June 01, 2006
Spam The Masterpiece
Along with this blog, I've been neglecting the hissycat email account. I finally checked it today and found several dozen spam emails containing large excerpts of Anna Karennina.
One email, with the subject line **VL-JUNK** Love is the difficult realization that something other than oneself is real, contained this passage:
shoulders and his eyebrows. The recollection of his wife's last act had so incensed him that he had become frigid, as at the beginning of the conversation. "I am very grateful for your sympathy, but I must be going," he said, getting up. "No, wait a minute. You must not ruin her. Wait a little; I will tell you about myself. I was married, and my husband deceived me; in anger and jealousy, I would have thrown up everything, I would myself.... But I came to myself again; and who did it? Anna saved me. And here I am living on. The children are growing up, my husband has come back to his family, and feels his fault, is growing purer, better, and I live on.... I have forgiven it, and you ought to forgive!" Alexey Alexandrovitch heard her, but her words had no effect on him now. All the hatred of that day when he had resolved on a divorce had sprung up again in his soul. He shook himself, and said in a shrill, loud voice:-- "Forgive I cannot, and do not wish to, and I regard it as wrong. I have done everything for this woman, and she has trodden it all in the mud to which she is akin. I am not a spiteful man, I have never hated anyone, but I hate her with my whole soul, and I cannot even forgive her, because I hate her too much for all the wrong she has done me!" he said, with tones of hatred in his voice. "Love those that hate you...." Darya Alexandrovna whispered timorously. Alexey Alexandrovitch smiled contemptuously. That he knew long ago, but it could not be applied to his case.
Posted by hissycat at 01:25 AM | Comments (16)
April 11, 2006
My New Favorite Blog: Literally
I'm not-- it may or may not suprise you to know-- a grammer fascist. I am neurotic and self-punishing, maybe, but I'm forgiving when it comes to other people. I'm not like that bitch who wrote that stupid Eats, Shoots & Leaves
The one bad grammer tic that I find really peevish is misusing "literally" so that it means its opposite-- "figuratively" or "metaphorically." Actually, I don't think I think anything of it when someone uses it conversationally-- in telling a story, say. Like I said, I give people more leeway with the things that come directly out of their mouths on the ground that one just has to take for granted that 99.98% of anything that anyone says, self included, at any given time is likely to be just unbearably stupid. The chances for anything coherent coming out at all are amazing. People are literally just making stuff up as they are talking. But it really, really bothers me when I see the misuse in print. In that case, we can infer that time has elapsed since the author made stuff up and the offending phrase is reaching the reader's eyes and mind. There is less excuse, especially if editors and publishers were involved. I remember Alex getting really worked up over a specific example of this-- I can't remember what it was exactly-- that he found in a book he'd just bought in Kepler's. We were sitting outside at sundown and I was wearing my green skirt from Prague, I remember for some reason, that was the Spring Onion Slayer was abroad. Tess and Brett were browsing inside. Alex and I were outside, smoking and egging each other on to get really bitchy and pissed off about absurd grammer.
All this is the long of saying, I really, really love this weblog.
Posted by hissycat at 03:02 PM | Comments (12)
Sex is for Fags
Abstinence-only Coolness for Boys
Posted by hissycat at 07:49 AM | Comments (231)
March 30, 2006
From The Dept. Of STOP THE PRESSES!
Breaking news that's fit to print:
"It's really accelerated in the past year to the point where there is a ton of bad information out there," said Robert Massa, the vice president of enrollment at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa. "People need to realize that anybody can say anything on the Internet."
So true.
Posted by hissycat at 11:24 PM | Comments (8)
March 27, 2006
Pop Quiz
Because I've been up doing work all goddamn night I give and because owning a blog means getting to inflict this crap on others, I present you all with a good-for-nothing, waste-of-time, sorry-ass quiz:
You're a Post-Punk. You know 70s punk was cool, but it was mostly just a stepping stone for the greater intellectualism of what would come after. The 80s were amazing. You quite possibly have huge hair, and may wear lots of black. Snare drums need reverb. Lots and lots of reverb.
Take this quiz!
| Make A Quiz | More Quizzes | Grab Code
Posted by hissycat at 06:02 AM | Comments (5)
March 20, 2006
Selling Out: A Rambly Late Post
No, really, it's just my new haircut that makes the page look different to you. No? Ok, look. I'm not crazy about the new look either, and yes, I know, advertising's the devil's trade. It's just that I'm just kind of, well-- comment vous dites? ah, oui!-- poor. I'm not as indigent as I was a couple of months ago when I was out of work, but I'm still just barely scraping by, and things are about to get even tighter.
No, I'm not about to get fired again. Well, at least I hope not. God, I hope not. That would blow. I actually like the work I'm doing-- it's researchy work that I can do from home on my own schedule. Its not in a field I have intention of hoeing-- or whatever it is one does, metaphorically, in one's metaphoric field-- but that's ok. I dig up general-interest interesting info, which is pleasing enough in itself, and besides, I'm not interested in a jobby job job, if you know what I mean. Like, a career-track job. I just want work that will fund my writing time-- something that isn't so draining and time-consuming that I just want to smoke drugs and die when the I clock out. If I can use the time to learn about a world I don't spend a whole lot of time engaged with, all the better. Lately I have been under pressure from my employers to get the project done faster, which means working more hours. It's been cutting into my sleeping time (I'm too stupid/ stubborn to give up my writing time) and stressing me out. I'm going to have to step up and ask to cut back my hours. I hate to do this because I 1) feel like a shmoo and 2) need the money. But on the other hand, this was just the kind of job one takes to support things like writing and if it's stressing me out and cutting into my work time, then the situation probably needs to be reevaluated.
Oh, and writing. This is the best part of my life right now. I mean it always is-- I think this is how I know I'm going to always have to be writing. I just feel so useless when I'm not doing it. I'm so anxious all the time, worrying that I ought to be somewhere else, spending the time differently, living my life in a better way. When I'm writing well it's like I'm just doing what I'm supposed to be doing. It's just what I'm supposed to be doing (even when it's not. . . like, for instance, now. I should be working. Or sleeping. Or washing dishes.). I can't think of another activity I feel that way about.
Anyway, I've sort of gearing up to do more freelance writing over-- well, a long time-- but in the last month or so, I'd say steam has been gathering. That's another reason I want to cut back on my work hours. I know I was all about grad school last month. I still am, kind of. But I'm not going to be ready to apply until 2007 at the earliest. And I took my GREs in 2003 (don't ask)-- ha ha I am so going to have to take those again. It's not that I'm having any, like, material success as a writer. God, no. Nothing like that. Don't get the wrong idea. This is more just about how much time I'm doing to get my work out and how much I am putting out there and just being serious and committed and grown-up in the way I approach my work.
So in the meantime, I have bills to pay. If you happen to be planning on signing up for DSL with Speakeasy as your ISP (I actually do recommend them, esp. if you live in San Francisco and your alternative is crappy SBC), you can do me a kindness by clicking the Speakeasy button at the bottom of the page or telling them the refferal code. I'll get a credit towards my DSL. And if you happen to be signing up, or thinking about signing up for Backpack, it'd be neat if you'd use me as your referral. I spend $9 a month to keep my shit organized on that site, so a credit towards future bills would be cool, if it's no trouble to you and you happen to be signing up anyway. If I suddenly become filthy-- or even scuzzily-- rich I'll take down the ads.
I tried to make the ads as unobnoxious as possible, but if you have any suggestions, feel free to leave them. Also, tell me if you have any issues in browsers other than Safari, since I'm lazy as hell and don't bother to check. Or, if you just feel like calling me a money-grubbing Jew, greedy whore, etc., feel free.
Posted by hissycat at 03:09 AM | Comments (6)
March 15, 2006
The Most Popular Search That Led Viewers To This Blog
Aside from "Hissy Cat," and permutations thereof, is "salad tossing" and permutations thereof.
No, I'm not kidding.
Posted by hissycat at 08:18 PM | Comments (11)
March 13, 2006
Web 2.0 Makes The Internet Relevant To Me. Now Fuck Off.
Finally, a technology that speaks to me.
Isolatr: helping you find where other people aren't.
Posted by hissycat at 06:23 PM | Comments (8)
Meta-Kittenian Experimental Video Art
How do you make the best funny cats in the world even better?
More kittens!
Oh man, the layers of catness that are going on right now are totally blowing my brain. It's too much. Too much. It's like, all those cats. And then that, that little one. And here I am watching the video with my cat. Oh, wow. I just had some kind of small stroke in my brain. Seriously, call an ambulance. My IQ is dropping by the second. I cannot. . . stop. . . watching. . . need. . .more. . . kittens . . .drool. . .
Posted by hissycat at 12:55 AM | Comments (3)
March 12, 2006
The Revolution Will Not Be Sold On iTunes
The Daily Show is now available on iTunes, thus obviating television's one remaining purpose: to beam Jon Stewart into one's living room. I feel totally vindicated. I called your bluff, TV! And I didn't want to be your friend anyway, so there.
Posted by hissycat at 11:53 PM | Comments (4)
March 06, 2006
Google Library Project And Why Nigel Newton Is A Fuckwad
Nigel Newton is a bloody idiot. Guardian Unlimited Books ran his dumb-ass article, Google's Literary Land-Grab, on Saturday to let you know why he thinks you should boycott Google to protest Google Print's Library Project. Newton is, of course, a publisher, although even greed can't fully explain his insane animosity towards Google nor his rabid fixation on 'rights' that are against virtually everyone's interests save possibly his own (and even that is debatable). The only possible explanation for Newton's stance is sheer dim-witted lack of comprehension and technological illiteracy.
