Designated Sidekick

Designated Sidekick

machine of death

January 29, 2007, Filed under: Post Response — @ 9:14 am

Missing Attachment

Machine of Death: Short Story Anthology Competition

The machine had been invented a few years ago: a machine that could tell, from just a sample of your blood, how you were going to die. It didn’t give you the date and it didn’t give you specifics. It just spat out a sliver of paper upon which were printed, in careful block letters, the words “DROWNED” or “CANCER” or “OLD AGE” or “CHOKED ON A HANDFUL OF POPCORN”. It let people know how they were going to die.

WHAT ARE THEY LOOKING FOR?
The premise of the anthology is covered in the book’s introduction, above. Your mission, as a writer, is to come up with the best possible story that fits in the world described in the introduction. The only major difference between THAT world and THIS world is that people in THAT world can undergo a cheap and easy blood test to find out how they are going to die. So the stories that we’re interested in are those that somehow explore that idea in an interesting or entertaining way.

I have but one thing to say - I lack time and opportunity to write it, but I would love to see a story where the machine says “EDITORIAL MANDATE” contest for a spot in the anthology.

Consider this a call to arms, undead helper monkeys of the G-W.org universe.

Go on. It’s a chance to (make fictional characters) die for…

 

At the risk of consequentialising…

Filed under: Post Response — @ 7:30 am

Missing Attachment

Catching up on my blog reading recently, I noted Feminist Allies: Gender Identity in the Comics post about (and it’s early, so I direct quote)

“I think comic strips are an interesting place to see how gender is reinforced in our daily lives, and how that reinforcement often affects us all negatively.”

it’s an interesting piece, and one that’s noticeable in a quick scan of the black and white single panel to three panel dailies. Gender roles are reinforced or if broken, are broken as the form of a punchline.  “So MaleRole was done by A FEMALE *cue audience guffaw*” Oh Beetle Bailey, how wacky art thou! I mean, I gave up reading Cathy years back because it started to grate raw nerves with me. Don’t get me started on the creep out inducing stuff that goes on in For Better or For Worse (for worse actually) since there’s enough other people on the internet covering that watch.  There are problems in the funny pages that reflect society and show both comic and society needs work.
What got me thinking was jeff’s last paragraph….

Mountains and Molehills
Some might say I’m trivializing gender stuff by focusing on a small segment of pop culture–comic strips. But again, these are solid parts of our day-to-day lives (ok, of my day to day life, and I think this is where a lot of the work on recognizing gender norms and how they might negatively affect us can be done.

In short, I think jeff’s nailed the importance of this in a nutshell.  This is reality, real life, day to day, common touch ordinary people territory - the funny pages.  I’m an academic, I hang with an elite crowd at work, teach at a university (highly ranked one at that).  I don’t run with the average person in a lot of respects, but I do read the same comics in the paper as they do.  It’s the one point where I can say that I intersect with a lot of other people.  Sure, I read Cathy in preference for the Phantom, but still, I could talk about the Phantom to the other boys at school.  It’s more real to a lot of people than big issue changes like social reform or equity or equality of wage, or domestic violence shelters or war in Africa.  It was a common ground, and a part of people’s real daily life (go on, tell me that reading the comics isn’t important because it’s done by ordinary people)
The so called small issues are places where you can intersect with the real life of people, yet we’re forever on the defensive about whether we’re trivialising the big picture by addressing these smaller real life issues. So this got me thinking about the “But you’re trivialising…” concept in other contexts, namely the fact that I’m in the process of moving apartments.  Did I trivialise the apartment moving by packing the small objects before moving the bookcase?  Or was it a hell of a lot easier to move the bookcase once I’d dealt with the raft of smaller objects, freeing me up to take on the bigger issue of the bookcase as part of the biggest issue of moving the entirety of my possessions?

Tackling what we can, where we can, and bringing about incremental improvement in all areas of society isn’t trivialising the major cause.  Assuming that the only change is big change is that none of us can really ever feel that we can acheive is to make what we work for into something of little significance or value.  Getting to people’s self interest in small ways each and every day is much more significant, and a hell of a lot more valuable.

That, if you want to take Answers.com’s second meaning of trivial, is the whole point of well constructed social change - taking it from the unachieved and unachievable and making it something ordinary and commonplace (and achieved) is the endgame scenario.

Change enough of the smaller parts, and the composition of the bigger picture alters. If making a better big picture isn’t significant and valuable, then what is?

 

The Deniability of Chuck Dixon

January 8, 2007, Filed under: Post Response — @ 12:05 am

Missing Attachment

TALKING GRIFTER & MIDNIGHTER WITH CHUCK DIXON

Oh man. The levels of issue I have with this interview is long. Very long. I know what Dixon is thinking he’s saying, and what he’s actually saying aren’t meshing up. I know there are Chuck Dixon fans, and Chuck Dixon himself on the Internet. That said, I don’t have any problem going to the dance with anyone who wants to to reply to me here and discuss my reading of the interview and my interpretation of the chasm between wanting deniability and stating support for the sexual orientation or existence of relationship between two characters. If you want to write for the deniablity, then in my view, you’re not writing for the support of the existence of ANY aspect of the character.

Onto some quote by quote work after the jump

(more…)

 

Powered by WordPress