tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post3066617184609387879..comments2023-08-27T04:22:55.468-07:00Comments on The Literary Lab: Ye Be BannedUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-74321830055821502002010-04-22T09:32:33.260-07:002010-04-22T09:32:33.260-07:00Mizmak: Great job on helping books see the light! ...<b>Mizmak:</b> Great job on helping books see the light! That's interesting about the Bible. I agree some of the stories in there are very violent. Still, I wouldn't ban it.<br /><br /><b>Karen:</b> Thanks for the inspiration!<br /><br /><b>Simon:</b> Hah! Well, you write adult fiction, so I doubt your books would end up in a school library - unless, of course, you end up writing a classic and 100 years from now it's all over! It could happen. :)<br /><br /><b>Davin:</b> Thank you for your thoughts. I'm sorry that this had to happen here in our comments section,but passionate feelings are part of being human, and they can also be misinterpreted by others. <br /><br /><b>Jessie:</b> I am with you on that. It's important for children to understand what's out there and our lives and stories revolve around the real world. But, I do agree that some books can present certain issues in an inappropriate light.<br /><br /><b>KG:</b> <i>Besides, in my experience, when kids encounter possibly objectionable content in literature and it neither passes over their heads like a Shakespeare pun nor upsets them so that they stop reading, they're probably mature enough to handle it.</i><br /><br />I like that. I would also hope that the parents have taught the child to the point that if they encounter something inappropriate for them, they are mature enough to put it down.<br /><br /><b>Zuccni:</b> I've always felt that way about Harry Potter, as well.Michelle D. Argylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09696465137285587646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-2872845552468355742010-04-22T07:48:10.158-07:002010-04-22T07:48:10.158-07:00A book is such a different animal than music, TV, ...A book is such a different animal than music, TV, or video games. Reading ability and content go hand and hand. <br /><br />Knowledge is power and the people who control knowledge will always have the power. <br /><br />I never support the banning of books. <br /><br />And as far as the Harry Potter thing goes. That's just plain ironic. Santa can have 8 magic flying reindeer, Easter Bunnies deliver eggs (examples are inexhaustible so I'll stop here), but Harry Potter uses magic. Be afraid! Headdesk, headdesk, headdesk.Me, Myself and a Rubik'S Cubehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02181594915587473760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-44120623297155834052010-04-21T20:24:46.953-07:002010-04-21T20:24:46.953-07:00And of course, I spent enough time fussing over ho...And of course, I spent enough time fussing over how to express my points that they became largely redundant, yet still managed to put a comma before a nonrestrictive modifier. Oh well, since I'm in a mood now I'm going to say something I was leaving out: FP, I'm kinda confused by you saying that "Meyer's writing style is very clear, very straightforward." I read the first page or so of Twilight when it first came out, and I - usually overfond of purple prose - found it nauseatingly flowery.KGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06072778234306901242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-46077044887317200872010-04-21T19:47:30.188-07:002010-04-21T19:47:30.188-07:00I know parents worry about what their kids are exp...I know parents worry about what their kids are exposed to, but who's to decide what warrants a warning label? The most absurd things have been found offensive. I guess a list of specific concerns inserted somewhere in the front matter might be okay -better than a general classification, at least- but that still wouldn't take into account context. Besides, in my experience, when kids encounter possibly objectionable content in literature and it neither passes over their heads like a Shakespeare pun nor upsets them so that they stop reading, they're probably mature enough to handle it.<br /><br /><br /><br />Also, sorry to take the comments off on this topic again, but re: FP vs. Ken Hannahs –<br /><br />Mr. Hannahs,<br />Please refrain from insulting your fellows. Passionately opinionated does not equal loony or stupid.<br /><br />FP,<br />I'm probably gonna seem timid and brainwashed to you, but . . . I do think your initial reaction to Mr. Hannahs was probably out of proportion. The only thing I found questionable in his post was the phrase, "that woman," which is contemptuous and often has sexist connotations. However, it is possible that the contempt in this case was not aimed at women in general. To refer to someone as a member of a type rather than an individual is an effective rhetorical device to invite judgement of that person, because people cannot identify with someone who lacks individuality. "That person" would also have done this, but for some reason its tone seems kind of unnatural - fussy, stuck up.<br />It's very hard to scrub your language of every unintended cultural shading.<br />The authors Mr. Hannahs's girlfriend has read more recently do happen to be men, but I think that's just an unfortunate coincidence and that the point is her progression from extreme bestsellers aimed at young readers to less obvious, possibly more grown-up choices. (It is great that these women authors have been so successful - although I do worry about Meyer's themes - but reading only worldwide phenomena means missing out on a lot.)KGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06072778234306901242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-89618948175722589862010-04-21T18:09:17.327-07:002010-04-21T18:09:17.327-07:00Davin,
I wouldn't have responded as I did if ...<b>Davin,</b><br /><br />I wouldn't have responded as I did if FP hadn't written the following, which is, I believe, an attack on me. She called me a sexist, as I see no difference between "my post" and "me." I think that is a distinction that is used to act as though a personal attack isn't being made when it of course is. In the middle of her first assault on my hatred of women, she said:<br /><br /><i>oint-blank: in my opinion, your post reads as sexist. I regularly see almost the exact same sexistly structured post all over the place, smearing female writers, smearing their works, and exalting male writers and male-written works instead. <br /><br />Both Harry Potter and Twilight are written by women*; Let The Great World Spin is written by a man, and Lovecraft and Gaiman are also men. Oh yes, your girlfriend or whoever should move away from reading those female writers and read those male writers instead. Right. </i><br /><br />I can understand being passionate. I am a passionate person. But it is ridiculous to say that this is JUST passion. This is a back-handed attempt to portray me in a negative light because I introduced my girlfriend to writers WHO DIDN'T HAPPEN TO BE WOMEN. Her blatant assertion was that this was inherently sexist.<br /><br />She says that my attack on her came first, but anyone who reads her first post to me can see the truth for themselves. I'm not usually one to fall into this "nuh-uh you started it" argument, but people can't seem to let it go. <br /><br />FB's verve and vigor is misplaced if she feels as though she needs to attack me -- a liberal 23 year old who worked for his LGBT student organization, and was very close with many Women's Studies majors at my school. This isn't to "list my credentials," as I'm sure it will come off, but rather to show that, really, FB and I are on the same side, and that her attacks were rude and misplaced.<br /><br />You say she has passion, but I believe there is a difference between passion and hubris. I hope that she doesn't allow someone who has no affiliation to your site to shun it. You guys have a great community, and it shows through people being able to have impassioned arguments like what happened today without censorship. I'm apologize to you and your readers that the thread got hijacked, and I allowed myself to get dragged into it.<br /><br />-KenKen Hannahshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16509854215475796182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-89342301359799746062010-04-21T17:59:46.501-07:002010-04-21T17:59:46.501-07:00I don't know about really banning books, unles...I don't know about really banning books, unless it is just really over the top. I like the idea of rating books so parents can have an idea of what book their child is reading/wants to buy. One of the themes in Karen's comment thread was that parents should talk to their children after they read these books. What about talking to the children before they read them. What about pre-emptively speaking to your children and telling them why you don't want to read certain books because (shocking) they are still children and may not be old enough to read such and such. I'm not against books with real and current issues. I am against books that express these issues in a titillating (sp?) and graphic manner.Jessie Oliveroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06232456334069794107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-80405311420125936942010-04-21T17:30:02.918-07:002010-04-21T17:30:02.918-07:00F. P. asked me not to talk about her here anymore....F. P. asked me not to talk about her here anymore. I can respect that, and I will try to respect that as best I can. But, I can't keep from not leaving a comment here having to do with the sexism discussion. Sorry, F.P. (BTW, I was a little worried about bringing you up in my post the other day because I didn't want to offend you. But, I decided I would write it anyway. I won't do that again unless you say it's okay in the future. Just know I think highly of you.)<br /><br />First, I should say that I am sexist. I try very hard not to be, but I am. I catch myself being sexist all the time. I believe I am becoming less so over time, but it takes a lot of conscious effort.