I'm getting more and more attached to this blog. Talking to myself seems so much more trouble than just blogging. Especially when I can go back and see what topics I have already covered.
Now, to my imaginary readership, I would like to tell you about the city I was born in and currently reside in: Canberra.
Canberra, for those who do not know, is the capital city of a little place called Australia, yet is still rather small in comparison to many capital cities worldwide, with a population of just 350,000, which is small even by Australian standards. One thing that is unique about me is that this is the largest city I have ever been to. Most people I know have traveled to Melbourne or Sydney, but I have never really had a reason to go.
Anyway, back on topic, Canberra is a beautiful city with many famous landmarks and locations, but there is one thing about Canberra that is just wonderful.
Black Mountain Tower, which (as far as I am aware) can be seen from any part of Canberra. I can't say I have gone out of my way to se if this is true, but with the exception of the occcasional tall building or tree, this tower is always visible. It is strangely comforting to know that wherever you go in this city, you can always see one landmark.
Besides Black Mountain Tower there are many pleasant things about Canberra, but the main point I am trying to make is that locations are very interesting to me.
Books, TV, movies and even music that manages to convince me that I am in another location is among my favourite, as many imaginary readers may have gathered from my list of favourite TV shows. The X-Files is one great example of this. Just the way which Washington D.C is portrayed fascinates me, despite the fact I know perfectly well it was filmed elsewhere.
When I think of books which inspire the same feeling, none come to mind, but I'm sure there are some out there. Many books are set in locations, but the writers do not go out of there way to make the reader feel like they are actually experiencing living in a different city. Long passages of descriptions are not enjoysble, but the occasional detain here and there would not go astray. Saying at the beginning of the book "this novel is set in New York" is no good, if for the rest of the story the reader is allowed to inspect the interior of the protaganist's apartment. Just not worth reading, unless the plot is fantastic.
One example that finally springs to mind is The Great Gatsby, one of my favourite novels and the green light. I might be the only one, but the imagery of Jay Gatsby sitting out there, night after night, with the breeze, insects and his thoughts his only company just presents a perfect image. If a character is not going to interact with the location, there is no point in having a location. Just place your character in Genericaville or Repetition City. If your story is going to be character focused, remember: everyone interacts with their environment sometimes. The little touches make the difference. Stepping in gum left by the kids who walk by here every day on the way to school, finding a coin lying in a neighbours driveway after going for an afternoon walk, the coin hot from the day' sun. The character making a point of not interacting with the environment works in exactly the same way. Choosing not to go for a walk because of the freezing wind, or the character closing the curtain to keep to glare off the TV. It all adds an extra element to any story. Just don't have a chapter of introductory description and then nothing. It just doesn't work. No-one takes every detail about a person or place in upon first seeing them. Add details as the character would notice them.
I'll be quiet now,
Monday, 17 October 2011
The Idiot Box
Just trying to add a bit more to this blog. I have been reading more of "The Marketing of Evil" and have quite a few opinions on it. I have been shouting my opinions at real people, of imaginary audience, so the Internet shall be free of my rants for a short while. To give a taste of the chapters I have read, Mr Kupelian has claimed that you cannot be a vegetarian and be pro-choice. As both a vegetarian and pro-choice, I take some serious offense at that, although I will go further into that later.
There is also a chapter of Sex, which I had to just skip over. I don't consider myself as one to possess a weak stomach, but some of the descriptions were just vile. I'm sure this will seem like a success to Mr Kupelian, but it is like arguing with a man with bad body odor. People not arguing with him does not mean he has won, it just means no-one really wants to deal with him. This chapter is disturbing, but I cannot fault him on accuracy (considering I don't want to have to read any of it).
Anyway, I have addressed two of the most important media to me, books and music, and it adds to the picture if I also include television. As I have been watching far too much of a great reviewer named The Nostalgia Critic, I had the idea to present my favourite shows as a Top Ten list (not ripping of his Top Eleven lists). This list is not so much 10 is the worst of the ten, but five great shows, followed by the 5 greatest.
10. Thank God You're Here
To start the list at position 10 is an Australian comedy which has spread overseas. This is Thank God You're Here, which is a show about comedians being placed in situations without a script, which is always amusing. It has run for 4 seasons and was supposed to run for 5, although they never made a fifth. To be fair, they were well and truly running out of ideas, but there are limits to how many completely unique situations someone could make up.
