A Little Night Music (28/11)

For this music post, I'm going to tell you about my obsession about Taylor Swift's latest album "1989". Up until recently, I don't really like Taylor Swift. I don't like country music and her whole schtick of obsessing over boys and putting other girls down gets old real quick. But, she grows up and her music grows up, too. I really like some songs off Red ("State of Grace" is probably one of my most favorite songs from her) and I excitedly anticipate the release of 1989. And boy, it does not disappoint.

1989 is Taylor's first pure pop album, there's no twangy country-feeling songs in this. As mentioned before, I don't really like country, so of course this is a welcome relief. 1989 is heavily-produced and differs so much in terms of sound than Tay's previous album, but it's still has that quintessentially her quality in the lyrics. I have a love-hate relationship with Taylor's lyrical skills; on one hand I find some of her lyrics to be pretty vapid and silly and just straight-up awkward but on the other hand that's what makes her her, ya know what I mean? I love the allusions to Greek mythology and the sentence 'love is a ruthless game unless you play it good and right' in "State of Grace" because it's such a Taylor Swift thing to say but hate the mixed-up metaphors and literary allusions in "Love Story" even though it's what she'd do.

I find some of the songs unlistenable (deleted "Welcome to New York" and "Bad Blood" on the first listen and never looked back tbh) but the rest of them makes up for it. Hell, the existence of "Blank Space" alone is enough to make this the best Taylor Swift's album for me. While there are a lot of repetitions (see: "Out of the Woods") but it's played up to great effect. I'm not a Taylor Swift fan, but after listening to this album, I'm a convert.

Okay, I'm going to attempt to do a track-by-track review of the album (sans "Welcome to New York" and "Bad Blood").

• "Blank Space" is the second track of the album and my most favorite song off the album. It is also one of my most favorite Taylor Swift song, tied with "State of Grace". It has a heavy beat that's reminiscent of the chorus to Lana Del Rey's "Florida Kilos" (it makes sense in my head). The lyrics are tongue-in-cheek, referring to Taylor's many boyfriends and the media attention paid to them, and so, so good. Seriously. It has so many quotable lines. Taylor in this song evokes a kind of carefree attitude towards love, in contrast to her more serious songs about love and heartbreak. It cheerily acknowledges the fact that she'll probably be heartbroken ("it'll leave you breathless, or leave a nasty scar"), and that her exes call her crazy for writing songs about then ("got a long list of ex-lovers, they'll tell you I'm insane") but that's okay, 'cos love's a game and she loves the players. Most of my friends who listened to this album said that "Blank Space" is their favorite and I couldn't agree more.
• "Style" is the third track in the album. It is ostensibly about Harry Styles; no doubt about it. When I first heard about it, I looked up the lyrics and thought, "well these all seem very awkward how is this any good?" But then I listened and it defied my expectations. It has a sort of vintage 1980s feeling to it, and it indeed is inspired by 1980s pop. The music was peppy and upbeat, but it has also that tinge of sadness to it, which fits the lyrics of going crashing down and coming back every time, because they never go out style. I love the mention of "James Dean daydream look" because it's so specific yet so general, like, I can even picture it right now. Plus, I really like the way she said "tight little skirt".
• "Out of the Woods" is the fourth track in the album. When I first heard it, I heard it along with my friend. She didn't like it and I laughed, but I liked it. It was repetitive, yes, the whole album has many repetitions, but it was also fun and the repetitiveness adds to the general atmosphere of the song. I also like the sound and the lyrics even though I find some of them to be funny in the wrong way ("the monster was just trees") and plain ol' mind screw ("your neck is hanging from my neck"). Still, it's catchy and had some parts that I really liked.
• "All You Had To Do Was Stay" is the fifth track in the album. It has a really fast and fun chorus, with a high-pitched yelp of 'stay' in the beginning, which can be rather jarring and annoying, and at first I didn't like it for that reason lol. But it grow on me like many other Taylor Swift's song (girl had a talent for making grower songs) and now it's repeated many times in my iTunes library.
• "Shake It Off" is the sixth track in the album. It is also the "lead single", which is what Taylor decided to use to promote her album. As a lead single, it had plenty of exposure. When I first heard about it, I was ambivalent. The title is too similar to Florence and the Machine's "Shake It Out" and I love her and that song. I love Taylor, too, but for different reasons. They were too different with each other and I was afraid that I couldn't reconcile them in my head. But my curiosity got the best of me and I watched the video. Bad mistake. The video's pretty good - love the part where she does the ballet - but the twerking part's too embarrassing. And the song's pretty embarrassing too, especially the part of "my ex-man". I was so disappointed. It was so different, so unlike "22", which was one of Taylor's 'party anthem' and a song that I liked. So I abandoned it after a listen and went on without listening to it for some time (which is uncharacteristic for a Taylor Swift song since Red). But after hearing about the buzz surrounding it, I decided to give it a second chance - and I got hooked. Reader, it grows on me. I spent a whole week listening to nothing but that fucking song in the morning as a pick-me-up, which's gonna jack up the iTunes play, I'm sure. Though, I must admit, the song sounds out of place with other songs in 1989 it still is a good listen. And if you don't like it in the first listen, try, try again.
• "I Wish You Would" is the seventh track in the album. I...really have no opinion about this song. It's not good, but it's not bad either. Like, it's a decent listen, but it's just so...bland and boring. It's not as bad as "Welcome to New York" 'cos I still have it in my iTunes library, but it's just forgettable. To me, it's just an obstacle to one of my favorite and best songs in the album.
• "Wildest Dreams" is the ninth track in the album. It's also a very Lana del Rey-ish track; the chorus eerily reminds me of LDR's "Without You". The lyrics are also very Lana-ish, with mentions of bad boys and red lipstick (but no "red dress" or "Queen of Saigon" which is quintessential Lana terms). And the lyrics too are a bit more explicit than Taylor's usual fare, with sex implied, but still very much PG-13.
•  "How You Get the Girl" is the tenth track in the album. Much like "I Wish You Would" this is a very average song for me. It's easy-listening, but I won't, like, play it on repeat or something. My friend loves it tho; it's his favorite song in the album. So there's that.
• "This Love" is the eleventh track in the album. It's mellow, soft, and reminds me of fluffy cotton candies. Taylor incorporates a good deal of indie-pop sound in 1989 and this song's a very simple sound, with "less" of a production feel than, say, "Out of the Woods" or "Blank Space". I like it.
• "I Know Places" is the twelfth track in the album. This song, my friend says, is very gothic but with a Taylor Swift flair, you know? It's not like "I Know You Were Trouble" but it has the same fast-and-slow tempo. I really like this song. It has great lyrics too.
• "Clean" is the thirteenth track in the album. I really want to like this song. This song's co-written by Imogen Heap, and I like Imogen, so I really really want to like this song. But I can't. Like, it's not as bad as "Bad Blood" or "Welcome to New York" but it's so boring. Nothing in the lyric is memorable, I don't even remember what it is about.
• "Wonderland" is one of three bonus tracks. Aaaaand, let me tell you how much I love the bonus tracks. The bonus tracks could and should be one of the main songs. "Wonderland" is so beautiful, it's one of my favorite song in the album. I really like the sound and the lyrics are so good and for once, Taylor's literary allusions and references are right! Yay! Four for you, Taylor!
• "You Are In Love" is one of the three bonus tracks. Lena Dunham says this song is hers and Jack Antonoff's wedding song and as much as I dislike agreeing with Lena Dunham, this time she's right. It is a song that's perfect for a wedding, the sound is soft and the lyrics are beautiful and smooth. This song somehow reminds me of a peach pink tulle dress. I don't know why I have that image. It is just so soft.
• "New Romantics" is one of the three bonus tracks. It is also one of my favorite songs in the album (I have a lot of favorite songs in this album apparently). It's a cheery party anthem, but it's not the kind of party anthem that's played in the club. It's the kind of party anthem that you play when your friends are having a picnic in the meadows and you decide to have a little dancing party with flowy, dresses. It's the kind of party I imagine ballerinas throw after they held a Spring performance of Giselle in a park, where everybody is happy and wearing beautiful tutus and flower crowns. ("The best people in life are free")

So that's my thoughts about Taylor Swift's new album 1989! What do you think of the album? Tell me in the comments below! And if you haven't listened to it, buy it on iTunes or Amazon or your nearest record shop, and listen to it. Now. It'll be good for your life (and ears).

Late, Late, Late Post

Hey, everyone. Sorry that I've been MIA for almost three months now - my last post in this blog is in June the 25th and now it's already mid-September.

Yeah. It's funny how time flies, isn't it?

I don't have any excuse or explanation other than that I've been sidetracked by life, basically. As some of you might know, I'm a law student now (hehehehe) and am fortunate enough to be able to study in one of the best universities in my country. It's been a hectic three months, with Lebaran and my own laziness preventing me to update my blog in July. August was a complete mess with the ensuing preparation for orientation week, the grueling orientation week itself, and all the anxiety and agitation new students have when they enter university for the very first time. September was a blur, since it was the first weeks of class and I've to familiarize myself with new surroundings, new friends, new ways of learning, new teachers.

But other than that, university is exciting! I get to move to a sprawling big city with lots of culture and meeting with lots of new people and doing exciting things that weren't available in my tiny town. You might think studying law is tedious and boring, and while there are some classes where I almost fell asleep in class, it's more because of the lecturer rather than the material. Studying law requires critical thinking and advanced problem-solving skills alongside a broad knowledge and it's fun to discuss legal scenarios with friends and trying to solve all the legal problems that arise with it. Being an international lawyer/diplomat is also my life-long dream and that's an incentive for me to study hard.

Exploring a metropolitan is also very exciting. Yogyakarta has everything I want in a city: a close-knit sense of community, friendly people, a vibrant cultural scene, lots of libraries and bookshops, and a diverse range of food. I get to learn French and eat chocolate macarons with Twinings' tea in the afternoon and eat roadside ayam geprek at night. I love it.

Of course, since I'm now living alone completely independent of my parents and relatives, I have to be careful. I have to be careful when I'm going out and I have to be careful not to blow my monthly allowance money on useless things. Sometimes I get stuck in traffic in Jogja and I found myself missing my little town where there's no traffic at all except for exceptional circumstances. Sometimes as I eat my dinner alone, I found myself missing my aunt's cooking and nasi pecel. Sometimes when I'm tired after a day in class, I found myself missing my mother and the high-speed wifi we have in our home.

But over the time I'm learning to manage living on my own. It's both a exhausting and a scary experience, but it's also fun and exhilarating, don't you think? Eventually we all have to learn to be adults, even though most of us can't quite get the hang of it, we'll try anyway.

Read Like a Viking: June Book Haul (25/6)

Hey, everyone! I apologize for being MIA for a couple of months. My laptop's acting out and I'm busy with university stuff so I can't get to update the blog as much as I wanted to. Sorry!

However, June has been an eventful month for me in terms of book shopping. This month alone, I bought eight books, and I'm so busy I haven't even finished even one of them. Oops.

The books I bought this month are:

• The Cuckoo's Calling by J.K. Rowling
• The Silkworm by Robert Galbraith
• A Hundred Summers by Beatriz Williams
• Crazy Rich Asians by Kevin Kwan
• Therese Raquin by Emile Zola
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn by Betty Smith
• Chicken Soup for the Girlfriend's Soul by various authors
• Matilda by Roald Dahl (my old copy was lost when I moved so I bought a new one)

I'm slogging through the Cuckoo's Calling, so I've taken up A Hundred Summers in the mean time. I'm a quarter in (which is more than I can say for the Cuckoo's) and it's a very light read even though it's 400 pages long, so expect a review soon.

Happy Days Indeed!

I got accepted to my dream university in my dream major! Yay! I can't stop smiling, even as I typed this I was smiling and laughing. I will be taking a couple of weeks off to sort out my admission and university-related stuff, but I won't be too busy since I don't have to prepare for the university entrance exam. The reason why I didn't update the blog much was because I was preoccupied with preparations for the university entrance exam, but since I got accepted, I won't be the exam anymore and I could update the blog more. Also, I ordered a copy of Robert Galbraith's the Silkworm, so expect a review as soon as it got here!

Review: The Queen of Attolia and the King of Attolia by Megan Whalen Turner

You know a book is good that even when you knew the plot and its twists and turns (thanks, Wikipedia!) it still hits you like a thousand bricks when it did happen. And boy, did it happen gloriously.

Now, you must be wondering why I chose this two particular book and why I hadn't bothered with the first book. Well, I was short on cash, and I had low opinion on first-person POV, so I chose to buy the two books that I knew didn't have a first-person narrator: The Queen of Attolia and the King of Attolia. I devoured the first book in a span of four hours, a feat that was unheard of from me. I finished the second one a little slower, reading the first half late until night, and finishing the rest of them the first thing in the morning.

And let me tell you, I was glad I picked up this series. It's everything I expected and more. With an all-knowing third-person narration, you would expect the book to be plain and tame, since as the reader we knew all the twists even if the characters didn't. But no, much like how the titular Thief of Eddis steals belongings, this book hides its secrets that you wouldn't even realize exists until it is revealed oh-so-casually by a line. And what a line indeed! When you read it, you feel like you have to backtrack and read the whole book again because now, with the knowledge imparted by it, everything changes. Every dialogue, every thought, every action; all of them was brought into new light because of one simple line.

These two books held my rapt attention and had me read them all in one sitting, something which doesn't happen very much. I am a skeptic, well-versed in the inner-workings of a novel, and I usually read the general plot of a book before buying it, since I don't want to spend money and then come back disappointed because I don't like the book's ending, or that I think the plot is inane. Owing to this qualities, nothing really fazes me anymore. I am more interested in how the way an author weaves their worlds rather than the twists and turns of the plot.

But Megan Whalen Turner is an expert wordsmith, and her books did not disappoint. She weaves her worlds expertly, breathing them life. When I read this, I am not in the confines of my room, sitting contently in my bed: I am in Attolia, I am in Eddis, and I move between them as swift as Eugenides do in the night. The characters, too, are a treat. They are layered beautifully like a good baklava, doused with a rich personality instead of honey. They calculate their actions carefully, so that everything means something, and no energy is wasted. After spending too much time with too-stupid-to-live YA protagonists obsessed with boys and romance, the Queens of Attolia and Eddis are a breathe of fresh air.

As a future diplomat, I also like the focus on politics and the precarious world of inter-kingdom relations. Not too many YA books discuss these topics, I am afraid, but with a main character roster consisting of kings and queens and members of their courts, it is inevitable that politics will come to play. But the book does not give a black and white approach to politics, like so many YA fantasy books do. I find it tiring when YA books have a "rebellious princess" that is careless and tactless when it comes to politics, insulting nobles left and right, disregarding courtly manners, etc, and yet everyone is awed at her boldness. Politics do not work that way. There is an art to it, and chances are if you're insulting your retainers, or show blatant favouritism to one of them, they would be irked enough to revolt themselves. Wars have been waged for less, and the Queens of the Queen's Thief series knows that. Eugenides acts like a typical rebellious prince--disregarding courtly manners, throwing thinly veiled insults to his nobles, complaining about court functions--but almost everyone agrees he is a buffoon and does not take him seriously or respect him.

Well-written and smart, this series is an underrated gem more people should be into. Five stars to both the Queen of Attolia and the King of Attolia.

Final rating:

--
Book information:

Title: The Queen of Attolia
Author: Megan Whalen Turner
Edition: New York: Greenwillow Books. First Eos edition. 2006. (Paperback)
ISBN: 978-0-06-084182-9
--
Title: The King of Attolia
Author: Megan Whalen Turner
Edition: New York: Greenwillow Books. 2007. (Paperback)
ISBN: 978-0-06-083579-8

Review: 1984 by George Orwell

I know 1984 will rank as one of my favorite book since the first time I had heard it. I know this. But I keep postponing my intent to read it, since I feel like due to my age I will not be able to understand properly, and because I want to work on my English so that I can read it without much difficulty. But one day I was at my local bookstore, window-shopping, and I happened upon a translated copy of 1984 in one of the shelves. I didn't expect it at all and I was so shocked and happy at the same time that I paced around the shelves for some time to calm myself. I was seized by the sudden impulse to grab it and stuff it into my shopping bag, before I saw the publisher. I've read several books by this publisher, and most of them have shoddy translations; I even have to buy a copy of one of them in its original language to even remotely understand anything because the translation is that bad.

But the book haunts me even as I got home. I agonized about it for days. Should I or should I not buy the book? Am I ready yet? Well, I decided finally, if I'm old enough to go to college I'm old enough to read the book. So I placed an order in one of those online bookshops and wait. When it arrived a week ago, I promptly read it.

You must be wondering why it took me almost a week if I liked it so much? Well, because a book like this is like fine wine; you can't read it all at one but rather savor it slowly. And because this book is depressing as fuck, that's why. There were many times when I have to put the book down, draw a long sigh, then took a rest browsing for cute puppies and kittens pictures. The book gets to you. Its worldbuilding is so good that you can't help but get sucked into its world and feel the helplessness of the character. I was there, with Winston in London, trying to survive under constant censorship and squalor, despite the fact that we are separated by the pages of the book.

Orwell has a vivid writing style. He can make his character and his world come to life with mundane words. Every author who thinks that the only way they can write well is by using the most superfluous words needs to read Orwell. Sure, sometimes his paragraph is long and confusing, but like I said, you need to savor it slowly like fine wine. You can't speed-read an Orwell. I usually felt bored upon encountering a wall of text in a novel, but with Orwell, the wall of text makes me feel excited. It doesn't bore me, not at all.

Wow. I really don't have anything to add anymore. What can I say? Everything that needs to be said has been said in this book. You need to read it. That's all I'm going to say.

Final rating:

Book information:

Title: 1984

Author: George Orwell

Edition: New York: Signet Classics.1950

ISBN: 978-0-451-52493-5

Oui, j'aime Duolingo!

Salut! Desole, I have not posted for quite some time. I am in the middle of reading 1984, and it's going very slowly since the book is so depressing that I have to stop every once in a while and play some happy games to restore my faith in the world. While I'm scouring the App Store for some easy games, I discovered Duolingo, a free educational app for language learning with a 'gamingification' method. As a poor would-be polyglot from a Third World country, I couldn't refuse an opportunity to learn a foreign language for free, so I downloaded it and signed up for a course in French. Now, I am completely addicted.

Duolingo is very easy to use, with a simple, user-friendly interface. It doesn't have any instructions in the beginning, but you'll get a hang of it quickly enough since it's so intuitive. You learn language like you play a game. In the upper-right corner, there's several "hearts" and the objective is to go through your course without losing them all. If you complete a course, you get XP points that contributes to you leveling up, and if you manage to complete the course without losing any hearts, you get a Lingot, which is the virtual currency for Duolingo that you can use to buy perks in the shop. Lingots are awarded for other activities too, such as leveling up, adding friends, etc.

The courses made up several skills or lessons. In the beginning, you only have one "skill": the Basic. As you complete the Basic, you can unlock several other skills, and so on. The skills are inter-connected to each other and you have a "Strength" bar that reminds you to revise the skills every now and then. I love that the course's challenges are very varied: there's a listening challenge, writing challenge, and speaking challenge. French being the accent-heavy language that it is, the game is very forgiving at first if you don't write the accents when you first try it, but as you level up and move on to more complex skills, it starts to get stricter.

I love, love, love this app. It doesn't really teach you the ins-and-outs of grammar or structure, but it teaches you enough for you to be quite proficient with it. You explore the grammar structure by yourself, but it provides explanation should you be confused. The learning style is easy and breezy and you don't really feel cooped up or tied down. Of course, since the app is designed to get users to B1 level, I don't think you can learn to read Proust with it, but it's enough to get by for everyday uses. And because it's free, you can use it anytime you want!

Cherry Bomb: Fandom and Flawed Female Characters

Another Cherry Bomb post, y'all, and this time I'd like to talk about flawed female characters and how the fandom treats them. Lady Catelyn, Sansa; this is for you.

Now, you must be wondering why I specifically choose those two characters in my dedication. Well, that's because they are a perfect example of flawed female characters and how the fandom treats them.

Lady Catelyn Stark and her daughter Sansa Stark is not the first thing that most people had in mind when they hear the words "strong female character". They are non-combatants, their powers lay in their manners and words, and  they have made mistakes before. In other words, a far cry from what most mainstream media outlets' description of "strong female character". But I disagree. As previously touched upon on the last Cherry Bomb, I think they are the perfect example of a strong female character; hell they are strong characters, period. They are not the untouchable, hard women that most people expect; they have flaws and dreams and motivation and that's what makes them strong as a character.

But I am not here to lists the endless reason why Lady Stark-Tully and Sansa is the true queens of Westeros. I am here to discuss the various way fandom respond to them. Spoiler alert: it ain't pretty.

Here in Cherry Bomb, we don't name names other than our own. But if you want to, you can easily open Google and type any recap of any episode that heavily features Lady Catelyn. I guarantee most of the comments will proclaim her as a "whiny bitch" and how She is The Worst (tm). Or, if you're a book-reader or someone who doesn't mind seeing spoilers, you can type in the url of several fansites for ASOIAF and search the forum. Any discussion regarding the storyline of all the current characters will have at least one person proclaiming Sansa to be "useless" and how She is The Worst (tm). A favorite thread of mine blames all the bad thing that happens in the series--I repeat, ALL THE BAD THINGS THAT HAPPENS IN THE SERIES--to Sansa and Lady Catelyn. Ned Stark's execution, the War of the Five Kings, the burning of Winterfell: all of them is the result of Sansa Stark and her mother's action.

The question is why? Why are they so hated? Why are they considered useless, compared to the many characters? Why is everyone focusing on their mistakes compared to the mistakes other characters made? (I'm looking at you, Ned Stark)

The answer lies in the patriarchal nature of our society. Because of the olden tendency to depict women as silly and incapable of making correct decisions, the writers of today feel they have to make their character flaw-less in order for it not to be sexist. As a result, female characters are often unattainable, horribly-written Mary Sues. Readers, used to this imbalanced characters, have a unrealistic high standards for female characters that they don't have for male characters. They expect female characters to be right, to get out of the way, to soothe the male characters' feelings and ego, to be perfect, to show and have no emotion.

Sansa and Lady Catelyn are not written as female characters. They are merely written as characters. GRRM didn't treat them any more or any less than any of his other characters. They have flaws, they have principles, and they have emotions. Neckbeards cannot deal with that. They are used to seeing "strong female characters" and are not used to strong characters who happens to be female.

It is amazing to see how fandom treats different characters based on their gender. For example, Jon Snow was like a textbook example of teenage wangst with all his complaining and angsting how he will ~never be a Stark~ and how he's conflicted of his allegiance to the Night Watch and new-found relationship with Ygritte. Yet I rarely see any hate for him. Sansa, meanwhile is a twelve-year old girl who had to see her father killed by the same people that she thought she could trust, who had the rest of her family killed brutally by the people they trusted, who had to suffer from abuse/sexual assault from the man who was technically her guardian. Yet everyone blasted her for every mistake she made. Yes, in the first book she was a little bit annoying and woefully naive, but she's a twelve year old. Twelve-year olds are meant to be annoying and woefully naive.

And Ned Stark was pretty stupid. Telling your best friend's wife that you're going to tell your best friend that the children you claim to be his is actually your brother's before you tell somebody else first is damn idiotic in any setting, much less Westeros, where people have been killed for showing more intelligence. Yet I don't see him being blamed or flamed for it. But the instance Catelyn freed the Kingslayer in hopes to get her daughters back somehow makes her the Worst Ever. I agree that the move is pretty fucking stupid, but why doesn't Ned Stark get the same vitriolic remarks about his intelligence?

Now, this doesn't mean that they don't deserve criticism. Like any good character, they deserved and must be critique. But the hate that they get is so intense you have to wonder if our patriarchal society has something to do with it.

Review: The Serpent's Shadow by Rick Riordan

I hadn't really meant to read this book. The Kane Chronicles was my least favorite series from Rick Riordan, and that's saying a lot, considering how apathetic I am in regards to the Heroes of Olympus series. This series has half-Black protagonists and a multitude of PoC characters, something I gladly eat up on any other circumstances, but this series never really did it for me. There was always something missing, and if there wasn't a sale on the hardcover edition that reduces it down to Rp. 41.000, I probably won't ever read it.

But there was a sale, and I bought it, and I read it. And now I realized why this series never clicked for me:

It's so goddamn cheesy.

Okay, so maybe a little bit of background is needed. Sadie and Carter Kane are brothers and sisters, descendants of two powerful line of magicians. They became the host of Isis and Osiris respectively because of their power. In the last book they manage to release the sun-god Ra, who is a senile decrepit old man, nothing like the all-powerful First King of the God they envisioned him to be, and who's certainly not fit to take on the serpent Apophis, the primordial representation of Chaos and Ra's nemesis. Apophis has set on a deadline for the end of the world at the autumn equinox, the most inauspicious day of the year, perfect for doing bad deeds. Sadie and Carter must find a way to stop him before that day, which is only a couple of days away, and they do found a technique by binding its shadow and destroying it (thus the book's title). But to do that they have to have immense power since, y'know, they're dealing with the very personification of Chaos itself.

This book made me laugh, both the oh-my-god-this-is-so-funny laugh and the oh-my-god-this-is-so-embarrassing laugh, and there were too many of the last kind. Both of the main characters were supposed to be teenagers (Carter is 15 and Sadie is 13) so I kind of expect some dramatics from them, but I wasn't prepared for their brand of hormonal drama. These two kids were on a quest to save the world from destruction  and they spent more time in their monologue wondering about their romantic partners and their ~feelings~. There are times when I want to reach into the book and smack these kids in their head so they can concentrate on preventing the goddamn Doomsday instead of wondering about boys and girls. Sadie's chapters is the worst offender, since she has two admirers in the form of the jackal-god Anubis and ordinary boy-magician Walt.

Here's one of her chapter's highlights:

 At the moment I didn't even care where it led, as long as it was away from that deathless creature I had thought I loved. (The Serpent's Shadow, pg. 273)

See? See what I mean? That quote is cheesier than the cheesiest cheddar cheese, and they're pretty goddamn cheesy. I was reading this on a train ride and upon seeing that passage I had to close the book and turn away to stifle my giggle-cringe. It was that bad.

Sadie Kane. Sadie. Sadie, girl. You're thirteen. Thirteen year-olds don't fall in love, and if they 'do' then it has disastrous consequences (see: Romeo and Juliet). More importantly, you're a mortal girl who 'fell in love' with a 4000-year-old god. Hon, the implications of an immortal-mortal relationship is huge, so don't get pissy when people tell Anubis that he better stay away from you, because they're right. Don't whine "Waah waah everybody's out to get me" because it's not about you, it's about him. He's a god, an immortal being without a fixed 'body' and there are a lot of things need answering if you two have a relationship. One of the gods called her out on her behavior, and I agree with him, even though she rebuked him and the scene was meant as a comic relief. Listen to your elders, Sadie, they know a thing or two about the world.

Can you tell that Sadie annoys me? I feel like an old guy screaming "You kids get off of my lawn" when I read her chapters and I'm only a year older than Carter. She's supposed to be this stereotypical goth-tomboy who has purple highlights and wears combat boots and unlike those superficial mean girls, yet she's the most boy-crazy thirteen year-old I have the displeasure to know, and I know a lot of thirteen year-olds. Her sarcasm is not funny 80% of the time and yet she's supposed to be this witty, charming girl who manages to catch the attention of two boys at the same time.

I can stomach Carter's chapters better since he only has one love interest and does not have the complication of having a completely unnecessary love triangle thrown in. He reminds me of Percy, somehow, though I know that their personality is different. His humor doesn't feel forced and I found myself laughing at some of his jokes. He is sweet and endearing, albeit a little bit boring sometimes, but maybe that's because it's a side effect of being a professor's son.

Despite that, I think this book is pretty good, structure and plot-wise. The pacing is good, the plot is tight, and the prose is not bad for a children's book. When I review, I have to remember the intended demographic of the novel, and whether or not it's good for that kind of genre/demographic. I can't put the Percy Jackson's series in the same category as Pride and Prejudice. They were written for a different demographic, different audiences.

And that's why I'm giving this book a four-star, despite my misgivings. Because, for all intents and purposes, it's a good children's/teen book. Maybe it's me who outgrew the genre.

Final rating:

A Little Night Music (21/04)

For the past few months, I have been listening to Postmodern Jukebox almost everyday. They're a musical group that turns beloved pop songs to vintage Jazz-style bops and post it on YouTube. I like Jazz so their style of music fits me right, but I also like the fact that unlike other YouTube cover channels, they get creative with their covers, putting their own spin to it.

One of my favorite songs from them is probably their cover of Beauty and a Beat. The vocals are strong, and the instruments are smooth without really overpowering. It is very different than the original Beauty and a Beat, much slower and features bass and tenor sax, but retains its spirit as a party anthem; only theirs is for 1940s war-time lounge parties instead of the extravagant Millennial pool party Justin shows in his video.

Another favorite is their cover of Timber, featuring the doo-wop group the Tee Tones. Like Beauty and a Beat, their cover is vastly different from the electronic-heavy original, yet it still maintains that playful dance-y feel.

They also have a wide array of guest artists collaborating with them. From the aforementioned the Tee Tones (who was also featured in their cover of We Can't Stop by Miley Cyrus, their most-watched video to date), to their Lorde covers with Puddles the Sad Clown with the Golden Voice (Royals and Team) to their blues cover of Sweet Child O'Mine with Miche Braden. I especially love Miche Braden's Sweet Child O'Mine. You wouldn't expect a song by Guns'N'Roses to fit into a blues singer like Miche, and yet there she was, bringing her powerful vocals to the song made famous by Axl's raspy rendition. And it fits; it fits wonderfully well.

So, clickity-click those links and be amazed at the awesomeness that is Postmodern Jukebox!

Coming Back Again

Hello. It is very relieving to say that I have finished all of my exams, albeit to what degree of success I do not know. But this means I can update the blog more regularly. Yay!

Of course, I'm not planning on doing it right away--I need some time off to unwind after a stressful month--but I am determine to do more. I have ordered some books to review, and I'm planning on adding a regular Music of the Week feature. Of course, I will still write essays and fiction analysis, but maybe I will shorten that to once-a-week or twice-a-week, since I notice that my hastily-written essays do not have a good quality.

It's good to be back.

Hiatus

Hey everyone. I have an announcement to make.

Since my Big Life-Changing Exam (tm) is only two weeks away, I have to study hard, leaving no time to update or work on the blog. So, it is with great sadness that I announce this blog's hiatus at least until the exam is done for and I can finally breathe again.

I'll be back in roughly three weeks time, so don't worry about me abandoning this blog forever.

Cheers.

Cherry Bomb: Strong Female Characters vs "Strong" Female Characters" Part I

Like tea, most female characters in fiction comes in two flavors: strong and weak. Since the advent of third-wave feminism, however, there are a surge of "strong" female characters in fiction, whether it's in literature or TV, and they tend to lean towards the hard-hitting kind, with physical prowess, no non-sense attitude, and brash personality.

Basically, they become more 'masculine'.

Now, I'm not saying these ladies aren't strong as a character, or that masculine women are somehow less of a woman. In the hands of a good writer, these characters can come alive into complex people with flaws and a story right before our very eyes.

But there is a trend that I see, a worrying trend I might add, to transform these characters into a one-note character. "Strong" women in TV and books these days are just that; strong. They do not have any other purpose to the story other than to break walls and take names (which is an awesome thing, to be honest) and then get killed five minutes later. They shun emotion and everything girly, ridiculing women who are into fashion and make-up (therefore, those who are more 'feminine' than them), further promoting the notion that us women have to fight against each other. They proudly claim they do not have any female friends, that they love hanging with guys because they don't have as many drama as girls (nevermind the fact that these so-called 'brotherhoods' often have fights over girlfriends and video games the could generate as much, if not more, drama). Women are stupid and emotional, they say, and lacks the sophistication of men.

You can see why this kind of thinking can be a problem, especially since most of these characters crop up in YA/Romance fiction. And then that's not touching the whole glamorization of violence. Full disclosure: I'm a pacifist and I don't appreciate the way that YA novels these days have fights and battle as their main shtick. I know that's a really common way to put some action into your book and make it more interesting, but there are ways to write a good and gripping book without having a fight every two pages. And international peace discussion is thrilling too! I mean, how many people can actually say that they help prevent WWIII by  inviting Russia and America's leader over for dinner? That's riveting stuff, folks! The sauce of your steak determines if people die!

And one of my main problem these kind of "strong" characters is that they rarely have some kind of an emotional response to the consequences of their own action. Human beings are not meant to hurt each other (no matter how those pessimists think), and if they do, they'll likely to have serious mental issues. You can't just blowup a building and the only thought you have is whether or not the Main Love Interest has feelings for you. Even the most hardened and experienced warriors have a high chance of developing PTSD, and you expect me to believe a sixteen year-old girl goes about her life without a care after killing hundreds of people?

Of course there are people who thinks about burgers and ducks before they snipe someone in the head; people cope in different ways. But the thing with these characters is that they do not feel anything. Oh, their inner monologues is filled with purple prose about how Main Love Interest makes them feel all funny inside and they don't like it because Warriors Aren't Meant to Have Emotions, but they are mostly flat characters, unable to comprehend or display any emotion besides anger and selfishness. They cannot have any emotions, ever, because they are awesome and they are strong and emotions are flaws and if they have flaws then they are not strong. They sometimes have a tragic past that cements their position as rebels in society, and a convenient Freudian explanation to why they have such hard personality.

Generic cookie cutter backstory and Mary Sue-like perfection (though they try to deny) does not make a "strong" character. Ironically, the writers effort to differentiate their female characters from the others have resulted in bland characters that are strong only in their physics and weak in everything else.

There are a lot of things that I have in my mind about this issue, particularly how the media and fandom treats flawed female characters and the thinking that "nonviolence=weak" that is so present in many YA novels and their fandoms. But this is ten o'clock, I have yet to brush my teeth and do my prayers; I shall have to bid goodbye for now and see you next time.

Review: The Weaverbirds by YB Mangunwijaya

So! I finally finished this book. It's been, what, four months since I borrowed it? And I only finished it now. Lovely. The school library is going to rake in lots of money.

This book is, well, it's not difficult, per se. I just had a hard time of getting into it. The book had the double sin of a) written in 1st person and b) contains a lot of sentimental Indonesian-esque romance that I don't really like. Romance is fine, but Indonesian authors tend to have this style that whatever romance they wrote is going to end up really sappy and/or cheesy. Since most old novels are written in 1st person (my most hated POV) and have these sappy romance (that my cold heart does not understand), you can see why I don't really read them much.

But as a book connoisseur, I have to read a lot of books, crossing genre and time, even if that means I have to get out of my comfort zone. Or spend four months reading a 300 page book. 

Okay. So. The review. Right.

The Weaverbirds (Indonesian: Burung-Burung Manyar) tells the story of Setadewa (Teto) and Larasati (Atik). Teto is the son of a KNIL soldier, KNIL being the private army of the Dutch colonist in Indonesia, and an Indo mother. Atik is still Teto's cousin of some sort; her mother is the adopted daughter of Teto's father's uncle. Teto's father comes from a blue-blooded native Javanese family, but he likes being "Dutch" more.

During the Japanese occupation, Teto's father joined the rebellion, and was subsequently caught. Teto's mother was kept as a mistress by a Japanese official to protect Teto's father, and Teto was left in the care of Atik's family. Teto vowed that he will avenge his parents, and joined KNIL once he was old enough. When the Japanese left however, Teto was faced by the Republican factions; that is people who wanted and have declared Indonesia's independence. Teto viewed the Republicans as ex-collaborators with Japan, and thus viewed Indonesia's independence as not something that they earn, but something that is given by Japan. Not to mention, after the war, the fate of his parents is still unknown. Thus, begins Teto's quest to "help" his homeland and find the truth about his parents.

 Structurally, the novel itself is divided into three parts: a prologue of some sorts that tells the story of Teto and Atik's childhood, a middle part consisting the bulk of the action, and an epilogue. 

I find the concept refreshing, because Indonesian novels often have this black-and-white view of the world, that the good guys will always be good and the bad guys will always be bad. This is a boring, not to mention unrealistic, point of view of the world. The good guys is not always good and the bad guys are not always bad. So it's really refreshing to see a flipped perspective; the Republicans became the antagonist and the colonizing Dutch became the protagonist.

Maybe it's because of this I find the middle part to be the most exciting of the three. It details Teto's struggle to reconcile his vision of Indonesia, and the Indonesia he's seeing right now. Teto does not go to war because he hates Indonesia; he loves Indonesia and wants to free her from the Republicans whom he viewed as Japanese collaborators. Teto's mother frequently becomes a sort of allegory for Indonesia herself, in the eyes of Teto: she was a happy housewife in the Dutch period, only to become a trapped mistress in the Japanese occupation, and later institutionalized after the war. Indonesia too, according to Teto, is subjugated but happy during the Dutch period, trapped in a broken promise during the Japanese occupation, and has become insane in her independence.

Teto's views and behaviors is a departure from the usual Indonesian heroes that is usually portrayed as calm and polite even in the midst of gunfire. Here, Teto is brash and foul-mouthed, but he had the heart of a lion, and a firm principle taught by his father. He's an intelligent boy; he knew in the middle that what he's doing, what KNIL and him are doing, is basically worthless but still he fought because his father taught him not to run away from a fight. And by God, he didn't, even if it meant sacrificing his only chance on being with the girl he loved.

I expected Atik to be one-dimensional and flatter than a cardboard, but she was quite fleshed out, which is a nice surprise. Atik too is struggling that she may or may not have feelings for Teto, her childhood friend slash distant cousin and a traitor to the Republic. Atik herself works for the Republic, even becoming an aide for the then-Foreign affairs minster. She has to learn to reconcile her loyalty for her motherland and her affection to an agent of the enemy.

The prose is wonderful and this is one of the few first-person POVs novel that I actually like. YB Mangunwijaya conveys Teto's feelings so perfectly that you can't help to root a little bit for the Dutch, if only to give Teto his happy ending. The changing of POVs is something I severely dislike in most modern novels since it's just hella confusing, but Rama Mangun (as he's affectionately called) uses it so efficiently to portray the characters' feelings, to let us see the two-sides of the coin, that I can't complain about it.

My problem with this novel is that we really don't see Atik and Teto's relationship developing properly. Literally 70% of their screentime are spent apart from each other. We only get to see their interaction in the beginning and in the end; they rarely interact in the middle part. When I first read Teto declaring his love to Atik in his inner monologue I was like "bruh? You only met this girl for two months, tops!" It feels odd to me because they only met each other for a short time in their childhood, and it didn't really make sense for both of them to be violently in love with each other. They talked about their closeness a lot, but we don't actually see how close they are, or how their closeness develops in the first place. As individual characters, they are well-developed, but as a pairing they are not.

I also have issues with the length of the first part and the third part. The first part should be longer, and the third part should be shorter. The ending is firm and resolute, but the execution is off. There's a lot of padding in the third part but the last pages seems rushed, as if the author has a page limit and he's nearing that limit so he better wrap the story up. The conflict in the last part just kind of...hangs there with no development whatsoever beyond a few short paragraphs. I didn't even realize there's a conflict until 3/4 in. Inserting a new conflict at the end of the book is pretty unusual, so I understand if the author wants it to be done quickly, but if that's the case then why does he insert it in the first place? It's completely unnecessary and throws the reader off.

There's also this bizarre subplot involving a minor character that does not have anything to do with the plot, whatsoever. The pages for that, I think, can more efficiently used instead to flesh out the story more, but alas it does not happen. The third part is the most boring of them all, part of the reason why this takes me a long time to finish after whooshing through the middle part.

It is a good book, and it is a good story, but it's marketed everywhere as a love story, and I didn't really feel the whole romance angle. As a war-novel, it's good, it's great; I would've given it a four-star. But you have to call an orange an orange, and as a romance novel it's very unsatisfying. This, coupled with other plot issues and pointless padding, reduces the grade to only three-star.

Final Rating:

Book Information:

Title: Burung-Burung Manyar (English: The Weaverbirds)
Author: YB. Mangunwijaya
Pub./Edition: Fourteenth edition. Jakarta: Djambatan, 2004 (orig pub. date: August 1981)
ISBN: 979-428-560-9

Worldbuilding: So You Want to be a Dictator

After a post about social class, it is only proper for me to follow it with one that is all about maintaining social order. There are a lot of ways to keep the people in check, from fairly pacifist ways to outright militaristic ones, but since dystopians are all the rage nowadays, let's take a look a look at the militaristic ones, shall we?

There are different ways for a dystopia to control the masses: some do it by spreading the love (a la Brave New World), some by spreading fear and 'love' (a la 1984). A firm government and good social order helps keep those pesky rebels from disrupting the system. After all, the rebellion's power is through the people, they draw their strength from the average Joe's discontent, and if the average Joe is content or blissfully unaware of their own oppression, the rebels could not gain much ground.

If I am a head of a dictatorship, the first thing that I would like to do is silence the educated middle-class. Most revolutions in the modern world happened because of a disgruntled middle-class. They have a level of education higher than those of the lower-class, while having power less than those of the upper-class. They have enough education to know better than to swallow propaganda without discerning it first, and enough distance to the ruling class to not enjoy the privileges; in short they make a perfect target for the rebels.

A lot of ways can use to pacify the middle class, but if I'm a dictator, I would try to isolate them from the other classes as much as I can, restricting their travels. The middle class is the administrative force of the country, they do the work that was too smart for the lower-classes and too inane for the upper-classes. Ordinary office workers, typing away in their cramped cubicles, is prone to boredom, and have to be entertained somehow. Boredom leads to curiosity and curiosity kills the cat, fuels the rebellion, and topples the government.

But their work is also important to the long-lasting of your government; after all war is not only fought in land and water but also in papers and archives. He who controls the present controls the past and he who controls the past controls the future. One must not interfere with their work, lest productivity goes down, and the government becomes less efficient. A shift-system can solve this problem, giving each worker a day each week for holiday, and then those day gets rotated randomly every few months so as not to create a routine, which bores the worker.

You don't have to do much with the upper class, since the privilege they get from being in the ruling class is enough incentive for them to stay compliant, but take care of those power-hungry social climbers who's looking to seize your power for their own. Eliminate them, discreetly. But do not kick someone that's already surrendered to you, since it will create mistrust of your government. When your enemy is down, help them, so they will forever become in debt to you.

The lower class is an easy job. Since they are not kept for their intellect, mainly for their muscle, you can give them many leeway. Ply them with mindless entertainment, trashy books that lowers their brain cells, orgies. Set them free; since they're not bright anyway they won't pose much harm. You have to be careful, however, to not let them in contact of anything educated or subversive. The proles are content and happy and free in their ignorance, and if you put silly ideas into their brain (like rebelling for example) their freedom will bite you in your ass.

The key on maintaining your rule as a dictator is by isolating each respective class, dividing them, hacking them into pieces until it's virtually impossible for them to unite. A solid, united society is not great for your government. Divide them. Sow seeds of distrusts among them, seeds of discord. Condition them to think that it's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and it's useless to think about anyone other than themselves. Sever any familial and friendship ties between individuals. This way, it will be easier to control them, since they are more than willing to turn at any subversive person, even if those subversive person is their own parents.

Maintaining a social order is simple, really: indulge the lower-class, appease  the middle-class, control the upper-class, and set them against each other. Lots of surveillance helps too, since they can be used to easily monitor any subversive activity. Oh, and don't forget cruel and unusual punishment for those who goes against you.

And that's what it takes to be a dictator!

In the Style of Sei Shonagon: Part I

Vexing things

When one has written something thoughtful and beautiful and the computer suddenly freezes, forcing one to restart it, losing the writing in the process. Upon rewriting it later, it does not look as thoughtful nor as beautiful.

When one sees a beautiful dress and the only thing separating one from that dress is one's body and wallet size.

When one is anxious to start and buy a new book, only to realize that an important life-changing exam is looming by and the 'correct' thing to do is study for the exam rather than read a book. One knows that one can start the book whenever while the exam only happens once in a lifetime but it determines one's course of education for life, so the right thing is to study for the exam. That does not make it less vexing.