<br /><br />I don't believe Ken is anymore sexist than I am. I don't believe Ken is anymore sexist than most men and women in this country. And, I don't think Ken was being consciously sexist at all in his comments. To be 100% honest, I don't know if he was being at all unconsciously sexist. I think most people are unconsciously sexist, and it's hard for me to see it...although I try to. <br /><br />I agree with basically all of the general points F. P. made. But, I also think that when it's brought up the way it was here, it puts everyone on the defensive. F.P. is passionate, and I respect that. I wish I was more passionate most of the time. She didn't make any personal attacks in her first few posts. But, the passion feels like anger, and it FEELS like a personal attack. This puts Ken (or whoever) on the defensive. Reason goes down, at least in my opinion. I think in this kind of discussion the passion that seems like anger ends up making some people closed-minded. <br /><br />This discussion could be very educational. And, I actually hope more people think about F. P.'s general comments, because I think it could make the world better. But when people get angry or scared, I think that opportunity is lost by a lot of people.Davin Malasarnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09385823575081492949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-5377505915123718622010-04-21T17:10:27.316-07:002010-04-21T17:10:27.316-07:00If my books aren't banned somewhere, I'll ...If my books <i>aren't</i> banned somewhere, I'll be mightily disappointed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-38161815509806622772010-04-21T16:26:39.206-07:002010-04-21T16:26:39.206-07:00Mizmak: That's a dangerous town in which to be...Mizmak: That's a dangerous town in which to be a biblioterrorist.<br /><br />Michelle: You're always the nicest of hosts in the blogosphere.scott g.f.baileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05726743149139510832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-90945322577087163902010-04-21T16:11:15.878-07:002010-04-21T16:11:15.878-07:00Aww, thanks for the link. :)
You already know my o...Aww, thanks for the link. :)<br />You already know my opinions on the topic based on my post. <br /><br />Such a controversial topic, but such an important one.kahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10789825860272178765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-14578562281846825612010-04-21T16:06:37.246-07:002010-04-21T16:06:37.246-07:00I would be thrilled if my novel were banned - woul...I would be thrilled if my novel were banned - would surely drive up the sales. As for school libraries, when I was in high school I did after-school work in our library, and made a habit of sneaking banned books into the system, giving them call numbers, card pockets, etc. As far as I know, no one ever noticed or complained, and this was in a *very* conservative town. Open libraries create open minds. <br /><br />As for works that might be inappropriate for children, if I were forced to ban one, I would pick the Holy Bible -- I've been reading the Old Testament of late, and it is full of sex and violence, some of which is described graphically enough to produce nightmares (the most recent one I ran across was about soldiers slicing open the bellies of pregnant women, somewhere in Kings II, I believe). Truly gruesome stuff in there. Though given what's on TV and video games , maybe it hardly matters.Alex MacKenziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14121919349442258779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-52170722466146298112010-04-21T16:01:01.399-07:002010-04-21T16:01:01.399-07:00Donna: I just want to thank you for your comment. ...<b>Donna:</b> I just want to thank you for your comment. I never know if what I say is going to offend, and I hope it never does. I think of this blog as a professional place where I need to stay professional and remain objective, even concerning things that might bother me to the core. I was bothered by feelings being hurt here in the comments, and thought for awhile that I might delete those comments and therefore remove the tension, but I realized that wouldn't solve anything, and how ironic it would be if I censored something here!Michelle D. Argylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09696465137285587646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-89105098167745792072010-04-21T15:54:31.609-07:002010-04-21T15:54:31.609-07:00Thanks Michelle.
I posted my comment before readi...Thanks Michelle.<br /><br />I posted my comment before reading through all the others; and at the invitation from FP, I will send a comment to Ken Hannahs.<br /><br />As a female writer, I did not find your comment sexist at all. I found it a concise complaint against a single author and the style of writing itself. That the autor is female didn't enter my reconing at all. <br /><br />As an avid reader, I refuse to read certain authors because of the message/content of the writing itself. Male or female author doesn't exist in the formed opinion, but if I feel the author's style demeans me - as a woman or as a reader - then I refuse to put money in their pocket, and will state my opinions openly - as you did here.<br /><br />That doesn't mean everyone who hears me is of the same opinion. If that opinion were "banned" because it is offensive to people who write what to me is dribble, then that is censorship.<br /><br />I felt you made your point in regards to censorship and book banning quite clear, while also supporting freedom of others to read what they want and get whatever experience they can out of it.<br /><br />Well said, IMO.<br /><br />dholedolorahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08715849844092553699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-23310598955382429202010-04-21T15:34:51.770-07:002010-04-21T15:34:51.770-07:00Donna: Good points, thank you. Having a voice in o...<b>Donna:</b> Good points, thank you. Having a voice in our choices is important. Not everyone believes or follows the same issues, but it's important that we're allowed to decide for ourselves.Michelle D. Argylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09696465137285587646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-9686321426862340192010-04-21T15:29:22.911-07:002010-04-21T15:29:22.911-07:00The content in my trilogy is controversial. If it...The content in my trilogy is controversial. If it was banned, I be more disappointed at losing the opportunity to impart the message rather than upset at the loss of revenue.<br /><br />Paying publication is the ultimate goal, but is not the most important.<br /><br />I think people should be given more responsibility for themselves. Even children; some are more mature than others and grasp concepts quickly, while others struggle behind. I think parents will know at what level their child is, and if not; isn't that the teacher's job to find out.<br /><br />Banning a book from school or libraries doesn't keep the info from getting out. Controversial issues - even among children - should be aired and discussed to get all sides of the matter.<br /><br />I talk to my kids all the time about what they are reading, or the games they are playing, or the music they like. I find out what it means to them before I decide if it's appropriate for them to read/watch/listen to. Granted, I don't know everything they're up to, but at least the times I can, I hope I've taught them how to think critically on their own.<br /><br />At some point we hope our children grow up to be adults, and if they are never allowed a voice in their own choices, how can they hope to accomplish this with their own children?<br /><br />..........dholedolorahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08715849844092553699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-38812330425350611852010-04-21T13:44:01.369-07:002010-04-21T13:44:01.369-07:00"I understand if you want to point out that y..."I understand if you want to point out that you felt the post was sexist and a personal attack on women." <br /><br />Michelle, you're trying to bait and switch now. Maybe you don't mean to, but you're confusing my first post to him with my post to YOU, which referred to his personal attack against ME. THAT is the bigger problem. I clearly said, "If you don't want bashing, then please warn HIM. He bashed me first. I did not bash him first."<br /><br />Yet another problem today: people fence-sitting trying to please everyone. Sometimes you've got to take a side and stand on it.<br /><br />But I should know better than to expect support from another woman or women in general against a man or against men in general. Most women don't support each other. That's why there's no gender parity.<br /><br />So is Ken's calling me a loon adding to the discussion?<br /><br />If while you were debating something on my blog, a male poster--or ANY poster--came in and called you a loon, ESPECIALLY after you pointed out his post was sexist, I would right away chastise and warn the poster--AND delete his post. <br /><br />That you instead sounded as if you were defending KEN and chiding me--yet again evidence of what women do to other women, that beating down the woman and supporting the man. I'm sorry, but that's what I see you're doing here. I've seen women make this mistake many times. You should have told Ken to SHUT UP with the name-calling.<br /><br />I think women don't do this enough and that's partly because they (falsely) see other women as not a physical threat; they're more physically afraid of men so they try to mollify them rather than cross them. Too many women forget guns exist, and you don't need much muscle to pull a trigger. They need to get guns and learn how to use them.<br /><br />They also don't support other women because they're taught to do the work of patriarchs and keep women divided. In many ways, women harm women just as much as men harm women. Without female collusion against females, society wouldn't be the sexist-against-women way it generally is.<br /><br />I should have never come back in here. I only did because I thought not saying something would be rude after Davin's very nice post. I appreciate his efforts, but please, in future, don't reference me here if people will be allowed to personally attack me in the comments. No thanks.