9. Weeds
Weeds is an American series which (as far as I'm aware) has never aired in Australia. I have watched 6 and a half seasons online, but currently I'm waiting for some episodes to accumulate before I continue. The premise of the show is that a woman with two children suddenly becomes a widow and must make a living, which sends her into the world of marijuana. This series has moved the plot from LA to San Diego to Seattle to Michigan to Copenahagen until currently residing in New York. Interesting characters and a decent plot, this show is very good.
8. The IT Crowd
The It Crowd is a fantastic British comedy (I like how evenly waited the list is so far) about two nerds working in the IT department of a large company and their new boss. Great characters and so many hilarious situations. The plot doesn't really move as the series goes along, but still fantastic.
7. How I Met Your Mother
This American sitcom is not what I would really find myself watching normally, but I am yet to find a show featuring Neil Patrick Harris that anyone can really call unenjoyable. The main plot of the show is about a group of friends in their 30's and their lives and relationships, but the best character is Barney Stinson (played by Harris), who is an over the top womanizer who is disturbingly entertaining in his many schemes to get laid.
6. Monk
Monk is a classic American detective show focusing of the exploits of detective Adrian Monk, who suffers from a good deal of phobias and disorders after the murder of his wife. He is entertaining to watch and the mysteries are reasonably complex, although this is a detective show, meaning there are a million and one shows that are just as satisfying to watch. Another great one is Psych, but Monk just has more heart.
5. The Gruen Transfer
I have actually mentioned this show before, but have not gone into details. The Gruen Transfer is a brilliant Australian panel show which analyses adds from both Australia and the rest of the world. Wil Anderson hosts the show well, and the panel regulars have enough chemistry to keep things watchable. The competitions to find the World's Worst Ad and the World's Worst Product are just legendary.
4. Lost
Lost. What to say about it? The most I can say without giving anything away is that it focuses on the survivors of a plane which crashes on an island while trvelling from Sydney to LA. My one major complaint is how in hell does only 1 Australian survive a crashed plane which originated from Australian? All the same, Lost is a great show which I was fortunate to discover only earlier 2011 and somehow managed to watch every episode in just 3 weeks.
3. The X-Files
Yet another show there is not much I can say about. The X-Files is an American show following FBI agents Fox Mulder and Dana Scully as they investigate supernatural happenings. The show has great characters, a great setting and very interesting plots. I only started watching this show in 2009 after digging up some DVD's in the library, so I don't really know how popular this show was during its original airing, but it deserved all the praise it received. I'm pretty sure I will (attempt) to name my firstborn son Fox after this show.
2. Daria
This show is possibly my actual favourite. It really depends on the mood I'm in, but being second shouldn't say it is any less a show than the one if first. Daria is the only animated show on this list, but this should not make any of you inexistant readers think this is just for kids. Also, when I say the main character ranges from 16-18 years old, you should not see it as just another kids show. When I was about 9 or 10, I used to watch this on the ABC's afternoon programming and found it entertaining. Recently, I kept thinking of some one-liners and kept wondering if I should see what the show was actually like, through the eyes of an older individual. Watching it was one of the best decisions I have made this year. Daria is a show focusing on a cynical, sarcastic and intelligent teenager named Daria Morgandorfer and how she reacts to family and school. Just writing it here isn't good enough. Dear imaginary readers, I beg you to look it up online. Daria ran for 5 seasons and had two movies. When I finished watching the second movie, I cried. I don't view myself as particularly emotional, but this show ending (9 years ago) just saddened me so very much. The fact that there would be no more of this fantastic show just truly hurt.
Anyway, Daria is actually a spin off of Beavis & Butthead (which I cannot comprehend the slightest entertainment from) and aired on MTV in the late 90's and early 00's. Beavis & Butthead has unfortunately returned to the small screen, but where is the legendary Daria?
1. Hungry Beast
In comparison to the last show, I am actually wondering which is my favourite of the two, but Hungry Beast is certainly the most educational. Hungry Beast is an Australian...erm...news(?) program which talks about news issues in an in depth manner. The real selling point for this show to me was the inclusion of Marc Fennell, one of my favourite movie reviewers, but the show itself is what kept bringing me back each week. This show has produced three series, and I have no idea if there will be a fourth, but I certainly hope so.
I somewhat feel that I have overused the word fantastic in this list, but if this bothers any of the masses of people who don't visit this blog, too bloody bad.
There is also a chapter of Sex, which I had to just skip over. I don't consider myself as one to possess a weak stomach, but some of the descriptions were just vile. I'm sure this will seem like a success to Mr Kupelian, but it is like arguing with a man with bad body odor. People not arguing with him does not mean he has won, it just means no-one really wants to deal with him. This chapter is disturbing, but I cannot fault him on accuracy (considering I don't want to have to read any of it).
Anyway, I have addressed two of the most important media to me, books and music, and it adds to the picture if I also include television. As I have been watching far too much of a great reviewer named The Nostalgia Critic, I had the idea to present my favourite shows as a Top Ten list (not ripping of his Top Eleven lists). This list is not so much 10 is the worst of the ten, but five great shows, followed by the 5 greatest.
10. Thank God You're Here
To start the list at position 10 is an Australian comedy which has spread overseas. This is Thank God You're Here, which is a show about comedians being placed in situations without a script, which is always amusing. It has run for 4 seasons and was supposed to run for 5, although they never made a fifth. To be fair, they were well and truly running out of ideas, but there are limits to how many completely unique situations someone could make up.
9. Weeds
Weeds is an American series which (as far as I'm aware) has never aired in Australia. I have watched 6 and a half seasons online, but currently I'm waiting for some episodes to accumulate before I continue. The premise of the show is that a woman with two children suddenly becomes a widow and must make a living, which sends her into the world of marijuana. This series has moved the plot from LA to San Diego to Seattle to Michigan to Copenahagen until currently residing in New York. Interesting characters and a decent plot, this show is very good.
8. The IT Crowd
The It Crowd is a fantastic British comedy (I like how evenly waited the list is so far) about two nerds working in the IT department of a large company and their new boss. Great characters and so many hilarious situations. The plot doesn't really move as the series goes along, but still fantastic.
7. How I Met Your Mother
This American sitcom is not what I would really find myself watching normally, but I am yet to find a show featuring Neil Patrick Harris that anyone can really call unenjoyable. The main plot of the show is about a group of friends in their 30's and their lives and relationships, but the best character is Barney Stinson (played by Harris), who is an over the top womanizer who is disturbingly entertaining in his many schemes to get laid.
6. Monk
Monk is a classic American detective show focusing of the exploits of detective Adrian Monk, who suffers from a good deal of phobias and disorders after the murder of his wife. He is entertaining to watch and the mysteries are reasonably complex, although this is a detective show, meaning there are a million and one shows that are just as satisfying to watch. Another great one is Psych, but Monk just has more heart.
5. The Gruen Transfer
I have actually mentioned this show before, but have not gone into details. The Gruen Transfer is a brilliant Australian panel show which analyses adds from both Australia and the rest of the world. Wil Anderson hosts the show well, and the panel regulars have enough chemistry to keep things watchable. The competitions to find the World's Worst Ad and the World's Worst Product are just legendary.
4. Lost
Lost. What to say about it? The most I can say without giving anything away is that it focuses on the survivors of a plane which crashes on an island while trvelling from Sydney to LA. My one major complaint is how in hell does only 1 Australian survive a crashed plane which originated from Australian? All the same, Lost is a great show which I was fortunate to discover only earlier 2011 and somehow managed to watch every episode in just 3 weeks.
3. The X-Files
Yet another show there is not much I can say about. The X-Files is an American show following FBI agents Fox Mulder and Dana Scully as they investigate supernatural happenings. The show has great characters, a great setting and very interesting plots. I only started watching this show in 2009 after digging up some DVD's in the library, so I don't really know how popular this show was during its original airing, but it deserved all the praise it received. I'm pretty sure I will (attempt) to name my firstborn son Fox after this show.
2. Daria
This show is possibly my actual favourite. It really depends on the mood I'm in, but being second shouldn't say it is any less a show than the one if first. Daria is the only animated show on this list, but this should not make any of you inexistant readers think this is just for kids. Also, when I say the main character ranges from 16-18 years old, you should not see it as just another kids show. When I was about 9 or 10, I used to watch this on the ABC's afternoon programming and found it entertaining. Recently, I kept thinking of some one-liners and kept wondering if I should see what the show was actually like, through the eyes of an older individual. Watching it was one of the best decisions I have made this year. Daria is a show focusing on a cynical, sarcastic and intelligent teenager named Daria Morgandorfer and how she reacts to family and school. Just writing it here isn't good enough. Dear imaginary readers, I beg you to look it up online. Daria ran for 5 seasons and had two movies. When I finished watching the second movie, I cried. I don't view myself as particularly emotional, but this show ending (9 years ago) just saddened me so very much. The fact that there would be no more of this fantastic show just truly hurt.
Anyway, Daria is actually a spin off of Beavis & Butthead (which I cannot comprehend the slightest entertainment from) and aired on MTV in the late 90's and early 00's. Beavis & Butthead has unfortunately returned to the small screen, but where is the legendary Daria?
1. Hungry Beast
In comparison to the last show, I am actually wondering which is my favourite of the two, but Hungry Beast is certainly the most educational. Hungry Beast is an Australian...erm...news(?) program which talks about news issues in an in depth manner. The real selling point for this show to me was the inclusion of Marc Fennell, one of my favourite movie reviewers, but the show itself is what kept bringing me back each week. This show has produced three series, and I have no idea if there will be a fourth, but I certainly hope so.
I somewhat feel that I have overused the word fantastic in this list, but if this bothers any of the masses of people who don't visit this blog, too bloody bad.
Sunday, 16 October 2011
Future Shade
Well, the blog is looking rather sad with the single post, so I figured I should probably add something else. I have no idea how much effort I'm going to put into this blog, considering I ste the whole thing up just to spend one post venting.
There are two things that make maintaining this blog look like a good idea:
1. I haven't finished the book which originally started it.
2. Spending a decent amount of time "talking" to myself under the illusion that someone else might read it is just as good a use of my time than anything else (especially just talking to myself without the illusion that someone else might overhear).
So in the spirit of maintaining this blog, I'll do some "normal " blog things, like reviewing one of my recently purchased albums: Future Shade by The Herd. Something a little more lighthearted seems a good idea considering that the next couple of chapters in "The Marketing of Evil" mention separation of church and state and abortion, which I'm scared will start an argument between all the people who aren't commenting on my blog.
Anyway, for a brief bit of background, The Herd is a fantastic Australian group, not to be confused by an older British group. The Herd have been around for 10 years as of 2011, making their latest release rather significant.
As far as I'm aware (being to lazy to even check Wikipedia. That's just sad.) The Herd have released 5 albums, 3 of which I own. When I say the genre, I know that the people who are hypothetically reading this will just zone out. Here goes: Hip-hop.
That's right. Well, at least it was. They all operate under Elefant Traks, which is a hip-hop label, but their latest release isn't quite what I would call "hip-hop".
Anyway, the other two albums by these guys are fantastic. The first one, An Elefant Never Forgets is a bit confused. There is everything on there from regular Aussie hip-hop alongside strange jazz and what sounds like Romanian folk music (in a good way, if that's possible). The second album by them which I own is called Summerland and to put it very frankly, they got their shit together. This is a well made hip-hop album with some of the greatest songs I have ever heard. The main thing about this group is that they have the regular rappers (Urthboy and Ozi Batla are two of these) as well as a regular female vocalist, like a "normal" band, who does not rap (Jane Tyrrell) who is phenomenal.
Now, the new album, Future Shade, is completely different. They have only one or two rap based tracks, focusing more on beautifully made peices which I can't really classify. They are slow, lovely songs with orchestral-esque backing and just some of the most amazingly different songs I have ever heard. For anyone interested in what I'm ranting about, look up the song "Sum of it All" by The Herd on Youtube or the like, although my favourite is a well made song very similar to the original works by The Herd, called "A Thousand Lives". So, Nonexistent readers, tell Youtube Hudson sent you.
The thing that separates this album away from many other hip-hop albums and sets The Herd apart from many other hip-hop acts (Please note averted pun: seperated from The Herd) is the presence of heart and meaning. Another hip-hop album I adore is State of the Art by the Hilltop Hoods, which is also (if the name didn't give it away) a hip-hop outfit. This album is well made, sounds great and sold very well, but the majority of the songs are just about getting (insert any of these words: drunk, high, laid, money (with one complete exception, which I'm sure I will have to talk about another time). The Herd manages to add a great load of meaning into an already impressive album.
All but one of the songs do it for me, that one track being "The Red Queen Theory" which, if you are in the slightest bit associated with Australian politics is about a certain red-headed female politician. (Please note: I am being vague because I don't truly know if it is about Pauline Hanson or Julia Gillard. Hanson is more likely to irritate people like the Herd, but Gillard is a bit more modern).
