Grimlock ♥ Ultra Magnus

Booklikes is on and off slow today and now Marvel won't accept two of my five codes.   What's really frustrating is that Marvel says they're having trouble connecting to their system. 

Clearly they are not.   Some codes go through, some do not.   If they weren't able to connect to their systems at all, why will some codes go through and others won't?   It seems as if some codes aren't yet loaded, which is inexcusable since this happens on a regular basis.   It's a systematic problem they should have fixed by now. 

Just really super frustrated right now...

On the other hand, I'm halfway through Flowers for Algernon and am loving it.   Yes, it uses the word retarded, and quite often, but it's clearly not disrespectful towards those who challenged mentally.   Charlie gets angrier at the way people treat him - the doctor who treats him as if he weren't a person before he became smart, or the people before who took advantage of him.   He often thinks that he was a person with memories and emotions, even with his lower IQ. 

I keep reminding myself that 'retarded' was the standard word used in that day.   Yes, the author could have used something different, but I don't think he ever though there would be a time when the word retarded would be controversial. 

I also am being compassionate about this.   While I was taken aback by the use of the word at first, I had also seen the movie.  I knew that the general storyline was compassionate to everyone, but particularly to Charlie.   (I haven't seen the movie in a while, but from what I do remember, I feel this more keenly in the book.)  I also don't believe that we should bar anyone from saying a word: the fact that they say it is on them, not me.   I'd rather that be out in the open.   I also believe that art, in particular, can use offensive character types, words, and ideas, and condemn them.   Yes, this book uses the word retarded often - because at the time that this was written, it's how Charlie would be diagnosed.   He goes to an adult education center, yes, for the retarded.   Because that's what they said then. 

The compassion the author shows for this character shows me that he isn't afraid or angry, or even trying to hurt anyone.   Charlie is one of the kindest and gentlest characters I've ever met: even when he does get angry, he doesn't act out violently.   He thinks it.   He may use a raised voice, or leave situations when they make him angry, but he doesn't lash out against people.   He was lovely before his operation, and continues to be so after. 

(Or as I've pointed out before, there are alternate meanings to words.   Should we stop using retarded as a means of things slowing down?   Sometimes context can matter, much like in fiction.  It's not always about words, but sometimes how they're used: if someone is using a slur so that the story can object to and condemn that slur, it's different than it using that word casually.   One offensive meaning of a word doesn't negate the different ways in which the word can be used.   Sorry, it just doesn't.   And I certainly don't believe in banning a word completely if it has a different, non-offensive meaning.   And I also believe that if you are so offended by a word that you see red at the word rather than willing to look at the context, maybe you're being oversensitive.   I have a couple people in mind who were schooling people on using different words instead of retarded, regardless of meaning applied.   That is that one can use another word rather than 'to retard the motion of something.'   Twitch, no, sorry.   At some point, you're looking to be offended.   If I use a word properly, and not offensively, and you go into it looking for a reason to be offended...   Then again, I have other issues with some of these lecturers, one being that they got information second handed and claimed I was laughing about the use of the word retarded.  I was not.  I was pointing out it had other definitions.   That if we ban all uses of retard, then we can't say, for example, fire retardant which seemed weird to be because context.   The other lecturer got mad at me for not wanting to armchair diagnose Robin Williams after his suicide, and I never got to say it, but I was right because of what was reported later: he had a disease that brought depression to the forefront.   I can't say for certain, but I'd be depressed as fuck with his diagnosis, then it would be compounded by the funky things it was doing to my biochemistry and brain.  I just didn't want to jump to conclusions and say that he was definitely bipolar since, y'know, none of us knew him personally.   And his energy on stage could be a persona he adopted.  I mean, since he was being paid quite well to act and all.)

Well, it looks like Flowers for Algernon is bringing up a lot of mud that was slung in my direction.   The use of the word 'retarded' is loaded because the, what, two people I've known who want to strike it from ever, ever being said have kinda have sticks up their asses about it.  When I read the word so much in an hour, it brings up these memories and stirs them up and it sticks in my craw.   Ironically, I'm not so much upset about the use of a word - as they want me to be - but rather exasperated by their self-righteous indignation about sometimes unrelated things, or how they feel that they can tell people to ignore the context of words.   

I wonder what they would do with Flowers for Algernon: would they change the words and thus change the context of the book?  Would they have us all forget the past?  Would they simply suggest that people not read this book?

It seems a shame if they'd suggest that.   Charlie is a fully realized character.    I feel for him: on his behalf and I care for him as well because of his kindness towards the world, even as he struggles with his newfound intelligence, what it means, and the fact that emotionally he's still a child. 

Also, to authors who claim that they spell and grammar not so good because is how is supposed to be written?   Um, no.   I'd suggest you read Push and Flowers for Algernon before you spout that shit at me.   See, I can see through your suggestion because I know a couple things.  Like you should know basic grammar before you break it apart to show a character who is uneducated.   I also know that books can use that to great effect, and I can see that the writers know what they're doing.   Both Push and Flowers use characters who are uneducated, or mentally challenged, and who learn how to read and write properly.   I can see that the writer knows what they're talking about and I can see the consistency in the way they write even when it's using improper grammar.   

I can see your bullshit because I know all about the argument that improper grammar can show an undereducated character.  I've read it done brilliantly.   And having seen that, I can see the difference between lack of editing and writing skillz and writing improperly on purpose.   Flowers reminds me of that, too, and it's a feat to see how Charlie writes both before and after.   I'm loving this book so much you wouldn't believe it, guys.  Loving it.