As someone whose political views are... questionably defined, I spend a lot of time trying to define them. :P Many people mix the terms "Republican," "Democrat," "Leftist," "Rightist," "Conservative," and "Liberal", and it's amazing how many people have no idea what the original definitions are. I will attempt to post their definitions (from actual dictionaries, lol) here, and let you define yourself, or others, accordingly.
The first thing you should realize is that modern Republicans and Democrats actually have little in common with their predecessors. These definitions are very, very, very simplified. That being said,
A "Republic" is, "A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them." (American Heritage Dictionary), and therefore a Republican's basic belief is that we should elect representatives to make decisions for us.
A "Democracy" is, "The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. Majority rule." (American Heritage Dictionary), and therefore a Democrat's basic belief is that the people should be as directly involved with government as possible, and that the majority should rule.
(Personally I find Republics to be corrupt in that elected representatives very rarely represent the actual interests of the people, and Democracies to be nothing but mob rule. So I am neither a Republican nor Democrat.)
Next are the terms "Conservative" and "Liberal" which are used far too often to portray concepts they don't represent.
"Conservative" is, "reluctant to accept change: in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change." (Encarta)
"Liberal" is, "broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others. progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual"
(According to this definition, I am a Liberal, as I am very pro-change and pro-liberty. However I will only go so far in identifying with the "extending democracy" and "distributing wealth more evenly".)
Next are the terms "Leftist" and "Rightist".
The political Left is, roughly, "advocating political and social change: supporting liberal, socialist, or communist political and social changes or reform." (Encarta)
The political Right is, roughly, "a conservative or reactionary position, esp. one varying from moderate capitalism to fascism, or a party or group advocating this: often with the: from the position of the seats occupied in some European legislatures." (Webster)
(This seems to be more Socialism/Capitalism... in which I do not identify with either.)
So basically, all I can tell you is that I'm a political Liberal, and that only goes so far. :P The problem with these definitions is they represent mainstream extremes, and I am neither mainstream nor extreme. Oh well, that's the beauty of labels. :P
What about you?
(P.S. I used onelook.com to find dictionaries. The reason I didn't reference the same dictionary is that some have frustratingly ambiguous definitions, proving also that our dictionaries cannot always be relied upon.) Augh!
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Battle Scars
When I was younger, I had a lot of self-image issues. As I made my way into adulthood, I began to slowly let those issues go and gained some semblance of acceptance of myself and the way I look and behave.
Through pregnancy, a lot of those old issues came back to haunt me. I was no longer able to maintain my athleticism, no longer a fit and youthful-looking woman, no longer "sexy," but most importantly, not able to do things I had formerly taken for granted, such as walking uphill without having to constantly stop for breath. Things like not being able to walk fast or, later, not being able to walk faster than a turtle! Things like not being able to lift heavy objects or exercise vigorously. I had to watch in dismay as by body not only began to change temporarily, but also change permanently!
After the baby, I've had to deal with these permanent changes. I've resented my body for growing wider- my ribcage had to expand, my stomach still carries a "pouch," my boobs have started to sag a little, and my hips have changed shape. Even worse, I've gained some rude little stretch marks on my belly and thighs!
Slowly, though, ever so slowly, I've come to not only accept my stretch marks and wider hips, but actually enjoy them! I think I'm probably the only person who actually LIKES my battle-scars, but I really think they don't look bad sitting there on my tummy. In fact I take a certain amount of pride in them. After all, I had to go through a lot to get them! My newfound hips are even kinda neat. Yes I look like a MOM, but after all I'm SUPPOSED to. Even though those ads for slim stretch-mark-free tummies would have me believe I need to gain "perfection" in order to be attractive, I don't believe them. I take pride in the fact that I see beauty in uniqueness, not in sameness.
Slowly, but surely, I've been letting go of my need to be "perfect" and gaining pride and confidence in my "imperfect" self. What concepts do you need to let go of in order to be happy with yourself as a person?
Through pregnancy, a lot of those old issues came back to haunt me. I was no longer able to maintain my athleticism, no longer a fit and youthful-looking woman, no longer "sexy," but most importantly, not able to do things I had formerly taken for granted, such as walking uphill without having to constantly stop for breath. Things like not being able to walk fast or, later, not being able to walk faster than a turtle! Things like not being able to lift heavy objects or exercise vigorously. I had to watch in dismay as by body not only began to change temporarily, but also change permanently!
