real people

Since I was on a tear a couple weeks ago over someone calling Andrew W.K. a “complete fake,” I might as well add that I just read a review of Lena Dunham’s new memoir from a high-profile magazine wherein the reviewer calls Lena Dunham, the person, “not real.”

I’m not going to link to the review, because it is truly a garbage attempt at criticism. How emotionally, psychologically, or creatively stunted must a writer be to make such an assessment of someone who grew up in artistic circles and performs and creates for a living? How smug must one be to draw that line and declaim from their own relative obscurity that he or she is one of the “real people”? Why do these authenticity police keep getting paid to do this? Is it just so people who are equally stunted will keep buying magazines?

Say what you will about Lena Dunham, I really don’t care (I mean, don’t be a sexist piece of shit about it), but if you go around deciding that certain people walking around our streets and breathing air are “not real” people, you may be an actual sociopath.

hungryghoast

hungryghoast:

vinegod:

When you trip and your spaghetti falls out your pocket by KingBach

tfw

grindlebone

thejennyeverywhereproject:

So here’s the thing—Jenny Everywhere was created in 2002 by members of Barbelith, a forum dedicated to esoteric magic and Grant Morrison. They meant her to be an “open source character” who anyone could use—a dimensional traveller who existed in all universes and had memories of all her alternate selves. She was East Asian or American Indian, wore flight goggles that may have come from her mother, and had a love of adventure and toast. They made her up for a series of comics put together by the community. That’s what the Barbelith people say, anyway, and I think they’re telling the truth as far as it goes.

I got into Jenny Everywhere ten years ago, around the time that first wave of Barbelith creativity was dying down. There was this brief burst of activity for Jenny on the wider internet—she even got a mention in the New York Times. She made an appearance in a whole lot of webcomics and other projects, mostly as a cameo in-joke kind of thing, but few people really knew what to do with her. I tried to write a bunch of short-short stories for her, even setting up a Jenny Everywhere blog on tumblr, but that didn’t quite work out. In the end, the whole thing more or less died out, and we all found new projects and new things to obsess over.

Then I found out about the incident in Pennsylvania.

Read More

themorningnews
themorningnews:

Experts answer what they know. The Non-Expert answers anything. A reader wants to know if it’s OK to date a distant relative. We answer by way of flowchart. (August 2010)
"Can We Date?" by Erik Bryan 

I’d like to talk real quick about this piece I did back in 2010 for The Morning News. In short, I am ashamed of it.
I was trying to be funny (which is how so, so many mistakes get made), and I thought I had this really fun idea for a flowchart which would tell people who it is socially acceptable to date. I like the Non-Expert column we used to do, which was basically intended to just give bad advice to people, but even that context doesn’t make what I wrote OK, at least not to me. I still like the concept, and I think an actually funny flowchart could have been produced by a better humorist with a better understanding of his own privilege. To read it now, I see that I was really insensitive to a lot of issues, or I thought that making jokes about them would make it OK, and it actually makes 2014-me cringe.
I throw the word “crazy” around a lot in an ableist way, I make light of incest and stalking, I actually use the expression “bros before hos,” albeit in an ironic way. Lots of transgressions here. Perhaps I thought being ironic about these abuses would exculpate me from criticism? How weak is that? Granted, I still think people having sex with robots or ghosts is pretty funny, but that’s all beside the point.
The point is that reading this today, I come to a negative assessment of the person who wrote it. I don’t like that person. I am that person. Or I was. I really hope I was that person, but the Internet is forever.
I’m sorry for making this. I don’t know how else to atone except to say that, and that I’m trying to do better.

themorningnews:

Experts answer what they know. The Non-Expert answers anything. A reader wants to know if it’s OK to date a distant relative. We answer by way of flowchart. (August 2010)

"Can We Date?" by Erik Bryan

I’d like to talk real quick about this piece I did back in 2010 for The Morning News. In short, I am ashamed of it.

I was trying to be funny (which is how so, so many mistakes get made), and I thought I had this really fun idea for a flowchart which would tell people who it is socially acceptable to date. I like the Non-Expert column we used to do, which was basically intended to just give bad advice to people, but even that context doesn’t make what I wrote OK, at least not to me. I still like the concept, and I think an actually funny flowchart could have been produced by a better humorist with a better understanding of his own privilege. To read it now, I see that I was really insensitive to a lot of issues, or I thought that making jokes about them would make it OK, and it actually makes 2014-me cringe.

I throw the word “crazy” around a lot in an ableist way, I make light of incest and stalking, I actually use the expression “bros before hos,” albeit in an ironic way. Lots of transgressions here. Perhaps I thought being ironic about these abuses would exculpate me from criticism? How weak is that? Granted, I still think people having sex with robots or ghosts is pretty funny, but that’s all beside the point.

The point is that reading this today, I come to a negative assessment of the person who wrote it. I don’t like that person. I am that person. Or I was. I really hope I was that person, but the Internet is forever.

I’m sorry for making this. I don’t know how else to atone except to say that, and that I’m trying to do better.