If you know someone who has low self-confidence in some area of their life, then you've probably noticed that they can have a hard time accepting praise. Why doesn't the plain girl just believe you when you tell her she's gorgeous?
I can tell you. It's because it's not true.
Obviously there are cases where anything you say will be deflected, so I'll speak only for the moment about mentally healthy people. But right here is our first stumbling block in the words mentally healthy. Say anything negative about yourself, demonstrate modesty, reject false praise, and people will start to assume you have a deeper issue than being a shy person trying to maintain healthy realism and come to terms with your own flaws.
I can paint. I'm pretty good at it. It might surprise some people to hear me say that.
I remember on several occasions saying "wow, I wish I could paint like that" in response to a work, and being told "but you can!". This was simply not true, look at any of my work from pre-college! It made the person saying it a liar, and even at young ages that would bother me. How could they expect me to believe this in the face of evidence? And then the praiser would wonder why the praisee did not appear to take their words positively.
I like compliments, don't get me wrong. As a shy person I have trouble responding to them, but I do like them. I am human after all. But a false compliment is not useful to me, and it goes beyond what my ego can take seriously. I don't want to hear that my work is amazing and mindblowing and sensational and so on and so forth. I want to hear that it's exactly as good as it is.
15 February 2011
Young Artists
I've written an entry in defense of the young artist before; the ones that get their dreams beaten into the ground by the older, more experienced artists who have the means to encourage and inspire them.
But I have to admit, some of these beginners do have a tendency towards a specific kind of disrespect of the more accomplished artist that I find frustrating. I'm only referring to these few, of course.
They don't think that artists have to work for their skill.
I'm not sure they even realise they're doing this, which is why I do my best not to get cross when it comes up in conversation. But think about it, how often have you heard it said (or said yourself! I, as most of us, am guilty of this to a certain extent) that it is "unfair" that that their work is not as good as someone elses? Usually, the artists they're talking about have years on them. Years which they've spent honing their skills, working jobs in the industry, and recieving education on the subject. All of this is still ahead of the young artist, all still available. But no. They think they should be good now.
It's like they think that skill in art is a magic gift bestowed on a priviledged few, and this is flat out disrespectful to those artists who worked hard and shed blood, sweat and tears to get to where they are.
But I have to admit, some of these beginners do have a tendency towards a specific kind of disrespect of the more accomplished artist that I find frustrating. I'm only referring to these few, of course.
They don't think that artists have to work for their skill.
I'm not sure they even realise they're doing this, which is why I do my best not to get cross when it comes up in conversation. But think about it, how often have you heard it said (or said yourself! I, as most of us, am guilty of this to a certain extent) that it is "unfair" that that their work is not as good as someone elses? Usually, the artists they're talking about have years on them. Years which they've spent honing their skills, working jobs in the industry, and recieving education on the subject. All of this is still ahead of the young artist, all still available. But no. They think they should be good now.
It's like they think that skill in art is a magic gift bestowed on a priviledged few, and this is flat out disrespectful to those artists who worked hard and shed blood, sweat and tears to get to where they are.
18 December 2010
The Supernatural
When it comes to this field, I guess I'd call myself an interested skeptic. I find the physical and psychological phenomena and the systems of belief involved to be fascinating.
But I also find certain aspects of that greatly frustrating. At least, the attitudes of certain people.
They are believers in things which they contend are factual, with no basis in scientific evidence. This is religion. Which is fine. But you do not get to say "This IS the ways things are" if your position is faith based. You believe it, and while nobody can take it away from you, you can't expect other people to be stupid and gullible enough to take that on board without proper proof.
And no, third-hand anecdotal evidence and science you made up on the spot does not count. If you're going to present your ideas as science, you need to treat it like science and allow it to be held up to the same scrutiny, and proceed with the same objectivity.
Let me give an example.
