Once upon a time...

They're updating Rainbow Brite. *shakes fist in air* Damn you, Hallmark! It burns! Stop it! ARGH!
( Continue onward to see Rainbow Brite's new look plus a photo comparison of classic characters versus their updated versions. )

Seriously. I don't even care that much about Harry Potter, though I have enjoyed the series. Vander Ark has every right to publish an encyclopedia/book of analytical discourse. If he was publishing fanfiction, that would be something entirely different, but it's a reference book! There are already tons of unofficial HP reference books on the market. Where is her outrage over those? Is she so fearful of Vander Ark's ability to produce a work superior to hers? That might be so according to her statements in court about using the lexicon as a reference when she herself could not remember what she wrote. I resent the fact that people say they are embarrassed by Vander Ark. Why? What has he done? He had been praised by Rowling for his efforts and there was a time when she thought publishing his work would be a good idea, and he was told he was not and is not breaking copyright laws. What's there to be embarrassed about?
I was appalled by this statement from her : "This book constitutes wholesale theft of 17 years of my hard work." (from this article on MSN.com).
HOW?! Do Shakespearean encyclopedias negate all of his work? Do encyclopedias on Mark Twain and J.R.R. Tolkien and Frank L. Baum and Jane Austen negate their creativity and effort? A resounding NO is my answer. I've read some of the essays on the Lexicon and 99.9% are in positive praise of her work and if anything should make her feel legitimized as an author for creating audience that is not only capable of intelligent discussion of her works but capable of doing so in a wholly scholastic manner. And in so far as analytical discussion, why doesn't she and every other author still holding a copyright sue SparkNotes for providing summaries and analysis and little mini-encyclopedias of quotes, characters, places, and motifs and symbology? Oh, that's right, it's a reference source not actual works by the authors! It's also not totally for free. You can get the free guides online but now you can buy them from Barnes and Noble. And behold! All her books with exact quotes and characters directly from her books. You can print it off for free or buy it. Go sue them, Rowling.
The testimony the article has quoted her as saying makes her sound like a spoilt child stamping her foot that someone else may be able to make a small profit off of her work. If she were a budding author just starting out, perhaps I could find sympathy for her (I would still disagree with the idea that an encyclopedia violates copyright but then I could still sympathize). She says that she had to stop working on a new novel because of this? Wait a minute, wasn't she working on her own encyclopedia? That seems like a grand and fanciful undertaking at once- new book plus seven books worth of reference material to combine into one? Maybe we should just take away her money, halt her movies and all the merchandise she makes millions off of, and drop her back to living out of her car, and then maybe she'd be able to write. She'll get no sympathy from me.

Dear Joss,
I hate you. I hate you, you pompous arrogant douchebag. You want the MPAA to take away Captivity's rating (Check out the story at this site)? You call it "torture porn." Let me tell you, sir, you are no man to judge what is "torture porn." Season Six of Buffy is what I would classify as "torture porn." You take one of your character (who, at the beginning of Season Six, was one of your most "female" characters), degenerate him into a helpless sexual pawn who is willing to be used again and again, and let him be beaten nearly to a bloody pulp in an alleyway trying to save the woman he loved from making the biggest mistake of her life. You let him be sexually assaulted TWICE ("Smashed" and "Gone") and verbally abused by almost every other character. THEN, you decide that since your main character is losing popularity and you want to garner sympathy for her, you make her the ultimate victim, almost raped by the other character who has steadily become more popular than every other character on the show. I don't care if you didn't make the call, sir. You should have known what was going on on your own fucking show. I'm not gonna fanwank Seeing Red; Spike tried to rape Buffy, pure and simple. Now, I can still sympathesize with him; I see him as going through some sort of twisted battered wife syndrome, finally lashing out at his abuser. Would it have killed Buffy to really apologize for the things she did to him? And, no, I'm sorry, being almost raped doesn't take away her accountability for the things she was doing to him. Sure, the "Hey, that's cheating!" line in "Gone" was cute until it was clear that Buffy was committing an act of forcible sodomy on him when he obviously wanted her gone (and so did I...guess the title of the ep was appropriate to that extent). Yeah, it's really feminist to take away a man's self-esteem and use him just because you hate yourself. That's GRRL POWER! Don't give me that "She was in a dark place!" bullshit; it's such a cop-out. In the real world, you are still accountable for your actions even when you've been emotionally scarred.

Making Spike Buffy's bitch and letting James be harrassed by both crew members and other actors isn't cool. I don't know what kind of freak show you were running, but in no other studio have I ever heard of such rampant sexual harrassment of an actor; I suppose because he was male he just supposed to tough it out, right? Pornography actors and actresses get treated with more respect by their directors than that! And scaring him into towing the party line by threats of firing him is so totally wrong I don't even know where to begin! It obviously is something that is still bothering him. Honestly, it bothers me a hell of a lot, and I wasn't the one naked for eight hours a day. That, dear Mr. Whedon, is why you have no right to judge what is "torture porn." You also have no right to take away someone freedom of speech. If the MPAA takes away their rating, it means that most theatres will refuse to show the film; that's censorship. The rating system should be done away with all together in my opinion, along with labeling music, but I digress. I saw the trailers for Captivity, and they look no worse than Saw or Hostel. Maybe because a female lead is the one caught in a scary place and is being mentally tortured when Saw and Hostel had more male characters in those situations is the reason it bothers you, since you are oh so feminist! The guy in the trailers for Captivity looks like he's getting the brunt of the torture, so shut your cakehole. Many things in the world have been called the antithesis of mankind, so stop acting like you're the God of What Is Politically Correct. The Sex Pistols for starters, who I like, and they are a hell of a lot more creative than you or this film seems to be. This movie I may see; I may not. I may not go see it, I may not like it, I may hate it with a fiery burning passion, but by God, I will defend its right to be shown in theatres. If the MPAA has already given it a rating, you shouldn't ask them to take it away. Yes, money talks, Mr. Whedon, and since that's the only language _you_ understand, let me spell it out for you. You complaining about how violent and demeaning it is is only going to cause this film to make twice at the box office what it would have. So, you fail!
No love, you asshat.
Sincerely,
Fender
Woman, feminist, ranting bitca, and unapologetically all of these.