A Royal Annoyance

With the royal wedding coming up, it's taken over the media. Even smaller local news channels are taking time to talk about how the design for Kate Middleton's wedding gown has been leaked. I couldn't be less interested and think that there are more important things to be talking about in the world. For instance, what are the updates on Japan? It was this big tragic thing and now it's fallen off the media radar save for when there is something about the nuclear plants to be said. However, what's being done for the victims of the earthquake and tsunami? Admittedly, I have not been out searching for this information because I think the media represents things to fit an agenda, but I would think this would be more appropriate to talk about than how someone leaked out the design of a wedding gown. And another event deemed a tragedy just popped into my mind: the BP oil spill. Hey news media, how's that going? I don't hear you talking about that; indeed, haven't heard anything about that in a while and I don't even know what's been done since they were trying to stop the leak. Wow, that just strikes me as sad--no, not because we're losing all that "precious" oil, but because of the environmental impact. Apparently we don't care about that in the wake of royal wedding vows.

Don't get me wrong, we should be celebrating happy moments in the world, too, and not just flooding ourselves with disaster after disaster, but the sheer hype for this wedding baffles me. For one, it's just a wedding--I don't care that these are future British monarchs. People didn't really care much about them before the engagement and once the wedding is done I'm sure people will go back to the nonchalance, especially here in Canada since the British monarchs are only figureheads to this country. Yet right now, it's all the rage; the newest fad to distract us. But people, it's just a wedding. I don't care that they're famous and royal, they're human beings. That being said, if we're going to make this much hype about one wedding, let's make this much hype about them all. Ridiculous, right? Well I think it's equally ridiculous to have this much hype over one wedding that is going to have very little bearing on my life. I say very little bearing because it's obviously having some effects, for instance causing me annoyance and prompting me to write this blog.

Even in places that the monarchy does have power, these are still just people. I can understand making a mention about it, but the media going to the extreme that it is where it is mentioning gown design leaks and to the point where channels are going to broadcasting the wedding and other channels are having royalty-related movie marathons is just overboard. I honestly think this is being made more important than it actually is.

You're just jealous! I'd like to see you do better!

It astounds me how many people use one or both of these things as an argument point when both are ridiculous. For instance, someone will mention that he dislikes something, and a person who likes it will start going on about how that guy is obviously jealous of the person who made whatever it is that is disliked. Excuse me, what? How in the world does disliking something equate jealously? If I dislike, say, a cake, does that mean I'm actually jealous of the person who created that cake? I think not; that's just absolutely ludacris.

One of the biggests instances in which I see this implimented is with artwork or books, a specific example being Stephenie Meyer's Twilight. Anyone who says that they don't like the novels or who criticizes them will surely be met with a rabid fan screaming about how that person is just jealous of Meyer. Again, this is ridiculous. I'm sure that these people who dislike the novels have their reasons, even if some of them are as irrational as saying that the series is just too popular. Is the implication then that they're just jealous because of the novels' popularity? That seems to be the reasoning behind the fans' attacks, but really, that just doesn't make sense. As I said, I think that disliking something just because it's popular is irrational, but that doesn't mean that the person is jealous. If anything, you'd think that a jealous person would want to get in on the popular trend of series so that they too might become popular.

I find this cry particularly interesting when the person saying they dislike something is offering legitimate critique. It almost comes across like the fans are blind that their beloved series--or whatever it is--could have any sort of flaws. Everything has flaws, and just because someone points them out as a reason that he dislikes something doesn't mean that he is jealous. Just because someone disagrees or has different tastes does not mean jealousy, nor does it mean their an idiot, which is another thing that drives me nuts.

True, there is a legitimate grey area when it comes to people. On occasion, someone will be jealous of someone else and shows signs of having an aversion to them, but that doesn't mean that all cases are like this. Sometimes people just really do not like one another and it has nothing to do with jealousy. Automatically assuming or accusing someone of being jealous is silly and irrational.

In any case, the notion of people thinking that disliking something equates jealousy just baffles me. Another thing that baffles me is the argument "I'd like to see you do better!" or similarly, "As if you can do any better!" To me, not only is this a feeble attack, as well as an admission that whatever it is is not quite as good as it could or even ought to be, but it is also bogus. Someone does not need to be practiced in something or an expert at it to be able to critique it. As an example, I'm not the best singer in the world, but I can still offer critique to other singers who need help. So, just because I'm not as good as they are means that my opinion and critique is invalid? I don't think so. Maybe I can't actually, physically, materially do any better than that person, but that doesn't give them an excuse to be lax and it doesn't mean that my opinions are worthless. I cannot figure skate, but if I see a performance that is sloppy or could be a little better and I voice my opinion, does that mean I shouldn't talk unless I can personally do better? No. That's just ridiculous. Obviously, I'm basing my opinion off of something, whether it's as mundane as my own personal preferences or the fact that I've seen it done better elsewhere. Just because I cannot do it myself, doesn't mean my input should be discounted as worthless.

Unfortunately, I don't think this is as coherant as I would like it to be, but it is what it is. If need be, I'll come back and edit/add to it.

"Pretty Girl Rock" - Female Anthem or Arrogance?

At first glance this song, "Pretty Girl Rock" sung by Keri Hilson, is an anthem to females, isn't it? Asking us to do "the pretty girl rock", suggesting that we're all in some way beautiful. A lovely message indeed, however, if you really pay attention the lyrics of the song, it comes across with a tone of arrogance. I think my English major-ness is showing through here, because really, what general listener analyzes song lyrics? Haha, well, I guess I do.

In any case, I find that this is a piece promoting female arrogance. There portions of the song such as "All my ladies do the pretty girl rock rock rock / Get along with your pretty girl rock rock rock / Still show me your pretty girl rock rock rock / All my ladies do the pretty girl rock rock rock", "Sing it with me now", and "And if you know it too then ladies sing it with me" that do adhere to the anthem tone. The use of "[a]ll my ladies" and "[s]ing it with me" is inclusive, suggesting that all women are a part of this pretty girl rock or that all women should partake in it. A female anthem should certainly be all inclusive and promote that all females are strong and beautiful, no matter what. That's all fine and dandy, until we come to lines that completely negate this inclusiveness, in particular "I’m cuter than the girl that's with ya". This line here is the one that really brands this as arrogance for me; if all girls are beautiful and should be doing this pretty girl rock, then there should be no competition among them, which is exactly what this line suggests. It's segregating in that it's saying, 'yeah, all us ladies are beautiful, but some of us are still prettier than others', which in turn suggests that these 'prettier' women are the ones that should receive all the attention. Shouldn't a female anthem about beauty be more about "beauty in the eye of the beholder" and therefore no one can truly say what beauty is? I think so, but whoever (I'm unable to find a name) the lyricist for this song is apparently still stuck in the world of competition among everyone.

Interestingly, the lyricist seems to try and deflect this notion of arrogance within the lyrics: "Girls think I’m conceited 'cause I know I’m attractive". Knowing you're attractive is one thing, going around saying you're more attractive than others is where the conceited attitude comes in. It's called modesty, honey. I'm not saying that we all need to clam up about our beauty, or that we should berate ourselves so that we don't seem conceited--quite the contrary. Instead, let us celebrate this beauty because I don't think that there is a true celebration of universal female beauty these days, which is thoroughly disappointing, but that's another argument all together. So let's celebrate our beauty, but not go around shoving it in other people's faces and saying we're prettier than them. Let's not go around saying "Don't hate me 'cause I'm beautiful" because, really, you just come across seeming like an arrogant piece of work. While "[j]ealousy [may indeed be] the ugliest trait", to me it's positively ludicrous to think that people hate you simply because they are jealous, especially of something as subjective as beauty. You hate something or someone because there is something that you genuinely dislike about it/them; to say that these things/people are hated because of they are aesthetically pleasing is like saying, 'I think that sunset is so pretty that I absolutely hate it!' Ridiculous, yes?

True, as a society we might see someone that's really beautiful and say, 'oh my god, I hate you!' but here it's not a genuine hate. It's a playful hate that does show that the person is jealous, but it is not a loathing hatred--it's just a coloquial phrase that we throw around without really thinking about it. The lyrics of the song, on the other hand, seem to be suggesting that this hate is real and that it is spawned by the jealousy of beauty and the attention that this beautiful person is receiving. When you look at lines that portray the stares, paparazzi-like moments and the male attention that this beautiful woman is receiving and then at lines like "Girls think I’m conceited 'cause I know I’m attractive / Don’t worry about what I think, why don’t you ask him?" it positively is suggestive that the speaker is more beautiful than the woman she is talking to. "Don't worry about what I think" is saying that yes, the speaker sees herself as beautiful, but don't worry about what she thinks of herself because clearly everyone else thinks she is more beautiful as well. "[W]hy don't you ask him?" suggests that the not-so-beautiful woman's male signficant other obviously thinks that the speaker is more beautiful and what with all these "[c]ameras flashing" and "all eyes on [her] when [she] walks in", it is clear that the more beautiful are the ones that deserve the attention. While it could easily be a comment on society that that's just how it is, the fact that the lyrics continually repeat these things suggests a pushing towards this opinion instead of simply a comment upon it. If it were a comment upon it, I would think there would be some alternative view provided, or some disdain towards it, but we're celebrating the "pretty girl rock" here, so all the "pretty girls", which is not really as all-inclusive as it wants to come across, need to rock it out and strut around like a peacock.

To wrap this up, I must say that these are only my findings when it comes to this song. I haven't heard any uproar about it otherwise, not that I really expected to with the way media these days talk about things. I'd be interested to hear/read someone else's argument otherwise, or just any opinions in general.

I am quoting these lyrics as I have found them on azlyrics.com.

Media, You Make Me Sick

These are my reactions, disgusted and outraged, with things that CNN anchors were saying on January the 14th, which was among the first days of the Haiti Earthquake coverage, I think. For whatever reason, I only thought to post this here just now.

The italics are quotes or near-quotes from CNN anchors. (I went from memory, but they're close.)

"We warn you, some of the images you are about to see may be disturbing."

Disturbing? Really? Perhaps you are just saying that to cover yourself legally, but I personally don't find the images of crumbling and fallen buildings crowding the streets to be "disturbing". In fact, I'd go to say that that is not disturbing-we go to the movies to see that and these real life images aren't any different other than the fact that they won't go away when the cameras do (now that's disturbing).

What I find disturbing are the images of the true devastation to human life. For instance, the injured-none of which you are really showing. You've done a good job at picking the un-physically-affected people, haven't you? Or maybe you just can't show the devastation on human life beyond bodies covered in sheets and blanket and sobbing family members. That's not to say that I'm sadistic enough that I want to see mangled forms, but if you're going to show the true impact of the situation, show us what can't be rebuilt. Edifices can be replaced. Human life cannot.

And if you find these images so disturbing, why is your voice flat? Why are your eyes dead? Why don't you cringe?

"It was such a fragile country to begin with."

And yet you didn't care about it until you could ream a story from it. Amazing how it takes a natural disaster for us to pay attention to a place that needs help.

"Even the president wasn't spared."

And you expected he would be? You expected the quake to come along and say, "Oh! This is the pres' house! I must not touch!" and then mosey along on its way while conveniently leaving his house standing? If you did…then you're a moron.

"President homeless."

I'm glad at least he has the right idea. Let's focus on helping others, shall we? Instead of like you want to do. All you want to do is focus on where he's going to sleep tonight. What about everyone else? They're just as homeless as he is, but you don't care about them, do you? They're not as important, it seems.

"We've heard that all this relief has been sent to help, but we're still seeing the same images."

Seriously? You just said that? Look, honey, it's not going to be immediate sunshine and rainbows just because the ever-mighty U.S sent a bunch of help in metal flying machines. If anything, maybe we should expect it to get worse, considering the 'help' that has been sent to other countries. If you want immediate results, go watch a movie.

"I'm sure we'll hear many more amazing survival stories as the days go on."

It's fantastic that there are survivors, but all you seem to care about are the stories. Here I see your eyes light up and a smile tug at your lips, which I find more disturbing than any of the images I've seen so far. How dare you think only of the story when this is real life disaster? People's lives are at stake and all you care about is getting the big scoop. Stop thinking like a reporter with a quota and start thinking like a compassionate human being. You make me sick.

I had to turn of the T.V. and walk away here, so thoroughly disgusted with you that I would only get angrier if I continued. Only get louder in yelling at the television (even though that does nothing more than let me vent into the air).

I'm so happy that you care when you can get a story out of it. I'm so thrilled that your eyes light up when there is death and destruction for you to talk about. I'm ecstatic that you now have something to talk about for the next week and a half instead of how crumby the economy is or that guy who said Obama was a good candidate because he was "light skinned" and doesn't speak in "negro dialect". Good for you.

Yes, I'm thoroughly disgusted.

On Wolf Comics and Constructive Criticism

Phew first off, allow me to dust off this poor neglected blog of mine. Not that I ever intended to use it extensively, I suppose, but still.

The following refers to happenings on deviantART, so, if you are not familiar with the site, I don't know how much of this you will follow.

I am not intending to start a war or to offend anyone. Rather, I want to give my opinion on the matter, which is why I'm posting it here rather than my dA journal because there is the risk of causing an uproar.

Now, let's begin.

It's no secret that there are many, many wolf/canine related comics on dA. Anyone who's been on the site for a little while can surely see that, as for the past few years wolves have saturated the popular page and people's favourites extensively. Perhaps it has always been this way and I'm just terribly inobservant, but I don't remember wolves being such a big deal when I started out on dA six years ago.

I'm not here to bash wolf lovers and wolf artists though, especially considering that would be hypocritical on so many levels. Wolves are my heart and soul and a good deal of my own gallery is consumed by them.

Equally, I am not here to bash those who have wolf comics, but rather I am here to discuss this, for it is constantly up for criticism and in the spotlight.

There is no way that I am going to waste my time and yours by listing every single wolf comic there is on dA; for one, I don't know all of them and for two I'm sure it would need an index and a half in itself. Of course, there is one wolf comic that will likely instantly pop into a dA user's mind when asked to name one.

The Black Blood Alliance, by deviant KayFedewa, with backgrounds done by deviant Esda06.

While I have very little problem with the BBA itself (I do read it and purchased the first issue), my vexation stems from the people who constantly compare every other wolf comic in dA existance to it. I understand that we will always make comparisons, and that indeed, there are those who blatantly copy the series, but not every wolf comic is going to be a BBA rip-off or even BBA inspired. It's easy to see that the BBA bears the brunt of being the main comparison piece because of its popularity, however, that does not mean that it is the only wolf comic allowed.

Acutally, I'm not sure I believe that there are people suggesting that, but when every wolf comic bears this scrutiny and comparison to the BBA, it almost seems like it. Every plot point is automatically copyright to the BBA somehow. Every coloured wolf is now BBA rip-off. This, I find, is absolutely ridiculous.

Stories get told and retold. Plot points get recycled in other tales that have nothing to do with the first. Any English major, anyone who reads a lot, anyone who watches a lot of television and movies will tell you this. Hell, anyone who listens to music will tell you it's a lot of the same thing over and over again for the most part. Tropes (common themes used in storytelling) exist; they're also called clichés. While clichés can be terribly annoying, sometimes the author takes a cliché and turns it around for the better. I'm not saying that all authors do, but prejudging a comic or story simply because it has one similar plot point or because it is using a common trope doesn't, for one, automatically mean it's bad, and for two, doesn't make you a better person.

At the same time, every comic shouldn't be under scrutiny just because it features wolves. Yes, they are popular. Yes, perhaps there is an oversaturation of them. That does not mean that we should judge everything that involves them negatively.

Wow, that's a lot of preamble that I hadn't originally intended to be there. Really, there is one circumstance that finally prodded me into writing this and I'm more than certain that the reason I'm acting now is because I am involved with it, however indirectly. Really, I intended to begin this entry like this:

My name is Laura Barton. I'm 19 years old. I read OPAW.

What is OPAW? The acronym itself stands of Of Paws and Wings, a novel in progress by deviant Zraya218 and a comic in progress by Zraya218 and Barkback. Considering the nature of the preamble, I'm sure you can guess that it is a story about wolves. Unlike the BBA (to which I only make the comparison because other critics have), it features wolves and dragons, rather than wovles and sabers. Indeed, both begin by featuring a war, but this is a trope people. Go tell George Bush that his wanting to stay in war is too overdone (that's an opinion for another day, if ever).

Personally, when I stumbled upon OPAW, it was still only in its novel form. I wasn't attracted to it because it had colourful wolves and "sparkledogs", as the EncyclopediaDramatica has come to call them. True, the fact that there were wolves in the story intrigued me, but that is because I like wolves, not because I was looking for "sparkledogs", which I don't think the OPAW characters are anyway.

How I came across OPAW, I don't even remember. Likely I was doing what I call "page hopping"; essentially, exploring people's galleries and going to each next one because something the person has said or his/her icon caught my attention. Nonetheless, I left a comment on the page of the novel that Zraya has posted and essentially haven't looked back for two reasons. One, because I enjoy the story, and two, because Zraya was kind enough to ask me to edit for her. While I consider myself more of a technical editor (grammatically speaking), I do give some input on the plot of the story and such as well. BUT, this is Zraya's story. I don't believe in editors telling the author what I write; I'd much rather guide instead, doing what I can to help bring what she wants in her story. I have this opinion about editors because I, myself, am an author. I highly dislike when people come along and tell me what to write.

Of course, I expect some to now call me biased throughout the rest of this considering my involvement in OPAW, however, I ask that you hear me out. I'm making an effort to be as unbiased as possible and rather use my knowledge of the tale from what Zraya has told me (without revealing any spoilers).

OPAW has recently joined the plethora of wolf comics on dA, with artwork done by Barkback, who I have only spoken with a few times. Because of this transformation into a comic, it of course has come under the eye of critical persons. I have no problem with this at all. Indeed, critique, when constructive, is fantastic. However, I get the notion that people seem to be forgetting something about the first three pages that have been posted to date. Something that is rather important to consider.

This is just a proglogue so far.

The way I've always seen this part of OPAW is as something like a legend. It's giving a little history, brief so you know the important parts about it, before getting into the bigger part of the story. One critic said that the story is being "force fed to the reader in three pages", which I entirely disagree with for the reason I stated above. This isn't the main part of the story, but rather the situation that initiated what is to come. Since I know a bit more of what is to come in the plot, I know that the story isn't being shoved down your throat within three pages.

Not to say that I disagree with all the critic in question says. Indeed, the first few pages do make or break a story (not just comics). It can't be expected that everyone is going to jump onboard with it and that is perfectly fine. No one is asking everyone to jump onboard with the story. That's how stories work. Some like them, some don't.

Also, she has a point about the wolves' pelt colours. Unnatural or unusually patterened colours on wolves is another fad that I tentatively say started with the BBA. I don't know for sure, but it seems that way to me. While perhaps the wolves of OPAW aren't naturally coloured in that they reflect nature, I don't think that they have any outrageous colours on them. Not even Ennov, I feel, is terribly unnaturally coloured. More, her pattern is what makes it unnatural. Perhaps the yellow wouldn't be so vibrant on an actual wolf and be more blonde in colour, but it still exists. Likely, it would be more mixed with the russet.

Yet, groaning about the colour of wolves' fur seems highly inconsequential when you think about something else: wolves and dragons didn't exist at the same time, if dragons ever existed at all. If we're all about being realistic here, let us consider that, shall we? Suspension of belief is a wonderful thing. True, logic is also necessary, however fur colour is the least of worries when you think about it.

Also, if dragons were real, depending on the breed, would that not place them at the top of the food chain as carnivors? I'm in no way saying they're evil, but rather removing our anthropomorphized, human ideals from them and treating them as if they had base instincts and didn't share the same kind of intelligence as humans. If they were animals like anything else, I would think they'd go after smaller prey like wolves. I'm not claiming I know this for sure, indeed, I know very little about dragons, but what I've said here makes sense to me.

Another point that someone brought up that I thought was interesting was that they didn't know who they were supposed to pity. True, most stories assert directly or indirectly who it is that you are supposed to be more sympathetic towards, but when I think about it, that's an interesting aspect about OPAW. Who are we supposed to pity? The dragons? The wolves? Despite their titles of the Savage Wolves and the Tranquil Dragons, due to the nature of the story, we still aren't sure who we should like or dislike. Yet, why do we need the story to tell us inadvertedly through the text? Why not just decide for ourselves based on how we judge the acitons of the characters? I'm a big believer in people making judgements for themselves.

"There is much more to life than revenge." I whole heartedly agree with this; honestly, I do. Revenge is a very common theme in stories across the world and sometimes it is incredibly hard to get away from. However, just because the theme of revenge is used, doesn't mean that we should condemn the story. And perhaps I'm totally out of my mind, but somehow OPAW doesn't scream to me about being a story of revenge.

In any case, I think revenge is a common theme because it is something that we can all relate to on some level. What I mean by relate is not that we all go out seeking revenge, but we understand it to an extent. Whether we agree with the one who is wanting revenge or not, we still can relate. I'm struggling with how to explain what I want to say here.

But what I'm getting at is that revenge is indeed used over and over, though, not all revenge is the same. Each person's form of revenge is different in that everyone reacts differently to situations. What it comes down to is the author's portrayal of the character's reaction.

Moving on, the reason I mentioned my age earlier is because many associate these wolf comics with "weeaboo" 16-year-old fans, however, I think myself anything but that. For one, I'm not sixteen, and for two I don't believe that I'm a "weeaboo". Perhaps the critic was speaking generally, but I just wanted to put that out there before someone started accusing me of being either thing.

I think I've exhausted all I wanted to say about wolf comics and more specifically OPAW; if I haven't, I can always come back and edit (or more likely post another entry since this one is long as it is).

The next part I wanted to look at is constructive criticism, something that I feel is abused and not well understood. My idea of constructive criticism, and what I look for when I go to critique someone is:

1. What has been done well and why? Why did this part stick out to me and make me think, "yeah, that's good"?
2. What could use improvement? Why? What suggestions can I give to help this person improve?

Many, many people out there these days, I feel, are saying they're giving constructive critique, but I scarce see the constructive side of it. There is no tell of what has been done well, or, if the critic feels that nothing has been done well (which is a valid response), said critic just points out what they feel is wrong and then tells the person what they "should" do (oftentimes this is "You should just stop").

My opinion is that the only time to tell someone what they "should" do is when it comes to rules of grammar. If someone writes "He went to they're house", I'm going to tell that person that that should be their, and also proceed to explain why. You can tell someone what they "should" do all you want, but if you have not explained why, what does that really amount to? It's more helpful to the person to explain your reasoning behind what you're saying, and personally speaking, I'm more inclined to listen to someone when he explains his thinking to me.

Or, if the critic does give reasoning behind his/her thinking, the entire comment is laced with degrading words and vulgar language. Really, you can express your dislike and reasoning for the dislike of something without resorting to swearing and tearing someone down. "Telling it as it is" or "as it comes to you" isn't an excuse. The way I see it, and the way I believe that studies have shown is that if you degrade someone and be rude, that person will shut down and stop listening. This has been seen countless times through people hiding or even disabling comments on dA. You can be telling the person all the truth of the world, scientific fact that has been proven over and over, but if you're being nasty about it, it's very unlikely that the person'll listen.

There is a difference between harsh constructive criticism and disrespectful [constructive] criticism (I put constructive in square braquets because it is not always constructive, even if the person writing it thinks it is). You can give harsh criticism and still be respectful. When you resort to be tactless, it becomes harmful rather than helpful. If anything, the person will shut down or renegade against you. This has been seen countless times by people celebrating their first "flamers", even if the critique is valid. Or, it could come to the person posting about the critique in a journal and then the dArama starts. Fans become a mob. A war begins. Ultimately, if it is given tactlessly, critique amounts to nothing that helps the thing you are critiquing.

I say that critique has been abused because there are many people who give "harsh critiques" (which are often degrading, unconstructive opinions) and then tell people to "grow some balls" or say that they're "butthurt" because they haven't listened to them or have spoken out against them. As I've said, degrading someone won't get him to listen to you. Any person who speaks out about a rude comment is automatically said to be "butthurt" and that they should "learn to accept critique or else they won't make it professionally." The latter is very true; professionalism does involve receiving critiques, however, critique and bashing are not the same.

I'm not claiming to be perfect in giving constructive criticism, but I try my damnedest to do it well. I was once one of those people that would just tell a person that his work was garbage and that he shouldn't continue (I could probably link you to some of these horrible comments on fanfiction.net). I offered nothing helpful to him (I use "him" as a general pronoun, not saying that it was necessarily a male) apart from my own negative views. I never received a reply from anyone I did that to; if I could, I would take those back, but it is a learning experience. And from it, I feel I have learned to be a better critiquer than I was.

There are several people I've seen that are far superior critiquers than I am. They see things that I don't. Conversely, I sometimes see things that others don't. Multiple sources of input are good.

Thinking about all I've said here, I think I've covered all that I had on my mind. Like I said, if I haven't, I'll either edit it in or just make a new post entirely so that this doesn't become even longer.

I am completely open for even-tempered discussion on these matters. I'm interested to know what others think.

Thanks so much for reading and sticking through this!

Laura.