I've just heard some audio of a gentleman who has written a book about sleep paralysis. He thinks it is to do with magic. Regarding the fact that a lot of people have these experiences he claims, and I quote; "we can't all be hallucinating". ...why not? On what basis do you make that assertion? A lot of people hallucinate for various reasons all the time. Everyone dreams, everyone goes into sleep paralysis while they do so, and sometimes things get confused when you start to wake up. It's common, and physical, and satisfactorily covered by known physical phenomena.
Why does the fact that we don't yet have a full understanding of the physical processes involved, and his own severe ignorance of what IS known, make room for being visited by spirits and interdimensional entities? Such a leap of logic, from firm science into total fictions coloured by personal faith beliefs, is ludicrous and has no place being discussed by any paranormal researcher who wants to be taken seriously.
Personally I'd like to see everything that is indistinguishable from a simple dream stripped from UFO, ghost and other sightings. It's not evidence if there's another perfectly good explanation for it, which you're only rejecting because you don't happen to like it.
And skeptic is not a dirty word, so please stop using it like an insult and telling me I just need to be more "open minded" (read: gullible). Paranormal research desperately needs skeptics, lest it turn into a full-blown religion instead of ever finding out if there was ever a scientific basis for these things.
But I also find certain aspects of that greatly frustrating. At least, the attitudes of certain people.
They are believers in things which they contend are factual, with no basis in scientific evidence. This is religion. Which is fine. But you do not get to say "This IS the ways things are" if your position is faith based. You believe it, and while nobody can take it away from you, you can't expect other people to be stupid and gullible enough to take that on board without proper proof.
And no, third-hand anecdotal evidence and science you made up on the spot does not count. If you're going to present your ideas as science, you need to treat it like science and allow it to be held up to the same scrutiny, and proceed with the same objectivity.
Let me give an example.
I've just heard some audio of a gentleman who has written a book about sleep paralysis. He thinks it is to do with magic. Regarding the fact that a lot of people have these experiences he claims, and I quote; "we can't all be hallucinating". ...why not? On what basis do you make that assertion? A lot of people hallucinate for various reasons all the time. Everyone dreams, everyone goes into sleep paralysis while they do so, and sometimes things get confused when you start to wake up. It's common, and physical, and satisfactorily covered by known physical phenomena.
Why does the fact that we don't yet have a full understanding of the physical processes involved, and his own severe ignorance of what IS known, make room for being visited by spirits and interdimensional entities? Such a leap of logic, from firm science into total fictions coloured by personal faith beliefs, is ludicrous and has no place being discussed by any paranormal researcher who wants to be taken seriously.
Personally I'd like to see everything that is indistinguishable from a simple dream stripped from UFO, ghost and other sightings. It's not evidence if there's another perfectly good explanation for it, which you're only rejecting because you don't happen to like it.
And skeptic is not a dirty word, so please stop using it like an insult and telling me I just need to be more "open minded" (read: gullible). Paranormal research desperately needs skeptics, lest it turn into a full-blown religion instead of ever finding out if there was ever a scientific basis for these things.
31 July 2010
Thoughts on Harry Potter
So I've discovered the joy of audiobooks while working on character sheets. I started with Harry Potter, and so far I've done the first two books.
I'll start by acknowledging that I'm rather above the target age for this sort of thing, and that's the root of most of my problems with it. They are formulaic, and a little patronising. The tone struck me as younger even than some of the subject matter, as if Christopher Robin slew a basilisk and got covered in blood. Odd. Also Harry has a little of what annoys me about Captain Kirk about him. Concessions are made and favouritism shown for... no real reason other than him being the main character. As far as I can see so far anyway. Perhaps there's a massive clever twist up ahead, but I'm not holding out hope.
Overall I thought they were alright, but really merely alright and nothing more. I enjoyed it but I've read far better childrens/young adults books.
What I really want to talk about is the way wizarding works in these stories.
There's a hell of a lot of division in their culture. From segregating themselves from the non-magical types, right down to encouraging and baiting school house rivalries. Blatant favouritism shown by all, including the Head, with no good role models for fairness and objectivity.
Sure, only a minority of wizards are openly discriminatory against those without magic, but the rest of the community all still conduct themselves as though priviledged. Why should there be castles and feasting for wizards? Should the pupils be taught that magic is for granting themselves indulgences and luxury, which the non-magical types can't have?
Frankly, I sympathised with Mrs Dursley. Imagine having a sister who got to go to a huge fancy private school in a castle, along with all the associated trappings, because of a fluke of genetics. I'd probably hate such a special sister too.
They seem to be in denial about it, but the wizards in Harry Potter are all pretty anti-"muggle".
On Ene, there's a magical college which exists precisely to counter this sort of thing. Education about magic is available to everyone, because peace comes and fear is dispelled through understanding. Students are encouraged to think of magic as a science that one can have a talent for grasping the same way some people are good at drawing, and to consider themselves no more special than such.
And wands are for losers. Yup.
I'll start by acknowledging that I'm rather above the target age for this sort of thing, and that's the root of most of my problems with it. They are formulaic, and a little patronising. The tone struck me as younger even than some of the subject matter, as if Christopher Robin slew a basilisk and got covered in blood. Odd. Also Harry has a little of what annoys me about Captain Kirk about him. Concessions are made and favouritism shown for... no real reason other than him being the main character. As far as I can see so far anyway. Perhaps there's a massive clever twist up ahead, but I'm not holding out hope.
Overall I thought they were alright, but really merely alright and nothing more. I enjoyed it but I've read far better childrens/young adults books.
What I really want to talk about is the way wizarding works in these stories.
There's a hell of a lot of division in their culture. From segregating themselves from the non-magical types, right down to encouraging and baiting school house rivalries. Blatant favouritism shown by all, including the Head, with no good role models for fairness and objectivity.
Sure, only a minority of wizards are openly discriminatory against those without magic, but the rest of the community all still conduct themselves as though priviledged. Why should there be castles and feasting for wizards? Should the pupils be taught that magic is for granting themselves indulgences and luxury, which the non-magical types can't have?
Frankly, I sympathised with Mrs Dursley. Imagine having a sister who got to go to a huge fancy private school in a castle, along with all the associated trappings, because of a fluke of genetics. I'd probably hate such a special sister too.
They seem to be in denial about it, but the wizards in Harry Potter are all pretty anti-"muggle".
On Ene, there's a magical college which exists precisely to counter this sort of thing. Education about magic is available to everyone, because peace comes and fear is dispelled through understanding. Students are encouraged to think of magic as a science that one can have a talent for grasping the same way some people are good at drawing, and to consider themselves no more special than such.
And wands are for losers. Yup.
10 July 2010
The Young 'uns
I have a problem with the internet.
More specifically, I have a problem with the idea that people on the internet are not real. That they just need to "man up" when deeply personal and offensive insults are dealt to them, as if there are no feelings to hurt at the other end of the wire. Something cruel typed is no more justifiable than when spoken to a person's face.
Saying something is true does not make it so. In this case, bullies saying that what they say on the internet is not to be taken seriously is wishful thinking on their part. You don't get to tell people how they should or should not feel about what you say to and about them. The fact that you want to be able to behave like a dick without consequence doesn't mean you can, and it certainly is not justification.
The one that ticked me off today was a forum topic started by a kid (about 14-16, I think?) about types of art school. He and his dream were ripped to shreds by supposedly professional artists under the guise of good advice. This happens a fair bit, as if we need to keep the arts private and discourage kids from coming into OUR feild. But the icing on the cake was a topic started about this kid, to whine about his responses. Sure they were childish, but erm... he's a child? He had no reason to know anything yet about working in the arts, and the people with the means to educate and inspire him chose not to.
We are already driving so many young people away from the arts through poor representation and funding, so why be so active in discouraging those who actually show an interest? If they are foolish, they need educating. And those of us with the privilege of education need to step up and share it rather than keeping it by as a means to feel better about ourselves in arguments.
I used to be a member of a livejournal community dedicated to posting amusing things from DA. It was fun for a while, but among my many reasons for leaving was it's increasing use to mock the artwork of children and beginners. And if they didn't like that behaviour, they needed to grow up. That made me a little sick.
The final straw, incidentally, was when I called someone out on baiting another person in an argument, and was told that I was as bad as a rapist for not agreeing with their every word.
Revolting.
More specifically, I have a problem with the idea that people on the internet are not real. That they just need to "man up" when deeply personal and offensive insults are dealt to them, as if there are no feelings to hurt at the other end of the wire. Something cruel typed is no more justifiable than when spoken to a person's face.
Saying something is true does not make it so. In this case, bullies saying that what they say on the internet is not to be taken seriously is wishful thinking on their part. You don't get to tell people how they should or should not feel about what you say to and about them. The fact that you want to be able to behave like a dick without consequence doesn't mean you can, and it certainly is not justification.
The one that ticked me off today was a forum topic started by a kid (about 14-16, I think?) about types of art school. He and his dream were ripped to shreds by supposedly professional artists under the guise of good advice. This happens a fair bit, as if we need to keep the arts private and discourage kids from coming into OUR feild. But the icing on the cake was a topic started about this kid, to whine about his responses. Sure they were childish, but erm... he's a child? He had no reason to know anything yet about working in the arts, and the people with the means to educate and inspire him chose not to.
We are already driving so many young people away from the arts through poor representation and funding, so why be so active in discouraging those who actually show an interest? If they are foolish, they need educating. And those of us with the privilege of education need to step up and share it rather than keeping it by as a means to feel better about ourselves in arguments.
I used to be a member of a livejournal community dedicated to posting amusing things from DA. It was fun for a while, but among my many reasons for leaving was it's increasing use to mock the artwork of children and beginners. And if they didn't like that behaviour, they needed to grow up. That made me a little sick.
The final straw, incidentally, was when I called someone out on baiting another person in an argument, and was told that I was as bad as a rapist for not agreeing with their every word.
Revolting.
08 May 2010
On autobiography
I'm having trouble with a comic idea I've been planning. For a long time the general consensus seems to be that for most people (that is people who aren't famous) writing directly about yourself, or something based on yourself is arrogant and poor writing. Don't make Mary-Sues, don't make self-inserts, don't base characters on real friends because you'll offend them... So on and so forth.
I do realise that it's vain and self-indulgent, but I feel like it's something I need to work on for my personal development. The question I suppose, is whether it's possible to turn that into a story that other people will gain something from as well. Will they really ever be interested in the world from my point of view?
Probably not, is the answer I keep coming up with. So devoting time to this is a waste.
Basically it's a slightly surreal slice-of life following a person through the end of high school into university, focusing on events which contribute to her coming to terms with herself. And it's pretty much all lifted straight from my own life. That'll probably make me sound extra arrogant to people who know how low-experience my life is! I must think I'm really important, right? Hopefully the nature of the two main characters' relationship will bring something new to it, but I don't want to give too much away...
I'll probably end up changing the characters and places to depart it all from myself, and never feel quite satisfied as a result. Should I pay attention to my instincts about good storytelling, or should I run with the idea and never look back?
I do realise that it's vain and self-indulgent, but I feel like it's something I need to work on for my personal development. The question I suppose, is whether it's possible to turn that into a story that other people will gain something from as well. Will they really ever be interested in the world from my point of view?
Probably not, is the answer I keep coming up with. So devoting time to this is a waste.
Basically it's a slightly surreal slice-of life following a person through the end of high school into university, focusing on events which contribute to her coming to terms with herself. And it's pretty much all lifted straight from my own life. That'll probably make me sound extra arrogant to people who know how low-experience my life is! I must think I'm really important, right? Hopefully the nature of the two main characters' relationship will bring something new to it, but I don't want to give too much away...
I'll probably end up changing the characters and places to depart it all from myself, and never feel quite satisfied as a result. Should I pay attention to my instincts about good storytelling, or should I run with the idea and never look back?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
