… Till today.

Somehow – and I bet it was a tricky task – the Academy finally realized that Gary not having any nominations is a crime against art (and common sense). So, there he is. An Academy award nominee. Finally. It was about fucking time, I say.

Of course, we all know it’s not that simple. It’s Oscars we’re talking about. We all know how they work. His nomination for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is not really about his performance. It’s about finally recognizing the man who was snubbed so many times before. A great actor who wasn’t even nominated, even when he was supposed to be, and all because of some shitty reasons (including, but not limited to, politics). So don’t be fooled: this nomination isn’t about his last year’s performance.

But you know what? I don’t fucking care. It was about time, that’s all I’m saying. And no, I don’t think Oscars are that important. After Sandra Bullock winning one, it’s clear they don’t mean anything. Still, it IS considered the most important acting award, and I do think never nominating Gary Oldman was a crime and a disgrace. Also, I’m hoping that an Oscar nomination will finally bring him better roles.

But can he win? More about it later. So far, I’m glad they’ve finally nominated him.

That’s why I don’t know how I feel about the upcoming movie, or its trailer. I’m one of those people who didn’t really like LotR movies. The novel is one of my favourite books, so the movie was disappointing: eye candy for sure, but Jackson simply failed to capture the spirit of the novel. Luckily, there was Howard’s Shore amazing score: certainly one of my favourite scores and the one that does capture the spirit of the book.

Since I don’t remember that much of The Hobbit, I can’t really say how annoying the trailer is when it comes to movie changes and illogical stuff (which bothered me in LotR). What I can say is that the movie seems a lot darker than the book. The book is a fun story about a hobbit’s adventure written for kids, while the trailer presents is as dark and epic. I guess this is intentional: you simply have to make it earth-shattering and epic to make people (particularly LotR movie fans) interested. And you don’t want to make it into a movie for kids. I get that. And it’s not that I wouldn’t like to see a bit darker take on this story. Still, it looks like this will be another Jackson’s adaptation of Tolkien that doesn’t capture the spirit of the story.

There are good things, though. I really like Martin Freeman as Bilbo. The man is born to be a Hobbit, much more than Elijah Wood ever was. I also think he’d make a great Bilbo. Which is important for the story: nothing sucks more than having an annoying protagonist. I can already tell who the new hotties will be: Richard Armitage (Thorin) and Aidan Turner (Kili)… Luckily, they are better than Orlando Bloom (who will reprise his role… I mean, wtf? His former teen fans are not in their mid-20s).

But despite not being that interested in the Hobbit adaptation, I must admit the trailer made me enthusiastic. Not sure why. It just seems like a movie I’d like to watch, and hopefully, Howard Shore will be there with some amazing music. I guess these movies just make you watch them, even if you cringe at movie changes, illogical stuff or Orlando Bloom.

I bet it will be a semi-crappy disappointing movie, beautiful from the outside but lacking from the inside, just like LotR movies were. But I am sure interested.

I just… Can’t. It happens to me when I’m depressed, or anxious, or when I worry. I become so fucking unproductive in those situations. I also suffer from insomnia. I can’t sleep at night. I just can’t.

But to make this post somewhat positive, here are some post ideas:

- Race & yours truly (race blogs, racism, and what’s in it for me, because I’m white and I’m non-Westerner, so it’s not an issue that usually affects people in my part of the world. Unlike, you know, almost all the other issues you can think of).
- Movie reviews (I love doing movie reviews, and I don’t even care if a movie is new or not. I’ve been planning on doing a review for In Bruges for so long, and there are also some new films I’m interested in: new Sherlock Holmes or Tin Tin, or just some little independent movie I watched and loved).
- Stereotypes about Eastern Europeans (that are actually true).
- Novel writing (How to and How Not To)
- Vampires and the Balkans (and the way popular representations of vampires, based on stories about Dracula, were actually formed as cautionary tales about the wild Balkans, a dangerous region that can corrupt the West – yes, that’s right kids, there’s an ugly story behind this).

