Here's a question: Why would a Muslim want to write about Jesus?

I stumbled across a very intriguing video online yesterday. It was an interview done by Fox News between Lauren Green and Bible scholar and religious historian Reza Aslan.

Watch the video here

Lauren Green struggles throughout the interview to wrap her mind about why a MOOSLIM would want to write about the founder of Christianity.

Mr Aslan replies, quite frustrated, that it is his job as an academic and as a professor of religion. He lists all of his qualifications and background but Ms Green is still convinced and continues to attack him throughout the rest of the interview for his faith.

She even accuses him of until recently keeping his Muslim faith a secret to which he replies that it is mentioned on page two of his book and then asks Ms Green if she has even read his book or knows that much about him at all.

They should show this video in university journalism classes about how NOT to do an interview.

Ms Green went in with a clear negative agenda. She had no intention of discussing Mr Aslan's new book detailing the history of Jesus. She was clearly threatened and confused that a Muslim would dare to claim that he could be an expert on the founder of Christianity. Surely he had to some insidious agenda RIGHT? He couldn't just be...an expert on religion who happened to also be Muslim? Nah...

I felt really sorry for him throughout the interview. Here is a man who has devoted his life to the study of religion, has four degrees on the subject, and is a renowned writer and speaker on religion being attacked for his faith. What does his faith have to do with anything he writes? He is a Historian. If Ms Green knew anything at all about Islam she would know that Jesus a highly respected figure in the faith. Why is she threatened by him?

The interview raises the question should writers be able to write about faiths that are not their own?

Of course they should! What a narrow minded world Fox News lives in. No one should be attacked for their faith or for their opinion.

Why does iTunes censor adult material?

I got into Breaking Bad a couple of weeks ago. I'd just finished The Walking Dead and needed something to fill the void. I loved Breaking Bad. The writing, the characters, and the plot was all truly excellent. I watched it on iTunes because we do not have Foxtell and regular TV does not offer dark, well written dramas. Everything on free-to-air has to be family friendly. There is never anything good on early in the night. It's nothing but reality TV. Stupid, boring, reality TV. The Voice. Celebrity Splash. My Kitchen Rules. Master Chef. The Biggest Loser. My husband and I are so sick of reality TV. There really is nothing else on. These shows are terrible. We hate how they try desperately to make things suspenseful. The shows are clearly scripted and people clearly are paid to pay a part in them. The people are actors. They have to be. At least in most of the shows. My Kitchen Rules is very fake.

To watch anything good you have to stay up until at least 9.30pm or 10.00pm. That's when things like Family Guy and the Cleveland Show and Nurse Jackie might be on. Because these shows air so late we miss most of them. I don't know if Breaking Bad aired on free-to-air. It might have...but we did not see it.

This is where iTunes comes in. It's a great way for us to catch up on awesome TV shows that never got shown a decent time on free-to-air or even at all. What's annoying about iTunes is how conservative it is. Breaking Bad is clearly for adults. It's about a man who starts making meth to provide for his family. And yet iTunes blurred out a naked woman's breasts and in another scene blurred out the letters UC in Fuck.

Firstly...why just the letters UC?

Secondly...why are they censoring women's breasts and the word fuck in a show that shows lots and lots of death and its central theme is the production of meth?

This is a show for adults. I can understand censoring a show that a child might watch - like the Simpsons. But this is Breaking Bad. Why shield adults from boobs and swear words? What are they doing? What makes those things so shameful but the killing of children is okay?

It really annoys me when iTunes does things like this. I am a grown adult. I have purchased a show for ADULTS. Please do not censor it. Or at least give me an option to purchase the non-censored version. Come to think of it why isn't there a non-censored version of TV shows and movies on iTunes? There are "clean" versions of music.

Should teenagers be able to read whatever they want?

When I was in high school I would spend a lot of my spare time reading. I loved science fiction. I think I must have read dozens of Star Trek and Star Wars books. Around the time I was 15 I started reading crime. Eventually my mother handed me a romance novel and I started to read those. I always had the freedom to read whatever I wanted. No one ever said to me "Marisa that book is not appropriate for you" or "Marisa you are too young to read that book" I was given the chance to make my own decisions and explore fiction and decide what I liked.

A teacher in America has gotten in trouble for ordering Fifty Shades of Grey and giving it to one of his students after he requested to be able to read it at school. The teacher has been suspended and is claiming he did not know what the book was about. A lot of people are asking "How could he not know what THAT book was about?" and they do a have a point: did he not look at the front cover or read the book of the book before he bought it? He made a mistake, that much is clear. But I believe him when he says he did not know what the book was about. Perhaps he does not read erotica. It would make sense then that the book might have passed him by.

A lot of people are saying that Fifty Shades of Grey does not belong in schools because of it's content. This disturbs me...because as I said above growing up I had the freedom to read whatever I wanted. I do not like the idea of restricting what books young people can choose to read. Why shouldn't teenagers read erotica? Kids are curious about sex and porn. Wouldn't giving them an erotica book be kind of...harmless? They are curious. They are horny. Let them read the book.

I can understand some people not wanting their kids to read the book. The teacher should have asked permission.

I've been thinking about it and I think FSOG might actually make an interesting teaching tool. Think about it...older students could read it (16 or 17 and up) as part of an English class and discuss the quality of the writing, the strength of the plot, how it compares to Twilight and the relationship between the characters. Think of all the discussions that could take place!

It will never happen though.

What's interesting about books is that they do not come with age restrictions on them. It would be weird if they did. Until they do (and hopefully they never will) it isn't actually illegal for teenagers to purchase FSOG and read it. I think that's how it should stay too. Parents really shouldn't worry if their kids are reading erotica. There are so many other worse things they could be doing. Erotica is harmless. Let them read FSOG. If they're anything like me they'll soon realize that it's a steaming pile of shit.

Sexism in the Walking Dead

My husband and I discovered the awesome television show The Walking Dead a fortnight ago. I'd heard it was good, so I took a gamble and bought the first season on itunes, it was cheap so why not? We instantly became addicted. It was well written, thrilling, exciting, and the special effects were very good. We bought the next two seasons and quickly watched them. Now we're wallowing in despair because we have no new episodes to watch until October.

So I bought the first copy of the graphic novel and started reading it on my ipad. I'd read online that the author, Robert Kirkman, was a bit sexist. It certainly does come across that way in the graphic novel. Within just a couple of pages Lori, wife of Rick, says that "It is not about women's rights it's about doing what's realistic" after another woman, Donna, complains how as women they now have to do all the chores.

In another scene Rick says "The woman could not be expected to defend themselves..." and in another scene Rick and Shane are a little condescending to Donna as she practices with a gun and is good at it. Shane says "I'm pretty sure she did not cheat and the wind did not blow the cans away..."

In the tv show the sexism is not as bad, but it is there. Andrea is the only woman in the show not interested in caring for the men and doing all the dishes and washing. Lori has a go at her about this at one point and says that she resents her for it. Andrea bites back that there are more important things for the women to be doing than making sure the lemonade has enough mint leaves in it. Andrea is the only woman who makes an effort to learn how to fire a gun and is the only one who becomes good at taking dome walkers. And she is also painted as an idiot: she shoots Darryl in the head once because she thought he was a Walker from a distance, she encouraged one woman to try and kill herself, and in season three hooks up with the governor, a violent murdering mad man who runs the town Woodbury, and actually has sex with him.

They turn the one woman who wants to be an equal with the man into an unlikable idiot. Google Andrea and you'll find tons of memes making fun of her. A lot of people were happy when she died.

Is sexism in fiction okay? Yes and no. As a woman I find it very irritating. I like the graphic novel and want to keep reading it. I am hoping that the sexism won't make it so irritating that I'll eventually stop.

Is the sexism in the Walking Dead realistic? Yes and no. I agree with Lori on some things - that in their universe someone does need to do the washing and dishes to help rebuild society - but why does it have to be the women? Doesn't it make more sense for everyone to be taught how to fire a gun so they can defend themselves? If I were in the book/show I would not be content with howling for a man to come and defending me. I would want a gun.

Also, give me one reason why the men should not help out with the chores. Why should they be able to get out of it? Because they do the hunting? How is the equal or fair? If the world does end in real life should we expect women's rights to go back several decades because it will be "realistic" for them to stay behind and care for the kids while the big, manly men go out and hunt for dinner?

I say bullshit. Equal rights for all. It shouldn't matter if the dead have risen.

I'm tired of reading about virgins

I'm half way through a book at the moment which stars a female vampire hunter who falls for a vampire and the two begin working together to stop a bigger, badder vampire. It's basically Angel and Buffy except in this book the main character, Cat, is half vampire and half human, the product of a rape that left her mother emotionally and mentally damaged. Cat has spent her whole life feeling guilty for being the end product of a violent rape and ruining her mother's life. Her mother is always quick to remind her that she is a "monster" and that her birth ruined her life and branded her a slut in the eyes of the townsfolk. This is really fucked up. Cat did not ask to be born. It was not her fault that her father raped her mother. It is not her fault that she is half vampire. Her mother needs to cut the shit and stop making her feel like crap for who and what she is. Cat never tells her to stop with the abuse though - she lets her get away with it because she was raped by a vampire and has had the terrible burden of raising a half vampire child. This is really sad.

So, to escape her mother and in a desperate attempt to earn her love and acceptance, Cat becomes a vampire hunter. She goes out night after night and kills vampires just so she can run home and tell her mother who will smile and tell her "Well done! another monster gone!" which is disturbing because Cat is half vampire - does her mother think she, too, should be killed for just being what she is?

So she meets Bones and the two strike up a relationship and it's pretty much just sex at first but then Cat begins to get to know him as a person and discovers that vampires are not all monsters. Like mankind, there are good and bad ones, and she eventually realizes that she cannot be a bigot and go about killing vampires simply for the crime of being a vampire. It's the story of a woman who has been emotionally damaged by her mother and through her relationship with Bones slowly learns how to accept her own vampire side and to be less of a cold blooded, robotic killer.

Cat is a cliche when it comes to her relationship with Bones. She is a virgin and has avoided men her whole life. She knows nothing about relationships and is frightened by her desire for Bones and feels guilt after she gets too excited with him. She thinks what she is doing is wrong and in one chapters says he should ask for her to apologize to him after she groped him in a corridor. She knows nothing about sex. This annoys me. I've read too many books about women who are these sheltered, innocent flowers who need a man to come along and teach them about sex. God it annoys me. Just once I would like to read a book about a woman who has had partners, is mature, and unashamed about enjoying sex.

Considering Cat's past though it's remarkable that she allows herself to have a sexual relationship with Bones at all. Sex shaming is a bit theme of the book. Cat has gone through life carrying the terrible truth of her violent arrival into the world on her back. Despite that, she is very patient and loving toward her mother, and never once tells her off for her behavior. Cat shows through her relationship with Bones that she is able to rise above her traumatic upbringing and make decisions of her own.

Does Twilight deserve all the hate?

I read Twilight when it first came out and loved it. I would wake up extra early in the morning just to read some before work I was that obsessed. The films were...okay...but not as good as the books. My twilight fan girl phase did not last long. I moved on to other things. It's been a while now since these books came out and it's still pretty common for people to bitch about them (especially on message boards for writers). And you know what? God it's old. Do these books really deserve all the hate they get?

Listen, they were not that original, or well written. But they worked. There's no such thing as an "original" plot. Everything has been done before. Stephanie's characters are pretty plain and her plot is in Twilight is not that strong. But (for me) I was able to look past these flaws and enjoy the story which I found enjoyable, fun and easy to read.

Yes, Bella does get obsessed with Edward. Yes, she does sacrifice a lot for him. Yes, one might argue that she might not be the best role model for young girls. But who says she has to be a role model? She's a fictional character. Since when do fictional characters have to lead by example? When did their actions become so important? Who decided they should be role models to young readers? Can't characters be flawed and make mistakes and questionable decisions?

"Concern trolls" almost act like Bella is the anti-Christ. They are horrified by her decision to be with Edward who they think is a stalker and abusive (um, why? how? He was nothing but polite and patient and gentle with her). They see Bella as a cardboard cut out who any young girl could easily imagine themselves as. They are concerned about her relationship with her parents and how she has trouble making and keeping friends (other than the Cullens) and what terrifies them the most is her decision to let her life revolve around Edward rather than leading a human life, going to university, etc.

They think Bella and Edward's relationship is sick and twisted and that is makes abusive relationships dangerous and exciting and glamorous.

Okay, firstly, in my opinion their relationship is not abusive: Edward spends most of the first book trying to avoid Bella. Yes, he watches her at night, I can see how some might find that creepy, but that is a fantasy people: stop taking this shit so damn seriously! I honestly feel like people get too worked up about Twilight and over analyse it and find creepiness where there really isn't any.

It's just a book, people. Young girls are not idiots. They know it's not true. They know abusive relationships are not fun (not that I think it was abusive!). These books are escapism, fantasy, nothing more. Stop getting your knickers in a twist. Because I'm tired of all the whinging and "Someone think of the Children!" shrieking.

How politically correct should you be?

I was reading a chapter in my book for university about how writers should be politically correct at all times and make sure not to use phrases/terms that might offend people. I respectfully disagree. The book said that we should not use the word 'disabled' because it might offend some people who are disabled and do not like that term. I am disabled. I have dyspraxia. I don't have a problem with the term. I know others do, though, but I am not going to stop using that word just to protect their feelings.

Here's the thing...in writing you will never be able to please everyone who reads your book. Because you do not know who your audience is going to consist of and there is no way to predict what is going to offend them or not. Also, shouldn't we, as writers, have the freedom to write whatever we want? If I want to write a character who is a racist shouldn't I be able to do that? Shouldn't I be able to have him say the most terrible, ugly, racist slurs without being labelled a racist myself? I am not my characters - I am me - the writer - we are not one and the same. If my story demands a racist or a Nazi or any other disturbing character should I not have the freedom to bring them to life in all their flawed majesty?

Don't censor me. I should be able to write what I want - as long as it is not illegal. And it is not illegal to write a racist character or call another character disabled or anything else that might fall into the category of politically incorrect. The only thing I would tell writers NOT to do is to defame someone or an organisation in writing: do not bitch about your boss or workplace, or your cranky uncle or aunt, or that bitch in school who made your life hell. You can't do that. You can't paint real people as dicks in fiction. You can't use their names or their likeness or anything else associated with them.

Back to being politically correct...there's freedom of speech and writers just being plain dumb. We should be able to write what we want but be cautious: if your entire plot and characters comes across as racist propaganda you might turn the entire internet against you and become the target of trolls, facebook hate pages, and numerous rants on YouTube.

Should you be politically correct? To a degree, yes. Ask yourself: will my book offend people of this religion? or people of this race? If you think it might come across as massively offensive perhaps tone it back a tad....you don't want to spend the rest of your life getting prank phone calls and pizzas delivered to your house!