hells_half_acre: (On the Fence)
And now for something completely different...

Over the course of the past week, [livejournal.com profile] claudiapriscus and I have been having a discussion on tumblr. When we had come to a satisfiable end, [livejournal.com profile] claudiapriscus thought it might be nice to document the discussion and post it on LJ and see what other people thought.

The discussion started off with us complaining about the tendency in some fandoms to "woobie-fy" the villains, rather than be disgusted with their evilness... but it then moved into us discussing other fandom trends, like using queer relationships to double-down on heteronomativity, or the trend towards associating yourself with being an activist for queer representation when really you just want to see pretty boys kiss.

We also briefly discuss LJ vs. AO3.

This isn't usually the sort of thing I would post, because I do get really critical of a large portion of the fandom here... but, on the other hand, because I usually don't talk about it, I AM interested to see what happens if I do.

(Spoiler warning for Thor, Avengers, and, especially, Thor 2.)


fanon-trends, heteronormativity, slacktivism, and LJ vs Ao3 )
hells_half_acre: (Don't Litter)
1. For the past two (working) days, my job has required absolutely no thought whatsoever, so I was able to start listening to podfic again while I worked. (Sadly, I've now completed that task, so it's back to only listening to things that I can zone in and out of.) Anyway, my point is this:

Dear Podficcers,
I love you. I really appreciate all the time you put in to turning good stories into recordings so that my horrible job is a little less horrible. That being said, please do not try to imitate Dean/Jensen's batman voice...please, don't lower your voice and try to imitate any man's voice. I am able to understand and imagine the words in his voice even if I am hearing them in yours - and I much prefer having a greater range of emotion in the dialogue than "monotone head-cold". I'm just saying - you're own speaking voice is LOVELY podficcers, I would like you to use it for all characters.
All my best,
Hells.

2. This is actually not so much a pet peeve as something that makes me highly uncomfortable...

I absotely hate it when people call someone "perfect" or "flawless". This is a huge problem if I decide to hang out on tumblr, I've discovered. It makes me extremely uncomfortable. I get what you are trying to say, "Jensen is perfect" means that you think he is beautiful, a good actor, and a nice person. I would just prefer if people said "Jensen is beautiful, a good actor, and a nice person." To me, calling someone perfect is actually really dehumanizing...because no one is perfect and therefore, in my mind, "Jensen is perfect" translates to "Jensen is not a person" or more accurately, "Jensen is not allowed to be human."

I guess... I guess this is the whole "objectifying" thing...only, I know that's not what people are trying to do/say, but it's exactly how I interpret it... and I'm not joking when I say it makes me "highly uncomfortable" - I seriously feel a little sick to my stomach whenever I read it. I'm not sure what to do about it, because it seems to just be part of the lingo out there on the internet. Anyway, I just wanted to complain about it, because it drives me crazy... and I guess it might be a little ridiculous? I mean, seriously, "Jensen is perfect" gives me the same visceral reaction as someone saying "Jensen is a faggot" or "Jennifer Lawrence is a cunt"...I mean, how completely ridiculous is my brain? But that's exactly what it does. It's sort of like each "Jensen is perfect" is another piece of wood for the stake that you are eventually going to burn him at for actually being human and not perfect at all... and I'm just sitting here watching that thing being built and thinking "no no, this is all wrong!!!" but no one is listening to me because I'm that crazy person in the village that no one ever listens to because I'm crazy.
hells_half_acre: (Irene Kiss)
This is sort of a follow-up to my previous post about Women, Sex, and Power in relation to Sherlock (and Sherlock fandom)...in that rant, I stated the following:

           How about we stop making every single female on television the representative for all women? Is Sherlock the representative for all men? No? Why not? Oh, because he's a possible asexual sociopath and most men aren't. Well, most women aren't dominatrixes that want to blackmail the British government, so how about we stop forcing Irene to represent our ideal of the perfect woman. Why aren't we talking the same way about Mrs. Hudson? She's pretty badass...

Now, my lovely rant was written before The Reichenbach Fall aired...and, I, like Sherlock, overlooked a lovely example of a woman that was under my nose the whole time: Molly Hooper.

Okay, maybe I didn't overlook her - I did mention her in the original rant, but then erased her, because I had already seen the fandom complaining about how Molly was "a doormat" and "weak"...and I just didn't want to open that can of worms. Luckily, I don't have to, because Miss Transmission does it for me!

In The Real Woman? Why Molly Hooper is the One Who Counts, Miss Transmission does a great job of pointing out how absolutely awesome Molly is as actually representing women. How we were so distracted by "The Woman" that we forgot that other female characters were also female. 



A bit of a rant under here )


Anyway...yeah, I guess this is kind of another crazy rant too. But, guys, I just...have a lot of feelings, okay! Plus, my landlord is being a prick (again) so I'm in ranty-mood tonight. (T-minus 13 days until I am rid of him).


hells_half_acre: (Puppy Is Mad)
More Sherlock reaction...well, basically, this is my Reaction to Sherlock Reactions.


Can: Open. Worms: Everywhere. )


hells_half_acre: (Sam's a badass)
I hate them.

I feel like starting a petition in support of the writers doing whatever the hell they want to do regardless of anyone's feelings.

Or, being REALLY contrary and starting a petition to kill Castiel and keep Gabriel dead and never have any time-travel episodes ever again...who else? Balthazar? He can never return too. And while I'm at it, I'll petition for the "Samulet" never to come back (I actually seriously don't think it should and don't think it ever will anyway.) 

Listen people, no matter what petitions are signed and no matter if the writers listen to them or not, there is always going to be SOME decisions that you don't like in the story. Seriously, for every 10 people who would be thrilled for Gabriel to return, there are probably 10 more who will be pissed off that death has absolutely no meaning on the show. Same with Cas living forever without any character changes.
 
A television show is not a democracy, nor should it be, no matter how chummy the show creators and the fandom are.
 
Anyway...yeah, just thought I'd vent about all that. Personally, I think it's a spectacular kind of arrogance to presume you now how to write someone's story better than they do. I mean, Twilight is a misogynistic piece of crap, but THAT'S the story Stephanie Meyer wanted to tell - so more power to her. It was a hit with uneducated 13 year-olds, so yay for her....the rest of us have the option of NOT READING IT. I suggest you do the same with the show.
 
Because hey, maybe you don't agree with the direction the show is going in, but personally, I'm interested in seeing what story the writers are trying to tell - and I don't want a whole bunch of arrogant chefs forcing them to add more leeks to the soup when they don't want to! I want to have the soup the writers intended to make, then after I've had it, I want to be able to tell them whether I liked it or not or whether it could have used more barley. 

/rant. 
 
I shouldn't write rants at lunchtime...that sort of took a weird turn into the delicious.
 
(My apologies if any of you are Twilight fans - if it makes you feel any better, a good friend of mine likes those books too. Thankfully, because she's my friend, she's used to me telling her that she has the literary appreciation of an uneducated 13 year-old.)
 

Election

May. 2nd, 2011 08:09 pm
hells_half_acre: (...shit)
Here, let the Winchester's sum up my feelings for me:




A sad day for Canada. I'm extremely disappointed in a lot of my countrymen...also our entire electoral process, which really needs to be fixed. Sadly, it's not going to be fixed by the party that most benefits from it being broken.

Anyway...here's to another four years of the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer and our country being run by corrupt jackasses. 

Oh, and a fond fare-the-well to women's rights, gay rights, and arts and culture funding...ETA: a sad goodbye also to the environment, net neutrality, and fair copyright laws. 
hells_half_acre: (Headdesk)
[Poll #1733787]Any suggestions would be appreciated!
hells_half_acre: (OfficeDean)
I'm bored at work, so here's another installment of Pet Peeves (because I'm always in the mood to complain when I'm bored at work).

The Subjunctive!

For those that don't know, the subjunctive occurs in English most commonly when you are presenting a hypothetical situation. The prime example is any sentence that begins with "If I were you...." 

Now, I fully recognize that language evolves. I'm a huge supporter for language evolving. A language that ceases to evolve, ceases to truly live. For instance, I really think that "alright" should be the standard and accepted spelling, rather than "all right"...and eventually it will be. Already people are starting to forget that it's a misspelling...the spell-checkers all accept it, and no one has ever commented on a piece of my fanfiction and said "you spelt 'all right' wrong." (I'm also a firm believer that dreamt and spelt are still legitimate spellings as well, even though spell-checkers hate them,)
 
Anyway, that's just a long way of saying that the subjunctive case is dying out, and I KNOW this. As more and more time goes by people are using "was" instead of "were" more and more. "If I was you..." is slowly becoming the new norm even though it grates on my nerves. Hell, it's even passed my own lips from time to time, much to my horror. 
 
In Supernatural fiction (and the show) I forgive it constantly, because Dean with his GED and Sam being raised by a mechanic and a brother with a GED - well, even 3.5 years of college couldn't save him from colloquialisms. So, yeah, it makes sense that Sam and Dean (and Bobby) don't use the subjunctive properly, that's fine.
 
But...in Sherlock fic...that's another story. In Sherlock, you have Sherlock IN CANON  using words like 'meretricious' and correcting a murderer's grammar for a solid 3 minutes straight. Sherlock, my friends, would not say "If I was you..." 
 
Of course, this all being said, I realize that one of reasons language evolves is because people stop realizing that what they are saying is wrong and start believing it is right - so, this is just one of the many death-throes of Subjunctive Case, where some of us look at it and think "Oh, that sentence is fine," and others look at it and think "that sentence is horrific" because we still have the capability of seeing the part of the language that is being butchered. Hmm...random Harry Potter analogy: It's like a Thestral being murdered in front of a crowd.

ETA: Speak of the devil - I was just reading Wil Wheaton's very touching blog about his recent incomplete Stand By Me reunion, and he ends it with a sentence that should be in the subjunctive, but is not. Oh Wil, I forgive you, because language evolves, but I admit that I did yell "B'AH!" when I read that.
 
Completely unrelated note: I've started spelling favorite the American way and I HATE myself for it. It's favourite, goddamn it. I've got to retrain my fingers. 

 
hells_half_acre: (Headdesk)
 
I submit two pieces of evidence:

Missing person’s report on one of the females lists the last time she was seen as 11/09/12. The women apparently disappeared in the last week. It was October, 2011 (well, actually it was 2010, but that didn't make any sense either), about 6 episodes ago, yet in Caged Heat (3 episodes ago), they say they’ve been working for Crowley for “months” – indicating that a lot of time had passed between All Dogs Go To Heaven and Caged Heat. I doubt “months” means a whole year though...which means that either “months” is incorrect and the date here is December 09, 2011 (which completely goes against US date-writing customs)...or we just have to disregard this date entirely for being completely unbelievable. I’m going with the latter option.

And then we have this:

The date on the missing person’s report from “a year ago” has a last seen date of “November 2, 2009” which is NOT a year ago and would have been mid season 5 (it's not even a year ago if the present date was 2012). Therefore, I think I’m justified in throwing out all date from the art/props department that appear in this episode – they obviously have absolutely no idea what’s going on.

Unless they some how get their act together, I'm going to have to work solely off of dialog for the timeline. I REALLY hope the writers know what freakin' year it is in the show. I'm beginning to think a side-effect of ending the apocalypse is that time has lost all meaning.
(caps by [livejournal.com profile] crystalchain )
hells_half_acre: (DarkSam)
I'm going to complain about something that most of my flist doesn't care about for a second...

Sherlock Holmes is not emotionless.

I've been reading a lot of Sherlock (bbc) fic as of late, and again and again people get Sherlock wrong. It's beginning to drive me a little nuts...because you'll have a perfectly good thought out fic otherwise, but the characterization of one of the principals is completely off and it ruins the whole thing.

It's true, in the BBC's Sherlock, he is a self-described "sociopath" - this does not mean, however, that he does not have emotions. It means that he has an inability to empathize with OTHER people's emotions. He certainly still feels his own - actually, more than likely, he feels his own a bit too much - when he is happy, he is really happy, when he is depressed, he is HORRIBLY depressed, and when he is angry, he'll torture a dying man without blinking an eye. 

But even disregarding the whole label of "sociopath", are these writers even watching the show?! He kisses Mrs. Hudson on the cheek in glee - he gets thoroughly annoyed at someone using incorrect grammar - he gets really angry when someone won't tell him what he wants to know - he looks hurt when an old college 'friend' talks about how everyone hated him - he looks nervous when he's waiting for John to give his approval - and he freaks out in concern when John is in danger. If he were an emotionless cyborg some of these writers are painting him as, well, none of these things would happen...the series wouldn't be called Sherlock, it'd be called Data and Doctor Watson....or, at the very least, Spock.

Anyway, I'm extra complainy this week because I'm being overworked at the job I absolutely hate and I just found out that I have to work the weekend too. I know that fanfic authors are not professional writers and that I should just be thankful that they are writing stuff that I can read for free...and I also know that there is a lot of very GOOD fic out there too where people get it right. But it concerns me that so many people get it wrong...

So, if any of you venture into the Sherlock fandom, please remember: Sherlock has feelings. I know it's a common held belief that highly intelligent people are "above all that", but trust me...I'm a highly intelligent person (by most people's standards), and I'm still able to get horribly depressed about how much I hate my job, and very excited about tomorrow's Supernatural episode. 

Also, I love mango juice.

That is all.
hells_half_acre: (Puppy Is Mad)
According to the latest news....CW is postponing the mid-season premiere of Supernatural so that they can play Vampire Diaries and Nikita on Friday instead. 

I think my icon says it all.

And since Sam has had his say in icon form,  Dean would like to weigh in...



hells_half_acre: (Impala Under Bridge)
A couple of days ago, I linked to a meta on S1 that I thought was great, save for the unnecessary bit at the end when the author goes on about whether or not the show passes the test on feminism. I stated the following:

Naturally, I like the first part of the meta - because I don't tend to see sexism where others see it, so I tend to be far easier on shows than most feminists. (My general rule is that if I can replace the female character with a male character (and vice versa) in my brain, and still believe their motivations/characterization, then the role isn't sexist. I'm well aware that all this exercise might prove is that I think men are "girly".) In terms of the complaint that women are marginalized on the show - "women exist only to serve the mens’ story" complaint - I disregard it completely, since every single character other than Sam and Dean exist only to serve Sam and Dean's story. (Notable exceptions: Castiel, Bobby, Ellen, and Jo in S5). Even John only existed to serve Sam and Dean's story. Again, I may just have a completely different view on what is sexist/misogynistic...and that's either a post I've already done, or one I should do in the future (which will no doubt alienate me from my entire flist, so maybe I won't at all.)

A couple of you expressed interest in hearing more of my thoughts on this subject. So, here goes. This is going to be flocked, because I don't really want to be alienated by everyone.

Cut for length, because this took me 1.5 hours to type out )
I'm not saying Supernatural is NEVER sexist. I'm just saying that I really don't think it's as bad as people make it out to be...and I'm also saying that even when it is sexist, quite frankly, I don't give a damn.
hells_half_acre: (Puppy Is Mad)
You know what annoys me about this fandom: The constant throwing around of the word "retcon" where it DOES NOT APPLY.

I'm not saying that Supernatural has never retconned something - actually, I recall a discussion recently (with [livejournal.com profile] claudiapriscus?) where someone finally was able to point out something to me that was ACTUALLY a retcon. But most of what people are calling retcons ARE NOT RETCONS.

There is a HUGE difference between CHANGING previously established canon, and ADDING to the canon that we ASSUMED we knew.

Brady is not a retcon. Did Sam ever give us a list of his college friends? Did we ever hear the story of how he met Jess? No...therefore, writing Brady into the show in S5 isn't a retcon, it it GIVING US INFORMATION WE DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE!

The Amulet as God-EMF is also not a retcon: Did we ever learn why Bobby told Sam that the amulet was "real special"? No. Now we know though!

The Trickster actually being the arch-angel Gabriel is not a retcon. It is the arch-angel Gabriel being damn good at pretending to be a Trickster!

Sometimes I think our knowledge of the way the writers work is detrimental to the way people interpret the show. Because we KNOW that Kripke didn't set out to have angels in the show - we know that when the Trickster was first introduced they didn't plan to make him Gabriel. But that doesn't make the the Gabester a retcon. It just means that the writers decided to add in the information after his initial introduction, and were able to do it in a way where it actually made a little bit of sense (because, seriously, what was it to the Trickster that the Winchesters kept sacrificing themselves for each other?)

Now if there had been a line where Sam and Dean did some sort of crazy Angel-test on the Trickster for no reason back in S2, and Dean announced that the Trickster was definitely not secretly an arch-angel, then Gabriel would be a retcon.

Right now, the only "retcon" I'll give lea-way on is Chuck=God (which is heavily implied but not specifically stated)...and that's JUST because they met him in S4 when Dean still had the God-EMF Amulet and it never "grew hot" - at least not to the extent that Dean noticed. 

Sigh...sorry, I get so annoyed at inconsequential things sometimes.

Also, if any of you are following the twitpics of Asylum Europe Con this weekend: I like Jim's shirt, but the grammar is incorrect and it's driving me crazy.

hells_half_acre: (Puppy Is Mad)
I hate it when people tease spoilers - sure, they put the spoiler behind the cut/link, but then they put enough REACTION outside the cut that you can pretty much guess what the spoiler is! ARG! That is not hiding the spoiler people! THAT IS JUST SPOILING ANYONE WITH A BRAIN!

Sigh....

So, I think I've been spoiled for a major event in the Supernatural season finale, but I suppose there's still a chance I could be wrong, so don't talk to me about it. This is just me venting about stupid people spoiling things because they don't seem to realize how easy it is to put two and two together.

That being said, if I'm right about the spoiler - I'm not actually that upset about it. And I'll explain why if/when it actually happens.

BUT PLEASE DO NOT TALK ABOUT SPOILERS. And if you DO want to talk about spoilers on your own journal, do not lead into the cut with LEADING INFORMATION.

Thank you
hells_half_acre: (Dean/Books OTP)
Here are two pet peeves I have with other people's fics that I see a LOT of. Please, do me a favour, and try avoiding them when writing:

1. "That's when he realized he had said that last part out loud" - How many times have you seen this? Usually it's something along the lines of:

Jason didn't know why Andrew was so down on himself. Personally, he thought Andrew was awesome, really smart and really hot, and pretty much the epitome of the perfect.

"You think I'm perfect?" Andrew suddenly asked, and Jason realized he may have actually said that last part out loud.


Let me ask you a question: When was the last time you said something WITHOUT KNOWING THAT YOU ARE SPEAKING?! Seriously, is this actually a common affliction? Because personally, I'm always aware of when I've spoken or not. I'm pretty sure even deaf people know whether they've spoken out loud. I know this is a common device used to have characters reveal something that they normally would be too uptight to reveal - but, really, if Jason is too uptight to tell Andrew he's perfect, he's ALSO too uptight to speak without thinking first.

And I apologize to those who have used this - I really mean no offense - I've just seen it far too often and it's not truthful to the reality of the human experience. If you want an uptight character to reveal something, then get him drunk or angry. I always reveal things when I'm drunk or angry.

2. Do not tease an event that you are not going to write about. Example (and is basically directly from a fic I just finished reading that has no sequel and no plans for a sequel - only paraphrased and with names changed):

Jason held Andrew tightly, and he knew that this was it for him.

"My parents want to meet you," Jason told Andrew. "They want to try to understand."

"Yeah?" Andrew said.

"You don't have to," Jason said, knowing how awkward the dinner was probably going to be.
"I want to."  Andrew said.

Jason kissed him and they lived happily ever after. The End.


Dude! You cannot TEASE an awkward family dinner and then not deliver! Some of us live off the drama of homophobic parents. I want to see that dinner, because until I see that Jason's parents are ACTUALLY going to get over their homophobia, I don't trust that everything is going to work out. Maybe Andrew will go there and it'll all go to hell, and Jason will have to really choose between Andrew and his parents - and he'll choose Andrew and then be estranged from his family and Andrew will feel guilty and they WON'T BE ALRIGHT. You have to SHOW the dinner so that I can say "well, yeah, that WAS awkward, but they ARE trying and everything really IS going to work out."

....

Is it strange that I suddenly want to write slash about two guys named Andrew and Jason? Hahaha....I'm so weird. That'll teach me to make my own examples.
hells_half_acre: (Puppy Is Mad)
Alright, I'm going to rant about something. This is just personal taste, so I apologize if I offend anyone out there - that's not my intent. I certainly am not ranting about anyone particular on my flist or anything, so if you are an LJ friend of mine, don't worry, it's not you that I'm mad at.

Ok, so, I guess it's my own fault for liking meta - the problem is my definition of meta seems to be different than a lot of people's. To me, meta is analysis of the show, whether it be character motivations, explorations of themes, or notes on cinematographic storytelling. To others, it appears meta equals "personal review".

Fine, you know, that's all well and good. My Quick Reaction posts are not meta in my opinion. Sometimes, I'll touch on a thought and mention how I SHOULD turn it into a meta, or how I wish it was already a meta, but my Quick Reactions are too bogged down in whether or not I personally thought of the episode for me to post them on any meta-communities...because to me, meta shouldn't be about whether or not you personally liked the episode. Meta on an episode should be about what that episode adds to understanding character motivations, or how it adds to or changes the underlying theme of the show, etc...

The reason I'm saying all this, is just to say that USUALLY I DO NOT READ PERSONAL REVIEWS OF EPISODES. I make an exception for those people on my flist whose opinions I enjoy hearing (even when they differ with my own), because they are well thought out, or come from a place of positivity (and yes, it is possible to come from a place of positivity even when you don't like the episode...I will get into this.)

The first problem is that my meta-communities are inundated with people who have a different definition of what constitutes meta than I do. In that, they are posting personal reviews under the guise and fancy titling of a meta...this means, that I read these posts, thinking that I'm going to get a well thought out meta on character or theme or underlying social statement, and instead what I get is a bitch-fest about why someone thought the episode was a crock of shit.

Fine, you know, people are entitled to their personal opinions, I just wish that they wouldn't claim them as meta.

Now, RANT SUBJECT NUMBER TWO: FANDOM TREATMENT OF PLOT-HOLES.

I KNOW there are plot holes on Supernatural people...there are plot-holes on every show. I also know that occasionally, Supernatural has to do a retcon - Kripke had a 5 season plan, sure, but it has been quite obvious for some time that he never had the details of it worked out beforehand. You have people referring to Lilith as "he" up until 3x12, and that's just one example.

It's FINE, if you want to point out when they are trying to fix something, or when there is a bit of a plot-hole in an explanation...what really bugs me though, and has especially bugged me about this last episode, is when people point out the plot-hole from a place of negativity.

"Why did they do it this way? Obviously, that can't be true, because of suchandsuch."

Why focus on why an explanation doesn't work? Why not focus on why it DOES work. Why assume it's an inadequate explanation, why not see how it COULD BE TRUE.

Let's go back to my lame Lilith example from S3, just to avoid talking about spoilers.

When they introduced the demon holding Dean's contract as a FEMALE demon, did everyone sit around saying "But that can't be true, because the CRD and Ruby and Whateverhernamewas all said it was a HE, so this is all a load of shit and the episode sucks."

Or maybe they went for the more correct negativity and said: "Well, obviously Kripke changed his mind and changed it into a female, and now all those former episodes are stupid because they have the wrong pronoun."

But you COULD be more positive about it. You COULD say, "Well, obviously the CRD, Ruby, and Whateverhernamewas were all trying to throw Sam and Dean off by providing them with the wrong pronoun."

I'm just saying, that maybe Jake did kill Sam, and maybe Dean and Sam took a very odd unconventional route, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't following everything to plan...it STILL could have ALWAYS HAD TO BE THEM. There are plenty of ways to explain away the plot-holes if you just come at it from a place of WANTING to explain them away, instead of wanting to be all negative and disappointed in everything.

Personally, I prefer the positive approach. I have an explanation for everything. I don't care how crazy it all seems - the more complicated the explanation, the more cunning the YED, Angels, Lucifer, Winchesters, whatever, appear to be...the more complicated their world is.

So, in conclusion:

1. Please do not claim that your bitch-fests are meta.
2. Stop being so goddamn negative. You are harshing my buzz.

In return, I promise to stop reading personal reviews as soon as I realize that that's what they are - unless you are one fo the select few that can complain about something without being a complete douchebag.

In the meantime, if anyone wants to have a plot-hole explained away by yours truly, just leave it in the comments. It's actually a favorite activity of mine.
hells_half_acre: (Sam strung-out)

I have to research light aircraft for a story I'm writing, except that I'm afraid to type it into google for fear that the Americans will find out and misinterpret and put me on some no-fly list, and then I won't be able to go to my friends' wedding in Bermuda next summer.

I'm also avoiding going to sleep because I don't want to wake up and have to work for 7.5 hours. Today I slacked off so much, I probably only got two hours of work in. It's ridiculous. I'm such a very horrible employee. I keep trying to think of jobs that I wouldn't mind doing, and I keep coming up with nothing. When left to my own devices, I tend to just read or write all day...but I just read predictable romances, because anything not predictable makes me too nervous. And I don't have the self-confidence or discipline to be a writer. Plus, you know, I'm not very good...I mean, all the literary tricks I've ever pulled off have always been by accident.

Once, I wrote a poem about Hamlet and handed it in instead of doing an essay. The teacher gave me an A, because I had used a lot of the same words as Shakespeare used in the play. I was happy for the A, but quite embarrassed by the comment, because I hadn't done it on purpose - I just have a slightly antiquated way of talking sometimes. Hamlet is my favorite tragedy though. There are so many good lines in it. Plus, it's basically a play about procrastination, so I can relate.

Obligatory Supernatural Topic:

You know what kind of annoys me? When people write wee!chester fic where Sam and Dean know that it was the yellow-eyed demon that killed their Mum. Boys and girls, we know for a fact that Sam and Dean did not even know that it was even a demon until mid-way through S1. I can't remember now when they found out about the yellow-eyes, but that might not even have been until Sam SAW it in Salvation. So, ladies and gentlemen, please stop writing fic where Dean is 9 and is all like "Sammy, we'll kill that yellow-eyed Demon and then I'mma going to take you to Disney World, bitch." Because although the sentiment is nice, the mistake ruins it for me. I apologize if this seems unnecessarily harsh.

Seriously, look it up...first half of S1 is all "the thing that killed our Mom", then John calls from that telephone booth and he's like "whazzup, my homies? Muthaf*ckers a DEMON, my bitches!" ....yeah, ok, I took some liberties with the script...I think it was more along the lines of "It's a demon...a pretty nasty one at that."

Ok, so...a good sign for when I should go to bed is when I start doing dialog in really stupid slang. And yeah, work is going to be even worse on less sleep, so I should probably go to sleep now...
 


hells_half_acre: (Headdesk)
I can't turn people down on the phone. It's a huge problem with me. It's why I use a cell only and I don't have a landline...but still, my bank has my number, so when they call and offer me things that I don't need...sigh. It doesn't help when the person on the phone is some dude from New Jersey with a thick American accent - and I picture him hating his job, (because hell, what telemarketer doesn't hate their job?), but he needs the money and it's not manual labour and he's just trying to make ends meet - and his boss is already going to get into trouble for accidentally calling me "hon", so why not give him a sale so that he looks good....I have a month to cancel the service anyway before I have to pay for it. It just means that I've got to call back sometime and do that...talk to someone else on the phone who will try to get me to pay for something I don't need....

It's hospitalization/accident insurance. $13/month. You want to know the ironic thing? British Columbia is the only Canadian province I know of in which you actually have to pay for health insurance...and I can't afford it. If I wind up in the hospital, I'm going to have bigger fish to fry than whether or not my bank is giving me $200 a day to be there. Actually, if I'm in any kind of accident, I'm dragging my mangled body to the airport and flying back to Ontario in the hopes that the Ontario Health Insurance people haven't clued into the fact that I moved out of the province.

Sigh...I really am just going to cancel it.

Just felt like complaining...about myself...I'm so annoying. I don't know how I can stand to live with me.

Now I have to avoid LJ until Supernatural airs out here on the expensive west coast....

Profile

hells_half_acre: (Default)
hells_half_acre

September 2017

S M T W T F S
      12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 04:37 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios