Click the image to take action!

Want to know more?

Chicago Sun Times’ Andy Ihnatko says it well – The big hammer of SOPA, PIPA will only crush Internet freedom

My first stirrings of appreciation for the Text Figure or “hanging number” was playing the game Vagrant Story [Wikipedia]. You can see it in the HP/MP stats in the upper left of the image.

Notice how clear the number 265 reads. There is no ambiguous numbers, plus it looks smart! I also think subconciously my possitive assotiation with this game has also led me to hand writing my numbers with a more “swooshy” “9″. Also now that I’m looking at it, my 4′s are now also looking a little like this too. Hm. Interesting.

This topic came to mind while I was reading a really cool post about free type faces on Smashing Magazine [smashing magazine]. In the line up of the type faces is one called Open Sans [font squirrel] and in their comments they mention that it has “hanging numbers” which made me look up what that meant and remember where I first saw them. It also gave me a greater appreciation for them. I never knew they were a more specific thing other than a cool element of Vagrant Story.

Now that you’ve done that, below are my thoughts.

Brave vs. The Princess “Problem”

Derrick, et. all;

I appreciated you finding and acknowledging a female perspective on the state of animated features and the roles women have in them. It still bugs me a bit that the female lead has to prove that that she’s as tough/strong/smart as a man to be accepted. I do think it is a good thing to show that a woman is a man’s equal but why is it always on a man’s terms or referencing what are traditionally masculine activities, fighting, shooting, hunting, etc. Why not show more females who are female and equal without being “one of the guys”? That is one thing that I think Tangled did pretty well. Rapunzel is accepted as herself and that was her strength. She wasn’t above a little violence, she did smack “Flynn” Eugene around with the frying pan. And yet when presented with a insane situation like the Snugly Duckling’s band of brigands her dream and heart are what turned them to her aid instead of flaying Flynn. A good example of a strong female character, is Nani from Lilo and Stich. She is never shown as having to be “one of the guys” to be accepted and ultimately it is her being herself, being open and strong, that helps bring everything together for the happy ending.

There’s not a thing wrong w/ the “tough lady” characters, Ripley is one my faves, although it seems like that’s given more social weight, and I think it would be worthwhile to have more strong female leads who don’t need to be “a dude but better looking”. I would want a woman to have the same freedom of choice as a man would, if she wants to be rough and tumble more power to her. If she wants to be a more “traditional” lady that should also be fine. And again she should not have to prove herself “a man” to be free to choose her place.

I admit I’m making some assumptions about the plot of Brave, which are something of a stretch given that all that I’ve seen is the trailer. I also acknowledge that I will probably go and see this movie and enjoy it. I also believe that my assumed enjoyment of the film does not absolve film makers of stretching themselves and making other types of characters. There is a bit of dialog from the trailer that does give me a lot of hope for this story, “I want my freedom!”, “But are you willing to pay the price for your freedom?”. I think that is a theme that can really be built upon, and I hope they don’t show her paying the price of freedom with her femininity. You shouldn’t have to lose who you are to be free.

Have I given up?

No, but I am being realistic about how much spare time I have to devote to this endevor. When I commited to it originally I was unemployed and was watching what little freelance work I had disappear infront of me. So I thought I had enough time. But then I got a full time – temp position, all of the freelance projects came back, and I became a DJ with my friend Joe at a college radio station. So :poof: there went the copious amounts of free time. I’m still going to write something but it’ll but a lot shorter than 50K words. As I was writing I realized that I wasn’t just “pants”ing a story I was writing charactes, researching history, proper foreign name constructions, etc on top of trying to write the novel. While many of these things aren’t “writing” and can be skiped I would have trouble being satisfied with that. This does show me how much work goes into a novel, no matter it’s level of quality.

Could I have done all of these things and written the novel?

Probably. I’m fairly certain there is enough time for it. I choose not to because

1. Need better project/time management
2. Need a little more planning and structure
3. I like spending time with my wife

Next year I’ll be better prepared. That’s right I said next year! I’m going to do this! I will complete a full NaNoWriMo.

Also I will post what I do write this year. It’ll be a complete story, just not a novel

Writing is skill and art. And because it’s a skill it’s not _easy_. It seems easy, “Ya, ya’know … just write. yeah?” But it’s not quite that. Well not quite for me, right now anyway. I’ll admit there’s a pretty good chance I’m over thinking this. This is supposed to be fun. A chance to cut loose and let the words fly. Yeah. Right now I feel like I’m writing in a circle. I am not sure where to go or how to get there. This tells me I’m way over thinking it.

NaNoWriMo is about the “shity first draft”, that thing you plop on a page to then be dissected down to useful parts and rebuilt. It is not a finished product in and of itself. To get to the end of the project is the goal. A 50,000 word novel. It’s quite do able. Especially if you stop over thinking it.

I think I’m feeling the pressure because I’m about a day and a half behind on my word count, the goal is 1800 a day. I need to let go of _having_ to meet that goal. That and maybe spend a few more moments on a more solid plot arc. Too few plot points to aim for. I think that’ll be tomorrow’s lunch project.

Anyway, I’m not giving up. Just griping a bit. Thanks for “listening”.

I’m not a comics feminist scholar so there maybe some blind spots in what I say, please try to not pick on those, I think there is a point that can be made clear without a über deep knowledge of the back issues. While I may not be a feminist scholar, I do have some, rather long held thoughts, on the comics industry and the portrayal of women.

It doesn’t take a Rhode Scholar to see a major flaw in American Superhero comics, although to be fair the problems extend well beyond our shores. The covers and inner pages are a wash of distorted views of femininity and sexuality that are played off as liberated or self-acutated. It seems much more like a bunch of guys sat around saying, “Wouldn’t it be hawt if *insert name of character* was more like *insert male fantasy* while wearing *other male fantasy*. Did it go down like that? Not sure, many of these comics are by professionals and many of them have a reputation to uphold, but it does no make them above curious decisions. The dubiousness of the decisions made more glaring because so much of it seems sorta bolted on and adding nothing to the character.

Starfire

This seems most obvious in the changes made to the character of Starfire [wikipedia]. I knew her best from the animated TV show Teen Titans, where she was an interesting mix of Mork and a foreign exchange student. The TV version of her was delightfully fun and interesting. She was devoted to her friends and even reached out to those that wanted to destroy her (Terra). Her focus was on the good of those around her, which often made her a little naïve but in a very likable way. Her depiction in the comics has always been more sexual, see wikipedia and Comics Alliance, but there seemed to be an earnest heart behind her actions. Not seeking to do harm, but not always understanding the human heart. The ernest of her heart may not excuse her from being a poor female role model but it is at least consistent to her character.
Now if you read the linked Comics Alliance article you’ve read a very clear and pretty smart rationale about the dislike of this new take on the character. While a “restart” often pushes an “edgy” version of the character forward it really seems that this Starfire is less well developed than she could have been. It was not a necessity to take the character from the Teen Titans TV show as some would suggest, but it could have been really interesting to see some sort of meshing of the comic and TV version. That is a character i could have cared about, the one I see in Red Hood and the Outlaws isn’t one that I can even begin to understand let alone care about. Well, at least they can’t take the TV show version from me.

Catwoman

Catwoman makes for a more complicated situation since her character is a foil for Batman in both skill and sex appeal. She is the “unattainable” yet seemingly perfect match for him that creates a unique tension in her and in Batman. In years gone past she has often been plauged by poor and sexist writing that often played up the sex appeal. This left her often rather flat as a character. Yet in Batman: The Animated Series, there seemed to be a resurange of the more cunning, self assured, sensual, and more than a match for Batman. A Catwoman who had more in common with Julie Newmar than Halle Barrie (no offense to Ms. Barrie, but that movie was awful). This type of Catwoman lately seems to be falling by the wayside in favor of one that makes much more liberal use of the front zipper of her costume. The current one is still smart but it often seem she is more body than mind, and not in a really good way. The costume is much more believable as one being worn by a stealthy cat burglar, and yet the creative team seems much more interested in her being out of it than in it. Again, reference the Comics Alliance article for a very good breakdown of the way this is portrayed.

This misuse of an excellent character really bugs me. Especially in light of her excellent use in Batman: The Animated Series. While the show is not new, it did a really good job of using the tension between Catwoman and Batman to show her as probably the only woman who had a chance of understanding him as a man and as a mask. Sure Talia al Ghul also understood The Great Detective but Ra’s al Ghul and the tactics of the League of Shadows would always keep them apart, Selina Kyle had fewer complications, other than burglary. Interestingly enough both Talia and Selina are accomplished heads of organizations and major companies, when they aren’t partaking in their “pass times”. Which may not make them super standout but they do acquire some respect for this. It can’t be easy to be CEO and masked adventurer at the same time. It is hard to accept Catwoman as being something less than all that. She should be free to make her own choices and adhere to her own morality. It also seems to me that these can be expressed in a what that is more positive about her as a woman than as a sexual object.

So to wrap this “little” rant up I close with some posts by Aaron Diaz the talented artist and writer of Dresden Codak. Why? Well to me it shows that there can me a male behind a reboot/redesign and it not be annoying and crapy. His redesigns may not be perfect but they seem to be much more senseable and interesting than what the “pros” have done.

• Top 10 worst hero/villian redesigns
• Top 10 Best hero/villan redesigns
• 5 Essential Superhero Redesigns (I really like his Superman)

Other good related stories:

• The Big Sexy Problem with Superheroines and Their ‘Liberated Sexuality’ – Laura Hudson of Comics Alliance
• A Female take on superhero costume design
• Another humorous take on a character redesign; the new Harley Quinn as a dude

That’s when it hit me. Dominance doesn’t mean subjugation, it is understanding and respecting authority. Which is how I suspect God wants us to see him. Authority but not oppressive.

• Love must be an act of free will to be real.
• Love is action.
• To this I add, God is love therefor God is action.

If you feel like this isn’t exactly mind blowing, then you’re probably a much more emotional mature person. But for me it was a shot to the head. The fact that it’s my head that does most of the leading in my life is part of my trouble, not enough heart leading. I’m not always sure what heart leading will look like, but I know I gotta try. I can’t love if I’m holding my heart in check.

Stepping out/stepping up is difficult for me. My personality seeks to be at peace with all around me. I have taken that to an extreme that says “Peace with all around me at all costs”. This is not a good way to live. I have put myself in a very detrimental emotional position, because I have put so much of myself in the hands of others. But I am not satisfied with this situation. It is my goal to change this. To make my life my own.

This change in stance on my part may cause some tension between myself and others, but I’m gonna have to learn to weather and deal with that. I don’t think it will cost me any relationships. Which is what I was mostly running from. I will learn that people can be agreeable without having to agree. I also need to be okay with the fact that not everyone I encounter is going to like me. This is harder for me than I would have thought, but I’m not giving up. I need to be my own person, have my own life, and love. And the love will come out of the security that I have in who I am, and that the person who I am is loved.

One of the people I follow is Nathan Smith he is a web designer out of Texas. He often posts very good things, but today he dropped a bomb on me. He linked to a TED talk about vulnerability by Brene Brown [twitter, website] (link to video at the end of this post).

I started out just watching the video because it is a TED talk. These talks are a little different because each speaker has only 20 min for the entire talk. There is no going long. This makes the talks more focused and satisfying. But as I watched it the things she said were a bit gut wrenchingly close to home. Her talk was about what she found out from over six years of social research into human connections, what they mean and how they work. Most importantly how to reach that deep sense of connection that we as humans seek. I’ll not go into it too much since she does an excellent job of that in her talk.

Part of why it hit me hard was because she’s a scientist. She approaches the world very much the same way an engineer would. This is important because while I’m not an engineer, my dad was and I have learned and adopted may traits of the engineer mind, for better and worse. The talk could almost have been called “Caleb, this is how you can improve your life and love”.

Growing up in a solid family, and a church that is quite good about loving, this need to “improve” my ability to love may sound a bit odd. But I am fighting an astonishingly deep sense of low self worth. And one of the things that Ms. Brown has found in her research is that shame is one of the biggest blocks to vulnerability, which is the gateway to true connection and joy. And one of the markers of shame is being ashamed of oneself or one’s worth. All the years of teaching that I’ve been given should have helped me fight this years ago. But we humans are quite stubborn when we want to be. And while I never rejected any of the teaching, I’m not certain that I every fully brought it into myself. So now I am in a place where I desperately need to be vulnerable and instead I’m scared and ashamed.

I know that this is not the end. I know I can do better. There are plenty of people who are willing and able to help. But most of all I need to embrace that it is okay to be myself. Who I am is who is loved. When I’m not who I am I cannot be loved, nor can I love in return. And I want to love, I want to connect, I want to give that connection to others.

Now the words of Ms. Brown herself.
Link to video page.