Another Mystery Model

Friday, July 29, 2022

A Book I Would Like TO READ

Oh my FREAKING GOD!!!

Why am I screaming, after so many years of talking calmly and collectedly?  Because I'm going out of my mind, reading some of the formulaic crap that I get from Kindle!  Why do I go to Kindle to buy books, if I hate it so much?  Because it's easy to find the sort of books I want (well, it has been easy; they've suddenly decided not to sell books on the app.  Fine), and I don't know where else to go.

Ok.  I'm fine.  What do I hate about some of these books?

They're about Big Shots.  Ok, I've done it too; written about a queen, a princess, various celebrities.  But I've also written about regular people.

There's a ton of sex.  Does it all have to have so much graphic sex?  Don't lesbians have any imagination?  Is the only interesting thing about two women falling in love the sex they're having?

The main characters have super white names.  (The exceptions are stories written by Brits; I get the impression that Brits are a lot more loosey-goosey than Americans.  Good for them.  Except that they use British colloquialisms that throw me off.  Luckily for them, I don't grade them down for that reason alone.). The pen name I chose for myself is Brown.  Ok, it's a white name.  It could have been Braun, or Bruno, fine.  But I remember my parents watching some prime-time soap opera, back in the eighties, and the main family's name was: Carrington!!!  Talk about white!  And that name simply drips of fake upperclass-ness!

There's a lot of gratuitous swearing.  It's all fucking this, and fucking that, and fucking her and her sister.  Of course, sometimes it's unavoidable; romances lead to fucking, eventually.  But it's almost as if these authors are afraid that they'll lose their readers unless there was some fucking in the first sentence.  (Maybe that's why my books don't sell ...)

Kay

Tuesday, July 26, 2022

Reading Lesfic / Dating Sarah Cooper

     You won't believe the trouble I had, typing in that title; each time I tried to type in 'Dating Sarah Cooper,' I ended up typing Dating Siera Maley instead! Simple mistake?  I think not! 
     Too often, when I read a story with really 3-dimensional characters that jump out of the page, I gradually imagine myself in a relationship with the author!  I have to believe this is not necessarily a welcome state of affairs from the pint of view of these authors, who are presumably happily settled in stable relationships.  I, on the other hand, am blissfully unattached--mostly-- which explains what is happening here.
     In related news, the basic story of this book I'm about to describe is closely related to an MTV TV series called Faking It, and if you watch that show, you will know most of what happens in Dating Sarah Cooper, author: Siera Maley, available on Amazon Kindle.
     I have not watched Faking It--I don't watch a lot of TV; any TV, really--but I doubt whether it is as imaginatively written as Dating.  The book is about a pair of BFFs, Katie and Sarah.  It is a first person narration in the voice of Katie, who describes crazy Sarah so perfectly that it gives the reader great insight into the character of Sarah, and also of Katie herself.  This is the second time-- maybe even the third-- of my reading this story, and it seems to me that Katie is as cautious as Sarah is impetuous.
     The story opens on Katie helping a gay classmate who has just been knocked down by a homophobic jock after school.  Katie texts Sarah, who is a nurse wannabe, for help with first aid, saying Got you a patient.  Sarah replies with: Omg who??  That, right there, deliniates the girls perfectly!
     I strongly recommend this book, though in some parts of the country the mores of both the adults and the kids might well be too different (from the mainstream) for the story to make sense.
     Kay 

Sunday, July 24, 2022

Straight-male-centrism

I think I'm--at least mentally--a little too old for the japanimation-centered culture of MMORPG (massively multiple online role-playing games), and all related media.  I stumbled on this thought as I was going through the daily input-stream of art on Deviant-Art.  The culture on that site is certainly a lot broader than the manga culture, but I have to reluctantly accept that all the art there, with a few exceptions, is male-centered.

I'm not absolutely convinced of this.  The art they show me is according to their algorithm, which shows me artwork similar to images I have clicked on, and liked, in the past.  I like looking at women, so they naturally show me lots of girls.  But I like girls who are moderately endowed, or slim girls.  But the vast majority of girls I'm shown are heavy-breasted girls.

