The Imaginary Heroine

searching for the plot

Why Summit? Why?! April 27, 2010

Fug via TresSugar

Apparently they’ve released a replica of Bella’s engagement ring. It’s available in faux version for $35 and a version with real diamonds for $1,979.

I blushingly admit that I’ve amassed a not inconsiderable amount of Twilight related merch. I may or may not frequently sport purple ruffled sweats from Aerie or a cadet blue B.B. Dakota jacket.  So, clearly I have no problem with people who want to have fun with movie memorabilia. If you have lots of disposable income and truly want a Cullen engagement ring, more power to you.

My main issue is the design of this ring. It is HIDEOUS. As some commenters have noted, it looks like a bug’s eye.

Wasn’t this supposed to be Edward’s mother’s ring? If you consider Edward died at 17 in 1918 and the typical short time window between marriage and first child at the time, his parents were probably married in the late 1890s. Shouldn’t the ring be Victorian style jewelry? This doesn’t look anything like what should have been around in Victorian America.

I mean, for cripes sake! Look how flipping gorgeous these Victorian rings are!

Why, Summit?! Why did you make the movie ring the fugliest ring ever? Are you just trying to piss off Twilight fans?

UPDATE:

So, here’s the description of the ring from the book:

“The face was a long oval, set with slanting rows of glittering round stones. The band was gold — delicate and narrow. The gold made a fragile web around the diamonds.”

So, I suppose the movie ring somewhat matches the book description. But it is still hideous. So there.

UPDATE2:

Other suggestions for Bella’s ring

I like the first one better, but I think the second one matches the description more. Either one is preferable to the monster we’re promised in June.

Update3:

Oddly, the artist rendering is by the same company that is producing the replicas. The final products don’t seem to match the drawing very well. The inset “web” is more delicate and there’s scalloped edging in the drawing that are nowhere in evidence on the real rings.

Unfortunately, the fug replica rings are officially authorized by Stephenie Meyer herself. Maybe she authorized the drawing and not the rings? I don’t know.

Yikes. I mean, you can’t argue with the author. If that’s what she says the ring looks like, that’s what it looks like. I’m not keen on the canon description, the presumably approved prototype rendering, or the final authorized replicas.

I’m going to go cry in the corner now.

Somewhere in the world, someone is writing the shortest alternate universe Twilight fan fiction ever which says something to the effect that Elizabeth Masen’s ring was lovely and understated with a single stone and delicate Art Nouveau scroll work on the band.

 

Pissing Contest April 5, 2010

Filed under: Books,Rants — imaginaryheroine @ 10:22 am
Tags: , , ,

Sorry for the radio silence lately. The confluence of Passover and a crazy time at work has prevented me from putting together any worthwhile posts. However, I’ve been reading up a storm and hope to be back to discuss the bodies of action heroines, Lev Grossman’s The Magicians, How to Train Your Dragon, and other good stuff fairly soon.

I finished The Magicians yesterday. Let me just say: Wow. There’s so much going on here. Grossman has skillfully woven together elements of both high fantasy and modern psychological drama to create something exciting. However…

I have one tiny rant that I must get off my chest before I can deal with all that.

First, I have to tell you about the pack of pre-teen boys who play outside my apartment building every day.

They have recently discovered swearing. This means that they swear at anything and everything and usually do so ineptly. Sometimes it’s funny. My favorite so far has been one boy saying “What is the fuck?” Mostly it’s just tedious. The words have ceased being emphatic or expressive and have all the zing of “um,” “like,” and “y’know.”

Which brings me to “piss,” which I ran across a few times in The Magicians. Each time I sighed gustily and rolled my eyes.

What is with youngish male authors and the word “piss”?

Are they three or something? I swear they’re obsessed with “piss” and “pissing.”

As words go, “piss” is a pretty evocative one. It’s emphatic, quasi-lewd, and has a nice hint of onomatopoeia.

But the amount of pissing going on has gotten seriously out of hand. I feel like I can’t crack a book without SOMEONE pissing.

Even more irritating, it usually does nothing to advance the plot or characterization in the novel. It’s not like the lawyer in Jurassic park, who gets eaten by a T-rex right off the toilet seat. Usually a pissing scene is an aside. It’s something that breaks up dialogue or action. It’s superfluous filler and I can only guess that it’s meant to inspire tag lines like “gritty” and “serious” in reviews.

I’m not saying urination and/or defecation should be entirely absent from media. As the children’s book says, Everyone Poops.

It’s just that all the pissing is getting annoying. Why doesn’t the author just put in a footnote saying “I’m serious and gritty! See! Piss!”

The ubiquitous pissing scene has started to sound slip-shod and inarticulate, like a nine-year old saying “what is the fuck?” over and over until it slips from funny to tedious.

 

A New Dawn part 12: “To Bite, or Not to Bite; That Is the Question” by Janette Rallison March 26, 2010

[Part of a series discussing the essays in A New Dawn edited by Ellen Hopkins. These posts may contain spoilers about all four Twilight novels and Midnight Sun.]

Most of what I read about the Twilight refers to destiny or fate. According to Janette Rallison, the books are instead all about free will. This jives with a few statements I’ve read from SMeyer. On her website, Meyer discusses the importance of the apple image on the first novel’s cover. Apples have been featured in myriad stories through the ages, but always with a similar meaning: Choice. She also discussed the importance of Free Will in Mormon doctrine in an interview with Lev Grossman from Time:

“[A]lthough Mormons avoid caffeine on principle, [Meyer] drinks the occasional cherry Diet Pepsi. “It’s about keeping yourself free of addictions,” she explains, sitting on a huge couch in her living room. “We have free will, which is a huge gift from God. If you tie that up with something like, I don’t know, cocaine, then you don’t really have a lot of freedom anymore.”

Rallison shows us that Meyer overtly communicates this idea to the readers when Carlise tells Bella that all anyone can do is decide what to do with what they were given in life. Even Alice’s future sight is dependent on the decisions of others. Rallison points out that this is Meyer telling us again that “no one’s fate is set in stone in the Twilight series. The future is made and undone with every choice a character makes.”

I’m going to stop with the free will vs. destiny stuff right here. It’s a good essay. Go buy or take the book out of the library and read it.

I’ve been derailed (Again!) by someone totally missing the manipulative element behind Edward letting Bella see Jacob. Rallison attributes this to Edward’s saint-like understanding. I’m still pretty sure that the whole point was to make himself appear saint-like and make Bella feel that she had to get rid of Jacob in order to be good enough for perfect, angelic Edward.

He's doing it again!

Then she turns around and says that Jacob is not above manipulation when honesty and logic don’t work. Yes. He did try to manipulate Bella. I will yet again point out the fact that when he did, he totally stank at it. People hated Jacob for that stunt. He’s not a skillful manipulator, for the simple reason that he’s usually an honest guy who doesn’t try to manipulate others. Allow me to point out (AGAIN!) that Jacob only tried it, because he realized that was how Edward was winning! He was manipulating Bella’s pathological need to throw herself under the bus before hurting anyone else.

Even thought Bella says Edward isn’t playing any game, Jacob knows better:

“He isn’t manipulating me”

“You bet he is. He’s playing every bit as hard as I am, only he know what he’s doing and I don’t. Don’t blame me because he’s a better manipulator than I am – I haven’t been around long enough to learn all his tricks.”

“He isn’t manipulating me!”

“Yes, he is! When are you going to wake up and realize that he’s not as perfect as you think he is?”
Eclipse p594

Maybe it would be different if this was an exploration of open relationships or something. I’m sure there’s a pile of fan fiction about various Bella, Edward, Jacob arrangements. But that’s not what the Twilight Canon is about. Edward, Bella, and Jacob are all up front about wanting to be in a monogamous coupling. Both Edward and Jacob are trying to get the other out of the picture by any means necessary. Neither is above manipulation to achieve their ends. So why is Edward getting called honest and understanding while Jacob gets tutted at for doing the exact same thing?

Ugh. I’m going to pull out a legendary Kansas quote and and simply say: “That’s right…Dollar signs.”

All of this discussion of who is manipulating whom is not about who is right for whom or which guy Bella should have chosen. Of course Edward loves Bella and vice versa. Of course Edward was the right choice for Bella. She may have loved Jacob too, but she always knew she loved Edward best, last, and forever. I just wish people weren’t quite so hard on Jacob. Sometimes I wonder if people don’t hate him so very much because he brought out the nasty side of Edward. It’s hard to see your knight in shining armor get tarnished.

 

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Other March 25, 2010

A couple of days ago, I was perusing my usual morning sites when I came across a post on Jezebel.com written in response to this piece in the Wall Street Journal. The topic? Friendship breakups.

While the WSJ article discusses the painful fallout of a friendship gone bad, it still assumes that you’re going to need to jettison some friends at some point in your life and gives hints as to how to get it done. I agree with Anna N. from Jezebel in thinking that these steps may be necessary for a friend who is stealing your money for heroin or is some kind of a toxic bully,  but the best option for a friendship in a dry spell is probably time and space. Instead of permanently casting off friendships, we should dial them down and wait for circumstances to change. In a few weeks, months, even years, you and your friend may be right back on the same page and you’ll be so very happy you didn’t have that dramatic split. Even if you die without ever getting back together, it’ll save unnecessary time, drama, and tears on both ends.

However this section gave me pause:

“Some friendships can actually be bad for us — if a friend is manipulative, untrustworthy, or intentionally hurtful, self-preservation pretty much demands a split. But what of the pal who’s simply annoying, who has objectionable political views (one of Bernstein’s examples), or with whom we just don’t have as much in common as we used to? This friend might be occasionally fun but often grating, or might make us angry and happy in equal measure. What to do?” – Anna N., “The Friendship Breakup: When to Hold ‘Em and When to Fold ‘Em,” Jezebel [emphasis added]

The political examples Bernstein gives are “Rob Wilson, 53, a writer in Atlanta, saw a 12-year friendship abruptly end after he mentioned he was voting for George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election” on the dump-ee end and for the dump-ers she has the suggestion “Become a Facebook pest. I have a gay friend who has had much success getting rid of bigoted high school friends by making his status updates as flamboyant and politically charged as possible.”

The dump-er example makes sense in one way and not at all in another. If acquaintances have shown themselves to be bigots or hateful towards you, then cut ties ASAP. But the cyber pest suggestion seems childish, passive aggressive, and counter-productive. If you really want to get rid of someone just do it. Hide them from your feed. Or block them. It’s instantly effective, since you don’t have to wait for them to act. You wont see them and they wont see you. The end.

Trying to annoy the crap out of someone in hopes that they cut you off on their own is not attractive, effective, or constructive. You will NOT get the satisfaction of seeing them break down sobbing and saying you were right all along, like a bully in some afternoon teen special. They’re more likely to make additional inane and hurtful comments or just ignore you, giving you no real satisfaction. Don’t let someone you dislike turn you into a nasty person and ruin any more moments of your life.

The dump-ee example, a man voting for a candidate his friend disliked and its equation with “objectionable political views” as grounds for breakups (Bernstein) or distancing (Anna N.) upsets me on a visceral level for a number of reasons.

Neither my friends, 7abibi, my family, or any of my acquaintances ascribe to the same political views as I do. The few times I have sought out people who do, I haven’t been successful in uncovering anyone I really connected with. If everyone kept to their own kind, I would have no one at all.

My own experience with politics and relationships has been ugly. It started out ugly in high school, in the amazingly charged climate after 9/11, and has stayed ugly, right through college to the present ever-escalating  political nightmare. It was a hard lesson, but I learned that I would seldom, if ever, have the luxury of being in a situation where anyone agreed with me or backed me up in a political discussion…or argument.

I came to expect being the one at the bottom of a dog pile of derision. Sometimes the dog pile was full of people I didn’t know. Other times it was composed of people I loved, trusted, and respected. No matter who it is, it hurts. Every time. I’m still trying to figure out how to let it go and move on. Because this dog pile wont be the last or the worst or the most important. Sometimes I play dead and say nothing. Either because I just can’t take it that day or this fight doesn’t matter or this dog pile might prove fatal for a friendship, job, or my personal well-being.

You’re thinking “fatal? Dramatic much?” Allow me to point you to this section of the comments on Jezebel. Where a few people chimed in that politics is definitely grounds for dismissal. Says one commenter, “I’m not friends with people who don’t share my general political views. I just don’t do it. Does this make me judgey and intolerant? Perhaps. Does it make my life better? Yes.” Another says “I don’t have any friends who aren’t on the same page as me either. It’s a total deal breaker.” Another woman says she does maintain friendly acquaintances who disagree with her, but follows it up by saying that she’s currently distancing herself from someone too different.

You’ll see me in there doing a terrible job of making a point, because I broke my cardinal rule of commenting: don’t comment while you’re emotional. I also broke my cardinal rule of speaking up: don’t speak up when there is no benefit. I lashed out for no reason. I feel bullied, hated, misunderstood, and alone. And it’s my own damn fault. I made myself feel bad through the medium of someone with no reason to give a shit about me and who also claims intolerance in the name of a cause as a virtue.

I need to just drop it.

But I can’t.

I can’t not be emotional on this issue. Let me boil down these comments:

I do not like people who are not like me.

Ugly, isn’t it, sitting out there all bald like that? At least one of the commenters owned it for what it was: intolerance. I would consider Jezebel and its commenters to be a generally progressive lot. But this is definitely NOT a progressive idea. At all. This is regressive and hateful.

Since when is it acceptable to say and act in accordance with this sort of philosophy? It is unacceptable to say I don’t like black people or gays or Muslims or people from Arkansas. Why is it okay to say the same about someone whose political beliefs aren’t in lock step with yours?

A wise friend* explained the thinking to me thusly:

“It’s allowed when it’s an ideological issue. People view political beliefs as changeable. It’s not like race, or to some degree religion, where you’re born one thing and you stay one thing. Your politics can change and so if you disagree with someone, it’s YOU disagreeing with them, not some other that you can’t get away from. (I mean you in a global sense, btw)”

I tried to think my way around this by saying that politics has taken the place of religion as personal identification for a large segment of American society. People don’t like to see it that way, because they think religion is not based in fact and political points of view are. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say a lot of our politics are taken on faith, especially in the US’s two-party system. We decide to ascribe to a whole bulletin of party issues that aren’t always related.

For instance, if someone identifies as a Christian first, they may be against the death penalty, abortion, and war, but are they a Republican or a Democrat? I think a lot of religious people struggle with the dilemma of reconciling political and religious doctrine. Some Christians consider themselves Republicans based on single issues like abortion or gay marriage. Others consider themselves Democrats based on single issues like…abortion or gay marriage. I was going to put war or social welfare, but I’m not going to pretend that either party has a lock on the Christian vote for any one issue.

Once they decide on a party, they are automatically presumed by people on the ground and pollsters in DC to agree with a host of other party issues. They themselves may even assume that because a party is right on one issue, it’s right on other issues. Some people aren’t assuming. Maybe they’re brilliant human beings that live to a ripe old age of 101 and read day in and day out about political philosophy. Or a dedicated warriors in pursuit of radical changes of their country’s political and social environment, like one of the Jezebel commenters mentioned above.

I still don’t believe that it’s the best idea to categorically ban relationships with people different from ourselves.

Why? Because once we are within an echo chamber, it is far easier to see that the other side, being wrong on one issue, is wrong on every issue. Not only are they wrong on every issue, they want to be wrong. They’re trying to trick us into being wrong too. They’re actually mean, hateful, evil people. They’re not like me. They are the other. I could never like them.

I do not like people who are not like me.

There it is. Again.

This is the perfect example of how intolerance is born of fear and ignorance. We did it in the past with race, religion, gender, and sexuality. Hell, we still do it with race, religion, gender, sexuality, and tons of other stuff. We human beings are really good at hating each other for any and every reason. Usually not a good one.

I’m going to go out from my limb to a twig and say deciding to eschew contact with all people who are not like you does not make your life better.

In fact, it makes everyone’s life worse. Do I have to go back and make citations of historical and present day events for people to see that hate and intolerance are demonstrably bad not only for individuals, but society as a whole?

So what is the answer? I don’t know. I don’t know that there is an answer.

If you don’t want to or can’t be friends with someone, then don’t. It’s better for both of you than building up resentment and misunderstanding.

You don’t have to be best friends with someone who thinks abortion is murder, if you think abortion is a right and integral to women’s empowerment. Maybe it’s not possible. I don’t know.

But I beg you to consider what you are doing if you dismiss out of hand people who are not like you. Here is why:

1) We may already like people we think we hate.
The social atmosphere right now is so poisoned by intolerance, people who see the world differently from the dominant group (whether it’s the dominant group in the country, in the room, or in the circle of friends) are too terrified to speak up. Think of that person who always says something non-committal when politics come up. It may be she has no opinion. It may also be she doesn’t agree with the dominant group and knows or fears that it could lead to isolation and resentment if she were to reveal herself.

I “came out” to a college friend and roommate about my political views after a long time of working on a bond of trust and mutual affection. I shit you not, her first response was “Oh. I thought you were normal like the rest of us.” To her credit, she continues to treat me like a normal person who is capable of being her friend. Because I freaking AM. I’ve also had this go the other way and had former friends attack me viciously and never speak to me again. Usually I’m too afraid. So I just protest I have no interest in politics. Or I say nothing at all and hope it goes unnoticed.

Some people realize the folly of cutting off friends for differences that aren’t as divisive as they once realized. Some people feel betrayed. Instead of letting the knowledge that they like someone they thought they would hate explode their past logic, they revert. So it goes.

2) We don’t hate these people, we hate fear and uncertainty.
By refusing friendship and discourse with someone different, we are missing the chance to challenge our own point of view. Meaning we are limiting our own knowledge and personal growth. We are making ourselves a bad advocate for our own causes. We open ourselves up to all kinds of manipulation by people who may have other ends in mind.

As anyone with a background in social sciences will tell you, “the other” is not reflective of an actual reality. It is a creation in both collective and individual minds used to define ourselves by comparison to another group. When we hate the other we are actually hating our own creation. Our own fear. We are actually hating a small piece of ourselves.

When we refuse to consort with the other, people who are not like ourselves, we refuse to face the fact that everyone doesn’t think like us. Scarier still, if we talk to these people and become their friends, we might start to realize that these beliefs are valid (do not mistake this as true/perfect/universal – just valid). Which leads to uncomfortable thoughts like I might not be right and there are alternatives.

We hate the idea of uncertainty. Of maybe being wrong. Or at least not knowing if we’re right. Not 100%. Not all the way right. It’s a really uncomfortable feeling. Being unsure and trying to justify decisions to ourselves and others based on assumptions that could possibly be wrong.

But guess what? That is a good and important feeling. It is the feeling of stretching, growing, seeking out knowledge.

Who was that moron who said “the unexamined life is not worth living” and thought the wisest man knows he knows nothing? Oh right. Socrates. He’s really old, male, white, and dead, but considering people are still listening to him after something like 2500 years, I think he might be on to something.

I’m starting to think that accepting this uncertainty while still making decisions and taking actions that hopefully lead to a good life is what learning to be a grown up is all about.

Having a friend to help you is invaluable in this task.

3) We are missing the chance at a relationship that could give us comfort and love when we need it most.
If you are thinking, what is this person talking about? I don’t hate them. They hate me!

Congratulations. That is going to solve exactly nothing. You are condemning those you hate to ignorance, meanness, and fear whilst simultaneously giving yourself the same. If we all continue to hate and push away people we believe are not like us, it’s going to be a nasty unpleasant life for everyone forever. Yippee.

It is a cold, hard, lonely world out there. Who are we nattering little nincompoops to be pissing away love and friendship?

*Thank you to my dearest Elbie Toes for listening to me cry and complain about this for two days (or is it 11 years?) straight. We may not agree on much of anything politically, but I love you all the same.

 

Sorry in Advance March 12, 2010

Filed under: Movies,Rants — imaginaryheroine @ 6:30 am
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

The Quileute Wolf Pack Tattoo from New Moon

I understand that movies based on novels require a certain amount of sacrifices to artistic license and format.

I think the insertion of the wolf pack tattoo in the New Moon movie was mainly there to serve as an indicator of association, since the effects and shots needed to make the pack look bigger, buffer, and taller than everyone else would have been time consuming and costly.

At first I kind of liked the tattoo. I even briefly considered getting a t-shirt with the tattoo screen print. It seemed like a low key way to display my Twitardation. It also feels like something of a tradition, as I used to have a t-shirt with an Angelus tattoo on the back in honor of my beloved Angel from BtvS.

Unfortunately, the more I looked at the design, the more I realized it looked less like a wolf and more like…something else. Something that can euphemistically be referred to as “lady bits” or “vajayjay.” Scroll up and look again. I’m not crazy. It totally does.

So now, all I see when I see the wolf tattoo is bunch of dudes with lady bits on their arm. I said sorry in advance, but I’m going to say sorry again.

EDIT! 3/12/10 9:26

Now that I think about it, the wolf/vajayjay tattoo reminds me of a paradox of lycanthropy that’s been bugging me for a while. Werewolves as monsters are generally gendered male, because they’re hairy, muscular, angry, out of control, and dominant. But they’re controlled by the moon (not the Quileute pack, obviously, but SMeyer says they’re shifters, not werewolves). Moon cycles are kind of a girl thing, no? It’s weird that a “male” monster phase could basically be thought of as the worst PMS ever.

Just a bit of something to think about…

 

Sookie is Mahn! March 4, 2010

Filed under: Books,Rants,Television — imaginaryheroine @ 6:00 am
Tags: , , , ,

[Spoilers: True Blood Season 1]

I love Anna Paquin. Despite her lean build, she was a good choice to play the quirky and down home Sookie Stackhouse (Book Sookie is a curvy size 8 – 10).

Unfortunately, while re-watching TrueBlood Season 1, I’m more and more struck by how much the writers have dumbed down the series’ heroine.

Sure, Sookie starts out a bit naive. She’s inexperienced with men due to her “disability” and wholly unprepared for how deep the rabbit hole went into the supernatural world.

The Sookie of Charlaine Harris’ addictive Southern Vampire books is a quick-witted spitfire. After growing up hiding her gift, she’s gotten good control over how much she lets people see of her thoughts and emotions. She knows when to talk and when to shut up. She deals with the strange and dangerous with aplomb, waiting until she’s put the fire out and gotten into her favorite Mickey Mouse sleep shirt before she gives herself permission to have a melt down. She knew getting involved with the boss was messy, so she didn’t.

That’s why she’s awesome. She’s kicking @$$, taking names, navigating relationships, and staying on budget to make house repairs.

Sookie in True Blood is disappointingly dim. She babbles. A lot. Usually saying exactly the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time to exactly the wrong person. After she sleeps with Bill, she has a public monologue about how great sex is and how it’s no one’s business…uhm…what? In the season finale, Bill is burning to death in the sun and she just stands there crying while Sam buries him, meaning it was taking longer to cover him up than if two people had been working on it. WTF?

Most obnoxiously, she gets all squishy with Sam and then pushes him away and then takes him back and then pushes him away, because getting involved with the boss is messy and this show is all about every character making exactly the wrong decision every single time. Especially if it involves sex and/or drug use, because those things are supposedly inherently entertaining. Or something.

Book Sookie would smack TV Sookie upside the head and tell her to get it together and grow a brain while she’s at it.

Psst. Hey writers! Sookie is not an adjunct character to the supers. She’s the MAIN character!

I guess what I’m trying to say is…

Get away! Get away, suicidal cellist! Stop following me!

Get away! Get away, you suicidal cellist! Stop following me!

 

Yeah, this Blog? It’s one BIG spoiler February 10, 2010

Filed under: Rants,theImaginaryHeroine — imaginaryheroine @ 2:17 pm
Tags: , ,

After writing the last post, it occurred to me that I should probably include some sort of spoiler warning on here. I thought about just including it in each post. And then I put up a little text warning on the side bar. And then I got pissed off.

Because, the whole reason this blog came about in the first place is that I have no one to talk to about all these cool media tropes and themes. So, I’m talking to the great and powerful void that is the Interwebz. Or to myself, depending on how you look at it.

I’m really the worst about ruining shows/movies/TV/surprises/you name it. I can’t buy presents early because I just hand them over to the recipient the moment they hit my hot little hands. Happy Birthday…in seven weeks.

It’s the same sort of thing with media surprises. People I can talk to about this stuff are few and far between. Either because most people are totally in the closet about this dorky stuff or they just don’t like talking about it, because I know most of the media covered here are plenty popular.

When someone actually does fess up, I get so excited I usually blurt out something really revealing. I did it a couple weekends ago. I finally met someone who admitted to watching Mad Men and I, having just found out about the whole Sal fiasco, blurted out “I’m so pissed that they just dropped Sal like that!” Only to find out that she hadn’t seen past the third or fourth episode in Season 3.

*facepalm*

Turns out being socially isolated makes you really socially awkward too. Go fig.

I’m just going to come out and say it:

This blog? It’s one big spoiler.

I know what you’re thinking. Wait – you just rained on her parade. You just ruined my TV show experience! What do you have to be pissed off about?

Because I’m so damn tired of this stuff ping-ponging back and forth in my brain with no release. I get my hopes built up that FINALLY someone will talk to me about my why all of J. K. Rowling’s girls suck  or how it was such a bummer when that girl werewolf messed up everything for Oz and Willow in Buffy. And then it’s blown right out from under me. Beyond that, sometimes it’s hard to remember when exactly in the story line something happened. I’m forced to just keep mum and miss a golden opportunity to have a good conversation. It’s just too frustrating for words!

Just as frustrating, I’d argue, as someone ruining the ending to your story.

So, I’m going to try and not be such a brat in the future. I will do my damnedest on each post to include accurate info about exactly which episode/season/book is discussed. Then I’m going to go to town with all the damn spoilers I want so don’t come boohooing to me.

If the title or tags say something about a book you’re halfway through or a TV show you’ve only watched 3 episodes of, come back later after you’ve finished. I’m going to ruin the suspense.

Sorry for the rant, y’all. Back to business.