[ BUY MY BOOKS! Witch-Girl Season One | The Bridge Across the Sky (Amazon) (Kobo) (Goodreads) ][ Stories: Witch-Girl (Read from the bottom of the list), The Canon ] [ Poetry: All Poetry; ( ♥ ) ( ⚔ ) ]
[ Stalk me on Facebook, Twitter, DeviantArt and Kiva. ]
[ red_a02 ] Shuzhen – The first episode was a lot of fun, cos it had an interesting cocktail of sexual tension and smooth fight choreography. This episode is like the awkward aftermath...
27 Aquarius 13 18:13
[ vermilion_2 ] YAPX – I understand that most of your stories are dialogue-based and heavy on retorts and counter-retorts. This one felt unnecessarily circular. It starts with a cool premise: a killer/villain/vigilante uses Lent to swear off something that should be second nature to him (I suppose), and then talks about a story. The link between the two (giving up killing & the story) isn’t a 100% fit. Maybe instead of “let me tell you a story”, it could be “hey, you see I even passed a guy up for death today!” or equivalent. Something to drag Lorelei into the banter and the premise. // That’s my only complaint. I’m not a big fan of dialogue-based stories, but I can make a exception for this.
14 Aquarius 13 08:03
[ 130204 ] YAPX – Good pace, good characters, great dialogue. The thing I like best is a combination of the three: how you build up their pseudo-relationship through all that back-and-forth exchange. Somehow, you craft a unique, strange relationship: from any one point in the story, both of them are manipulative, victimised and hypocrites - though not all at once. // On word choices, I felt you could change the word “janitor” (“cleaner” or “uncle” would’ve given a different, but more acute local flavour to it). Mostly because, it’s connotes an added level of difference through: class. Whether or not you intended it, by portraying the “janitor” and “student” you bring out the fact that he’s stuck there socially in all sense of the word. It made the part where he says he reads books during weekends completely out-of-context and weird. // Also, there’s too much “sliding” in and out of the room. Not sure if that’s intentional repetition, or just a lack of other words. // I thought that the girl’s own background is pretty compelling. Even after everything, I can’t tell if she’s speaking the truth. Because I’m all for unreliable narrators and characters, I can still find her well-thought out. But other readers might lose patience or wonder at her sudden change of heart at the final moment.
04 Aquarius 13 08:48
…more…
|
 |
Living in Sin – Elite vs Elitism ♠ 21 Sco♏pio 2k8, Frigg’s Day ♣ |  |
Sarah Palin, as I’ve stated, offends me. She offends me because she’s a “normal” American and she was running for office (is still running, come to that).
Dr Teo Ho Pin offends me. He offends me because he’s not a “normal” Singaporean and he holds an office – or, rather, what is offensive is the way his office is held, with nose firmly in the air.
The Republic works on the simple concept that we choose people to speak for us. We place, in them, our trust. They hold our interests. They are our voices.
We choose them to be leaders.
Sarah Palin gives the idea that anyone can be Vice-President. Some find that appealing. I find it appalling.
Office-holders have a duty to discharge. They have a job to do. The idea that anyone can be VP is the idea that anyone can be a surgeon, or can pilot a plane. I wouldn’t want a world with her as VP any more than I’d want to be in a plane piloted by Joe the Plumber.
A political office does, in fact, require someone who is elite. Someone who gives speeches in proper English. Someone who has intelligence, moral certitude, patriotism, gravitas. It is scary when intelligence is the first criterion people are willing to give up in choosing their leaders.
But there is a vast difference in being elite and being elitist.
Elitism, like racism, feminism and gayism, is simply showing off your superiority (even if you’re only superior by your own standards).
One can be elite without being elitist. One can be elitist without being elite.
The first is a leader. The second is an asshole.
The Speak Good English Movement is elitist.
Let’s add another diatribe. Be patient, if you find this trying, I’m almost done.
The Speak Good English Movement, because –
Good English is properly called “Proper English”, “Correct English”, “Grammatical English” or “Syntactically-Accurate English”. “Good” has moral implications, and, in the interest of clarity, should not be used in this context.
A “movement” is when a lot of people strive, together, towards a common objective. Movements are organic, decentralised (though they tend to revolve around iconic, charismatic leaders) and never, ever, a government initiative. An example is the Feminist Movement, or the Civil Rights Movement (you see the theme of “rights”?). The Cultural Revolution is not a Movement (or a Revolution). Neither is the Speak Good English “Movement”.
Also, “speak in”, as opposed to, simply, “speak”, would better convey the sense that one is imploring the listener. “Speak English” conveys a sense that there is only a single, isolated subject, while “Speak in English” gives the impression of a community of English speakers, which one can be “in”. Nuanced, I agree, but English is very much about nuance.
Thus, The Speak Good English Movement should correctly be called the “Speak” “Good English” “Movement”.
I am appalled at the level of English employed by our government. But – in times when cleaners no longer give sound financial advice – that might, sadly, be expected.
Or, perhaps, the name of the movement is meant as an example of advanced English usage. I can’t figure out if it’s a paradox (a statement that contradicts itself), an oxymoron (wherein contradictory terms are juxtaposed), an example of irony (wherein the meaning the statement is intended to convey is contrary to the literal meaning of the words used) or just plain fucking stupid (wherein the statement makes no sense whatsoever).
However, I am thankful that, at least, they didn’t misuse the word “English”.
| « A Letter to the Speak Good English Movement « |  | » Liberal Bias » |
shop@noctalis
| ||||
|
| ||||
Labour is blossoming or dancing where
The body is not bruised to pleasure soul.
Nor beauty born out of its own despair,
Nor blear-eyed wisdom out of midnight oil.
O chestnut-tree, great-rooted blossomer,
Are you the leaf, the blossom or the bole?
O body swayed to music, O brightening glance,
How can we know the dancer from the dance?