If you click on Great Expectations by Charles Dickens in Google Book Search, you may find yourself taking an unexpected journey. Google's ambient advertising programme hotlinks to a dating agency called Great Expectations Dating ("Find Your True Love Today"). How crass is that? We can be sure that Dickens would have thought it so. Indeed, he would probably have reserved a special vituperation for Google's literary land-grab.
There are two aspects to this land-grab. The first involves scanning out-of-copyright work, provided by the great libraries, and surrounding it with such advertising. That's not illegal, though it is of cultural concern.
That's some ballsy rhetoric, calling "scanning out-of-copyright work" a "landgrab" when it is not only perfectly legal but also will make those works more, not less, widely distributed. Landgrab has the connotation of hoarding. Stockpiling copyrights would be a good example of landgrabbing. Distributing works already in the public domain? Not so much.
And yes, a Great Expectations Dating Service is kind of tacky. But so is an Edgar Allen Poe Pizza, a(nother) spineless adaptation of an Austen novel, and the novelization of the movie adaptation of Great Expectations featuring a nude Gwyneth Paltrow draped on the front cover (I shit you not). The hyper commercialization of publishing does indeed concern me, but I think that perhaps there are other, more alarming examples of such crassness than Google's initiative to catalog information and make cultural works more accessable.
The second part of Google's literary predations, in the case of American libraries, involves scanning in-copyright works - for the purpose of publication - without direct prior permission of the copyright holder. That is to say, the author or his or her estate. Google's decision to scan first and ask permission later with copyrighted works is playing fast and loose. In America, it has already landed Google with a huge lawsuit from publishers.
It is authors who will suffer most. Dickens isn't around to defend the integrity of his work. Were he alive, he would certainly have tried. He campaigned with vigour on the issue of copyright. [emphasis mine]
Hey Nigel, let's play a game called, Spot The Logical Fallacy! Dickens "isn't around to defend the integrity of his work" because he is dead. How, exactly, will he suffer most? I'll get back to the issue of living authors in a moment, but let's stick with this Dickens fellow, on whom you are so obviously and yet so disengenuosly hung up.
A number of his works were copied in America and he was an early advocate of international copyright protection. In England, he went to court to stop someone writing a continuation of A Christmas Carol. He dedicated Pickwick Papers to Sir Thomas Noon Talfourd, who introduced the Copyright Bill in 1837.
If Newton is seriously proposing that no one but Dickens ever be permitted to make a profit from Dickens' work, then every publisher that prints 'A Christmas Carol' or 'Great Expectations' needs to stop their presses right now. I don't mean Google. I mean Harper Collins or Penguin Putnam or whoever because they don't own no fucking copyright so who are they to turn a penny off Dickens' work. Obviously, Newton has no idea what he is saying, or else he is lying through his teeth. There is a huge difference between plagerising a work in part or whole or reproducing and selling it at a profit without the writer's permission during the writer's lifetime, and making it available to the public cost-free after the author's death.
The problem with having absolutely no copyright protections isn't all about being unfair to the writer; having NO protections also hurts the community by making it disadvantageous for living writers or artists or inventors to share their works with the public. Readers of Dickens' books should be aware of his feelings for societies run entirely by the untempered profit motive, with no eye towards the common good-- NOT GOOD. The American publishers of Dickens' day, much like the caricatured capitalists in his stories, contributed nothing of value yet profited off of the work of others (in this case, authors). When the author of the book in question is dead, however, it's doing the author any harm to distribute that cultural work widely and freely (it's not doing them any harm to distribute it at a cost, either, which is what mostly happens to works in the public domain; I mean, debate the ethics if you must, but dead's dead: as of yet no author has actually "turned in her grave"). Meanwhile, depriving the public of access to the work definately does harm the community at large.
So I call upon internet users worldwide to boycott the Google search engine until it ceases to scan books in America without prior permission, and desists from its mission to place ambient advertising on the great literary works. Switch your search engine from Google to MSN or Yahoo today, until you hear Google has withdrawn from the type of activities that have been described in another context as acts of "kleptomania".
No. Just-- no.
The worst thing is that the actual money paid to authors and publishers for these silly ads is negligible. So is the number of book purchases arising directly from these links (certainly they were when Google's representative came to see me last autumn). Authors are being ripped off however you look at it. They need to say something about it, loudly.
Of course, that's exactly NOT what authors are saying, but it's so much easier for publishers to put words in the mouths of dead authors than to listen to what living authors are saying.
Publishers also have serious responsibilities in this matter. It is possible in Google's contract for publishers to withdraw any book at any time. I call upon all publishers to do so immediately until these critical matters are resolved. No one will write much in future if they don't receive money for it because books are suddenly free on the net.
Frankly, any writer worth her ink should care more about reaching readers than about hoarding her precious words, and the world would be better of without those kinds of books, which have been glutting the market anyhow.
Plus Newton is being willfully thick. He knows the books are not going to be "suddenly free on the net." He said it himself.