Worldbuilding: Social Class and All That Jazz

Good morning, everybody. I have just woken up from a wonderful sleep; it is Saturday today and I don't have any school, for once. Now, I would like to introduce to you to my new series, Writer's Woes, where I discuss a topic that makes us writers unable to sleep at night. From worldbuilding to research, everything will be talked about in Writer's Woes.

For my first topic, since I had just come from a fresh research-binge, I would like to talk about one of the aspects of worldbuilding that's crucial for anyone writing an original novel in an original world, whether it's a dystopian sci-fi or utopian fantasy: social class. A little bit disclaimer might do: I am in no ways a professional sociologist, but I have studied a bit about social class in school, and since I am writing a novel set in a class-heavy world I have researched about it quite a bit. So I know a little about social class.

When writing or reading a novel, I want it to have a little bit of realism, no matter how far-fetched the premises seem to be. Yes, I know, I might be overzealous to demand realism in a novel about magics and elves and orcs, but my point is that no matter how fantastical the world is, it still needs to make sense. Every world must have a good explanation about how they work, even if it involves some artistic license in science or applied unobtanium. A novel with a good worldbuilding, in my opinion, must have a world that is consistent and solid in the context of the novel itself. So even though it may not make sense for it to happen in real life, if the novel gave sufficient evidence of it, then it passes. Too much handwaving and paradoxes (contradictory statements in the novel itself) will lead to plotholes, something that will confuse the reader.

A big part of creating an original world is creating a some kind of social structure e.g. social class. Most novels that I have read have are influenced by class whether they like it or not, from a dystopia with a rigid caste-based system or a utopia where everybody is equal. Some are done quite well, some...not quite so well. It is my hope that anyone reading this will come out having a better understanding of class and social dynamics, and able to write a social system that will not fold like a paper tiger.

First of all, let's break down the social structure. One of the simplest social structures is to divide society into three, neat little parts: the landowning nobles, the merchants who control the means of production, and the people who serve them. This structure works because the nobles own the land, and sometimes the people in it. Nobles protect the land and lead the country, they make the regulations and form governments. Since all of the nobles came from prominent families, they are highly respected and able to hold their position on top of the social food chain because of the power they have over society.

The merchants do not have the same social standing as the nobles, since many of them came from common families who do not own lands. But they own the means of production, and they can produce goods, so that makes them more important than the unskilled labors. Note that though I call them 'the merchants', artisans, craftsman, and skilled labors also belongs to this social class.

Servants are in the bottom of the social food chain, because they do not have lands or means of production. Since they are unskilled labor, the only thing they can do is to be servants to the other two classes.

These kind of class system can be found in pre-industrial society, because more often than not, landowning nobles control most of the capital. Without factories, agriculture is the main employer. Nobles own the land, charge rent from their farmer-tenants, and buy goods for their castle from the merchants. As such, they control the flow of the capital.

During the Industrial Revolution, factories are built and agriculture becomes increasingly mechanized. Suddenly, you need less people to plow the fields and more people to work in the factory. Merchants play a big role during this period, because the main employer has shifted from the nobles' farms to the merchants' factories. Goods are produced faster and cheaper, enabling the merchants to reap big profits.

As such, the class system shifted. It is the merchants who control the capital, and now they dictate the flow of money. Nobles still play a big role in their capacity as leaders, but their influence is greatly diminished. Merchants are still below nobles in the class system, but they're slowly moving up, now that they have money, and they don't like being bossed around by some stuffy old aristocrats who are poorer than them.

(Wealthy merchants vs old aristocrats is actually the basis of the conflict in the French Revolutions. The bourgeois did not take kindly of being bossed around by the aristocrats, and they rebel. I really could write a whole series of blog posts about this, but I digress...)

Which brings us to my second point: class system exists only under the compliance of society. Ironic, right? Here we are trying to get rid of class in our daily life while it's because of us it exists in the first place. Without society's compliance, the class system won't work, deflating like a particularly bad souffle. How do you get society's compliance, you ask? Why, by indulging whichever class is more important on the eyes of society. For example, a religious society may view religious duties as being more important than money and thus hold priests and the clergy higher than nobles and merchants. Militaristic societies may have soldiers on the top, and those pesky diplomats in the bottom. A far-off fantasy world where glass is rare may deem people who has glass marbles more than those who do not.

If you determine what value/commodity your world appreciates the most, then you can start working on your class system based on that. The top is those who adhere to society's standards and has access to those commodity/value while the bottom is those who don't. Then, you can expand the middle ones by determining their relationship in the distribution or flow of those commodity/values. It can be as simple as a three-tier class system or a complex caste system.

And another thing that an author needs to consider is the social mobility between the classes. You have to determine whether it's possible to move between classes, and if so, how? A society without social mobility has a very poor social structure and thus prone to shakeups, which is a good setting for dystopia. Be very careful also when you select traits that determine your faction/classes, especially those who are based on abstract concepts like talents. Remember, just because your father is an amazing painter doesn't mean you can paint.

Well, I think that's about it. I started at a sunny morning and now it's afternoon and rain clouds are starting to form in the sky, how the time passes! With this, I conclude my post and hope that you found something beneficial beneath this jumble of words.

Until next time. xx

onwards, to the great unknown

To be a writer, you have to write. To be a good writer, you have to write, to learn how to tell the world about how you really feel, how to tell your story. A good diarist I am not, and when humanity have advanced so much that you can write your thoughts on a piece of computer to broadcast to the world, why not take advantage of it? I am not ashamed to admit that I write more consistently with an audience; knowing that someone somewhere is reading my work and eagerly waiting for the next installment is a good motivation. Even though it may not be so at first, I try my best to be consistent and update frequently.

And even if my audience is only a lone spambot, I will still try to keep a schedule, for my own sake. After all, I write not for society, but for myself, first and foremost. I write not for fame or money (though they are a wonderful side-effect) but for my own enjoyment, my own pleasure. And if my work also brings pleasure to other people, then I am more than happy to share it with them. If my work upsets and angers some people (for the wrong reasons), then I do not care. My opinions are my own and I do not care if they are against yours. I will not compromise my integrity for all the money in the world, I can promise my audience that, at least.

(Besides, consumerism is so overrated)

Thus begin my journey through the deep dark, winding forests of Blogger that are full of spams and dragons but also knights in shining armor and princesses in designer dresses. It will be a long and hard trip with rock-filled roads hindering my path, and I am but a novice in the worlds of blogging, but I say it will be a fun ride while it lasts, and while I'm here I want to share the adventure with you.