I just finished reading "A Child's Child" by Barbara Vine.
You might know that Barbara Vine is the other name for Baroness Ruth Rendall. Perhaps feeling confined to a genre like murder mystery, Ms. Rendall felt the need to write in a genre that would give her a freer sense of where she could actually go with the plot. Margaret Atwood went into science fiction with "The Handmaid's Tale" and "Oryx and Crake".
Many writers feel confined to their genre and want to be considered serious purveyors of "literature".
In any case, both strains of Ms. Rendall turned out to be potent.
Very many years ago "From Doon With Death", Ms. Rendall's first detective/murder mystery came out. 1964.
This was produced as a television play and starred a very young Mr. Colin Firth previous to his dishy Darcy days.
The style of writing did not exactly conform to the established mystery writers of the day. She wrote within the confines of murder mystery genre but with a little of her own...er....oooomph.
How she has changed. Over the decades increasingly more of the essential Rendall began to appear.
Later, as Barbara Vine, "A Dark Adapted Eye" came and
this too was produced for television with the amazing under rated actor Ms. Celia Imrie, an actor with colossal presence.
By under rated I mean she should be well known over here in North Am, too.
I have read, and own so many of her books, as well as another friend of mine who was turned on to her by me, however one of the most macabre books with the most devious plot twist, fwico, ever- The Lake of Darkness.
It concerns a man who thinks he's helping an old servant by giving money to her son~~ Finn.
This character is an out of work kitchen fitter who doubles as a hit man.
Can you guess what happens? In an absolutely diabolical plot move, the men meet, in a pub, and the good Samaritan thinks he has helped an old servant, by hiring him to refit a kitchen.
What does the part time assassin think? He thinks he has been hired to kill the Samaritan's wife!
You are just going: "No!", and it is unaccountably often… well...hilarious.
Many books roll by and each one improves.
You know me I am not prone to hyperbolic superlatives,
but Ms. Rendall's "The St. Zita Society" must represent her crowning achievement in transcending a genre into pure literature. Better than pure literature. What I must note is: it is so real. There is a death, not exactly a murder, but a death is covered up. The police are drawn as human. 40% of murders go unsolved according to a site I just googled on the internet. That is reality.
You are reading along and suddenly you do a double take because the sentence you just read is acidly humourous.
No word is superfluous.
Description is curt and absolutely necessary to the plot.
A few strokes the scene is painted.
Now we come to "A Child's Child". It is two books.
There is a book in the middle that the central character has been asked to read.
The two themes here are unwed mothers and the U.K.s laws against homosexuality. These laws, as are all discriminatory laws against the ESGIO species, an unwarranted fascism of a brutal heterosexual majority.
All feminists should read this book for the comments on the reactions in early last century of a women being unmarried when giving birth. Young women feminists particularly should read this book as an historical account of hatred and rejection played such a large role within families.
These two themes are woven, entwined, float up, descend, revolve around on the pages like a masterpiece painting. Feminist of both gender species must also read Tess of the d'Urbervilles, by Thomas Hardy. We must understand history if we are to know where we are today.
Ms. Rendall has achieved a literary sophistication that
is estimable.
It is fascinating to see the changes over the decades,
now I, and friends, used to await every new novel.
Sadly, though it is all of our lots in life, Ms Rendell has passed away.
Whether or not the literary establishment,
whatever that means, considers her work hi falutin enough to be considered top drawer I, for one, could not say. I suggest it does not matter.
Ms. Rendall transcended these petty distinctions
with powerfully created characterizations, contextual credibility, and a demonic sense of anticipation, and now cultural commentary [without preaching], -- an amazing accomplishment, at least,
that is from what I can observe.
Tuesday 14 October 2014
Thursday 4 September 2014
Good year for Clematis
mildew all summer. Cheers
The New Rise of the Female Chauvinist Sow.
Feminism has stalled in NorthAm and other parts of the world.
This post is a very small part of my overview of my completed book, "FWICO, The Pervasive Nature of Disrespect."
While many traditional feminists and others want to keep blaming men, they have not quite understood what the definition of empowerment means. Empowerment does not come from someone else giving you their power,
it comes from creating your power yourselves.
Why has feminism stalled?
Simply put, feminism has stalled because of the lack of self analysis by male and female feminists of some women's behaviour. The light of analysis and critique of men by female and male feminists has been established and understood.
The kind of behaviour that typified the male chauvinist pig has been delineated, though not eradicated, as objectionable behaviour in a modern nation trying to progress to a more inclusive democracy.
There has not been any cogent analysis of the distaff behaviour, eg. the women, some women, who behave like female chauvenist sows.
These women exist. FCS's use their emotional and sexual dynamics to oppress men.
Female chauvinist sows underhandedly manipulate their emotionality and sexuality to gain relationship power,
material gain and financial security.
They accomplish this partly by self sexual objectification.
Currently there is little dialogue that identifies these egregious behaviours on the part of some women.
Not all women, as not all men were chauvenists.
SOME WOMEN'S BEHAVIOUR.
I must point out-- some women.
I dare say I will have to repeat this.
Further it is the behaviour that is objectionable not their gender.
It is not the gender we must challenge, for intellectual accuracy, it is the behaviour. Unlike the men disparaging
feminists who in their weak intellects lumped all men into the same category. The same way we should have identified our feminists objections rested on the behaviour of some men, not their gender that was objectionable in polite democracy.
The Warped Blending.
Our feminist analysis of contemporary life has been blindered by the female specific gender view. This view based all the "oppression" of women solely on men.
We forget that throughout history, for tens of thousands of years, women were 90 to 95% complicit in the arrangement whereby women stayed in the home and men went out in search of survival products.
This arrangement was not thought of as oppression for thousands of years, and in most of the countries of the world is still the norm.history as well. The hidden history.
At some point women must take responsibility for their own lives, many do now, but more need to for real empowerment.
In many cases men did oppress women, because power , natch, comes outside of the home from work action and money. However female oppression of men always existed in
Women did not always object to the traditional division of labour for the gender roles. Both gender species needs for survival products were met.
Things changed in the late 1800's in Europe when the Suffragette movement, of votes for women, began in England. So far so good.
However, among many other factors, there has been a disconnect between what women could accomplish for themselves and what they wanted men to do for them.
This is a crucial point.
One cannot expect the age of chivalry, a protective deference to the "weaker" gender and a preferential treatment of females to co-exist with new demands for
equal treatment and equal opportunity.
However, there exists in our contemporary life in NorthAm
a warped blending by the FCS's for the old demands of preference and the new demands of equal treatment.
In no rational way can these two structures exist concurrently.
The female chauvinist sows, that is, those women who have become the same or were always the same
in their behaviour, as the male chauvinist pig's behaviour want both sets of advantages.
That is insane.
We come to the level playing field. Every one has different innate skill sets. Can women succeed without men's help?
We observe many do, many can, and many more can
increasingly thanks to access to higher education.
We need them. We need girls and women, who have the skill sets, and not every one does, to become doctors, research scientists, bio chemists, geneticists etc.
If you have been paying attention lately you can readily understand why we need all the help we can get to combat the diseases, syndromes, and illness that abound with our human lives in bodies.
What the blank do we care if the researcher has a vagina
or a penis?
Will it matter when you are injected with tumor destroying nanites that a girl who was educated discovered?
It does not matter.
Men have shouldered the total burden of the onerous weight of survival and security responsibility too long.
We need feminism to produce a culture that truly values both gender species, and orientation species as well.
Place responsibility on both gender species.
Respect of diversity is democracy.
Fascism is wanting everyone to be the same.
Feminism has stalled because some home truths, however unpalatable, about women's own behaviour has not been brought into contemporary dialogue. Why not exactly?
Are all women's behaviour in relationships perfectly angelic?
The egregious behaviour of some women, female chauvinist sows, must be challenged by men and women.
Women who are abusive, manipulate using "emotions"
and predate men by using their sexuality to bind men
to them legally for support is female chauvinist sow behaviour, and they have always existed.
They sell their sexuality and "love" to the highest Deegio bidder. Different Gender Oriented.
That they should now try to blend the the two
life styles, [one preferential, one independent], together is a foul and impure result of our myopic direction of criticism solely against men.
Instead we should be addressing our objections against the behaviour in general that either gender species or orientation species uses abusively.
In short - disrespect.
We have a pretty clear understanding of male chauvinist behaviour. This behaviour is, or should be, ostracising in
polite mannered contemporary life of NorthAm
So should the bullying, demeaning, and controlling behaviour of some women, the ones who behave like a female chauvinist.
The Prostitute Wife
How do these FCS behaving women oppress men?
1] Through the purported sanctity of emotions- any emotion.
2] Through their own self objectified sexuality.
I must digest the rather more intricate analysis of my book, ---- . FCSs use the primacy of their emotional structure as the template in a relationship. They use emotion as a kind of graven image of purity. Not all emotions are sane or wholesome. The attitude that any feeling a woman has must be respected because she..... feels...... it, belays common sense, as in the example reported on the BBC News website of the woman in the U.K. who beat her 5 year old son to death because he could not memorize scriptures successfully.
She felt that way.
Each emotion must be evaluated on the criteria of: is it respectful of others or is it abusive.
The female chauvinist believes all her emotions are templates for the emotions in the relationship.
Men have emotions~ they are simply not as profound as women, and being the sole survival product gainer they may have had to put them aside for survival.
Further, some people do not have to prove to others that they have emotions by constantly throwing them in the face of others at every possible opportunity.
That is called erratic behaviour and cannot be supported by any corporation's policy on inappropriate behavior in the workplace.
The workplace is where power or money is made.
Inappropriate behavior is also unacceptable in the home~~ where fwico it is "gotten away with" in relationships between married couples.
2] Sexual self selling. FCS's do not want to give up the manipulative bartering of their self induced objectification
of their sexuality for financial gain and security. The prostitute wife, for example.
Some female chauvinist behaving women use their own sexuality to secure a financial transaction of goods and services called a prostitute marriage.
That is, they objectify themselves for financial security.
Just where has been the contemporary feminist dialogue on this practice? Nowhere.
Sex trade workers do the same thing- on a temporary basis, without the blessing of the legal establishment,
or in fact the religious establishment.
At least they are honest about what they are doing.
Women cannot go on predating men, or assuming men must pay for them, by using their emotionality or sexuality to secure financial compensation for themselves from men. This practice, long been established, if the novels of Jane Austin are any indication, must end with womens' empowerment.
Certainly one of the most depressing indicators of how our entire society quietly accepts the notion of some women as prostitutes was Mz. Gloria Steinam's remark regarding Mz. Miley Cyrus. Here we have an esteemed feminist apologizing for and excusing the professional insecurity of a young singer's vulgar display on TV. Millions of women performers are successful without making horses arses of themselves on TV to promote sales of their product.
Not only does Mz. Steinam apologize, but she does not lay the responsibility on Mz. Cyrus, an adult woman, where it rationally lays, but incredibly goes on to blame men for her behaviour. Men made her do it. Absurd.
