I contributed to a Kickstarter for Word Realms by Asymmetric and am encouraging you to check this one out. I’ve played Kingdom of Loathing and I love the jokes, the puns, and the pop culture references. (Hrmmm… Could this be why I also like Munchkin?)

Anyway, I thought you might want to see the video and decide for yourself if this is something worth plunking your hard-earned cash down for.

Mood: The puns, the puns… I must have all the puns.
Caffeinated Beverages Consumed: Hah. LAUGHABLE.
Work-Out Minutes Logged Yesterday: Walk-ish with a side of con recovery.
In My Ears: A fan. A very loud and annoying fan.
Game Last Played: Battle Nations
Movie Last Viewed: Indiana Jones as part of a marathon
Latest Artistic Project: Crystal Cluster bracelet in gold
Latest Release: “Don’t Ignore Your Dead” included in Don’t Read This Book for the Don’t Rest Your Head RPG

There’s been a rash of people talking about “strong female characters” for a while. The phrase really grates on my sensibilities because many have used it to describe the fact that their characters are feminist. And then my head explodes.

Descriptors are adjectives on a character write-up. Class: Barbarian. Sex: Female. Primary trait: strong. So yes, in that case the character is strong and female. Whoopie. In order for her to be feminist or strong or whatever, she’d have to be characterized as such. Ah, grasshopper, therein lies the crux of my description problem: character traits versus characterization. No character has internal strength that’s visible to the reader unless they are thrown into a scenario where that shines through that scene or set of scenes. But, even then, there’s a character arc that follows through the story that provides her with the opportunity to change. So some characters may start out as “weak” and wind up “strong” through the heroic journey. We may not like change in real life but a story has to have it. Has to. Conflict of all sorts is what drives the characters to go forth and do.

Feminism, on the other hand, has been grossly misrepresented in my opinion. In recent years, this term has come to mean “a fierce, independent woman.” This, cats and kittens, is NOT what feminism is. Let me quote this definition from the Feminist Majority Foundation: “Feminism n. the policy, practice or advocacy of political, economic, and social equality for women.“

So how exactly is a “strong, female character” a feminist? She’s not, because you can have a strong character who doesn’t give a flying fig about feminism nor does she live up to those ideals. The woman who stands by her misogynistic man can be strong. A female character who subjugates other women to save herself can also be characterized as “strong.” A woman who believes in the precepts of feminism but doesn’t really do anything that speaks to her ideals can be strong, too.

The nature of strength, like any other internal attribute, is relative. The term is about as useful as saying a character has blonde hair. What I feel is “strong” may be different from what another author or reader does. This (like the treatment of women) can also be cultural depending upon where you live, what family you hail from, etc. This is where the story becomes crucial to shape a character, regardless of whether or not she’s iconic.

That’s not to say I ever want to be antagonistic about the use of the terms “strong, female characters” or “feminism” — especially within the context of fiction. What I’m trying to convey is that perhaps talking about strong, female character types warrants more discussion about feminism, and not be simply thrown into a line to placate the crowd based on a common perception. (Though, for as much as I am complaining about the misuse of language, we’ve come a loooooooong way baby. Try reading or listening to a chronological progression of fiction featuring female characters through the twentieth century some time. It’s an ed-u-cation.)

Personally, I think it’s a disservice to any reader to lump all male, transgender, and female characters underneath the same banner. (Same goes for ANY class of human beings, really, whether its based on religion or race or profession or age, etc.) Instead of putting guilty labels on characters, I’d love to see more discussion about what an author is doing within the boundaries of that specific story. Maybe by identifying how an author is characterizing a particular character others will start learning what feminism really is — if that is their goal. Otherwise, I’ll just chalk up “strong, female characters” to what they really are: the modern-day woman.

Mood: Pulp-y with a side of OJ
Caffeinated Beverages Consumed: In recovery. (SERIOUSLY.)
Work-Out Minutes Logged Yesterday: Walk.
In My Ears: Screaming dust bunnies
Game Last Played: Battle Nations
Movie Last Viewed: Indiana Jones marathon
Latest Artistic Project: Crystal Cluster bracelet in gold
Latest Release: “Don’t Ignore Your Dead” included in Don’t Read This Book for the Don’t Rest Your Head RPG

March of the Penguins? Nope. Today’s post is about the funeral march of the elephants. I’ve heard about elephants doing amazing things, like painting with their trunks, but stories about their interactions with humans often elude me because I’m not well-versed in conservation news. This one struck me in the eye. In March, elephant conservationalist Lawrence Anthony passed away from a heart attack. Before he died, the elephants started walking to his home, which was over twelve hours away. Once there, they stood watch for two days. Their way of saying good-bye to their friend?

What an incredible story. Read “Saying Goodbye: Elephants Hold Apparent Vigil To Mourn Their Human Friend.”

Mood: In Awe
Caffeinated Beverages Consumed: Am I supposed to confess that? Or…
Work-Out Minutes Logged Yesterday: Walk.
In My Ears: A metallic concoction of guitars and scratchy voices
Game Last Played: Battle Nations
Movie Last Viewed: Harry Potter as part of a marathon
Latest Artistic Project: Crystal Cluster bracelet in gold
Latest Release: “Don’t Ignore Your Dead” included in Don’t Read This Book for the Don’t Rest Your Head RPG

I stumbled across an article from The Guardian titled Anti-intellectualism is taking over the US and this passage induce a fair amount of anger in me:

The anti-ethnic studies law passed by the state prohibits teachings that “promote the overthrow of the United States government,” “promote resentment toward a race or class of people,” “are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group,” and/or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” — SOURCE: Anti-intellectualism is taking over the US: The rise in academic book bannings and firings is compounded by the US’s growing disregard for scholarship itself

This infuriates me because books are an opportunity to teach, not censor. I read controversial books, banned books, books that could have turned me into a racist bigot — but they didn’t. Why? Because they were used to teach me about other human beings, cultures, places in the world. I learned (hopefully you think this, too) how to be a better, more tolerant, human being by reading, discussing, critiquing lots and lots of books — and I’m still learning!

We need good teachers who are experts in their field and their techniques because we can’t all be proficient at every subject matter in existence. It is possible, even outside academia, to be a student. Yes, you can acquire information from reading a Wikipedia entry or talking to someone, but I believe you can’t really learn something unless you are given the opportunity to understand it in an environment that promotes education. Memorization, terse headlines, these are the ephemera of our day. But teachers? Irreplaceable.

Mood: Feisty
Caffeinated Beverages Consumed: Two with the potential for three.
Work-Out Minutes Logged Yesterday: Walk.
In My Ears: Birds chirping.
Game Last Played: Battle Nations
Movie Last Viewed: Harry Potter as part of a marathon
Latest Artistic Project: Crystal Cluster bracelet in gold
Latest Release: “Don’t Ignore Your Dead” included in Don’t Read This Book for the Don’t Rest Your Head RPG