After the baby, I've had to deal with these permanent changes. I've resented my body for growing wider- my ribcage had to expand, my stomach still carries a "pouch," my boobs have started to sag a little, and my hips have changed shape. Even worse, I've gained some rude little stretch marks on my belly and thighs!
Slowly, though, ever so slowly, I've come to not only accept my stretch marks and wider hips, but actually enjoy them! I think I'm probably the only person who actually LIKES my battle-scars, but I really think they don't look bad sitting there on my tummy. In fact I take a certain amount of pride in them. After all, I had to go through a lot to get them! My newfound hips are even kinda neat. Yes I look like a MOM, but after all I'm SUPPOSED to. Even though those ads for slim stretch-mark-free tummies would have me believe I need to gain "perfection" in order to be attractive, I don't believe them. I take pride in the fact that I see beauty in uniqueness, not in sameness.
Slowly, but surely, I've been letting go of my need to be "perfect" and gaining pride and confidence in my "imperfect" self. What concepts do you need to let go of in order to be happy with yourself as a person?
Monday, November 2, 2009
The Hard Truth About Nature
Quite a few times I wonder why I choose to live on a farm. Quite often I am upset by, and stress over, the health of our livestock and pets. I've given names to far too many kitty cats who have met their demise when they were still kittens. I've even personally run over 2 of them, 1 of which used to be a favorite house cat. Just recently I've watched 2 favorite goat does waste away to practically nothing, wondering every day if today will be the day I go out to do chores and find them dead. Last year, I raised a buckling from a bottle, taught him to browse grass, let him hide behind me when the dog frightened him, and cuddled with him in the barn when all the other goats picked on him. 2 weeks ago he started dragging his leg, in a week both his legs were paralyzed, a few days ago he was on death's door, and I have to face the reality that he may not live, and, if he does, he may never walk again. For our wedding, I watched my husband slit the throat of a goat that never did anyone any harm, so that we could have fresh meat for our wedding. A month earlier, we butchered 2 roosters whose only crime was being male.
The reason I live on a farm is this. Before the goat died, he lived 5 or 6 years of "the good life," with plenty of pasture, hay, fresh water, space to roam, and a predictable herd. The roosters similarly had plenty of food, water, space to run, and protection from predators. The grass is chemical-free, the animals feel safe and are allowed to thrive, and death is as quick and painless as possible.
Death is all around me. But so is life. The sad truth of this world is, if you eat, you kill. Every person is responsible for the deaths of thousands of animals. If the meat was killed for you, the blood is on your hands. Even vegans are not without blame, because crops are living beings as well, and every field once was home to animals who have been permanently displaced, if not incidentally killed by the tractors, lack of cover, or pesticides used to cultivate crops. At least, as a farmer, I am also responsible for the quality of life my animals possess. Our meat was worn proudly by animals who had a good life. Even the "scrap" parts of the animal, like the skin, bones, fat, innards, are food for our dog, cats, and the ravens and other scavengers who happen to come by. Nothing is wasted, and, like the Native Americans of old, we hold gratitude for the animals who give their lives to feed us.
I've worked in a commercial dairy farm. The whole place seems haunted. The cows are pushed to their limit and half the calves die before reaching 2 weeks old. They live a bleak and confused life. I feel very bad for those cows, because they are worked so hard and die before their time. The mothers cry for the calves that are separated at birth, and untamed heifers run in terror from people, not knowing what's going on and why they are being chased into small, confining pens crowded with other cows.
Thankfully, our goats happily run to the barn when they see me coming with a bucket of grain, tolerant of my milking them while they happily munch on their treat. Weaning is still hard. Killing is still hard. It's still hard when animals die for seemingly no reason. But that's nature. Death happens as suddenly and poignantly as life begins. Sometimes animals suffer at the hands of the elements or each other. Sometimes confusion is inevitable, sometimes suffering is. No doubt the rats are not happy with arrangement, since they inadvertently drown in the animal's water, or their young are eaten by the chickens, or they are killed by the cats. The dog happily drags around the carcasses of some of our animals who didn't make it. Bones are strewn across the pathway to the barn. I cannot escape the reality of death, nor would I want to. I care for the animals here, I don't enjoy their death, but I do enjoy knowing that I am giving them a chance at a good life.
The reason I live on a farm is this. Before the goat died, he lived 5 or 6 years of "the good life," with plenty of pasture, hay, fresh water, space to roam, and a predictable herd. The roosters similarly had plenty of food, water, space to run, and protection from predators. The grass is chemical-free, the animals feel safe and are allowed to thrive, and death is as quick and painless as possible.
Death is all around me. But so is life. The sad truth of this world is, if you eat, you kill. Every person is responsible for the deaths of thousands of animals. If the meat was killed for you, the blood is on your hands. Even vegans are not without blame, because crops are living beings as well, and every field once was home to animals who have been permanently displaced, if not incidentally killed by the tractors, lack of cover, or pesticides used to cultivate crops. At least, as a farmer, I am also responsible for the quality of life my animals possess. Our meat was worn proudly by animals who had a good life. Even the "scrap" parts of the animal, like the skin, bones, fat, innards, are food for our dog, cats, and the ravens and other scavengers who happen to come by. Nothing is wasted, and, like the Native Americans of old, we hold gratitude for the animals who give their lives to feed us.
I've worked in a commercial dairy farm. The whole place seems haunted. The cows are pushed to their limit and half the calves die before reaching 2 weeks old. They live a bleak and confused life. I feel very bad for those cows, because they are worked so hard and die before their time. The mothers cry for the calves that are separated at birth, and untamed heifers run in terror from people, not knowing what's going on and why they are being chased into small, confining pens crowded with other cows.
Thankfully, our goats happily run to the barn when they see me coming with a bucket of grain, tolerant of my milking them while they happily munch on their treat. Weaning is still hard. Killing is still hard. It's still hard when animals die for seemingly no reason. But that's nature. Death happens as suddenly and poignantly as life begins. Sometimes animals suffer at the hands of the elements or each other. Sometimes confusion is inevitable, sometimes suffering is. No doubt the rats are not happy with arrangement, since they inadvertently drown in the animal's water, or their young are eaten by the chickens, or they are killed by the cats. The dog happily drags around the carcasses of some of our animals who didn't make it. Bones are strewn across the pathway to the barn. I cannot escape the reality of death, nor would I want to. I care for the animals here, I don't enjoy their death, but I do enjoy knowing that I am giving them a chance at a good life.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Fireflies
why strangle little fireflies
that mourn with gladness in the night
why tear apart the moon that cries
for every little broken lie?
why sit beneath the strongest stone
while little children die alone
and faces of those once known
tear from the earth a broken bone?
can we? will we? will we? will we die?
i see the dance that's waved away
with dainty hands and wicked smiles
the blood that you refuse to touch
covers your feet
covers your lies
will we? shall we? shall we? shall we die?
why smile as flowers fade to ash
and words cut deep with every lash?
the walls we made of human flesh
are falling as the people laugh
i see the dance you wave away
with dainty hands and wicked smiles
the blood that you refuse to touch
covers your feet...
why dig a hole so cold and wet
with silvery threads the trap is set
why tangle feet in slimy nets?
we can't be that far gone yet...
can we? are we?
i see the dance that's waved away
while all the gods refuse to pray
hands folded over shallow graves
we live today, we die today
will we? will we die?
why strangle little fireflies?
the blood that you refuse to touch
covers up your lies
that mourn with gladness in the night
why tear apart the moon that cries
for every little broken lie?
why sit beneath the strongest stone
while little children die alone
and faces of those once known
tear from the earth a broken bone?
can we? will we? will we? will we die?
i see the dance that's waved away
with dainty hands and wicked smiles
the blood that you refuse to touch
covers your feet
covers your lies
will we? shall we? shall we? shall we die?
why smile as flowers fade to ash
and words cut deep with every lash?
the walls we made of human flesh
are falling as the people laugh
i see the dance you wave away
with dainty hands and wicked smiles
the blood that you refuse to touch
covers your feet...
why dig a hole so cold and wet
with silvery threads the trap is set
why tangle feet in slimy nets?
we can't be that far gone yet...
can we? are we?
i see the dance that's waved away
while all the gods refuse to pray
hands folded over shallow graves
we live today, we die today
will we? will we die?
why strangle little fireflies?
the blood that you refuse to touch
covers up your lies
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
My Bare Naked Boobies
Why must us ladies cover our boobies?? This is something I've been wondering for a long time, because it seems like a great social injustice to me. Why are guys allowed to wander around topless while we have to cover up? It doesn't make any sense. My breasts serve a greater purpose than guy's. My breasts nourish my little baby. They have a function besides sex. Guy's boobies? They have no function other than sex! So why should we be the ones to cover up, especially when it's damned annoying trying to breastfeed when I'm not at least partially exposed.
Besides, many people breastfeed 2 year olds. If you can let a 2 year old see exposed boobies (and *gasp* suck on them!) why are they considered merely sexual for the rest of the population?
I think the idea stems from old chauvinistic tradition which states that guys can't control their sexual urges, so it's a woman's responsibility to "not tempt them" by concealing their god-given bodies. This idea is absurd, and denigrates not just women but men too. It implies that men have no self control, that they are unable to make the conscious choice NOT to rape women. And therefore women have the responsibility to control men's urges, because men themselves are unable to.
Um, sorry, this argument doesn't hold up in the face of logic. (Um, does it hold up at all??) A very small percentage of men would see a woman's naked body and rape her, but not because they *can't* control their body, but because they *won't*. Now some people would say, so what? If this saves a few women from getting raped, it's well worth it. But the men who would rape a woman after seeing her naked breasts would probably rape her anyway. If he doesn't see her breasts, then he will see her legs, or her neck, or her face, etc... and either way be turned on. If he can't handle being turned on, there really isn't anything anyone can do. Besides, a small percentage of people also get turned on by bare feet, or a pretty face, or fecal matter, or goats, or balloon animals, and the list goes on and on. (Not only that, but many men are also turned on by guy's nipples!) If we had to try and stamp out all sexual urges, we'd be so restricted that we couldn't breathe, and we would still fail in our purpose.
Not only that, but we *don't* try and stamp out men's sexual urges by covering our breasts! In fact we, as a society, often use it to tantalize them! Swimsuits are allowed if they cover up the nipples. The rest of the breasts can be bare. What? Since when are the nipples the "sexy" part of the breast? And if they are, then guys have them too! If we ban the sight of all nipples, we should at least be fair and ban them all. (Although I think that would also be rediculous.)
OK, enough ranting. I have to go expose my bare naked boobies to my 2 1/2 month old son, so that he can suck on them. (rolls eyes) How scandalous!
(This post is a suggestion by The Rambling Taoist to post something with a suggestive title and then not deliver, or deliver something else besides sex. Tee hee. Hence, this post.)
Besides, many people breastfeed 2 year olds. If you can let a 2 year old see exposed boobies (and *gasp* suck on them!) why are they considered merely sexual for the rest of the population?
I think the idea stems from old chauvinistic tradition which states that guys can't control their sexual urges, so it's a woman's responsibility to "not tempt them" by concealing their god-given bodies. This idea is absurd, and denigrates not just women but men too. It implies that men have no self control, that they are unable to make the conscious choice NOT to rape women. And therefore women have the responsibility to control men's urges, because men themselves are unable to.
Um, sorry, this argument doesn't hold up in the face of logic. (Um, does it hold up at all??) A very small percentage of men would see a woman's naked body and rape her, but not because they *can't* control their body, but because they *won't*. Now some people would say, so what? If this saves a few women from getting raped, it's well worth it. But the men who would rape a woman after seeing her naked breasts would probably rape her anyway. If he doesn't see her breasts, then he will see her legs, or her neck, or her face, etc... and either way be turned on. If he can't handle being turned on, there really isn't anything anyone can do. Besides, a small percentage of people also get turned on by bare feet, or a pretty face, or fecal matter, or goats, or balloon animals, and the list goes on and on. (Not only that, but many men are also turned on by guy's nipples!) If we had to try and stamp out all sexual urges, we'd be so restricted that we couldn't breathe, and we would still fail in our purpose.
Not only that, but we *don't* try and stamp out men's sexual urges by covering our breasts! In fact we, as a society, often use it to tantalize them! Swimsuits are allowed if they cover up the nipples. The rest of the breasts can be bare. What? Since when are the nipples the "sexy" part of the breast? And if they are, then guys have them too! If we ban the sight of all nipples, we should at least be fair and ban them all. (Although I think that would also be rediculous.)
OK, enough ranting. I have to go expose my bare naked boobies to my 2 1/2 month old son, so that he can suck on them. (rolls eyes) How scandalous!
(This post is a suggestion by The Rambling Taoist to post something with a suggestive title and then not deliver, or deliver something else besides sex. Tee hee. Hence, this post.)
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Consciousness and Honesty
I have never met a truly honest person, a person who never, ever lies.
But then my definition of honesty is quite hard to attain.
I think it's important in life not only to refrain from lies told to other people, but also to refrain from lies told to yourself, or self deception.
Most people lie to themselves. They lie to themselves to make themselves feel better, to justify an action, to keep themselves from thinking something unpleasant, etc... and it's not always easy to tell if one is lying to oneself. It's fairly easy to know when you lie to another human. Occasionally a lie will just slip out of my mouth without my prior knowledge or consent and puzzle me greatly. Why did I tell that lie? What am I avoiding? Why can't I face the truth?
In the background of every lie there is cowardice and shame. If you are a truly brave person then the truth should not bother you, and therefore lies are never told. Lies are a cover up for some other problem in your life that you can't stand to face. The first step towards an honest life is to avoid telling lies to other people.
However, this goes hand in hand with desiring honesty within as well as without, and it's much harder to avoid lying to yourself then it is to avoid lying to another person! I don't believe that humans are fully conscious beings. We are conscious of some things, yes, but there are many, many things that remain locked in our unconscious state, that we are neither aware of nor able to control. Self deception is, for the most part, beyond our awareness, but it doesn't need to be. Some people speak and ask themselves, "is what I'm speaking true?" but few people think and ask themselves, "is what I'm thinking true?"
Most people take for granted the truthfulness of their thoughts, and yet humanity is full of rationalizations that are built as a mere convenience to the person, not based on truth at all but on desire. When we question the motives of our beliefs, it is called existentialism. I wish everyone would have an existential crisis, really look over everything they believe and ask themselves "why do I believe this? do i believe this merely to reassure myself? am i just taking the easy road in accepting this as true?" Many people's minds are due for a major housecleaning. This doesn't just apply to major beliefs but to minor ones as well. When your husband/wife/parents/children/friends ask you "why didn't you take care of this problem?" be honest with yourself and with them. Admit your difficulties, so that they can get resolved.
But then my definition of honesty is quite hard to attain.
I think it's important in life not only to refrain from lies told to other people, but also to refrain from lies told to yourself, or self deception.
Most people lie to themselves. They lie to themselves to make themselves feel better, to justify an action, to keep themselves from thinking something unpleasant, etc... and it's not always easy to tell if one is lying to oneself. It's fairly easy to know when you lie to another human. Occasionally a lie will just slip out of my mouth without my prior knowledge or consent and puzzle me greatly. Why did I tell that lie? What am I avoiding? Why can't I face the truth?
In the background of every lie there is cowardice and shame. If you are a truly brave person then the truth should not bother you, and therefore lies are never told. Lies are a cover up for some other problem in your life that you can't stand to face. The first step towards an honest life is to avoid telling lies to other people.
However, this goes hand in hand with desiring honesty within as well as without, and it's much harder to avoid lying to yourself then it is to avoid lying to another person! I don't believe that humans are fully conscious beings. We are conscious of some things, yes, but there are many, many things that remain locked in our unconscious state, that we are neither aware of nor able to control. Self deception is, for the most part, beyond our awareness, but it doesn't need to be. Some people speak and ask themselves, "is what I'm speaking true?" but few people think and ask themselves, "is what I'm thinking true?"
Most people take for granted the truthfulness of their thoughts, and yet humanity is full of rationalizations that are built as a mere convenience to the person, not based on truth at all but on desire. When we question the motives of our beliefs, it is called existentialism. I wish everyone would have an existential crisis, really look over everything they believe and ask themselves "why do I believe this? do i believe this merely to reassure myself? am i just taking the easy road in accepting this as true?" Many people's minds are due for a major housecleaning. This doesn't just apply to major beliefs but to minor ones as well. When your husband/wife/parents/children/friends ask you "why didn't you take care of this problem?" be honest with yourself and with them. Admit your difficulties, so that they can get resolved.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Tolkien On Fairy Stories
I have just finished J.R.R. Tolkien's essay "On Fairy Stories" which, amazingly, I have never read until now. :P (aaah! There are so many pieces of literature which I have never read! I need to get going...) Anyway, in that essay he criticizes a great many things, one of which is educated criticism of fairy tales. I agree with most of what he has to say, and I'm relieved that I'm not the only one who is extremely fascinated with literature and yet who finds it tedious to employ common literary "dissections" which are often employed by English professors.
Yes, I find it worthwhile to focus on a limited section and try to figure out what the author is trying to say, what hidden meanings are there, what common themes, etc... however, most literary criticism goes much further than needed, in attempt to strip the whole book down to its skeleton. (I find their skeletons, especially fiction, to be completely beside the point of the whole book.) Besides, most critics cannot dissect the work without a great deal of arrogance in surmising what the author's intentions are... perhaps the author didn't intend the color red to symbolize blood, or use a circling bird to forshadow doom... you never really know, and it's foolish to think that every writer had "literary studies" in mind when s/he wrote the book in the first place. Most "fairy stories" are like many paintings in that you get a clearer picture when viewed from a distance... observing the different brush strokes and hues of brown aren't going to tell you much about the actual painting and what it's trying to evoke.
Besides, it's the flesh of the story that I'm really interested in, the pieces that make it unique, not the pieces that are easily labeled. I thouroughly dislike "stock" characters... I feel it's a cop-out for those who don't want to put in the work of creating an actually interesting character. I dislike them when they're written that way (probably why I get bored of Commedia Del'Arte), and I dislike them even more when someone has dissected a perfectly complex character and turned him or her into a boring stick figure. :P
But then, I'm also a creature of Chaos- I dislike trying to sift out patterns and labels where they are not beneficial to my interest in the book. I enjoy Tolkien's work, and I applaud him for creating a world where war is explored (without the whole piece being a political allegory) and with meaningful philosophical and religious thought (without the whole piece being overly symbolic or religious).
That said, there are some things in his essay I disagree with, such as his assertion that fairy-stories should not be dramatized in plays (I think a play can successfully represent fantasy, IF it is done right) and other minor quibbles which I won't list. I don't worship the guy, but he does write some awe inspiring stuff. :)
Yes, I find it worthwhile to focus on a limited section and try to figure out what the author is trying to say, what hidden meanings are there, what common themes, etc... however, most literary criticism goes much further than needed, in attempt to strip the whole book down to its skeleton. (I find their skeletons, especially fiction, to be completely beside the point of the whole book.) Besides, most critics cannot dissect the work without a great deal of arrogance in surmising what the author's intentions are... perhaps the author didn't intend the color red to symbolize blood, or use a circling bird to forshadow doom... you never really know, and it's foolish to think that every writer had "literary studies" in mind when s/he wrote the book in the first place. Most "fairy stories" are like many paintings in that you get a clearer picture when viewed from a distance... observing the different brush strokes and hues of brown aren't going to tell you much about the actual painting and what it's trying to evoke.
Besides, it's the flesh of the story that I'm really interested in, the pieces that make it unique, not the pieces that are easily labeled. I thouroughly dislike "stock" characters... I feel it's a cop-out for those who don't want to put in the work of creating an actually interesting character. I dislike them when they're written that way (probably why I get bored of Commedia Del'Arte), and I dislike them even more when someone has dissected a perfectly complex character and turned him or her into a boring stick figure. :P
But then, I'm also a creature of Chaos- I dislike trying to sift out patterns and labels where they are not beneficial to my interest in the book. I enjoy Tolkien's work, and I applaud him for creating a world where war is explored (without the whole piece being a political allegory) and with meaningful philosophical and religious thought (without the whole piece being overly symbolic or religious).
That said, there are some things in his essay I disagree with, such as his assertion that fairy-stories should not be dramatized in plays (I think a play can successfully represent fantasy, IF it is done right) and other minor quibbles which I won't list. I don't worship the guy, but he does write some awe inspiring stuff. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
