Mermaids and Sea Monsters

 What did sailors and pirates truly see when they told tales of sea monsters and mermaids? Were they manatees or dolphins? Are there sea dinosaurs that survived the flood? Let's dive into that. 

Courtesy of storytrender.com 
This is a fake mermaid.

Today we discuss what the sailors actually witnessed when they claimed to see mermaids, as well as what sea monsters could be or truly are. I'm going to go into the mythology first (in both categories) and then research what they could be. Ready to set sail? I know I am. 

Mythology and Mermaids

Myths tell tales of sirens and giant sea monsters. Both are bad news. You have the possibility of either shipwrecking, drowning, or being eaten. Sirens are shown holding human skulls. They didn't pull those out of the sea at random. I'll let you put the pieces together on that one. While that was not every mermaid you found, you'd better keep wax to put in your ears anyway- just in case! Many gods and goddesses also had a tailed form and could be found at sea. 

Courtesy of freedivinguae.com
A Dungong - a sea cow

Merpeople are indeed both genders and both dangerous and friendly. Sirens are the dangerous variety. By singing alone a siren can control sailors, causing them to crash ships into rocks. Some had wings and were cursed to be demons because they failed to prevent Persephone's abduction. After the crash, they would allegedly eat the sailors, which is where that human skull came from. Sightings of these creatures are indeed attributed to manatees (sea cows, essentially) who could look similar to fat merpeople if you didn't see enough of their face. Dolphins or Dungong are also possibilities.

Persian and Irish myths paint mermaids in a new light, claiming they can use legs or fins and be on both land (for a short time) and the sea. This is more like Ariel. They are shy, mystical, and good. They are curious about life on land. In this case, whether they are good or bad depends on your culture. Lots of tragic storms fed the evil interpretation of mermaids. It is likely that mermaids had nothing to do with many sailors' deaths; it is far more likely that bad weather conditions doomed the sailors to shipwreck and the sharks got a good meal. 

Mythology and Sea Monsters

There are many monsters in mythology, countless in fact. They are almost always bad news. Mermaids varied, but not sea monsters. Do you want to hear about the world's largest mythical sea horse? His name is Jormungand. He's known for being wrapped around the world and holding his tail in his mouth. Ragnorak (apocalypse) will begin if he lets go of his tail, according to legend. He's Loki's child. Cthulu is another big name and he's from space. There is a writer who loves to talk about him. He's a humanoid squid with dragon wings. The Kraken is well known by anyone who's paid attention in literature classes and terrorizes sailors. It was probably just a giant squid in real life. A dogfish is referenced in Pinnochio. A sea bishop was found and given to a king, asked to be let go, made the sign of the cross, and went on its way. This is the only exception. Need I go on listing famous and known sea legends? I think you get my point. It's shockingly common. Maps with sea monsters on them marked unknown territory or dangerous seas. 

Courtesy of Band Camp
Kraken

Did I miss Leviathan? No, I just don't count biblical references as mythological. Besides, Leviathan sounds more like a poetic metaphor for end times than anything else. Only God knows if that is a real monster or not and I don't know if I want to know. It's not like Nessy or other references that have sightings. 

Back to the rest of the references, we find they are all from different cultures. One might just be fictional literature. At this point, I am convinced that bad weather is also to blame for this category of monster. Mythology often tried to explain the unexplained. Horrible waves and bad storms factor into that perfectly. Sirens and Sea Monsters are often put in the same category. There are also weird fish that are huge. Big squids, misidentified whales, misidentified sharks, and dinosaurs that could have survived the flood may be a believable explanation for the sightings that have come up. 

What Are They Really?

Mermaids

Much like Bigfoot, there are "sightings" and people who chase this legend around. The world is not Gravity Falls, yet conspiracy theory abounds (and I'm guilty of finding it fascinating, whether it is real or fake). In the case of mermaids, the answer is no. You won't find merpeople in your lake anytime soon. Like I said before, manatees and other creatures are mistaken for merpeople quite often. Weirdly, there are still reported sightings. PT Barnum faked one by putting a monkey body on a fish tale, and then made people pay to see it. It was faked quite often, even at the World's Fair. Women swam in a fish tank and people paid to watch the performance (probably knowing it was fake).

Sightings? Yes, I said sightings. In AD 77 scaled bodies were found washed up on beaches. The Romans found them. Later evidence suggested they were seals. Christopher Columbus claimed to see masculine-featured mermaids. The area he was in was common to manatees and scientists think he saw those. Henry Hudson thought he saw one in the arctic ocean. A book about his adventures (written by his uncle) was thought to have been embellished to include that. In other words, it was a tall tale. Blackbeard saw one, too, and he was known for bending the truth to control his crew. He used the excuse to go to the Indies and steer his crew away from an area. In 1730 China had two encounters - one with fine multicolored hair and the other with webbed feet and hands. Both were rescued and went back to the sea (one left after her rescuer had died). It was thought that it was an encounter with a sea mammal of some sort. 

Do you want more modern sightings? Okay, I'll tell you about those. 1880s Canada held a tale of three men and a native guide. The tourists thought they saw a dark-skinned woman with blonde hair rise out of the water and stare at them. The guide quit soon after because mermaids were bad luck and led to death. Pennsylvania in 1881 tells a tale of a man who saw a black-haired mermaid in the Susquehanna River tributary (Dugan's Run). She's allegedly there in the early morning or late evening and only goes up to her shoulders in the water. Henry Loucks, who found her, was trying to lure her out of her cave home. Loucks almost shot her, then considered that he didn't want to be tried for murder. The Kei Islands tale wasn't truly investigated, so this one is a mystery still. In 1943 Japanese soldiers reported mermaids, then one decided to make threatening (gurgling and burping) noises at them. Naturally, instead of leaving it alone, the village was ordered to kill the one that "attacked" them. The creature had spikes on its head, a human face and limbs, and a fish-like mouth. It was delivered to the Japanese soldiers dead. Again, not been investigated, so we don't know. Victoria, Canada in 1967 tells a tale of a blonde, oblivious mermaid with a porpoise tale eating raw salmon by a tour boat. Pictures of the incident could not be traced. No one, even at the price of 25,000 dollars, could capture her. In Hawaii, 1998, divers reported a naked woman with a fish tale swimming with dolphins. The one diver saw it again and claims to have photographic proof. 

