12.06.2012

The Crying Game Review (sort of)

Sometimes I happen across the weirdest movies and I just don't understand how this always happens to me. If you've ever seen The Crying Game, maybe you know where I'm coming from. Just so you know, spoilers will ensue.


The Crying Game is marketed by it being a "psychological thriller" and having a severe plot twist. But here's the thing. I just don't get it.


It starts off with this horny British soldier who gets captured by these Irish soldier guys who hold him hostage in exchange for one of their men. There's one captor, Fergus, who is really amiable and nice to the British guy, and they kind of hit it off or whatever. So the British guy shows Fergus a picture of his woman back home, and he tells Fergus that if he dies, he wants Fergus to protect her.

But here's the thing. When he showed Fergus the picture I was confused because I was thinking to myself, "Why is Rob Pilatus from Milli Vanilli in that picture?" Because….the woman looked like a man.



And the best part is, the INCREDIBLE PLOT TWIST was that….surprise! She was a transgender woman. The end.


So needless to say, I was still waiting for a bigger mystery to unveil itself during the whole movie because I knew the whole time that this was a transgender woman. But Fergus didn't, so I guess that added some suspense. But I just don't understand why it is considered a plot twist, because it was so very obvious. And not just to me…she had an Adam's Apple. So I don't understand…was the audience supposed to think she was a woman like Fergus, or was the audience supposed to be clued in? I don't know because apparently everyone on the internet just loves it and such and I'm rambling now, but it was a really horrible movie, but I always enjoy Forest Whitaker.




9.27.2012

Why I Hate Twilight: Part II E


Why I Hate Twilight Part II: Relationships are Toxic and Abusive
Section E: The Fatally Contagious Infectious Disease of Imprinting



"It's not like love at first sight, really. It's more like... gravity moves.... suddenly. It's not the earth holding you here anymore, she does.... You become whatever she needs you to be, whether that's a protector, or a lover, or a friend." -- Jacob Black, Eclipse


Oh how deep, Jacob. Really. That's quite profound. Heaven forbid those feelings develop when you actually fall in love with someone through a deep connection formed by spending time with that person and learning about them. Their fears, their desires, their quirks, their attributes. No, that's just silly. Why fall in love the "normal" way when you can have fate take complete control? Who needs free will? Being forced to love someone is so much more romantic.


You thought I forgot about this series, didn't you? Not to worry. I've been planning to write this for a while now. For about 9 months actually. I told you I was a good procrastinator. Yes. So if you haven't already guessed, I'm going to talk about the lovely phenomenon known as imprinting in the Twilight series. Imprinting is defined as "the involuntary mechanism by which Quileute shape-shifters find their soul-mates".

Basically, for those of you who haven't read Twilight, Jacob is part of a Native American tribe whose members turn into werewolves when a threat (vampires) persists nearby. Jacob tells Bella that sometimes, in very rare circumstances, a member of the "pack" will imprint on a member of the opposite sex. This is a process of deep affection and there are many stages to it. When this happens, the shape-shifter will be bound unconditionally to this person for the rest of his/her life. Everything else in life becomes secondary and overshadowed. It's as if the world has shifted and gravity is pulling the shape-shifter towards this person.

Right. So let's break this down.



Stephenie Meyer isn't toying with your emotions. She's not a good enough writer for that. And these are the reasons why.



1) Free will is a concept of the past. A shape-shifter doesn't get to choose anymore. Once they imprint, every decision they make is a reflection upon the force tethering them to their one and only.  The argument here in support of imprinting is that the imprinter would WANT to make those decisions anyway. And even if they had a real choice, the end result would be the same.

But how would they even know?

In my mind, imprinting is comparable to illicit drug use. How do you think clearly when your μ receptors are being delightfully stimulated by opiοids? You don't.


2) "It's one of those bizarre things we have to deal with. It doesn't happen to everyone. In fact it's the rare exception, not the rule..."   Rare huh? Let's look at the statistics. By the end of the saga, there are 17 members of the pack accounted for. So out of those 17 werewolves, we know that at least 5 of them have imprinted. That's almost 30 percent. ONE WHOLE THIRD of the tribe had this incredibly rare and special phenomenon happen to them. Shall we return to math class, Stephenie? Or maybe pull out that thesaurus you love, and look up what rare means. I'll get you started: unlikely, infrequent, deficient, seldom, inconceivable, uncommon, isolated, unheard of….. 


3) Why on earth can a werewolf imprint on a baby? Why is this a thing that happens? Stephenie really tried to explain her way out that one. Because, see at first, the imprinter is like an older sibling. Later on, a best friend. Love blossoms over time…blah blah blah.

No. The imprinter still knows that someday he will want to be in a physical relationship with that baby, which is incredibly creepy. There is so much wrong with that.

Bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia…sounds like the makings of a bestseller to me. For sure.


I want you to think of your favorite romance. 

It can be a comedy. It can be a drama. It can be a Disney movie.

Do you have it? Good.


Do you want to know why you love it? It's because you love the way the characters fall in love. The story. The journey.

… actually, now that I think about it, Disney isn't the best example if you're thinking of the classic Princess movie.

But nonetheless, even movies that invoke "fate" as a device to tell the story, leave some of it up to witty repartee and cute montages.


But Steph says, To hell with all that. Let's just have the characters fall so deeply in love with each other that the only possible explanation for such affection could be absolute fate. I'll admit, she writes manipulatively enough to convince you that this is something the characters would want, because this "love" is so real that you wouldn't want it any other way.


I call bullshit. 


I want to love someone because I want to love them. I want the fall. Love is a process that can't be calculated or forced upon you by some all-consuming higher power. 

Imprinting isn't a fall. It's a wind-knocking shove in the fatal direction. 




8.05.2012

Things I know must have happened in the world of Harry Potter, though they are never strictly mentioned.

  • Dudley Dursley's wife gave birth to a darling wizard boy 
    • Vernon died shortly thereafter from shock

  • Sirius Black had an affair with Madame Rosmerta while he was at Hogwarts that was quite reminiscent of The Graduate.

  • Rose Weasley and Scorpius Malfoy fell in love despite their valiant efforts to hate each other.
    • Parents not pleased. 
    • Red-haired grandparents parents even less pleased.
    • Blonde-haired grandparents never came to wedding. 

  • Luna's husband died tragically while hunting a crumple-horned snorkack, and she mourned him quietly in a cozy cottage by the sea. It was years later that a lonely wizard moved in beside her. The two rekindled their old friendship and realized that they would be much happier married to each other. 
    • And, yes, it was Dean Thomas.

  • Severus Snape still to this day, curses Harry from his grave. Snape had thought he made it quite clear to Harry while he was living that he despised the scarred, arrogant troublemaker. Apparently not. Harry still had the gull to name his middle child after him. I mean, really.
  • It was Lily Luna Potter, not Albus or James, that inherited her father's superb flying skills. She became Gryffindor seeker, and played just as well (if not better) than him.

  • Cho Chang is a ninny

  • Susan Bones dropped an egg carton at the supermarket, slipped on the slimy yolks, and fell to her death because she's that lame.

  • Gregory Goyle was actually a genius, but just pretended to be half-witted to make his best friend and fellow crony, Vincent Crabbe, feel better about himself.
    • This loyal mark of friendship went unacknowledged by everybody, including the Sorting Hat 
      • Dumbledore had always said they sort too soon…..

  • Peter Pettigrew refused any meal that wasn't mostly made of cheese.

  • Voldemort died a 72-year-old virgin.

  • Hermione told Harry that she stuffed her beaded bag in her sock when the snatchers came and took them to Malfoy Manor. Hermione obviously lied because that isn't possible 
    • (unless she was wearing jeans)
      • (I tried it)

  • There were too many cats (as previously discussed)


  • Cormac McLaggen always wondered who his father was. His mother refused to talk about it, and it was only after years of searching (and some reluctant help from Hermione) that he discovered the truth.
    • But he was probably better off; Gilderoy Lockhart would never have made a good father.

  • Pansy Parkinson had a mad crush on Seamus Finnigan but never told anyone

  • Winky was never quite since her dismissal from Master Crouch, but was able to regain some of her former cheerfulness after being hired by her new master, Percy Weasley
    • This act did not go unnoticed by Hermione who eventually had to accept it because Winky burst into tears every time she mentioned freeing the elf.

  • Ginny and Harry had a dispute over the location of their future home…
    • Harry didn't understand what was so wrong with Grimmauld Place, and Ginny was there rolling her eyes being all like, "Get real Harry".  And he was like, "Think about Kreacher! He loves that place", and Ginny said "Kreacher also likes Death Eaters and Sirirus' mom." An exasperated sigh from Harry followed. "That was in the past Ginny! He's changed since then. He makes like really good soup now." And then Ginny was all, "Fine. You and the seriously distrubed house-elf can live happily-ever-after in that grimy, dark wizard pen. I'm going to go get some fresh air," and promptly flew away on her broom, as Harry seethed from the ground.

7.15.2012

Foreign Wizardry: A (Poorly-Composed) Harry Potter Essay

International Magical Cooperation.


I've been thinking a lot about it lately as I spend what little free time I have whiling away the hours with my nose in Harry Potter. It used to annoy me how there was so little mentioned of foreign witches and wizards in the series, and my annoyance was restored after reading Goblet of Fire again.

Did you know American witches and wizards are mentioned only ONCE in the entire series? To boil down everything America is into a couple of witches at the World Cup, gossiping under a spangled banner is a crime.

And as I sat, obsessing over that tiny window through which the smallest glimpse of foreign wizardry can be seen outside of Europe, I began to construct an alternate HP world in my mind. A more accurate version (in my ever-so-humble opinion, of course).

Picture this though.

You have a dark wizard. Goes by the name of Voldemort. He's your regular, run-of-the-mill, power-hungry lunatic who likes to kill for sport.  Do you think, for one moment, that he isn't going to try to expand his filthy, death-ridden empire? I mean, come on. The man shares his brain with a snake. The day he stops dreaming of world domination is the day I eat my dog.

And I don't have any pets.

It's as likely as this conversation taking place:

Wormtail: "Master, I've been drawing up a few designs. We can take over Spain by the end of the month if we gain control of the water-ways and everyone's minds'. We can be over seas by June if we keep up the pace. We'll need manpower though. Might I suggest recruiting the giants?"

Voldemort: "Quiet, Wormtail! You are too ambitious. I told you from the outset, that if we were going to do this, we were going to do it gradually and cautiously. I don't want to expand further than Great Britain. If I control Britain, that will be enough of me. Don't you know me enough by now to know that I am easily contented with what I have in front of me? I never want more than what I have."


Right. Because that would happen.                  (sarcasm)


My point is, if you were to take the world of Harry Potter and stick it right in the middle of the real world, I believe a few things would be different.

Firstly, we know that Voldemort is quite the world traveler… with his jaunts to Egypt and Albania and whatnot. So why is Britain the only country that seems to be worrying about him? Voldemort is cray, and there is little chance that he wouldn't want to destroy all the other countries in the the world as well, so I think the books should have definitely included more of this aspect. And I think the magical leaders of those countries should have done some allying up. Which brings me to my next point.

Given American's foreign policy, if there was a powerful, muggle-killing, snake-man on the loose in Europe, I hardly doubt Americans wouldn't go try and stop him. I mean just look at our track record… We're basically just a whole bunch of crazy Gryffindors brandishing our swords and yelling out profanities in the name of Justice… Our national Magical Military would be the first on the scene, shouting out the mantra, "You will like democracy!" while forcing Voldemort into a in a red and white striped straightjacket with fireworks shooting out their wands. If Voldemort were real, we would have tried to stop him. I'm not saying we would have been able to for sure, but we would have at least been there in the thick of things.

And speaking of being in the thick of things, why are there only three wizarding schools allowed in the Tri-Wizard cup? Why couldn't it be the Icosa-Wizard cup and allow twenty schools to compete? I know that it was originally created for the three largest European schools, but why the exclusion? Why can't those overseas play? What about Africa? I'm sure they'd love a shot. What's wrong with our Australian friends? Not good enough? Silliness.


You know, I'd be happy with even a minor change in the series. For instance, would it have been so bad to make Luna a foreign-exchange student? How hard would that have been? Then we would at least know what a non-European wizarding school was like. And actually, such a program was even alluded to in GOF when Ron mentions that Bill used to have a pen-friend who lived in Brazil. So it's not far-fetched. Really. It's not.

Anyway.

I just don't think that the borders of Great Britain could contain Voldemort. Not at all. So I wish that JK Rowling would have constructed his story line to include the fact that the whole world was against him (of course, it's implied, but I'm just not seeing the action). And if she left it out by design, why? Because that just seems unrealistic to me.


I'm not complaining, I'm just letting my fingers go. They've been itching to do something besides counting pills and change. And JK Rowling, if you're reading this, I'm so honored to have you in my internet presence, and disregard everything I ever wrote. Love, Lexie.

4.29.2012

Character Lovers Anonymous.

The Perplexities of Characters and Why they Ruin Our Lives
in Addition to Making them Worth Living

Part III: Words: The Most Infallible Love Potion


Hey there. Welcome to the last post in this exhausted series. And when I say, "exhausted", I'm mostly talking about my brian. Also my brain.



Meeting leader: Welcome everyone. I'm glad you are all here. Let's take a moment and introduce ourselves, shall we? Let's start with you. You, with the frizzy hair and the bags under your eyes. What's your name, and tell us why you're here?

Me: Hi everyone. I'm Lexie. And I… and I fall in love with characters.

Meeting leader: Ahh yes. I think we call can relate to this. Why don't you explain.

Me: Oh geez. Where to begin? Well… let's see… I think the best place to start would be the Disney Princes. I mean, how could you not fall in love? I was so young, too. You've got Aladdin with his adventurous and lively personality, and Prince Philip with his quick wit… Prince Eric never really did anything for me, but once the Beast shed his growly wall of defense…I was a goner. There was no going back. They all have such chiseled jaws too. Sigh. 

And then of course there was every male character in Harry Potter. I think I've had a crush on every one of them at some point (with the obvious exceptions of Dumbledore, Hagrid, Karkaroff, Pettigrew, Crabbe, Goyle, and the majority of the Death eaters. Oh and Colin Creevy). I realized the depth of my attachment to characters through my HP journey. That was really a wake-up call. 

And then there was Darcy of course. He still causes me to go weak in the knees (which is perhaps one of the most embarrassing side effects on account of me not being a mushy gushy, lovey dovey type person). Basically every P&P based story causes me to fall hard, e.g., Tom Hanks in You've Got Mail and Jimmy Stewart in Shop around the Corner.

Jim Halpert. My ideal. Absolutely. He is the reason I have given up hope on ever finding love. I'm almost sure no one will ever compare. Which is really heartbreaking. Oh please, someone (some man out there), prove me wrong. 

Is that a good overview? Is that enough to go on for now? Is there anyway you can help me through this? Please? I'm begging you. I need help. 


You have to know what I'm talking about. I know you do. I'm pretty sure that every female ever, who ever read a book or watched a movie, has fallen in love. At least once. You can't hide from this truth. You have to acknowledge and accept it! That has to be the first step in coping. It has to be.

Why do the men we read about or watch on the TV seem so desirable? Why do they seem so perfectly charming, talented and flawed in all the right ways? Why? Why does this happen to us?

It actually concerns me a little bit. It's unfair to the men in the world. I'm not saying that book or movie characters can ever compare to real people, but I think that sometimes…sometimes they set high standards. Unreal standards. And I think it's hard to let go.

I don't know the answer to this problem. I love characters. I love getting lost in their worlds. I just wish it was easier to emerge back out.

It's like when you take a really long, hot shower on a cold winter morning. Coming out of the shower into the cruel, unforgiving, crisp air is excruciating.

Coming back to reality after immersing yourself in a book or movie is like that.

And it's really upsetting.



(Male bloggers, how does this work for you? Do you often fall in love with characters as well? I'm thinking you must.)



And that concludes this miniseries. I hope you didn't die of boredom and/or lack of creativity.

Tomorrow: We conquer the beast.




4.28.2012

"I go to seek a Great Perhaps"

The Perplexities of Characters and Why they Ruin Our Lives
in Addition to Making them Worth Living

Part II: The Legend of the Reckless Heroine

I love strong, vibrant female characters. I find it easy to look up to them. They have traits that anyone would want.

But I've noticed, recently, that some writers take it a step further. A step toward the unstable, or the impulsive.

Let me explain. I'm sure you've all read the Hunger Games. Yes? Well Katniss is an example of an independent, intelligent and admirable female character. She, in a way, empowers women. Or at least that's how I see it. And I love her.

I also love John Green. A lot. But. I sometimes have an issue with the way people view his characters. In Looking for Alaska, the main girl, Alaska Young, is certainly a stand-out character. But not in the same way Katniss is. She's headstrong, but reckless. Wild and enigmatical. And big. And Miles, the narrator, falls for her.

Looking for Alaska is a beautiful story, and I wouldn't change it, but I just have a hard time believing in Alaska.

I have never met anyone like her. Have you? And I really can't relate. I'm not saying I have it all together. No, quite the contrary. It's just that I find it really hard to relate to so dynamic and self-descructive of a character. She's larger than life. And she makes it look desirable almost. Tragic and insufferable. But desirable. She's a paradox. I love that such a character could be created, but I have yet to find her in life.

And maybe that's part of the beauty of it. A book is an escape. Right? But like I mentioned yesterday, we seek to find similarities between ourselves and the characters we read or see. And maybe I'm the only one, but I don't understand Alaska. She's a mystery. Which could be, perhaps, what the author intended.


But Alaska isn't the only one who fits this description. Multiple books and movies display this type of female lead.

Clementine Kruczynski is desperate, careless and impulsive. Scarlett O'Hara is self-serving, vain and incredibly loyal. Summer Finn is quirky, distant and flaky. Daisy Buchanan is selfish, shallow and effervescent.  Holly Golightly is lost, charming and naive. *


*Clementine from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Scarlett from Gone with the Wind
Summer from 500 Days of Summer
Daisy Buchanan from The Great Gatsby
Holly from Breakfast at Tiffany's



I love all most of these characters dearly. For the most part, they're real. So real. And that's what I love about them. But they also have another quality. An air of mystery. Something not so easily described or portrayed.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that these characters are messed up. Most of them even admit it. But the "perfect" (notice the quotations) guy falls in love with them anyway. They make normal seem overrated.

And I use the term "normal" loosely. What I mean is that most of them make wearing a straight jacket look alluring. It's like the only true way to make a guy fall for you is too be as ambiguous or reckless or irritating as possible. It will give your relationship passion. That will surely win him over.  I just have the feeling that people think, the only way to be an interesting person is to be like Alaska Young.

And I think that's the completely wrong message.

People. Just normal people. Are messed up in some way. This is what being human is all about. And these female characters exemplify this well. But almost too well.

I can't speak for the whole world, but I'm going to anyway. I think we love these characters because they are so different from the norm. They are infecting. And beautiful in their own way. They don't set lofty standards for people. They allow room for failure. I can definitely appreciate that. But they make this failure look flawless. Which I always thought was impossible.

People want to be them anyway.

Sometimes it's hard. It's hard knowing that these are the type of people we seem to love (minus Daisy, because honestly she sucks).


Because I can't be Alaska Young for you. And I don't want to.



4.27.2012

"I'm nobody! Who are you?"

The Perplexities of Characters and Why They Ruin Our Lives 
in Addition to Making them Worth Living

 Part I: People Who Think They are Characters

These posts are coming to you from a female perspective. I mean, it's not any different than usual, but it just might seem more glaringly obvious this time. Just keep that in mind when you feel the need to disagree, male bloggers. Keep that in mind.


Do you know why we love characters of books, movies and television shows? It's because we notice similarities between these characters and ourselves. We see visions of who we could be, and what we could amount to. We admire them. We can relate. We get the feeling that we aren't alone. That someone understands. We are always in search for connection. And definition. It's a component of the human condition.

I could sit here and tell you about all of the characters I think resemble myself (and there are a fair few), but I won't. Why? Because it would annoy the freaking hell out of you.


It irritates me to no end when someone compares themselves to a character because, essentially, this is what they are doing:

1) Stealing a bit of that character from you. 

2) Flattering themselves undeservedly.

3) Being pretentious.

Hmm let me address all of these separately so you don't think I'm unreasonable.

1) I don't want to share characters. That sounds ridiculous, because of course you have to share them. First, you have to share them with the actual writer who chose to share them with you. Second, you have to share them with the entire world. Fair enough. But here's the thing, I bet you don't want to share them either do you? Every one of us has a favorite book or movie that is special to us for a personal reason. We each have our own personalized version of characters we love and characters we hate. We make them our own. But then guess what? Something like this will happen.

Person: Hey you know that book called "[Blankety Blank]"?

You: DO I? That's my favorite!

Person: Yea well, [Blank], the main character and hero of the novel, is basically my clone. We are so alike, it's ridiculous.

You: Die.

It's especially awful when this person is someone you often feel like punching. How insulting to that poor character to be compared to this person?! There is no conceivable way this person is anything like that character. Not in your head, anyway. And now they have corrupted what you held dear. And it's heartbreaking.


2) It takes a lot of nerve to go around telling everyone how closely you can relate to well-known, famously appreciated characters. A lot of the time, these are characters that society looks up to, and they have admirable qualities. How incredibly conceited do you have to be to go around boasting about how you think you are just like that character everybody likes?

"Yea, you know Cool Hand Luke ? That's basically my life."

"I can totally relate to Rachel Bilson's character form the OC. Our lives are, like, the same. We're the same. For real."

"I just realized, I'm totally Chandler Bing."

"As I was reading, I couldn't help but notice just how similar Lizzy Bennet and I are. We are both dragged down with loads of bratty sisters, we both read constantly, and we are both really sensible. And strong-willed. And beautiful." 

Wow. How great for you.

I think it's perfectly fine to find similarities between you and characters. It's the whole point. But once you find it necessary to proclaim how "awesome" you are, well then we have a problem.


3) There was once a guy I knew who wore a red hunting hat similar to Holden Caulfield's hat, for like a month (even indoors), because he thought he was Holden Caulfield. HE THOUGHT HE WAS LIKE HOLDEN CAULFIELD, one of the most, relatable, real and well-known characters of all time. How original. Please. Save it. You aren't the only person who finds parts of themselves in a character. 


We can have discussions and rants and be consumed in all things WRITING. But let's not lose sight of what matters. If we should be lucky enough to find words that really speak to us…words that seem to just know… then of course we should soak it up or spread the word… But I think people often find themselves in the more shallow end of the "character appreciation spectrum". Of course I love finding characteristics of myself in characters I like, but I'm not going to croak to the world about it. Because, frankly, no one cares.


From reading this, you can probably guess that I spend a lot of my time around really obnoxious people. The things I complain about are trivial, but what else am I going to do with all this time on my hands? 


Whohoo! Four mintues to spare! Take that BEDA


4.07.2012

Productivity (and inside jokes on the internet are the best).

I am not a normal individual. If you've read any of my posts, you could probably have figured that out fairly quickly. And like those lacking in normalcy, I spend my time on things that others would consider a waste. For instance, I have yet to see the harm in rereading a novel 7 times or color-coding my closet. I procrastinate by googling "procrastination" and I plan to paint a set of Russian Nesting dolls like Harry Potter characters. I see nothing wrong with any of this, but the rolled eyes of others have not gone unobserved. Which is why the irony did not escape me as I was discussing my latest idea with a fellow blogger queen.

Productivity Points.

It's a system of ranking how productive your day has been. Each activity you perform, you get a certain amount of points. Once the day is over, you add your points and see where your number lands on the ULTIMATE PRODUCTIVITY SCALE.

The following is a list of activities and the points associated with them.


  • Sleeping: -2 per hour (-4 every hour past 10 AM)
  • Waking up: +14
  • Showering: +3
  • Going to work/class: +15
  • Skipping work/class: -15
  • Eating food (one of three main meals): +4
  • Eating food (do you really need to eat that?): -2
  • Internet (for work, school, DIY): +7
  • Internet (Facebooking, meme-finding, youtube-watching, tweeting, tumblring, pinteresting): -5 per hour
  • Internet (Porn): -5 
  • Internet (Porn…but only to help improve my technique, honest!): +0.3
  • Talking to people: +1 per person
  • Gossiping to people: -1 per person (unless the gossip is part of an elaborate plan to save someone you love, in which case: +15)
  • Studying/Homework: +8 per assignment
  • Fixing a toilet: +15
  • Making dinner for a family of at least three: +12
  • Blog post: +3.5
  • Blog post in April: +7
  • Blog post used as procrastination technique: -3
  • Singing along to your favorite song: 0
  • Choreographing dance to your favorite song: +2.7
  • Watching TV: -4 per hour
  • Watching News: +1 per hour (until it comes to the point where they just re-report everything you've already seen: -1 per hour)
  • Knitting a scarf: +4
  • Reading book: +4 per 100 pages
  • Night on the town (drunk): -4 (because you will need to take time out of tomorrow to correct possible mistakes)
  • Night on the town (not drunk): +3
  • Shopping (essentials): +5
  • Shopping (do you really need that?): -0.5 per item
  • Cleaning something: +6
  • Learning a new skill (small): +5
  • Learning a new skill (large): +10
  • Went outside: +3.5
  • Went back inside after 10 minutes: -6
  • Exercise: +5 per hour
  • Family outing: +8
  • Making a family tree: +9
  • Cutting down an oak tree: -3 (unless it's for survival: +9.8)
  • Finished a task (small): +11
  • Finished a task (large): +22
  • Feeding the ducks: +2


ULTIMATE SCALE OF PRODUCTIVITY

14 and below: Incredibly Unproductive
0-15: Unproductive
16-39: Mildly Productive
40-60: Productive
61 and up: Incredibly Productive


I just realized that this has a strong correlation with The Sims.

I'm thinking I'm going to invent a pocket-sized electronic Scale of Productivity, so people can keep track at all times. It's going to take the world by storm.



Right. File this under "Ways Lexie Avoids Showering"



1.19.2012

Why I Hate Twilight: Part II D


Why I Hate Twilight Part II: Relationships are Toxic and Abusive
Part D: Edward Physically Abuses Bella



Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it's that time again. If you remember, last discussed was the various examples of mental abuse throughout the series. But we can't overlook the obvious. 

Bella has taken a beating. Literally.



Now first let's get out of the way the notion some of you may have that Edward doesn't want to hurt Bella, and that he's warned her constantly that he can hurt her with the smallest touch. Guess what? It doesn't work that way.

Imagine an abusive husband being tried in court for domestic violence trying to explain himself, "I mean, I TOLD her that I have strong hands. It's not my fault that I threw her out the window. I didn't want to repeatedly beat her. It's not my fault."

That wouldn't fly. 


And yes. Though it is true that Edward hates himself every time he hurts Bella in any way, it doesn't change the fact that she still has bruises over her body. And it also doesn't matter that Bella doesn't seem to mind. Because, as already discussed, Bella is slightly insane.


So. When does he abuse her?  

On page 89, my friends.


Under the dusting of feathers, large purple bruises were beginning to blossom across the pale skin of my arm. My eyes followed the trail they made up to my shoulder and then down across my ribs. I pulled my hand free to poke at the discoloration of my left forearm, watching it fade where I touched it and then reappear. It throbbed a little. (Breaking Dawn, 89.)


Hmmm yes. I can tell his intentions were honorable as he ravished her in this way.



Also. There's that time when he like rips open her uterus or whatever when she's in labor, and then, like, turns her into a vampire. I think that also counts as abuse. Because even though he was just trying to save her from the demon child, he's the one who put it there.


Perfect.


Anyway. The point you can't overlook is the fact that Stephenie Meyer has gotten away with making this abusive main character desirable because he's proper, depressed and self-deprecating. This is not okay. This is called single-handedly destroying everything the Women's Rights Movement has achieved with a single sparkly fruit of a character. 




Or at least that's what it seems like in my mind.