Office "party" today. We get to go to the :sniff: Petroleum Club. :sniff: Aren't we swanky? :rolls eyes: It's alright...but I'd rather go to the Mercury or even the Country Club. (I don't like all the pretentious stuffs at the Petroleum Club. It's too.....overdone.)
Still thinking about Ali's post.....see, one thing on the link she provided (to a FFOZ blog) - the guy said that scholarly papers don't have an agenda. Well, he's wrong - EVERY paper, excuse me, every MEDIA has an agenda. It's up to the reader to figure out what it is.
When I write, I mostly write for me...so there's lots of personal stuff that's probably boring to other people. Stuff like this...I write it to get my thoughts in order. My agenda? Hmmm...not necessarily to force people to think like I do, but....I want my POV stated. It's the same thing with scholarly papers - the whole point of writing it is to say "This is How It Is, and You Should Agree With Me because..."
Fiction is a good example of this. I had to quit reading Mercedes Lackey a while back because her agenda - her message/moral if you will - was getting in the way of the story. I ignored it in her Mage Herald series (I can deal with gay characters as long as you don't go out of your way to rub my face in it. She walked a fine line there.) but I couldn't ignore her environmental bashing in her "Sacred Ground" (I think that's the name). It got to the point she was bashing the reader over the head with "White people suck, Native Americans rule!" (The message wasn't that bad....but almost. :sigh: It interfered with the story.)
Liz Curtis Higgs is one of my favorite Christian writers. Yes, she has a message, and it's obvious - but she doesn't let it get in the way of the STORY. Her characters are 3-D, they have faults, and she doesn't wave the "I'm Saved!" brush over them - they STILL have faults! They still make stupid decisions - they're human. (Her message is usually Grace....and she doesn't bash you over the head with it.)
TV and movies are the same, only more in-your-face about it. It's at the point I don't watch much TV OR movies anymore, because I'm tired of being manipulated. (Even PBS, which I do watch, has an agenda. For fun, I try to figure out what it is. :grin: NOVA is pretty good, and not too biased...some of the documentaries, though...:whew:)
The point is, you can't say that "I only used scholarly papers to back up my idea, because they're not biased!"...because you'd be wrong. For every scholarly paper you find to prove your point, I can probably find one to DISprove it....sometimes using the same "proof". (It's fun sometimes to read the chrischun sites, because detractors can come in and use the same verses to prove the "expert" wrong. Maybe I've just got a warped sense of humor....it's usually because both parties only use the parts of the verses that "prove" thier point...which you can't do.)
I don't know where I'm going with this, but it's been rattling around in my head and I needed to get it out. Now it can rattle around in YOUR heads. :lol: