Home » Discussion Forums » Blog Post Discussion » Grand Matriarch
| Grand Matriarch [message #26990] |
Thu, 04 March 2010 19:09  |
|
Grand Matriarch
Smooshes!
|
|
| | |
| Re: Grand Matriarch [message #26996 is a reply to message #26990 ] |
Thu, 04 March 2010 19:41  |
|
Goodness. More and more impressive every day. Soon you'll have so many titles we won't be sure how to address you anymore!
Smooshes!
|
|
| |
| Re: Grand Matriarch [message #27001 is a reply to message #26990 ] |
Thu, 04 March 2010 23:15 |
 |
 Bratsche
Messages: 269
Registered: October 2008
Location: Washington State, USA |
Senior Member |
|
|
| Quote: |
††† Out staggering around after hellhounds today, I met Jenny on Connie. I didn’t quite burst into tears but it was a near thing. I asked after everyone—Roland’s been sold on and replaced by two young Irish mares—and inquired, pathetically, if I might drop round just for a cup of tea and some gossip some day and Jenny said absolutely that I must. I keep saying two things about horses: first, that of all the kicks to the head the ME has delivered, the one that apparently means giving up riding is the one that hurts the worst; and, second, that it’s not riding I miss so much as horses. Well, it’s not Jenny that’s keeping me away from her yard, it’s me. So maybe there is a semi-answer to this conundrum if I can develop a bit more flexibility of outlook.
|
Oh, I'm so very glad to read this! I've been thinking of you and your lack of time with horses and wishing there were a way for you to get some horse-time (or stable-time or however you want to say it). I know how horribly I'd miss horses if I suddenly couldn't be around them. I wish you an absolutely lovely cup of tea (and gossip) with Jenny as soon as can possibly be!
Wendy
(covered with bits of horse hair from my ride this evening)
|
|
| |
| Re: Grand Matriarch [message #27003 is a reply to message #27000 ] |
Fri, 05 March 2010 00:35 |
|
| Bratsche wrote on Thu, 04 March 2010 23:10 |
| jmeadows wrote on Thu, 04 March 2010 16:41 |
Goodness. More and more impressive every day. Soon you'll have so many titles we won't be sure how to address you anymore!
|
I'd bet "Hey, you, Robin!" might still work (as long as you don't forget the pink, of course!).
|
What you haven't been told is that she actually makes the mods call her "Your Pink Authoressness, Amazing Lady of All Stars, Rose Sorceress, Robin (Deputy Ringing Master and Piano Plonker) McKinley." It's going to be tough fitting the new title in there, too.
Wait, did I just say that in public?
Smooshes!
|
|
|
| Re: Grand Matriarch [message #27004 is a reply to message #27003 ] |
Fri, 05 March 2010 00:38 |
|
Bratsche
Messages: 269
Registered: October 2008
Location: Washington State, USA |
Senior Member |
|
|
| jmeadows wrote on Thu, 04 March 2010 21:35 |
| Bratsche wrote on Thu, 04 March 2010 23:10 |
| jmeadows wrote on Thu, 04 March 2010 16:41 |
Goodness. More and more impressive every day. Soon you'll have so many titles we won't be sure how to address you anymore!
|
I'd bet "Hey, you, Robin!" might still work (as long as you don't forget the pink, of course!).
|
What you haven't been told is that she actually makes the mods call her "Your Pink Authoressness, Amazing Lady of All Stars, Rose Sorceress, Robin (Deputy Ringing Master and Piano Plonker) McKinley." It's going to be tough fitting the new title in there, too.
Wait, did I just say that in public?
|
Well, it's a good thing I'm not a mod then!  <chuckles>
|
|
|
| Re: Grand Matriarch [message #27005 is a reply to message #27003 ] |
Fri, 05 March 2010 00:46 |
b_twin_1
Messages: 2620
Registered: September 2008
Location: Victoria, Australia |
Senior Member
[Moderator] |
|
|
| jmeadows wrote on Fri, 05 March 2010 00:35 |
| Bratsche wrote on Thu, 04 March 2010 23:10 |
| jmeadows wrote on Thu, 04 March 2010 16:41 |
Goodness. More and more impressive every day. Soon you'll have so many titles we won't be sure how to address you anymore!
|
I'd bet "Hey, you, Robin!" might still work (as long as you don't forget the pink, of course!).
|
What you haven't been told is that she actually makes the mods call her "Your Pink Authoressness, Amazing Lady of All Stars, Rose Sorceress, Robin (Deputy Ringing Master and Piano Plonker) McKinley." It's going to be tough fitting the new title in there, too.
Wait, did I just say that in public?
|
Not only did you say that in public you also forgot Hellgoddess.  I'm really shocked.
I've got a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel ~ Blackadder
|
|
| |
| Re: Grand Matriarch [message #27009 is a reply to message #26990 ] |
Fri, 05 March 2010 03:44 |
 |
Diane in MN
Messages: 2755
Registered: October 2008
Location: Twin Cities, MN, USA |
Senior Member |
|
|
the full shiny brushed-up marketing plan which leads off with the positioning of McKinley as Grand Matriarch of Fantasy
It's probably a good thing you don't do jacket photos, so you don't have to visually embody this concept.
Sure, there’s a smattering of literature and high art-type stuff in there, but mostly it is whatever I have fished off the shelf at my nearest Oxfam that morning – detective stories, romances, horror, sci fi . . . any kind of fiction that I can gulp down in large enough, quick enough bites. . . .
Seconding Robin's comment here: I'm sure this woman is writing for humorous effect, but a sentence like this implies that Story is a sort of poor relation of Literature, out of place in the world of "high art-type stuff". Granted, a lot of what is defined as "literary fiction" today doesn't offer much in the line of Story, but I'd argue that that's because it's following the *current* conventions of its own genre--which do not, in and of themselves, confer superiority over other genres.
Yes I am, replied Niall. I have a Deputy Ringing Master.
You will clearly not be allowed to forget this, or to hold your title as a mere honorific. Your doom is sealed.
"The point of books is to have way too many but to always feel you never have enough . . . " Louise Erdrich
|
|
| |
| Re: Grand Matriarch [message #27014 is a reply to message #26990 ] |
Fri, 05 March 2010 05:30 |
 |
AJLR
Messages: 2581
Registered: September 2008
Location: England, UK |
Senior Member
[Moderator] |
|
|
I just want you to know that I would not, under any circumstances call you either a "plonker of piano" or a "Piano Plonker". 'Plonker', in the UK, has...other meanings these days.
| Quote: |
At the end as we were synchronising our diaries, which requires a lot of, no, I mean the 18th, no, that’s the 25th, what do you mean you’re gone on the 8th?
|
Sounds like you could all do with a good meetomatic to sort things out. Very handy site and easy to use.
I'm glad to hear you may be getting a horse-fix, soon.
"Never let a computer know you're in a hurry."
|
|
| |
| Re: Grand Matriarch [message #27018 is a reply to message #26990 ] |
Fri, 05 March 2010 10:20 |
judith
Messages: 249
Registered: October 2008
Location: United States |
Senior Member |
|
|
| Quote: |
although I found her easy equivalence of ‘genre’ with ‘junk’ just a trifle frelling irritating
|
Me too. I just finished John Gardner's _The Art of Fiction_, and it's full of snide comments about genre fiction. He assumes that "literary" fiction is far superior to "SF" and "thrillers", while talking about plot, characterization, etc. and giving examples of good plot and characterization. While reading the book, I couldn't help thinking of examples from genre fiction that were far superior to the literary examples he gave.
| Quote: |
But the question of when necessary downtime starts taking over what ought to be up time is interesting, and I think any compulsive reader will acknowledge that there’s a . . . well, a compulsive aspect.
|
I found the article fascinating for this reason. I've considered giving up reading and my computer for a week for the same reasons she did. I think I would also find my life to be richer. But I haven't yet found the will to do it. The closest I've ever come was when I went on vacation to Alaska. I didn't pack any books. I ended up sleeping a lot in my spare time...
| Quote: |
Romance isn’t my chosen form of bathtub reading but everybody needs downtime. This scans to me like a thinly veiled attempt to equate women with their hormones again. This is the 21st century, isn’t it? We didn’t go backwards through the 20th and pop out in the 19th?
|
I've been reading my share of romances lately because they're free on the kindle, and most of them really irritate me. Let's face it: the romance genre is porn for women. Porn for men is all about what men wish women were like. Romance is all about what women wish men were really like: the men are all protective, they listen to the women respectfully when the women talk, even encouraging them to talk more, they're kind and gentle and patient, they pursue the women even when the women irrationally spurn the men, in some cases they love the women even if the women have some physical defect (a scar, a missing leg, extra weight, etc.), sometimes they pursue women with children from a previous relationship, they prefer the women's company to that of their male friends, etc., etc., etc. None of that is what irritates me -- I like men like that too. What irritates me is the formulaic presentation: there's always a stupid misunderstanding between the lovers, one or both often don't want to get involved because "they've been hurt in the past", stuff like that. It's always, always the same. Change the setting, change the physical appearance of the characters, and you have the same story being sent out again and again. I don't know how the regular readers can stand it.
|
|
|
| Re: Grand Matriarch [message #27019 is a reply to message #26990 ] |
Fri, 05 March 2010 12:29 |
|
All hail the Grand Matriarch! I definitely agree about the need for regalia, though my first thought went to 'tribal' and I pictured an elaborate pink-feathered headdress and tall pointy walking stick (bedecked with roses,of course).
That romance-novel article, though...Bleeeccchhh! I admit that just the phrase 'evolutionary psychology' is typically enough to make me run screeching from the room in most cases, but this is even worse than normal. Not only can women's desires be equated with their simplest evolutionary drives, but those desires can be entirely defined by Harlequin novels (which, as everyone who has ever read a book that they picked up at the laundromat knows, are the some of the most pathetic examples of a none-too-stellar genre). Romance novels don't really capture what most women want in partner any more than video porn captures what most men really want.
I would also disagree with the characterization of male characters as respectful and nurturing-many of the ones that I've discarded in disgust had titles like, "The Sheik's Reluctant Bride" and featured arrogant jerks (put gently in the interest of a family blog) who turn out to not be so bad once they've been overcome by eternal passion...pardon me while I projectile vomit.
No matter what, though, if women fantasize about physically fit, nurturing, or arrogant men, it's likely not because it suited the evolutionary purposes of Cro-Magnon man, it's because it suits their psychological purposes now. Suggesting otherwise seems like yet another effort to justify manufactured-and often misrepresented- social norms by spuriously attributing them to 'nature'.
|
|
|
| Re: Grand Matriarch [message #27022 is a reply to message #27019 ] |
Fri, 05 March 2010 13:00 |
judith
Messages: 249
Registered: October 2008
Location: United States |
Senior Member |
|
|
| stormgoddess wrote on Fri, 05 March 2010 12:29 |
I would also disagree with the characterization of male characters as respectful and nurturing-many of the ones that I've discarded in disgust had titles like, "The Sheik's Reluctant Bride" and featured arrogant jerks (put gently in the interest of a family blog) who turn out to not be so bad once they've been overcome by eternal passion...pardon me while I projectile vomit.
|
There are different sub-genres. I don't download even the free ones in the sub-genres for women who fantasize about "fixing" bad-boy men...
| stormgoddess wrote on Fri, 05 March 2010 12:29 |
No matter what, though, if women fantasize about physically fit, nurturing, or arrogant men, it's likely not because it suited the evolutionary purposes of Cro-Magnon man, it's because it suits their psychological purposes now. Suggesting otherwise seems like yet another effort to justify manufactured-and often misrepresented- social norms by spuriously attributing them to 'nature'.
|
Agreed. In my previous post I had an entire paragraph that I later deleted, ranting about evolutionary psychology and how evolutionary psychologists fail to account for the fact that what's good for the species and what's good for the individual sometimes coincide and sometimes don't.
|
|
|
| Re: Grand Matriarch [message #27025 is a reply to message #27018 ] |
Fri, 05 March 2010 14:29 |
 |
Mrs Redboots
Messages: 949
Registered: October 2008
Location: London, UK |
Senior Member |
|
|
| judith wrote on Fri, 05 March 2010 15:20 |
I've been reading my share of romances lately because they're free on the kindle, and most of them really irritate me. .
|
Free or not, I seldom read romances - but there's plenty of free SF and Fantasy (quite legal, available with the author's permission and copyright & everything) out there for one's e-reader! A much better download.
[Updated on: Fri, 05 March 2010 14:30]
Mrs Redboots
I love my computer because my friends live in it!
|
|
| | |
| Re: Grand Matriarch [message #27028 is a reply to message #26990 ] |
Fri, 05 March 2010 15:04 |
|
Since there are books involved in this conversation...
While everyone is entitled to their opinions, just make sure everyone also follows Pollyanna's rule while we're here, okay?
Smooshes!
|
|
| | | |
| Re: Grand Matriarch [message #27034 is a reply to message #26990 ] |
Fri, 05 March 2010 19:11 |
criscopolo
Messages: 12
Registered: October 2008
Location: California |
Junior Member |
|
|
As a recently graduated psych major, I can not stand evolutionary psychology. I was forced to take it as an elective because there was nothing else available. Psychology is trying its hardest to be a science with actual research and proof, but evolutionary psychology is setting the entire profession back. They have many theories, most of which have yet to be proved or even backed by any type of evidence. Even in this article, they are extrapolating and not using actual evidence.
They claim:
"The 20 most frequent words clearly suggest long-term commitment and reproduction are important to readers. We did not find words related to resources or physical attractiveness within this list, but did find that the occupations of doctor and cowboy were included."
In the paragraph above that, some of the top 20 are listed:
"love" "bride" "baby" "man" and "marriage" "cowboy" "night" and "nurse."
I don't know if it is just me, but I don't see how 'cowboy' 'night' and 'nurse' suggest commitment and reproduction and not something else. There is nothing in their findings that support this conclusion over any other. It seems as if they are making conclusions based on what they hope to find and not facts. This is not proper science. Also, as a feminist and someone who uses common sense and believes in free will, many of claims of evolutionary psychology really rub me the wrong way.
|
|
| | | |
| Re: Grand Matriarch [message #27090 is a reply to message #27089 ] |
Sat, 06 March 2010 22:46 |
|
| equus_peduus wrote on Sat, 06 March 2010 22:34 |
| Mrs Redboots wrote on Sat, 06 March 2010 08:45 |
Check your private messages, as this is getting off-topic.
|
But what if other people were waiting for the response as well? :)
|
Then they should send a private message to Mrs. Redboots and ask her about it. ;)
Smooshes!
|
|
| |
| Re: Grand Matriarch [message #27373 is a reply to message #27003 ] |
Sun, 14 March 2010 19:51 |
 |
Robin
Messages: 6024
Registered: September 2008
Location: England |
Senior Member
[Hellgoddess] |
|
|
| jmeadows wrote on Fri, 05 March 2010 00:35 |
| Bratsche wrote on Thu, 04 March 2010 23:10 |
| jmeadows wrote on Thu, 04 March 2010 16:41 |
Goodness. More and more impressive every day. Soon you'll have so many titles we won't be sure how to address you anymore!
|
I'd bet "Hey, you, Robin!" might still work (as long as you don't forget the pink, of course!).
|
What you haven't been told is that she actually makes the mods call her "Your Pink Authoressness, Amazing Lady of All Stars, Rose Sorceress, Robin (Deputy Ringing Master and Piano Plonker) McKinley." It's going to be tough fitting the new title in there, too.
Wait, did I just say that in public?
|
I will certainly decline to respond to anything so PLEBIAN as 'hey you'. I definitely approve of Your Pink Authoressness however.
|
|
| | | | | | | |
| Re: Grand Matriarch [message #27383 is a reply to message #27028 ] |
Sun, 14 March 2010 20:14 |
|
Robin
Messages: 6024
Registered: September 2008
Location: England |
Senior Member
[Hellgoddess] |
|
|
Oops.
I was just thinking uneasily of editing my last to reiterate that this is MY bias. There are books/subgenres--TWILIGHT, for example--that really bother me for the messages they're sending out. Aside from that, 'romances' simply aren't my style. I don't mean that people who WANT stories that are 80% foreplay and 20% story shouldn't have them; I like popcorn and Green & Black's, you know? Different (ahem) strokes.
I do get pissed off when people confuse what I write with genre 'romance', and so complain that I'm not doing it right. Romantic Times, for example, tends to like my books, and that's great and I'm delighted; RT is a hot number, and throws its nets wide, and I hope my books ARE romantic. But I'm never going to write anything that is more romance than anything else, and people who think I OUGHT to . . . are WRONG.
|
|
|
| Pages (2): [1 ] |
  |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Jun 18 00:48:20 EDT 2013
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.18882 seconds |
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Does Grand Matriarch come with Privileges?
