Sun News and New Prosperity Mine

Some of you may remember the report I wrote this past summer describing the debate over the New Prosperity Mine application in Williams Lake. I attended a few debates over the mine with my mother-in-law and there was a very strong division in the room. Supporters of the mine wore blue scarves, were primarily white, and mostly discussed the economic benefits. Most of the individuals speaking out against the mine were from the reserves surrounding the mining area, where they would be most closely affected.

Why do they want to kill off these poor guys? But seriously, according to what I heard in the presentation, even losing a few grizzly would be a huge problem.

There was also several very detailed environmental reports brought forward after the general public discussion. I was able to sit in on the report presented a few days later, which was about grizzly bears. At this meeting a specialist on grizzly habitats explained exactly how the mine project would harm the already threatened grizzly bear community in the area. There were many other extensive environmental reports that I had to miss because I was working, etc.

It was a huge surprise for me when I heard that the project was rejected. It was surprising because we all know, from the Enbridge pipeline debate, that the Canadian government is usually quite happy to ignore indigenous and environmental outcry over projects that will bring a monetary benefit.

You may wonder what this has to do with Sun News. Well, my Shame Day on Sun News was prompted by Ezra Levant’s rant about the rejection of the mine. Unfortunately I can’t embed the video so you will have to click here. 

Obviously I’m biased in my opinion on this project, but in the report I shared with you this summer even I tried to represent both sides. In his rant, Levant, in contrast, tries to draw attention away from the legitimate concerns surrounding the mine by focusing on details that better support his opinion: that it would be “the best thing ever to happen to a very poor part of Canada.” I’m not saying there aren’t two sides to the argument, and I fully acknowledge that a large part of the William’s Lake community probably agrees with Levant, but he intentionally strives to downplay anything that goes against his argument. The lake that is threatened by the mine, a lake with spiritual and cultural significance to surrounding First Nations communities, Levant reduces to “a few fishing holes”. Levant also ignores the environmental report that the mine would threaten grizzly bears and instead focuses on how it would affect moose, which he calls “pests”. 

So it’s a red herring. He has some legitimate arguments, but he attempts to downplay or ignore any legitimate arguments that don’t coincide with his own. Does this kind of news broadcasting sound familiar?

Hard, unbiased news from our friends down south.

Sun News vs. The CBC

I guess you won’t be surprised then when I tell you how Sun News has been called “Fox News North” by Canadians who aren’t overly fond of having a news station that pushes a far Right agenda. This includes our very own political poet, Margaret Atwood, who was quoted saying “[Sun News is] part of the ‘I make the rules around here,’ Harper-is-a-king thing.” 

While the quote about “hot chicks” was actually referring to the news anchors, I thought I’d do some side research and check out their home page. As you can see from this screenshot, one of their featured stories is about attractive naked protesters.

Meanwhile, the CBC home page has already been updated since I checked them both a few hours ago. They bumped down the story about Alberta Premier, Alison Redford, to provide an update on the missing Malaysia jet.

Like Fox, Sun News gushes with over the top patriotism. Like Fox, Sun News has also been accused of using “hot chicks and sexy outfits” to help sell sub-par news coverage. 

What really gets my goat, however, is the way they’ve been trying to attack the CBC, the government subsidized channel. Before my dear American friends get to thinking “state interference = bad” then let me reassure you that, generally speaking, we love the CBC. It’s by far the best place to hear news relevant to Canadians, since American-owned companies very easily flood all our other sources with American news.

CBC News, unlike Sun, avoids commentary and strives to present balanced news as best as they can. CBC also has the best chance at presenting untainted news. Many private news industries are tainted by their private sponsors, which isn’t a problem with the CBC. Even the the Canadian government gets a slap on the wrist when they try to interfere with them, since they’re run by an autonomous board of directors. So what does Sun News think we should do with the CBC? Well, privatize it of course. 

How does the rest of Canada feel about it? Are we tired of our tax dollars going to support a media giant who is untainted by government control or private sponsors?

And how do Canadians feel about Sun News comparatively?

And while we’re at it, let’s just ask ourselves, why does Sun News want the CBC to privatize? Well, probably because they are owned by QMI. While I really don’t have time to get into QMI or media concentration right now, I wanted to point out how much of our media (including various news sources) they already own.

As you can see QMI (Quebecor Media Inc)’s media control is more than double that retained by the CBC. That being said, in light of Telus, Shaw, Rogers and Bell both companies fall far behind.

Sun News and Muslims

How else is Sun News like Fox? Well, like Fox, staff at Sun News don’t believe in being stifled by politically correct liberals. That’s probably why Ezra Levant is currently being being sued for libel after calling Muslim lawyer Khurrum Awan a “money grubbing… liar”. In other news, he has also called Iran a “hell hole” and the niqab a “body bag”. Many media sources are currently championing Levant’s case as a fight for free speech. Heck, even Rick Mercer has defended Levant’s rights to freedom of speech at one point:

Unfortunately, this isn’t even the first time Sun News has targeted the Muslim community with their “Straight Talk”. After the Boston Bombing, Michael Coren told his Sun News audience that they really should have expected the bomber to be Muslim, since (according to him) Muslims commit the most terrorist attacks in the States.

Let me give some context to his claim since, you know, I’m a liberal aristocrat and all:

The list used to create this chart was taken from the FBI, so it is pertaining to the States. “Latino” attacks refer to those related to separatist groups, Cuban exiles, etc. This chart also fails to specify extreme right wing and fascist examples.

Conclusion

Honestly, I think this post has gone on long enough. Also, I’m tired of watching Straight Talk videos that make me want to punch a wall. So I’m going to leave you with this tid-bit from Rob Ford’s segment on Sun News. It’s such riveting entertainment even Sun News couldn’t handle it.

P.S. If you have a spare moment, you may want to check out VICE’s documentary on the Rob Ford scandal and how commentary journalism (like what we see at F and Sun) has promoted the idea that all journalism is a scam. For example, half the city of Toronto assumed that The Toronto Star was lying about Rob Ford smoking crack.

So, How I Met Your Mother is finally over. And the internet is pissed.

Spoilers below, obviously.

This is what everyone wishes they could do to the writers.

I think there are some legitimate arguments why the finale was terrible, but I can’t decide if I actually hate it or not. They gave us some pretty big hints about what was going to go down all throughout the show, and the ending makes Ted’s obsession with Robin for the first few seasons considerably less creepy. Still, I think they tried to cram too much into the finale (while stretching out Robin and Barney’s wedding waaaayyyy too long).

That being said, I actually thought the finale offered some semi-legitimate lessons for it’s audience. I thought I’d share them with you below.

1. You cannot change “that guy” 

This is a pretty big staple of the rom-com genre. You have the eligible bachelor who just needs the right woman to come along and change his wandering ways. Well, life isn’t like that. Barney is hilarious, I know, but he has no respect for women. His “playbook” is all about pushing the line of consent and getting sex from women who are drunk, or confused, or manipulated. In real life that is not okay. And in real life a guy like that doesn’t just start respecting a woman because he is married to her. It may suck that Robin and Barney get a divorce after only a few years of marriage, but can you actually say you are surprised? If you knew Barney in real life, would you actually set him up with your friend expecting him to respect her and cherish her to the end of her days?

In spite of Barney’s lack of respect for women, I do believe people can change. I just don’t think sex is necessarily the best thing to change a sex addict. Plus I never really found his sudden transformation for Robin all that believable. I mean, he had to go through a one-night-stand detox just to handle the idea of being faithful. That’s why I loved the thing that really did change Barney in the end.

I’m not saying that making a person into a parent is always going to fix them, but the majority of the time it really does change their perspective on life.

2. Friendships evolve

I am so guilty of the “our relationship will never change” mentality, but in the last few years I’ve started to be open to change. Don’t get me wrong, I believe you can stay friends with someone forever- if you are willing to put in the hard work. It’s just unfair to you and your friends if you expect those relationships to never change.

Some of my best friends live totally different lives than I do. I’m so happy for them, because it’s the kind of life they dreamed of having, but it also means that we have less in common. When you have less in common, it’s easy to try to treat your friend like they were before they started to grow into the person they are now, and that’s just not fair. For me, it’s always a little bit sad to come to terms with change, but if it’s something that makes my loved ones happy, shouldn’t I be happy about that too? I want to try to celebrate the changes my friends are going through, and not get hung up because we can’t meet at the pub regularly anymore (we didn’t actually have our own version of MacLaren’s, but you know what I mean).

 3. Relationships are Messy

A nice wedding doesn’t mean a great marriage. My in-laws eloped. They had to grab two strangers off the street just to have witnesses, yet they have a fantastic relationship. I would be so happy to be as content as they are when John and I are their age.

In the HIMYM finale, Ted and the mother (Tracy, but she will always be “the mother” to me) don’t get the big fancy wedding of their (Ted’s) dreams, and yet they end up so happy. Robin and Barney do get their dream day, but divorce within 3 years.

I’m not saying the dream wedding isn’t worth having (I wouldn’t have traded ours for the world), but the wedding is just an awesome party you get to throw. It doesn’t really say anything about what your relationship will be like in the long run.

After the divorce, Robin can’t handle being around Ted or Barney since they are both reminders of relationships that didn’t work out. This is something that often gets ignored in sitcoms because they don’t want to break up the gang, but let’s be honest, have you ever tried to stay “besties” with your ex? I’m not saying it’s impossible, it’s just really not as easy as it usually looks on TV.

4. Reality can suck

This partially ties in with my previous point, but I’m thinking of something pretty specific here:

They freaking kill the mother!

By the time they had actually introduced the mother I was pretty much in love with her. Her death ticked me off, because HIMYM was always a brainless escape for me. I mean, if I wanted to be that depressed I would just watch the news. That being said, I appreciate what Rachael Larimore said in her article about “Fans of a Certain Age“:

“The struggles they faced [in the finale]… were familiar struggles. I’ve seen friendships wither over kids and divorces. I’ve watched too-young parents get sick and die. Having grown into something that I don’t like to call middle age, I’ve learned that everything is not what I hope and dream… It’s understandable that so many fans are mad that, after all that, Ted ended up with Robin. The complaint that it was “nine years of character development down the drain” is a common refrain. I disagree. Ted spent this whole last season saying farewell to Robin. And he was successful. But when life dealt him the ultimate blow, it’s not a step backward for him to make the best of it. That’s a mature response to life, and the finale was especially touching to many of us who’ve lived a little ourselves.”

While part of me agrees with Larimore in saying that the HIMYM finale was finally showing the reality of adult life on television, it wasn’t just the mother dying that really got under my skin. It’s that the mother’s death and Robin and Barney’s divorce all worked towards to create one of the biggest TV cliches.. only this time everyone was NOT falling for it.

5. Sitcoms still can’t help getting the “will they or won’t they” couple together in the end

So did I hate the finale? Okay, I’ll admit it, part of me felt a little like this.

Before we get started I should probably give the obligatory warning about spoilers. Spoilers below, beware! [Seriously, there are a lot of spoilers -Ed.]

So, I watch Game of Thrones.

I watch it for the awesome female characters, although a little begrudgingly. I mean, do they have to put boobs in my face EVERY SINGLE EPISODE? It’s like the writers are sitting around and realize “Hey guys, we don’t have any of the main characters’ boobs in this episode! What are we going to do?” and then the guy in the back of the room is like “Why don’t we set another scene in a brothel!” and everyone goes “Oh yeah, great idea.” Seriously, I challenge you find me two episodes in a row without boobs.

Anyways, all boob rants aside (since I’ve already covered female nudity in the past… pun intended), there is a certain appeal to Game of Thrones. It’s complex, and features well thought-out characters. Although have you noticed that they have this tendency to KILL EVERYONE YOU’VE EVERY LOVED?

If you don’t believe me just watch this video of people watching the episode affectionately titled “The Red Wedding”. I should probably give you a heads up about strong language in some of the clips.

I also kinda sorta watch The Walking Dead, although with that one it is SUPER begrudgingly. Usually what happens is I walk by John watching it, so I start watching over his shoulder. Then I get sucked in so I sit down next to him. Then I start getting attached to a character. AND THEN THEY DIE, GRUESOMELY.

Or they do something terrible and unexpected, and then they die gruesomely.

Movie/television death scenes make me cry like crazy, and I really hate crying in front of people. John also happens to think it’s really funny to watch/ point it out whenever he catches me crying because of a TV show, so when that happens I have to pinch and/or punch him until he looks away. Needless to say, it causes unnecessary duress to both of us when a character dies.

I realize that the “anyone can die” trope isn’t totally new. And there have been quite a few shows that have killed off one or two main characters really effectively. There is even a part of me that can’t help feeling a little respect for writers who can kill off beloved characters without a single care. Then there’s this other part of me that is worried this may be a new trend.

Just look at how it’s spreading into comedies. Like the HIMYM finale that “shocked” it’s watchers by killing off “the mother” that the show is named for. Or the time Family Guy killed off Brian, only to bring him back from the dead not long after. Apparently, even the Simpsons will be killing off a main character soon.

These are comedies, so what is the point of these key character deaths? Are they really all just gimmicks to catch our attention?

It’s beginning to make me wonder… is the constant shock of another character’s death really all it takes to keep a TV show running?

I’m looking at you Lost. Way to make us watch six years of irrelevant relationship building.

I’ve already reached the point with several shows where I have given up on caring about the characters, and therefore the show itself (i.e. The Walking Dead). I have also come to terms with having an occasional character knocked off here and there in dramas, but can’t they leave the comedies as a safe zone from the realities of life? Or am I going to have to get used to the cheap attention-grab of constant character deaths in all my TV shows? Because I’m getting mighty tired of it. It’s like an interbreeding of reality TV and an actual plot.

What’s next? We start voting fictional characters out of TV shows?

How is anything ever going to happen if all they do is kill people off?

It’s one of those weeks where Friday rolls around and I find that I’m writing my fifth post of the week. Granted, two of them were reviews and one of them I co-wrote, but it’s still a lot. One of my favourite things to do to shake up the ol’ grey matter is watch a little TV, so of course I ended up finding myself unable to blog about anything else but the finale to Season 5 of Community.

It’s not working.

Strangely enough, this is the show that’s appeared most on this site [save for 2 Broke Girls, but y'know]. While I began with discussing Season 3′s wonky airing schedule, I very soon turned to providing constructive criticism. Then came two posts where Gordon and I discussed Seasons 4 and 5, respectively, in which I took to defending the show and the directions it was taking [in contrast with his outright vilifying it]. Having just come off of that last episode I’m not sure I can maintain that stance anymore.

And we wonder why the dude’s always reverting to his villainous ways.

Let’s be upfront, I haven’t been completely on board with the show for a while. As a hang-out show it began to fall short of the mark for me when the Greendale Seven began to really live up to their name, in that there could be no additions to that number. I know it’s been a really long time, but does anyone remember Chang and the Pop-and-Lock-a-thon? That dude literally popped and locked until he fell down and they still didn’t let him into the group.

In a way, I think that this is pretty exemplary of the show and its fanbase. The AV Club’s very own Todd VanDerWerff, who wrote all of the reviews I will be linking to, readily admitted that:

“Community, unlike, say, Parks And Recreation, is in a format that seems to be deliberately polarizing. If you can’t get on its particular wavelength, it’s going to seem a little cold and clinical to you, and the fact that its fanbase can be a little … relentless certainly doesn’t help matters.”

I was on that wavelength for a while, and after some time found myself off of it. In the meantime the show has continued on, with fans, if anything, growing ever strong with their love for it. They’ve quickly forgiven Season 4, chalking it up to Dan Harmon’s absence and going along and fully embracing the now-canon explanation that it was all a gas leak.

Even still, that doesn’t explain why I feel alone in my complete and utter disdain for the following joke:

Abed, I think you’re thinking of the word “loaves”. That, or “sub rolls”. I cannot for the life of me understand why or how this joke made it into the episode, because it just doesn’t make sense to me. Still, I trawl through the various comment sections of each review and peruse r/community and I’m sitting here like:

On that same note, I have had it up to here with Mr. Nadir [I am holding my hand a little above my right eyebrow]. With Pierce Hawthorne gone, I can’t think of a better candidate to replace the role of TV character we hate to love to hate, or something. For me personally, anyway.

I can really only compare him to Sheldon Cooper, and the similarities are many. They’re the top two entries on the Wikipedia article for Asperger syndrome in popular culture, which speaks for itself as far as their social abilities. While the Big Bang Theory star’s brusque attitude is vastly more off-putting, the truth is that it would be difficult to be around either for long periods of time. There’s a reason for this happening-

-and honestly, it’s fine to a point. It’s great that he has a supportive group of friends who put up with him, but there’s a difference between putting up with him and not calling him out on stuff. In “VCR Maintenance And Educational Publishing” his pushiness when it comes to Annie borders on rudeness. You know what happens, though? She lets it slide.

At this point I’ve become painfully aware that this has turned into me airing out my grievances against Community as a whole, so let me step back and recollect my thoughts. To a point, a lot of my criticisms about the show are somewhat subjective, and to say that fans are overlooking them is a tad presumptuous. The issue I take overall is that they’re overlooking, well, anything negative.

The mantra among the hardcore [unfortunately I was unable to find an encompassing title for the bunch] is this:

It may surprise all of you, having read this far, that I’m not against it. We just wrapped up a fifth season that, if I’m honest with myself, was not terrible. Generally B material, which considering the state of television is really quite good. What I really want is not just for this show to improve, but for the fanbase to as well. That’s a tall order, so I’m going to write at least one more paragraph about it.

From just about the beginning Harmon and co. have been creating twenty-some minute installments of television that have stretched the boundaries of genre and convention. That’s great. I’m a pretty huge fan of their love letter to Mafia flicks, as well as the crazed fever dream that was the Dean-centric episode on filming an ad for Greendale. These were great episodes that weren’t just gimmicks, that were thoroughly funny and did good character work as well.

It would be fantastic if we would ask for more from the people who were bringing us homages to G.I. Joe, which sounds selfish but maybe sometimes pushing the envelope isn’t enough? Jason Mraz didn’t get a free pass because he recorded an album that tasted from nearly every musical genre, he was praised because as a whole it was good.

Go on blindly accepting everything thrown together by a certain creative team, or bearing a particular title and suddenly G.I Jeff’s words over on the right describe your situation. Honestly, the “gas leak” that was Season 4 was just countless references to a show in its heyday, and people actually ate it up. People don’t look back on it warmly as a whole, but are still caught saying “Well, at least it was Community.” That sort of thing should never be the case regardless of the medium.

All of this to say that Community has left me cold for quite some time, and I’d like it to return to being a show I looked forward to catching on Hulu come Friday. I would love to see people who say they love it asking for more and for better, because seriously, and this is my last nitpick and final point-

In the penultimate episode of Season 5 the Save Greendale Committee saved Greendale, and suddenly it was in danger of being bought up by Subway. They fixed so many of the school’s problems that it became an asset instead of a liability. In the face of losing what is, I suppose, their home they come up with precisely nothing.

What if, bear with me here, but what if they undid everything that they did. I kid you not at all when I say that I sat there waiting for them to come to this conclusion of becoming livid when they did not. The answer was literally . . . it was literally the . . . just look at what you did and undo it!

I realize that people hate to criticize what they love, but the fact that I never saw a single person in any forum bring this up is mindboggling. Open your eyes, people! That’s bad writing!

A world where I’m rooting for these two to get hitched and escape this show is a world you probably don’t want to live in.

It’s been over a week, I know, but it’s still hard for me to get past the fact that Eric Andre aka Deke Bromberg aka Max’s boyfriend who literally lived in a dumpster is no longer with us. With the way the show revolves around its two female leads it probably would’ve been detrimental for either of them to settle down with a guy, and I can accept that. What I can’t accept is how poorly it was done. 

The fact that this blog is getting so many hits from search terms like “did max break up with her boyfriend on two broke girls” and “why did max and deke break up” just proves my point. Audience members aren’t even really sure whether or not he’s actually gone. This week’s episode doesn’t mention him at all, and with two episodes to go it’s unlikely it will.

Now I’m totally willing to admit if I’m wrong, but I just feel like their breakup could have served as a big emotional climax in the finale. Eric Andre was in eight episodes, which is a third of the entire season; that’s substantial. What happened instead is that they closed the door on that chapter of Max’s life and moved on to the final three installments. This one is about an old man. Next week’s is about horse racing and/or gambling.

To a point, this show has always had some sort of narrative drive. Season 1 was all about getting the money to open a cupcake store. Season 2 was about them actually running that business. Season 3 has been about Max going to pastry school and her relationship with Deke. Those both ended very abruptly in the same episode. Now we’re directionless. We’re just killing time until this season wraps up and we face the months-long wait for the next one.

There isn’t much to say about 2 Broke Girls this week, really. Not besides my tirade about how badly they handled Eric Andre leaving the show. In this episode Max and Caroline need to find the original tenant [old man Lester Donovan] to renew their lease, and then have to find a way to kick him out. It’s actually a pretty simple solution: he’ll leave once he has sex.

That all leads to the scene that tumblr is gushing about, where the two realize that they need to move out because neither is going to make it happen with a geriatric. Pushing aside the logic that they could just find another place together, it culminates with the two girls unloading some pretty emotional truths on one another-

“I’m not ready to live without you” isn’t a sentence that Season 1 Max Black would’ve whispered to anyone, let alone the once-wealthy heiress that owns a dang horse. My assumption is that the writers meant this to be a pretty significant moment, and it is, to a point. The problem is that we just saw the two girls slow dancing together last episode. Not only that, but we’re reminded of how close they are just about ever Monday night. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with promoting this image of a strong female friendship, but the show can’t get by on that alone.

Sophie saves the day, by the way. Not to say that she has sex with Lester or anything. She’s so skilled at the art of lovemaking that she intimidates the poor man, and he settles on a quick selfie as proof of his conquest to his friends back at the home ["Pics or it didn't happen!"]

Whether or not to get down with a bad grandpa works as the loose premise for twenty-some minutes of TV, but the problem is that 2 Broke Girls has never pretended to be Seinfeld. It’s not a show about nothing. We have three episodes to wrap up the season and pave the way to next fall, and I’m curious as to how they’re going to keep the momentum going after the whiplash that was Deke’s exodus.

Current Total: $2,650.

New Total: $2,614. Last episode a commenter put me in my place regarding my quibbling over this amount. This time around, however, I really can’t think of why they’re $36 down. Again, even if they did spend money, are they not making any due to waitressing/selling cupcakes?

The Title Refers To: The girls get the lease renewed on their apartment. Also, an old person finds something worth living for.

Stray Observations:

• The diner staff meeting at the beginning really hits home how little we’ve seen of the secondary cast. Han really hits it on the head when he says he’s “noticed lately our diner family is drifting apart.”
• It’s apparently still funny to joke about how he is a woman.
• Caroline’s ringtone is “Let It Go”. Max keeps her phone on vibrate “out of respect for those around me and also for little orgasms,” which makes me wonder what can and can’t get past TV censors.
• “Quick, grab two things you love!” “I love nothing in here.”
• A toilet lawn actually sounds super rad.
• “At least the black mould made the other mould move out of the neighbourhood.”
• They talk about the apartment being crappy, but let’s not forget that it is gigantic.
• “I- I need you to wake up for this!”
• Old people really do have a lot of sex.
• This week, in Caroline never having taken sex-ed: “Are you sure, because I don’t wanna have an old baby.”
• “I mighta gone there too if knew he had an iPhone 5S.”
•  Broke Girls Cheesecake Menu: Nothing to see here, folks.

I have never been asked to “check my privilege”. That is by no means indicative of my actual status in life, one that’s already vastly higher than most by virtue of being born in a First World country. Not only do I come from a middle class family in a wealthy nation, but I also happen to be both male and straight. Those two facets of my person alone have freed me from a world of verbal [and potentially physical] abuse. It’s no mystery to me how good I have it going.

Replace “U. S. of A.” with “Canada” and this pretty much sums it up.

Taking all of that into account, and I really do dwell on the reality of how much better off I am than others on an almost daily basis, I can say with confidence that I would not enjoy hearing those three words. I acknowledge that they would feel like not only an admonishment for not thinking through whatever I had just said or written, but an outright dismissal of my viewpoints.

I want to state this as clearly as possible: no part of me supports the usage of any phrase to “strike down opinions” or otherwise silence others. I am a strong proponent of discussion and this activity flies in the very face of that. My issue is that the purpose of the article I’m responding to appears to be the throwing out of these three words completely, and in generally appears to completely miss the point.

The article is, as the title of this post indicates, “Meet The Poster Child For ‘White Privilege’ – Then Have Your Mind Blown”. Before we get into the actual words of Tal Fortgang, a white 20-year-old Princeton freshman and the article’s titular poster child, we need to break down the language used in the introduction leading up to them. Written by associate editor Jennifer Kabbany, it emotionally primes readers, swaying them to one perspective through overgeneralizations and descriptions of injustice.

Firstly, there’s the assertion that those leveling the term against the young man in question are “ethnic and feminist studies college students and professors who frequently and vehemently complain that this country is steeped in racism and sexism and is only fair and just and equal for white, heterosexual males.” To start with, the United States of America is rife with racism and sexism. Donald Sterling may have received [what I hope to be a fraction of] his comeuppance two days ago, but he owned the LA Clippers for 33 years. There may be no place for him in the NBA now, but at one point there was, and that continues to be a problem. On top of that the assumption that every one of these individuals believes that things are “only fair and just and equal for white, heterosexual males” is a gross hyperbole.

Secondly, and this sums up the heart of Fortgang’s “powerful message”, is that associate editor Jennifer Kabbany informs us readers what those words are supposed to mean. She tells us that “check your privilege”:

“…is meant to remind white, heterosexual males that they have it so good because they’re white, heterosexual males. They haven’t faced tough times, they don’t know what it’s like to be judged by the color of their skin.”

Given an introduction that pigeonholes those spouting the phrase and asserts their intentions in doing so we can now move on to the meat of the article, or what Fortgang himself has to say to those people who are “sick of being labeled” and who “are the very same ones doing it to others.”

In his starting paragraph Fortgang follows in Kabbany’s footsteps by first describing those reprimanding him as “[his] moral superiors” and then ascribing his own meaning to those three words, which he perceives as-

“‘-a command that teeters between an imposition to actually explore how I got where I am, and a reminder that I ought to feel personally apologetic because white males seem to pull most of the strings in the world.”

I won’t want to break down his diction, but it can essentially be boiled down to “people trying to make me feel bad.” Much more than that, he continues on to state that these same people are “diminishing everything [he has] personally accomplished.” While I obviously cannot comment on the contexts surrounding the several times the saying has been leveled against him, Fortgang believes that each and every instance is an overt criticism of any hard work leading to where he is today.

That in turn brings us to the heart of his open letter, if I can call it that. Given the numerous times he has been the phrase’s target he decided to “take their advice” [present in the first half of the block quote up above] and dig deep into his heritage. I’m going to completely avoid picking apart his word choice here for the sake of this article’s length; suffice to say it drips indignation.

Essentially the next four paragraphs are Fortgang asking those he deems his attackers if many of the hardships his family endured constitute privilege. To wit:

“Perhaps it’s the privilege my grandfather and his brother had to flee their home as teenagers when the Nazis invaded Poland…”

“Or maybe it’s the privilege my grandmother had of spending weeks upon weeks on a death march through Polish forests in subzero temperatures…”

“Perhaps my privilege is that those two resilient individuals came to America with no money and no English, obtained citizenship, learned the language and met each other…”

“Perhaps it was my privilege that my own father worked hard enough in City College to earn a spot at a top graduate school, got a good job…”

It’s a return to his argument that those asking him to check his privilege are implying that his current position owes nothing to hard work, that they assume he was buoyed up to his current position due to his Whiteness and maleness alone. Given his view that none of the above could ever be considered as privileges, he then begins to list what privileges he has had in his life.

The painful irony is that both lists expose the flaws in his argument.

While his grandparents’ time in Poland can by no means be viewed as bearing them any form of advantage, he says that it has been his “distinct privilege that [his] grandparents came to America”, that it was a place where “they could legally enter, learn the language, and acclimate to a society that ultimately allowed them to flourish.” What the United States was to his grandparents is not at all what it was for the majority of non-White people. If his assumption here is that these opportunities were available to everyone he is sorely misinformed.

The first page of the Chinese Exclusion Act.

What immediately follows that is vastly more telling, that it was his grandparents’ privilege “to come to a country that grants equal protection under the law to its citizens, that cares not about religion or race, but the content of your character.” I’m not even sure where exactly to start here. If we want to talk about just moving there to begin with, in 1882 there was a law signed by the President to prohibit the immigration of Chinese workers to America. This wasn’t repealed until 1943. That alone was an extreme form of institutionalized racism which they were able to bypass completely.

In regards to his father being able to attend City College, and then a top graduate school afterwards, that in and of itself would have been exceedingly difficult had he been a racial minority. It wasn’t until 1954, only 60 years ago, that the USA decided that separating White and Black children into separate schools was against their constitution. A mere eight years after that had President Kennedy literally federalizing troops to enforce an order allowing a Black student to enroll at an all-White university. While the road to where he is today was not an easy one, his father’s race allowed him to avoid several hardships and seize opportunities not available to all.

Having finished with that he states what is most important for him, and what goes beyond the trials and tribulations his grandparents and father faced, is-

“the legacy he sought to pass along, which forms the basis of what detractors call my ‘privilege,’ but which actually should be praised as one of altruism and self-sacrifice. Those who came before us suffered for the sake of giving us a better life. When we similarly sacrifice for our descendents by caring for the planet, it’s called ‘environmentalism,’ and is applauded. But when we do it by passing along property and a set of values, it’s called ‘privilege.’ (And when we do it by raising questions about our crippling national debt, we’re called Tea Party radicals.) Such sacrifice of any form shouldn’t be scorned, but admired.”

Allow me to finally come right out and say it: the words “check your privilege” are not the boiling down of your current situation to being wholly dependent on your sex and race. No one just “gets into” Princeton, let alone just starts out with the ability to afford attending the university. The privileges that Fortgang enjoys take far simpler forms.

It is his privilege to not have to uncomfortably answer the question “Where are you from?”

It is his privilege to not be “randomly selected” when traveling through an airport.

It is his privilege that he doesn’t get pulled over by the cops due to the very colour of his skin.

It is his privilege that his likelihood of being the victim of violent crime and sexual assault are nothing compared to if he were a woman.

It is his privilege to live in a country where the media in almost all of its forms not only represents him, but caters to him as well.

None of these benefits or advantages are dependent on what his family endured and suffered through, all of which, barring the tragedy in Poland, were made easier given their race. Every morning that Tal Fortgang wakes up he can rest assured that his being both White and male gives him a significant leg up as a citizen and resident of the United States of America. Here’s the kicker, though: whether or not he realizes it doesn’t make it any less true.

If he doesn’t believe that what he was born as significantly affects his life today then he’s no different from so many others who believe that race isn’t a factor in the grand scheme of things. In no way am I railing against the concept of meritocracy, or that hard work doesn’t lead to results. The thing is that sweat and blood will get you far, but we don’t all start at the same line.

He ends with the following two paragraphs:

“Behind every success, large or small, there is a story, and it isn’t always told by sex or skin color. My appearance certainly doesn’t tell the whole story, and to assume that it does and that I should apologize for it is insulting. While I haven’t done everything for myself up to this point in my life, someone sacrificed themselves so that I can lead a better life. But that is a legacy I am proud of.

I have checked my privilege. And I apologize for nothing.”

No one I know who is aware of the existence of white privilege is expecting those who have it to apologize for who they are, and those who are saying that I want nothing to do with. In addition to that I also want those who have it to acknowledge it. It’s not a crime to start the game of life with a pair of aces, but don’t tell me that it’s no different from my seven and two.

A person’s first impulse upon hearing the words “check your privilege” is to grow upset, and I don’t blame them for that. What I do want is for them them to find the truth in the phrase, the cold, hard fact that they are privileged. From that point on they can get to the bottom of why it was quoted; if they said something that may not have been starkly apparent to them given their circumstances. If that doesn’t work they can feel free to step away from the conversation if they find themselves being silenced or shamed.

Check your privilege. Apologize for the things you may have said that come across as insensitive or outright wrong given a perspective shaped by it.

KAT: Greetings friends! Tonight Evan and I bring you a topic that is close to the heart of anyone with the ability to hear (or feel vibrations): music.

EVAN: In particular, we’ll be discussing lyrics, appropriate since I can just barely sound out “Amazing Grace” on the piano. As far as pop music goes nowadays the words our favourite artists are singing are not always ones we can agree with.

It’s why this version of a certain Robin Thicke song is the only one I can listen to with a clean conscience:

KAT: It’s also why I just can’t enjoy jamming out to Rihanna and Eminem’s romanticization of domestic abuse (“Love The Way You Lie”).

EVAN: Speaking of Eminem, I want to preface the more obvious with the less by saying that the man is a wordsmith of the highest calibre. No offense to the Bard or anything, but if you check out a breakdown of, say, “Rap God”, it’s going to blow you away how in-depth his lyrics are.

That being said, the second verse does include a number of lines kicked off by this:

Little gay-lookin boy
So gay I can barely say it with a ‘straight’ face, lookin’ boy
You’re witnessing a mass-occur
Like you’re watching a church gathering take place, looking boy

Which . . . is unfortunate, to say the least.

KAT: Exactly. I actually just went and looked up some of the most controversial songs and found some that I hadn’t really heard of. For example, I remember my mom really hated the band Slayer. It’s kind of understandable given the context of their song “Angel of Death” which outlines a lot of the horrific works of Josef Mengele and got them a pretty terrible reputation as Nazi sympathizers.

So what do we do with these songs? I mean, when Robin Thicke comes on the radio every hour do I shut off the radio? Change the station? Send him some hate mail?

This is how I feel every time Robin Thicke comes on the radio.

EVAN: Well, you hit on the very important fact that we don’t have to listen to these songs. Sure, we may be bombarded by them whenever we’re in the vicinity of a radio [more often than you might think], but we don’t have to make the conscious decision to go out of our way to find them on YouTube.

But on that same note, let’s be real: we enjoy listening to them.

KAT: Yeah. Just to refer back to Thicke (since he’s the example I hear most often these days) there have been so many times I’ve started singing along before I realized what song it was and gotten all angry at myself.

So does that make us total hypocrites?

EVAN: In other words, are we guilty of falling prey to earworms? I mean, when phrased that way I certainly don’t think so.

You mentioned obligation or responsibility just a while ago, though, which we’ve covered on the blog in regards to being conscious shoppers. On that same note I suppose we should do what we can to ensure that the art we engage with is communicate a positive [or at least not a negative] message.

So how would you recommend we go about that? How much research is necessary for guilt-free listening? This is just in regards to how we spend our time and what we fill our ears with, I think actually purchasing said music makes this question vastly more important.

KAT: Good question. I mean, you could probably dig into most music out there and find a reason to boycott it. I guess it would just have to be a personal choice. You make a good point differentiating between what we listen to vs. what we spend our money on. I mean, I can choose not to support an artist I don’t agree with, but when it comes to the radio (at least up north) my options are either accepting the ear-bug or listening to silence.

Honestly, I think that’s partially why the Christian music industry has been so successful. It’s like censorship by choice, and sometimes maybe that’s not such a bad thing. I mean, I love that a lot of the music I listened to growing up was always reminding me how much God loved me or how I was loved and important. Sometimes there was even some solid Christian bands (I’m thinking of the golden years of Jars of Clay and DC Talk). It’s not really my preference for music anymore, but I like that there was a different kind of music scene out there.

EVAN: So you’re saying that those genres survived by virtue of being different from what else was out there?

KAT: I don’t want to assume I know for sure, but I feel like it’s a safe bet.

As a person who works with kids for a living, and someone plans to reproduce at some point, the first thing that came to mind when you brought up this discussion was how it applies to kids.

I mean, almost all music is accessible to everyone now. Even with some radio censorship, the internet allows most youth to get around that barrier. My mom was such a hater on music lyrics when I was a kid that it drove me insane, but now that I’m adult even I sometimes have a hard time listening to mainstream music around kids. At this point I’m not really sure what I would do with my own kids, but I know I don’t want them to have a subscription to MTV. I don’t want them to think that all women are objects and playthings and that to be a real man you should use women as props for your lifestyle like they do on TV.

EVAN: When I was younger, say my mid-teens or so, I can remember taking a lot of pride in the content of the music I was buying at the time. In general the lyrics of my mostly-rock collection of CDs [with some Avril Lavigne and Kelly Clarkson thrown in] was generally decent stuff.

But c’mon, not every kid is like I was. It’s always going to be jarring to see six-year-old kids singing tunes that are pretty much entirely about sex [see: Daft Punk and Pharrell's "Get Lucky"]. Skip to around 3:10-

KAT: Agreed. Especially when you consider how some studies have suggested that certain types of music can actually affect the behaviour of children.

So does that mean we have a moral obligation to protect children from music? And is that kind of goal even possible without becoming a Luddite?

EVAN: Well, you and Gordon definitely talked about censorship at an earlier date, and while he doesn’t believe that children being exposed to certain things are particularly dangerous, that’s now really the focus here.

What you’re bringing up is how to protect your children without your supervision, and that entirely boils down to parenting. If you tell them not to do something, like watch MuchMusic or MTV or what have you, whether they do or don’t is dependent on their level of obedience which is directly connected to how you’ve raised them.

KAT: Or how stubborn they were when they came into the world. I’ve known some pretty amazing parents with children who weren’t really all that obedient.

EVAN: To take this conversation back to the actual content of the songs, since we are nearing the end of our time, I think the question we need to address is this: What’s the harm in jamming out to “Blurred Lines” et al.?”

KAT: Well, I’m not really sure. Maybe in the moment it isn’t a big deal, but doesn’t that moment kinda undermine later efforts to challenge the kind of messages spread by musicians like Thicke?

EVAN: The implication being that enjoying the song makes one complicit to the skeevy sentiments therein?

KAT: Haha. Perhaps not complicit, but at least uninentionally feeding into the machine that is producing such sentiments.

EVAN: Given our breaching the topic of what it means to be a conscious consumers of what we may never actually buy [music, TV, etc.] I think it’s time we cap this talk before we get in over our heads.

KAT: Sounds good to me.

I hope you all enjoyed our discussion, and please, let us know what you think. Do we need to apply our moral conscience in choosing what we listen to? Or are we just overcomplicating some mighty good jams?

I enjoy a pretty broad range of music. It’s not just severe differences in genre [from Joshua Radin's "Winter" to "Squeeze Me" by Kraak and Smaak], it’s stuff that spans several generations. From Elvis Presley to The Mamas & The Papas to Marvin Gaye, all can be my go-to depending on the day and my mood. In fact, it’s that appreciation for tunes through the decades that helps me enjoy so much of what’s on the cdza [or collectivecadenza] YouTube channel.

This isn’t a Fame Day post, so I’m not going to regale you all on why it’s so great. What I am going to do, however, is direct you to the very first video I saw by them. It’s called “History of Wooing Men”:

It was preceded by “History of Wooing Women”, and while it’s well-known that YouTube comment sections are one of the filthiest cesspits on the internet, the feedback from the majority of people fall along these lines-

In other words, “What happened to music?” and, to draw it out to its logical conclusion, “What is wrong with us as a culture?”. It doesn’t matter how old the commenters are [the two above look to be middle-aged], they all decry the swift decline of the art form. It’s not something I entirely agree with.

To begin by addressing Mr. Syphrit, the singer [Dylan C. Moore] “seemed a little unnerved” because she was acting. If you check out her website you’ll see that it’s something she does for a living. Furthermore, the reason for her acting was to make the video funnier. That’s right, it’s not enough for them to catalogue the progression of love songs through the ages [the effectiveness of which I'll get to in a moment], but they strive to make it more entertaining through other means like her reactions, the introduction of the other actors, the champagne at the end, etc. [and which I don't at all have a problem with].

As far as everyone else is concerned [including the channel itself, who begins describing the video with "It all went downhill after 1996."] we should look at the songs chosen. I recognize pretty much every single track until . . . well, until the year they chose to spotlight.

All I can find on “Put It in Your Mouth” by Akinyele is the EP of the same name. According to Wikipedia it peaked “at #127 on the Billboard 200, #18 on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums and #5 on Top Heatseekers.” First watching the video was literally the first time ever hearing it.

Now I’ll give them the benefit of a doubt and assume that the reason I have no experience with it is because I was only six-years-old at the time. That said, the next particularly explicit song that I also don’t recognize is Khia’s “My Neck, My Back (Lick It)”, which reached 42 on the U.S. Billboard Top 100.  There’s almost no information whatsoever on “Smell Yo Dick” by Riskay. All I can really find of any importance is that David Cross likes it.

That last song came out in 2008. I was 18, it was a time in my life where I was not only listening to a lot of music, but actively seeking it out. This song was nowhere even close to my radar. All of this is just the juxtaposition of disparate elements to create a greater contrast. Put more simply, they’ve cherrypicked extremes, even when they may not be comparable in terms of popularity. I mean, don’t tell me that “Smell Yo Dick” is more well-known than “Dream a Little Dream of Me”. I won’t have that.

With all that in mind, can we then compare songs that garner similar levels of attention and popularity?

I mean, the former was released for one of the best causes possible, while the latter was more than likely created to make money. It speaks for itself, right? We once lived in an era where love and beauty were of the utmost importance and we’ve digressed to the point where it’s booze and sex and drugs and just a little bit more sex.

Here’s another comparison to even things out:

Ah, so you’re telling me that there are examples of both throughout the centuries? That makes sense. Wait, you’re going even further and stating that the reason we believe the past had better tunes overall is because only the best rose to the top and is remembered?

Look at it this way- Who even remembers “I Kissed A Girl”? Katy Perry has delivered so many hits per year that it’s beyond me which of her songs will stand the test of time, if any. Will it be the heartbreaking “Thinking Of You”? My personal favourite “Legendary Lovers”? Honestly, who knows?

What we should all keep in mind is that terrible, derivative music has been around since the beginning and will never cease to exist. You can bet that the classical greats rose above their peers and basically obliterated them from the history books.

Having done the Lord’s work and provided everyone with some much-needed perspective, I should also mention that content-wise pop music has actually taken a pretty distinct turn. Here are a few charts which track the frequency of the words “Love” and “Sex” from the 60s to the present day:

If you visit the link featuring the rest of these you’ll see the other distinct trends, like the fact that “I Love You” is barely used nowadays. At the same time, our
usage of “We/Us” are comparable to the peaks of the 80s. Let’s also be fair, since “Weed” just wasn’t going to show up in the 60s. I mean, really.

While this is pretty indicative of what sells, it’s absolutely not representative of what is or isn’t being sung about overall. We have more musicians now than ever before [in part due to having a higher population, sure] and for every star there are dozens upon dozens who haven’t made it yet, and maybe never will. It’s not to say that they aren’t talented, just that exposure ain’t easy.

With that in mind take this brief moment to check out a YouTube musician I’ve been supporting for a number of years now:

Consider Billboards Hot 100 as of today. “Talk Dirty” by Jason Derulo and 2 Chainz is at #7. You know what the top two tracks are? “All Of Me” by John Legend and “Happy” by Pharrell Williams. A deep and soulful love song and a celebration of optimism. If you think about it, maybe we really can find and appreciate what’s good in the world, musically.

So this post could be the logical continuation of my Shame Day post on Akira, which focused on Hollywood’s complete lack of respect for a film they’re looking to remake. David Goyer, a man I already cared very little for as a screenwriter, said some disparaging things about She-Hulk in a podcast [which from my understanding has since been edited somewhat]. He went on, however, to insult comic book fans everywhere, with the words:

“How many people in the audience have heard of Martian Manhunter?”

<pause>

“How many people that raised their hands have ever been laid?”

I could certainly delve into this much more, but Chris Sims over at ComicsAlliance already has, and done so quite well. Check out what he has to say, because he smartly points out that the one who just said these things has a hand in the future of DC’s cinematic universe. I’ll bring everything concerning that terrible man to a close with the following two panels-

Anyway, as the title of this post would suggest, I have some blog news for you all.

As I am leaving for a country that is has very recently undergone a military coup, CWR will be going on hiatus for the following three weeks. This will allow all of us to take a much-needed break, as well as for you to let us know how we’re doing.

Seriously, though, people have been responding really well to Kat’s post on how the Christian subculture has been dealing with purity, and that’s just great. We want to be able to keep writing on subjects that are relevant and contemporary, and that interest you as readers. Any feedback you could provide us whatsoever would be very greatly appreciated.

While updates here will more or less be entirely absent [barring a topic we feel absolutely must be addressed] our Facebook page will continue posting. It’s a great place to keep updated on issues we find important, and is also a way for you to leave comments and contact us.

I’d just like to thank any and all of you for visiting the blog, as our daily hits are the highest they’ve been in a very long time. We like to think it’s because we’re doing better, and only want to improve from there. Absolutely anything you have to tell us will be appreciated, though less so if it’s not very polite.

We’ll see you all midway through June! Here’s a gif of Survivor: Cagayan‘s Woo eating ribs.

The book in question, the eighth by Gabrielle Zevin, an author more known for her YA [young adult] fare, is one that I have altogether too many thoughts about. I’m choosing not to dub this post a review proper, as it’s really a slightly more cohesive version of one of the stream of consciousness responses to books/films/etc. that blogger/writer J. Caleb Mozzocco is so fond of doing.

In order to make this easier for all of you to read, and with no offence whatsoever meant to Mozzocco [whose writing I enjoy quite a bit] I have boiled down this post to the three primary thoughts I was left with once I’d closed the book.

To be upfront with everyone I also want to state, before starting, that I enjoyed reading this novel and while this will definitely make more sense having read it, I hope to have written it in such a way that doesn’t spoil anything and piques your interest enough to pick it up.

A. J. Fikry: Biracial Bookseller

I’m not sure exactly what this says about me, but nothing about the surname “Fikry” stood out to me as being, well, non-White. You could chalk this up to the general assumption most people have that White people are the norm and so unless explicitly stated otherwise characters must be that, but I also have the feeling I’m just used to slightly stranger family names. I mean, I have known Zbindens and Thorlaksons and Cronks.

What I’m trying to say is that A. J. Fikry rather rudely points out to Knightley publisher sales rep Amelia Loman that he is “partially Indian” 15 pages into the book and, while it surprised me, it is barely referenced again. Two pages later he attempts to warm up frozen vindaloo. After that there’s a reference to his skin tone on page 48 and a description on page 215 of his mother being “a tiny white woman with long gray hair that has not been cut since she retired from her job at a computer company a decade ago.” Oh, those and page 83.

While there are bits and pieces here and there about him being considered a tad “foreign” by the residents of the tiny community on Alice Island, page 83 speaks volumes about the protagonist and his life as a biracial man. A customer remarks that he and a little girl are “both black but not the same kind of black,” and he throws those words back in their face in a dangerous tone. It’s only the shortest glimpse into the kind of backlash that repeated microagressions can elicit, but it certainly rings true.

Zevin chooses a biracial man as her main character, while focusing on many aspects of his life that are just like yours or mine. At the same time, she also ensures that there is at least one moment to illustrate that life is so very different for non-White people living in a North American world.

Amelia Loman: Manic Pixie Dream Girl

To a point, I think most people have a pretty good idea of what I’m talking about. I would say that Natalie Portman’s character in Garden State is probably the best example from my personal experience, but the AV Club’s Nathan Rabin points to Kristen Dunst in Elizabethtown, who inspired his coining of the term. He describes her in his review of the film as someone who-

“exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures.”

An even more contemporary example is probably Jess, from tied-for-my-favourite-FOX-sitcom New Girl.

The key defining trait, and one that you’ve probably heard altogether too much surrounding the actor if you’ve watched SNL these past few years, is her “quirkiness”. She likes cute, quaint things, she is funny and dresses in a particular way, she has her endearing-and-not-irritating obsessions, etc. Amelia Loman definitely fits a number of these descriptors.

A. J. Fikry, on page 17, tells us that she-

“had looked like a time traveler from 1990s Seattle with her anchor-printed galoshes and her floral grandma dress and her fuzzy beige sweater and her shoulder-length hair that looked like it had been cut in the kitchen by her boyfriend.”

Upon first reading this I was stunned by the mental image it conjured up, if only because it immediately brought to mind the character trope just mentioned. Not to go into much further detail, but 100 pages later her room is said to contain, among other things, “a mason jar filled with dying sunflowers”, “a bobblehead of Hermione Granger”, and “a lamp with a polka-dotted scarf draped over it.”

That’s not to say that this negatively affected my reading of the book, or the way that I viewed the character. Zevin wrote her, as well as she possible could, to be a realistic human being and she certainly doesn’t revolve around the novel’s protagonist, serving solely to bring light and joy to his life. I simply call attention to it because it seems to be well aware of the character type, and embraces it instead of shying away from it [I will also admit that such people exist, but art of the written variety does not exist in a vacuum free of other media].

Books Are Best

To finally get to what I hope is the shortest of these three sections, the fact of the matter is that The Storied Life of A. J. Fikry is a celebration of the medium. The titular character loves to read, as does Amelia, and as do many of the secondary and even tertiary characters. Each chapter is prefaced by a short story recommendation and, not to directly spoil or quote a passage very near the end of the book, a character essentially tells us that people who read and sell books are good people.

The accuracy of that opinion aside, and many people have voiced their own agreeing or disagreeing with it, the reason I consider it worth calling out is because of how barefaced it is. Reading and literature are well-lauded, an appreciation for the art form is worn on its sleeve [if book jackets can have sleeves]. All of this had me wondering if a similar take would be accepted in a different medium.

Would you thoroughly enjoy a TV show that told you, over and over again, how great television was, that those who sit in front of their flat screens have a certain superiority about them? Admittedly there is an admission by a character that “We aren’t the things we collect, acquire, read,” but that is by no means the final word on that particular topic. At the very least, I believe that the reason this is deemed acceptable is because reading and books in general are already considered to be beneficial by most. The opinions, such as they are, are regarded instead as facts.

Whether or not another medium is capable of preaching the same message [and your interpretation of what the novel is trying to say may differ], it is one that I personally agree with, to a point. Reading really can help people to grow and learn, and can’t do much to worsen them [put down that copy of Mein Kampf and allow me to generalize this point]. As one of the things I observed the message is far from egregious, and should at bare minimum be considered an encouragement to pick up a book and read a little more.

Just like how I’m encouraging you to read this book, if you can.

The short answer is yes. In many ways I don’t mind putting my thoughts out on the no man’s land we call the internet. I’m sure Foucault would have all kinds of things to say about the kind of surveillance we submit ourselves to as bloggers, but as an aspiring writer it’s unrealistic for me to remain entirely private if I want to build up my writing experience.

Using social media isn’t really all that different from being in a panopticon.

That being said, everything we put online is going to follow us for the rest of our lives. Yes, most of the time people just don’t care what my (or your) opinions are, so we can slather them all over any social media site with little to no consequences, but, then again, sometimes those opinions may come back to haunt us. This past month I started several blog posts only to put them aside for a variety of reasons. I hope to come back to them again at some point, but for this post I thought I would share a few of those reasons and why they make me think twice about what I share.

My Work (Current and Future)

I’m sure we have all heard about someone who got fired because of a poorly thought-through Facebook complaint. For me, being careful extends beyond just stopping myself before I say something too stupid. It also requires that I honour any confidentiality forms I may have signed. I also need to respect the patent on any intellectual property I have access to through work. This can actually be a lot harder than it sounds. I love my work (as I’ve mentioned before, I’ve been working in the Special Education field for several years now).  When you work with kids (and families) it can sometimes become hard to keep the line between your professional relationships and personal friendships. Here on the blog I often share about my personal experiences. Often, I am tempted to share anecdotes from my professional experiences too, but no matter how anonymous I try to keep a story I feel concerned that it could be traced back to the original source.

My Faith

We all have some kind of opinion on what truth is. For most of us, these opinions evolve. Recently, I shared a little bit about how my views on the purity movement have changed, for example. There are a lot of other aspects of my faith that I have reevaluated in recent years too.

Sometimes it can be hard for me to discuss these changes in such a public way. Partially, this is because there are a lot of people in my life who I respect that hold different views than me. For some of those people, disagreeing with certain things is very threatening, or can come across as an attack on them personally. In these kind of situations I’d like to challenge myself to discuss disagreements in person, rather than hide behind a computer screen.

There is also that thing I mentioned before, about beliefs evolving. While I still want to wrestle with the issues that are important to me, sometimes I think back on my old views on life and realize how terribly embarrassed I’d be if all those thoughts had been recorded and posted on the internet. So there certainly is a possibility that in a few years I will look back, embarrassed about the views that are contemporary to me now. 

My Studies

I don’t always get to spend as long on a blog post as I would like. Sometimes that means I don’t get to spend as long studying my featured topic as long as I would prefer. As mentioned above, I would consider myself an “aspiring writer”. That means that whatever I write acts as a reflection of my skill (or lack thereof). It sucks to go back and find grammar issues, or even worse, information that was poorly researched. That being said, blogging is also a different kind of writing. It is personal, and much more casual. We often remind readers that we all hold our own biases, here on the blog, and obviously we are writing about things that we feel strongly about, especially on Fame or Shame Days. We work to give readers as much background information as we are able, but we just cannot dedicate the same level of time and energy to a weekly post that we might spend on a masters thesis, for example.  

My Social Life

I’m a very social person, so for me, all my other reasons come back to this one in the end. I would be devastated if I ever found out one of my bosses had found me to be unprofessional because of something I had shared online. And as much as I love that Culture War Reporters is a place where we can be open about our beliefs and opinions, it is sometimes impossible to do so without offending somebody. Then again, freedom of speech does not mean saying what you want without consequences. And sharing your opinion in a very public way can be a risk. But sometimes you can find that the risk is worth it. I’ve been contributing to Culture War Reporters for about a year now and I’ve loved (pretty well) every minute of it. Yeah, I had to build a thicker skin along the way, but it taught me a lot of practical skills (like meeting a weekly deadline). It’s also allowed me to do what I love, and prompted some great real life conversations. So will blogging come back to haunt me? Well, I think it already has. And for the most part, it’s been pretty great.

The Exorcist came out in 1973, and while pretty tame by today’s standards, was nonetheless an iconic film which arguably gave birth to the entire “exorcist-film” genre.

Of course, by “genre”, I mean a number of studios have been trying to make the exact same ****ing movie every single year and show no signs of stopping anytime soon.

We’re just now in July and we’ve already had a few out churned out, though what got me on the subject have been the non-stop ads for Deliver Us From Evil, the latest cash-grab which look like a soulless mash-up of both the exorcist and zombie apocalypse flicks.

Yeah. Possession that somehow spreads a la zombie-logic. Let’s go ahead and start right there.

Get the Theology Straight

Look, you can’t separate exorcism films from religion.

It just doesn’t work.

Exorcism films are effective because they play to fear and ambiguity surrounding religious references to hell. You can’t drag the demons away from the source material, because they suddenly lose all impact. You might as well be watching just a regular ol’ zombie flick, or one of those “There’s something in the water/food supply making everyone crazy” movies.

Which aren’t themselves awful movies, but you might as well just get to the point, y’know?

Also, it helps give the victims a bit more depth. 9 times out of 10, the person who’s possessed is possessed seemingly at random or after some sort of tragic event, like the death of a loved one.

Well ****, Anthony, it doesn’t seem like anything does. You can’t hit up a garage sale these days and not get possessed and yes, readers, that is the actual premise of one of these movies.

This again is missing the point.

The point of possession flicks (heck, many horror movies in general) is to point out and pick at the idea that “we’re all in danger”. That our moral failings or weaknesses of character are what put us at risk, along with the knowledge that, as human beings, we’ll never really be free from the danger of falling astray.

That’s what gives a movie it’s depth- otherwise the driving concept is just about as scary as the concept of being in a car accident.

For Heaven’s Sake, Give Us Some Originality

<Insert “Driving Me Up The Wall” Pun>

Let me summarize the plot of every exorcist movie ever made:

1. Person gets possessed.

2. Young skeptic and older believer exorcist are called in.

3. Young Skeptic: “It’s mental illness!”

4. Old Exorcist: “It’s demons! You must believe!”

5. Possessed person does contortions and/or crabwalks; in rare cases, the “Thriller” dance.

6. Young Skeptic: “Even though this person just walked upside on the ceiling, I still believe it is mental illness!”

7. Old Exorcist attempts exorcism, gets possessed and/or dies.

8. Young Skeptic: “I believe now!”

9. Young Skeptic attempts exorcism, has disparaging things said about his mother, sexuality, and/or taste in music, successfully exorcizes demon.

10. Or does he?

Can’t we change it up just once? I mean, one of my greatest hopes for The Rite (2011) was that it’d surprise me in the final moments with a “Hey, it was mental illness all along. Anthony Hopkins is a charlatan, and really, what’s the difference between that inherent evil and a demon anyways?”

But nope- Crabwalk-disbelief-belief-exorcism(?).

I swear, you could watch any possession movie and play crabwalk bingo at this point.

Why can’t we have one where the twist is that it’s all a sham? Or one where the priests are defeated and forced to question why? Or one where the person seemingly possessed is just suffering mental illness, and its really the parent (look, it’s almost always a parent) who’s possessed and secretly promoting exorcisms to sustain what are comparatively barbaric methods- the whole “the devil is a gentleman” twist?

The Gags

Yeah, that’s what they are at this point- gags. I’ve mentioned the crabwalk thrice now, and I’m guessing that even non-horror fans know what I’m talking about.

I’m sure this’d be scary if it hadn’t been used nearly 144 times…

Same thing goes for head turns, contortions, gravity defiance, and projectile vomiting. These things are cliches at this point. Same thing goes for the growls, the gibberish Latin/Aramaic, the streams of profanity- these things just aren’t shocking anymore.

You know what would be scary?

“Sleepwalking”. The afflicted person disappears off-screen and nobody’s quite sure where the person is, if they’re in control of their own actions, or exactly what their state will be when they’re found (if they don’t find you first). That is gonna build some tension there.

And while we’re at it, could we give the Catholics a break?

Even the possessed girl is bored at this point.

I know they’re the ones with the fancy robes and cathedrals and ceremony, but these guys are getting lambasted in pretty much every movie. “The Vatican denies this”, “The diocese offers no comment on that”, “Father McIrish was defrocked for attempting those”- it’s probably one of the worst cases of a stawman I’ve ever seen. The Roman Catholics might (and do) have their issues, but they deserve better than to be used as just some prop for an already bad storyline.

Heck, I think it’d be straight up more interesting to see a different denomination or religion’s take on the whole deal. How would some bare-bones Protestant sect handle it? Can’t use Latin with those guys.

And yes, I know 2012′s The Possession was from a Jewish perspective, but that’s what? 1 out of 100 since 1974?

These Could Be Good Movies

Now I know everyone’s collectively rolling their eyes at this, but it’s something I truly do believe. These movies cover (if never actually confront) a lot of issues we simply don’t bring up. The psychology versus spirituality, the role of religion in an increasingly secular world, our response to the unknown, the fear of our own moral compromises and failures, our willingness to put our trust in ritual and superstition, if only for a means of comforting ourselves.

Dude, how is that helping?

These are all issues which I’d like to see brought up. These are issues which I think exorcism movies are uniquely equipped to grapple with in a visceral and compelling way.

We deserve a better breed of horror flick, people.

Not all appliances are created equal, and that certainly rings true for longtime readers of comic books. While some of us have discovered the phrase simply by taking part in the discourse that surrounds superhero titles, there are those among us who can remember reading Green Lantern #54, which featured the titular character discovering that his girlfriend had been murdered and stuffed in the aforementioned kitchen mainstay.

Since then [and thanks to Gail Simone] “fridge” has become both a noun and a verb, and occurs to a character when, according to TV Tropes, “[they are] targeted by an antagonist who has them killed off, abused, raped, incapacitated, de-powered, or brainwashed for the sole purpose of affecting another character, motivating them to take action.” It shouldn’t surprise you at all to learn that most characters who have been fridged are, you guessed it, women, and for the benefit of men to boot.

This particular topic made its way back onto my radar after an internet-response-to-comic-book-happenings debacle that I don’t want to get into [Brett White goes into what took place as well as the resulting backlash quite well, if you're interested], where one of the listed grievances against a particular writer was that he had fridged a longstanding female supporting character.

Timothy O’Neil, whose blog has somehow missed making its way unto the links sidebar, tweeted the following with that in mind:

If you're saying no female characters can ever die, well, then no female characters can ever be heroic.—
Timothy O'Neil (@timoneil5000) July 02, 2014

Which is, of course, having a bit of fun at the expense of those who are quick to cast the fridge label on any form of a female character’s death without taking into account its context. Which in turn leads to feminists retorting with their own amount of snark because they feel like they’re being shut down altogether too often:

And I’m over here, trying my best to skirt the line and find some sort of comfortable middle ground.

Last year I delved into my creative writing process a little by breaking down tropes, straight-up stating how difficult it is to come up with original ideas when so many characters exist to buck archetypes, with newer ones playing off of those, and so forth. I’ll be the first to admit that my conclusion was probably too simple:

“Ultimately what really matters is good writing:  creating living, breathing characters that your audience will connect to and care about.”

I continue to stand by it, though. The “gentle giant” character trope, as an example, has basically been around forever, but if we had decided to permanently shelve it we never would have gotten The Iron Giant, which is a movie I expect you all to have seen at least twice.

Fridging characters is much more specific than a character whose size belies their peaceful spirit, though, and has arguably seen significantly more use. That’s the real issue, here: overuse. There’s a good cycling of character tropes due to people getting tired of them, but for some reason we’ve very much normalized fridging as an audience. If anything this helps absolve those who overzealously drop “the f-word” whenever a female character bites the dust.

Revenge flicks have and always will be pretty big, and more often than not a man is very upset about what has been done to a woman. Assuming that this is a form of character motivation we’re seeing altogether too often, what is the solution? Do we flip the script until “men in refrigerators” become just as prevalent? Bar killing off or harming other characters at all if they serve as catalysts to our protagonist being spurred to action? Are these options even possible?

I drew this.

The new Ms. Marvel is a character who chooses to become a hero not because of the death of an uncle [Spider-Man] or both parents [Batman], but because she believes she needs to do what she can to help others. Clearly stories, and very compelling ones at that, can be told without any sort of great loss taking place.

Based on that fact alone my advice would be to acknowledge these other narratives and give them the attention that they surely deserve at this point. I don’t think that we should eliminate the revenge flick [which I have a soft spot for, personally], but we should be aware that we’ve probably had more than enough of them for at least a little while. Entertainment should be an ever-evolving thing, and that applies not only to how we tell the stories, but the kind we’re telling as well.

What better time to take a look back at the fourth issue of Ms. Marvel
than today, on the eve of its sixth? As I mentioned in my last review, I missed out on this due to being abroad in a place where English comic books are scarce. Enough about that, though, let’s see what Kamala was up to.

This issue fits as a natural segue between our heroine learning that vigilantism comes with its consequences [getting shot accidentally at the end of #3] and that it takes even more failure, followed by bravery, to truly succeed [#5, natch]. It’s also a lead-in to the kind of traditional superhero antics you expect in books with “Marvel” or “DC” on them.

More importantly, though, this is the issue that really spotlights Bruno and Kamala’s friendship. It’s not just that he reminds her [and reveals to us] that he’s her “second-best friend”, it’s the sudden inversion of their relationship that takes place. 

As the first person who Kamala “comes out to” Bruno is burdened with the responsibility of keeping her secret. That’s nothing compared to the actual super powers she now wields, though, and he must face the fact that he’s no longer in the position to protect her from whatever might put her in danger. As he says, “It totally freaks [him] out.”

He’s there to witness her shapeshifting abilities, and to provide her with the information that she needs to save his brother Vick. The next issue follows his role as what is essentially the Alfred to her Batman, and it’s interesting to see him play such an active role, especially given his following words about Kamala
which hint at him being a love interest:

“You’re the coolest girl I’ve ever met. You say what you mean and you kick butt at video games and you’re smart and funny and–”

Given Wilson’s writing thus far I’d say that the chances of him being stuffed into a particular kitchen appliance are fairly slim, but that certainly doesn’t mean that Ms. Marvel will never have to rescue her second-best friend. He’s inextricably tied up in her superheroism, and only time will tell how this will affect both their friendship and his life.

Lastly, imagine that this were a real-time review and you were reading me ranting about yet another issue without a full costume, exacerbated by the sleep-mask/burkini/fanny pack hodgepodge she dons for her first mission.

Tomorrow: Ms. Marvel #6! Art by the incredibly talented [no offense whatsoever to Adrian Alphona] Jake Wyatt!

The Ms. Marvel Visual Gag You Shouldn’t Have Missed: Pickings are pretty slim this issue, even given the Circle Q as a setting. That doesn’t mean there weren’t any gems to glean, however. While the “Coma Chameleon” brand sleep-mask was just wonderful, what really caught my eye was the “Grin & Bear It” toothpaste. How Alphona avoided a job in marketing, I’ll never know.

Ms. Marvel #4
Written by G. Willow Wilson
Art by Adrian Alphona
Colours by Ian Herring
Letters by Joe Caramagna
Edited by Sana Amanat
Marvel Comics

Not only is this the first full issue of no holds barred genuine superhero-ing as we all expect it, it’s also the first team-up the all-new Ms. Marvel has ever had and the first installment sans series regular artist Adrian Alphona. And man, is it good.

That’s not to deride the man’s work, and really I promise to stop bringing this up, but Jake Wyatt can draw himself some superhero goings-on. He’s on board for #6 and #7 before heading back to work on his creator-owned Necropolis. I’m going to enjoy it while it lasts.

In short, this issue is all about Kamala Khan embracing her crimefighting
identity in full as well as rubbing shoulders with the world’s most famous fictional Canadian [sorry, Dudley Do-Right]. On closer inspection, though, there are so many facets of her character that allows hers to be a unique story unlike anyone else’s.

For starters we finally see the return of Sheikh Abdullah, the Khans finally coming through on their threat to force their daughter to meet with him. Last we saw the man writer G. Willow Wilson was critiquing certain aspects of Islam, a move that I found genuinely surprising [in a good way]. In this issue she continues to paint a complex picture of the religion.

Look, I like to think that I’m a fairly open-minded individual, but first impressions have a lasting effect. That, on top of the fact that the media has constantly portrayed Islam as a very backwards faith has led to me being as taken aback as Kamala when Sheikh Abdullah tells her to keep doing what she’s doing, helping people. In fact, his words are sure to be ones that stick with her as she moves forwards as a superheroine:

“I am asking you for something more difficult. If you insist on pursuing this thing you will not tell me about, do it with the qualities befitting an upright young woman:

Courage, strength, honesty, compassion, and self-respect.”

If that’s not something you can agree with then I really don’t know what to tell you.

Secondly, given her team-up with Wolverine, we’re reminded how she’s, well, just a kid. There’s some literal hero-worship going on here, and unadulterated excitement at finally meeting the guy. Sure, we’ve seen it before, but never in a teenager who’s been so in touch with the world as many of us know it.

The panels above have Kamala going on about her writing fanfiction about Wolverine, and immediately before that she describes his athleticism in doge-speak [if you don't understand what that means I congratulate you for spending more time outside than I do]. Some might say that this dates the character, but it also helps ground her as a legitimately believable teenager. There’s a distinct lack of world-weariness that so many other heroes bear, and its flavoured by what are probably far too many hours online.

Not everything has been cleared up for Ms. Marvel, since she doesn’t even know what she is at this point, but things are continuing to shape up [no pun intended] for her. Also in this issue: we find out that the Inventor is “not a bird!“, his DNA contaminated by some dude named Knox’s pet cockatiel. And that he’s a clone of Thomas Edison.

The Adorable Ms. Marvel Drawing You Shouldn’t Have Missed: I had to tweak this feature given the distinct lack of visual gags, and thought it would be appropriate to note just how cute [a word that bears no negative connotations here] Jake Wyatt can portray things. In this case, Kamala as she worries about the alligator she just punched right in the gullet.

Ms. Marvel #6
Written by G. Willow Wilson
Art by Jake Wyatt
Colours by Ian Herring
Letters by Joe Caramagna
Edited by Sana Amanat
Marvel Comics

If I want to be honest with all of you, which I do, the fact is that comic book characters don’t change all that much. That’s a gross overgeneralization, so let me backtrack a little: comics don’t change quickly. Sure, between 2010-2011 Spider-Man had this whole “no one dies” thing that strongly affected the way he behaved in situations for months to come, but it took like three whole issues. We’re just past the half-dozen mark with this comic, and Kamala’s already learning things that are going to stick with her for years [yeah, this title's not going anywhere] to come.

When we last left our plucky New Jerseyite she was facing off against the mother [or father] of all alligators alongside a short, hairy Canadian who also happens to have metal blades sticking out from his hands. Whereas the last issue revolved pretty heavily around her gushing over one of her idols, this one focuses more on the dichotomy between the two [newly-powered Inhuman and world-weary mutant] and what they can learn from one another.

To be more accurate, what Kamala Khan can learn from James “Logan” Howlett. Though it’s not like she doesn’t help him out at all.

Now I could give you all a blow-by-blow of what they do in these twenty-some pages [fight a giant crocodilian beast, obviously], but I think what’s far more important is the near encyclopedia of knowledge that Wolverine imparts. G. Willow Wilson can write teenage girls, but she tackles the voice of Everyone’s Favourite Hirsute Eviscerator™ just as well.

There’s an entire page where the two are ascending through the sewers and Wolverine shares such wisdom nuggets as “a mask cuts both ways“, but the most important comes before that, in the gorgeous panel below [I can't believe I've gotten this far in this review without waxing poetic about Jake Wyatt's art]:

Kamala asks “is it possible to help people without hurting other people?” [or reptiles], and what she hears is a cold, hard truth. Typically people need help because others want to hurt them, and to keep them from harm’s way sometimes you’re the one who gets hurt. Life, if you really want to do something with it, is pain. There’s nothing like the nearby corpse of a crocosaurus to really hammer the point home.

While most people [myself included, of course] are pretty into the whole course of events, some find the potential flaw within the narrative-

You know what, though? “Dependent” is a pretty strong word. The last page that features Ms. Marvel has her turning down his offer to take over the problem [The Inventor using kids as batteries for his robots and traps and things], telling him:

“This is my city. My home. I know it inside and out. If the Inventor messes with Jersey City, he messes with me.

I can handle this.”

For the life of me, I just can’t see that as this helpless brown girl being aided by this more powerful Caucasian man.

The last few pages call in a few more of Marvel’s higher-tier heroes and thrusts the book more firmly into the realm of comic book weirdness [teleporting extraterrestrial canines, anyone?]. While Kamala finally appears to be on her way to joining the rest of the Marvel universe, I for one am confident that she [and the title] will keep the relentlessly positive genuine tone it has so far.

The Adorable Ms. Marvel Drawing You Shouldn’t Have Missed: Good news for all of you who’ve been missing Adrian Alphona, he’s back next month in Issue #8! Feel free to look forward to that while treasuring the way Wyatt brings Wolverine’s anger and Ms. Marvel’s momentary zapped state to life.

Ms. Marvel #7
Written by G. Willow Wilson
Art by Jake Wyatt
Colours by Ian Herring
Letters by Joe Caramagna
Edited by Sana Amanat
Marvel Comics

A while back, we had a discussion on everything wrong with our attempts to make exorcism movies. Good ones, anyways. That done, I figured we might try to keep the ball rolling and talk today about how to repair our stories of ghosts and haunted houses.

Now as a disclaimer, I’m coming into all this with some bias. While I’ve never had anything particularly against these kinds of movies, ghost and haunting stories have always been my least favorite kind of horror. Heavily reliant on jump scares, rather than psychological horror, they’ve always struck me as being not all that much different than an amusement park ride. That’s all just to say that I’m not what you’d call an expert by any means, but I think  we can all agree on some ground rules here.

Let’s get started.

Drop the Victorian Crap

It’s not every ghost story that’ll include junk from this period in time- just most of ‘em. If you see the ghost, 9 times out of 10, it’s some woman in ragged-but-unmistakable Victorian garb. This is actually one of the arguments skeptics use to discredit most paranormal claims- we’ve had so many people die since the 1800s that the fact that most every “sighting” is of a specter in turn-of-the-century clothing just shows how deeply ingrained this trope is into our psyche.

Of course, that doesn’t stop the film industry from showing nothing but that.

Granted, in the movie’s defense it looks like it actually is set in the 1800s, so the whole Victorian schtick is at least explained- that still doesn’t make any of it less tiresome.

And it’s not just the ghosts- it’s everything.  The settings, the props- old mirrors, dolls, mysterious antique boxes, little red balls that’ll inevitably roll down the stairs seemingly of their own accord. The moment the audience sees ‘em there’s a collective internal groan of “here we go again”.

Right back at ya, Tina…

It’s a question of realism- who even has this kind of stuff anymore? 30 or so years ago, yeah, I could see someone inheriting some old turn-o’-the-century junk, but these days it just feels out of place. Horror can’t be horror unless the threat feels real, and the classic “you’ve inherited a haunted mansion” story is becoming harder and harder to buy.

We don’t exactly have a ton of these things lying around either…

Don’t get me wrong- I understand why people choose these settings. You can’t exactly do a convincing ghost story in a cramped apartment in the middle of the city, and as much as Japan tries to cash in on technology-horror (see One Missed Call or The Ring), it’s still a really tough sell.

There’s gotta be some other options, though. Haunted farm. Ghost town.  Heck, even some new housing development could probably be scary if you added the right twist. I’ve even seen a submarine make for a pretty decent haunting-story. All in we have got to stop relying on these old crutches if we want to make something worth watching.

Give Folks a Reason to Stay in the House

I mean seriously.

There’s no sane person who would watch their curtains inexplicably catch on fire and stay in the house. Even the most die-hard skeptic who’d argue there’s a rational reason for everything would still have the good sense to check into a hotel for a couple days while his house’s spontaneous combustion issues gets looked at.

And granted, the folks making these movies are trying to do better at it. The characters now argue that “We can’t move because we sunk our last bit of cash into this property” or “We can’t move because we’re still working on renovating this place” or something like that. Still, by the 3rd or 4th time your youngest child gets thrown against the ceiling by an unknown entity, I think your priorities might start to change.

Just a guess…

Now my solution to this would be to just make everything a lot more subtle. Something’s wrong, but there’s generally a better explanation for it. Give the skeptics some credit, I guess is what it’d come down to. Or perhaps have only one of the characters see any of the creepy stuff, and have the central conflict of the movie be on whether or not those things are actually there. Heck, that last one could even be a commentary about how we treat people who actually do believe in ghosts and the paranormal, with questions raised on how might you argue with ‘em or humor ‘em or what.

The Middle Exposition is Killer

This is true of most horror-movies, not just ghost or haunted-house ones, and this, more than anything else, I think is what I think kills the plot.

For many horror flicks, about halfway through the main characters will meet with someone (a priest, fortune teller, borderline racist voodoo caricature, etc.) who’ll explain exactly what’ going on and how to try to fix it.

Horror movies- because you apparently want to listen to a fifteen minute lecture on Dark Ages Lithuanian folklore.

And it’s terrible.

The entire point of horror is to relentlessly build a feeling of dread as something unspeakable lurks just outside your field of vision. This exposition brings all that progression to a screeching halt, so you have to start all over again in the 3rd act. Beyond that, actually breaking down the mystery simply obliterates most of what’s made the movie fun. Describing what the monster is and how it acts confines it. Suddenly it’s not an imaginable horror but something we can understand, and the more we understand something, the less we fear it. Not the kind of flaw you want a *****ing horror movie to have, now is it?

Why Not Wait?

Pattern is something we talked about in our exorcist movie post and I think it comes into bearing here as well. The plot in most ghost/haunted house movies is  characters move in somewhere, stuff starts going wrong, a gradually escalating and culminating in the final showdown which inevitably means chairs will be thrown around.

Like this, if the guy in red was invisible

And I’ve never been able to understand that story-arc. I mean, if these spirits are such powerful beings, why not just off the residents the moment they move in? Why spend days, weeks, or even months just screwing with ‘em? Sure it builds tension, but it again kills that small but all-important element of believability that every horror movie needs.

Let’s talk about dramatic irony here, ‘cuz that’s what I think is gonna save this- the audience having knowledge of something the characters don’t. In one of the best horror movies I’ve ever seen (2008’s The Strangers), we see the killer in the house loooong before the main character even begins to suspect that she’s not alone.

It. Was. Terrifying.

I really don’t want to spoil that scene, so here’s a GIF of some kittens instead.

Throughout most of the film you’re sitting at the edge of your seat, biting your nails and waiting for the hammer to drop. That right there was more enthralling, thrilling, and chilling than all the stacked chairs in Amityville

(ok, that was technically Poltergeist, but you get the idea)

Now that’s all to say that instead of the jump scares and fake-outs and whatnot, why not have the first and only encounter with the entity be at the end of the movie? We can see it coming, we put the pieces together, and we sit in helpless horror as the characters are pulled closer and closer to their doom.

(Again) These Could Be Good Movies

As I’ve said before, the point of horror movies is to explore or speak to some idea, in the cause of hauntings, it’s usually the corruptive nature of evil- the sins of the father affect the 2nd, the 3d, and even 4th generation. And as strange as it might sound, “justice” is another major element of these flicks, with the pacifying of these angry spirits usually happening after an ancient wrong has been righted.

Curses, the wages of sin, damnation, redemption- all in all, it’s some pretty Old Testament stuff, and all things we don’t usually have a way of exploring in our society other than smug indie films.

Keep the world free from more smug indie films. Make better haunted house movies.

It should be absolutely no secret to any and all of you that I’m an advocate for diversity. There are a myriad of different reasons for this, from the “it would be nice…” of seeing a little more colour in popular media to the more specific “think of the children” that pertains to White boys specifically [not White girls or Black boys and girls] having their self-esteem boosted by watching TV. What some people don’t realize is that the need need for diversity extends beyond actors and the characters they portray to the actual creators involved.

I’m not going to say that a White man cannot ever be involved in the creation of art that discusses or features minorities and their struggles- it’s a topic I touched on when discussing children’s author Rich Michelson and the books he’s written about the Civil Rights Movement. These stories can, and have been, and will continue to be valid, the question remains as to why we live in a world where a James Brown biopic can be created as a summer blockbuster and have “all the producers, writers, and the director [. . . be] white.” At what point should anyof these people stopped and thought to themselves, “Maybe a Black person would be able to provide a perspective on this that none of the rest of us could?” “Immediately” is the answer in case you were wondering.

This is all a lead-up to how, if this is definitely a problem in our current culture, we can change things. As history would dictate I am going to be coming at this from a distinctly comic-related perspective, but the issues therein can be paralleled across the board to TV and movies. 

One possibility would be for the publishers to maintain a quota when it comes to hiring creators. Gordon and I touched on this a little bit when we were discussing affirmative action, with him stating that it is actually illegal in the States. Beyond that little technicality, it would also cause whoever was hired to be the subject of constant scrutiny and criticism given that they appeared to be hired not based on their actual talent or merits but the colour of their skin, or gender, or sexual orientation. No, quotas don’t appear to be the solution- the issue is that the very idea of just suggesting or promoting minority creatives suffers that same harsh examination.

In October of last year Comics Alliance created a feature called “Hire This Woman”. The first installment and every one following has been prefaced with the following paragraph that sums up their goal:

“In the overwhelmingly male comic book industry, it has been a challenge for some editors and readers to see the ever growing number of talented women currently trying to make a name for themselves. With that in mind, ComicsAlliance offers Hire This Woman, a recurring feature designed for comics readers as well as editors and other professionals, where we shine the spotlight on a female comics pro on the ascendance. Some of these women will be at the very beginning of their careers, while others will be more experienced but not yet “household names.'”

While the reception on the site itself has overall been quite positive, very recently a link to the feature that spotlit artist Afua Richardson appeared on the comicbooks subreddit that was met with a lot of judgement-

To sum up the redditor’s comment, her being the focus of this particular feature “demeans and belittles her accomplishments” by concentrating on her as a woman as opposed to being an artist. Given the title I’m sure it could be taken that way, but actually reading through it reveals a very thorough interview that delves into her creative process and past. In other words nothing about the actual article even touches on her gender; it’s strictly professional.

The more times you read black_trans_otherkin’s comment the faster you realize that the real problem for them lies in the feature’s name. Surely there would be no issue if Comics Alliance merely chose to spotlight creators in general who they believed deserve the attention, but narrowing the scope is what crosses the line.

Still another comment opines that “I’m sure there are other artists, white, asian, black, brown, female, male, transgendered, etc… That would love the promotion,” and you know what? They’re right! The creative world in and outside of comic books is hard and every new creator needs all the exposure that they can get. It’s just that if you ask me a push to get more White men into the industry isn’t really going to shake things up. That’s not to say that there aren’t a multitude of very talented people among them, it’s that promoting them in the same way Comics Alliance is doing so with 50% of the population seems unnecessary.

And again, this isn’t to deride the White artists and writers out there some of which I personally know and am close to, it’s that at this point in time there are other perspectives that need more of a push. I want to see more than just Argentinian writer/artist [on left] penning All-New Ghost Rider. I want more than Babs Tarr drawing Batgirl and Kelly Sue Deconnick writing
Captain Marvel. We live in a world that gets increasingly diverse with every passing day, and if, as a culture, we don’t have equally diverse creators serving that population then we are failing in a huge way.

If a little extra promotion is what a female letterer or a Lebanese writer needs to get noticed, then so be it. And if, in addition to that, editors at any and all publishers could look a little harder at those underrepresented groups they could find some truly mind-blowing talent. Creators that live up to their title and speak to experiences that have had so few voices represent them in the past.

The first episode of season eight took these accusations head-on by allowing Clara to vocalize what so many fans had been saying online. After Clara complains to Madam Vestra about losing the incarnation of the Doctor she had grown to love (Matt Smith), Vestra tells her, and by proxy all the complaining fans, that they are super shallow and need to get over themselves.

From the little I’ve seen him in, I think Peter Capaldi looks like a fantastic actor. I don’t even think he is “too old” to play the Doctor (especially since the Doctor is a few thousand years old now, whereas Capaldi is merely 55). However, watching the first few episodes of the new season were extremely painful.

His attempts to embody the silliness we came to love about Matt Smith made me wince. It was just awkward.

Like the time he butt-checked Robin Hood.

When he wasn’t attempting to put on the Matt persona, which looked about as natural as a porcupine trying to wear a sweater-vest, he was just acting grumpy.
Is that the new personality we have to look forward to?

The grumpy Doctor?

When it comes to the new Doctor being over the top, I don’t blame Capaldi.

I blame Steven Moffat.

If you’ve read any of my past Doctor Who reviews you will already know that I have a problem with Moffat’s tendency to overdo things. Don’t get me wrong, he has written many of my all-time favourite episodes, but ever since he took over as head writer from Russell T. Davis I’ve noticed a tendency to skip over solid dialogue in favour of being flashy. One of the things I first loved about Doctor Who was the writers’ ability to create solid storylines without relying on a Hollywood-esque shock-and-awe factor. Consequently, it’s a real disappointment when it seems like more time was spent on a CGI dinosaur than on giving the new doctor some depth.

And by depth, I don’t mean sword fighting with a spoon. There should be more to the Doctor than just being quirky.

That said, there are some aspects to this new season that I’m looking forward to. For example, the change in his relationship with Clara.

Because he’s so skinny… get it?

So no, I don’t think Peter Capaldi will kill the Doctor. With each passing episode the role seems to fit him a little bit better. He’s dropped a lot of the Matt-isms and silly one-liners and has started to bring a new dimension to the Doctor that holds a lot of promise.

Besides, if the Doctor does die it will probably just be because Moffat kill him off (again) in one of his overly complicated meta-plots.

I probably should have mentioned this in my review for the last issue, but the new story arc that started with Issue #8 is titled “Generation Why”, and this week’s installment brings us to the halfway point of that tale. It’s also a pretty fitting title, seeing as questions appearing almost faster than they can be answered.

Eesh. There is a lot to cover. Let me try to break things up a little-

What Happened On The “Universal” Level

Having Medusa, Queen of the Inhumans on the cover is a pretty good indicator that things are going to get a little bit bigger. After a fight that essentially leaves Kamala completely drained she’s whisked away by Lockjaw to New Attilan. These may seem like gibberish words to the less comic savvy, but the redheaded royal ruler explains to her that:

“Long ago, one of your human ancestors was genetically altered by the Kree — an alien race. The genetic legacy has been passed down through the generations– to you.

You’re Inhuman.”

That clears up where the Pakistani-American teen got her powers, and presents the yet another question of “Now what?” Medusa expects her to stay in her new home, but Kamala’s having none of it and once again escapes via teleporting canine. Inhuman physician Vinatos wishes her good-bye “For now,” meaning that she’s sure to rub shoulders with her superpowered kin in the near-ish future.

What Happened On Street Level

As mentioned, Ms. Marvel threw down with another one of the Inventor’s deathbots, though this one chose to attack her at her school. Luckily for our heroine she had two “Embiggened fists of rage!” to deal with it-

It’s nice to see police officers who are significantly less trigger-happy than those who have been in the news as of late, and they hold off from firing at the mech to avoid hitting the “giant girl.” Of particular importance is the large Black cop who tells them to hold their fire, “I think that giant girl is Ms. Marvel.” She’s making a name for herself, and where it counts, at home.

What Happened On A Familial Level

Most parents aren’t going to be too thrilled that their child was on-site during a school attack, but Kamala’s parents’ identities as immigrants really comes through here. They’re worried for sure [her ammi much more than her abu], but her mother says some pretty serious things-

“We came here so our children would be safe — safe from the chaos and corruption and bombings back home.”

Those are the same sentiments that so many people who move to North America carry with them, that they escaped from a place of hardships and entered into a better, brighter world. The expectation is that there’s a trade-off: being a foreigner in a strange land, embedded in a strange culture, in turn results in an improved existence. It’s never stated so explicitly, but to find similar difficulties in the West can feel like a betrayal, like being lied to.

What Happened On A Symbolic Level

Remember last issue, when it turned out that Kamala could no longer transform her appearance? Our resident bug-eyed doc explains why this is, telling her that:

“When you heal something you return it to its original shape. It may be that the more you heal, the less you will be able to shape-shift.”

On a purely comic book level this is important, because as it presently stands Ms. Marvel feels like a mash-up between Mystique [shapeshifting], Mr. Fantastic [stretching], and Ant-Man [growing/shrinking]. Omitting one power set from the bunch helps her stand out a little more, but it also speaks to her search for identity as a whole.

The first six issues presented a pretty clear picture of a teenager who is trying to find out who she is, and whether the face she wants to put on has blonde hair and blue eyes. Solidifying her appearance looks like a not-so-subtle way the universe is telling her [and us] that original recipe you really is the best you.

What Happens Next-

Remember what I said about questions cropping up left and right? A hero’s journey is not an easy one, and the last page reveals that the kids the Inventor was using as batteries for his various maniacal machines are there “by choice.” Helping people whether they want it or not is a struggle as old as the funny pages themselves, and it’s one that Kamala is going have to work out for herself.

The Ms. Marvel Visual Gag You Shouldn’t Have Missed:  It’s a good thing the asbestos removal wasn’t scheduled until Monday, because I’m sure a killer robot crashing through the school building is bound to create the possibility of some kind of fire breaking out.
Ms. Marvel #9
Written by G. Willow Wilson
Art by Adrian Alphona
Colours by Ian Herring
Letters by Joe Caramagna
Edited by Sana Amanat
Marvel Comics