Tuesday, 23 October 2007

How Adsense works - for retards.

Some spaz writes in my comment system;

"I could care less about your feelings on Rowling, but having ads for her books and things on your site is beyond ironic......... and Pathetic as well." - Anon.

I love the capital "P" there sport!


Google chooses what ads I run, not me... you don't know how Adsense works do you? I don't have any say in it, I can block ads by specific URL (but only 500 and more than that will be selling Potter stuff), but frankly I have better things to do.

If Google want to advertise a persons product on a page ripping into it; that's their problem, and the products problem; not mine fuck you very much!

Now go masturbate over pictures of Dumbledore in his Y-Fronts.


This week's improbable deaths!

One could have easily escaped my attention, but these two strange deaths in the same week? I just have to comment. To be fair, it's not as if they are that funny; it's the improbability of both tragic events that has wow'd me. Check it out, you'll see what I mean...

1. Man Dies During Reenactment of Historical Battle.

Apparently his opponents lance shattered on impact with the poor knight and a splinter from the "balsa wood" weapon in a moment of sheer against-all-odds improbability entered the eye slit of the victims helmet and went on to penetrate his eye socket itself. Sir Unlucky died a week later in hospital.

Bummer right?

After taking a quick vote with people on-line
at the time of writing (on my MSN list and such) we've all unanimously decided that 'death in battle reenactments' does not qualify anyone for entrance to Valhalla or indeed Stovacore.

Double bummer.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7056583.stm

2. Monkeys attack Delhi politician.

The following is not the kinda' thing you expect to read on the BBC Website;

"The deputy mayor of the Indian capital Delhi has died a day after being attacked by a horde of wild monkeys."

It was a 'this is so awesome I just spat out my morning coffee awesome' moment.

A sad day for the guy's family but still, in all honesty, what a way to go!

Apparently the city has long 'struggled' to counter, what the Beeb dramatically decides to refer to as, "a plague of monkeys" who apparently 'invade' government complexes and temples, snatch food and scare passers-by.

I guess saying there 'are a lot of wild monkeys which get everywhere' was a little short on the elusive X-drama -Sensationalism factor for the BBC...

Well the hoard just progressed from petty theft to murder. Call in CSI...

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7055625.stm

Funniest Movie Death Scenes 1.5

Monday, 22 October 2007

Why I hate JK Rowling.

Rowling this week outed Dumbledore as being "gay".

Oh I bet she fucking did!

I hate this women.

I know hate is a strong word, but I do. I am not proud of it either. It's just how I feel about the chick. Why? Let me explain...

Let me start by saying that first and foremost I consider the Harry Potter works bordering upon plagiarised. Where from? Lets start with Lord of The Rings (monsters, high concepts), Star Wars (basic plot), The Worst Witch (downtrodden kid; nerdy kids love to empathise, something I am sure was a major element in Rowlings cynical plan right from the outset) - mix in Terry Pratchett's entire 'Unseen University' concept, for a summary of that check out Page 170 or there abouts in his novel "Equal Rites" - or as I like to call it 'the entire concept of Hogwarts' - I've shown this to people and they've been literally gobsmacked by the similarity's.

Not as gobsmacked however, as I am sure Pratchett was when he first read or heard about Potter though - the man is the king of paper back fantasy tat (with a hat) for decades and along comes Rowling - her literary guns (such as they are) aimed at kids and loaded with material Hollywood can churn out in movie form with relative ease. Played for and got, score one Rowling.

Pratchett did come back rather well with the 'Wee Free Men' et al., but at least those books teach some interesting lessons to kids - and were not motivated soley by greed as I am to explain I feel Rowlings writting is. I get the feeling they were more of a two fingers up to Rowling than a ploy to make the man more money. Score one Pratchett, congrats on the film deal.

Back to the point at hand, my feelings on Rowling's writing skill is summarized thus; if she handed the Potter books in as original works to many universities in the United States and they were thus entered into the national plagiarism database, quite simply they'd come up as plagiarised - if we must judge them on their own merit, they are at best completely derivative.

They are also written extremely badly. Like my articles. Not that that bugs me as much as the the non-owned up to plagiarism - if she admitted that a lot of her work was a homage to this or that, it wouldn't be so bad in my eyes - just extending a fine fantasy tradition (everyone owes something to Tolkien), but the arrogance of the women seems to think she can erase much of that which came before Potter - placing it in prime market position as the benchmark for all fantasy fiction (especially to those who hadn't read the genre previous to Potter), something which is put plainly; a lie. That gets my goat.

The Potter books do make great movies, I won't argue there - but they were supposed to. I am positive that was part of her financially driven money making plan in the first place!

Harry Potter was quite obviously her meal ticket, a function for which the formulaic epic has performed exceedingly well - however, despite this unprecedented and more importantly planned for, marketed for and written for, success, Rowling will still do almost anything to get some extra attention to her franchise.

"Dumbledore is gay," she says, adding he was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald, who he beat in a battle between good and bad wizards long ago.

Ok, If that's the case, and it's not, as I suspect, something you've just thought will get you some headlines and maybe a whole new demographic (Rowling appears to live for that) post the release of the final book, why the fuck was it not mentioned in the books?

Either Rowling,

a) you are making it up as you go along, and you thought this'd get some attention for you, and it is thus part of your overall cynical marketing plan.


b) you were too afraid to put a gay guy in a kids book for fear of certain more conservative interest groups going mad and boycotting your books (they would have, and they would have done it hard) - something you don't have to worry so much about now, because you have more money than God.


c) You planned to wait until every child who was going to buy all of your books had done, before announcing that one of the main characters was gay, and thus opening the franchise to a whole new market, ie. the gay community.

Which one of these people do you want to be Rowling? They are all pretty shitty.

Rowling is quoted as saying "I would have told you earlier if I knew it would make you so happy". Yeah sure, right, you didn't think that would make a bit of an impact? Stop playing dumb - this was yet another cunning marketing ploy. You're brilliant, I admit it, but you are too sly for even me luv...

Now the gay community will feel obliged to support her - the pink lobby now on board, is Rowling going to make a bid for real world power or what?! Seriously. Using fringe groups to expand your demographic influence is cynical beyond belief.

"Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell welcomed the news about Dumbledore and said: "It's good that children's literature includes the reality of gay people, since we exist in every society."

Pete, while I support your sentiment, gays are not "Jedi" or some secret society. "Existing in every society" is a bit of a dramatic way of saying some guys and gals have always liked guys and gals.

Perhaps he got caught up in the mysticism of Rowlings constructed, well arranged and marketed, magical world?

Just watch her the next time you see an interview. She hates kids - I think she even admitted that in an interview. She just wanted to get paid. She constructed, from bits of other stories - other peoples work, a plot and characters to facilitate this nefarious goal.

And that, is why I hate her.

She did it for the money, not for the drama, not for the story, not even for the kids. And I think if you are gonna write a kids book, you should probably, morally, have them in mind.

Not your bank balance.

You'll end up giving out a very twisted messege when they find out the person who wrote their heroes did it for the cash.

This link kills spam, your mum spammers, your mum.

Or Click For More Articles...