At the moment, Google only offers a proportion of a copyright book for free. But it insists on scanning 100 per cent of each book it loadsBut it insists on scanning 100 per cent of each book it loads and, moreover, on owning the rights to the resulting digital files of authors' works. This is a Pandora's box. It must be regarded as likely that a subsequent management regime at Google will pressure publishers to allow it to offer 100 per cent of the text as battles for market share are joined against the other mighty search engines.
Publishers also have the responsibility to make sure that when it comes to hosting electronic content in future, it is their own websites that host the downloads and the scans of text and audio. There is no reason to hand this content to third-party websites.
Now he's just making himself sound foolish. Newton does not understand the technology. Not that I'm a huge techie myself, but at least I get this much: Google Library, much like actual libraries, will index the books for content. People using Google Library, much like people using their local public library, can then look up books according to a particular subject that interests them or whatever. Now, since Google indexes content using computers, they have to scan the entire book into the computer in order to do this. To put this in somewhat condescending, anthropomorphic fuzzy speak, Google has to let the computers 'read' the entire books so it can can catalogue the books by topics. Otherwise you're just sifting through first sentences. Now that doesn't mean that Google has to let the user read the entire book they pull up-- Google can choose to show you just the first sentence-- but they have to first scan and index all the content in order for the search to make sense and to have results that are useful.
University and copyright libraries also have serious responsibilities in their dealings with Google. I believe that libraries such as the Bodleian and Harvard may have misinterpreted the missions with which their universities have entrusted them in handing over part of their collections for scanning. They may also have thrown away the biggest commercial opportunity in the history of their academic institutions by regarding content as somehow free (though they do get their own copy of the digital file). It isn't free of course.
Funny after all his bellyaching about commercialization, Newton thinks libraries aren't commercial enough. Because god forbid Universities might want to promote the exchange of knowledge and information for its own sake and for the common good instead of increased revenue.
If there is to be money made out of scanning, the libraries themselves, not Google, should make it. Art collections provide a good example, as they often support themselves by licensing the images they have spent years (and millions) collecting. Yes, scanning a huge collection overnight is a huge expense but it does not have to happen overnight. The collections were written over two millennia; the online solution might decently take a long time.
It is all about making money. It's not about the authors and it's about the cultural implications of a Great Expectations dating service, and make no doubt about it, Nigel doesn't care one whit that without Google's inititaive it would take decades to digitize these books and even then it would be done with profit as a sole motive.
What Google is doing to books is, by contrast, positively indecent. It is a good search engine, frequently used by all of us. I for one would like to see it keep to that core business. Until it lays off literature, or else pays for it, I hope the readers of the Guardian and many others will join this boycott.
Yes, let's all of us stop using Google and Gmail and blogger and all of the other tools that Google has provided to literate people at no expense to us simply because you, Nigel Newton, happen to be the world's greatest fuckwad. Great idea.
Posted by hissycat at 09:16 PM | Comments (152) | TrackBack
February 02, 2006
The Palm Beach Post Would Know
I'm a hipster. Officially. See? Bookslut is a "hipster" website. I write book reviews for bookslut. Ergo, I am a hipster.
Posted by hissycat at 01:56 PM | Comments (8293)
December 29, 2005
Baby's First Meme
Alright! Finally, I'm one of the cool kids! Thanks, Jill!
Seven Things To Do Before I Die
1. I still haven't seen Brokeback Mountain.
2. Proust
3. New Medea
4. Go off meds at least once, to see what my brain is/ would be like
5. Write something really worthwhile, that will bring someone else a lot of pleasure/ comfort/ something I don't have a word for to read.
6. Dollywood with Alex
7. The Hustle.
Seven Things I Cannot Do
1. Whistle, Dixie or otherwise.
2. Bananas
3. Keep a job
4. Want a job
5. Wake up easily
6. Keep house
7. Balance a check book or pay bills on time
Seven Things That Attract Me To. . . Blogging
1. Its sense of humor,
2. and sexy legs,
3. and the way it keeps me warm at night.
4. No, not really.
5. I started reading some quality blogs at my crappy-ass job, and I got hooked.
6. I liked the little feminist and writer/lit./book nerd communities I stumbled into and wanted to participate.
7. Blogging also seemed like a good way ensure, back when I was a working girl, that I'd at least write something every day outside of the office. I figured once I got myself sitting down in front of my screen to blog, I'd be more likely to work up the nerve to work on something more intimidating, like a story or article.
Seven Things I Say Most Often
1. Oops
2. Whoops
3. Sorry
4. Excuse me
5. Uh-oh
6. I fail
7. Yes?
Seven Books That I Love
1. Democracy by Joan Didion (also, everything else by Joan Didion)
2. Collected Poems of Elizabeth Bishop
3. Collected Poems of W.H. Auden
4. The Price of Salt by Clare Morgan
5. The Crying of Lot 49 by Thomas Pynchon
6. Ulysses by James Joyce
7. The Sexual Life of Savages by Bronislaw Malinowski
Seven Movies That I Watch Over And Over Again
1. Angels in America (HBO production)
2. North by Northwest
3. Manhattan
4. The Royal Tanenbaums
5. Band of Outsiders
6. The Marraige of Maria Braun
7. Wings of Desire
Seven Songs I Play Over And Over Again
1. "The King of Carrot Flowers, Pt. 1" By Neutral Milk Hotel
2. "Infammatory Writ" by Joanna Newsom
3. "Bloody Motherfucking Asshole" by Martha Wainwright
4. "Summer Lies" by The Magnetic Fields
5. "Part Company" by the Go-Betweens
6. "This Charming Man" by The Smiths
7. "Shadows" by Yo La Tengo
Seven People I Want To Join In Too
1. Onion Slayer
2. Mlle M
3. Leila
4. Karin
5. Kyle
6. Cheryl
7. Katie
Posted by hissycat at 07:57 AM | Comments (4)
December 12, 2005
I'm Sorry
I Know. September, October, November I don't think I missed a single day on this blog and now I'm missing one, two days in row. It won't happen again, promise. But, on the other hand, aren't you just a little bit happy for me that I'm busy doing things and I'm getting out in the world, and feeling better and cleaning my apartment?
Posted by hissycat at 09:20 AM | Comments (6)
November 07, 2005
OHNOES! I BROKE THE INTERNETS!!!!
In deleting the vile comment spam last night, a couple comments by actual people got accidentaly deleted. Sorry Katie and whoever else got accidentaly erased! It's nothing personal, I promise.
One more brief interlude and then Part Two of Dowdiana.
Posted by hissycat at 05:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 30, 2005
Insomnia!
You are a Revisionist Historian. You are the Clark
Kent of postmodernists. You probably want to
work in a library or in social services. No
one suspects you of being a postmodernist...
until they read your publications!
What kind of postmodernist are you!?
brought to you by Quizilla
Posted by hissycat at 04:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 20, 2005
Jesus Christ
Again, with the comment and trackback spam. No, I do not want to click to see how "to-finger-womans-vagina," thank you very much. Nor do I care to visit your page of "piss pics." Thanks, but no thanks.
Posted by hissycat at 03:25 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
October 10, 2005
Amuse Yourself
CronyJobs.com is hiring.
Posted by hissycat at 04:49 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Gross
I was not aware trackback spam existed until today, but exist it does, and it is piled up here today. I just deleted forty trackback pings for "horse sex," "incest pics," and the like.
Anyone have a prophylactic approach to warding this shit off that they would like to recommend?
Posted by hissycat at 10:01 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
October 04, 2005
Report From Post-Lunch Dead Zone
Cats in Sinks is the best website in the whole wide world wide web. The Best. Ever.
Oh, and I put up some of this here 
(spam poison), but it doesn't seem to be working.
Unless all the adds for "Magic Tape Worm Diet Pills" from "the Phatmacy" are, in fact, "tipz" from my "frenz."
Posted by hissycat at 04:56 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
October 03, 2005
Help A Girl Out
Does anyone know why whenever I write an entry that is longish and contains more that one blockquote the formatting gets all funky? I'm looking at the last entry on Safari and the paragraphs are wacky different sizes. Any suggestions? I use Movable Type.
P.S. The comment spam is back. Anyone have any ideas how to get rid of it? I'd prefer not to make people have to sign in.
Posted by hissycat at 09:51 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
September 25, 2005
Sunday Morning Apologies
Yesterday I started finding spam comments on hissycat and now there are at least eleventy-hundred little boogers. Sorry. I will deal soon. Right after I get back from the Folsom Street Fair, where the leashed testicles are.
Posted by hissycat at 12:08 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack
September 14, 2005
Quiz Show
Which Famous Homosexual Are You?
Brought to you by Rum and Monkey
Which Horrible Affliction are you?
A Rum and Monkey disease.
Posted by hissycat at 10:05 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
September 13, 2005
Happy Christmas (Internet Is Over)
Internet is over, if you want it.
Posted by hissycat at 02:29 PM | Comments (51) | TrackBack
The System is Up
So, it turns out that the downed servers yesterday had less to do with the gods' desire that I spend my time on more worthy tasks (like, my job) than it did with the blackout in L.A. today. I got an email from Mediatemple this morning.
Posted by hissycat at 10:17 AM | Comments (43) | TrackBack
September 12, 2005
The System Is Down
Why oh why was my server down all day. No, really. Why? And why was gmail down this morning, too. It's like technology is conspiring to make me do my work.
Luckily, Google Talk was working, enabling me and Alex to dorkshriek about how technology is failing us:
Joanna: what the fuck? is mediatemple down?Alex: yeah i know!
haha we're so sad
god all hosting companies are evil. . .Joanna: i'm so pissed. does this happen often? will it fuck with my stuff?
Alex: no no. it'll be up in 10 minutes probably
Joanna: oh
Joanna: also, gmail was down for, like 20 min., this morning
??????Alex: EVERYTHING IS FALLING APART
Joanna: stupid technology
Alex: it's like fucking chinua achebe in here
Joanna: i know, it's like i was just colonized by the internet and introduced to all these technologies that are irresistable even as they bring about my own collapse
Posted by hissycat at 05:45 PM | Comments (18) | TrackBack
September 11, 2005
Worst. Weekend. Ever.
So, I'm now officially moved to Movable Type. . . kind of. In importing old Xanga entries, formatting fucked up and comments were dissappeared.
Posted by hissycat at 10:48 PM | Comments (25) | TrackBack
September 09, 2005
When Design Attacks
 | Currently Reading Movable Type 3.0 Bible Desktop Edition By Rogers Cadenhead see related |
Exciting news: smartypants Tamara (Death Before Onions) will betransferring her blog to hissycat.com. How fantastic. I'm flattered.
I don't sleep anymore. I cry and I code (no connection). CSS is the best/worst thing to happen to me. I'm obsessed. I'm still tentative about messing with any of the non-CSS MT template files. I tried to, as the kids say, "plug in" a couple of extremely modest, teeny-weeny little scripts, but when I loaded the page the scripts not only failed to execute anything but also made my formatting go ape-shit. I'm thinking I must have plugged them into the wrong jack, or outlet, or whatever the fuck I'm supposed to call the place where they plug into.
I want to get my page icon todisplay in the url bar, but I can't. And other difficulties, middlinto moderate in size.
The hissycat blog, at the very least, should launch by the end of this weekend. Additional pages will follow. Nowthat I have a working schema of the site, I can do fun, design-relatedtasks. Like playing with pictures of bunnies and ducks. Like making pretty patterns. Like offending and horrifying Alex with my opposite-of-minimalist "design"-- chock full of lacy crap and cobbled together clutter. Everything I touch looks like the frumpy, faded tschatzke of a packrat-spinster-librarian who lives alone, feeding offof books, public radio, and obscure scholarly/ literary journals, and talking to the three-legged cat she named after a character in Ulysses.I'm trying to excercise restraint, though. I don't want to be precious and, like a good bookworm spinster nerd, my first priority is readability.
The elevator in Alex's apartment building was done in a wallpaper that,frankly, is horrifying. Even to me, and I'm, like, the least effeminate gay man� I know. The pattern is so obnoxious and bizarre and aggresive. Alex has perfected a backwards walk into the elevator with his eyes half-closed and cast down so as to avoid the blight on his vision. It gives you motion sickness just to look at it. I started to feel like the heroine of the Charlotte Perkins Gilman story. Before long, I felt compelled to enact the final scene of The Yellow Wallpaper.
It sticks horribly and the pattern just enjoys it! All those strangled heads and bulbous eyes and waddling fungus growths just shriek with derision! . . .there are so many of those creeping women, and they creep so fast. I wonder if they all come out of that wall-paper as I did?
--------
Posted by hissycat at 02:02 PM | Comments (18) | TrackBack
August 30, 2005
The Internet Is My New Boyfriend
 | Currently Listening Gypsy Punks Underdog World Strike By Gogol Bordello see related |
Last summer, when Brett was in Berlin and I was in New York and we hadjust started "dating" (i.e. we agreed the time had come to check the'In a Relationship' status box on Friendster, and click we did), Iwrote an obscene amount of letters (also, obscene letters) toBrett. I spent unsafe numbers of hours facing the computerscreen: at cafes after work, sometimes at the school betwen classes orin the morning before the students arrived, and when I could not sleepin the wee hours I skulked around the house, sometimes army-crawling,sometimes on my tiptoes in search of stolen wireless. Yes, weused e-mail, but I stand by my statement that what I wrote wasletters. Ok, there were some e-mails, little notes sent off infits when I was late for work or about to teach a class and could notstopper my outbursts over something I'd just heard or seen or suppressthe raptures of finding I'd received a new letter from him: "Got yourletter" and "I'll write more soon." Those were emails. ButI strongly believe that if you spend hours tapping out stories to a newlover, if you edit your writing with frightening intensity, and afterreading and editing and reading again you have to close your eyesbefore you hit send, then what you have written is a letter. Youjust happened to post it using e-mail. (And if everyafternoon at work you print out his missive or downlaod it onto yourlaptop and, instead of tearing into it at once, you take a deep breathand plunge it to the bottom of your bag and through sheer force of willmanage not to look at it until after you have driven home, parked thecar, bought a cup of vanilla Tasti-D-Lite with rainbow sprinkles, andlocked the bedroom door to be alone in your chair with your ice creamand your prize, then what you are reading in an email.)
This summer, as though I'd fallen flash fast in love with myself, Ifind myself spending too much time blogging. Again, I find myselfliving without internet, waltzing my laptop across my studio as I dothe wireless reception dance, sneaking in writing time at work (ok,"sneaking in writing time" is a bit of an understatement; "work" isa mammoth overstatement). I've only been really intothis for a few weeks, I know, but, hey, the heart works in mysteriousand inarguable ways. Now, I've taken the plunge.
No, it's not a bakkrupting plane ticket to Berlin I blew a summer's salary on.
It. . .
Is. . .
Website!!
There's nothing but an Under Construction page there now, but it'scoming. It's on its way. And I am hoping to spend some timewith Alex up in Seattle this weekend working on our blogs together. Nerdfest 2005, man! Seriously: the man is a genius.
So if my posts thin out this week, dear bloggy-boo, it's not that I don't love you. I'm gearing up to takes us to The Next Stage.
--------
Posted by hissycat at 05:51 PM | Comments (21) | TrackBack
Google Loves Your Ass
I'm going to Seattle this weekend! Alex, my sugar daddy, is to thanks.
I visited Brett at the Googleplex last night, where he, on my request,invited me to supper. I spent the evening thoroughly shaminghim. There was free food all over the place, and I acted justlike my mother, sneaking handfulls of little cereal boxes in myhandbag. I took yogurt, fruit, candy and SmartWater, too. It's totally magical funland over there: smiling dogs walkingthemselves around the office and stretching out in the middle ofaisles, massage chairs, tents both big and small, elaborate jokesmeticulously charted on white boards, a life-size pirate made of Legosthat hangs out above Brett's desk, oh, and toilets that clean and dry your ass for you. Amazing. Now that's a future I want to be a part of.
--------
Posted by hissycat at 11:40 AM | Comments (23) | TrackBack
August 22, 2005
Chick Lit Cat Fight: Meow, Hiss
 | Currently Listening Exile in Guyville By Liz Phair see related |
1. Yes, it is just a marketing term. Chick lit is a way tocategorize books so that they can be conveniently pitched, packaged,stocked and sold. Like all genres (including the genres Fiction& Literature and Classics, which are, after all, also just nameshanging above the aisles at Barnes & Noble), the genre chick lit isnot inherently meaningful. It is a tool of utility humans use tocope with variety by identifying patterns and grouping items of varyingsimilitude. Categories allow people to find books they want orbelieve, given past reading experience, there is a good chance theymight like. Genres also prepare readers to approach the book witha certain set of expectations. (The idea that there are twotribes of readers-- high-brow and low-brow-- with no intersection issilly. It is perfectly possible for the same woman who enjoys War &Peace to enjoy the latest Nora Roberts; there are certain satisfactionsone gets from one kind of book, and certain kinds of satisfactions onegets from the other, and we approach each book with a different set ofexpectations and demands.) As a category, chick lit can't beeither good or bad. It is a rough, utilitarian term, and it iswhat it is.
2. I'm not comfortable making assumptions about the authors or thereaders of these books. As far as authors go, it is impossible toknow where their imagined book ends and the PR department'scampaign begins. I would bet my big toes that there are a numberof women writers who are uncomfortable being classified as chick litbut who do not have the ability to challenge it. And if someone,realizing she is more likely to publish and hence make a living,decides to steer her writing into a genre of which there is a highdemand-- well, what's it to you? I can't stand the idea thatwriters operate free from economic demands and constraints; the onlypeople who have the ability to operate free from economic realities arepeople with money. And yes, there are some exceptional writerswho have produced great art by working for hours at night in the coldbasement alone after nine hours at a job-- but not too fuckingmany. Writers who admit to (god forbid) a material, laborlyelement to their work, are easy targets for those that still worshipthe model of Romantic artist, individualist, iconoclastic, anduncorruptable. In the 19th century, Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote that"America is now wholly given over to a damned mob of scribbling women,and I should have no chance of success while the public taste isoccupied with their trash � and should be ashamed of myself if I didsucceed." Many 19th century female writers of the Romance wereworking women with mouths to feed, and Hawthorne's disdain for"scribbling women" suggests an assumption that women writers who writeto support themselves (that is, writing a lot) cannot be seriousartists and do not make rational, ethical and aesthetic decisions intheir work. Which sounds awfully familiar to me.
3. As far as chick lit promoting unchallenged acceptance of gendernorms, sexist beliefs, etc.-- um, I hate to be the bringer of bad news,but that is a problem not confined to Chick Lit. Seriousliterature is full of bullshit, too-- there are tons of currentmale-authored, serious, literary texts that rely on and promote sexistand otherwise obectionable assumptions-- and I have no reason tobelieve that being how harmful a book is has anything to do with howserious, how good, how well-written or whatever it is. It alsoseems condescending to me to assume that the readers of Chick Lit orother low-brow trash are not able to see the stereotypes or sexism,that they are unwitting sponges absorbing whatever they're given. I think women readers of Chick Lit deserve a little more credit thanthat. People go to books for all sorts of reasons-- escape,comfort, entertainment, companionship, stimulation. I'd like tobelieve that it is possible to watch a movie or read a book, deriveenjoyment from it, and not buy into every single assumption behind it.
--------
Posted by hissycat at 12:53 PM | Comments (20) | TrackBack
August 19, 2005
Stupidface
| Stupidface You scored 100 confusion, 100 kindness, and 0 extroversion! |
| ConfusedKind Introvert - You will be known as "Stupidface."You're senile and abit skittish because you fear you will run intoanother wall. Your faceis too flat for your tongue to fit entirely inyour mouth; it hangs out.The ridiculous haircut doesn't help. You area favorite topic ofconversation at parties for everyone who has everseen you, even once.They also cannot resist doing impressions of yourface. |
 |
--------
Posted by hissycat at 01:38 PM | Comments (24) | TrackBack
The Literary Dick & I
So if you go to Jonathan Ames's websiteand click on "Literary Dick"you can find a letter I wrote asking about all the homosexual rumorsabout authors ever (you may have to dig around to find it). Andyou can even read the answers that theLiterary Dick wrote in response to my questions. I wish I didn'thave such a filthy mouth. Sometimes I forget, especially when I'mwriting to an audience I cannot see, that not everyone is asfoul-mouthed or as open-minded as myself and my friends and that somepeople might not realize that when I speak of men "taking it up theass" it as a term of endearment. I'm embaressed that myletter required the disclaimer that my language might be offensive tosome, though it may not have been my intention. If only theyknew! At the time I wrote the letter, I was up to my earsin lesbian pulp fiction, which was the topic of my thesis, andI'd fallen so out of touch with the decent, well-mannered world. But I do-- sigh. . .-- love Jonathan Ames, and if you haven't read Wake Up, Sir!, you really should. That and Wendy McClure's I'm Not The New Me (which I assure you is, contrary to the stupid promoter's jacket quotes, nothing like-- shudder-- Bridget Jones) were the two funnest books I read while drowning in my thesis Spring Quarter.
I really wanted to end this post by proving that I'm not a total schmooby showing you the letter I wrote last spring (2004) to Tony Kushner inthe New York Times online edition. He answered my questions,too-- how exciting! And that letter was not crass or offensive atall. But alas, I cannot find it on the NYTimes's website. Ibelieve it ran only in the online edition. Perhaps they don'tarchive online features.
--------
Posted by hissycat at 09:42 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
August 11, 2005
The Pancreas
| The Pancreas You scored 43% sanguine, 53% phlegmatic, 51% melancholy,� and 53% choleric! |
| You are the Pancreas. As you may know, the Pancreas is a glandular organ that secretes insulin and glucagon.
You'vebeen matched to this organ because you scored high on twoaxes:melancholy and choleric. Traditionally, the melancholy humorwasassociated with the Gallbladder and the choleric humor wasassociatedwith the Spleen. Personality characteristics includedemotionality andneither extroversion or introversion. Mythoughts? I associated the Pancreas with melancholy and cholericbecauseit's a very responsive organ, and can exact considerableeffects on thebody's energy. Frankly, it's one of the body's coolestorgans. Surgeons have three axioms: sleep when you can, eat when you can, and don't fuck with the Pancreas.� |
 |
| Link: The What Organ Are You? Test written by lostspiral on Ok Cupid |
--------
Posted by hissycat at 04:21 PM | Comments (22) | TrackBack
August 10, 2005
Just To Be Clear
So it occured to me that the "something" I wrote about this morning might sound, to someone who doesn't know better,an awful lot like pregnancy. Just to clarify, I'm not pregnant.
--------
Posted by hissycat at 03:41 PM | Comments (40) | TrackBack
August 04, 2005
The Dante's Inferno Test
The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Seventh Level of Hell!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:
| Level | Score |
|---|---|
| Purgatory (Repenting Believers) | Very Low |
| Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers) | Low |
| Level 2 (Lustful) | Very High |
| Level 3 (Gluttonous) | Low |
| Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious) | Very Low |
| Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy) | Very High |
| Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics) | Very High |
| Level 7 (Violent) | Extreme |
| Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers) | Moderate |
| Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous) | Low |
Take the Dante's Divine Comedy Inferno Test
--------
Posted by hissycat at 11:51 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
August 03, 2005
I'm Drunk Cat, Who Are You?
| Which random cat are you? Drunk Cat Lay back on the beer, you alcoholic.
|
| Click Here to Take This Quiz Brought to you by YouThink.com quizzes and personality tests. |
--------
Posted by hissycat at 04:22 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack
August 02, 2005
In Xangaland Did Kubla Khan A Puny Weblog Did Decree
 | Currently Reading Midnight's Children By Salman Rushdie see related |
I don't know what it says about me thatI have a desire to start (another) blog after last week's fiasco with Ham-Ham; Oh, wait-- I do: I'm stupid and masochistic.
Ok, so, I am making modifications since the last time I tried to do something like this; I will not post anything remotely scandalous, personal or true; That will be my noble aim.
Oh god, I am so bored at my job; I want to scratch my face off with a fork.
--------
Posted by hissycat at 01:55 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack