Uhm, what?: The 'realest' edition

So, Michael Douglas (from Basic Instinct and Fatal Attraction fame) recently said something about 'real' men. Apparently, there aren't a lot of those left in Hollywood. According to Douglas, young male movie stars are too busy with social media and they look too androgynous to be considered 'real' men anymore.

Fuck you, Michael Douglas.

First of all, you don't get to decide what constitutes a 'real man.'

Secondly, it's gotten more complicated in recent decades how masculinity and being male should be defined because society is finally accepting that transgender people exist and starting to treat them decently. This does, however, make it a little harder to say when someone is a man. In the past, I would have said that anyone with a dick is a man, regardless of the time they spent on social media and how they look. Not anymore. These days anyone who identifies as male is a man. That is the new definition. There are zero other requirements, so I wish people like Michael Douglas would stop trying to narrow down the definition with ridiculous and arbitrary qualities.

Thirdly, I am getting so tired of people who still whine about men and/or women breaking the gender mold. Newsflash: there are no gender-specific traits. Women work in science and construction and men cook and clean. Stop trying to make clothes, jobs and activities shameful for one gender because once upon a time these things were mostly associated with the other gender.

Being active on social media does not make someone less of a man. The way a guy looks does not make him less of a man. Being gay does not make someone not a 'real' man. Etc.

This whole stupid thing reminds me of how annoying politicians are always attempting to redefine 'American,' as if being an American citizen is not enough. Clearly, if you're not also doing this, voting that and going to this church then despite being an American you are not a 'real' American. What a load of bullshit.

Though, naturally, the exception to this 'no bullshit' rule is Iggy Azalea. She is not just real. She is the realest.

Uhm, what?: Negativity edition

I don't like Fifty Shades of Grey. I think the books are badly written, the sex in them is incredibly tedious, the main characters are stupid (Ana) and borderline evil (Christian) and instead of portraying BDSM they portray an abusive relationship.

Now, whenever I voice this opinion online, I get a lot of people telling me to shut up. That's not weird. It's the internet. Plus, a lot of people really like those books. What does strike me as weird is the reason some people think I should shut up. Apparently, I am being 'negative' when I say that I don't like something.

Well, yeah, but why is that a bad thing?

If I am about to buy a book I often check the reviews for it. Reviews are fantastic preparation because (positive or negative) they usually give me an idea of whether I'll like the book or not. E.g. if the positive reviews rave about how the main character is super special and awesome and beautiful and everyone loves him or her, I'll probably not be buying that book. I'm not overly fond of those kind of characters. I like my characters to have flaws. Perfection is boring. Negative reviews are very handy in this regard, because a lot of them tell you exactly what is wrong with a book. Criticism is useful.

Furthermore, in the case of Fifty Shades of Grey, where a pretty disturbing relationship and a pretty awful man are portrayed as wonderful and ideal, I find it very important to speak out about certain aspects of the novels. Sometimes saying 'this is not normal; this is not okay' is necessary if only to present a different viewpoint.

Some people have a tendency to attempt to dismiss negative opinions. There is a lot of 'don't like it, don't read it' and 'get a life' and 'you must be really pathetic/crazy to be spending so much time on something you hate' going around. Now, on the one hand, I kind of understand this attitude. After all, if you don't enjoy something, why spend time on it?

However, we're not talking about reading the books. No amount of money could get me to slog through them again. I'm giving 'Grey' a miss.

Dissecting Fifty Shades of Grey gives me joy, though. I like connecting with other people who share my dislike for the series and hearing their opinions. I write Fifty Shades of Grey fanfiction too (I'm bookjunk on fanfiction.net) because if ever a series needed improving it's that one.

Finally, I think that E.L. James is a hack and I'd like people to know that she is a hack. Not because of the abuse or because of the misrepresentation of BDSM or because both of her heroes are extremely unlikeable or because the sex is unsexy. It is not the horrible story that makes me think that she is a shitty writer: it is her writing. Her characterisation is barely there. She tells instead of shows constantly. Her characters are supposed to be American, but they use British idiom all the time. There is no sense of time or place.

Even if the story wasn't highly objectionable, the writing would still be abysmal. I think James should either let her editor do his or her job or seriously hone her writing skills. I want people to read books that are good. And by "good" I don't mean Hemingway (because I loathe him). I mean, I want people to read books that are decently written whether that be erotica, sci-fi, fantasy, detective etc.

What is up with this strange anti-negativity movement? Are people not allowed to dislike things anymore? Or should I just do that in silence for fear of offending anyone who does like the thing that I don't like? It does not affect my enjoyment one iota if someone expresses a negative opinion about something I like. Instead of demanding that the "haters" shrug and move on, I shrug and move on.

  

Girl crush of the moment: Chloe Howl

So, I get girl crushes all the time. You know (or you don’t, but – don’t worry – I’m going to explain it) how in Friends, Rachel lets Ross make a list of five women he’s allowed to have sex with if he meets them and can somehow convince them to have sex with him? And then Joey convinces him not to put Isabella Rossellini on there because there’s no chance in hell that he’ll ever meet her and then Ross does meet her, but he’s already got his little list laminated and Isabella is not on it and she’s like, ‘That looks pretty permanent and my name’s not on there, so…’

Well, I’m about seventy percent straight and thirty percent gay, so I’ve got a similar list in my head. There are three women permanently on there (in no particular order):

                                                                      Alexis Bledel

                                                                        Liv Tyler

                                                                  Julianna Margulies

The other two spots are subject to change. And...a new contender has emerged! Her name is Chloe Howl and she’s gorgeous. She’s got super cute, short, red hair. She’s got a lovely accent and beautiful porcelain skin. Plus, freckles.

                                                     Look at those freckles! So fucking hot.

Anyway, she’s a singer. She’s got a bit of an attitude. Not a diva-attitude or a rude-attitude; just a don’t-fuck-with-me attitude. I really like her style. Listen to her songs No Strings, Disappointed, I Wish I Could Tell You and Paper Heart to experience some of that attitude and to hear her awesome accent. She looks great in a dress too.

                                                                         Yum.

Okay, that's it. Random picture of a handsome guy and we're done here.

                                               He's also got a wonderful accent, by the way.

Uhm, what?: 'Read the book if you want to understand the movie' edition

Sometimes I read YouTube comments. Hahaha, why? WHY? I don't know, okay. It's a sick compulsion. I wish I could quit you, YouTube comments. (Brokeback Mountain reference, FTW).

Anyway, lately I've noticed a lot of people whining about something very specific that I find baffling. When videos (CinemaSins etc.) point out that a book adaptation didn't answer a question or had a plothole, people take to the comment section to complain. Their comments often boil down to 'Of course you didn't get the movie: you didn't read the book!'

Um, angry YouTube commenters?

If you need to read the book to understand the movie, then the movie didn't do a very good job.

Yeah, I recommend Harry Potter books to people, but not so they can understand the movies. Harry Potter books are awesome (they do get a little less so towards the end, though). If you have to read the books to be able to follow the movies, then - say it with me - the movies have failed to do their job. They're not an extension of the books. A movie should be able to stand on its own.

People go to the cinema to watch a story unfold on screen. That story needs to be comprehensible. People generally don't go to the cinema in the hope that they'll have to read the book later to clear up key plot points of the movie.

You make no sense, angry YouTube commenters.

Book: Zombies don't cry by Rusty Fischer

Five things that bothered me about the book Zombies Don’t Cry by Rusty Fischer.

Beware: spoilers. Also, this is the first book in a series.

                                                       Yeah, that won't be happening.

1. Nobody cares about dead kids

This one’s pretty awful. Three girls who shared a class with Maddy Swift (our main character) have died. Their deaths were ruled accidental by the coroner (who’s Maddy’s father). Apparently, Maddy’s dad doesn’t think it is suspicious or weird that the girls’ brains are missing. Anyway…

Maddie goes to the cemetery and is harassed by Bones and Dahlia. They are our villains. Never mind that for most of the book they barely rise above the level of bullies. Let’s not get into tiny details here, like how problematic it is that the main villains aren’t particularly scary; they’re just mean kids. Anyway…

One of the two definitely super evil villains points out to Maddy that she is the first person to visit the grave – now with cheap headstone! – of the third girl who died. The explicitly stated implication here is that no one cares that this teenage girl is dead. She has parents, but they don’t care. The rest of the girl’s family presumably also doesn’t care. No one cares.

                                                       
                                                            Preach it, Swedish chef!

Further on in the book, Chloe (Maddy’s new, also-zombie friend) explains how Dane (their other zombie-friend) died. Car accident, electricity, blah blah blah. He was pronounced dead, woke up in the morgue and just walked away. Then we get this little gem: ‘No one ever reported the body missing. His parents already figured he was dead; no reason to muddy the waters, right?’

Yep, that’s totally a reaction that people would have. Wait, no, it isn’t. What kind of parallel universe is this where parents just shrug if their dead son’s body disappears? Plus, it makes no sense from a logical viewpoint either. It’s not as if nothing happens because Dane’s parents don’t give a shit about their son’s missing corpse. What about the coroner? What about the cops? What about the district attorney? What about the media? There’s no way that a body vanishing from the morgue wouldn’t be thoroughly investigated one way or another. Not in this book, though.

2. The Guide, the Elders and the Sentinels

They might as well not have been there. Period.

After Maddy turns into a zombie, a big deal is made about following the rules and about the Sentinels enforcing them and about how Zerkers (immoral zombies) are the mortal enemies of zombies. I quote: ‘It’s every zombie’s duty to wipe them out, one by one.’

Yet, for some reason, neither Chloe nor Dane think to inform the Elders or the Sentinels that there are two Zerkers in their town and that these two Zerkers have already killed three people. What’s the point of this zombie government and police force if you can’t go to them for help? This becomes especially stupid when, at the end of the book, the main characters have to go into hiding because the Sentinels will come after them because of the Barracuda massacre. Oh, so, now the Sentinels show up? Sure.

3. Maddy’s relationship with Hazel

Hazel is Maddy’s best friend. Except, Maddy kind of hates Hazel. She thinks that Hazel is overdramatic, self-absorbed and appears to be trying to avoid contact with Hazel as much as possible. I was preparing for another wonderful (#sarcasm) portrayal of a girl hating her friend for no good reason when Rusty Fischer surprised me…by making Hazel a bitch. Not only does Hazel not like it when good things happen to Maddy, Hazel also sneakily tries to go out with a boy she knows Maddy likes. And, as if that wasn’t enough, Hazel manages to make Maddy turning into a zombie all about herself. Hazel is easily the least sympathetic character in this book. And that’s saying something.

Maddy and Hazel’s ‘friendship’ is incredibly toxic. That means that there is no emotional impact when Hazel later turns into a Zerker. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Potential for actual drama squandered. Sigh.

4. The mechanics of becoming a zombie

People who die due to coming into contact with electricity are Reanimated in the First Degree and become zombies. People who are bitten by a zombie are Reanimated in the Second Degree and become Zerkers. That’s clear, right? Stamp (he of the ridiculous name a.k.a. love interest number one) is bitten, but he is also electrocuted. So, it should be a toss-up whether he becomes a zombie or a Zerker.

Internal logic be damned!

 

Maddy must now bite him, if she wants him to become a zombie. Huh? Yeah, I don’t get it either. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Please tell me if this somehow makes sense.

5. The dumbest love triangle ever

 

First of all, before Stamp died, Maddy and Stamp were not a couple. Nope. Oh, they flirted, he asked her to a party, he asked her to the dance. It was cute and all. (Well, except for the time when he asked her to the dance and she said she was already going with someone else and he acted like an entitled dick about it). Maddy and Stamp did not date. They did not kiss. They did not even hold hands. Seriously, they got no further than the mutual liking phase. Yet, Maddy feels like he expects them to be together now that they’re both zombies. Like, she’s some sort of consolation prize. ‘Sorry that I kind of, but not really, got you killed and you can never see your family again, but, hey!, you get to date me now. That’s gotta even things out.’  

That brings me to my second point: you’re not that great, Maddy. (Yes, I realise that I’m addressing a fictional character). Stamp will get over you. There are other zombie chicks out there. Stamp could date one of them. Or not. Either way, he will be fine.

Thirdly, she’s not doing him a favour by being with him when she doesn’t love him. I would be sad and mad (but way more mad) if I found out that the person I am with is only staying with me out of some misguided sense of obligation. So, Maddy’s martyr act is just unnecessary and annoying.

 

Smallest violin just for you, Maddy.

 

Stop trying to shoehorn a love triangle into your book, Rusty Fischer. It doesn’t work.

The things I like about Zombies Don’t Cry by Rusty Fischer.

It’s fun. It’s snarky. The early interactions between Maddy and Stamp are surprisingly sweet. It’s a quick read. Just… don’t think about things too much or you’ll ruin it.