CaroLINES
Motorcycle mania, and a man in a dress. What's not to like?
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Oh! Emily! Oh!
I *need* your affirmation!
My advice to Sarah Palin
Palin quits? (aka Sarah might not be a bimbo...)
Friday, July 03, 2009
Godwin's Law, the Trans Version
"In order to respect me"
First, in order to respect me, you need to work on completely deconstructing the conflation of masculinity and maleness.
"Cis" is a derogatory term... (Part 4)
There's a lot of idiots out there...
Thursday, July 02, 2009
A frivolous look at the intersection of motorcycling, and being trans
Ah, I needed that!
Trannies and language
"Cis" is a derogatory term... (Part 3)
I wonder why she said that?
The trans community, and honesty (etc)
Motorcycling & trans terminology
People are strange, Mark Sanford is stranger...
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
It's strange, isn't it...
I feel I should point out that Carolyn Ann is a notorious troll who has been banned from numerous forums and blogs because he delights in causing offence and sowing dissension. He (and yes despite the feminine name that is the pronoun he insists on) is a heterosexual man who occasionally crossdresses.
This gives me hope...
"Cis" is a derogatory term... (Part 2)
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
News magazines
Seeing the light...
Monday, June 29, 2009
The NRA vs Common Sense
"Cis" is a derogatory term...
Cis is not meant to be an identity. Rather, it simply describes the way that one is perceived by others.Really? Ms Serano basically says it's not about identity, it's about identification. Hmm. Telling someone they are a "cis woman" is not about imposing an identity? It's the imposition of a descriptive label: if that's not saddling someone with an identity, I'm at a loss to explain why it isn't! As I suspect Ms Serano would be, too, if she thought about it.
More commonly, cissexual just means people who are not transsexual, and cis means people who are not trans. It’s terribly complex, you know.
Trace Adkins & soccer
Brazil 3, USA 2
Sunday, June 28, 2009
500th Save!
New thrillers?
I've just finished James W. Huston's excellent semi-action/legal thriller "Marine One". I can't give the plot away, but I will mention that it's better than any episode of "Law & Order"! A synopsis might be in order: Marine One crashes in the middle of a violent storm, the world goes to hell - at least for the attorney hired by the helicopter's builder. All the suspense of a good John Grisham, with some of the derring-do we normally associate with Tom Clancy, John Ringo and others of their ilk.
One thing I have to mention... In thrillers, we get set up - and then the author reveals, in a manner that would make Agatha Christie cringe, all the bits he (always a he...) left out. The 'trivia' that makes or breaks the story. Or at least allows it to be told. With many writers, you're left with the feeling "that's It?!?" Others, you're left thinking "I wondered when you'd get to telling us that". Other writers are more honest - yes, honest. Stella Rimington, Karna Bodman and James Huston come to mind. Eric Flint, he of the wildly alternative histories, is a borderline player in that little game. John le Carré, of course, showed us all how it should be done in "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy". It's not explained - because the hero or heroine doesn't know it.
(You know, if anyone could write the next Tinker, et al, it would be either Karna Bodman, or ... erm, well, hmm, now isn't that interesting. Okay, if anyone could write the next Tinker Tailor, it would be Ms Bodman. :-) I'd still like to read the uncensored Ms Rimington. Perhaps in a few decades?..)
Why is that writers feel a need to hold back dramatic information? Mr Huston has a goal - and the reader is not included in it! His hero, Mike Nolan, doesn't trust anyone. Anyone. The reader included! All is revealed, in a fine bit of writing that reminds me of classic Mason Perry shows (?), with a dash of the Paperchase (perhaps?). Mr Huston uses the device of court-room drama in a way that reflects the best of Law & Order. And those episodes usually take a team to write! I thoroughly enjoyed the drama - if Law & Order could depict the defendants' view, they'd learn a thing or two from Mr Huston.
After reading "Marine One", I had to wonder: are thrillers moving out of the neanderthal period, where a single superman saves the world? (Against the odds, and Washington bureaucracy? Hmm.) Are we moving into the genre of "liberal" thrillers? (John Ringo: watch out! They're not out to get you, but they sure would like your sales! :-D ) I'd like to think that we're moving into an era of thriller stories that are less Reagan-esque, and more realistic. You know, Rambo doesn't save the world by brute force. He saves it by being clever, working with a team that's just as dedicated, but perhaps not as (superman) talented, and the clever application of brute force. More "Behind Enemy Lines" than "Rambo". (Clive Owen's performance in that is one I continually look forward to. Gene Hackman's is one I try not to fast-forward through...)
Are thrillers becoming more realistic? Certainly. The market for the brain-dead hero has gone; it went out with the plummeting neocon. It's so "last week", it has no relevance whatsoever. The clever thriller writer doesn't write about a temporary enemy - they piece together long term trends and figure out a suitable protagonist. They read "Foreign Affairs", and refrain from the stupid, incoherent, obvious and simplistic opponent. They put long term policy and national interests ahead of short term power struggles. In short, their stories reflect the world we live in. Not the one they wished existed.
Carolyn Ann