Anyway, this song always makes me feel better for some reason:

So, I present you my NaNo novel, The Demise of the Elm Trees (it’s a working title but I like it).

This novel is special for a couple of reasons. This is the first time I write in English (and yes, I’m shit scared of it, thanks for asking). My level of language self-esteem is quite low to non-existent. But if I ever think to grow as a writer I need to learn now to do this, so NaNo seemed like a good opportunity to try.

It’s also the first time I write a YA (Young Adult) novel. Consciously, at least. I believe many of my early novels (those beautiful and embarrassing and amazing and face-palm and nostalgic teen efforts) were also YA, but I was unfamiliar with the label back then. Why YA? In part, because I’m a sucker for coming of age stories, and in part because YA doesn’t require complicated style or advanced English.

I’ll share more about the story later (if there are people interested to read about it), but for now, I present you the writing rules (or you could say it’s more of a process?) I set for my NaNo novel:

1. Write now, worry about grammar later. Try to record your thoughts on the electronic paper without worrying about the grammar structure, appropriate words and idioms, and especially not about that fucking thing called “past tenses in English language”. (Or the most evil aspect of them, the Present Perfect vs Past Perfect issue). Oh no, don’t worry about it now.

2. When first draft is finished, write a second one. Fix the plot, characters and stuff.

3. Check your information Do your research again. Check every single thing, from school policies, drama classes and copyright to pop cultural references and important events. Make sure everything is plausible.

4. Speaking of which, make sure it seems like 1994. Do a double check on slang (especially regional, including, but not limited to Seattle). Do a double check on technology. Fashion. Pop culture all over again. And then, slang one more time.

5. Fix your grammar the best you can. (There’s no point in doing this before the step 5 if you need to change your sentences and write new ones).

6. Grow a pair and ask a few unsuspecting victims beta readers to read it. They will have a demanding task of checking your story/writing, your information and your grammar, but that’s what friends are for, right?

Not sure why. I mean, I like R.E.M. and I think they’re a quality band, but for some reason, I’ve never though much about them.

Unexpectedly, this song hit me two days ago and now I can’t stop plying it over and over (and over) again. That’s what I do, BTW: when I like I song, I put it on a repeat until everybody around me is sick of it. And if it’s a good song, it takes a while to get there.

Just a reminder, “jefflion” is short for “Jeff Ament looks like a lion”, and we all know how important that fact is, right?

Names are important. Serious academic discussion/research show that words in general have power to shape people’s view of the world. And names are often important part of people’s identities. So it’s understandable that a writer wants to pay attention to this.

A character name should be, first and foremost, appropriate to setting (such as time, place, culture – unless you purposely decide against it). It should also be easily distinguishable from other names in the story. But other than that – and this is where it gets tricky – it should “fit” the character.

What a “name that fits” actually means depends on the writer. Some search for name meanings/origins and try to find the one that fits character’s personality or physical appearance. Others pick names based on people they know (and love… or hate). Some simply try to find a name that “sounds right”, for whatever reason.

I choose character names based on synesthesia.

I strongly associate letters with colours (same goes for numbers, months, days in a week, etc.) It’s always been like that for me. I guess all people do, but it’s quite strong with me that it often makes it seem like a name doesn’t fit the person just because it starts with a “brown” letter and they have blond hair.

Needless to say, my synesthesia influences the way I pick names for my characters. While I try my best to make them appropriate to the setting, the main thing I do is to see (literally) what name goes with their physical appearance (meaning: hair, eye or skin colour; sometimes the colours they like to wear). This way, I often end up with completely generic names, but they fit the characters (in my mind at least), because the colours are right.

For example, my main characters in the last year’s NaNo were named Sarah and Tom. “S” is yellow or light brown, which fits her hair colour. She has green eyes, so a name starting with a green letter (I or K) would also fit. “T” is a blue letter. Guess Tom’s eye colour. And so on. I even had huge problems with myself for naming a light haired guy Mark. “M” is a red letter. So I gave the guy red car to drive (and parade around). Yes, I go that far.

Similarly, if there’s a character that somehow ends up with a name that’s not appropriate for his colours, I will make him wear said colour often. I won’t necessarily describe this in detail, but it will be there in my mind.

I guess this method is as good as any other. But not many people mention using it, and sometimes I wonder if it’s a bit limiting. Or if it makes you pick a name that “sounds perfect”, but isn’t fully appropriate for your setting.

Were you considered popular in high school? Why or why not?

No way! Quite the contrary, I was the most unpopular. I mean, literally: I was voted the most unpopular person in my class when I was 16.

I have no idea why, though. I guess being socially awkward has something to do with it.

Did you have an enemy or bully when you were young?

Yes. I’ve been bullied a lots of times. Not sure if this requires more elaborate answer. It sucks because I was sometimes bullied by the adults, too.

How often do you go over the speed limit?

I don’t drive. I don’t have a driver’s license.

What was your worst dating experience?
I guess it was with a guy who did it because he lost the bet and he had to ask me out. He didn’t even try to conceal this fact during our date.

How old are you in your dreams?

My age, I guess.

Do you dance like crazy, when no one is looking?

Oh, yes! Well, I think I’m a good dancer, I have rhythm and I’m not shy to show it. But I don’t like being watched, so I do it when nobody’s around.

Do you like to sing in the shower?

No, not really. But I used to do it when I was about 8 and obsessed with the Little Mermaid. Don’t ask.

What do sing in the shower, if you do sing?

Like I said, songs from Disney’s the Little Mermaid. I don’t do it anymore, though.

What do you do when (you think) no one is looking?

I talk to myself. I can get very expressive. I sometimes talk in English. Now, technically, I don’t really talk to myself, I am trying to come up with believable dialogue for my stories.

When you were younger, did you ever drink too much and get sick?

No, but I can get drunk quickly so I just stop drinking when I realize I’m drunk.

I used to believe that the people you meet online are not real friends. They can’t be, unless you meet them in real life (which isn’t always possible).

Then again, I tend to spend a lot of time online, and this was even more true for my early 20s. Some of my online friends helped me overcome loneliness in a particular moment in my life, and I was really close to them. Isn’t that enough to call them real friends?

So now I believe it’s quite possible to call online friends “real friends”. It’s not that they’re imaginary or that they can’t be there for you if you need them.

Still, there are some differences between real life and online friendship.

Most of online communication is written

It means you are often limited to what a written word can offer. Unless, of course, you decide to video chat with your friends, which is great, but a) I’ve never done it so I don’t know what is like and b) It’s still not the same as real life contact.

Not me, though. I always felt written communication worked better for me. I can’t read nonverbal signs well, and I am quite shy. It seems like I never know what to say, but I always know what to write. But some people find these aspects of Internet communication too limiting.

Internet is not real life

This is the main problem. The way many people see Internet, it’s not real life in full sense of the word. But how much of it is “really” real? Even if a person on the other side is honest, is it possible to truly get to know her? If you never met someone offline, can you say you met him at all? This puts online friends somewhere between imaginary friends and your real ones.

Plus, because Internet is not seen as real life, whatever happens online seems less important than the stuff that happens in real life. Now, in so many ways this is true: Internet shouldn’t be more important than the real life. But this is what ruins many online friendships: because of real life circumstances, people often forget about their online activities, and that includes online friends.

The closeness you build is… fake?

Here’s a potential danger. It’s easy to (seemingly) become close with someone online in a very short time. Sharing secrets and personal details bring people close, so you might feel like you really know this person (even though you never met him in true sense of the word).

On the other hand, sharing secrets and personal details often DO bring people together, and just because it happened online shouldn’t make that much of a difference.

Online friends tend to disappear

The problem is, while this closeness builds pretty quickly online, it can also be destroyed in an instant. A person loses his interest in a forum or a blog and he’s gone. He stops replying to your emails. Etc.

Solutions

Luckily, there are solutions to these challenges, and it is possible to build and maintain great online friendships. Here are some things that can help:

Try to build stronger connections with your online friends, connections that are not dependent on websites you both frequent. Exchanging emails is a good idea. So is chatting (and video chatting). Depending on circumstances, exchanging phone numbers might be a good idea, too. And, finally, meeting your online friend in real life might make him or her your “real” friend. (Or not. But that’s another story).

Don’t forget about your friends once the message board closes or you lose interest in a blog. You still have your friend’s contact details, so use it to stay in touch.

Try not to share (or demand) any details you wouldn’t share in real life on a given stage of a friendship. Let things build. But sharing some things you wouldn’t share in real life is okay, too; just remember that this closeness can’t compensate for a real life contact.

Don’t forget about your online friends when something more exciting happens in real life. Inform them if you’re going to be offline and try to drop them a note from time to time, to see how they’re doing.

And, the most important one: treat your online friends as real people in full sense of the world. Sounds obvious, but people need to be reminded about it.

All in all

I do think online friends are real friends. But because Internet is so young, we still haven’t learned all the skills needed for building and maintaining online friendships. We simply don’t know yet what works in Internet communication (emotionally, and socially), so we are not sure how to behave.

The ways we meet and socialize with people in real life might not work on the Internet. Different rules apply for maintaining healthy online friendships. I guess we’re still unsure what they are, but I hope we’ll get there soon.

Things are so different today that is somewhat difficult to find anybody, male or female, who likes pubic hair on women in its full, untrimmed state. While there are millions of women who don’t remove pubic hair in any way, it’s sure seen as an imperative, and something any attractive woman do.

The reasons for removing pubic hair are quite simple: it’s a fashionable thing to do today and women are seen more attractive that way. Simple as that. It’s not much of a mystery; women always perform certain things to alter their bodies and make them appear more attractive, and today’s standards say it’s what makes women “hotter”.

Therefore, it’s interesting to see this simple motive is not what many women (or men) use when talking about removing female pubic hair. The motive that most of the people mention is hygiene. In short, hairs are dirty and smelly, and should be removed so the area is clean and fresh. Many women believe this, and the last thing women want is to be dirty.

But the truth is quite the opposite: pubic hair keeps your body clean. If body hair was dirty and unhygienic, we wouldn’t have it on sensitive places such as around our eyes and in our nostrils. Eyelashes, and eyebrows are there to protect our eyes from dirt and they help keeping sweat out of our eyes.

Pubic hair works the same, especially on women. Hair is what prevents the dirt and sweat and germs to find their way inside your vagina. A naked pubic area is a perfect place for all sorts of infections, especially since the skin is often irritated after shaving or waxing. Combine that with unhygienic underwear (the one that’s not made of cotton, and sadly, sexy & tight underwear is often not made of cotton), and you have a perfect scenario for a vaginal yeast infection.

So no, pubic hair is not dirty and unhygienic. One would say it’s a body’s natural barrier against dirt and gems.

Besides hygiene, there are other motives that people mention, such as: I want to receive oral sex (hair doesn’t prevent it, as Colin Farrell was happy to inform us), I want to wear bikinis and sexy underwear, etc. Some women say they do care about what men thing, and men of today tend to hate pubic hair on women, so they remove it. While all of these reasons are good, it’s all back to the basic one: it’s a fashionable thing to do today.

Still, many women insist on removing pubic hair because of “hygiene”. Many men, bless them, also claim it seems “cleaner” that way. But, why kid ourselves? Women remove their pubic hair because it’s a fashionable thing to do today, even if it’s not healthy in the strict sense of the words. It’s nothing new: women always do things that aren’t good for their health in order to appear more attractive, and this one is hardly alarming (with good personal hygiene, it’s relatively easy to avoid an infection).

But it’s interesting to note that the real reason here is often hidden: so many people insist hair removal is a good hygienic practice. Why? Is it because they feel fashion (and/or male attention) aren’t legitimate enough reasons? Or because today’s people insist on healthy lifestyle so much they have to proclaim even unhygienic practices healthy in order to go with them?