All the same, I recomend to the leagues of people not reading this blog, go out and buy a copy of Future Shade by The Herd (or download it). It is a bloody great use of your money. If you are interested, imaginary reader, Elefant Traks has just recently completed an 8 part series on the making of Future Shade. I recommend this to people too cheap to buy the album, as they play parts of the music in the background.
There are two things that make maintaining this blog look like a good idea:
1. I haven't finished the book which originally started it.
2. Spending a decent amount of time "talking" to myself under the illusion that someone else might read it is just as good a use of my time than anything else (especially just talking to myself without the illusion that someone else might overhear).
So in the spirit of maintaining this blog, I'll do some "normal " blog things, like reviewing one of my recently purchased albums: Future Shade by The Herd. Something a little more lighthearted seems a good idea considering that the next couple of chapters in "The Marketing of Evil" mention separation of church and state and abortion, which I'm scared will start an argument between all the people who aren't commenting on my blog.
Anyway, for a brief bit of background, The Herd is a fantastic Australian group, not to be confused by an older British group. The Herd have been around for 10 years as of 2011, making their latest release rather significant.
As far as I'm aware (being to lazy to even check Wikipedia. That's just sad.) The Herd have released 5 albums, 3 of which I own. When I say the genre, I know that the people who are hypothetically reading this will just zone out. Here goes: Hip-hop.
That's right. Well, at least it was. They all operate under Elefant Traks, which is a hip-hop label, but their latest release isn't quite what I would call "hip-hop".
Anyway, the other two albums by these guys are fantastic. The first one, An Elefant Never Forgets is a bit confused. There is everything on there from regular Aussie hip-hop alongside strange jazz and what sounds like Romanian folk music (in a good way, if that's possible). The second album by them which I own is called Summerland and to put it very frankly, they got their shit together. This is a well made hip-hop album with some of the greatest songs I have ever heard. The main thing about this group is that they have the regular rappers (Urthboy and Ozi Batla are two of these) as well as a regular female vocalist, like a "normal" band, who does not rap (Jane Tyrrell) who is phenomenal.
Now, the new album, Future Shade, is completely different. They have only one or two rap based tracks, focusing more on beautifully made peices which I can't really classify. They are slow, lovely songs with orchestral-esque backing and just some of the most amazingly different songs I have ever heard. For anyone interested in what I'm ranting about, look up the song "Sum of it All" by The Herd on Youtube or the like, although my favourite is a well made song very similar to the original works by The Herd, called "A Thousand Lives". So, Nonexistent readers, tell Youtube Hudson sent you.
The thing that separates this album away from many other hip-hop albums and sets The Herd apart from many other hip-hop acts (Please note averted pun: seperated from The Herd) is the presence of heart and meaning. Another hip-hop album I adore is State of the Art by the Hilltop Hoods, which is also (if the name didn't give it away) a hip-hop outfit. This album is well made, sounds great and sold very well, but the majority of the songs are just about getting (insert any of these words: drunk, high, laid, money (with one complete exception, which I'm sure I will have to talk about another time). The Herd manages to add a great load of meaning into an already impressive album.
All but one of the songs do it for me, that one track being "The Red Queen Theory" which, if you are in the slightest bit associated with Australian politics is about a certain red-headed female politician. (Please note: I am being vague because I don't truly know if it is about Pauline Hanson or Julia Gillard. Hanson is more likely to irritate people like the Herd, but Gillard is a bit more modern).
All the same, I recomend to the leagues of people not reading this blog, go out and buy a copy of Future Shade by The Herd (or download it). It is a bloody great use of your money. If you are interested, imaginary reader, Elefant Traks has just recently completed an 8 part series on the making of Future Shade. I recommend this to people too cheap to buy the album, as they play parts of the music in the background.
A Book
To the masses of people who are not and probably never will read this blog, I ask a simple question.
Have you ever punched a book?
Not by accident or for a reason unrelated to the nature of the book, but punching the book for the same sorts of reasons you would punch another person.
Up until yesterday I would have placed myself into the (hopefully) majority of people who not only reply to this question with a resounding "no" but start looking at the person who asked it in a cautious way, backing up whilst reaching for a phone.
That was until I read a book called "The Marketing of Evil" by David Kupelian.
To be perfectly fair, I have only read just over a chapter of this disturbing work of a disturbed individual, but I feel that it is more than enough. The fist chapter, for a window in to what has angered me so, is basically about how god hates gay people.
There are several things that cause me to lose respect for people. Some of these are stupid and unjustifiable (like people who spit on the ground. Why does this bug me? I don't know). Other things that make me lose respect for people are a bit more understandable (such as racism. That just plain pisses me off). But possibly the one thing someone can do to make me lose every ounce of respect for them is to use god as the means of ending an argument. Especially if the argument really does not relate to the existence or powers of god.
This act includes any other representation of a supreme being. Things such as the "universe" have exactly the same meaning to me if someone claims they are right because of god, which has exactly the same power over me as claiming the voices in your head disagree with me.
It's not so much that the person believes in god, it's more that they use god as some kind of shield against logic. Here's a hint: Ignorance works pretty well too. Why not just get into an argument with someone and finish up your entire case with "because I say so". Unless you have some kind of authority, it is just as meaningless as justifying yourself with god, except you're being honest about it.
This isn't to say that many people don't honestly believe that god agrees with them, but I have a feeling that even if he didn't believe in god, David Kupelian would still not like gay people.
As you may have guessed, Mr Kupelian has claimed repeatedly that for this very reason people should not support gay rights. As you also may have guessed, I punched his book over it. I also received many strange looks from other people in the food court, but screw them. I just wish I hadn't borrowed the hardcover version.
A perfectly legitimate question I keep asking myself (which, if anyone else ever reads this blog, they may also be asking) is why someone like myself, who is obviously not of the same political leanings of this man, reading this book?
Firstly, the library I go to has these two stands just through the front doors. All the books on one of these stands have a theme, like gardening or the biographies of great Australians. I have no idea what the theme was for "The Marketing of Evil" as most of the other books had been borrowed. I figured, as the name may have led many to guess, that the book was legitimately about advertising (which it kind of claims it is, being how "anti-American values" are being "sold" to the unsuspecting people of America). Blame it on "Syrup" by Max(x) Barry and the Gruen Transfer, but I do find advertising interesting, especially all those things which work subliminally. But why did I start reading, even after the blurb?
Well, I like to know the enemy and as a left-wing atheist, David Kupelian is right up there on that list (let's put him somewhere between George W. Bush and Pauline Hanson). I like to know what the right-wing fundamentalist religion point of view is. If they can justify an argument, find legitimate problems with my point of view and propose a better one, I am more than happy to listen and learn.
But instead, I'm given a spiel about how the right is right because of god. The most "legitimate" claim (I use the phrase hesitantly. Perhaps "least nonsensical argument" is more appropriate) is that the "pro-gay rights lobby" (or as I like to call it, "people with common sense") broke Godwin's Rule. I don't have the overwhelming desire to investigate his claim, which seems weak as it is, but Kupelian then proceeded to make sure Godwin's Rule was well and truly smashed by rebutting that the opposite was true and (as far as I understand his logic) that gay people are Nazis (or vica-versa. He really does not word his points very well. Not that I can claim I do).
The next couple of chapters promise to either make me reconsider everything I believe or (the much more likely result of) it will continue to make me want to cry, vomit and kill David Kupelian (simultaneously). To be fair, we both believe that smoking is bad, although I have never connected the increase of smoking with gay people.
Anyway, Godwin's Rule makes me think that there should be a rule about using god in arguments. Surely even if you are religious, hypothetical reader, you can see the benefit of being able to just cite a rule which says "just because you claim (with no evidence) that god agrees with your argument does not mean you are correct. It does, however, mean that I not only have perfectly justifiable reasons to stop this disagreement right now, I also have a responsibility to common sense to give you no illusions that you have proven yourself and your argument correct. Please think these things through next time. Good day."
So, imaginary reader, do you think such a rule would be useful? And what should such a rule be called? Personally, naming it Hudson's Rule or Rourke's Rule makes perfect sense, but I feel that there may be someone out there with a more deserving name.
Well, back to Kupelian's horrific writings. I can only hope that the end of the book reveals it to be a piece of satire in very poor taste or otherwise restore just a little of my hope in humanity.
Also, first post. Woo!
Have you ever punched a book?
Not by accident or for a reason unrelated to the nature of the book, but punching the book for the same sorts of reasons you would punch another person.
Up until yesterday I would have placed myself into the (hopefully) majority of people who not only reply to this question with a resounding "no" but start looking at the person who asked it in a cautious way, backing up whilst reaching for a phone.
That was until I read a book called "The Marketing of Evil" by David Kupelian.
To be perfectly fair, I have only read just over a chapter of this disturbing work of a disturbed individual, but I feel that it is more than enough. The fist chapter, for a window in to what has angered me so, is basically about how god hates gay people.
There are several things that cause me to lose respect for people. Some of these are stupid and unjustifiable (like people who spit on the ground. Why does this bug me? I don't know). Other things that make me lose respect for people are a bit more understandable (such as racism. That just plain pisses me off). But possibly the one thing someone can do to make me lose every ounce of respect for them is to use god as the means of ending an argument. Especially if the argument really does not relate to the existence or powers of god.
This act includes any other representation of a supreme being. Things such as the "universe" have exactly the same meaning to me if someone claims they are right because of god, which has exactly the same power over me as claiming the voices in your head disagree with me.
It's not so much that the person believes in god, it's more that they use god as some kind of shield against logic. Here's a hint: Ignorance works pretty well too. Why not just get into an argument with someone and finish up your entire case with "because I say so". Unless you have some kind of authority, it is just as meaningless as justifying yourself with god, except you're being honest about it.
This isn't to say that many people don't honestly believe that god agrees with them, but I have a feeling that even if he didn't believe in god, David Kupelian would still not like gay people.
As you may have guessed, Mr Kupelian has claimed repeatedly that for this very reason people should not support gay rights. As you also may have guessed, I punched his book over it. I also received many strange looks from other people in the food court, but screw them. I just wish I hadn't borrowed the hardcover version.
A perfectly legitimate question I keep asking myself (which, if anyone else ever reads this blog, they may also be asking) is why someone like myself, who is obviously not of the same political leanings of this man, reading this book?
Firstly, the library I go to has these two stands just through the front doors. All the books on one of these stands have a theme, like gardening or the biographies of great Australians. I have no idea what the theme was for "The Marketing of Evil" as most of the other books had been borrowed. I figured, as the name may have led many to guess, that the book was legitimately about advertising (which it kind of claims it is, being how "anti-American values" are being "sold" to the unsuspecting people of America). Blame it on "Syrup" by Max(x) Barry and the Gruen Transfer, but I do find advertising interesting, especially all those things which work subliminally. But why did I start reading, even after the blurb?
Well, I like to know the enemy and as a left-wing atheist, David Kupelian is right up there on that list (let's put him somewhere between George W. Bush and Pauline Hanson). I like to know what the right-wing fundamentalist religion point of view is. If they can justify an argument, find legitimate problems with my point of view and propose a better one, I am more than happy to listen and learn.
But instead, I'm given a spiel about how the right is right because of god. The most "legitimate" claim (I use the phrase hesitantly. Perhaps "least nonsensical argument" is more appropriate) is that the "pro-gay rights lobby" (or as I like to call it, "people with common sense") broke Godwin's Rule. I don't have the overwhelming desire to investigate his claim, which seems weak as it is, but Kupelian then proceeded to make sure Godwin's Rule was well and truly smashed by rebutting that the opposite was true and (as far as I understand his logic) that gay people are Nazis (or vica-versa. He really does not word his points very well. Not that I can claim I do).
The next couple of chapters promise to either make me reconsider everything I believe or (the much more likely result of) it will continue to make me want to cry, vomit and kill David Kupelian (simultaneously). To be fair, we both believe that smoking is bad, although I have never connected the increase of smoking with gay people.
Anyway, Godwin's Rule makes me think that there should be a rule about using god in arguments. Surely even if you are religious, hypothetical reader, you can see the benefit of being able to just cite a rule which says "just because you claim (with no evidence) that god agrees with your argument does not mean you are correct. It does, however, mean that I not only have perfectly justifiable reasons to stop this disagreement right now, I also have a responsibility to common sense to give you no illusions that you have proven yourself and your argument correct. Please think these things through next time. Good day."
So, imaginary reader, do you think such a rule would be useful? And what should such a rule be called? Personally, naming it Hudson's Rule or Rourke's Rule makes perfect sense, but I feel that there may be someone out there with a more deserving name.
Well, back to Kupelian's horrific writings. I can only hope that the end of the book reveals it to be a piece of satire in very poor taste or otherwise restore just a little of my hope in humanity.
Also, first post. Woo!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)