<br /><br />Goodbye and good luck with your writing.mshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05189632590362435386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-12767109718552637872010-04-21T13:20:14.190-07:002010-04-21T13:20:14.190-07:00Eric: Yes. Spam. I have my qualms about that crap....<b>Eric:</b> Yes. Spam. I have my qualms about that crap. Fortunately, we don't receive much here on the Lit Lab. I thought your post put your point across clearly.<br /><br />If threadjacking gets out of hand, then yes, we may be forced to steer things back to the topic in one way or another.Michelle D. Argylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09696465137285587646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-15515675186347031922010-04-21T13:18:10.814-07:002010-04-21T13:18:10.814-07:00"but being called a sexist was jarring."..."but being called a sexist was jarring."<br /><br />--That never happened in my first post. You were jarred by something that didn't exist. I specifically said YOUR POST is sexist.<br /><br />I explained in a bit of detail about "that woman." I think when gender is brought up repeatedly outside a genitalia context--that affects how people approach people. And they then are more likely to approach them sexistly. <br /><br />Language buzzwords and patterns do count--yes. When they're added up, repeated ad infinitum in numerous conversations, they probably affect people psychologically. Like the sexist expression, "The right man for the job." Used often, effectively excluding women. Wherever it's often used and especially at upper levels, few women are often employed, which I think is now both an effect and a cause of that expression's use.<br /><br />I tried to show your post as sexist overall--I did not pick out only one thing. I discussed multiple problems with it. YOU are focusing on the one "that woman" thing.<br /><br />The fact is that you didn't say "that man" about Grisham. I rarely hear people refer to "that man" when they are talking in the negative manner you have about writers or whatevers. It's almost always "that woman." Gender is pointed out when the gender is female. When it's male, that's sexistly considered the default universal, so gender isn't pointed out. <br /><br />Just like the sexist expression "you guys." I'm sick of hearing that, sick of walking into stores or forums or blogs and hearing people say "you guys" as intended to be everyone. How come they don't say "you gals"? And how many males would love being called a gal in public as the universal human? Yet I and other women are supposed to love being ignored on the altar of males as the universal human?<br /><br />How about "you people"? Or "you folks"? Where did those expressions go?<br /><br />Women are effectively being disappeared. They've never had much of an appearance in society, and that little bit seems to be on the decrease again.<br /><br />And, um, I usually use the term strawperson or strawpeople. Occasionally I don't. This time I did because I was talking to a (as far as I can tell) man. And I wanted to make that clear, given the context here.mshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05189632590362435386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-10109549726460892942010-04-21T13:12:33.002-07:002010-04-21T13:12:33.002-07:00FP: I understand if you want to point out that you...<b>FP:</b> I understand if you want to point out that you felt the post was sexist and a personal attack on women. That's fine. I didn't feel that it was maliciously done, nor did I feel it necessary to point it out. Readers can make their own assessments. This is mine and Davin's and Scott's blog, and I don't feel it my place to make our readers feel uncomfortable or unwelcome here if they are adding to the discussion and not intentionally out to hurt anyone. If that becomes the case, we will step in. If readers want to argue civilly amongst themselves, that is okay with me. I appreciate both Ken's and your comments. Both were valid and valuable to the discussion.Michelle D. Argylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09696465137285587646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-53483455444814928482010-04-21T13:01:19.014-07:002010-04-21T13:01:19.014-07:00LG, how ironic if your hand were forced into using...LG, how ironic if your hand were forced into using censorship!<br /><br />My point was obtuse -- as is often the case -- but censorship is necessary to keep the waters calm enough to see bottom.<br /><br />My use of (bleeps) was an example of censorshipping out of courtesy. Cursing has no place on this blog. I curse on my own blog all I want.<br /><br />Spam is another example of irritants that should be censored.<br /><br />Threadjacking is yet another.<br /><br /><br /> - EricEric W. Tranthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13842968931062056407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-41509692426652172902010-04-21T12:56:43.732-07:002010-04-21T12:56:43.732-07:00Alright. Well, good luck with all of your pursuit...Alright. Well, good luck with all of your pursuits. Feel free to rail on me some more, but quite frankly, this whole excersize has left me a little bewildered. <br /><br />I do realize that my original response to you was rude, but being called a sexist was jarring. It had nothing to do with you being a woman, and having everything to do with you picking apart, and using little quotes taken out of context as buzzwords. Namely when you quote "give that woman any of my money," as though that is SO taboo. It has nothing to do with gender. I could also say that I would never give that MAN, John Grisham, any of my money as well, and it would be just as true.