The mermaid sighting in Hawaii 1998
Courtesy of Jeff Leicher - found on pinterest

Want more modern? Let's talk about 2009 Israel. There was a young mermaid reported in Haifa Bay by many people. No one has yet claimed the one million dollar reward for proving her existence. Zimbabwe in 2012 was a case where workers installing water pumps claimed to be chased off by mermaids. An exorcist came in to help, yet they couldn't resume work. Dams are unfinished to this day because they feared the mermaids would capture and drag them off. The workers refused to go back to work. 

Sea Monsters

Sea monsters, much like mermaids, have sightings reported. Also, they might be dinosaurs. When earth flooded in the great flood I'd bet some lived (including sharks). Sharks are dinosaurs. Loch Ness is home to Nessy, allegedly, and she might be one (if she's real). Again, though, we do have to understand that God put so many fish in the sea that we haven't found them all. We never will, given the water pressure. Misidentifying unknown animals is the most logical explanation for sea monsters. Whales, sharks, and other huge fish tend to be a bit intimidating and sailors are kind of in their way, thus it makes sense they'd be less than happy. We're also small in comparison and we're scared. Sailors also might have been drunk at times or telling big fish stories. Dead fish washing up on beaches, unidentified at the time, were considered monsters. 

Courtesy of Youtube

That being said, let's talk sightings. The Kraken was described as a monstrous fish. It looked like a mix of fish and squid. It was a giant squid. One washed up one day and it was identified by science. 150-200 feet is indeed a monstrous size of fish. The Hydra (Hercules killed it) was said to actually be an octopus because it can regrow limbs, as well as tentacles possibly being mistaken for heads. It was hardly as threatening as they thought and we now know what it is. The Oarfish is not a common viewing pleasure, but it does explain the trope about a long sea serpent. It is the longest bony fish currently living, 45-50 feet long, and has spines running up and down its back. It is what we often think of as a sea monster. When washed onto shore it is likely to be seen as one. 

I could go on about misidentified whales and species for a while. That is essentially what has happened. God didn't hand Adam a guidebook to pass on for generations. The extent of the animals on earth is not known. We can't cross off animals on our guidebooks and go "oh, we found the mighty fluferbat and now we can make a new discovery!" Nope, we instead get scared of what washes up on shore, despite the fact it could be harmless and just not be common knowledge. Sea monsters are and aren't real. We can prove that someone found something; we just don't know what they found until we study it. It sometimes turns out to be less than monstrous.

Conclusion

It comes down to the fear of the unknown. Most of us don't know what is in the ocean. The oceans hold freaky creatures that can kill you or be completely harmless. Sailors way back when knew even less. The seas were new to them. Can you blame them for encountering a new animal bigger than them and getting scared for their lives? The sea, like the jungle, can actively try to kill you. 

I'll say this about mermaids, though - why are there sightings in the 2000s? The world may never know. Science can't show us evidence of these merpeople at this time. What I don't understand is why people in 2012 claim to have seen mermaids. It boggles my mind. The science answer for mermaids is no, however, so I'm going to put them in the same category as unicorns and possibly Bigfoot - unproven. I'll let you come to your own conclusions. 

Sources:

Are Mermaids Real? 12 Mermaid Sightings in History - Dutch Shark Society

Are Mermaids Real? (And Do They Exist?) (fictionhorizon.com)

Mermaid Legends - Myths about Mermaids and Sirens (realmermaids.net)

10 Incredible Sea Monsters from Mythology | Ocean Info

Five “Real” Sea Monsters Brought to Life by Early Naturalists | Science| Smithsonian Magazine

The Call of the Void

Ever wonder what would happen if you hurled yourself off a high hiking trail, then logic kicked in and said "please don't"? You aren't alone. You've felt the call of the void, or in french "L'appel du vide".

Courtesy of Factretriever

The call of the void is the urge to do something with high risk. It is a High Place Phenomenon (HPP) and is often felt by many at high places. Urges include swerving into traffic, cutting yourself with a nearby knife or one you are holding, jumping into deep water from a boat or bridge, putting metal into electrical sockets, sticking your hand into a food or garbage disposal, or standing in front of a train. Two seconds later you tell yourself "what is wrong with me? I shouldn't do that!". It is unnerving nonetheless. It is shockingly common to experience this. Half the people who experience this don't have suicidal thoughts, three-quarters of the people have suicidal thoughts, and people who have anxiety but not suicidal thoughts tend to experience HPP.

Why?

The brain, as many have found, has a survival instinct that will tell you not to do something, which is what kicks in or should when the call of the void comes to you. You have a higher sensitivity to internal cues if you experience this. I'll let healthline.com say it best.

"This signal happens quickly, and you instinctively back up, perhaps without realizing why. Then, when you think about what happened, you might mistakenly assume the safety warning was actually a desire to jump (or stick your hand in the fire)."

Anxiety or those that fear anxiety symptoms will be more prone to this. Some have also come to the conclusion it has something to do with a tendency to gamble. I'll let  Adam Anderson say it best. 

Courtesy of Medium

"As illogical as it may sound, if someone has a fear of heights their instinct is to gamble against it by jumping from that high place. Future gain is not as immediate as avoiding present danger. Fear of heights and fear of death are not so connected. Fear of death holds an emotional distance that other, less abstract fears don’t. Therefore, jumping solves the fear of heights immediately. Then you’re confronted with the fear of death problem. (Which may wind up not being a problem if you die.)"

Jean-Paul Sartre, a french philosopher, says it is “a moment of Existentialist truth about the human freedom to choose to live or die.” Basically, you realize you have the freedom to choose to live or die. Humans also tend to sabotage themselves. There is no fool-proof scientific explanation, so this is still a mystery. Surprisingly, though, it is normal.

When To Get Worried

These alone do not mean anything, especially if they cause no lasting distress and you never act on them. Your reaction is an indicator of how at-risk you are of actually harming yourself. However, symptoms of depression and anxiety are not something to fool around with. If you relate to anything listed below you might want to see someone about it.

"frequent worries

hopelessness

trouble concentrating

sudden or rapid mood changes

sleeplessness or difficulty getting out of bed

feelings of doom

persistent loneliness"

(Courtesy of Healthline)

Intrusive thoughts also reflect mental illness, thus it may benefit you to talk about those with a professional. It happens with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). If they are constant, causing you distress, keep you from doing what you want, and you need to do a particular behavior to relieve them it is definitely concerning. 

Rule of thumb, if you actually consider acting on the call of the void and you experience anything indicating a disorder get help. 

Courtesy of Talkspace

Sources:

 Call of the Void: High-Place Phenomenon FAQs (healthline.com)

Call Of The Void: Why We Think We Could Just Jump, But Don't (allthatsinteresting.com) 

What is the 'call of the void'? | Live Science

Book Etiquette 101

 Are there common courtesies that should apply to everyone who reads? Absolutely. Class is in session. 

Courtesy of Pinterest

Have you ever been constantly interrupted by someone attempting conversation - while your book is obviously open in your hand and your eyes are on the pages? Me too. That is why today's blog topic is immediately relevant to every reader. I will be going through all the reading etiquette that everyone on planet earth should know and understand.

Book Open - Mouth Shut

The cardinal rule of reading is that when the book is open no one should be trying to converse with you. Unless tea or dinner is ready, it is time to clock in, or the house is on fire all humans near you should respect your reading time. Do you know how hard it is to read in the work break room, or near a coworker who has decided your book doesn't have your attention? If so, you understand why this is at the top of our list. As much as I enjoy social time with others, we should all be aware that an open book means someone's time is already occupied. 

Courtesy of Pinterest

I do know that some humans won't ever understand this, which is why I'm also devoting this section to avoiding such misunderstandings. If you can find a room alone (library, at home, coffee shop.....) that is an ideal place to read. Situations that don't allow this also have the option of noise-canceling headphones, earbuds with background music going, and any other type of headphones that communicate you are not open to conversation. Even then, kids won't understand that a book can hold your attention just as well as a toy holds theirs, so you may need to resort to reading during nap time or while the kids are not home (with grandparents, school, with aunts...). 

Another aspect to take into account is who is in the room with you. If you know for a verified fact that person A will be busy on their phone, you can likely pull out a book with no worries. However, if person B walks in and is obviously feeling chatty you might want to finish your page and bookmark, then find a new place to sit. Or wait until they leave. Either way, keep an eye on who seems to leave you to your book and who doesn't understand your book has your attention. It can help you know when spaces are safe to read in or not. Also, never read in unsafe spaces and never wear headphones in public places (unless you know you are safe).

Spoilers!

When you are experiencing a book and don't want to spoil any plot points you should avoid reading reviews that aren't labeled as spoiler-free. Etiquette here is to not blurt out who dies in the book (unless you are told it is okay). If you are discussing a book and don't know someone is in the middle of the plot you are forgiven. You cannot read the minds of your companions. However, seeing someone reading an Agatha Christie and blurting out the culprit ungracefully and loudly is never okay. Long story short, mystery and suspense endings are not what you discuss out loud until everyone has finished the book. 

Courtesy of Pinterest

Plot spoilers are not wanted. Comic, graphic novel, book, novel, or novella matter not; we don't need to go ruining plot twists for readers reading a novel for the first time. If you want to discuss the endings and plot twists of books online it is wise to say from the get-go that your post includes spoilers (which most facebook groups police politely anyways). In person you should ask how far they are in the book, so you don't let loose the biggest plot twist of the series on accident. Book clubs are safe places to discuss such things, as your book club group should be on the same page literally and figuratively. If someone fails to read the novel it is their fault and most book clubs talk about the novel after everyone has read it. 

Return Library Books Undamaged

Is this one because my mom is a librarian? Yes, it is. In fact, this is also because lots of people bring back damaged anything to the library and sometimes can't get CDs and PC games to work on computers because of damage (cough cough, my childhood and why we bought Nancy Drew games, cough cough). Take care of the book you borrowed. Don't leave it where your sibling can get mud on it, drop it in a puddle without drying it out, or use it as a coaster. The best way to return your library book is in the state you borrowed it. 

There are book sleeves - physical fabric sleeves - that can assist you with this, especially if you are reading a book on the go or in a kitchen. They have a variety of sizes and you can make your own in whatever fabric you desire to use. I have two that can hold an average size book. One can button closed. This is also ideal for taking your e-readers with you. Try it sometime and see how it works out. A protected book will be more likely to return without water or other varieties of damage. 

Dog-earing pages is not right, either. Take a piece of scrap paper and put it in the book instead of bending corners back to mark your place. These book pages are not as forgiving as you think they are. You return the pages dog-eared and they are never the same again. Libraries put bookmarks out for you to take, so take them and use them. 

Don't Judge Us For Emotional Responses 

Avid readers know that a character dying in a book can cause physical tears. Coming upon a steamy scene in your Bridgerton novel may make you not want to look your male coworkers in the eye for a bit. One character's action may make us want to throw the book across the room and scream in anger. My point? Books cause an emotional response in many of us. Please understand that venting about a fictional character is normal for us. There are multiple characters, including Draco Malfoy, that I'd like to punch in the face through the book for being a serious jerk.

Courtesy of Pinterest

I know some people don't get this. They think "it's just a book" or we have confused reality and fantasy. We have not. We connected with the fictional character, but we do know the difference. That doesn't mean reading a scene where someone committed suicide, died in battle, or got betrayed isn't going to cause us emotional damage. I can give you three characters - at least - that I cried over when they died. I can point out several characters that I wanted to reach into the book and hit in the face. I have wanted to reach into the book and shake the main character into using their common sense more than once. We know the difference between reality and fantasy, I promise, but that doesn't mean we aren't going to get emotional over our books like you get emotional over your movies. 

