Hate Twilight? You’re just threatened by GIRLINESS!

4 12 2009

Twihards: we don't mock you because you're girly. We mock you because you're crazy.

Writer Sady Doyle has published an editorial on The American Prospect about hate directed at the Twilight series, and how it is essentially happening because Twilight is girly and something can’t be good unless it speaks to a male audience.

Actually, I’m pretty sure Twilight gets flack because it is flagrantly anti-woman, anti-feminist and encourages young girls to pine for emotionally abusive men and seek out co-dependent relationships. And it’s poorly written (and acted).

But I am not going to counter here with a statement against the Twilight series. I didn’t make it through the first book (I faltered when Edward started sparkling, then came to a full stop after vampire baseball), and while I’m fully versed on what happens in the following books, I’m hardly an expert. And others  can say it much better. I would recommend reading this post about the anti-feminist issues in the Twilight series – it’s excellent!

What I did find notable in Doyle’s editorial was first her assertion that developing teen girls need “safe” stories with characters such as vampires because real boys are “scary.” Doyle’s right — YA has a very appropriate place in the development of pre-teen and teen girl readers, and most tween-aimed novels do function as a “safe space” for girls to explore ideas about sex and romance. And vampires are a perfect object of focus: they are enigmatic, a little bit dangerous, usually beautiful, often sensitive (for various reasons) and one can focus on all the existential angst of being and loving a vampire without having to bring up sex. Or, you know, biting can function as a metaphor.

I, too, loved vampire stories when I was a young girl (which never really stopped — Buffy, True Blood). My favorite when I was about 11 was a novel called The Silver Kiss, which it seems with all the Twilight rage has been repacked and reissued. The heroine is 16-year-old Zoe, whose mother is dying of cancer and her grieving father is pushing her away. She meets the pale, mysterious Simon, and angst ensues. It’s a solid book, though hardly award winning stuff, that skirts the romance question far more than Meyer’s Twilight, but still give a good thrill. But, of course, Simon was a real vampire (who feed on people, 4SRS!) and Zoe was a real girl, and not a rampaging Mary Sue.

But Meyer doesn’t offer a safe space for girls in Twilight. Her vampires don’t offer an outlet for girls to contemplate adult relationships and sexuality through mystique and metaphor. Hell, they’re not even real vampires — they don’t feed on people, they can go out in sunlight — and SPARKLE!, they have no problems with crosses or garlic, they can fly (generally using tacky special effects) and they play wicked awesome games of baseball! Edward is an abusive figure, Bella is weak and needy, and Meyer hits girls over the head with sex and all sorts of messages about marriage and female subordination. She teaches girls antiquated ideas about patriarchy, co-dependent relationships and saving sex for marriage — then letting your husband ravage and destroy you. NOT A SAFE SPACE FOR YOUNG GIRLS, SRY.

Doyle’s main supporting argument and counter-example to Twilight, however, is the Harry Potter series, and here is where she goes horribly wrong, displaying her ignorance of Harry Potter fandom, and of the books in general (though given her romantic sentiment, I’m not surprised). Honestly, this is one of the reasons the Twifen are so derisively mocked — they are so tightly enclosed in their own bubble, thinking they are OMG SO OPPRESSED and the world revolves around them, that they are totally out of touch with other fan circles.

Doyle asserts that people don’t mock Harry Potter fans. Why? Because the main character is a boy, who does boy things, and there are a lot of male Harry Potter fans. And in the sci-fi/fantasy fan world, a fandom surrounding a girly book and populated mostly by girls is OMG NOT ACCEPTABLE. Doyle writes:

“…she also benefited from escaping the girly ghetto to which Twilight has been confined. Her publishers, famously, asked her to bill herself as J.K. rather than Joanne so as not to alienate male readers, and her books focused on a male hero and included lots of boy-friendly elements such as sports and warfare. She won a male readership, and with it, praise for the “universality” of her work.”

Oh, but this is where she is ever so wrong. There is a significant faction of Harry Potter fans and scholars who believe just the opposite: that JKR can’t write strong female characters to save her life, let alone good romance, and that the Harry Potter series isn’t universal at all. It teaches girls that male characters are the most complex and interesting, and that female character’s lives do and should revolve around boys, and more specifically marriage. Every single Harry Potter fan convention held has featured some panel, roundtable or paper discussing issues of romance, feminism and heteronormative standards present in the Harry Potter series.

