Roz Kaveney (rozk) wrote,
Roz Kaveney
rozk

Another bunch of stuff

My view on Kerfuffle Part Two is that it is too early to be sure what LJ actually mean by what they have said. I strongly suspect that they will back down from talking about 18 to talking about 16; I also suspect that they will apply a fairly generous interpretation of what 'graphic' means. I think it is far too early for a mass exodus though I will try to stay in touch with those of my friends who leave and will listen to their arguments.

What is clearly the case though is that LJ really need to work at customer relations. If they mean 16 and are saying 18 as a bargaining position, they have not got the sense they were born with; if they really mean 18, they are getting less than stellar legal advice. It is true that any case against them would be heard in California where the age of consent is 18; it is also true that if the California courts enforced 18 as a cutoff point for depiction of sexual activity, every movie and television company would be being constantly harrassed in court there.

People like anonymous_sibyl who say LJ's site, LJ rules are quite right; however, those of us who pay them money - perhaps especially those of us who bought paid accounts after their last return to sanity - have a right to ask that they behave with equity towards their customers.

And that is enough of that.

*******

Having originally talked about biking copies of the damn book out to reviewers this evening, Bloomsbury decided to economize and stick them in the post. So I find myself with an unexpected free evening which will be spent at the movies.

Last night, I watched Hard Candy which impressed me and freaked me the frakk out in perhaps equal measure.It is about a teen vigilante who entraps and tortures a paedophile - at one point she fakes his castration before persuading him to hang himself. By the end of the film we realize that she has done this at least once before. It is fabulously gripping - the only real weakness is that they compromised its two-hander drive in order to put in a tiny role for Sandra Oh as a nosy neighbour - and yet more than a little sinister in what it is saying. It is a vehemently pro-death penalty film and endorses vigilantism - our heroine is ahead of the game at almost every turn and is smarter than a smart thing. It is brilliant and the sort of film which might, in the wrong local circumstances, help provoke a lynching. What do people who have seen it think?

*******

Not only Facebook but Myspace - I've finally discovered why so many of the musicians and transfolk I know weren't on LJ. So look for me as Roz Kaveney on either or both.

*******

I am going to be smugger than a smug thing about the endoresements I've started to get for
Superheroes
. Marina Warner has said "Roz Kaveney's knowledge is awesome, her analysis passionate: this is awork of eloquent advocacy, urging readers to pay more attention to a crucial arena where ideas about men, women, virtue, and power are discussed - and formed. Like a modern Gulliver, she brings back news of other worlds, of marvellous utopias and dystopias, in order to throw light on the one we live in - or think we live in."
and Geoff Ryman says"" Combines a command of literary theory with a hands-on grasp of how pop fiction gets built by producers and used by readers. Indispensable.". All I need now is Jonathan Ross.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 6 comments