The concept is called the willing suspension of disbelief, which allows us to get into a fictional storyline in any form of media or theatre and be transported into another world mentally. For example, watching a play is something we know to be acting, just like we know movies are not reality. Books are no different. This is why fandoms (groups of fans who follow any series of books, movies, or games) exist. We all know saying Latin into the air will accomplish nothing while holding a plastic movie-replica wand. We know that the tardus is not going to show up at our front door and take us to other worlds. As much as we like our series of books, the majority of mentally healthy people learn and know the differences between reality and fantasy (except for very young children). By a certain age, we learn that entertainment is entertainment. 

Reviews Matter

Authors have an uphill climb when it comes to selling books and not being James Patterson or Stephen King. Why? We don't have a big name. Authors who are pretty much on their own need reviews to show up for their books. If you have the time and you liked it, one review more can mean more sales for authors who aren't large names and don't have an entire PR team behind them. Traditional publishing is hard and a lot of us end up on Amazon or Kobo instead due to higher royalties and an easier way to get our book (which does need professional editing in the long run) out to our audience. Reviews help people decide to buy it or decide not to buy it. 

Courtesy of Pinterest

Do you have to write a whole paper on it? No, you can just choose the number of stars based on your opinion and say whether you enjoyed it or not. Oh, and try to keep the spoilers out of it or mark whether it has spoilers in the review. If you liked or loved it I'd highly suggest reviewing it. This can make a world of difference to many authors who lack a name to stand on. The majority of us don't have the big names that overshadow smaller authors. Think of us when you finish the novel and go review it. It takes five minutes and you don't need to do anything except be honest. Make sure you review the book based on the content, not the author. 

Don't Buy If You Aren't Sure You'll Like It

Apparently, authors can be impacted by returned books in many forms (including audible). Whenever possible, pass it on to a friend or donate it to a community box or a library. Someone else can enjoy that book you paid for. Better yet, don't buy it unless you know you'll be into it. The best way to find out if you like something is to hit up your local library or borrow it from a friend. The library is a way to figure out what you like so you don't waste money on a book you hate. Overdrive is a library online that you can use with either a phone number or a library card. It can even zip it to your mp3 player or device for your reading pleasure. Take a book for a test drive. Hate it? No harm done. Love it? Go back to the bookstore (after returning the book to the library) and get it for yourself. 

Rule of thumb, if you hate it halfway through or are bored to tears within five to ten chapters stop reading it. Take it back to the library or give it back to your friend. If you know you're not into it don't spend the money and return it. Whenever you do think you'll like it, then find out you were wrong, remember that donating books can help others. Some can't afford to have books of their own and depend entirely on libraries. 

Sources:

(7) Readers’ ETIQUETTE The do's and don’ts of reading. - YouTube

The Power of a Bad Review

 Public opinion doesn't just rule reputations. Media is controlled by reviews and what others think of it. What can one bad review do to a decent game, movie, or book? Let's dig into that today. 

Courtesy of complex

I was afraid to read the copy of Ready Player Two that I bought on a whim after seeing all the Youtube buzz on how bad it was. I started reading it, then found it to be good writing. Midnight In Salem (MID) - a Nancy Drew puzzle game - got lots of delays and didn't turn out like the rest of the Nancy Drew Herinteractive games. I played it and found it wasn't half bad (Perfect? No, but we knew it wouldn't be.). Today I'm diving in on why bad reviews kill media that isn't all that bad. 

Let me be clear on this. Some media do turn out to be dumpster fires attached to nuclear bombs. I'm admitting this openly. Some honest reviews do turn out to be true. Fifty Shades of Grey and 365 are both horrendous examples of this. Not only are they badly written, but they are abusive erotica. No, I didn't read them, but I watched a detailed review on the plot of both (done by Amanda the Jedi, who talked about them in enough detail to know the plot details in the book). Both are based on Twilight fanfiction, which is bad enough already. These are the best examples of honest reviews that I can think of, both of which are dumpster fires of books that I'd gut and repaint into book safes. 

Why Do We Trust Reviews

In a world that gives us false advertising daily, we want to hear what people actually thought about something, whether it be a doctor, movie, or videogame. We want something called transparency, which is part of why reviews are on websites and apps. The primary reason to give a review is if you loved it or hated it. Most who thought it was "okay but not great" don't post reviews very often. 

The more we trust the source of the review, the more we trust the review itself. If our friend says they loved the Twilight series we might pick it up at the library. Verbal reviews from those we are close to mean the most. Second to that might be celebrities or mainstream people we trust online. No connection to the person doing the review means we discard it as unreliable unless backed by friends/family or celebrities. 

We all want to know what we are buying and if we can trust those doing services for us (doctor, plumber, maid...). When a review is posted we read it, especially when it is something we think we want to invest in. At the time the new Nancy Drew game came out, several reviews were posted all at once. We care what others think. All humans that are connected influence each other. Don't pretend your friend's opinion of a new movie doesn't impact your will to go see it. My friend is the reason I watched Encanto. I would have missed a good movie without her opinion. 

The level of good and bad reviews impacts whether we put that Amazon item in our cart. Say an mp3 player has seven reviews. Upon counting the reviews, you see four good reviews and three bad ones. I already have doubts. Yet, what if six reviews were positive and only one was negative? I'd be more compelled to buy it. While I would read the content of the reviews (please do, some people review different objects and put it in the wrong place), negative reviews discouraged me from investing in that mp3 player. This is where having bad reviews all over the internet can kill a product or any form of media. 

The Internet  

We are all heavily influenced by people over social media. One bad review can get circulated everywhere in seconds. One share button can make a world of difference in either direction. Every person on Youtube or social media has an opportunity to draw attention to either flaws or positives. Sometimes the 'so bad it's good' works in a person's favor. Amanda the Jedi watches movies that are sometimes really bad and sometimes quite good. Saberspark does the same thing. Either way, the public is now aware of the movies and may go see them for themselves. Sharknado is one of those movies, just like The Room. There is a particular category that some media fits into called 'so bad it's good', which bizarrely benefits from bad reviews. We like to laugh at films so bad they are laughable. Neil Breen benefits from this. 

Youtube has whole channels that review media. Saberspark and Amanda the Jedi are just two of them. Markiplier and Jacksepticeye go into this category because they review games and expose the audience to what the game truly is. That is still a form of review (which convinced me to buy at least two games already). They have an impact on gamers and movie fans everywhere. So many people watch Youtube today instead of cable. You share that video and it goes right onto your social media, where it gets spread farther into the world wide web. This is why one bad review or one great review can make a massive difference in sales. My husband and I fell in love with West of Loathing and bought it after watching Markiplier play it. 

Worst Case Scenario

The worst-case scenario for a bad review is when no one checks to see if the review is actually accurate. Letting reviewers think for you is bad. Everyone has different standards for games and books. Some like it spicy, adventurous, perplexing, complex... I think you understand what I mean. Standards for one person do not equal the standards for you. The worst situation that can happen for any media is when everyone reads the review and blindly decides to not fact-check. Even worse, they can hit share after blindly believing it. 

Courtesy of postec.com

This situation does not apply to the 'so bad it's good', just to clarify. The human race likes to show people how bad something is when it is laughably awful. This category gains traction from people reacting to it. What doesn't gain traction are books and movies that don't reach the laughable level. It has to be so bad that it borders on ludicrous or people won't watch it for the laughs. Neil Breen makes it to this level. What makes it even funnier is that ludicrous movies often have directors with serious intent. You can't fake it to get here. Those that try fade into obscurity because they tried too hard.

Let's talk about a big example of this. Harry Potter got this treatment in the Christian Bubble. It was labeled as evil by some Christian moms, who then forbid it in their house. Some individuals took that as a challenge to read it, others didn't, and it still remains today. It had enough good reviews to keep it going in secular culture. It couldn't be stopped. Yet, among some Christian homes that never did their research, it is still thought to be evil. Fact-checking, let's make sure we're doing that.

Harry Potter may not have gone under, and I'm glad of that, but others have. The true worst-case scenario is that a company with a good game, movie, or product can't make ends meet and can't keep going. Bad reviews that get left unchecked can obliterate a company. This is the saddest ending to this story. Bad reviews can also kill a TV show, too. There is always a risk to targeting smaller niche groups. Media directed at small fandoms is a risk, which is why small fandoms seldom get large-scale productions. 

Sources:

Here Are 2 Reasons Why Customers Trust Online Reviews (revlocal.com)

Public Indecency Standards

 The societal standards have changed from century to century. In the 1800s you could probably get arrested for wearing skimpy clothing. Today? You have to be nude to get arrested. Let's dig into what public indecency used to be and still might be.

Courtesy of rare historical photos

Indecency would be, for example, running around nude in a public place. You can be arrested for that and should be arrested for that. Ohio's law states having sex in public, exposing yourself in public, or looking like you are masturbating or having sex in public will get you a criminal record and a reputation as a sex offender. It is not okay to do any of this, nor should it ever be. Urinating in a public place is also an arrestable crime.

It changes constantly when it comes to what is decent and indecent in society's fashion. It also depends on where you are. Puritans were probably tolerating less than other villages would, for example. Without any further introduction, I give you what I found on public indecency from the 1700s and onward.

Theatrical Scandal

We love theatre and movies today, but I can tell you that the Puritans did not. Women and some races of people were not allowed on the stage years later. Theatre did not have a particularly great start in the 1600s era and it was rather hard for women and foreigners to act even after it finally made it. Do you know why blackface happened? Black people weren't allowed to act on stage for a while. Do you know why men were in drag for Shakespeare? Women weren't allowed on the stage for a while, too. Surprisingly, Quakers did propose a form of theatre and got vetoed every time by the English Crown. You could get arrested for performing a theatre production in the 1600s. 

1700 Massachusetts put in a law that lasted 40 years preventing any space for theatre. It was considered immoral. Shows still happened in secret, however. The late 1700s was the time theatre fought back legally by forming an association. They successfully repealed the previous law preventing it five to ten years later.

There were plays that discussed sexual topics and there were scandals as a result. Art has been censored throughout time. Less of the sexual topics are being censored as time goes on. What is decent today would shock someone from the 16 to 1800s easily, including any discussion of sexual anything. Sex was taboo, which is still true in some communities today (depending on where you were raised). Homosexual topics were highly taboo, as well, though I can tell you that it was still happening in secret. There is nothing new under the sun, dear readers. Just because society won't talk about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. At any rate, sex and homosexual topics were considered off the table for a long period of time and still make a lot of our society uncomfortable. That doesn't mean some people didn't try to put it in their productions, though.

Clothing

Women in pants is a common one that gets spoken of, as well as women getting arrested for swimsuits that we'd never consider illegal today. People wore more clothing swimming way back when than we do currently. Bikinis caused much scandal when they came on the scene. While we're at it, we'll consider tattoos and how they were attached to crime and prostitution. Women with tattoos were considered very bad news. Today none of this matters to us because most of us wear jeans and shorts out in public daily. Women wearing pants is not front-page news, nor is a woman lounging in a bikini. You'll only get arrested if you take that off and run around nude. Tattoos are also not an issue these days. 

If anything looked like lingerie on top - even if fully clothed otherwise- the silhouette was enough. The open dress was one dress that only pregnant women were supposed to wear from the 16 to the 1700s. I mentioned the Puritans, right? They influenced fashion more than you think. Flashing ankle was scandalous in the 1800s. This came from a society that wanted to suppress lust as much as possible, which is why sex was such a curiosity that more Puritan youth had sex outside of marriage. This usually ended in a shot-gun wedding, should the woman become pregnant. 

Do you remember those youth events that didn't let you wear a bikini without a t-shirt over it? If you think the bikini is scandalous, try the one-piece being a scandal. 1907 was the beginning of the one-piece bathing suit. A swimmer got arrested for it because it came above her knee. The first one resembled a wetsuit, which for us is more decent than most garden-variety bikini tops. Society then did not like it. That rule about not wearing a bikini without a t-shirt is now absolutely hilarious to me. 

Flapper dresses were a scandal by themselves. Phryne Fisher played with fire by dressing herself as she did, and the only reason she could was her money and position. Flapper is slang for "young prostitute". These dresses were moral uproar in the form of fabric. Add to that list bullet bras (bras that are shaped like they sound), mini-skirts, sheer shirts, women's tuxedos, slip dresses, and the 2000s trend of thongs being visible. The thong one I do agree with, however, as that is rather tacky. I also get perpetually frustrated by shirts that show my bra no matter how skin-colored it is, so I do think white sheer shirts are annoying, too.

Dancing

Is shimmying scandalous to you? It was in 1920. It was banned in some places. Is Elvis' dancing offensive to you? That was 1950. Madonna was considered too sexy, as well. Finally, we get to grinding on the homecoming dance floor and twerking. Dance and sex have been connected in many people's minds for years. Yet, in 1900, the turkey trot, bunny hug, and grizzly bear were shameful. If you let them happen in a dance hall you could be in trouble. Below the turkey trot is demonstrated, and it looks so tame that I can't even believe it was discouraged. The bunny hug looks like an excuse to be cheek-to-cheek, but not much else. I'm putting the videos for the bunny hug and the grizzly bear at the end for you to watch. It is absolutely hilarious. 

Dance, as Footloose suggests, is taken as a sexual act in some people's opinions. What many see as innocent fun is taken as indecent activity. Puritans did not completely ban dancing, but forbid mixed (or mixt) dancing because it encouraged adultery in their opinion. 

Jazz music and dancing caused no loss of scandal, given the ragtime dances attached. There are specific singers that were considered indecent, like Josephine Baker. It also happened more in places like brothels or gentlemen's clubs early on. Prohibition fueled private, secret clubs and ended up fueling jazz music and dance. Private clubs hired more black musicians (the culture jazz originated from). The origin of this music also has a great deal to do with racism. Jazz got blamed for a lot it didn't do due to its place of origin and the racism. We're not even talking about the sexy nature of jazz dance, yet, either. Move over bunny hug, because a new dirty dance has come to town. The charleston didn't get such a warm welcome. 

I didn't want to put Josephine Baker doing the charleston on here because she isn't so clothed in most of her dances, but I found a video of her dancing that shows off her personal style. It's worth watching. This is the tamest one I could find. Forewarning, she is an exotic dancer in most of the videos you find her in. Be prepared for some nudity and moulin rouge style of dance if you do look up more of her dance footage later. 

 

Conclusion

Check out the bunny hug and the grizzly bear down below if you have time to do so. Today there are some of these standards that still apply and many that haven't applied for years. It also depends on your community and how you were raised, as well as where you were raised. I hope you enjoyed a look at the history of public indecency today and then. This was only a brief snapshot, so check out my sources down below. 

Sources:

Public Indecency Law | Justia

Ohio Indecent Exposure Laws - FindLaw

Indecent and Censorship of American Theater | Seattle Rep

25 Things That Were Considered Scandalous 100 Years Ago But Are Totally Normal Now — Best Life (bestlifeonline.com)

11 Fashion Items That Were Super Scandalous For Their Time — PHOTOS (bustle.com)

A Short History Of Dance: Dirty Dancing Through the Years (yourteenmag.com)

Dirty Dancing In The Early 1900s : NPR History Dept. : NPR

Opposition: A History of Social Dance in America -- AAS Online Exhibition (americanantiquarian.org)

Culture Shock: Flashpoints: Music and Dance: Early Jazz (pbs.org)

Jazz Controversy (AtoZ Challenge 2016 – Jazz Age Jazz) (theoldshelter.com)

1920's Dances (1920s-fashion-and-music.com)

Shy vs Introverted

 Every introvert on earth has heard that they are "so shy". We have been told that we need to come out of our shells. The truth is that introversion and shyness are not the same thing. Nor are we antisocial.

Courtesy of stereotypekillerasswit.com

I can explain it in one sentence, for those who don't know the difference between extroversion and introversion. Introverts recharge during time spent alone and extroverts recharge while socializing. Extroversion is what you see encouraged in schools everywhere, which leaves most introverted souls feeling a bit drained after their school day.

We need working definitions. Below you'll find the three definitions that we're running with for the entire blog. All are credited to Meriam Webster.

Introversion-  a typically reserved or quiet person who tends to be introspective and enjoys spending time alone 

Shyness- hesitant in committing oneself, disposed to avoid a person or thing, easily frightened

Antisocial- hostile or harmful to organized society

Introverts get accused of shy or antisocial behavior all the time. Choosing to sit alone at recess to read a book instead of playing tag might put you in the shy or antisocial category. Sometimes someone will interrupt your reading time with deep concern when you don't join a social group. Why? Because they expect social behavior from kids. Let's dig into the word shy, first. 

Shyness

Shyness has to do with fear. Introversion has to do with stress; it might be stressful for someone to join a social group when they need to recharge. One is anxiety and the other is not. To some, they look the same. It is not good to try to force an introvert to do anything while they need to recharge. You can't force an introvert to be an extrovert, as you'll mess with self-esteem and make them feel inadequate instead. They may even shut down or break down after a while.

Courtesy of Quora

The problem here is that kids sitting alone get interrupted when adults get concerned or don't know the difference. Me sitting alone with a book is not considered a cry for help from my perspective (though in some cases you should check in on someone), but a camp counselor may come over to ask if I'm okay. Counselors are told to shove kids who are sitting alone into camp activities, though, in case they wander off and cause trouble. That has more to do with the responsibility of the camp if I'm honest, but it still creates less time to recharge. 