Author Meyer with her Mary Sue self insert Bella (Kristen Stewart) and Perfect Man Creation Edward (Robert Pattinson)

The fandom is also mostly women. Not the readers, the fans — the ones who, just like the Twifen (though not to the same extent!), line up in the thousands, dressed up, with wild signs, for book releases and movie premieres, who obsess over the film stars and the characters and the romances. Twilight has Edward or Jacob, HP had the Harmony debacle of 2005 (Hermione with Ron or Harry, with JKR derisively calling the Harry/Hermione shippers short-sighted and silly).

Doyle says that Meyer dared to be female, have a leading female character and a driving romantic plot. And you know what, it is good to see female writers writing female characters in YA novels — many fans question JKR for choosing to write Harry Potter and not Harriet Potter, though seeing how she ultimately fails to write well-rounded female characters it was probably for the best. But women writers often have the sad distinction of doing the most disservice to female characters, and on this point, Meyer and JKR can be united. But at least Rowling didn’t focus her novel on archaic romantic drivel, and her female characters floundered on the sidelines of her story. Meyer’s instead stood center stage. Harry Potter isn’t some infallible bastion of popular fantasy literature — though it is leaps and bounds better than the Twilight series.

The Twihards aren’t getting flack because Meyer dared to write a girly book. We deride the Twifen because everything about the book and what it stands for smacks of misogyny. Twilight is perfectly fine for what it is, but the super fans have put it on a pedestal that opens them up to mocking: enjoy your silly YA novel (I like them, too), but don’t define your life by it!

Doyle concludes by calling out to feminists to defend the Twihards, even if they loathe the series, because the powerful teen female consumer is being trodden upon. Actually, I think what feminists should concentrate on is misogyny (Twilight) and male-produced drivel (Miley Cyrus, whom she also cites as proof of an empowered tween girl market) being peddled to impressionable tween girls and the implications thereof.


Comments : 11 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : feminism, harry potter, news articles, social commentary, terrible tweens

Ever wondered if you’ve got a doppelgänger out there? Try this app! (aka: Coca Cola wants your face, your brain, your loyalty)

3 12 2009

In a bizarre feat of “brand marketing meets technology,” the Coca Cola Company today launched the Facial Profiler app on Facebook, whose goal it is to match you with your online twin. Simply allow the app access, and it will scan through all tagged photos of you on Facebook, select the best three and then ask you to submit a “control photo” (preferably a head-on shot, which you can take with a webcam or upload from your computer). Then it will search through other members using the app to find your “twin.”

Coca Cola launched the app this morning, and it was a flashy movie-trailer like interstitial on Onion.com that drew my attention to it. “If Coke Zero h as Coke’s taste, maybe someone out there has your face,” intones the dramatic advert. Yes, that’s right — this whole endeavor is an integrated marketing campaign for Coke Zero. Check out the ad:

Of course, I’m a lemming and I had to try it. My match left something to be desired — vague resemblance at best. But the app is (thankfully) restricted to those who allow it access to their profile/photo information, so as the campaign gains speed and the pool widens, running the app could be a lot of fun. (the WSJ has a good article on the privacy concerns here) When I tried to find another match, the app gave me an error — my guess is that not enough users are on yet, and it was my only feasible match. Take a look:

I don't think my "doppelgänger" looks like me at all

Do I like that I’ve been sucked in by Coca Cola’s clever marketing? Not really. But this is a really cool app.

What are your thoughts? Do you hate The Man for this manipulative piece of branding? Do you not care one whit, and intend to join yourself?


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : facebook, technology

Girl who cooked kitten in an oven gets 2 years in jail — the sad story of Tiger Lily

3 12 2009

Tiger Lily was only eight weeks old when she was shut in an oven and left to burn to death

A 17-year-old girl who shut a kitten in a 500 degree oven and left it to die has reached a plea bargain that will see her doing only two years of jail time for this heinous crime. Tiger Lily, an eight week old white and brown tabby, literally roasted to death as the butt of a cruel “practical joke” that Cherry and a 14-year-old companion played on a Cherry’s former roommate. Well, I’ll tell you, there’s nothing funnier than committing extreme acts of animal cruelty to get even.

On May 6, 2009 Cherry and a 14-year-old friend broke into Cherry’s former roommate, Valerie Hernandez’s apartment allegedly with the intention of playing a practical joke. According to reports, it was the younger girl who put tiny Tiger Lily into the oven and shut the door, but Cherry “didn’t let it out,” and the pair fled the apartment, not wanting to hear the poor kitten’s desperate mewls for help, and her scratching at the oven door. When firefighters entered the apartment hours later, they found nothing but a smoldering carcass. Tiger Lily was so badly burned, vets had to perform a necropsy to determine the sex. Cherry’s response? “I hate cats,” and “it was a practical joke.”

Amazingly, upon her arrest for the crime back in May, Cherry was released without bail despite having previous animal kidnapping charges against her, from a 2008 incident where she and her boyfriend kidnapped and held for random a teacup Yorkie (at whose head they aimed a BB gun in order to intimidate the owner into handing it over). It wasn’t until the ASPCA arrested her on animal cruelty charges and released the story to the media that she was held and charged for this heinous crime. Clearly, the NYPD don’t take animal cruelty seriously, a real shame considering acts such as this are often the precursor of psychotic and/or anti-social conditions.

And clearly, someone on the judicial side thinks that two years in prison and a three year moratorium on pet ownership is enough punishment for the unabashed kitty killer. Cherry was reported in the media as laughing at protesters, shrugging off her crime (see: above comment on hating cats, practical jokes) and generally showing no remorse. Two years is hardly sufficient, and given how readily one can get an animal from Craigslist, the short-term ban on having a pet will hardly matter. Apparently Cherry has a dog that she “loves very much,” according to her brother. Cats? Not so much.

It almost goes without saying: this is disgusting. Reading accounts of this crime, even thinking about that poor kitten’s suffering, turns my stomach. Who could do such a thing? And who thinks that such a paltry sentence is sufficient?

Let’s not just focus on Cherry, though. Her teen accomplice, who is apparently also the mother of a 4-month-old (so was she pregnant when this happened? Jeeze), has admitted that she is the one who set the oven to 500 degrees and put the kitten inside. Because of her age, she has been sentenced to a mere 18 months in a juvenile detention facility. Sorry, but if you are old enough to have a BABY and premeditate to put a kitten in a 500 degree oven, you can face criminal charges. So as upsetting as it is to see Cherry get off with just two years and some pet owning probation, it’s almost worse to see the teen who actually put Tiger Lily in the oven looking at no worse than juvie, and a record that will likely be wiped when she turns 18. Fourteen is old enough to know better. No excuses.

This is why I’m involved in animal activism. Acts such as this are disgusting, and while I realize there are limitations to punishment, for such a heinous crime, this outcome is sadly lacking. I wish there were more justice for poor little Tiger Lily.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : animal rights

Listen Up: Lady Gaga – The Fame Monster

2 12 2009

The Fame Monster was released on 11/23

I used to not know quite what to do with Lady Gaga. The message of Just Dance seemed to be the wrong one – hey, ladies, get plastered in the club, doesn’t matter if you’re a mess, just dance – but against her other songs, and most importantly in complement to Gaga’s videos, I realized that the seemingly base contents of her songs are actually a very clever commentary.

With The Fame Monster, Gaga continues on her bent to be the voice of a lost post-feminist generation. There are more songs about dancing up in the club, about emotionally abusive boyfriends, allusions to sexual escapades and lyrics that feel like they should be trite, but in the mouth of Gaga, in that silky-smooth, powerful voice and against the brilliant melodic constructions, they’re poignant. Pop princesses like Britney created the simpering hook-up generation, and Lady Gaga is responding to it – both reflecting and making bold statements about the behaviors in which she and her peers engage. The Bad Romance video showed it all – women being used up, sold off and treated like sexual objects. No thank you.

If ever one could liken a pop album to crack cocaine, this is it. Though The Fame Monster only features eight tracks, they are all winners, each sultry and seductive in their beats and melodies, but each oh-so different. From the rough-and-tumble desperation of Bad Romance to the slinky-boppy Alejandro, the raw laying-bare of Speechless to the manic fucked-up-starlet mantra Dance in the Dark, The Fame Monster is a complex musical smorgasbord. The eighties aren’t a decade I’ve been keen to see come back, especially musically, but The Fame Monster is “retro” in the best possible way. Gaga’s synth club pop harkens back to the 80s in the style of Depeche Mode, occasionally Duran Duran and brief moments of late 80s Bowie.

Bad Romance, the lead single that produced an amazing video, has the best lyrics of the bunch, with such provoking lines as “I want your ugly, I want your disease, I want your everything as long as it’s free… I want your love and I want your revenge, you and me could have a bad romance.” I think PopJustice put it best: “Poker Face reinvented.” YES.

Alejandro is Gaga’s “La Isla Bonita,”meets Ace of Base’s “All That She Wants” – boppy island undertones plus a layered synth, as she laments “Don’t call my name, don’t call my name Alejandro, don’t wanna kiss, don’t wanna touch, just smoke my cigarrette and hush” and the chorus is just a sung chant of Alejandro, Ale-ale-jandro. For added dramatic flair, there is a sweep viola line that starts off the song, and comes back in at the end – very Moulin Rouge “Tango de la Roxanne.” Monster is the second “obvious” single track, and one getting a lot of buzz among fans. It features a lot of synthy drum beats… I’m not sold on it, but it undeniably has a great hook and is very danceable.

On Speechless Gaga shines like she never has before. It’s a proper ballad, where she not only showcases her impressive song-writing skills, but also her dramatic, nuanced voice. Gaga has a background in burlesque shows, and you can hear the raw, textured jazzy tone she takes on here, imparting this sad love song with great feeling. It’s just another reminder of what a talented vocalist she is – she can be slinky and smooth on a frothy pop piece, but then pull out such a vocally complex and powerful performance here. Popjustice said this might end up being Gaga’s “Beautiful,” and I agree.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , ,
Categories : listen up, music

‘Tis the season for giving! (or, things my mother has taught me, namely to have a gift closet)

2 12 2009

Start a gift stash and you'll have goodies to give year-round!

Ah, December. The time of parties and cookies and gift giving and being incredibly poor! If there is one thing I have inherited from my mother, it is my joy of gift-giving. Oh, I also love to give to myself, too, but my mother pins that one on my father’s genetic shoulders XD But I just love stuff, and putting together perfectly themed little gifts (in adorable bags!) for people. And if I can get those gifts at a bargain price? It sets my thrifty little heart all aflutter.

Which leads me to my system, handed down to me by my mother: the gift closet system. It’s pretty simple in concept: pick up cute things on sale year-round, and stash them in a closet (or, if you have limited Boston apartment space as I do, a box), and then when Christmas, gift exchanges or unexpected birthdays roll around, you have an array of novelty items from which to choose. My gift closet contains DVDs, baking kits, books, various home goods, tea and coffee sets, mp3 players (thank you, Creative 2008 recession buster sale!) and all manner of knick-knacks picked up at holiday sales and from Target’s beloved quirky holiday set shelf. Most things in my stash cost between $5-$10 (or less), and with that cost spread out over months and in some cases years, I feel less of a credit crunch come December. It is December 2nd, and I am done with all of my shopping, save for two people.

Here are some of my favorite sources of gift closety goodness:
- Amazon Gold Box – if you see something at an incredible price that has wide appeal, adding it to your stash can be incredibly worthwhile.
- Bargain price books & sets outside of Borders Books – great for cookbooks and theme sets (such as a sushi or cupcake making set)
- when I’m in Atlanta, Tuesday Morning, which has locations in many other states. Also a GREAT place to get your gift bags for a steal! And now they have an ONLINE shopping option. Awesome.
- TJ Maxx – great for housewares and “as seen on TV” type gifts.
- Target, which every year has a plethora of holiday gift sets, most of which are under $10. You can still get them for this year, including tea and coffee sets, baking sets, drink mix sets (including an adorable martini set I saw the other day) chocolate collections and more. Target.com also has some great discount sales. I also ALWAYS skim the $1 section (which in reality also has items for $2.50 XD), which will occasionally have a winning item.
- Creative’s Outlet store/sales. The current sale has some nice pieces and Creative is one of the few retailers to whose updates list I subscribe because it is truly worth my while to click through to their sales, which happen 3-4 times a year. In their Recession Buster sale in 2008, I got a 4 GB mp3 player for $10.  GREAT if you have young nieces/nephews/cousins whose parents can’t bear to/afford to buy them an ipod! They also make top-notch headphones. Their Outlet frequently features refurbished items at a bargain price.

For this Christmas, it may be too late for maximum gift closet goodness, but for 2010 birthdays and Christmas 2010, now is the perfect time to get started. Plus, Amazon will be running Christmas sales in the coming weeks (they always do a 12 Days of Christmas promotion) and Target always has novelty gifts at low prices. While it may not be as good as cleaning up during Black Friday or the after Christmas sales, you can definitely still pick up some amazing items! And, hey, if your office springs a Secret Santa on you, gift stash items are ideal — usually well within in the (usually) low price range set, generic enough to give to whomever, and you can wow your colleagues by giving awesome little gifts, with a lot of bang for your buck!


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : planning

Torchwood to have a fourth season?

1 12 2009

** warning: the following post contains character death spoilers for series 2 and 3 of Torchwood (Children of Earth). If you don’t care, please read! (and try the show — it’s great!) Otherwise, move on…

Torchwood's 3rd and thought to be final series aired in the UK and US in July 2009

A fan blog is reporting that John Barrowman confirmed at Collectormania that he has signed up to do a fourth series of Torchwood. Kai Owen, another actor from the show (Rhys) has also confirmed. Ordinarily, I would remain skeptical until the network had said something, but in sci-fi fantasy circles it’s usually the actors and their discourse with the fans that happens first, and is usually correct. Plus, the BBC has a vile habit of keeping mum about things until the last possible minute. They don’t announce when a show will actually air until only a few weeks before (*waits eagerly for news of Ashes to Ashes series three).

I am… torn. I imagine I’m not the only fan to feel this way, considering where Children of Earth left things. But I am getting ahead of myself. What is Torchwood, you ask? OH, LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT IT.

In 2005, the BBC relaunched the sci-fi classic Doctor Who franchise, reinventing the show for a new generation under the direction of Queer as Folk creator Russell T. Davies. While still a family show, Davies infused the show with an occasionally naughty wit, including a risque character or two, one of them being Captain Jack Harkness, a 51st century pan-sexual conman-turned-good-guy, who kisses both companion Rose AND the Doctor at the conclusion of series one’s big story arc. The topic of a spin-off came up, with Jack as the lead character, and Torchwood came to be — a darker, terrestrially based Doctor Who.

Jack, plagued with an inability to die (no matter how many times he tries), is the head of Torchwood’s Welsh office (an organization created by Queen Victoria in a series two episode of Doctor Who) whose job it is to monitor alien activity, scavenge what they leave behind and use it for the benefit of the Empire. Airing in a later time slot, and for the first series on BBC 3, Torchwood does everything Doctor Who couldn’t — there’s sex, death, cannibals, murder, oh, and everyone is gay. Or at least has a same-sex snog during the course of the series.

For the last several years, Torchwood has been one of my favorite shows. I loved it’s darkness, and the gay, and most of all the characters. One in particular: Ianto Jones, the quite tea boy who it turns out in series one is hiding a big secret, and in later series develops into a strong leading figure… and ends up being Jack’s boyfriend. There’s nothing I like better than a dark, complex character in a well-cut suit, and Ianto Jones is all three. But then it all came crashing down.

Children of Earth, Torchwood’s summer 2009 five episode mega serial, seemed like the game ender to top all game enders: in the most spectacularly fucked up storyline yet, aliens come to earth, possess all the children, and demand Earth’s leaders sacrifice 10 percent of Earth’s population in children, who it turns out are like a drug to the race (they hook them up to their bodies and feed off them like parasites), and Britain’s leaders decide to send the country’s poorest and dumbest children to the slaughter. A lot of people die, horrible choices are made, yes — children do die, and so do several characters. Most particularly, my darling Ianto. He dies senselessly, in a harrowing scene that I’ll admit made me cry. On an airplane. Whoops. Jack, unable to face the choices he’s made, and in particular affected by Ianto’s death, leaves Torchwood. The show’s heroine, Gwen, is pregnant and happy with her husband Rhys, and it seems that it’s all over.  It was a painful but BRILLIANT series, with challenging, crafty writing, top-notch acting from all involved, and as upset as I was, the writers did Ianto justice as a character, giving him a depth that he had lacked previously.

Everyone reckoned this was the end of Torchwood, Russell T. Davies’ big bangin’ departure from the Doctor Who franchise. Now it looks like there’s going to be a series four.

But can it ever be the same? Do I want a Torchwood without Ianto in it? Now you know what it feels like, I’m sure the Tosh/Owen fans are chanting — two main characters killed off at the conclusion of series two, but after their death, at least we still had three  of the five principle members of the cast left. Now, without Ianto, only the two mains are left. Can it ever be the same without Tosh, Owen and Ianto? Who will they replace them with? Gwen will be a mum — will we be hit over the head with Mummy Gwen plotlines? Will Jack spends the series pining over Ianto (ok, I wouldn’t mind this), or will the intervening time between the end of Children of Earth and the beginning of series four be considered his mourning period, and we’ll see him get right back to his old Captain Jack “I’m cocky and sleep with everything!” ways? Dear God, are Jack and Gwen finally going to hook up?

I just don’t know. Will I watch it? OF COURSE. But I think Torchwood may be jumping the shark.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : bbc, the uk, tv, uk telly

Book Blather: The Hunger Games trilogy

1 12 2009

The Hunger Games, the first book in the trilogy, was released Fall 2008

If there’s one thing I’m a total sucker for, it’s a good dystopian story. Bonus points if this post-Apocalyptic society presents complex moral puzzles (as they generally do). And what’s more complex than a fight-to-the-death (and last man standing — alive — wins) match involving 24 teens between the ages of 13 and 18? This is the pretense of The Hunger Games, a trilogy of YA books from author Suzanne Collins, centering around 16-year-old Katniss Everdeen and her fight to survive in her country’s sick idea of must-see reality TV.

Katniss lives in District 12, the coal mining region of a country called Panem, comprised of the ruins of the United States and the rest of North America. Panem and the twelve districts are ruled over by the Capitol and its cruel President, who hold the annual Hunger Games and call on each district to send forth two “tributes” — a boy and a girl — to compete to the death. Such is the price for revolution: seventy-five years ago, when there were thirteen districts instead of just twelve, there was a rebellion, sadly lost, and now the citizens outside of the Capitol must participate in The Hunger Games as a stark reminder of the power the Capitol holds over them. We won’t kill you, they taunt, we’ll kill your children.

When Katniss’s 13-year-old sister’s name is picked to participate, Katniss volunteers to take her place, and along with Peeta, the baker’s son, she travels to the Capitol to represent her district — who hasn’t had a winner in 25 years — in the Games. Everything is PR to the max — Peeta and Katniss are attended by a publicity agent, a team of stylists and mentored by Haymitch, the town drunkard and only living District 12 winner. Katniss gets a makeover and a stunning dress, and unwittingly becomes the darling of the Games. She also becomes a target of the Careers, the tributes from richer districts who groom their children from a young age to represent their areas, and most often emerge as the victors. Everything is televised and packaged for the public and the sponsors — tributes who catch the eye of the public are more likely to receive life-saving gifts in the arena, which can mean the difference between life and death when the Gamemakers spark a forest fire, flood or earthquake (for ratings! Every few days, the audience demands fresh deaths).

Catching Fire, the series' second book, was released September 2009. The third book will be released next year.

The world of The Hunger Games is captivating, and while Collins’ simplistic, fragment-laden writing style takes some time to get used to, it serves her story and world well. Some may find her sentence fragments annoying, but in key passages they do an apt job at setting a disjointed, other-worldly tone. Things in Panem are strange and wrong, and don’t follow instinctive rules – just like the writing. Collins’ prose is equal parts descriptive and sparse, and told in a rarely well-executed first person narrative. This world through Katniss’ eyes is both normal and abhorrent at the same time, and she’s an underdog who is easy to root for, without being one-dimensional, or the “nice girl.” Usually young female characters in YA leave something to be desired, but Katniss is complex and edgy without being a bitch, and the underlying romance story, while certainly cliched, does not require compromises from Katniss as a strong, well-rounded female. Both of her potential suitors — fellow tribute Peeta and her best friend Gale — are sweet, if not as complex as Katniss in terms of characterization, and the “who will she choose” element isn’t as clear cut as it would seem.

But, most importantly, The Hunger Games isn’t a YA romance story. There’s a romantic subplot which I won’t give away for fear or spoiling one of the more fun plot twists in the first book, and a simmering something between Katniss and Gale, but most importantly it’s an adventure story, and the story of a dystopic society simmering towards revolution. Katniss is the spark that lights the fire to bring the water to a boil, and that is where the second book leaves the reader hanging on tenterhooks. Catching Fire, the second book in the trilogy, is a bit more slow-moving than The Hunger Games, but features several plot twists I didn’t seem coming, which is a difficult achievement, particularly in YA. It also feels like a perfect “bridge” book between the first and third books of the trilogy.

Please, overlook the fact that this is a YA series and give it a chance — it’s a well-crafted story, a fast read, and leaves you desperately wanting more. It was recommended to me by Time Magazine’s book critic, to boot, if that will help to convince any skeptics that this book is very much ok for adults to read and enjoy.

Happily, The Hungers Games has been optioned by Lions Gate, and Collins herself will be writing the screenplay as soon a she finishes the third book. I think it will make an excellent movie, and am really eager to see who they cast.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : books

No Beautiful People for you!: REJECTED! and other thoughts on women, beauty and society

30 11 2009

Friends, I am crushed. CRUSHED. For the Beautiful People of the world, or just the tiny percentage of shallow individuals interested in online dating, don’t think I am attractive enough to join BeautifulPeople.com, and join their illustrious circles. Am I surprised? No. As I mentioned in my introductory post, I am pretty average relative to my age bracket (20-25 years-old), plus I wear glasses, have an unfortunate nose, am overweight (though I only posted head shots) and won’t get my tits out in a photo for votes.

But my rejection begs some interesting questions. When I got the email in my inbox on Friday, I didn’t really think much of it. However, I realized I could not write a follow-up without logging into my account and facing the music: what was my score, in the end? How many people voted? Were there any comments?

Well, damned if I know most of the above, because once you’re rejected, BeautifulPeople.com locks your profile — you can’t view your photos to see how many votes were averaged, what your scores were on individual snapshots, and you can’t review your profile to see WHERE IT ALL WENT WRONG OMG. Not that your profile matters much — it’s not about the inside on BeautifulPeople.com, it’s about the outside. Only two people viewed my profile anyway, I can see, which just had some tongue-in-cheek descriptors, plus that All-Too-Damning “cuddly” description. In the end, I can see that I got a 5.62 out of 10, which is admirable, but not good enough for entry. I am curious how many people actually voted, but that’s PRIVILEGED INFORMATION, apparently. Maybe BeautifulPeople.com thinks people will become suicidal if they know that an overwhelming majority (10, 20, 30 people?) think that you’re Just Not Pretty Enough?

So who is attractive enough to make up the body of BeautifulPeople.com? I know, I wanted to know, too. Why else did I start up this whole charade? Well, here are some of the “Top 50,” which is all women plus one half naked guy and a guy with a modeling shot:

click for full size!

click for full size!

OMG I SEE WHERE IT ALL WENT WRONG. Namely, I don’t look like a stripper. My bad. Better work on that fake tan, propping my boobs up to my ears and spackling on make-up so I can pose seductively for the camera. Must make the voting public think of sex as much as possible. And BeautifulPeople.com doesn’t want me to think hope is lost! In my rejection email, they invite me to post a “better” photo and try again. Best be off to Victoria’s Secret to buy that push-up bra and lacy panties and arrange a photo shoot…

But seriously, what I’ve posted above are the top results, when I do a general search of members.  This might just be because I was REJECTED, and this is the pool they show to non-members. When I first joined, pre-voting, when I searched I could actually see male profiles. Now that I’m a REJECT, the search function is clunky and doesn’t seem to actually narrow the search results I want (ie: men). I’m pretty sure this is what the “ugly” people get. And it’s a bunch of slutty women. Pretty by society’s convention, or more importantly by the standards of the voting men. And who are they? By the looks of them, they’re all a bunch of muscle-bound super quaffed types, who look like That Cocky Asshole who hits on vulnerable women in bars. You wouldn’t want to date him in real life, so why join a site that exclusively caters to them, and their female counterparts?

Here’s my problem with BeautifulPeople.com: yes, attractiveness and attraction matter in dating, but to have a site where that is the sole criteria for admittance is so indicative of modern dating and relationships: all style, no substance. Forget the pretense of the profile — it’s paper thin, at best — even OKCupid tries harder to show that you have a “personality”! And my person on the inside tells me there is no matching criteria or rubric, or sophisticated search function once you’re in — of course not! Isn’t just being beautiful enough of a basis for a date? BeautifulPeople.com thinks dropping the pretense of judging people based on what they have to say instead of what they look like is refreshing, but honestly I’d rather have the pretense and be able to write a bit more about myself — and read more about others. Because a great personality CAN make someone more attractive, and an awful one can make them less so.

I am part of a generation for whom appearances well and truly matter, and not just in terms of how their partner looks. Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : beauty & fashion, feminism, social commentary

The Muppets sing Bohemian Rhapsody

26 11 2009

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! In celebration of this week, The Muppets Studio has released a new hilarious Muppet music video. Muppets + Bohemian Rhapsody = awesome. Take a look:

And because ALL the Muppet music videos are awesome, and are two of my other favorites:

Ode to Joy, featuring Beaker

Habanera, featuring Beaker, Swedish Chef and Animal

Happy Thanksgiving to all my fellow Americans, and happy Thursday to everyone else! XD


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : lol, music

The BeautifulPeople.com experiment

25 11 2009

The other day I watched a recent American Dad! episode, where Stan and Francine renew their vows, and when Francine “lets herself go” (fat, check; unibrow, check; crooked teeth, check), Stan blinds himself in order to stay married because “he loves her so much but can’t stand to look at her.” The moral of the episode? Sometimes loves is shallow — Stan is with Francine because she is hot and Francine is with Stan because he is well off and takes care of her — and sometimes, that’s ok! I think I vomited a little in my mouth.

But it reinforces a common thread in modern relationships: it’s all about looks. Biologically speaking, this is a natural impulse: human beings are not only naturally attune to beauty (we are drawn to symmetical, or perfectly asymmetrical, faces), but also to those whose bodies are in good shape, as a trim figure indicates — at least superficially — indicates good health. Good health and good looks = good chance for the propagation of our genes. In middle school, I was fascinated by the psychology of attractiveness, and even did my middle school social science fair project on it. Yes, I’m a nerd. Study after study have shown that people both subconsciously and consciously favor the attractive — attributing them better traits (shown a picture of a pretty person and an average or ugly person, they are more likely to describe the pretty one as nice, smart, happy, etc.), and being more willing to help them in various situations.

When we bring this phenomenon to dating, however, particularly online dating, it raises a lot of questions. When do evolutionary impulses give way to merely being shallow? Can we or should we really judge a book by its cover? Even I’m guilty of the cardinal sin of online dating: I rarely consider profiles without photos, and those that have them I tend to consider the looks first, then go to the relative merit of their profile content. I will both disregard an attractive person for having a vapid profile, and reconsider someone I wasn’t initially attracted to due to a stellar one. I don’t know if my reconsideration based on content is common, but it’s the little fraction of my behavior that keeps me from feeling like a horrible human being. Yet being attracted to someone in a relationship is important!

Which brings me to BeautifulPeople.com, a new, free dating website that is exclusively for beautiful people. Yes, you heard that right: there is a dating website that excludes anyone who isn’t deemed attractive enough. And who decides? The members of the opposite gender, who vote for new “applicants” over a period of 48 hours. The site’s statistics say that 80% of people don’t make it. The very idea makes me cringe, and when I heard about it a few weeks ago, I fastidiously pushed it to the back of my mind. But then several of my admittedly very beautiful colleagues joined and there it was again, fresh in my mind. Ordinarily, I’d avoid such a thing like the plague. I’m also so self conscious on dating sites. I know I’m no troll, but I wear glasses and have a prominent nose (thank you, English grandmother), I nervously waffle about full body shots, and I know that I can’t compete with a lot of young singles my age, who are unnaturally thin, and show their tits and enjoy the world wearing contacts, or no corrective lenses at all. How can I not write about this bizarre social phenomenon? And how can I lambaste it if I’ve not gone through the process?

So I joined. The little feminist “angel” on my right shoulder shouted protests, but the post-feminist “devil” cackled with glee — social experiment! Blogging fodder! The lulz!

The joining process is wonderfully simple: fill in your name, location, email, password and upload a photo. You can add additional profile photos if you want to help boost your score — your ratings are averaged to determine if you make the site or not. Once inside, even before you’re an official member, you can browse around. The site uses a floating window design, so you can toggle multiple browsing windows and move them around at your leisure — a nice visual and functional touch. I do a quick browse of these allegedly beautiful people. Some are, predictably, gorgeous, sporting professional headshots — the actors, models and those who are just really full of themselves. Others? Meh. Just as in life, beauty is often determined more based on a svelte figure and a plunging neckline than a pretty face. Oh, fickle, subjective beauty.

I get my first vote — one of my photos gets a 4.5 out of 10, another a 5.5, and the other two floating inbetween those. An hour passes, with no other votes. Better no votes than horrible votes, right? Then an enthusiastic colleague, who needled me into joining in the first place, gives me an enthusiastic 10, not so much because I’m a 10, but because this is our fun new office project. (last week’s project was leaving each other tongue-in-cheek missed connections on Craigslist) Or maybe he thinks I’m hot. Who knows.

I browse the “edit your profile” section, which allows for very little information, unlike other sites. I raise a brow archly at the drop down box that asks you to note your weight — optional of course. This is new to me, and I decline to indicate  my digits, though they do have the “body type” descriptors, as well. I go with cuddly, whatever the hell that is, because I’m not average, nor I am “ample,” — Jesus Christ, who wants to be called AMPLE?  There is one part of their profile where you can describe yourself, free form, but it becomes pretty clear that beautifulpeople.com doesn’t care about what music you like or the six things you could never live with out. Maybe once you’re in you are prompted to fill out more information, but the plebian version of the site is all about what you look like.

48 hours from now I will know my fate — am I beautiful enough for BeautifulPeople.com? Is there even a matching rubric once you get in, or is just being more attractive than the average bear compatibility enough? I have no interest in meeting anyone from this site, even if I do get in. I don’t want to be with someone who is so preoccupied with looks, and given some of the competition on here, why would you pick the smart, fat chick with glasses over the hottie who has no compunction about hooking up on the first date?

Stay tuned, folks. I am braving the superficial waters for my fellow nerd-feminist compatriots. I face scrutiny, rejection and possibly even acceptance and then, well, we’ll see if BeautifulPeople.com has any substance beyond the surface they so happily cling to.

And if you’re curious yourself? The site says it perfectly. And by perfectly, I mean they’re assholes:


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , ,
Categories : beauty & fashion, blogging, feminism, social commentary

« Previous Entries