Why is this?  Partly it is the sort of image that Asian guys like to draw.  There is another reason though.  The cosplayers on the site are often girls who are curvaceous--a global phenomenon--having to do with the diet of families of leisure.  American girls tend to be well-endowed, and a lot of the cosplayers are American girls.  I tend to 'like' them, along with the bosomy Russian and Ukrainian cosplayer girls because I've got to know them, and I can't resist checking their boxes the same way I automatically like posts on Facebook!  So there's a chance that if all my DA girl buddies were built like guys, I'd be fed images of nude girls more to my taste.

For whatever reason, I'm getting an overwhelming number of heavy-chested, blue-eyed, white-haired, enormous sword-wielding girls wearing stiletto heels.  I'm not sure it's the guys who like heels; I think even the female artists tend to draw their female characters with heels.  My (slight) training in anthropology hasn't prepared me to analyze this phenomenon!

But, if this is the world in which I spend my time, these are the artistic values I have to be inured to.

K.

Tuesday, July 19, 2022

Homonyms, and other Denizens of the Vocabulary Jungle

I'm definitely not the best writer in the world.  There are scores of writers that write so much better than I do.  But there are some mistakes they make that I think I have been able to avoid, and avoiding them is actually easy.  They mostly have to do with words that either sound similar, or a word choice that seems reasonable, but is just slightly wrong.  I'm not infallible, but this post is a starting point; if I don't do anything else that's useful for my fellow-writers, at least I can die happy that I did this much.  I'm not being very exact here; I'm trying to squeeze as many words as possible into this brief post, especially since it isn't alphabetized!

Also, these are only some of the meanings of these words; just enough to make readers understand the difference between the words.  Lead, for instance, is both a noun, the metal, and a verb.  But it has a couple of other meanings, which would usually not enter into a discussion of lesfic.

Words that sound the same, but mean different things

Flare, flair.  To flare is to become wider, like a cone, or a skirt.  It's also used when taking a photo of a light, when the image spreads out.  In contrast, flair describes a way of doing things, to make something attractive, to have skill in creating beauty. 

Peddling, pedalling.  Pedalling is powering a bicycle with your feet.  (She looked over the wall, and saw Jill pedalling down the street as fast as she could.)  Peddling is selling.  (Jill wondered what the guy was peddling now.)

Peaking, peeking, peeping.  Also piqueing.  Peaking means to have reached the very top of your skill.  (Jill's speed had peaked; it was downhill from here on.)  Peeking is to spy on a scene from in hiding.  (Jill peeked on Santa eating the cookies.)  Brits and Commonwealth folk---and occasionally someone from the Northeast---use the word peeping instead.  To pique is to grab the interest.  (Jill's interest was piqued by the colorful book cover.)

Moose, mousse.  Moose is a big critter, like Bullwinkle.  Mousse is stuff that some people put in their hair, to make it lie flat.

Past, passed.  The past is an earlier time.  (My grandmother dwells in the past.)  Passed is a verb, signifying that you've overtaken something, or succeeded in a test.  (The paper was so good, Jill passed the course.)

Queue, cue.  A queue is a checkout line, e.g. at a grocery store.  A cue is a signal for something to take place.  ("That's your cue to leave.")

Pouring, poring.  Pouring is to spill a liquid out of a container.  To pore is a rare usage; it means to study a book closely, looking for something.  (Jill pored through the agreement, looking for problems.)  Added later: pore is often used with over.  Jill was poring over an article in Wikipedia.  Pouring is also used with over; coffee drinkers will know that pour over coffee with a cone filter is considered especially great.  [I forgot an important use: the noun pore means one of those tiny holes in your skin, through which your perspiration comes out!]

Lead, led.  This is tricky.  Lead is a soft, gray metal.  Stainglass windows have the colored glass separated by lead.  To lead a group means to take the guiding position.  If someone has been a leader in the past, we say that she has led a group.  Led is simply the past tense of the word lead.  There is a word called leaded, which has nothing to do with the verb lead.  It is the word for glass that contains the metal lead, or paint that contains lead salts, or stainglass windows.

Come, cum.  Come is simply to come towards somebody or something.  Cum is a relatively uncommon Latin word that means also.  (Jill was a housekeeper-cum-nanny.)  I pronounce the word cum as "coom", but that may not be a universal thing.  Catholics familiar with the Latin liturgy might recognize the phrase cum Sancto Spirito, which means [who,] together with the Holy Spirit ...

Illusive, Elusive.  These two words are close in meaning, but the first one should not be used at all.  An illusion is something that looks different from what it is.  Saying something is illusive means that it isn't what it appears to be.  Illusory might be a better choice.  In contrast, elusive means something that's hard to pin down, like Zorro.

Pedals, petals.  Pedals are the gadgets that you press with your feet, e.g. the accelerator / gas pedal in a car.  Petals are the cute little things that are in a flower.  These words should not be pronounced the same way, but unfortunately many people do.

Conceded, Conceited.  I was stunned when, in a story I was recently reading, the author had confused these two words!  Or her voice-to-text app did, which is the more likely possibility; especially if her speech didn't distinguish between those words.  Conceited means thinks very highly of him- or herself.  Conceded means accepted--maybe somewhat grudgingly--some fact.  (Such as having lost an election.)

Discreetly, Discretely.  Discreetly is an adverb, meaning to do something quietly, or without causing alarm or offense, or attracting too much attention.  Discretely means separately, a word that has more technical usages than colloquial ones.

Leant, lent, Lent.  Leant is the same as leaned, the past tense of lean.  Lent is the past tense of lend.  (Jill, I need back the hammer I lent you.)  Lent is also a season of the Christian calendar, lying between Ash Wednesday and Maundy Thursday.

Gate, gait.  A gate is essentially a large door, perhaps in a fence or garden wall.  A gait is a manner of walking.  Most people have a fixed way of walking; and someone watching from a distance can often recognize a person from their gait, even if their faces can't be seen.  Horses have many gaits; a trot, a gallop, are all different gaits.

Rung, wrung.  A rung is a step of a ladder;  To wring something is to extract moisture from it:  you wring out your laundry.  Wrung is the past tense.  This laundry has been wrung out.  I feel wrung out!  It is a way of saying that a person feels stressed. 

Your, you'reYou're is such a frequently used word that, I think, people have trouble thinking of it as a contraction of you are, which is exactly what it is.  So many really good writers, making no mistakes at all, unexpectedly screw this one up, and get me all depressed.  Your, of course, is a possessive pronoun, like mine, or his, or hers.  (This is your sheet.  You're welcome!) I would encourage writers to use you're correctly whenever possible; it makes the speaker sound fluent, like a native English speaker, rather than someone who has learned English as a second language.

Role, roll.  The word role means a part.  'The role of Deniece is now being played by Leandra Page.' Or, 'Meredith settled uncomfortably into the role of wife and mother.' The word roll--in this instance--means the class list, so when someone takes attendance, it's called roll call.  They're going down the roll, calling the names.  The reason I'm giving you this extra information about where the word or phrase comes from is to help you understand the word in context.  It is better to understand something, rather than merely remember it!  (That's my teacher background getting up on its hind legs.  Down, boy!)

Balling, bawling.  The phrase "bawling her eyes out" simply means crying her eyes out.  Balling is a crude way of describing engaging in sex, and clearly has nothing to do with crying.

Here, here; Hear, hear!  I don't know where the phrase "hear, hear!" comes from, but it is a cheer, which means something like What he said!  It's heard a lot during wedding toasts, and so forth.  "Here, here" is just a misspelling, quite understandable when people hear the phrase, but don't see it spelled.

Might, mite.   Might means power and strength, as in "The village was up against the might of the Roman legions." Mite simply means a small contribution.

Waled, wail.  I'm not sure "waled" is a recognized word.  It is usually used by guys, and means punched really hard.  Quite unrelated, Wailed means cried.

Jamb, jam.  A door jamb, is the part of the doorway to which the hinges would be attached, if there were hinges, of course.  Jam is a sweet preparation to eat with bread. 

Peace, piece.  Well, most people know the difference between these words; peace is the absence of war, strife or disagreement.  Piece is a portion of something, a section, a part.  When someone says: there, I've said my piece, this is the word they intend.

The next several items are just words with usages that some people get wrong.

Elicit, Illicit.  These words are completely unrelated, and so are their meanings, obviously.  To elicit a response from someone is to prompt a reaction or reply.  Illicit is an adjective, which means illegal.

Social, Sociable.  The word social simply means: having to do with society.  In some places, it means a party.  Sociable is a word used to describe someone who likes to get together with others, and has lots of friends.  (Jill is a reclusive girl, but Jack has lots of friends, and is a sociable fellow.)

Bare back, bareback.  Bare back refers to someone's back, without a covering.  To ride a horse Bareback means to ride a horse without a saddle.

Easygoing, easy going.  Easygoing describes someone who is relaxed, and not particular or picky about things.  Easy going means some task that doesn't give you problems.

Anymore, Any more.  These two are well established distinct but related phrases.  "Do you have any more coffee?  This coffee is really good!". That sentence just won't work with anymore' instead.  "Will you please turn down the music volume?  I can't take it anymore!"  Here the phrase means, formally, 'from now on.'

If, whether.  The word if is a word of logic: if you like horror movies, stay with us!  But some people use the word if to indicate uncertaintly:  I don't know if you like horror movies!  The more conventional word to use is whether.  "I don't know whether you like horror movies!"

Everyday, every day.  Everyday means ordinary.  "Oh dear, I wore everyday clothes; I didn't know it was an occasion!"  Every day simply means each day.

Hangout, hang out.  Hangout is a place.  To hang out is to spend time with someone.

Creep, crept.  Crept is the past tense of Creep.

Kneeled, knelt.  Knelt, and kneeled are both past tenses of kneel, but they have slightly different usages.  Still, I think using them interchangeably is not really unforgiveable!

Sat, seated.  I just notice the use of the word sat to mean seated, by British writers.  (Jill was seated right across from Jack.)  Let's be clear; any wrong usage will eventually be accepted.  The grammatical universe is heading in the direction of not caring too much about correct usage.  But if clarity and understandability are your goals, it makes sense to tweak your writing a little bit, so that it is not confusing, even if you sacrifice a few colloquialisms that are dear to your heart!

Alright, All rightAlright is an expression that is still growing out of all right.  "Man, he walks just like his dad, alright."  For that sentence, I think alright is the right word.  "I think it'll come out all right in the end."  Here, I don't think alright will really work, but sure; go ahead if you think you must.  At this time, in 2022, I think using all right in every instance will not upset anyone.  Using alright instead would make some people uncomfortable.

Thing, think.  These aren't words that are usually confused, except in a particular instance: the phrase "You've got another think coming!"  This is a phrase of the 19th or early 20th century; the idea is You thought wrong, so think again.  But people of our generation who have heard this saying, but not read it, seem to assume that it is 'you've got another thing coming,' and use it in dialog that way.  It does have a lovely sarcastic ring to it!

Site, sightSite means location.  "This was the site of the old town hall."  The word website uses this word in that sense.  Sight means appearance.  That pizza is a sight for sore eyes!

Lax, lacksLacks means doesn't have.  "This paragraph lacks a lot of necessary punctuation."  Lax means too relaxed.  "I can see your parents have been lax with your manners."

Champing at the bit.  This is an expression that derives from (probably) horse-racing, and is often misquoted as: "chomping at the bit." I don't exactly know how to champ at a bit, but I suspect it is a lot like, well, chomping.  The expression "champing at the bit" is a lot older than the word 'chomping', so if you wanted to sound conventional, you'd use the older expression.

Glimpsed / Glanced.  Glimpsed something means you saw something, often through the corner of your eye.  Glanced at something means you took a quick look at it.  If you noticed in passing that there was someone looking through the window, you glimpsed them.  If you took a quick look at the clock, you glanced.  They aren't interchangeable words.

Break, brake.  To break is to ruin something; e.g. to break a new toy (oh, you naughty boy), or to break up with sometime.  To brake is to use the brake on your vehicle, to slow it down, and maybe bring it to a stop. 

This a work in progress is.  If I have the energy, I want to order the entries alphabetically, and maybe group things in some way.

Hope this is useful!  --Kay

Monday, June 27, 2022

U-Haul Lesbians

Have you ever heard this phrase?  What does it mean?