Why can you mistake shyness for introversion? Introverts don't make as much eye contact and shy people share that trait. Introverts are uncomfortable at large parties (the ones where we know no one) with everyone except the family dog and shy people linger at the edge of social situations. We also lose the energy to converse toward the end of the party. The thing to do when you want to know the difference is to approach them. You initiate it and see what happens. If they start to appear bored by small talk you have your answer. We like deep conversations, so find what we like to talk about. We'll keep you occupied for hours if you let us talk about what we like to speak of. If we have next to no energy and want you to leave us alone, you can also bet that is an introvert. We like small groups and one-on-one conversations more often. Look for signs of those conversations when you try to tell the difference.

Courtesy of Huffpost

I do have to admit that introverts with anxiety exist. There is overlap in that category. Yet, some introverts are social introverts. It probably means they recharged before the party. It also makes a difference if we know everyone there or not. We need to feel safe at a party to open up. This means a comfortable introvert will converse while they are around trusted friends in small groups. An introvert alone will look like someone with social anxiety.

Antisocial

Antisocial people are hostile toward social interaction, so an introvert that is at the end of their social battery may come across as antisocial. Or they simply need time alone and someone doesn't get it. Antisocial individuals think mostly of themselves and have no regard for the unwritten rules of social interaction. They are unwilling to be social. Introverts lose energy during social interactions and simply need a moment to recharge, which means avoiding some interactions with people they can't handle on a low battery. Antisocial people also have a lack of empathy and no regard for society's rules. The antisocial people don't like to make connections with others. 

Why do we get mistaken for antisocial beings? Easy, both of us leave parties early and interact with humans less. Antisocial people don't enjoy other humans and introverts are just too tired. Some perceive the lack of large group interactions to be antisocial behavior. An introvert at the end of their rope may appear to disregard social rules because they are out of battery entirely. The truth is simply this; antisocial people don't have empathy and introverts do. We are not antisocial. 

Courtesy of westressfree.com

If you want to know who fits the antisocial label, look at Sherlock Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch's version specifically). He is allegedly on the autism spectrum or a high-functioning sociopath. Emotions are not easy for Sherlock. He only has one close friend (John Watson), and a few others he keeps in touch with. Mycroft is always watching him closely. Sherlock is closer to antisocial than most introverts ever are. Antisocial beings generally don't make new connections or follow social niceties, as they don't feel the need for human company often. Most people who are like this have a disorder of some form. While an introvert can have an antisocial disorder, it is not exclusive to introverts. Antisocial disorders can make someone dangerous, if untreated. There is a category of people called "asocial" who tend to live secluded lives outside of society, and they are allegedly not dangerous, but still have a disorder of some kind. 

Conclusion

Do your research before you assume anything. If they look annoyed to see you, find out if they respond to you politely. The only reason an introvert will drop social conventions is if they are at the end of their patience (which happens to anyone) or if you interrupted them way too often. There is a difference between shy, antisocial, and introverted. While therapy can help the antisocial or shy individual, it does not stop introversion, which is a personality trait and not a mental health issue. Half the world is introverted. 

Courtesy of Pinterest

Sources:

The Difference Between Being Shy and Being Introverted (verywellfamily.com)

Being an introvert is different from being shy — here's how to tell the difference, according to experts (yahoo.com)

4 Differences Between Antisocial and Introvert: Which One Are You? - Learning Mind (learning-mind.com)

antisocial VS Introvert: Am I Antisocial or Introverted? - introverted growth

The Psychology of Wade Watts

 After seeing review titles that say Ready Player Two was horrible I read it for myself and it is amazing. No, I am not here to roast the book. I think it is good sci-fi writing, but to each their own. What I'm here to talk about is how Wade Watts and literally everyone else in his fictional world need to learn how to handle reality outside their devices. Let's just psychoanalyze Wade and see what we find out.

Courtesy of Bookstacked.com

*spoilers for Ready Player One and Ready Player Two are contained in this post!*

Just to get it out of the way, yes I like this series. No, I don't think it necessarily needed a sequel, but it is engaging and entertaining. This is sci-fi, obviously, so you can expect a plot that isn't entirely possible. I think at this point he'd be wise to end it here and stop. I don't think it deserves the criticism it is getting. Your main character does not need to be perfect. He does change as the book hits the midpoint. The honest reality that I see is that Wade Watts never knew how to deal with reality without hiding in the Oasis, nor did most of the people in the Oasis. His mother died of drug overdose and he hid from that online. 

This fictional period reflects a point where life has fallen apart, so much so that everyone is escaping reality and running from it, even after the Anorak incident. Some have given up on fixing it. Wade Watts is now becoming like Halliday (the man he idolized from the jump) - a recluse that doesn't know how to interact with people except in digital form. He changes when Anorak goes rogue and everything hits the fan. He realizes that he was wrong. The ONI device (a headset that connects to your brain for more real experiences) shot him down a rabbit hole that fed his already horrible addiction to the Oasis. Today we look at the flawed character that is Wade Watts and acknowledge that he is not a static character. 

His Situation

He went from living in poverty with his aunt and her boyfriend to being rich. Before that, his mother died of depression-related drug overdose. He is running the Oasis by the second book with the five people he found the egg with (minus one which is honorarily replaced with Morrow). His friendships have deteriorated in some ways, blown up in other ways, or faded. He doesn't have enough social contact. He is hopelessly addicted to the Oasis. He's already in a bad place mentally. If you want to call him a sociopath, please do your research. Halliday may have been one, but Wade is not. He simply doesn't know how to deal with the real world outside the Oasis. I don't think he ever did. He has spent almost his entire life in the Oasis avoiding the real truth of the state of the world - and he isn't the only one. When Anorak locks everyone into the Oasis until the seven shards are found, he begins to see that the Oasis is not so safe anymore. By the end he won't touch an ONI device again. Don't judge the first chapters of a book by the actions of a character that hasn't found the main conflict yet.

Courtesy of Daily Mail

If you know how important social contact is, you know that Wade is in a dangerous place when you first read the beginning chapters. We already see in the beginning of the second book how isolated he is and how addicted he is. His relationship with Samantha is lost temporarily because he couldn't live in the real world with her. They are no longer friends, let alone lovers in the first three chapters. The happy ending of the first book has snapped in two, only to be replaced by Wade letting his relationships fade and break. His friendships rise again towards the middle of the second book. Looking at how alone he is before that happens, this is hardly surprising. He admits that he doesn't trust an actual person as a therapist and we see that he lives in a world he creates for himself. This illusion promptly falls apart when Anorak takes the invincability robes back by stealing and the Oasis is taken hostage.

 Too Much Power 

Social skills have to be there to wield power. After living purely in the Oasis for most of his life, I can safely say he doesn't have the real-world social skills to wield the power of the robe he has on. He literally goes after the avatars who say bad things about him, that is until Aech suggests therapy. While the therapy was clearly a good move, he probably needs to be unplugged from his fantasy world along with everyone else in the book. Mid-book everyone wants to log out due to Anorak going AI rogue, so that is likely to happen more often after all this blows over. Wade gives up ONI use entirely. The Oasis does not lose too much popularity, though.

Samantha rails against him releasing the ONI because she wants to fix the real world. This was what ended the relationship dead in its tracks for a while. I do believe Samantha has a point. Unfortunately for Wade, he can't imagine life outside of what he's always known until Anorak happens. His safe place is a videogame world where he can be whatever he wants to be and do whatever he wants to. This is why his leadership is not quite up to the power of the robe. His character shouldn't be untouchable.

The world around Wade is serving him up until Anorak goes rogue. Part of his problem is that he is focused on himself, yet that isn't unique to the human race. Our technology does this every day for us, encouraging the individual to focus on themselves and not others. When you have your fictional, perfect world serve you and give you everything you ever wanted, it doesn't discourage "me, me, me". It actively discourages Wade from stepping out of his fantasy of being invincible to face the state of the world. This is why he opted to give ONI to kids of low income for free during early chapters, as opposed to trying to fix the world itself. He thinks helping others escape will help people live happier lives. Being focused in on your needs and obsessions instead of stepping out to see what others need is not what someone in power should be doing, which is why Og created a weapon that can kill Anorak. At the end of all this (and no, I'm not telling the entire ending), Anorak is destroyed and Wade is not the same person he was. 

Why People Are Upset

Wade came across as an underdog hero in the last book because he was an underdog. Wade is no longer an underdog. He has the opportunity to do great things with his wealth. He had the choice of releasing the ONI or not. Many reviews are not positive on this book. I am currently reading it and see no problems with the writing itself, just many flawed characters who never learned to handle reality in their younger years and should be unplugged from their devices. The sad truth of the fictional world this book created is that most of the younger generations (Wade included) were taught to escape to the Oasis early on, leaving Wade and several others at the disadvantage of never knowing how to face real life. They never knew how to fix the world. Frankly, no one does.

Courtesy of Wordpress.com

People are upset that Wade is making horrible decisions, to put it point-blank. They didn't read enough to get to his apology to Samantha and see his worldview change. Yet, what I read about his decision-making skills early on doesn't surprise me. He didn't know how to face the truth of the world's sorry state, let alone how to wield the power of a robe that makes you immortal online. Did you expect the character to solve every problem on earth in the blink of any eye and save the world without flaws and conflicts? I didn't. When half the world or more is literally in stasis running around a digital world, most humans on earth aren't even looking for a solution. 

Every single human in the book is addicted to the Oasis to some degree (minus maybe Samantha). The rest of the five are all in for the ONI and give it credit for making end-of-life care better, upping the amount of empathy in the world, and eliminating disease spread. While end-of-life care might be a point to the five, the rest of it can truly come down to the fact that most of the world isn't leaving their house. Unfortunately, this makes it easy for thieves and murderers that killed some users while they were in stasis. ONI leaves your body in stasis while you wander the Oasis, so naturally, riots and disease spread have gone down due to physical inactivity. Anorak makes the ONI a serious problem by creating infirm ware that makes you unable to log out, meaning anyone logged in could go into a coma after 12 hours of use. The views on the ONI are suddenly not bright. Respawning is also suddenly not working, to make matters worse. In the end, no one died of ONI-related brain trauma. All the same, Wade decided not to use his ONI again.

Wade is not the only character blind to their addiction. Seriously, if you are mad at the main character's choices, go analyze how he grew up and why he is what he is. Wouldn't you hide in your happy educational treehouse if your mother is doing drugs due to depression? The book followed the natural progression of how Wade Watts would handle power. He barely left the Oasis in the first book, so what makes you think he isn't still an addict? He was unbalanced then and still is now. Wade made bad decisions, but he learned and apologized. What do you expect from someone so addicted to the ONI that he either sleeps or is online? He barely leaves his house all book. My point is simply this; Wade Watts is a flawed character, but you didn't get to see his worst traits in the last book because he was the underdog. Read past the first five chapters that are groundwork and get to the main conflict before you say the book is trash, because it isn't. The ending, while a bit odder than I expected, was heartwarming.

Conclusion

Courtesy of The Herald-Standard

 I don't see anything that shocks me. That world created by the Oasis is where everyone hid from the state of the world. AI going rogue isn't out of the ordinary, and nor is Halliday being sociopathic (given his disorder). Wade spent years of his life hiding in a van in haptic gear. He became his idol, which he studied obsessively (minus sociopathic tendencies). Halliday was in a dangerous state and Wade followed suit. He took one step further than Halliday, however, in releasing the ONI. That being said, Wade turned back from that path when the ONI was hacked by Anorak. Wade learned. We also know Halliday learned something from creating the ONI.

You are all entitled to your opinions on this book. It is a good sci-fi book (and if you dislike sci-fi, well, you may not be into it). I will close with a challenge, though; I challenge you to read before you judge. Ditto for games and movies. There is no shame in liking a series of books, games, or movies that isn't popular. Don't let one or two bad reviews stop you from trying it out. You can like it or dislike it. Get it from a library or watch another gamer play it on Youtube if you are afraid to spend the money. Don't let one person who hated it tell you what to think. Most people only post reviews if they love or hate it, so read the content of the reviews when you look at any review. Amazon sometimes has reviews from unrelated products in review sections because some people type in the wrong place.