While I'm on the subject of abuses of the English language, here's another thing that has gotten my goat for a long time, but I've never written about publicly. If you're describing someone who pretends to be something he or she is not, the word is "poseur", not "poser". Compare the two definitions with the links provided (check both definitions of "poser" you'll find there) -- neither of them apply.

Yes, they are pronounced essentially the same way in English, and yes the etymology of the word "poseur" is the same as that of "poser," but there is a reason we have both words in English: so that we can be specific and exact when we speak. If you say one thing when you mean another, it should be from wit, not ignorance.

Labels: grammar, rant

I don't know if it's coincidence, or if this phrase has been used in some popular media recently, but I've seen several people use the phrase "waiting with bated breath," except they spell it "baited," which doesn't make any sense. The phrase is "bated breath", as in "held breath." Look it up here. More examples: I'm holding my breath in anticipation; don't hold your breath waiting. It actually means something, when spelled correctly. What would "baited breath" mean? You're putting bait in your mouth and blowing? Merriam-Websters is your friend.

Labels: grammar, rant

One of the reasons I go by "the Touched" is because people have always had a hell of a time pronouncing my last name (or spelling it, if they hear it pronounced). But some places have this irritating policy of addressing their customers by last name whether we like it or not.

Safeway is the culprit in this case, because their method of doing it is especially egregious. Picture the transaction, me at the cashier. The groceries are all passed through, and I've paid. I use a Safeway club card for extra savings, which prints my name on the receipt. Yes, I could probably evade this issue by paying more and not using the club card, but hey.

So this is what happens every time: after the transaction is complete, and my receipt prints out, instead of handing it to me so I can go on my merry way, the cashier holds it back from me, squints at it, and demands that I pronounce my name for her, so that she can repeat it back to me. And for some reason, even the times when I state in advance "Don't try to pronounce my last name" or "Address me by my first name," they either ignore me, don't understand what I'm saying, or forget. This is another case of company policies Wasting My Time, and annoying me with the name thing at the same time.

That's the second, lesser annoyance. It's one of my little eccentricities. I think shopping should be a relatively anonymous activity. I know the company thinks it's some kind of 50's-era "respect" to address the customer by his last name, and pretend they know him. But to me, it doesn't matter if I'm buying a sack of potatoes or a box of condoms -- you shouldn't act like you know me.

So don't hold my receipt hostage to read it and stumble over the name issue when I want to be heading home. Knock off this policy and hand over my goods. But if you must call me by name, just call me Shawn, for the love of mike. It's 1 syllable, and easy to pronounce, and I can get out of the bloody store that much faster.

Labels: rant

Schwan's is a company that delivers various frozen foods to your door. I like their ice cream, and they own Freschetta, the world's best frozen pizza (try the sauce-stuffed if you don't believe me). But they really pissed me off here.

As a succinct preface, I don't eat meat. I purchased a bag of frozen vegetables from Schwan's yesterday, their "fire roasted vegetables blend", which is described thusly in their catalogue:

"Fire-roasted, skin-on red potatoes seasoned with rosemary, plus broccoli florets, green beans, fire-roasted red peppers and onions."

Pretty safe bet, wouldn't one think? It's a bag of goddamned vegetables! Rather expensive for a bag of veggies, but I was looking forward to the rosemary seasoned potato chunks. So I opened it, and was about to use it, when out of habit, I guess, I glanced at the ingredients. Don't know why I would have looked at the ingredients on a bag of goddamned vegetables, but I did, and imagine my surprise to find "rendered chicken fat", "dried chicken meat" and "dried chicken broth" in it! Goddammit! Who's the retard that decided to put chicken in a bag of veggies, and not even mention it in the description?

So now, if I want to buy anything else from Schwan's, which I strongly doubt, I'll have to ask the delivery guy to fetch the bag from the refrigerated truck and bring it to me so I can read the ingredients, because he's not going to know, and it's not going to mention it in the catalogue. Jesus Christ, how can they screw up a thing as simple as a bag of vegetables?

Labels: rant

Okay, computer. Time for an actual rant. After all, that's what title says. And this one's about a particular breed of Newgrounds user. This is the type who thinks it's all about him.