I thought I had some insight into the phenomenon crudely alluded to with this phrase, but maybe I should think some more.

Because of the evolution of public opinion about homosexuality (not by any measure uniformly positive, in case you were wondering), it's a lot easier for a woman to discover that she prefers to associate with women than with men in this century, than it was 20 years ago.

It is quite a step from there for a girl to arrive at the conclusion that she would prefer to pursue a romantic relationship with another woman than with a man.  (This isn't made any easier by the fact that the culture of young men and boys still leads them to behave in crude ways.  Girls wonder---I certainly did---whether the fact that boys behaved like assholes was what was putting me off, or the fact that I'd rather be Touched by another woman than by A man.  As I grew older, my tolerance increased; I could give a boorish young man a second chance, and a third chance, but I began to feel that it was a waste of time.  I was the bigger problem, and not they.

All this takes time.  And when that blessed day comes when you realize that you can relate to most girls a lot better than to most guys, it is soon followed by an even more blessed day on which you encounter a girl who looks at you in a special way.

I can easily imagine the sort of desperation that takes hold off a queer woman when she meets someone who could be special.  I have, but I've never had the courage to take the first step, though I have wanted to do so very, very much.  I can't provide more details without endangering my anonymity, but it is a sort of desperate relief, like a drowning woman, I can imagine that the instinct to capture that welcome prospect, and bind to her with bands of steel is irresistible.

But I could be confusing my own feelings for universal lesbian instincts, and we must be careful.  But what's to be done?  Maybe life is too short to be waffling about whether you've found your soulmate.

Friday, June 24, 2022

What I Would Like in an Editor Program, as an Author of Ebooks

As you can see, today's post is a little unusual; I want to gripe--or rant--about editing / word-processing software with which I have to work, to create the disasters (or miracles) that my stories are.  The software I use is MSWord, which is perfectly fine, if I were printing out the stories.  But I'm converting them into ebooks, which Word does not directly support (as far as I know), and in any case, ebooks do not usually support everything that a typical author wants to use.  The e-readers I use do not even support an embedded font, which is frustrating.  My phone shows some of the stories in a font that I like, but my tablet does not--sometimes--and other times, it's the other way round.  I do not have the patience to investigate what the software companies--both Microsoft, and the e-reader manufacturers--imagine authors and writers want or need.  I'm going to tell them, right here.

What A Basic E-book Word-Processor Should Provide

Fonts:  There should be a minimum of 2: Firstly a serif font, such as Cambria, or Garamond, or Droid Serif, or Palatino, which are the fonts I principally use.  If they want to, they could give the user a once-and-for-all-times choice, at least for each document, for which font is going to be their serif font.  Secondly, they should also supply a fixed-width, or a sans-serif font.  They are not the same, but they do provide an alternate regular font face, if one is needed, e.g. for displaying a letter.

Font Effects:  By these I mean such (essential) things as Italics, bold, subscript, superscript.  Less important (not quite as essential) are strikeout, underline, and colors.  I could use a gray of a medium level.

Line and Paragraph Spacing:  There are two main ways to indicate paragraph separation: by indenting, and by extra paragraph spacing.  I like to do the latter; this post, for instance, has paragraphs indicated by a little vertical space.  I think both options should be provided, but I don't think it makes sense to give the writer control over how much spacing, or how much indentation is provided.  Every additional thing the software sets out to provide is (A) one more thing that could go wrong, and which the writer could inadvertently use to get into trouble, and (B) one more reason the software will become larger, and more unwieldy, and slower.

Special Characters: I would like an m-dash, a cedilla (for spelling words such as façade, or soupçon).  If the software provided the option for ligatures, such as ï¬„ which would be used in words such as shuffle, that would be a plus, but I can see where most authors would look at such a thing cross-eyed, and feel that it is unnecessary.  There are a whole set of those, all of which I would like, and most other authors would never miss.  Also ñ, which comes in useful in words such as mañana and señorita.  The tilde is readily available, but not to attach it to an 'n' easily.

Hyphenation: this is really a function of the e-reader; it ought to split words on the fly, so that when the text is not justified (i.e., when spaces are not expanded to make the right margin even), the presence of extra-long words doesn't make the right margin look totally stupid and ragged.  Slight raggedness is, of course, inevitable in un-justified text.  In justified text, the presence of un-split long words results in entire rivers of white flowing down the text body, which is almost worse than ragged right margins.  So writers of editing software (or word-processing software, whichever is the current term preferred by you folks): disregard the issue of hyphenation.

That's enough for the moment, but I can see myself adding to this list after I have had a little think, as she said in The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Kay

Monday, June 20, 2022

Louisa Alcott: Little Women, Little Men

I was given Little Men by Louisa Alcott when I was about 13, and somehow it was the perfect book to get me started on reading.  Of course, thirteen is a little late for learning to read, but I was reading "children's books" until then, and Little Men was a sort of transitional book.

It was transitional in a way that Little Women never was.  To this day, I don't know what it is about Little Women that sets it a little apart from other books of that time; even the Laura Ingalls Wilder books were---different---from the Louisa May Alcott books.  I could try to put my finger on some differences, but they may not be the crucial ones.  Little W. had a large palette canvas; as far as I am concerned, it tells me almost all that I need to know about Louisa M. Alcott and her times, and her concerns, and her values!  It taught me about people, and about how life is so unfair.

In contrast, Little Men seemed to speak about simple things: decency, generosity, honesty, responsibility, and industry, and also greed and indolence!  Little W. was also about heartbreak, and patience, and rebelling against societal norms; both books are about that, I must concede.  I ought to go back and read Little Women, but I seem to remember a lot less editorializing in that one, whereas Little Men, I'm sorry to say, has lots of embedded sermons, as though LMA didn't trust her audience to draw the right morals from the story.  But that was the state of the art at that time; authors were obliged to underscore the morals in their work.  Some authors, such as Jane Austen, would point out obvious and superficial morals, while there were deeper implications hidden between the lines, which she left alone.  Maybe I'm imagining it, but I thought I saw numerous values that Jane Austen didn't care to, or dare to, draw attention to.

Today we know---have known for years---that Louisa's father, Bronson Alcott, was a friend of Ralph Waldo Emerson, and is considered a transcendentalist.  Many of the values that Louisa embeds in Little M. are ahead of their time, and flow from the ideas of the transcendentalists.  For whatever reason, I have to confess that though I am not a practising Christian, in the sense of being subscribed to an accepted denomination, I broadly accept the moral teachings of Jesus.  But from a practical point of view, I recognize that my morals are derived largely from Little Men by Louisa May Alcott.  ('May' is actually Louisa's mother's family name.)

There are a few clichetic features in both stories; they both propagate the principle that it is good and innocent people who die young.  In Little Women, Beth, the pianist, the sister whom everybody loves, dies of scarlet fever; in Little Men, John Brooke, who is initially introduced in Little Women as the long-suffering tutor of young Teddy Laurence, who eventually marries Meg March, Jo's oldest sister, dies.

Jo (Josephine) Bhaer (nee March) is, without doubt, Louisa Alcott's most brilliant invention.  There are some amusing surveys in Good Reads for readers to vote for their favorite character in each of the Little books, and I shake my head at any choice but Jo.  Of course, all the characters are painfully wonderful, and eminently worthy of being 'favorited'.  But the transformation of Jo's character is just too beautifully carried out to leave me the option of choosing anyone else, though Meg, Beth, and Laurie, and Amy, and even their mother, 'Marmee', are all perfectly reasonable choices.  (Apropos of nothing, Christian Bale, who plays Laurie in the Winona Ryder version of Little Women does such a good job, that no other version could possibly work for me!  Apologies to Saiorse Ronan.)

Though I have criticised aspects of these two books, and it is tempting to speculate whether they can be edited to conform with 20th-21st century literary norms, I am certain that modifying the stories in any way would be to their detriment.  But I could be wrong; someone might do it, and we might marvel at the success of the experiment!  These are amazing books, and if you anticipate that there might be moralizing to be found, you could safely skip the offending paragraphs if you're reading the books for the first time.  Warning: some of the moralizing is essential, but I can't think of how to identify those portions.

Kay