Mz. Steinam does not only insult men in her backward view, but she insults millions of women who have succeeded with their own innate skill sets. I could never have predicted such an esteemed [?] feminist would embarrass her intellect in such a way. She needs to apologize to men and women for this statement.
Silence
The silence of the Feminist movement on these issues gives tacit approval to any behaviour on the part of women, however ignoble.
One must, in the words of George Michael ,
"be careful what you say!".
Men do not equal women, the Esgio do not equal the Deegio. Different Gender Oriented. DGO.
We are all different and democracy depends on rejoicing in and supporting this fact.
We have different skill sets, they are the factors that enable us to succeed in the world, - not gender.
Nor race.
This distinction is at the core of all human relationships,
but the media and most citizens seemingly cannot comprehend--
There is no equality.
What we must have , all citizens of the world's nations,
is equal rights applied by civil law, and equal opportunity in education.
We will never be equal. We can only treat each other with
respect of our individuality.
Men feel emotion differently that women, women feel sexuality different from men.
They do not feel the same, not in drive, intention, expectation or profoundity in the relative importance
we attach to every day of our human lives in bodies.
You cannot expect your partner to mirror every single emotion you have -- that is tyranny. Oppression.
You cannot expect your partner to mirror every sexual expectation you have... that too is tyranny.
The warped blending represents an independent dependence, or if you prefer a dependent independence, in other words not a real independence.
So because I love you, and more important respect you, I have written these truths for you to read.
Until feminists, women and men, challenge FCS's behaviour in all parts of contemporary life, feminism will continue to stall, and sadly there will be no further genuine progress towards women's empowerment.
At least, that is from what I can observe.
This post is a very small part of my overview of my completed book, "FWICO, The Pervasive Nature of Disrespect."
While many traditional feminists and others want to keep blaming men, they have not quite understood what the definition of empowerment means. Empowerment does not come from someone else giving you their power,
it comes from creating your power yourselves.
Why has feminism stalled?
Simply put, feminism has stalled because of the lack of self analysis by male and female feminists of some women's behaviour. The light of analysis and critique of men by female and male feminists has been established and understood.
The kind of behaviour that typified the male chauvinist pig has been delineated, though not eradicated, as objectionable behaviour in a modern nation trying to progress to a more inclusive democracy.
There has not been any cogent analysis of the distaff behaviour, eg. the women, some women, who behave like female chauvenist sows.
These women exist. FCS's use their emotional and sexual dynamics to oppress men.
Female chauvinist sows underhandedly manipulate their emotionality and sexuality to gain relationship power,
material gain and financial security.
They accomplish this partly by self sexual objectification.
Currently there is little dialogue that identifies these egregious behaviours on the part of some women.
Not all women, as not all men were chauvenists.
SOME WOMEN'S BEHAVIOUR.
I must point out-- some women.
I dare say I will have to repeat this.
Further it is the behaviour that is objectionable not their gender.
It is not the gender we must challenge, for intellectual accuracy, it is the behaviour. Unlike the men disparaging
feminists who in their weak intellects lumped all men into the same category. The same way we should have identified our feminists objections rested on the behaviour of some men, not their gender that was objectionable in polite democracy.
The Warped Blending.
Our feminist analysis of contemporary life has been blindered by the female specific gender view. This view based all the "oppression" of women solely on men.
We forget that throughout history, for tens of thousands of years, women were 90 to 95% complicit in the arrangement whereby women stayed in the home and men went out in search of survival products.
This arrangement was not thought of as oppression for thousands of years, and in most of the countries of the world is still the norm.history as well. The hidden history.
At some point women must take responsibility for their own lives, many do now, but more need to for real empowerment.
In many cases men did oppress women, because power , natch, comes outside of the home from work action and money. However female oppression of men always existed in
Women did not always object to the traditional division of labour for the gender roles. Both gender species needs for survival products were met.
Things changed in the late 1800's in Europe when the Suffragette movement, of votes for women, began in England. So far so good.
However, among many other factors, there has been a disconnect between what women could accomplish for themselves and what they wanted men to do for them.
This is a crucial point.
One cannot expect the age of chivalry, a protective deference to the "weaker" gender and a preferential treatment of females to co-exist with new demands for
equal treatment and equal opportunity.
However, there exists in our contemporary life in NorthAm
a warped blending by the FCS's for the old demands of preference and the new demands of equal treatment.
In no rational way can these two structures exist concurrently.
The female chauvinist sows, that is, those women who have become the same or were always the same
in their behaviour, as the male chauvinist pig's behaviour want both sets of advantages.
That is insane.
We come to the level playing field. Every one has different innate skill sets. Can women succeed without men's help?
We observe many do, many can, and many more can
increasingly thanks to access to higher education.
We need them. We need girls and women, who have the skill sets, and not every one does, to become doctors, research scientists, bio chemists, geneticists etc.
If you have been paying attention lately you can readily understand why we need all the help we can get to combat the diseases, syndromes, and illness that abound with our human lives in bodies.
What the blank do we care if the researcher has a vagina
or a penis?
Will it matter when you are injected with tumor destroying nanites that a girl who was educated discovered?
It does not matter.
Men have shouldered the total burden of the onerous weight of survival and security responsibility too long.
We need feminism to produce a culture that truly values both gender species, and orientation species as well.
Place responsibility on both gender species.
Respect of diversity is democracy.
Fascism is wanting everyone to be the same.
Feminism has stalled because some home truths, however unpalatable, about women's own behaviour has not been brought into contemporary dialogue. Why not exactly?
Are all women's behaviour in relationships perfectly angelic?
The egregious behaviour of some women, female chauvinist sows, must be challenged by men and women.
Women who are abusive, manipulate using "emotions"
and predate men by using their sexuality to bind men
to them legally for support is female chauvinist sow behaviour, and they have always existed.
They sell their sexuality and "love" to the highest Deegio bidder. Different Gender Oriented.
That they should now try to blend the the two
life styles, [one preferential, one independent], together is a foul and impure result of our myopic direction of criticism solely against men.
Instead we should be addressing our objections against the behaviour in general that either gender species or orientation species uses abusively.
In short - disrespect.
We have a pretty clear understanding of male chauvinist behaviour. This behaviour is, or should be, ostracising in
polite mannered contemporary life of NorthAm
So should the bullying, demeaning, and controlling behaviour of some women, the ones who behave like a female chauvinist.
The Prostitute Wife
How do these FCS behaving women oppress men?
1] Through the purported sanctity of emotions- any emotion.
2] Through their own self objectified sexuality.
I must digest the rather more intricate analysis of my book, ---- . FCSs use the primacy of their emotional structure as the template in a relationship. They use emotion as a kind of graven image of purity. Not all emotions are sane or wholesome. The attitude that any feeling a woman has must be respected because she..... feels...... it, belays common sense, as in the example reported on the BBC News website of the woman in the U.K. who beat her 5 year old son to death because he could not memorize scriptures successfully.
She felt that way.
Each emotion must be evaluated on the criteria of: is it respectful of others or is it abusive.
The female chauvinist believes all her emotions are templates for the emotions in the relationship.
Men have emotions~ they are simply not as profound as women, and being the sole survival product gainer they may have had to put them aside for survival.
Further, some people do not have to prove to others that they have emotions by constantly throwing them in the face of others at every possible opportunity.
That is called erratic behaviour and cannot be supported by any corporation's policy on inappropriate behavior in the workplace.
The workplace is where power or money is made.
Inappropriate behavior is also unacceptable in the home~~ where fwico it is "gotten away with" in relationships between married couples.
2] Sexual self selling. FCS's do not want to give up the manipulative bartering of their self induced objectification
of their sexuality for financial gain and security. The prostitute wife, for example.
Some female chauvinist behaving women use their own sexuality to secure a financial transaction of goods and services called a prostitute marriage.
That is, they objectify themselves for financial security.
Just where has been the contemporary feminist dialogue on this practice? Nowhere.
Sex trade workers do the same thing- on a temporary basis, without the blessing of the legal establishment,
or in fact the religious establishment.
At least they are honest about what they are doing.
Women cannot go on predating men, or assuming men must pay for them, by using their emotionality or sexuality to secure financial compensation for themselves from men. This practice, long been established, if the novels of Jane Austin are any indication, must end with womens' empowerment.
Certainly one of the most depressing indicators of how our entire society quietly accepts the notion of some women as prostitutes was Mz. Gloria Steinam's remark regarding Mz. Miley Cyrus. Here we have an esteemed feminist apologizing for and excusing the professional insecurity of a young singer's vulgar display on TV. Millions of women performers are successful without making horses arses of themselves on TV to promote sales of their product.
Not only does Mz. Steinam apologize, but she does not lay the responsibility on Mz. Cyrus, an adult woman, where it rationally lays, but incredibly goes on to blame men for her behaviour. Men made her do it. Absurd.
Mz. Steinam does not only insult men in her backward view, but she insults millions of women who have succeeded with their own innate skill sets. I could never have predicted such an esteemed [?] feminist would embarrass her intellect in such a way. She needs to apologize to men and women for this statement.
Silence
The silence of the Feminist movement on these issues gives tacit approval to any behaviour on the part of women, however ignoble.
One must, in the words of George Michael ,
"be careful what you say!".
Men do not equal women, the Esgio do not equal the Deegio. Different Gender Oriented. DGO.
We are all different and democracy depends on rejoicing in and supporting this fact.
We have different skill sets, they are the factors that enable us to succeed in the world, - not gender.
Nor race.
This distinction is at the core of all human relationships,
but the media and most citizens seemingly cannot comprehend--
There is no equality.
What we must have , all citizens of the world's nations,
is equal rights applied by civil law, and equal opportunity in education.
We will never be equal. We can only treat each other with
respect of our individuality.
Men feel emotion differently that women, women feel sexuality different from men.
They do not feel the same, not in drive, intention, expectation or profoundity in the relative importance
we attach to every day of our human lives in bodies.
You cannot expect your partner to mirror every single emotion you have -- that is tyranny. Oppression.
You cannot expect your partner to mirror every sexual expectation you have... that too is tyranny.
The warped blending represents an independent dependence, or if you prefer a dependent independence, in other words not a real independence.
So because I love you, and more important respect you, I have written these truths for you to read.
Until feminists, women and men, challenge FCS's behaviour in all parts of contemporary life, feminism will continue to stall, and sadly there will be no further genuine progress towards women's empowerment.
At least, that is from what I can observe.
Thursday 29 May 2014
Japanese Hibiscus
This year I got 7. I will keep you posted.
Wednesday 30 April 2014
I Decorate My Property. A poem
Diamond for the golden throat,
topaz a shape of swan,
emerald and ruby grace
all the hand of woman.
See how I decorate my property
to show others of my wealth,
I will parade her, show how I made her,
an advertisement of myself.
The power I command glitters there on her hand
around her wrist platinum and
amethyst.
This what I own, and sits next to my throne,
a thing,
I parade before kings,
golden chairs and silver tables shining in my halls
but she who glistens with my wealth--
my greatest possession of all.
