s suicide – a Tampa Bay article.

A nude photo of a 13-year-old girl’s breasts, sent by her to a boy she liked, made the rounds at her school. She became the focus of wide-spread slut-shaming and bullying, including sexual assault. The school punished her. Her parents punished her. Her friend says she “knew” it was “her own fault”. Eventually she committed suicide.

And you think this is about fucking sex-texting?

Even as I read that article, getting rather emotionally invested (okay you caught me), one part of me kept going, “stop saying this is about sexting, stop it, stop it” – as if she was to blame, as if it wasn’t this whole fucking sick circus of slut-shaming that seems a lot of the people involved thought was somehow okay.

Cara of the Curvature posted about it and said a lot of things that needed saying, including that the problem is not Hope’s sexting but the malicious, non-consensual spreading around of that picture. I say that’s only one of the problems, though.

The problems should be obvious, yes? But since they’re apparently not, let’s write them out.

1. Boys or girls or anybody else should not give private photos meant just for them to others.
2. Kids should not tease, ostrasize or shame girls over having seen her breasts.
3. Or forward the picture.
4. When bullying starts to happen at school, parents and teacher should interfere with a fucking slegdehammer. And that’s a sledgehammer aimed at the tormentors, not the tormented.
5. Schools! What the FUCKING HELL. You do not punish the VICTIM. (Though, as I recall, this is the norm. Growing up, I remember it was always the kid was being bullied who was picked for “counselling” and not the fucking little turd that did the bullying.)
5. When a child is disturbed and unhappy enough to self-harm, you don’t immediately take away her only way of coping and expect her to go cold turkey. You find out what’s wrong. You help her. It’s really fucking hard to get over the impulse to self-harm (note: triggery link), and this girl needed a lot of release.
6. Parents need to tell their children – all of them, tormentors and the tormented – that bodies are nothing to be ashamed of. Having them doesn’t make you dirty. Liking boys doesn’t make you less worthy, and neither does sexting, and you should never let anyone else say so. Slut is a derogatory word for a woman who likes sex and WE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUCH A WORD.
7. In a word, then, what is the problem? SLUT-SHAMING.

How is this not a no-brainer?

This girl was told on one hand that being sexy is good and gets you noticed, and on the other that she’s a worthless slut for doing something sexy. She tried to comply, was eaten alive, and nobody stood up to defend her, to say she was not to blame. And now it’s a problem with the teen culture of “sexting”?

You know what this makes me want to do? Post nude photos of myself online. Just to show the world it’s not a big deal. Just so I can look someone in the eye who might try and mock me for it and show them I’m not ashamed, and tell them exactly what I think about the attempt to make me feel like I should be.

Not sure it would work out that way, though. The photos would probably find their way to a chubby chaser site or Something Awful and turn from my statement into someone else’s tool of objectification. And, okay, maybe I AM a little bit ashamed of my body, for reasons that tie into both fat-shaming and slut-shaming. I only wish I was immune. All I can do is not take part, and to defend.

Goddamn.

Fuck this shit.