Often I absorb things but I never can recall them or even put the information I gain to good use. Ideally, choice areas of my (regenerable =]) brain would liquefy and seep out of my ears like molten earwax to form the content of my essays (unfortunately this would only be worthwhile if I paid attention in class). I’d drink the nasty concoction and it would pass through my digestive tract, specifically the small intestine, reassembling into coherent sentences and cogent arguments supplemented with appropriate use of evidence. The lack of fibre content (unless I’m eating my politics notes, I guess) would ensure that my half-baked essay sits and festers inside my bowels for a bit, long enough for the editorial process to be well underway. Then, with enough grunting and pushing, a nicely written essay would sort of wriggle its way through my anal sphincter, ready for submission

But since I’m not well-evolved enough to extract knowledge from physical substance through my stomach, I have to actually write this shit out by hand. Gah.

Eh you know what, I’m not going to suffer the torment of reading through my year 8 diaries again So I’ll just leave it up to you to imagine kind of prattling entries I wrote.

But yeah. At times I even went through past entries, copy-pasted excerpts and then followed that through with extensive commentary, usually addressing myself in the second person. Yes, you have a schizoid in the making.

~

In any case, this pointless post illustrates how far I’ve come since my days of bad journalling – instead of journalling because I had nothing better to do, I now blog about blogging because I have everying else in the world that needs doing. Gah, I think my politics revision is calling me. “Where areeeee youuu???? Why aren’t you doing me on the desk right nowwwwww??”

On second thoughts, that might not be my politics after all

explanation for what you should actually be interpreting as pretension:

1. Saw the word “inaniloquent, thought it was pretty*
2. Saw the word “garrulity” and thought it was ugly*
3. Put them together – ugliness negates prettiness and results in aesthetic neutrality plus pretension

pretty + ugly —> pregly + ugtty + pretentious

That’s actually chemically impossible. Pretension was never a reactant.

I’m bored.

EDIT: I have funny (funny being weird and odd, not amusing) associations with websites, and it generally happens when i view websites i used to frequent a while back. For instance, deviantart and livejournal are very much associated with year 9, but less so with year 10. Also, how come I never capitalise my first-person “i”s anymore? Ignore the capitalised one in the previous sentence

<p>I have defined Twilight as: Twilight, noun: (1) a collection of adjectives and adverbs under the guise of a novel, (2) the magnum opus of the new misogynist movement, (3) glorified trash

Consider the Twilight phenomenon a good thing. The girls who say that they will never ever ever ever get another boyfriend because no one could ever ever ever ever live up to their preconceived ideas about the perfect man (cough, Edward) will probably never have children, thereby improving the gene pool. It’s almost like voluntary eugenics. (and you will notice that a good majority of my posts will have something to do with exterminating the people I don’t like in the name of genetic improvement)

Twilight irritates me on several levels. When I read it – oh yes, I should probably admit that I’ve read the book, which is more than many critics of the Twilight series can claim. So, when I read the book I read it because it had been highly recommended to me by a friend (who will remain unnamed), and what’s more, I even found the opening almost enjoyable.

Aha, I hear objections already – “Lynette, if you found it enjoyable then why do you hate it so much?” Sorry, I should have specified that finding a book enjoyable doesn’t necessarily mean that it should be considered on par with books that are far superior in terms of structure, development, characterisation and all those aspects of a book that make it good. So I read Twilight and found it entertaining enough. It was brilliantly soppy, which is a prerequisite for any mediocre chick-novel (and Twilight cannot, even by the most generous standards, be regarded as anything more than mediocre), and formulaic enough to be relatively feel-good. I could call it predictable because (for the most part) Twilight *was* disgustingly predictable, but sadly, the climatic twist of the novel wasn’t predicatable at all. In fact, it was plain random and out of the blue, and in all honesty, I would rather predictability over random plot devices thrown in because the author was too lazy to spin a good story. The ballet studio? What? That was random and pointless and Meyer offered no explanation for its inclusion, yet the story was written as though the trickery was something Bella should have seen all along. Yes. Because readers clearly beat themselves over the head and say, “URGH, why didn’t I see that coming? What a brilliantly conceived plot!” when they had no prior knowledge that any such place/event could have existed.

Aside from that, I say it serves her right and I wish she had died then and there. Better yet, a more satisfying ending would have included Edward sucking the blood and guts out of Bella and committing suicide out of grief. That might have been upsetting enough to be considered ‘bitter sweet’, but no, Meyer opted for the easier way out and has further continued to subject the unfortunate populace to MORE BOOKS and a movie based on these books. How I grieve for the degradation of literature. On that note, I’m bothered by the number of people who seem to think that Twilight epitomises all the qualities desired in marvellous literature. My dear elitist friend, Matt Vethecan, recently criticised me for reading Jane Austen, citing her ‘boring and predictable’ plots as reason enough to dismiss her novels as nothing more than trash. Alright, so he didn’t say the last bit, but for the sake of my own judgments of Twilight, I’ll leave it there. My counterargument justified Jane Austen’s elevated status in the world of literature – Jane Austen is not an author one would read if one were looking for a good plot. I’d be clutching at straws if I said that her very minimal plots were intentionally there to serve as a base for the more sophisticated dialogue between Austen’s characters, so I’ll settle on saying that, yes, her plots sucked, but her characters (while admittedly similar) were amusing and possessed a certain liveliness that books like Twilight do not. So, if Twilight has neither a good plot nor characters in possession of more than one dimension, where are its redeeming features? My very simple answer is that there are none. That people compare the Twilight books to the works by Dickens, Austen and many other notable authors disturbs me. Edward Cullen is a neurotic sociopath who displays nauseatingly sadistic tendencies throughout the book. His depressed girlfriend, Bella, is a self absorbed bitch who does nothing more than whine about how her friends at school don’t understand why her life is infinitely more woesome than theirs. I fail to comprehend why her darling friends don’t ditch her for someone less lofty and condescending – I for one wouldn’t suffer the presence of a high-maintenance sniveller who is in desperate need of some Prozac. Bella is too self-absorbed to be a desirable character in any context, much less a romantic one.

Other Things That I Hate About Twilight:

TWILIGHT’S DEPTH: TWILIGHT IS NOT DEEP. IT IS NOT PROFOUND. Yes, it is littered with allusions to other books, but they are… pathetic. DEPTH (nonexistent) Anyone who rants about the book’s ‘humour’ and ‘deep and evocative themes’ is full of bullshit. Harry Potter has more themes than Twilight and is much funnier. What’s also ironic is that the Harry Potter series doesn’t attempt to take itself seriously the way Twilight does. Twilight is filled with sloppily embedded references that just hit you in the face with their glaring lack of purpose – e.g. “The lion and the lamb”, which are animals with biblical significance. Meyer could at least try to make an effort at portraying her characters without resorting to her readers’ presuppositions about the traits that are characteristic of lions and lambs to shed light on the (nonexistent) personalities of Bella and Edward. Personality is not defined by the act of pulling facial expressions (Edward: *sneer*) or being clumsy (Bella: *accidentally falls into a blender*). The theme of CHOICE: The apple on the cover of Twilight is another example of Meyer’s pointless allusions to things that are irrelevant. The apple symbolises choice (a la Garden of Eden), except Twilight has nothing to do with choice (unless Meyer was referring to Edward having to choose between seducing Bella and ripping out her throat – and she may have been.) The real choice is whether or not I should read the other books in the series and risk dropping a few IQ points.

THE TITLE!!11!!!!1 Given all the other random references to irrelevant things, we should assume that the title also holds very strong significance to the overall novel. So what is Twilight? Twilight is a noun derived from some 15th C Germanic tongue. “Twi” is an archaic term for ‘two’ or ‘half’, so ‘twilight’ really means ‘half-light’, or the time of day just before/after sunset/dawn. It can also refer to a time of gentle or peaceful decline, e.g. the twilight of someone’s career/life/romance/etc. Hm, twi = two? Well, Bella + Edward = two. Meyer might try to trick you into thinking that Bella and Edward are so in love that they’re actually ‘one’ – don’t listen to her because she obviously sucks at maths. 1 + 1 = 2. Maybe the title is supposed to mean that Edward and Bella are so ‘totally and irrevocably in love’ with each other that their love manifests itself so strongly that they are like beacons of “LIGHT!” when together. Well, that interpretation of “twilight” doesn’t really work because Bella’s perpetual gloom and Edwards bloodlust make them both better candidates for ‘dark’ rather than ‘light’. Alternatively, ‘Twilight’ may be talking about Edward – perhaps he’s ‘half light’ in that he is, by nature, morally conflicted. No, that doesn’t work either, because Bella is the protagonist of the story, not Edward – although seeing as the book is written in the first person from Bella’s POV and all she ever does is talk about Edward, he may as well be the main character because aside from the fact that she’s a sappy bitch who cries over nothing and dearly lusts after Edward, I wouldn’t have a clue what Bella is like. That means that she’s not really the protagonist. Or it means that Meyer sucks. Yeah, go with the latter. It’s more accurate. And guess what?! It turns out that Meyer chose the title “Twilight” because she couldn’t think of anything else. “A Most Displeasing Narration on the Ridiculous and Facepalm-Inducing Experiences of a Certain Disgusting Cretin Known as Bella Swan and Her Equally Insipid Boyfriend Edward” would have been a more suitable title. Even “Lame Sparkling Vamipres” would have sufficed as a working title.

So. In two and a half pages the following facts have been established – 1.Twilight is shit 2.Meyer is dumb 3.Lynette has too much time on her hands

Thanks word press. I probably would have figured out to make my first post all by myself, but it was really nice of you to do it for me.  I don’t need yet another blog – I already have blogger, livejournal, as well as several embarrassing others, but I’ve figured that since the last thing I want to do right now is homework, I may as well increase my cyber footprint (which is almost certainly larger than my carbon footprint) and find another means of procrastination.

If it wasn’t evident from the title of this blog, I’m a huge fan of the synonym tool, and often go out of my way to replace perfectly functional words with ones that are longer, harder to spell, and impossible to pronounce.

—

This is not the first time this matter (which is of the utmost importance as it concerns the rest of humanity) has been brought up. Realistically speaking, we (Lynette and Rachel) are not the brightest of individuals – nor are we complete idiots either. With this in mind we have concluded that it would be most beneficial to the gene pool for us, and others of our type to breed with intellectuals. Obviously the aim of this exercise is to produce offspring that are more intelligent than the generation before (that is, us) without resulting in the eventual extinction of intelligent people as a whole. By this we mean that if a highly intelligent male were to impregnate a highly intelligent female, they would most likely have highly intelligent offspring. While this is, in the interim, desirable, it is not ideal. Eventually this exclusive mating would leave behind the rest of the population, resulting in a small scattering of supremely mentally adroit beings. Such a class would reach the point of being forced to mate with those far less intellectually minded than themselves, for fear of in-breeding (which would, of course, undo all the good breeding prior). Without evolutionary precautions being taken on a large scale, two classes of intellect will appear, and will become entirely atypical. If the brilliant demand brilliance in return, then the first class that will inevitably develop will be small in nature, and eventually first and second class will mix, but at this point, any human results of such a mixing would no doubt be far intellectually inferior to any of the potential children of the intelligent and ‘almost-intelligent’, or would, alternatively, add to either class extreme. Our program adamantly encourages the first course of action we outlined: to spread intelligence throughout the population proportionately without resorting to the unintended (yet eventually inevitable) mixing two classes of human beings worlds apart.

In respect to the ramifications of such an application to mating habits in the human race, this form of eugenics would standardise intelligence (to a degree) for the purpose of genetic safety. However, to eliminate the risk of losing the intelligence that would be described as ‘genius’ and to ensure significant developments in the society of the future, sperm and ovum donation nature would be encouraged; genetic properties would be analysed, the sperm and egg of two individuals of a highly intellectual nature would be used to create intellectually ideal children who would fill the positions of authority.

For want of a standard class of reasonable intelligence, however, pair-bonds would be encouraged between those with fair intelligence and those with high intelligence; quasi-intelligence would be instilled, controlled and fostered through careful nurture. Through generational teaching, this almost-intelligence will be upheld in spite of genetic lacking. This assimilation of the genius and lesser-form must be undertaken in order to ensure that the gene pool remains varied enough to resist defection, yet not imprudent enough to result in genetic decline – in such a delicate breeding program such as this, genetic bias of either way is an unaffordable risk. This eugenical program, it must be noted, is not Hitlerian in nature in that it does not seek to eradicate those deemed to be ‘unsatisfactory’ and is in favour of a gradual incline of widespread improvement, rather than what may eventually result in expeditious elitism of the successful produce – an exponential increase would most likely be too rapid to be sustained. Intelligence of a potent amount is encouraged, but it must not become exclusive to the point of skewness. This aspires to the creation of a varied form of intelligence: artistic, emotional, intellectual, perceptive, etc., and, following the grounding of a sufficiently intelligent race, attention will be turned to other potentially modifiable traits: disposition, metabolism, physical appearance, health, personality, diplomacy, and individual taste in porridge. The Aryan – sorry, perfect – no – desired human preferably will have an innate aversion to honey oats.

Credits -
You can thank the innovative mind behind the theory of Structured Procrastination (the link is somewhere in my posted items) – Rach and I both have a major history assignment to complete, and if it weren’t for the fact that we were so desperate to avoid finishing it off, this piece of retarded shit would never have been written. It’s now nearly 1 a.m. and we’re both very busy tomorrow (uh, today, that is) and so are forced to make a start on the assignment, due Monday.

Oh, and that previous note? Yes, that was another example of structured procrastination – gotta love it both in theory and in practice. That slightly-less-faecal and not-so-very-retarded note was a clear-cut case of too much to do with so little time.

[originally published as a facebook note. Link for structured procrastination: http://www.structuredprocrastination.com/

]

Rach has reminded me – the source (indirect as it may have been) of this was really Mr. Harris, our history teacher, to whom much credit is due. If, in some bleak alternate reality, he had not set such a dull assignment (the key question being: “Is it ever right to break the law?”) then we surely would not have been so pushed to distract ourselves in such a way. In any case, we now have a purpose in life – and that is to procreate and have smart babies. Mr. Harris will be knighted and forever hailed as the man who was the inspiration for a revolutionary theory contributing to the preservation of our species. YAY FOR MR. HARRIS!
EDIT: The great Mr. Harris is leaving BHS! How awful :’(

Disclaimer: The majority of this ramble was written in the early hours of Sunday. Neither of us take any responsibility for any blatant elitism displayed… though come on, if we wrote it, it’s characterised by not being able to be understood by anybody else. It’s bound to be elitist in actual content as well.
Have fun reading it. With any luck, this world will actually exist and we’ll score some geniuses as husbands.
(note the pluralism)