Sparkling jewels in red and sapphire blue
the next one... could it be you?
See how I decorate my property
with things that catch the eye,
flesh will rot, blood dry way,
but these jewels will never die.
See how I decorate my property,
it speaks of the power within me, and
of her slavery.
topaz a shape of swan,
emerald and ruby grace
all the hand of woman.
See how I decorate my property
to show others of my wealth,
I will parade her, show how I made her,
an advertisement of myself.
The power I command glitters there on her hand
around her wrist platinum and
amethyst.
This what I own, and sits next to my throne,
a thing,
I parade before kings,
golden chairs and silver tables shining in my halls
but she who glistens with my wealth--
my greatest possession of all.
Sparkling jewels in red and sapphire blue
the next one... could it be you?
See how I decorate my property
with things that catch the eye,
flesh will rot, blood dry way,
but these jewels will never die.
See how I decorate my property,
it speaks of the power within me, and
of her slavery.
Monday 14 April 2014
Network TV Demise finis.
Speaking about wasting time in NewsTV : the weather.
The immense amount of time spent on the weather
in news broadcasts is an embarrassment to the editorial
staff's work ethic. We all understand the weather is not an exact science as conditions can change rapidly due to unforeseen weather patterns. In any case, most people have a weather app on their phone or computer. My Mac Book
Pro has the same thing as on most phones. This gives me an as reliable seven day forecast. It is as correct as the TV weather, but possibly more so. It is current and not dependent on a 9am, 12noon, 6pm, or 11pm time slot.
Why would I or anyone sit through someone ingratiatingly smiling, however personably, who tells me what I can see in seconds, for ten to fifteen minutes? Why?
I was discussing this with a friend of mine and she said:
"Weather is cheap". I suppose that is correct if one compares the cost to real journalism.
Next: three top stories. How is it all the local broadcasts and national broadcasts, more or less, have the same top three stories? How do they seem to pick the same three top stories every night? And while on this topic of NewsTV repetition, is there any reason we need so many networks? So many networks showing the same top three stories every night? If I go to Google news I pick the top 3, 4, 5, or 10 stories. Why should we have so many networks American and Canadian showing the same identical topic? Is this not a dreadful waste of our resources?
Finally I will point out my observation, which is by no means the last thing wrong with NewsTV, in regard to the very serious responsibility it must claim for polarization.
The intellectual oil slick depth of reporting suggests there is a plus side and a negative side, a conservative side and a liberal side, a white side and a black side. This is not an accurate portrayal of human contemporary life. Life exists in infinite shades of grey. There is not merely management's side and the union's side. This is the understanding of cretins. However it is a cheap and easy way to report the news if one is lazy.
You know me I am not one to complain, so that is enough about NewsTV. About television in general, infotainmentTV or simply network TV- they used to call
television the "vast wasteland", those pundits never saw television in 2017. The current level of programing, and
unreality TV, is really plumbing the most base and vulgar of humanity's activities, personalities and attitudes.
Unreality programs seem to promote the most venal and immature behaviour and consequently set it as some kind of standard. It should NOT be the standard for human behaviour -- we must set higher goals higher aspirations
than we see portrayed on current programming.
From what I can observe it is likely networks themselves that will fall. Not only for the execrable standards of today's TV but in addition for the desperate bid for advertising as viewership falls. Netflicks and Xfinity await.
The final guillotine stroke for networks, if you will allow a little literal hyperbole is:
In Program Ads. Also known as banner ads, those pesky annoying things at the bottom of your screen when your actual program is on air. This is the death knell for television networks.
How come? No one I talk to has been able to explain why
we must pay to watch commercials.
Most of you do not remember but when we first got TV in the 50s we had to have an antenna. It made perfect sense, then, that we got TV "free" because we had to endure noxious and sometimes creatively amusing advertising to see our favorite programs. So far so good.
When cable arrived we now had to pay to receive television broadcasts and advertising. We literally pay to watch advertising. Since the pvr arrived networks realized
viewers were fast forwarding through the ads, natch, and now they have decided to annoy the hell out of the viewer
by putting in distracting visuals, banners ads for the networks own shows and finally for products actually during the program.
Tetley tea?
I will never buy your fine product for putting in an ad in my favorite program- Elementary, though it is flagging and losing focus in its late third season.
Bong! -that's the death knell going off. This execrable practice of banner ads will accelerate the end of networks finally and irrevocably.
I usually find I enjoy a program very late. For instance I never liked Seinfeld until it was over, then in reruns I "got" it. They are all horrible, if hilarious, self centered people. Just awful people, like Patsy and Edina. So funny.
So when the Mentalist came on I missed many of the first
episodes. I made my first ever purchase of a TV series.
Mentalist first season then Fringe. I received the first season of Elementary for xmas. I was astounded totally when the brilliant actor Jonny Lee Miller's character used the word contretemps on television. Then the brilliant actor Lucy Lui's character did not ask what it meant or dumb something down for the audience. Look it up! These programs are part of the smart is sexy trend.
Person of Interest was brilliant and very lamented.
Yeah I enjoyed Downton Abbey too. But I miss Sibohan Finneran. What an amazing actor she is.
What a joy to watch TV programs on DVD! No ads at all, just a black screen where you knew the commercial break came. The way the "art" of television should be enjoyed.
In fact commercials have destroyed the artistic aesthetic of television drama. Most internet users won't be able to remember but TV started out, at least, having the same aesthetic integrity as theater and cinema.
So in the networks desire to promote themselves or their sponsors in banner ads they are committing suicide.
Consumers get tired of switching to new technologies not to mention the costs involved. This fact is preventing the wholesale lemming rush to Netflicks etc. HD, I observe,
as a visual delivery system is magnificent. Particularly for sports or nature.
Now they want you to upgrade to UHD, but there is very little on.
Ironic, that at a time when the delivery system for video
product has been refined to unprecedented picture quality the content has become increasingly dismal and unpalatable.
What is the future for network news and infotainment?
Perhaps the few remaining networks will become like radio did when TV kicked it in the arse. Public radio, in any case, has much more quality than TV presently.
Lately in my city networks have been having "support community television" open house days. This last ditch effort is akin to a weak Luddite attempt to stay the hands of progress.
No mechanical looms !!!!
Sad really, but as I say, I wish every one well, but we simply do not spin cloth with old spinning wheels any more---- new technology took over.
At least, that is from what I can observe.
The immense amount of time spent on the weather
in news broadcasts is an embarrassment to the editorial
staff's work ethic. We all understand the weather is not an exact science as conditions can change rapidly due to unforeseen weather patterns. In any case, most people have a weather app on their phone or computer. My Mac Book
Pro has the same thing as on most phones. This gives me an as reliable seven day forecast. It is as correct as the TV weather, but possibly more so. It is current and not dependent on a 9am, 12noon, 6pm, or 11pm time slot.
Why would I or anyone sit through someone ingratiatingly smiling, however personably, who tells me what I can see in seconds, for ten to fifteen minutes? Why?
I was discussing this with a friend of mine and she said:
"Weather is cheap". I suppose that is correct if one compares the cost to real journalism.
Next: three top stories. How is it all the local broadcasts and national broadcasts, more or less, have the same top three stories? How do they seem to pick the same three top stories every night? And while on this topic of NewsTV repetition, is there any reason we need so many networks? So many networks showing the same top three stories every night? If I go to Google news I pick the top 3, 4, 5, or 10 stories. Why should we have so many networks American and Canadian showing the same identical topic? Is this not a dreadful waste of our resources?
Finally I will point out my observation, which is by no means the last thing wrong with NewsTV, in regard to the very serious responsibility it must claim for polarization.
The intellectual oil slick depth of reporting suggests there is a plus side and a negative side, a conservative side and a liberal side, a white side and a black side. This is not an accurate portrayal of human contemporary life. Life exists in infinite shades of grey. There is not merely management's side and the union's side. This is the understanding of cretins. However it is a cheap and easy way to report the news if one is lazy.
You know me I am not one to complain, so that is enough about NewsTV. About television in general, infotainmentTV or simply network TV- they used to call
television the "vast wasteland", those pundits never saw television in 2017. The current level of programing, and
unreality TV, is really plumbing the most base and vulgar of humanity's activities, personalities and attitudes.
Unreality programs seem to promote the most venal and immature behaviour and consequently set it as some kind of standard. It should NOT be the standard for human behaviour -- we must set higher goals higher aspirations
than we see portrayed on current programming.
From what I can observe it is likely networks themselves that will fall. Not only for the execrable standards of today's TV but in addition for the desperate bid for advertising as viewership falls. Netflicks and Xfinity await.
The final guillotine stroke for networks, if you will allow a little literal hyperbole is:
In Program Ads. Also known as banner ads, those pesky annoying things at the bottom of your screen when your actual program is on air. This is the death knell for television networks.
How come? No one I talk to has been able to explain why
we must pay to watch commercials.
Most of you do not remember but when we first got TV in the 50s we had to have an antenna. It made perfect sense, then, that we got TV "free" because we had to endure noxious and sometimes creatively amusing advertising to see our favorite programs. So far so good.
When cable arrived we now had to pay to receive television broadcasts and advertising. We literally pay to watch advertising. Since the pvr arrived networks realized
viewers were fast forwarding through the ads, natch, and now they have decided to annoy the hell out of the viewer
by putting in distracting visuals, banners ads for the networks own shows and finally for products actually during the program.
Tetley tea?
I will never buy your fine product for putting in an ad in my favorite program- Elementary, though it is flagging and losing focus in its late third season.
Bong! -that's the death knell going off. This execrable practice of banner ads will accelerate the end of networks finally and irrevocably.
I usually find I enjoy a program very late. For instance I never liked Seinfeld until it was over, then in reruns I "got" it. They are all horrible, if hilarious, self centered people. Just awful people, like Patsy and Edina. So funny.
So when the Mentalist came on I missed many of the first
episodes. I made my first ever purchase of a TV series.
Mentalist first season then Fringe. I received the first season of Elementary for xmas. I was astounded totally when the brilliant actor Jonny Lee Miller's character used the word contretemps on television. Then the brilliant actor Lucy Lui's character did not ask what it meant or dumb something down for the audience. Look it up! These programs are part of the smart is sexy trend.
Person of Interest was brilliant and very lamented.
Yeah I enjoyed Downton Abbey too. But I miss Sibohan Finneran. What an amazing actor she is.
What a joy to watch TV programs on DVD! No ads at all, just a black screen where you knew the commercial break came. The way the "art" of television should be enjoyed.
In fact commercials have destroyed the artistic aesthetic of television drama. Most internet users won't be able to remember but TV started out, at least, having the same aesthetic integrity as theater and cinema.
So in the networks desire to promote themselves or their sponsors in banner ads they are committing suicide.
Consumers get tired of switching to new technologies not to mention the costs involved. This fact is preventing the wholesale lemming rush to Netflicks etc. HD, I observe,
as a visual delivery system is magnificent. Particularly for sports or nature.
Now they want you to upgrade to UHD, but there is very little on.
Ironic, that at a time when the delivery system for video
product has been refined to unprecedented picture quality the content has become increasingly dismal and unpalatable.
What is the future for network news and infotainment?
Perhaps the few remaining networks will become like radio did when TV kicked it in the arse. Public radio, in any case, has much more quality than TV presently.
Lately in my city networks have been having "support community television" open house days. This last ditch effort is akin to a weak Luddite attempt to stay the hands of progress.
No mechanical looms !!!!
Sad really, but as I say, I wish every one well, but we simply do not spin cloth with old spinning wheels any more---- new technology took over.
At least, that is from what I can observe.
Monday 7 April 2014
NetworkTV Demise cont.
Now for NewsTV.
The TV news is a format for delivery of info product that has not changed much since its inception.
Generally it has the depth of an oil slick.
Irene Adler, a character in Sherlock, the brilliant British production, said " Smart is the new sexy."
So true. NewsTV has not exactly jumped on that
"smarting up" bandwagon. They certainly have established their credibility in the dumbing down department, however that style is now passe.
What is NewsTV doing wrong, then. From what I can observe... nearly everything. We must think of information as data bits. If you read a data bit on the internet you do not go over it 4, 5, or 6 times. You already read it once, that usually is enough.
NewsTV editors and writers have not quite grasped
this concept.
As an internet user one clicks on a link, reads that, then goes on to the next thing. If we want more info bits aka data we shove key words into Google and research more, as is our wish.
NewsTV cannot provide this level of service. Is that their fault? Certainly not! They are old media.... snail news.
This level of user ease is not embedded in their structure.
The list of news stories on Google or BBC is a page long or longer. The user chooses what product they want to consume-- not the TV editor's or writer's choice.
This is called "the empowerment of the user".
When telephone answering machines were introduced we had "the empowerment of the called". So there are precedents in regard to socio-technological changes.
How is NewsTV different from the internet? Well, when the news is about to come on, after any other program, there is often a network shill ad for the upcoming news broadcast.
In the previous hour time slot.
The three top stories of the day are teased.
That's once you have heard, read or seen them.
Keep track.
Next the actual news program comes on and guess what?
These three are mentioned again.
"Our top stories today! "
Then they are often mentioned again when the anchor, however personable and charming [and they are!] starts talking to introduce each of the three stories.
That's three times we have been party to three info bits repeated three times. Boring!
Now the video often will go from the anchor to a reporter
inexplicably standing by at the scene of the crime, disaster or whatever, where in most cases the action has completely evaporated, then the reporter repeats exactly what the viewer has heard, or seen three times already
by the intros. May I repeat: Age of the Internet!
That is four times now, boring boring I'm just snoring.
It seems as if the NewsTV staff are saying; " You, my dear viewer, are an imbecile."
What next? Well, we will often go to a "real person" who will more or less repeat what has already been said. Or to an "expert" who will also confirm the info bit being stated.
The expert is an interesting addition. The video editor will accompany her report with video of the expert walking down the hall outside his office, walking along the street towards her office or working on a laptop in the office.
This "video" is completely staged and rather embarrassing. It is there to give the voice over time to introduce them. Completely fake. I call it dead video,
or in other words radio.
The Internet does not find it necessary to infuse dead time into the users experience. Consequently our time is used more efficiently on Google news et al.
Our time is running out, as you are well aware. Ticking of the clock. Time passes. What I am referring to here is
we are mortal, and the most judicious use of our time is an imperative, don't you think?
That is if you actually value life.
These are, as I declare in my philosophy, only my observations, you will have to tell if they resonate with you.
I grew up on TV, but young people today have the Internet. They simply will not waste their time on NewsTV.
Putting it another way....would a young girl raised on the Internet go back and read the identical information 5 or 6 times? What would be the profit in that?
As Camille Paglia says we are some kind of an ADD society now-- on to the next thing fast.
Rather than wasting our time with endless repetition we could be on to Japan wood block prints: the pictures of the floating world, Expressionist German Art, Hubble and Keppler's new galactic photographs, car design, or you name it.
Can I have been the only person to notice these critiques?
Of course not. When a person gets bad customer service in a store they usually do not tell the owner they never go back.
Why is there so little of these critiques expressed on the TV medium itself?
The television media would not willingly air information
that exposed its own diminishment.
Falling viewership means less justification for high salaries
of anchors, producers, directors, editors, sound crew, and all the other essential TV crew.
It must be no comfort to these individuals to have participated in their own employment's demise by their reluctance to amend program structure in response to technological advancements.
It is another case of you have seen the enemy and it is you.
In fact, one might observe, that there is a distinct unconfirmed possibility that the reason NewsTV/SnailTV is so superficial is that being the primary, [now ex-primary] news source makes one lazy. I, for one, could not say.
Chopper One? Don't bother if is just an expensive
excuse to insert an in program add.
I've heard news reporting is quite expensive, but that is no reason to let a dearth of info product occur on NewsTV.
I refer to the "coming ups". A great deal of the news program is telling what will come up after what they euphemistically call " the break", which you know means ads. The "what we're working ons".
Forget them, already.
I wish all workers well. Does Snail TV/NewsTV think we are blockheads? Oh. Perhaps they do.
What if the user went to Yahoo news and they said the item you want will be coming up in 20 minutes time
watch these ads and other unrelated info until that time?
Er....no. No. The user in the internet age would be on to another site or story....immediately!
They should be or else they are wasting their time.
Few people are going to wait to hear news for instance in the latter part of the program or more deviously after many many commercials. These comings up are time killers, so another few minutes of the broadcast is cheap. Do the editors and writers think they are cheap? Cheaper than providing hard news? That is: they take up time and cost nothing but the graphic work? The sub textual message: news is about wasting time?
I am asking. These are my observations, I make no claim to them being hard reality. You will have to make you own mind up about this.
More on this subject next post. Cheers.
The TV news is a format for delivery of info product that has not changed much since its inception.
Generally it has the depth of an oil slick.
Irene Adler, a character in Sherlock, the brilliant British production, said " Smart is the new sexy."
So true. NewsTV has not exactly jumped on that
"smarting up" bandwagon. They certainly have established their credibility in the dumbing down department, however that style is now passe.
What is NewsTV doing wrong, then. From what I can observe... nearly everything. We must think of information as data bits. If you read a data bit on the internet you do not go over it 4, 5, or 6 times. You already read it once, that usually is enough.
NewsTV editors and writers have not quite grasped
this concept.
As an internet user one clicks on a link, reads that, then goes on to the next thing. If we want more info bits aka data we shove key words into Google and research more, as is our wish.
NewsTV cannot provide this level of service. Is that their fault? Certainly not! They are old media.... snail news.
This level of user ease is not embedded in their structure.
The list of news stories on Google or BBC is a page long or longer. The user chooses what product they want to consume-- not the TV editor's or writer's choice.
This is called "the empowerment of the user".
When telephone answering machines were introduced we had "the empowerment of the called". So there are precedents in regard to socio-technological changes.
How is NewsTV different from the internet? Well, when the news is about to come on, after any other program, there is often a network shill ad for the upcoming news broadcast.
In the previous hour time slot.
The three top stories of the day are teased.
That's once you have heard, read or seen them.
Keep track.
Next the actual news program comes on and guess what?
These three are mentioned again.
"Our top stories today! "
Then they are often mentioned again when the anchor, however personable and charming [and they are!] starts talking to introduce each of the three stories.
That's three times we have been party to three info bits repeated three times. Boring!
Now the video often will go from the anchor to a reporter
inexplicably standing by at the scene of the crime, disaster or whatever, where in most cases the action has completely evaporated, then the reporter repeats exactly what the viewer has heard, or seen three times already
by the intros. May I repeat: Age of the Internet!
That is four times now, boring boring I'm just snoring.
It seems as if the NewsTV staff are saying; " You, my dear viewer, are an imbecile."
What next? Well, we will often go to a "real person" who will more or less repeat what has already been said. Or to an "expert" who will also confirm the info bit being stated.
The expert is an interesting addition. The video editor will accompany her report with video of the expert walking down the hall outside his office, walking along the street towards her office or working on a laptop in the office.
This "video" is completely staged and rather embarrassing. It is there to give the voice over time to introduce them. Completely fake. I call it dead video,
or in other words radio.
The Internet does not find it necessary to infuse dead time into the users experience. Consequently our time is used more efficiently on Google news et al.
Our time is running out, as you are well aware. Ticking of the clock. Time passes. What I am referring to here is
we are mortal, and the most judicious use of our time is an imperative, don't you think?
That is if you actually value life.
These are, as I declare in my philosophy, only my observations, you will have to tell if they resonate with you.
I grew up on TV, but young people today have the Internet. They simply will not waste their time on NewsTV.
Putting it another way....would a young girl raised on the Internet go back and read the identical information 5 or 6 times? What would be the profit in that?
As Camille Paglia says we are some kind of an ADD society now-- on to the next thing fast.
Rather than wasting our time with endless repetition we could be on to Japan wood block prints: the pictures of the floating world, Expressionist German Art, Hubble and Keppler's new galactic photographs, car design, or you name it.
Can I have been the only person to notice these critiques?
Of course not. When a person gets bad customer service in a store they usually do not tell the owner they never go back.
Why is there so little of these critiques expressed on the TV medium itself?
The television media would not willingly air information
that exposed its own diminishment.
Falling viewership means less justification for high salaries
of anchors, producers, directors, editors, sound crew, and all the other essential TV crew.
It must be no comfort to these individuals to have participated in their own employment's demise by their reluctance to amend program structure in response to technological advancements.
It is another case of you have seen the enemy and it is you.
In fact, one might observe, that there is a distinct unconfirmed possibility that the reason NewsTV/SnailTV is so superficial is that being the primary, [now ex-primary] news source makes one lazy. I, for one, could not say.
Chopper One? Don't bother if is just an expensive
excuse to insert an in program add.
I've heard news reporting is quite expensive, but that is no reason to let a dearth of info product occur on NewsTV.
I refer to the "coming ups". A great deal of the news program is telling what will come up after what they euphemistically call " the break", which you know means ads. The "what we're working ons".
Forget them, already.
I wish all workers well. Does Snail TV/NewsTV think we are blockheads? Oh. Perhaps they do.
What if the user went to Yahoo news and they said the item you want will be coming up in 20 minutes time
watch these ads and other unrelated info until that time?
Er....no. No. The user in the internet age would be on to another site or story....immediately!
They should be or else they are wasting their time.
Few people are going to wait to hear news for instance in the latter part of the program or more deviously after many many commercials. These comings up are time killers, so another few minutes of the broadcast is cheap. Do the editors and writers think they are cheap? Cheaper than providing hard news? That is: they take up time and cost nothing but the graphic work? The sub textual message: news is about wasting time?
I am asking. These are my observations, I make no claim to them being hard reality. You will have to make you own mind up about this.
More on this subject next post. Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)