<br /><br />OBVIOUSLY the fact that she is a woman does not negate her writing. I guess you got that because I mentioned her as a woman, which is, in itself a strawPERSON. So I am done here. Let others make what they want out of this, but I'm not weighing in anymore. Everything I say seems to be sexist double-speak to you, so I don't think that a concensus can be reached.Ken Hannahshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16509854215475796182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-63424823740247973172010-04-21T12:49:17.587-07:002010-04-21T12:49:17.587-07:00One last thing: I see a general tendency for write...One last thing: I see a general tendency for writers to knock down big-selling (of whatever sex) writers and the quality of their writings, all based on hearsay. I don't make a habit of engaging in this, but even I've slipped once or twice. <br /><br />IMO at least, this behavior is wrong--and stupid. Instead of slamming people out of jealousy or because that slamming's become fashionable, as if only lowly readers will read that "trash," probably more writers should be examining some of that "trash." Maybe it sells well for other reasons. But if they prejudge and never open those books, how will those writers learn what has made those books so appealing to people today?<br /><br />Not that I think writers should obsess about "what sells big." I'm not obsessed with that. BUT, some writers are interested in selling big with their own works. So they should probably be reading selling-big works. See how the successful writers have done what they have. Sometimes it's a fluke, and lots of "junk" does unfortunately sell well. But not everything that sells well is junk.mshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05189632590362435386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-21830383485045259802010-04-21T12:39:44.008-07:002010-04-21T12:39:44.008-07:00More "you" in your posts. You barely add...More "you" in your posts. You barely address my actual posts. You're focused on ME instead.<br /><br />If you can't READ MY CONTENT WHEN IT'S IN YOUR FACE, why should I or anyone else trust your opinion on Meyer's content?<br /><br />I pointed out problems with your post, instead of considering them, you knee-jerk attacked ME, a female writer. And in the context of my complaint about your post sexistly smearing female writers. Way to go! Your further posts just proved my points.<br /><br />Amazon has a Search inside sample of Twilight--why not go there and check out the insides? What's to stop you from doing that? Girl-writer cooties?<br /> <br />Start at the first chapter. I think the clarity of Meyer's writing is...clear. Because I also think most modern writers and their writings are clarity-deficient and because clarity is extremely important to me when judging writing quality, I think Meyer's writing clarity is a significant achievement. So far I don't think much of her content--maybe I'd think even less if I read more, I don't know. But then I don't think much of most writing content. That's the way it is with me.<br /><br />I can separate style from that though. Meyer's style reads as very pared down. And, apparently, it works for her content.mshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05189632590362435386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-46846527092906965632010-04-21T12:17:49.626-07:002010-04-21T12:17:49.626-07:00FP, I don't even know what you are arguing any...FP, I don't even know what you are arguing anymore. You just seem to be rambling.Ken Hannahshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16509854215475796182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092805684169371138.post-71601196047531163802010-04-21T12:17:17.894-07:002010-04-21T12:17:17.894-07:00Lady, in general, just because someone didn't ...Lady, in general, just because someone didn't mean to be sexist doesn't necessarily mean that someone hasn't been sexist. Intent doesn't necessarily equal execution. IMO, sexism has become ingrained in people's language choices, so ingrained that they can't even see where there's a problem. They think this is just normal acceptable language, when it isn't. It probably affects people psychologically, no matter if they want it to.<br /><br />If you don't want bashing, then please warn HIM. He bashed me first. I did not bash him first.<br /><br />This is disappointing. Don't ever let men personally attack women like that. Anywhere. If you don't care that much when it happens to other women, realize that if you let it to happen, then it's in society--and you could be next.mshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05189632590362435386noreply@blogger.com