Here's the thing. My personal creative works are not designed with a mass market appeal in mind. Yes, some people flame me for my art style, not because of the technical skill, but because in their minds I'm just trying to cash in on the recent popularity of anime. Never mind the fact that I've been drawing anime-style since the mid-1980s, long before the recent surge in anime's popularity, even before most of these people had been born, and that my strongest influences are a wide range of artists that even many hardcore anime fans have never heard of. Ebi Fry, anyone? Ramiya Ryo? Amagi Kei?

But that's not the main rant. The type I'm talking about is the type who ignores my descriptions of what audience one of my works is intended for, and insists on watching it himself -- only to angrily complain about the fact that he doesn't understand it. Indeed, many flames amount to "I don't understand the point, therefore there is no point."

First taking as an example the Pink Lemonade Valentine's Day card: It is obvious that this card was intended for lesbian women to send to their loved ones on Valentine's Day. How could anyone take it any other way? Yet, time after time I got reviews from guys saying "I can't send that to my girlfriend -- she'd hit me!" Well, that's because it's not meant for you, genius. I even got such complaints after I spelled out in clear language in the description who the intended audience is.

The second, and more major example is Cutethulhu, recently resurrected in Newgrounds consciousness thanks to it being featured on the front page as part of a promotion for the H.P. Lovecraft Film Festival contest (which incidentally I don't think Cutethulhu can enter, since it's already been shown there at least once).

I stated very clearly in its description that it was not meant for a wide audience, and that only literary-minded people (specifically fans of the writings of H.P. Lovecraft) would get it. Incredibly, a statistically significant number of angry people were of the harshly-worded opinion that I should write stories that everyone can understand. That is, I should not give my intended crowd the specific material that they can appreciate -- that which is lacking in mass entertainment in general. Why are Hollywood movies so trite and cliché, you may ask? I believe it's precisely because of this attitude.

As Joel Hodgson said regarding MST3K, "The right people will get this." That is the kind of writing that I applaud. No pandering to the masses, but being true to oneself. I write for my sort of people. People who think like me, and appreciate the things I appreciate. In my opinion, there is not enough entertainment for people like me -- and it's clear from the enthusiasm of the many positive reviews that there are plenty of people like me who feel the same way. They -- you, if you're reading this -- are my audience. As for anyone else...my analogy went like this: If I'm performing a rock concert, should a classical music magazine review it? I would say not.

And yet even though I take pains to ensure that viewers are aware what my work is like, there are people who actively seek it out for the express purpose of loudly complaining and insulting it, as if they can't stand the idea that other people like what they hate. This is akin to someone who hates a particular standup comedian (let's say George Carlin) going and attending every George Carlin show in the area, just so he can heckle and raise a fuss. This is sad. Such people's insults have no bite, no weight, because they are simply irrelevant.

And the right audience will understand that.

Labels: cutethulhu, newgrounds, pink lemonade, rant

I just watched the movie The Butterfly Effect, which I thought was well-done. Interesting, gripping, well-acted, and satisfying. There were a number of nitpicks I had to overlook in deciding it was a good movie, such as the mixing of non-sequitur causality (Minkowski "block universe" theory -- 12 Monkeys flawlessly used this version of time travel) with a parallel-reality-shifting sort of "the past can be changed" idea. Both are perfectly okay, but not together, as you can see if you watch the movie.

Anyway, I'll keep away from spoliers to deliver this message, because I think it's an important one. After watching the movie and checking the IMDb message board for it as I often do for movies I enjoy, I was appalled to see people bringing up a Simpsons episode, and claiming the movie was based on that...SERIOUSLY. I've seen the episode. Before that, in grade school, I read the short story A Sound of Thunder by Ray Bradbury. That is what the Simpsons episode was based on.

Apart from the title, actually, and the idea that a small change in the past can have a large effect in the future, there wasn't really that much of a connection between A Sound of Thunder and The Butterfly Effect, or even that Simpsons episode. But I swear, I'm sick and tired of seeing people make wild claims about movies being based on some other form of visual media. Read books, people!

In fact, here, just read the story. It's short. A Sound of Thunder, by Ray Bradbury (1952).

And I thought I'd gotten over people thinking that the ideas in The Matrix were original. I'm sure to anyone reading this, I don't actually need to mention Gibson, Sterling, Stephenson and all the others who created the whole setting and world used there, even including the term "the matrix" to describe that virtual world... Oh, I just did. Sorry.

Labels: rant, review