Search results

The point conveyed.

I've said it before, and recently: People not being able to tell the difference between hero and antihero among protagonists is a problem, and not one restricted to analysis of fiction.

Not even this site: The problem with using that particular hero as an authority is that they often seem not to understand their own thinking.

It's been just over a year since I read Jemisin's The City We Became and The World We Make, and just under a year since I read Harrow's The Ten Thousand Doors of January, but I'm mostly just poking around in the local public libraries. I read Bester's The Demolished Man about the same time, and...

That would explain ... a lot.

There's a magazine called Taste of Home that might come pretty close to this. They are (or were last I looked inside any issues) very focused on people who do not have unlimited time or money to get food on the table. They also print cookbooks and/or "special issues."

Well, Papa is probably too drunk to bother, but yeah.

My wife sets reading goals on both a monthly and an annual basis, her goals focus around both content and quantity. Me, I just grab stuff that looks interesting, and I read in the evening when I'm not otherwise occupied.

I try not to post gibberish. Really, I do. Sometimes, though, I look back on something I've posted and realize my brain was generating words my fingers weren't typing. Or something.

Fair. And your OP is a reasonable reaction to someone who keeps getting into fights (online or plausibly otherwise), the problem indeed is probably them.

I was responding to something that seemed to be talking as much about IRL as online, and I was kinda hinting at the really out-there idea that we shouldn't blame victims for being victims.

I don't disagree, but it's probably worth considering that far too many people are stuck in some cycle or other, and victimization is at least sometimes a cycle.

I think there's some amount of expressing frustration with specific posters--but, as you say, without mentioning them, or even (ideally) being clear whom you're referencing.

Not here: You're making a distinction that I don't think is quite so distinctive as you seem to think, but I'm not in a mood to argue with you today. So I guess I'll allow you to continue to be both wrong and unchallenged.

It it's your browser being weird, it's mine being weird, too.

It's Scalzi at his Scalziest. I wouldn't say there's no depth there, but there's not much. I enjoyed it plenty, but I have known susceptibility to at least some kinds of authorial voice. :LOL:

I might go as far as "I've never seen that," but it's aiming at similar points, I think--though I do prefer to deploy that when what I've never seen is a thing someone says is inevitable.

Nothing like seeing people responding to one of your posts, and realizing it's not far from gibberish. Oops and oh comma well.

Seems to me as though good "monsters" can exist for approximately the same reasons as good NPCs.

Nah. I never bought Mean Mark as anything supernatural ... :LOL: