some versions of the fairytale state that cinderella’s slippers are enchanted so she won’t be recognized, it’s a safe bet that they may have gone with that for the movie
SORRY SORRY I’LL SHUT UP NOW
Ehhhh if we’re going that route, shouldn’t they also have been fur? Also she had several balls to attend, and only one was a silver dress…
it depends! The Grimm version had a three day ball, the Italian version had, iirc, a week long ball, but there are versions of the tale where it’s just one ball! Sometimes the color of the dress is mentioned, sometimes it isn’t, and there’s only a few versions i can think of where the type of slipper is specifically mentioned. (the fur version comes to mind)
UGH SORRY I WILL CONTAIN MYSELF NOW SORRY SORRY SORRY
YOU’RE ALL WRONG HAHAHAHA
No really Riyna is right, it really does depend on the version. The thing a lot of people don’t really realise is that fairytales come from a tradition of spoken word, and so they would change as someone put their own spin on it to retell it. No one knows who came up with the story of Cinderella, the written ones we have now are simply because when writing became popularised, someone thought it would be good to put a story they had been told on paper - and they probably put their own spin on it then too.
Each version has its own difference. Disney’s version is a perfectly valid version, and versions that came before it don’t erase the social issues that it steamrolls and the massive leaps of logic it makes - this is Disney’s spin, and it should be accepted that way… But at the same time, it doesn’t stop you from making another version and telling it, and carrying on that tradition.
“You read 371 words per minute. That makes you 48% faster than the national average.”
You read 445 words per minute. That makes you 78% faster than the national average
You read 753 words per minute. That makes you 201% faster than the national average.
You read 409 words per minute. That makes you 64% faster than the national average.
You read 712 words per minute. That makes you 185% faster than the national average.
You read 849 words per minute. That makes you 240% faster than the national average.
You read 863 words per minute. That makes you 245% faster than the national average.
the first time I was 25% slower than the average. (War of the Worlds)
the second time I was 40% faster. (Alice in Wonderland)
the third 57% faster. (Wizard of Oz)
Poor test is poor.
You read 922 words per minute. That makes you 269% faster than the national average.
Holy…
If you maintained this reading speed, you could read
War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy in 10 hours and 37 minutes
I keep telling people I’m not a speed reader (and it’s true according to this, I need to get up to 1500 words for that) but GEEZ I had no idea my eyes were moving that fast and I could still get all the questions right.
So it turns out ‘train driver’ is the kind of job that sounds kind of weird and quirky to begin with, but as you go through the application it sounds terrifying.
‘Would you have problems working in confined spaces on your own for long periods of time?’
That’s something I would totally know. I mean I’m not claustrophobic, but that kind of question makes you wonder if people go crazy doing the job?
…Oh well, gives me some questions to ask if I get an interview haha.
That ‘Science Fiction’ distinction totally affects my decision to let my future progeny see this film, thanks OFLC for making that clear that it’s not just violence.
From my reader, written by my lecturer who has worked for numerous magazines both from the US and Australia (he is a US ex-pat). This IS aimed for the Australian editing industry, but there aren’t really any differences in this sort of thing for the US:
Gender The generic use of ‘he’, ‘him’ and ‘his’ for both males and females is to be avoided. There are a number of alternatives: • Use the plural form, which is gender-neutral and often more accurate. So: The would-be immigrant usually finds his way to a migration agent Becomes: Would-be immigrants usually find their way to migration agents. • Use the gender-neutral ‘you’: If you are applying to migrate to Australia, you will usually work through a migration agent. • If neither of these works, use ‘he or she’: Power is vested in the monarch, advised by his or her ministers. • Omit gendered pronouns if they don’t affect the sense: Power is vested in the monarch, advised by ministers. • Alternate between ‘he’ and ‘she’ – though this is an unsatisfactory solution, because it often sounds forced. Similarly, the term ‘man’ should not be used to mean ‘person’ or ‘human’; and I always think ‘people’ or ‘humankind’ sounds better than ‘mankind’ anyway. The use of ‘man’ as a verb (as in ‘Man the pumps!’) can usually be avoided (‘All hands to the pumps!’). Similarly, the term ‘manpower’ has become practically obsolete. Occupational descriptions have become more inclusive, with the omission of superfluous gender markers (‘male nurse’, ‘lady doctor’ and so on) and ‘-ess’ and ‘-ette’ suffixes (so usherettes become ushers and actresses actors), and the adoption of new gender-neutral terms (so firemen become firefighters, policemen police officers, and air hostesses flight attendants). The Australian Bureau of Statistics has published an Australian Standard Classification of Occupations, which is available free of charge (all 703 pages of it) from http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/Lookup/A86A0162E6F672DFCA256ADB001D10D4/$File/asco.pdf Editors should ensure that authors apply the principle of parallelism, which means using the same terms about both males and females (for example, not attributing understanding to men and instinct to women; not focusing on women’s physical appearance, clothing or maternal status while remaining silent about men’s). Remember that inanimate objects do not have sexes (so a ship is ‘it’, not ‘she’) and neither do colours (pink is only feminine in a particularly restricted cultural imaginary). In the reverse direction, journalists these days are cautioned not to assume that criminals are male! In some areas, discriminatory assumptions die hard. I once read a children’s book, otherwise studiously gender-neutral, that included two pictures, one of a boy and the other of a girl, each about to tuck into a generous sandwich. The boy’s picture was captioned ‘A hungry boy’, the girl’s picture ‘A greedy girl’.
In what universe is using “it” to refer to someone whose gender you don’t know more acceptable than using “they” (or even “this person” or something, if you’re one of those people who thinks that singular “they” is so awful and ungrammatical)?
I mean, I know that some people have a big problem with singular “they” (I’ve had a couple professors complain over my using “they” when I could just alternate between “he” and “she” or say “one” or something, and I’ve had other professors who just didn’t care), but using “it” has so many dehumanizing connotations and sets a lot of people’s teeth on edge. I would think that would be something you would rather avoid doing.
Also, I am tremendously biased towards singular “they” as it is, even if it is grammatically questionable, so this isn’t exactly an objective post.
I want to slap your professors who suggest alternating. In editing, we are told to avoid that at all costs - ‘they’ is all encompassing, economical and clear. ‘One’ sounds ridiculously antiquated. ‘It’… Is just terrible.
They is becoming less and less grammatically questionable and much more accepted by editors, I’m told. Don’t worry about it.
…Beyond the stunning revelation out Lecturer imparted on us, “Short words are shorter than long words”.
He also talked about the old adage given by Creative Writing teachers ‘show don’t tell’, and how the fact that there are plenty of amazing writers out there who do ‘tell’, and still make instantly classic work (I would list the names he gave as examples but he speaks so fast when he’s making a point that I didn’t catch them).
I know that I preach this myself both to people who show me their work and on myself (because I’m woeful at it), but it was interesting to find out that there are specific names for the concept of show vs. tell
Parataxis is where the sentence has implicit meaning that a reader must derive from the given information.
Hypotaxis is where everything is explicit, and the reader finds all the information they need laid out for them.
Both things have their place - you want to be explicit when writing a recipe, for instance. But obviously in fiction writing, things tend to be more interesting if sentences are written with some gaps for the reader to fill in. On the other hand, if a writer is being too airy, the story becomes confusing and the reader gets lost.
I don’t know, I think ‘leave some of this to the imagination’ or ‘don’t be so explicit about what is happening’ might become more useful than the cliché ‘show don’t tell’?
THE WORD “GYPSY” IS A RACIST SLUR USED TO BELITTLE AND ABUSE ROMANI PEOPLE
DON’T TAG PICTURES OF YOU DANCING IN THE WOODS WITH SPARKLY SCARVES AS “GYPSY”
DON’T TAG PICTURES OF ANY OF YOUR OTHER HIPPIE SHIT AS “GYPSY”
DON’T USE THE WORD “GYSPY”
THIS HAS BEEN A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
Don’t name your whimsical blog/store anything with the word “gypsy” in the title
I don’t buy anything with the word “gypsy” or listen to any music with the word “gypsy” in the title. :|
At the risk of sounding really stupid, isn’t it kind of not a slur anymore if nobody uses it as one? I don’t think anyone I know uses it as a racist term because none of us know it’s a racist term. *shrug*
Well that doesn’t really work, because it’s not really your intention but the way the person takes it. Just because you don’t recognize it as a slur doesn’t mean it will no longer be seen as a slur by the Romani people, nor will it take away its history with discrimination. Sort of like if a kid repeated a more well-known slur without knowing what it means, you shouldn’t say it’s okay because they don’t know what it means, you should teach the kid not to use the word. (Not saying we’re a bunch of kids for not knowing it’s a slur, but the principle is the same.)
Hm, true, true.
Although, according to this Wikipedia article (which I know isn’t 100% trustworthy, but still) “The word Gypsy in English has become so pervasive that many Romani organizations use it in their own organizational names.”
Also, “In North America, the word gypsy is commonly used as a reference to lifestyle[35] or fashion, and not to the Romani ethnicity.”
So while over in Europe it may be used as a slur against a certain group, over here it’s not even referring to that group.
But I think when it says it’s used as referring to lifestyle and fashion, that’s also referring to racist practices of bastardized cultural appropriation? Like in the opening post, the running through the woods with bells around your waist being tagged as “gypsy”. It’s sort of like the use of feather headdresses being inherently offensive to native american culture.
And while some Romani organizations may be using it now (as you said, not sure how reliable it is) that doesn’t mean everyone is okay with it or that it’s not a slur anymore. Maybe they’re trying to reclaim the term? I wouldn’t know. But at any rate, it doesn’t mean it can’t still be seen as offensive and hurtful, and therefore we shouldn’t be using it.
It’s become fairly well appropriated I would think, the fact that most people have no idea it even relates to Romani people is a good indicator that it’s been assimilated into the language and lost its original meaning - much like how ‘gay’ used to mean happy, and people changed the meaning of the word completely to become a slur - and then a mostly inoffensive label. There’s lots of words like these:
‘awful’ used to mean ‘full of awe’ ‘girl’ referred to children of both genders ‘boy’ referred to servants ‘cute’ was a way to describe bow-leggedness ‘nice’ meant ‘stupid’ or ‘foolish’ and only got its current meaning in the 18th Century (There’s a bigger list of words here: http://www.krysstal.com/wordname.html)
English changes all the time, and I think most right-minded Romani people can tell the difference between when they should be insulted or not. Don’t hold the transformation of it back just because it relates to some ages old insult that is very rarely used as an insult anymore. I think it’s better for a word to become inoffensive than have this horrible combination of letters that no one should dare touch.
EDIT: In the end, if you do offend someone - it’s not hard to apologise.
Favorite films » Singin’ in the Rain (1952), Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly “You’re nothing but a shadow on film… just a shadow. You’re not flesh and blood.”
I am still struggling with this thing so instead I made a crappy logo.
My excuse is that I am going to use it on the letter of transmittal for the assignment so actually it is kind of related to what I am meant to be doing and therefore constructive.
I know the feeling. Kirsten—aka withchocolateontop—is the most professional thing on the face of the Earth. And there I am, in in the corner, hitting a keyboard going “herp derp I make words good.” Good luck with your project, bby.
Yeah that sounds about right for me haha. Thank you!
