Saturday, April 07, 2012

CHARACTER: 5 Ways Modern Men Are Trained to Hate Women By: David Wong March 27, 2012 | Cracked.com


If you're not the type to keep up with ugly, soul-killing political controversies, let me catch you up: A while back, hugely popular political commentator Rush Limbaugh lost a bunch of advertisers because he publicly called a college girl a slut and a prostitute after she suggested that health insurance plans should cover birth control. But he's paid to say outrageous things. If you really want to feel all dead inside, you need to listen to what the regular folk were saying.

For instance, on crazy political message board FreeRepublic.com, posters referred to the girl in the above-referenced story (Sandra Fluke) as a "Nasty, disease-ridden plodding uterus, an utter skank crack-ho filthy whore, a prostitute slutbag juice-receptacle" and a "Sperm-burpin' gutter slut," and said she "... is so encrusted and used, that I had to throw out my flat-panel TV because her appearance on my TV infected it with AIDS, gonorrhea and syphilis." There are many, many more worse comments collected here and here and here.

Now go to the front page of any mostly male discussion site like Reddit.com and see how many inches you can browse before finding several thousand men bemoaning how all women are gold-digging whores (7,500 upvotes) and how crazy and irrational women are (9,659 upvotes) and how horrible and gross and fat women are (4,000 upvotes). Or browse the "Men's Rights" section and see weird fantasies about alpha males defeating all the hot women who try to control them with their vaginas.

This current of white-hot rage has to come as a surprise to some of you, because we tend to think "sexism" is being dismissive toward women, or paying them lower salaries -- we don't think of it as frenzied "burn the witch!" hatred. Yet occasionally something like this Limbaugh thing will come along to prick that balloon, and out it pours. Like it's always waiting there, a millimeter below the surface.

Why? Well, you see ...

#5. We Were Told That Society Owed Us a Hot Girl

Photos.com

Does it seem like men feel kind of entitled to sex? Does it seem like we react to rejection with the maturity of a child being denied a toy?

Well, you have to keep in mind that what we learn as kids is really hard to deprogram as an adult. And what we learned as kids is that we males are each owed, and will eventually be awarded, a beautiful woman.

Photos.com
"Surprise! Just a little something for graduation."

We were told this by every movie, TV show, novel, comic book, video game and song we encountered. When the Karate Kid wins the tournament, his prize is a trophy and Elisabeth Shue. Neo saves the world and is awarded Trinity. Marty McFly gets his dream girl, John McClane gets his ex-wife back, Keanu "Speed" Reeves gets Sandra Bullock, Shia LaBeouf gets Megan Fox in Transformers, Iron Man gets Pepper Potts, the hero in Avatar gets the hottest Na'vi, Shrek gets Fiona, Bill Murray gets Sigourney Weaver in Ghostbusters, Frodo gets Sam, WALL-E gets EVE ... and so on.

Hell, at the end of An Officer and a Gentleman, Richard Gere walks into the lady's workplace and just carries her out like he's picking up a suit at the dry cleaner.


"I'll take the one in brown flannel. I don't need a bag."

And then we have Star Wars, where Luke starts out getting Princess Leia (in The Empire Strikes Back), but then as Han Solo became a fan favorite, George Lucas realized he had to award her to him instead (forcing him to write the "She's secretly Luke's sister" thing into Return of the Jedi, even though it meant adding the weird incest vibe to Empire). With Harry Potter, J.K. Rowling played with the convention by having the beautiful girl get awarded to the sidekick character Ron, but she made it a central conflict in the story that Ron is constantly worried that, since Harry is the main character, Hermione will be awarded to him instead.

In each case, the woman has no say in this -- compatibility doesn't matter, prior relationships don't matter, nothing else factors in. If the hero accomplishes his goals, he is awarded his favorite female. Yes, there will be dialogue that maybe makes it sound like the woman is having doubts, and she will make noises like she is making the decision on her own. But we, as the audience, know that in the end the hero will "get the girl," just as we know that at the end of the month we're going to "get our paycheck." Failure to award either is breaking a societal contract. The girl can say what she wants, but we all know that at the end, she will wind up with the hero, whether she knows it or not.


"Wait right there. I need to go defeat my demons and realize the strength was in me all along."

And now you see the problem. From birth we're taught that we're owed a beautiful girl. We all think of ourselves as the hero of our own story, and we all (whether we admit it or not) think we're heroes for just getting through our day.

So it's very frustrating, and I mean frustrating to the point of violence, when we don't get what we're owed. A contract has been broken. These women, by exercising their own choices, are denying it to us. It's why every Nice Guy is shocked to find that buying gifts for a girl and doing her favors won't win him sex. It's why we go to "slut" and "whore" as our default insults -- we're not mad that women enjoy sex. We're mad that women are distributing to other people the sex that they owed us.

Yes, the women in these stories are being portrayed as wonderful and beautiful and perfect. But remember, there are two ways to dehumanize someone: by dismissing them, and by idolizing them.

Photos.com
"Careful, you'll make my tie smell like whore, 'friend.'"

Which brings us to the next problem ...

#4. We're Trained from Birth to See You as Decoration

Photos.com

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with putting a pretty girl on the cover of a magazine or posing her next to a shiny new car. The pretty girl gets a good job, men want her, women want to be her, everybody is happy. Right?

The problem is that it goes way deeper than that.


"Brought to you by the American Corn Farmers Association."

From my experience, if there is a fundamental difference between male and female sexuality, it's this: There are actual occasions where women aren't thinking about sex. Here, let me show you an extreme example. I'm going to quote a Free Republic thread again, because I quite frankly can't stop reading them. These are some comments they made about a female public figure, and I want you to guess who it is:

"Her face is so ugly you can smash it into some dough and make gorilla cookies."

"So fugly, I'd say 'don't even look'!!!"

"At least Medusa was modestly attractive by comparison."

"This person is disgusting and I would never trust 'it's' opinion on ANYTHING!"

Have you guessed? They're talking about Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan.

Via Wikipedia
A woman who didn't just graduate from Harvard Law -- she became the fucking dean.

Yes, even in that setting, when judging a female for a position on the highest court in the land, our instinct is still to judge her suitability as a sex partner. It's the first thing we notice. And you could just write that off as a bunch of douches being shallow, but then you have to realize how all of society has conformed to this. Forget about objectification in the media or fashion industry -- go to a diner, they've got the pretty girl waiting tables. Go to a department store, they'll have a pretty girl selling you pants.

See, that's the difference. With men, there are some scenarios where it stops mattering how he looks. With women, it always matters. In a comedy movie, the male wacky sidekick can be the chubby Zach Galifianakis or the nearly deformed Steve Buscemi. But if the female wacky sidekick isn't attractive, like the overweight Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids, then every scene needs to be about how ugly and fat and mannish she is. That has to be the core of her character.

Photos.com
"You mean there's other things in the world besides food? Surely you jest."

Her role in society or level of accomplishment doesn't matter. Even if she's a damned candidate for the Supreme Court, the female always has a dual role: to function as a person, and to act as decor.

And we get pissed if she doesn't do her job. Check out any article about a female celebrity who has gained weight. Here's literally the first one I found on Google, a blog post about how fat Christina Aguilera has gotten. Check the comments:

"fuck her! I have a full-time job, go to grad school full-time, cook at home every night and still find time to get my ass to the gym. lazy ass fat bitch ..."

Don't get me wrong -- if it's a male celebrity in the article, you'll get lots of people making fun of his fatness. If it's a female, you get anger.

Getty
That's her, two months ago, by the way. How dare that fucking bitch?

She owes it to us to be pretty. That's the social contract as we've understood it from the time we were toddlers.

And it's a no-win situation. We hate you if you're ugly; if you're pretty, then ...

#3. We Think You're Conspiring With Our Boners to Ruin Us

Photos.com

... aka, Why Do You Think the Garden of Eden Story Has a Snake?

First, you need to understand something about the unique love/hate relationship men have with their penises.

Do you remember that story about police having to free a guy who got his dick stuck while humping a pool filter? Or that other guy who got stuck humping a park bench, or the other guy who got stuck humping a picnic table? Or that judge who got caught jerking off while on the bench listening to testimony?

Photos.com
"Do me a solid and bring that one chick with the huge boobs back up to testify."

You see this type of story come up a lot -- check your local police blotter. And they all have something in common: They're all guys.

Seriously, do a Google search for "masturbating in public library." Notice something in common with all of those stories? They're all dudes. Obviously I'm not saying women don't pleasure themselves (every single study would prove me a liar); I'm saying that men are far, far more likely to engage in extremely high-risk masturbation in public. They're more likely to do it at work, and they're more likely to do it in situations where they could go to jail.

No, it's not some rare, weird exhibitionist fetish, either. It's that they can't even wait the couple of hours it'd take to do it safely at home.


It's why we refer to the IT guy as "cockblocker."

It makes absolutely no sense. All calculation of risk goes out the window. Why?

It's because, in males more so than females, the sex drive is completely detached from the rest of the personality. The part of the male brain that worries about job security or money or social reputation or legal consequences has almost no veto power over the sex drive. You've heard guys say they were "thinking with their dick" or "I was thinking with the little brain" or "I took an order from Captain Bonerhelmet." That's what they're referring to.

Science doesn't seem to totally understand why the "base urges" part of the brain reacts differently in men. Maybe it's just a matter of having 10 times as much testosterone in their system, or maybe society has trained us to be like this, or maybe we're all spoiled children. My theory is that evolution needs males who will stay horny even in times of crisis or distress, and thus cuts off the brain's ability to tamp down those urges. Whatever -- nailing down the cause isn't the point. The point is that a man can be giving the eulogy at his own grandmother's funeral, and if there is a girl in the front row showing cleavage, he will be imagining himself pressing those boobs in his face, with his own dead grandmother not five feet away.

Photos.com
"And that's why I know that grandma is boobing down on our cleavage today in this titties time."

When that happens, when we get that boner at the funeral, we get mad at the girl showing the cleavage. Because we, ourselves, our own rational personality that knows right from wrong and appropriate from inappropriate, knows this is a bad place to get a boner. So it comes off like cleavage girl is conspiring with our penis to screw us over.

Is that a crazy thing to think? Yep! That's why it's so frustrating, especially if you don't have a whole lot of emotional maturity, and grew up with male role models who had even less.

No, this doesn't excuse anything. Obviously, "She was asking for it!" is still a bullshit rape defense. All I'm saying is when you see guys actually get annoyed or angry at the sight of a girl showing too much skin, or if you see them eager to degrade or humiliate the girls at the strip club, this is why. It's probably why some Muslims make their women cover themselves head to toe.

Photos.com
"Where's your eye drape? You trying to get us arrested?"

And in the Bible, it's Eve who tempts Adam to sin ... by conspiring with a snake.

Every male reading this is going to think I'm belaboring the obvious (after all, the world is full of comedy bits like this one about how hot girls are almost demonic in their ability to control males against their will). But I have never explained this to a woman who didn't look at me like I was insisting that all men are secretly werewolves.

But even this isn't the thing that makes us angriest ...

Read more: 5 Ways Modern Men Are Trained to Hate Women | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com/article_19785_5-ways-modern-men-are-trained-to-hate-women.html#ixzz1rOMuqezu

#2. We Feel Like Manhood Was Stolen from Us at Some Point

Photos.com

You know how every comedy has that stock character of the womanizing, amoral guy who just says what he thinks all the time, and cares only about himself? Joey in Friends, Charlie Sheen in Two and a Half Men, Sterling Archer in Archer, Gob in Arrested Development, Ashton Kutcher's character in That '70s Show, Michael in our Web series, the title character in my books?

Guys love that character because he's doing what, on some level, we all wish we could do. It's also why you have all of these ad campaigns desperately appealing to males who fear that they've lost their masculinity ("If you use a competitor's product, we're going to have to take away your Man Card!")

See, every single male can remember the first time, when he was 5 or 6 years old, he showed his penis to a stranger and everybody started freaking the hell out. He can remember the first time he got in trouble for hitting somebody, for peeing in public, for trying to jump off some high object or set something on fire. All of the core male urges, all the suggestions whispered to us by Darth Penis, all of it gets us in trouble.

And, when we get nostalgic for the past, we always dress it up in some ridiculous fantasy like 300, where everybody is shirtless and screaming and hacking things with swords. We are fed this idea that at one time, this is how the world was -- all of these impulses that have been getting us grounded and sent to detention from kindergarten on used to be not only allowed, but celebrated.

Photos.com
"No, just hold on. I'm gonna ramp you over that car."

And then at some point, women took it all away.

A once-great world of heroes and strength and warriors and cigars and crude jokes has been replaced by this world of grumpy female supervisors looming over our cubicle to hand us a memo about sending off-color jokes via email. Yes, that entire narrative is a grossly skewed and self-serving version of how society actually evolved. It doesn't matter.

The result is a combination of frustration and humiliation and powerlessness that makes us want to get it back in the only way we know how: with petty, immature acts of meanness.

Photos.com
"Now, maybe next time you'll remember who has the dick in this business."

#1. We Feel Powerless

Photos.com

I don't know what it's like to be a woman. I haven't been one in a long time. So as a result, it's not easy for me to describe what it's like to be a man, because I don't know what you're using for context. I'm going to do my best:

Did you ever watch old cartoons where a character is starving on a desert island, and when another character approaches, he's so hungry that he imagines the other character as a talking piece of food?

Via TV Tropes
Third panel omitted due to graphic content.

It's like that for most men, most of the time. We're starving, and all women are various types of food. Only instead of food, it's sex. And we're trying to conduct our everyday business around the fact that we're trying to renew our driver's license with a talking pair of boobs. So, from about age 13 on, around 90 percent of our energy and discipline is devoted to overcoming this, to behave like civilized human beings and not like stray dogs in a meat market. One where instead of eating the meat, they want to hump it.

Right now I'm reading a book from mega-selling fantasy author George R. R. Martin. The following is a passage where he is writing from the point of view of a woman -- always a tough thing for men to do. The girl is on her way to a key confrontation, and the narrator describes it thusly:

"When she went to the stables, she wore faded sandsilk pants and woven grass sandals. Her small breasts moved freely beneath a painted Dothraki vest ..."

That's written from the woman's point of view. Yes, when a male writes a female, he assumes that she spends every moment thinking about the size of her breasts and what they are doing. "Janet walked her boobs across the city square. 'I can see them staring at my boobs,' she thought, boobily." He assumes that women are thinking of themselves the same way we think of them.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Go look outside. See those cars driving by? Every car being driven by a man was designed and built and bought and sold with you in mind. The only reason why small, fuel-efficient or electric cars don't dominate the roads is because we want to look cool in our cars, to impress you.

Photos.com
We also assume you have the taste of a pimp.

Go look at a city skyline. All those skyscrapers? We built those to impress you, too. All those sports you see on TV? All of those guys learned to play purely because in school, playing sports gets you laid. All the music you hear on the radio? All of those guys learned to sing and play guitar because as a teenager, they figured out that absolutely nothing gets women out of their pants faster. It's the same reason all of the actors got into acting.

All those wars we fight? Sure, at the upper levels, in the halls of political power, they have some complicated reasons for wanting some piece of land or access to some resource. But on the ground? Well, let me ask you this -- historically, when an army takes over a city, what happens to the women there?

It's all about you. All of it. All of civilization.

Photos.com
Nope. Can't see a single symbolic thing about this illustration.

So where you see a world in which males dominate the boards of the Fortune 500, and own Congress, and sit at the head of all but a handful of the world's nations, men see themselves as utterly helpless. Because all of those powerful people only became powerful because they heard that women like power.

This is really the heart of it, right here. This is why no amount of male domination will ever be enough, why no level of control or privilege or female submission will ever satisfy us. We can put you under a burqa, we can force you out of the workplace -- it won't matter. You're still all we think about, and that gives you power over us. And we resent you for it.

Photos.com
"Now you squat down and crap your pants, or you never touch these boobs again."

All of the most bitter disputes work like this, by the way: Both sides think they're the powerless party. It's why tipping servers is such a bitter topic among some people -- the server feels like the customer has all of the power (because their entire income comes from tips), and the customer feels like the server has all the power (because they can deny them food and drink and ruin their one night out). It's why the richest people in the world can talk like they're besieged victims, and mean it. It's why the male leaders of the most powerful and richest church in the world can talk like they're being made martyrs due to women asking for birth control. And mean it.

Which brings us back to where we started. If you add all of this together, you get a world where this woman can testify before Congress about her friend suffering from ovarian cysts ...

Via Wikipedia

... and a male political cartoonist will draw her like this:

Via Caglecartoons.com

Sorry, ladies.

David Wong is the Senior Editor of Cracked.com and the author of John Dies at the End and the even more ridiculously titled sequel This Book is Full of Spiders: Seriously Dude, Don't Touch it, available for pre-order from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Powell's, etc.

For more from David, check out 9 Types of Job that Will Destroy Your Soul and 6 Things Rich People Need to Stop Saying.

Thursday, April 05, 2012

Sunday, April 01, 2012

Happy 100th Birthday, character John Carter of Mars [author brother of Tarzan of the Apes]

Happy 100th Birthday, character John Carter of Mars [author brother of Tarzan of the Apes] born from the pen of Edgar Rice Burroughs in 1911 and published to the world 1912. Titanic went down and John Carter rose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carter_of_Mars


On the Rules of Literary Fiction for Men and Women By MEG WOLITZER [NY Times]

If “The Marriage Plot,” by Jeffrey Eugenides, had been written by a woman yet still had the same title and wedding ring on its cover, would it have received a great deal of serious literary attention? Or would this novel (which I loved) have been relegated to “Women’s Fiction,” that close-quartered lower shelf where books emphasizing relationships and the interior lives of women are often relegated?

Certainly “The Marriage Plot,” Eugenides’s first novel since his Pulitzer Prize-winning “Middlesex,” was poised to receive tremendous literary interest regardless of subject matter, but the presence of a female protagonist, the gracefulness, the sometimes nostalgic tone and the relationship-heavy nature of the book only highlight the fact that many first-rate books by women and about women’s lives never find a way to escape “Women’s Fiction” and make the leap onto the upper shelf where certain books, most of them written by men (and, yes, some women — more about them later), are prominently displayed and admired.

Illustrations by Kelly Blair

Illustrations by Kelly Blair

This is a tricky subject. Bringing up the women’s question — I mean the women’s fiction question — is not unlike mentioning the national debt at a dinner party. Some people will get annoyed and insist it’s been talked about too much and inaccurately, and some will think it really matters. When I refer to so-called women’s fiction, I’m not applying the term the way it’s sometimes used: to describe a certain type of fast-reading novel, which sets its sights almost exclusively on women readers and might well find a big, ready-made audience.

I’m referring to literature that happens to be written by women. But some people, especially some men, see most fiction by women as one soft, undifferentiated mass that has little to do with them.

Recently at a social gathering, when a guest found out I was a writer, he asked, “Would I have heard of you?” I dutifully told him my name — no recognition, fine, I’m not that famous — and then, at his request, I described my novels. “You know, contemporary, I guess,” I said. “Sometimes they’re about marriage. Families. Sex. Desire. Parents and children.”

After a few uncomfortable moments he called his wife over, announcing that she, who “reads that kind of book,” was the one I ought to talk to.

When I look back on that encounter, I see a lost opportunity. When someone asks, “Would I have heard of you?” many female novelists would be tempted to answer, “In a more just world.”

The truth is, women who write literary fiction frequently find themselves in an unjust world, even as young single women are outearning men in major American cities and higher education in the United States is skewing female.

As VIDA, a women’s literary organization, showed in February in its second annual statistical roundup, women get shockingly short shrift as reviewers and reviewees in most prestigious publications. Of all the authors reviewed in the publications it tracked, nearly three-fourths were men. No wonder that when we talk about today’s leading novelists — the ones who generate heat and conversation and are read by both men and women — we are talking mostly about men.

Exploring Amazon, I came across a category called “Women’s Fiction” where I am listed, along with Jane Austen, Sophie Kinsella, Kathryn Stockett, Toni Morrison, Danielle Steel and Louisa May Alcott. (Needless to say, Amazon fits us into other categories as well.) If there is a stylistic or thematic link to be found among us, it’s hard to see.

It should be noted that Amazon puts the occasional man in this category. Tom Perrotta is there, and so is Jonathan Franzen (albeit the Oprah’s Book Club edition of “Freedom”), which should provide yet more fodder for those who complain of his ubiquity.

Both men write about relationships and also about suburbia; is that why they’re included?

Amazon is clearly trying to help readers find titles they want. But any lumping together of disparate writers by gender or perceived female subject matter separates the women from the men. And it subtly keeps female writers from finding a coed audience, not to mention from entering the larger, more influential playing field. It’s done all the time, and not just by strangers at parties or by various booksellers that have no trouble calling interesting, complex novels by women “Women’s Fiction,” as if men should have nothing to do with them.

A writer’s own publisher can be part of a process of effective segregation and vague if unintentional put-down.

Look at some of the jackets of novels by women. Laundry hanging on a line. A little girl in a field of wildflowers. A pair of shoes on a beach. An empty swing on the porch of an old yellow house.

Compare these with the typeface-only jacket of Chad Harbach’s novel, “The Art of Fielding,” or the jumbo lettering on “The Corrections.” Such covers, according to a book publicist I spoke to, tell the readers, “This book is an event.” Eugenides’s gold ring may appear to be an exception, though it has a geometric abstraction about it: the Möbius strip ring suggesting that an Escher-like, unsolvable puzzle lies within.

The illustration might have been more conventional and included the slender fingers and wrist of a woman, had it not been designated a major literary undertaking.

I took semiotics back at Brown University in the same heyday of deconstruction in which Eugenides’s novel takes place (he and I were in a writing workshop together), but I don’t need to remember anything about signifiers to understand that just like the jumbo, block-lettered masculine typeface, feminine cover illustrations are code. Certain images, whether they summon a kind of Walker Evans poverty nostalgia or offer a glimpse into quilted domesticity, are geared toward women as strongly as an ad for “calcium plus D.”

These covers might as well have a hex sign slapped on them, along with the words: “Stay away, men! Go read Cormac ­McCarthy instead!”

I sometimes wonder if book length, intentionally or inadvertently, signals to readers a novel’s supposed importance. Certain novelists who have achieved high literary profiles, like David Foster Wallace, Haruki Murakami and William T. Vollmann, have all published extremely long books — in the case of Wallace and Vollmann, over 1,000 pages.

With some notable exceptions, women have not published many well-known doorstops since Doris Lessing’s “Golden Notebook.”

As it happens, we live not only in the era of the abbreviated attention span, but also in the era of the book group, whose members often set a strict page limit.

Yet does the marketplace subtly and paradoxically seem to whisper in some men’s ears, “Sure, buddy, run on as long as you like, just sit down and type out all your ideas about America” — what might in some extreme cases be titled “The Big Baggy Book of Me”?

Do women reflexively edit themselves (or let themselves be edited) more severely, creating tight and shapely novels that readers and book groups will find approachable? Or do they simply not fetishize book length one way or the other? (And for that matter, would most long-form men say they were just letting content seek form?)

All this isn’t to say megabooks are necessarily better; in their prolixity perhaps it’s easier for them to in fact be worse. But they are certainly louder.

Over centuries, the broad literary brush strokes and the big-canvas page have belonged mostly to men, whereas “craft” had belonged to women, uncontested. It’s no wonder that the painted-egg precision of short stories allows reviewers to comfortably celebrate female accomplishment, even to celebrate it prominently in the case of Alice Munro.

But generally speaking, a story collection is considered a quieter animal than a novel, and is tacitly judged in some quarters as the work of someone who lacks the sprawling confidence of a novelist.

My sense is that like most men, most women are writing at the length they want to write — but they’re not always getting the same reward.

Men like Ian ­Mc­Ewan and Julian Barnes have written very short, highly regarded and widely read books in recent years. Yet if a woman writes something short these days, particularly if it’s about a woman, it risks being considered minor. (“Spare” is the oft-used word of faint praise.) Yet if, on the other hand, a woman writes a doorstop filled with free associations about life and love and childbirth and war, and jokes and recipes and maybe even a novel-within-a-novel, and anything else that will fit inside an endlessly elastic membrane, she risks being labeled undisciplined and self-indulgent.

Sure, Hilary Mantel’s “Wolf Hall” is pretty massive, but I suspect that a historical work — one that teaches the reader about a subject (in this case a male one) — is considered more acceptable from a woman than, say, the kind of long “sensibility” novel written more frequently by men.

Julia Glass, who won a National Book Award in 2002 for her novel “Three Junes,” said: “Many readers ask why I write so often from a male point of view. I have theories, but I don’t really know. I don’t game my books toward a male audience, and yet the point of view may help their reception. I think men are more accepting of my books than they would be if the points of view were always female.”

Characters matter to a great extent, and novels that involve parents and young children seem at first glance to be considered the potentially sentimental province of women.

Except, of course, when those parents and children are male, as is the case in “The Road” and “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close,” both of which feature father-son duos and have been praised enthusiastically by men and women.

But some of the most acclaimed female novelists have written unapologetically and authoritatively about women. And the environment needs to be receptive to that authority, recognizing and celebrating it in order for it to catch.

It seems no coincidence that some of the most esteemed women writing today — Toni Morrison, Joyce Carol Oates, Margaret Atwood, Doris Lessing, Marilynne Robinson — came to prominence at an unusual moment in time when the women’s movement could be felt everywhere. Stories, long and short, and often about women’s lives, suddenly mattered to the cultural conversation. This period, the 1970s and to an extent the early ’80s, initially appeared to create an entirely different and permanent reality for female fiction writers.

Men were actively interested in reading about the inner lives of women (or maybe some just pretended they were) and received moral kudos for doing so.

Whereas before that a lone woman might be allowed on the so-called men’s team, literary women began achieving critical mass and becoming more than anomalies.

But though this wave of prominent authors helped the women who followed, as time passed it seemed harder for literary women to go the distance. As Katha Pollitt, the poet and literary critic, says: “I think there’s always space for a Toni Morrison or a Mary McCarthy, but only one of them at a time. For every one woman, there’s room for three men.”

Cue the thunderous disagreements and the counter­instances, of which there are always going to be a notable handful: Jhumpa Lahiri and Zadie Smith, being two current examples.

“A Visit From the Goon Squad,” by Jennifer Egan, won both a 2010 National Book Critics Circle Award and a Pulitzer Prize in 2011 and is rhapsodically talked about by both sexes. In 2009, Elizabeth Strout won a Pulitzer for her linked stories, “Olive Kitteridge,” a collection that book groups love and that women have reportedly given to the men in their lives, who have sometimes, to their own surprise, embraced it.

And, very occasionally, a true “event” is made out of a novel by a woman, most recently “The Tiger’s Wife,” by Téa Obreht.

These exceptions might lead us to think maybe we’re heading toward some kind of literary idyll in which men and women sit beneath trees in the sun, eating figs and debating passages by Kiran Desai or Jeanette Winterson.

But just as women are suddenly fighting anew for access to contraception, the VIDA statistics suggest that women writers are still fighting to have their work taken seriously and accorded as much coverage as men’s. The American Academy of Arts and Letters counts only 33 women among its 117 literature members. Even prestigious literary prizes don’t necessarily change everything.

In the past three years more than half of the National Book Critics Circle awards have gone to women, and in the past two years the National Book awards for fiction have gone to women — Jaimy Gordon and Jesmyn Ward — but so far neither has made an enormous cultural splash.

“I think the prizes for men just underscore something already there for them,” Lorrie Moore, the novelist and short-story writer, said. “In many cases the prizes themselves may not have as much independent power as corroborative power.”

Jane Smiley, who won a Pulitzer in 1992 for “A Thousand Acres,” said: “When I think about my own work, I think that it maybe falls between two stools, and sometimes this is good and sometimes it’s bad — not making the money that Jodi Picoult is making, not achieving the status of Franzen or Wallace.

"Nevertheless, one of the great things for our generation of women writers is the freedom we’ve felt to write about whatever subjects we wish to write about. Are we less innovative than the guys? I don’t see that. But if men aren’t much in the habit of reading women, then it doesn’t matter how innovative we are.”

Who reads whom and how were among the concerns raised in Francine Prose’s sharp 1998 essay in Harper’s Magazine, “Scent of a Woman’s Ink,” which employed a blind taste test to show that when you take away the gender label, it’s not all that easy to identify the author by sex.

“Fiction by women is still being read differently, with the usual prejudices and preconceptions,” she wrote. In doing so, she illustrated the continuing critical bias against women. “I wish I could say things had improved drastically since my Harper’s piece appeared,” Prose told me. “But it wouldn’t be true.”

Recently, when the novelist Mary Gordon spoke at a boys’ school, she learned that the students weren’t reading the Brontës, Austen or Woolf. Their teachers defended this by saying they were looking for works that boys could relate to. [And unable to "relate" to girls, women, and relationships?_NS] But at the girls’ school across the street, Gordon said, “no one would have dreamed of removing ‘Huckleberry Finn’ or ‘Moby-Dick’ from the syllabus. As a woman writer, you get points if you include the ‘male’ world in your work, and you lose points if you omit it.”

Lorrie Moore added, “A female scholar once said to me: ‘I already know what women think, pretty much. I’m more interested in reading books by men.”

The problem with this statement becomes clear if you flip it.

Were a man to say, “I already know what men think; I’m more interested in reading books by women,” he would be greeted with incomprehension.

While there may be no such thing as “male” or “female” writing, to say that the emphases of male and female writers might sometimes be different doesn’t mean that the deepest concerns or preoccupations of women are inferior or any less essential. Literary women novelists can of course do very well without male readers. And some literary male writers have admitted envying women the “femaleness” of the novel-reading (and -buying) community — a community that, from my own experience with book groups and individual readers, I know to be attentive and passionate.

People will remind you that women are the chief consumers of fiction in this country, and some will add that they think men are so hopeless when it comes to what they’ll read that perhaps we should forget about them as literary fiction readers altogether.

More than a few men are understandably offended by this suggestion, and will describe not only their Proust or Pynchon reading group, but also their all-male Edith Wharton book group, or their admiration for Karen Russell’s “Swamplandia!” I hope that these men help spread the word, and that the word includes a shout-out to other brilliant women writers like Andrea Barrett, Kathryn Davis, Dana Spiotta, Zoë Heller, Carol Anshaw, Bonnie Nadzam, Rivka Galchen, Lauren Groff and Susan Choi, to name but a few among many, many others.

But the top tier of literary fiction — where the air is rich and the view is great and where a book enters the public imagination and the current conversation — tends to feel peculiarly, disproportionately male.

Will the literary habits of a culture change as younger readers take over?

Will more literary women be able to persuade their publishers to keep that photo of a longhaired young girl in a summer dress facing shyly away from the camera off their book jackets and replace it with a neutral illustration and bold typeface?

Will VIDA’s statistics dramatically improve?

And will “Women’s Fiction” become such an absurd category it’s phased out entirely? Maybe, in a more just world.

Meg Wolitzer’s latest novel is “The Uncoupling.” Her previous books include “The Ten-Year Nap,” “The Position” and “The Wife.”

Get Home Delivery Get 50% Off The New York Times & Free All Digital Access.

Saturday, March 31, 2012

SHORT STORY ebooks: LIMITED TIME OFFER direct from AUTHOR / PUBLISHER ONLY_reduced price USD $1.75


Yune's Hot Cock...


...on Sale NOW!



BUY Vol 1, Issue 2 -- Yune: Suck My Kiss
[3677 words] or
Yune: Suck My Kiss [3677 words] --
Basketball jock Yune gets his stone hard, young Korean American cock
sucked by a first time knob munching, K.A. church virgin, while his
favorite, bespectacled, brown-skinned teen goddess secretly watches,
and then later he's sucked off by a classmate's red-haired, society
MILF mom. What a great birthday week he's having!
Fellatio with voyeuristic exhibition, a humiliation cream facial, and a motherly deepthroat, and yes, gulp, mom swallows.

"LOL, my friends. My best enemy's mom's been munching my nuts, so, I'll have to give a certain captain of the team's sluttin' mom a happy mouthful. And, at my birthday party, in private, almost, little Amy, my supposed Korean church virgin's gonna let me devirginize her throat, while I let wicked, little Miss Laila, the goddess of my
heart, watch, and smile, as her enemy gets a sore throat and a
delicious and hot, cum pie facial."

Mobipocket (for Blackberry, Palm, Symbian, and Neale@ Kindle Store), Adobe Reader, MS Reader


LIMITED TIME OFFER
direct
from AUTHOR / PUBLISHER ONLY
_reduced price:

normally USD $2.75


Yune1.2_KINDLE/MOBIPOCKET.PRC_USD$1.25


Yune1.2_Adobe.PDF_USD$1.25


Yune1.2_Microsoft Reader.LIT_USD$1.25


Twanna Hines at "In the Flesh Erotic Reading Series" Blogger Sex Night

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Stevie Wonder "Ribbon in the Sky" and Whitney Houston

Semi-recently, Stevie Wonder commented on his classic hit "Ribbon in the Sky" and about singing it at the formal, solemn event of Whitney Houston's funeral. That he felt it might be "inappropriate."

This is a classic perception by artists, whether writers, actors, or whatever, although their work is inspirational. Their work uplifts. Their work is more spiritual to us than themselves.

Sometimes we artists are too close to our own works and dreams.

I felt his song was perfect because, yes, it's a love song; but, love is not just for the heart or the body and only for romantic relationships. Love is...

...for the body and how one body fits close to another, dovetailing together, but remaining separate.


Love is how one heart moves closer together than bodies ever can; emotions overlapping and swirling within one another; as families, friends, and communities do.

Love is how many minds meld together in love and work as one, to uplift lives for one or many lives all over the world, and beyond.

Love ascends within us, becoming more refined, distilled and clear; from body, to heart, to mind, and beyond us to God, to the creation of us all; like a "Ribbon in the Sky," which promises, like a Rainbow in the Sky the promise of perfected unity.

Friday, March 23, 2012

Real Info for "More Real" Characters: What men and women notice on dates By Kimberly Dawn Neumann

What men and women notice on dates

Dating costs plenty of dough, no doubt about it. But when it comes to spending your hard-earned cash, where should you invest it in order to get the most mileage when it comes to dating? In other words, before hitting the meet-and-greet scene next weekend, what’s really going to make you more attractive to the opposite sex — and what’s a waste of your dating dollars?

Before you max out a credit card trying to win your date’s affections (or convince someone you’re hot), check out these interesting tidbits we dug up for more budget-conscious men and women. Because when it comes to putting your best flirting foot forward, it doesn’t always have to be about your shoes!

1. Men say that having gorgeous hair trumps a curvy figure. Trying to decide between a pre-date trip to the salon or Victoria’s Secret, ladies? Go for the fab hair option. According to a recent survey conducted by Pantene, 60% of men surveyed would rather date a woman with great hair than noticeable curves — and 74% of them said they notice a woman because of her hair.

In fact, a full 44% of male respondents said that hair was the first thing they notice about a woman… even before her clothes (26%), legs (25%) and makeup (4%). Most of the men who took Pantene’s poll also said they’d be more likely to approach a woman at a bar with great hair than one who was wearing a low-cut shirt.

This is great news, since monthly hair upkeep is more of a necessity than sexy lingerie if you’re a woman who’s on a budget. Of course, that doesn’t mean you can’t wear sassy underwear if you’ve got it — but when change is tight (like in this tanked economy), it’s good to know that a well-timed mane flip can still make you a main attraction.

2. Guys find pink or red lips more alluring than the sexiest pair of stilettos. Should you invest in a pair of high heels, or that new Chanel red lipstick? If you’re forced to choose just one of these items, research shows that rouged lips are a better bet. In a recent Match.com survey of over 24,000 men and women, 88% of respondents said their date’s laugh made a bigger impression on a first date; only 12% picked shoes (there goes that perfect excuse for buying a new pair of Manolo Blahniks, right?).

Add a pop of red to that smiling and laughing mouth, and your attractiveness spikes even more, according to a study from the University of Manchester published in the UK’s Daily Mail.

Researchers tracked the eye movements of 50 men and discovered that that in the 10 seconds after meeting a woman for the first time, the average guy will spend more than half of his time gazing at her mouth. If she’s applied lipstick, he’ll find it even more difficult to look away: a dash of pink can hold his attention for 6.7 seconds, while red keeps him fixated for 7.3 seconds.

According to the study, fuller pouts were the overall preference, though the appeal of thin-lipped women increased by 40% when lipstick was applied — but when the ladies went completely bare, men tired of looking at their mouths after only 2.2 seconds. So regardless of your lip type, it pays to paint your pucker on date night.

3. Women looking for real relationships are more impressed by traditional love tokens than an expensive ride. Guys like cars, sure — but are women equally impressed by them? It seems that if you’re a man who’s looking for the real thing, then you’re ultimately better off sinking your cash into thoughtful gestures (i.e., dinners, flowers, etc.) than those flashy wheels to get the girl of your dreams.

A study of over 1,000 men conducted by researchers from Rice University, the University of Texas-San Antonio (UTSA), and the University of Minnesota revealed that being in possession of a Porsche did make a man more desirable to women than owning a non-luxury car, such as a Honda Civic. However, the attraction ended there.

While women found men showing off a flashy product (like a brightly colored sports car) to be more attractive when it came to dating, that same trait didn’t make men more desirable as marriage partners or for long-term committed relationships, the study’s authors explained.

In fact, they found that women inferred from men’s flashy spending that they were only interested in having casual hook-ups with their dates. So if you’re looking for something more than a fling, don’t worry what you’re chauffeuring your cutie around in — focus on making her feel special instead.

4. Men and women agree: being physically fit makes someone more attractive and relationship-worthy to them. If you’re looking to up your sex appeal on you next date, what will serve you better: looking hot, or getting the two of you intoxicated? This may be a no-brainer, but if you’re thinking of having something more than just a fling, spend your dollars getting rid of your doughy middle and strive for six-pack abs instead.

According to the 2011 Great Male Survey by AskMen.com, 38% of men think that great abs are appreciated the most by women (and most of us gals would agree).

This gym expenditure goes for women, too: having a fit figure is definitely going to get you more long-term action than a martini ever could. In fact, 47% of men surveyed by AskMen.com said they’d dump their girlfriend for getting fat (OK, to give some men credit, 53% said they wouldn’t), and that’s some good motivation to hit the cardio circuit.

If that’s still not enough to convince you, keep in mind that working out will also increase your prowess in the bedroom. In fact, a study published in the American Journal of Cardiology indicated that treadmill exercise duration predicted sexual activity duration (specifically, a 2.3-minute increase in sexual activity duration for each minute of treadmill time).

So the next time you’re tempted by the hottie who’s running on the gym treadmill next to you, why not ask that person out?

5. Bad hygiene is a universal turn-off, regardless of what you’re wearing. While Mark Twain famously said that “clothes make the man” (or woman, as the case may be), all the designer duds in the world won’t impress your date if you haven’t had a shower first. In fact, a recent Match.com poll asked nearly 35,000 men and women to name their biggest turn-off on a date. The responses included bad breath (11%), dirty fingernails (1%), body odor (16%) or all of the above (72%). Not surprisingly, bad hygiene is a mood killer for romance.

In terms of dating economics, it doesn’t matter if you’re dressed in Prada, Armani or something from Old Navy (just make sure to wear whatever fits well and makes you feel confident).

What absolutely, unequivocally matters is that you’re clean and smell good before you arrive. Brush your teeth, wash your hands, and use deodorant; for maximum marketability, always put your money where your mouth is!

Kimberly Dawn Neumann (www.KDNeumann.com) is a popular New York City-based freelance writer whose work has appeared in such publications as Cosmopolitan, Marie Claire, Redbook, Maxim and frequently online. A certified dating/relationship coach, she’s published two books: The Real Reasons Men Commit and Sex Comes First and is the founder of www.DatingDivaDaily.com.



Article courtesy of Happen magazine, www.happenmag.com.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

The Ten Most Common Fiction-Writing Errors and How to Avoid Them by Sol Stein

Error #1: Having a Hero or Heroine Who is Totally "Nice."

For reader acceptance, your main character has to come alive, seem real, and be vulnerable in some respect. What is difficult for new fiction writers is to give their main players negative characteristics such as aggression, impatience, selfish or rude behavior, being bossy, and so on. You can still give them an important positive characteristic such as intelligence, politeness, kindness, etc.

Error #2: Coming Up With a Plot and Then Putting in the Characters
[A MAJOR game story creation error, sometimes done as create visual characters with no insides who must go to this locale we drew and use these weapons we made or find stuff we lumped together. Oh, really, why...? _NS]

Your plot should come out of some deep thought about what your main character wants badly. Every distinguished creative writing teacher in the country will tell you that characters come first and plots should be derived from what your main character wants.

Error #3: Telling the Reader What Happened Off Stage

We call that "narrative summary." In the 19th century, fiction was full of narrative summary. What changed everything was the advent of movies and television early in the 20th century. Readers are now used to seeing what's happening in front of their eyes. We call that "immediate scene." The ideal novel today has immediate scenes and little else.

Error #4: Avoiding Scenes of Conflict

Most writers are nice people who avoid conflict in their private lives. But conflict is the essence of drama in every medium. Readers become involved in personal conflict and rivalry more than in the melodrama that infects action movies.

Error #5: Using Flashbacks

Barnaby Conrad, the one-time director of the Santa Barbara Writer's Conference and the author of many books including the three-million-copy novel Matador, worked for Sinclair Lewis as a young man. He once asked Lewis about the use of flashbacks. Lewis answered, "Don't." Techniques have been developed over the years for bringing flashback material into the present.

Publishing Vs Self-Publishing (Author Publishing) by Dale Beaumont

The Future of Publishing - created by DK (UK)

Sunday, March 18, 2012

The moment all television viewers held their breaths, then screamed, "No!"

"Abyssinia, Henry" is the 72nd episode of the M*A*S*H television series, and the final episode of the series' third season. First aired on March 18, 1975, and written by Everett Greenbaum and Jim Fritzell, the highly rated episode was most notable for its shocking and unexpected ending. The plot of the episode centers on the honorable discharge and subsequent departure of the 4077th MASH's commander, Lieutenant Colonel Henry Blake (played by McLean Stevenson).

The highly controversial ending to the episode, which has since been referenced and parodied many times, prompted an estimated 1,000-plus letters to series producers Gene Reynolds and Larry Gelbart, and drew fire from both CBS and 20th Century Fox. After the production of this episode, both Stevenson and Wayne Rogers, who played the character of Trapper John McIntyre, left the series to pursue other interests. These combined departures and their subsequent replacements signaled the beginning of a major shift in focus of the M*A*S*H series as a whole. (more...)

Okay. I love this song BUT Sean Paul is an incomprehensible singer and so, this is a lesson in writing AND pronouncing clearly; or you get....

Misheard Lyrics - Sean Paul - Temperature

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Kony 2012

Character: Little League decides to turn down donation from strip club after all _Rick Chandler

Mar 13, 2012

jetstrip02

It was the feel-good story of the year: a Little League about to cancel its season due to lack of funds, until a local strip club rode to the rescue with a large cash donation. I’m thinking Keanu Reeves and Julia Roberts in the movie version. That was the story as of Monday afternoon, but now the president of Lennox Little League says he is shocked, shocked to learn that the money is from a strip club. So he’s turning down the donation.

“This morning we found out exactly where the check came from,” league president Roberto Aguirre told KTLA Monday night. “It was a shocker to us.”

According to Aguirre, the Lennox School District will return the check to the strip club, keeping baseball’s image clean.

“We do not want the money from the strip club. I think, for us, we do need the money, but we will go some other avenue,” Aguirre said.

Just the previous day, Aguirre was quoted by the Daily Breeze thusly:

“It feels good to be from Lennox when people do stuff like that. At the same time, the future is very scary for us, because (the donation) is a one-time deal.”

What part of “Jet Strip Cabaret” was confusing to Mr. Aguirre when he first accepted the donation?

The league was in trouble because the school district, which owns and maintains the baseball fields, was doubling its rates to use the fields. The district is also preventing the league from selling hot dogs, hamburgers and other snacks at games, because those foods are deemed unhealthy according to new government nutrition guidelines. That had been a large part of the league’s revenue.

The league also plans to reach out to other businesses in the community that they feel are more appropriate.

Their long-term goal is to raise $65,000 to build a hot dog stand that can help keep the league going.

The Jet Strip Cabaret has raised money for the community in the past, including an annual family festival to raise money for school supplies for underage children.

Your move, Chico’s Bail Bonds.

***
Lennox Little League to Give Back Donation from Strip Club [KTLA]

====

So, if the money had come from soldiers or cops, who carry and use weapons on people, would they have kept the money? And felt it was "clean," "appropriate," whatever...? Of course they would've. And, baseball's not clean, anything that gets gambled over isn't all that sweet; especially, with all the spitting and crotch-scratching. Roseanne Barr was right on pitch._NS

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses By JULIE BOSMAN

A set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica on the shelves of the New York Public Library.Ángel Franco/The New York Times _A set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica on the shelves of the New York Public Library.

After 244 years, the Encyclopaedia Britannica is going out of print. [NO!! I LOVE EB!! But...._NS]

Those coolly authoritative, gold-lettered reference books that were once sold door-to-door by a fleet of traveling salesmen and displayed as proud fixtures in American homes will be discontinued, company executives said.


In an acknowledgment of the realities of the digital age — and of competition from the Web site Wikipedia — Encyclopaedia Britannica will focus primarily on its online encyclopedias and educational curriculum for schools. The last print version is the 32-volume 2010 edition, which weighs 129 pounds and includes new entries on global warming and the Human Genome Project.

“It’s a rite of passage in this new era,” Jorge Cauz, the president of Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., a company based in Chicago, said in an interview. “Some people will feel sad about it and nostalgic about it. But we have a better tool now. The Web site is continuously updated, it’s much more expansive and it has multimedia.”

In the 1950s, having the Encyclopaedia Britannica on the bookshelf was akin to a station wagon in the garage or a black-and-white Zenith in the den, a possession coveted for its usefulness and as a goalpost for an aspirational middle class. Buying a set was often a financial stretch, and many families had to pay for it in monthly installments.

But in recent years, print reference books have been almost completely overtaken by the Internet and its vast spread of resources, including specialized Web sites and the hugely popular — and free — online encyclopedia Wikipedia.

Since it was started 11 years ago, Wikipedia has moved a long way toward replacing the authority of experts with the wisdom of the crowds. The site is now written and edited by tens of thousands of contributors around the world, and it has been gradually accepted as a largely accurate and comprehensive source, even by many scholars and academics.

Wikipedia also regularly meets the 21st-century mandate of providing instantly updated material. And it has nearly four million articles in English, including some on pop culture topics that would not be considered worthy of a mention in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Mr. Cauz said that he believed Britannica’s competitive advantage with Wikipedia came from its prestigious sources, its carefully edited entries and the trust that was tied to the brand.

“We have very different value propositions,” Mr. Cauz said. “Britannica is going to be smaller. We cannot deal with every single cartoon character, we cannot deal with every love life of every celebrity. But we need to have an alternative where facts really matter. Britannica won’t be able to be as large, but it will always be factually correct.”

But one widely publicized study, published in 2005 by Nature, called into question Britannica’s presumed accuracy advantage over Wikipedia. The study said that out of 42 competing entries, Wikipedia made an average of four errors in each article, and Britannica three. Britannica responded with a lengthy rebuttal saying the study was error-laden and “completely without merit.”

The Britannica, the oldest continuously published encyclopedia in the English language, has become a luxury item with a $1,395 price tag. It is frequently bought by embassies, libraries and research institutions, and by well-educated, upscale consumers who felt an attachment to the set of bound volumes. Only 8,000 sets of the 2010 edition have been sold, and the remaining 4,000 have been stored in a warehouse until they are bought.

Room for Debate
Britannica: Define Outdated »
“I spent many hundreds of hours with those gold-embossed Britannica volumes on my lap, with pages you could actually turn, not click or swipe.”

— A.J. Jacobs

The 2010 edition had more than 4,000 contributors, including Arnold Palmer (who wrote the entry on the Masters tournament) and Panthea Reid, professor emeritus at Louisiana State University and author of the biography “Art and Affection: A Life of Virginia Woolf” (who wrote about Virginia Woolf).

Sales of the Britannica peaked in 1990, when 120,000 sets were sold in the United States. But now print encyclopedias account for less than 1 percent of the Britannica’s revenue. About 85 percent of revenue comes from selling curriculum products in subjects like math, science and the English language; 15 percent comes from subscriptions to the Web site, the company said.

About half a million households pay a $70 annual fee for the online subscription, which includes access to the full database of articles, videos, original documents and to the company’s mobile applications. At least one other general-interest encyclopedia in the United States, the World Book, is still printing a 22-volume yearly edition, said Jennifer Parello, a spokeswoman for World Book Inc. She declined to provide sales figures but said the encyclopedia was bought primarily by schools and libraries.

Gary Marchionini, the dean of the School of Information and Library Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said the fading of print encyclopedias was “an inexorable trend that will continue.”

“There’s more comprehensive material available on the Web,” Mr. Marchionini said. “The thing that you get from an encyclopedia is one of the best scholars in the world writing a description of that phenomenon or that object, but you’re still getting just one point of view. Anything worth discussing in life is worth getting more than one point of view.”

Many librarians say that while they have rapidly shifted money and resources to digital materials, print still has a place. Academic libraries tend to keep many sets of specialized encyclopedias on their shelves, like volumes on Judaica, folklore, music or philosophy, or encyclopedias that are written in foreign languages and unavailable online.

At the Portland Public Library in Maine, there are still many encyclopedias that the library orders on a regular basis, sometimes every year, said Sonya Durney, a reference librarian. General-interest encyclopedias are often used by students whose teachers require them to occasionally cite print sources, just to practice using print.

“They’re used by anyone who’s learning, anyone who’s new to the country, older patrons, people who aren’t comfortable online,” Ms. Durney said. “There’s a whole demographic of people who are more comfortable with print.”

But many people are discovering that the books have outlived their usefulness. Used editions of encyclopedias are widely available on Craigslist and eBay: more than 1,400 listings for Britannica products were posted on eBay this week.

Charles Fuller, a geography professor who lives in the Chicago suburbs, put his 1992 edition on sale on Craigslist last Sunday. For years, he has neglected the print encyclopedias, he said in an interview, and now prefers to use his iPhone to look up facts quickly. He and his wife are downsizing and relocating to California, he said, and the Encyclopaedia Britannica will not be coming with them, a loss he acknowledges with a hint of wistfulness.

“They’re not obsolete,” Mr. Fuller said. “When I’m doing serious research, I still use the print books. And they look really beautiful on the bookshelves.”

PayPal Revises Policies to Allow Legal Fiction_Posted by Mark Coker (by erotica writers and such, curtailing their mercantile censorship)

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

In a victory for free speech, PayPal today announced plans to revise their content policies to allow Smashwords writers full freedom to publish and sell legal ebooks.

I met with PayPal at their offices yesterday in San Jose. They outlined their proposed policy changes for me. I was impressed.

This is a victory for all writers and readers. It removes credit card companies, banks and payment processors from the business of censoring legal fiction. It creates a new precedent that should allow other payment processors who have previously discriminated against legal fiction to relax their policies.

It will make more fiction more available to more readers. It gives writers greater freedom to express themselves. It gives readers more freedom to decide what they want to experience in the privacy of their own imagination.

If you haven't followed the Paypal censorship saga, you can see how the campaign developed by reading my email dispatches to Smashwords authors, publishers and customers. They're archived in the Smashwords Press Room (see PayPal #1, #2, #3, #4, #5).

When I received the first email from PayPal February 18 with the ultimatum to remove certain erotica content or face loss of PayPal services at Smashwords, my first inclination was to try to limit the damage so we could protect mainstream erotica from further censorship incursion. Thanks to the outpouring of opposition to these policies, I saw an opportunity to make PayPal our partner in a greater campaign to protect all legal fiction from censorship.

Credit for this breakthrough goes to the indie author community who made phone calls, wrote letters and emails, blogged and tweeted; bloggers who raised visibility of the issue; advocacy groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression (ABFFE) and the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) who were the first to stand up for our authors; mainstream media who raised visibility of the story to greater levels; and last but not least, PayPal. PayPal worked with us in the spirit of partnership to understand the issues, understand Smashwords and how we represent a new model for publishing outside the traditional gatekeeping system, and to understand that fiction is fiction and literary merit should be determined by readers.

I'm sending out an email today to all Smashwords authors and publishers with more details and thanks. An archived version is in the Smashwords press room here.

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Character Traits/Actions: Expert tips for calming pre-date jitters

By Kimberly Dawn Neumann

You know the drill: It’s time to head off to that coffee shop or cute little tapas place on the first of what (you hope) will be many dates with someone special. You thought you were fine, and have even been looking forward to meeting up together. But then the nerves take hold, and whoa... your heart is racing, your upper lip gets sweaty and you’re suddenly stammering.

If you can relate, help is here. We’re going to teach you how to overcome this common problem. We’ve rounded up advice from experts who teach people how to stay calm in nerve-wracking situations. Try their tips below for putting your best dating foot forward.

Tip #1: Keep a healthy perspective about what first dates are really for

“The first and most important step in overcoming the fear is to put your first date in perspective: this is not an appointment with the dentist or brain surgeon who may inflict pain on you; rather, it is a conversation with another person. The worst thing that can happen is that you won’t connect with the person sitting across from you — it’s hardly the end of the world!

"Second, think of this date as a two-way process. You are interviewing a potential partner as much as your date is interviewing you. Is there a good fit here? What looks good on the surface or on paper may not be what it appears to be for either party. Investigate whether this person is a good match for you and whether you want to invest a significant part of your life and energy in future dates.”

— Troy Saviola, recruiter for NBC Universal

Tip #2: Breathe deeply while counting silently to calm yourself down

“Here is a simple (but amazingly powerful) breathing technique you can easily do to manage stress while sitting in the car or on the train before a date. While breathing through the nose only, inhale to the count of three and exhale to the count of six. It only takes about two or three minutes to experience a noticeable, full-body calming effect.

"The reason?

"Deep breathing triggers your parasympathetic nervous system to counteract the ‘[freeze,] fight-or-flight’ response[s] underl[y] your jitters and results in shallower breathing. And if, during the date, you feel yourself getting nervous again, ask an open-ended question, like: ‘So, what’s working at a college really like?’ and then put a soft smile on your face while you breathe the shakes away!”

— Jonathan Fields, founder of Sonic Yoga

Tip #3: Concentrate on the present moment instead of worrying about the future

“Dating is like auditioning — the stakes are high, so nerves will undoubtedly come into play. I would tell daters the same thing I tell my actors: When you get nervous, put your concentration into the present moment instead of the outcome. Every time you start to think about the future — 'Will this person ask me out on a second date?' — force yourself to focus on the conversation at hand.

"You stand a better chance of booking another date if you can let someone see the type of person you really are, and that you’d be easy to get along with. You can’t do that if you’re draining your own energy trying to figure out what your date wants and what the result might be.”

— Andy Gale, Broadway acting coach

Tip #4: Release pre-date tension by working up a sweat in the gym

“Work out first! You’ll have a positive feeling from all the endorphins, you’ll feel more confident about your appearance, and you’ll have released the tension from your muscles. Or, instead of going right to the date from your office or home, socialize a bit first — either by meeting a friend somewhere or otherwise putting yourself in a situation where you’re turning on your most positive personality for others.

"Doing this will make you walk into the date already feeling engaged and ‘up.’ Just do not talk about the upcoming date while you’re socializing, because that will put your mind back on the subject... and could make you nervous all over again.”

— Ron Geraci, New York City-based online dating coach

Tip #5: Put any negative thoughts in writing, then put a positive spin on them before leaving for your date

“Divide a sheet of paper in half. On the left side of the page, write down how your critical inner voices or negative thoughts are undermining your self-confidence. Write them down as though you are talking to yourself; for example, ‘Don’t get too excited about this date. He/she is not going to find you attractive enough.’

"Next, on the right-hand side of the page, write down a more realistic or congenial statement about yourself. Like, ‘I may not be a supermodel, but I have good features and a sense of humor.’ Decide which of these more positive, realistic statements you will act on before your date begins. They reflect the real you.”

— Robert Firestone, Ph.D., co-author of The Ethics of Interpersonal Relationships

Kimberly Dawn Neumann is a writer in New York City who calms her first-date jitters by dancing around her apartment to passionate Latin music in heels.



Article courtesy of Happen magazine, www.happenmag.com.

=====
I recall a suggesting, which I believe came from an Ask Jake section of Glamour Magazine. Masturbate BEFORE your date, to chill and take the edge off, and release these pent up energies and mellow out with the after satisfaction hormones. _Neale Sourna

Thursday, March 08, 2012

Listen to Neale Sourna Audio Interviews. Enjoy!

Author, publisher, editor, lover of history and relationship mores throughout the centuries. Short Stories (short story), Novels, Nonfiction Sex Manuals, Game Stories, Scripts/Screenplays, and more.... Listen

Wednesday, March 07, 2012

On Character: US Military Seeks Sixth Sense Training

US Military Seeks Sixth Sense Training

Ordinary soldiers have sometimes shown a battlefield sixth sense that has saved lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the U.S. military wants to better understand that "spidey sense" and train troops to tap their inner superhero instincts.

The U.S. Office of Naval Research pointed to sixth sense research about how "humans can detect and act on unique patterns without consciously and intentionally analyzing them," according to a special notice posted on Feb. 29. It hopes to encourage such intuition in the brains of new soldiers, Marines and other troops with little or no battlefield experience.

Having intuition allows for split-second detection of patterns in the midst of uncertain scenarios — a possibly life-saving action in the face of an ambush or area rigged with roadside bombs.

But intuition stands apart from step-by-step, time-consuming analytical thinking because it happens both rapidly and subconsciously. A soldier may see, smell or hear something that gets subconsciously organized within hundreds of milliseconds to create the "feeling or impression of a solution" leading up to a sudden insight about the battlefield situation.

The U.S. military also pointed to studies suggesting a sixth sense can arise from "implicit learning" — absorbing information without being aware of the learning process — rather than building up expertise through years of practice. Ordinary examples of implicit learning include bike riding, learning new languages or developing intuition about how other people may act.

First, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) plans to measure the workings of both intuition and implicit learning. Next, it would create a working model of such thinking that could also reflect individual soldiers' differences, adapt to new situations, and account for the influence of battlefield stress or fatigue.

In the end, virtual battlefield simulations could help train soldiers' intuitions as well as collect information about their performance, ONR explained in its special notice. The U.S. military already uses game-like simulators to prepare soldiers for battlefield scenarios or even to help veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

This story was provided by InnovationNewsDaily, a sister site to LiveScience. Follow InnovationNewsDaily on Twitter @News_Innovation, or on Facebook.

Sunday, March 04, 2012

Neale Sourna, PIE: Perception Is Everything - Owner | Featured on MO.com

Neale Sourna is a Midwest USA author/publisher with a strong preference for and aptitude for great characters that generate unique stories with a powerful interpersonal and erotic nature.

Neale is an individual owner of three overlapping companies: writing for others as Neale Sourna’s Writing-Naked.com as a freelancer with worldwide clients (ghostwriting, creative writing, and editing of screenplays, game stories, short stories, novels, and more); publishing and marketing ebooks and print books (fiction and nonfiction) through PIE: Perception Is Everything [pie-percept.com]; and as Neale Sourna the writer, editor, design layout artist, marketer, publisher.

MO: What influenced your decision to get into the publishing and marketing aspect of the writing industry?

Neale: The interminable slowness, from months to year(s) each, of finding an agent, then finding an editor, then finding a publishing company for film and/or literature or separate ones for both paths; hoping they don’t move to another job or fold and have your projects locked in contract and unavailable to readers. I spent a solid year or so just absorbing from every avenue and searching online the kinds of publishing avenues there were: “traditional,” online, electronic, author publishing. I printed contracts to see what was “really” offered, what their costs and legal strengths and hamstrings, like a super long contract versus an open and easy to end one. Only one company survived my search: InfinityPublishing.com.

Watching how Infinity handled my print on demand (POD) needs and then watching the ebook company I chose, Overdrive.com, work on my books both showed me....[more]

Thursday, March 01, 2012

Living Character, choices: Janitor Turned Owner Rescues Failing Ohio Factory

Tony Lee always dreamed of owning his own business and sending his kids to college. Today, he's co-owner of Ring Masters, a company that makes engine rings for industrial use, and his daughter is heading to college next fall. Tony is hoping she'll be the first college graduate in the family.

Tony has achieved some of the biggest goals he set out for himself and his family, which are impressive, given he grew up in a low-income neighborhood with limited opportunities and never went to college. But what's even more inspiring is Tony Lee's journey to get there.

After leaving the Army in 1997, and a short stint at American Steel, Tony took the only decent job he could find. Tony accepted a janitorial job at an Eaton Corp. factory in Massillon, Ohio in the heart of the rust belt. Like a lot of U.S. manufacturing centers, Massillon has suffered from closed factories and thousands of lost jobs. Tony was grateful for the opportunity and made the most of it, rising from janitor to foreman in four years.

But Tony was just getting started.

In 2002, Eaton started shutting down divisions of the factory, one by one. Soon over 1000 workers were down to just 35 in Tony's division, which was slated to be closed at the end of 2002.

But Tony refused to let the factory die. He spent hours at night in the local public library studying. Despite never going to college, much less business school, Tony wrote a business plan detailing how his factory could survive and prosper.

Against all odds, he convinced a group of investors to buy the factory and keep it running. Members of the investor group and Tony's co-workers all say they were inspired by Tony's leadership, passion for the business and drive to keep it alive. Everyone, it seemed, was rooting for Tony to succeed.

But there was one big catch: The investors wanted Tony to have some "skin in the game," so he had to raise $25,000 to purchase a stake in the factory.

For Tony, this was just one more obstacle to overcome. After taking a second mortgage on his house, selling his motorcycle and literally scrounging for loose change, Tony had the money and was in on the deal. Actually he was "all in;" failure was not an option for Tony.

Now, 9 years later, Ring Masters is a thriving business with over $4 million in annual sales. From 15 workers at the start, the company now has over 20 employees, a growing list of clients and plans for further expansion.

Tony says he's recouped his $25,000 investment "several times over" and is now a co-owner of a growing business. For anyone who's ever thought 'I can run the company better than my boss', Tony Lee is an inspiration. And he's still inspiring his co-workers and employees by working side-by-side with them on the factory floor. Tony says he "leads by example" and would never ask an employee to do a job he wasn't willing to do.

Tony has already beaten the odds and accomplished more than most people would even dare to attempt. Yet Tony is still driven to reach his ultimate goal of owning several businesses.

RingMasters is a "stepping stone", Tony says. Given his track record so far, there's no reach to doubt he'll reach his ultimate goal.

###

The Driven Team is on a nationwide search for the next entrepreneur to be featured in an upcoming episode! Share your story with us at Driven@yahoo-inc.com or follow us on twitter @aarontask #drivenstories.