Fanfic authors, I have a question!

I've been thinking about how fanfic has become more mainstream in the last few years, and if that's affected how open us authors are about our fanfic hobby.

Effective Guidelines to Love Life More Hiding your Cell Phone

Is incredibly regular for people to use somebody else's phone and be the first time. In doing so , were seeking to replicate that initial feeling of independence a mobile phone delivers. A relative in another point out was in the hospital. It was a Sunday evening, and I have been invited into a party. Instead of being away having fun I was sitting in my own apartment, awaiting the phone to call, troubled for reports. It was an associate who lend me his cellphone to make certain I will understand any news as quickly as possible, and in addition, be able to go to the party. There was no reason for me personally to be connected to my landline. We look back again at that occasion, and in addition for wondering at exactly how gracious my pal was in loaning me his phone intended for the night (who would volunteer their mobile phone away nowadays? ), My spouse and i couldn’t stop being amazed at the freedom this cellphone gave me. I had been able to venture out and be social - while still staying accessible simultaneously. This is the kind of freedom mobile phones give. But today our phones are about a lot more than audio calls, and they are no more an optionally available possession. They are really integrated into existence in ways not really their designers thought possible. However screen period is the new sitting in a desk chair all day at a time, which I happen to agree is a poor thing. I have a standing table and it is been a life changer. Industry when we are electronically connected more than ever, yet feeling alot more detached than ever, we are being taught, even cautioned, to minimize the dependence on cellular phones. To actually limit our time in front of screens, to put the phone down and also have a real discussion with someone, face to face. Prevention of gadgets and screen time has become becoming a extravagance item; being able to disconnect from your phones to get an extended time period bestows a status that a lot of us can’t afford or obtain. Do it, our company is told, for your sanity in the event that not humanity, and also for your neck: regularly looking straight down at your mobile phone strains your lower back, which leads to all sort of physical distress. I’ve also experienced repeating stress affliction with my hand from a lot of scrolling, and I could trust my forearm sometimes is painful in a odd place if I’ve applied my cellphone for very long. However can be using each of our cell phones a lot really so bad? Does being addicted to the phones genuinely disconnect all of us from others as much we think? Are not there positive factors for the activities that occupy all of us while our company is clutched to our mobile phones? Whenever we use our phones, can there be something we are missing that individuals would be carrying out otherwise? We get a great deal out of using my own cell phone, therefore no, Really dont want that will put it straight down. The answer is to not be socially shamed into using my own cell phone significantly less. The answer is to make certain cellphone use is hard to kick and beneficial and amusing, not a distraction coming from boredom or perhaps isolating you from sociable or professional settings. It is crucial to be intentional and conscious of how youre using your cellphone, not if you’re utilizing it at all or perhaps too much. The minds are constantly operating, processing our many thoughts, worries, problems, plans. We require a thoughts from all this, but sometimes, life is not so very clear cut. Take those movies. I go, nearly exclusively, into a movie theater which has a strict zero phones, no texting policy. They will put your rear end out if you utilize a phone in the theater. Nevertheless when I was having a friend, in which theater, who was being forever texted by his better half. As it happens her mother was in critical wellness trouble. He wound up leaving the movie to arrange to go to the international airport. As great as an uninterrupted movie encounter is, this doesn’t overcome emergencies if they arise. Couple of experiences with another individual will be as close and developing as a shared meal. (Hang on, I’ll get to love-making in a small. ) If there was ever before a moment once you’d wish to connect with somebody else, immediately, eye to eye, devoid of distraction, it might be over a meals. But, much like almost everything, there could be exclusions. What if, over the course of the chat, you start discussing going on a trip together, or about countrywide parks, or about endangered species? Looking up photos showing your associate can add towards the talk. Successfully Googling a well known fact or reference point can help within your debate. Writing a social media post you found provocative, interesting or perhaps important can be a launching level of a conversation. In those occasions, anyone is not distancing your self or placing something among you and someone else, you are sharing. ver post Believe me, sharing can be a magnificent point. What I’m not fighting is that the two of you should be taking a look at Facebook, independently, without interesting with one another. What I am declaring is that your mobile phone can be a conduit, a guideline, a personal guide for source materials, to bring and aid your chat. In case the focus continues to be on the both of you, the phone is really a prop. If the focus is definitely centered on the device, the gadget is the central magnet and you have shed attachment. The previous is very good, these is not. Each of our phones are a device. How we choose to use this instrument is what give them their particular benefit. You might think the very last place you’d want cellphone distraction could be the bedroom. On the surface, two people resting in bed next to each other, every single with cellular phones in their hands, all but disregarding each other, sounds like one of the most depressing, heart and soul-hurting displays one can easily think of modern life. But could it be naturally poor? If I’m reading the New York Times, what does this matter in the event that I’m browsing the actual conventional paper or the digital version in the device? In the event that I’m examining email, exactly what does it matter if I have a laptop or cellphone? If I am mastering games or otherwise distracted, how much does it subject if I am browsing a book of mastering some game? And in fact, rarely we sometimes glamorize reading in bed jointly? I love studying books, and locate it kind of hot my own partner truly does too. Carrying out that during sex together, then simply talking about what we’re browsing, is a great intellectual turn-on. So with every due value to several investigators, in this case, the carrier is usually not the response. What is important here is certainly not the device by itself, yet the activity you are involved in, either together or independently. There could be togetherness when two people are on their phones, just like there is once reading catalogs. Usually the problem arises when utilization of a gadget supercedes something, or perhaps causes a break up if a point of attachment could otherwise arise. Might associated with your telephones from bed mean more sex? Maybe. Should likewise lead to someone getting out of bed faster in the day time, or perhaps sleeping sooner at night. Although we’re while having sex, did you know that through your phone, you can view movies? Or look at photographs of…. whatever it truly is that arouses you? Or work with software meant to foster dialog or activity with a intimate spouse? The device is a tool. It exists without inherent judgment, qualities or worth. What we label of it is up to us. Should i really need to tell you this? Obviously there are times when you should absolutely never touch your smartphone, starting, surely, with driving a vehicle. (Guilty as recharged: I frequently use the Roadmaps applications in the phone to help me acquire where Im going. It’s not so straightforward, is it? ) I think faith based services must be device-free areas and specific zones, as should particular spaces, like gym bathroom rooms, exactly where privacy needs to be respected. I have a distaste for those who use their phone at the health club; I don’t need to hear your business calls although I’m strength training. Also, I see plenty of people using exercise and workout software on their telephones, showing the issue, that just as before, these types of mini-computers inside our pockets happen to be what we make of them. Should you be one of those people who attend a concert and require saving video footage and shooting photographs the full time, I actually ask how much of that is necessary. Taking joy in the moment for yourself, not merely through a device, is highly advised. But…. have I at any time watched concert footage online taken by somebody else? Yes, I use. A few years ago I was by a golf ball game with my Dad. I have been in the habit of checking Tweets during video games to follow along with the city of followers and media to help boost my connection with the game, and to know more about that which was going on. And that’s great for when watching at home. However I had been there. I didn’t will need that community - I had been with 20, 000 people, and my father. So I set my phone in my bank. I missed the comments. I skipped the details of issues I didn’t see since live, you miss much more than you think.

Yet I was in a position to soak in the surrounding. I had been able to talk to my Dad about what we thought would happen next. And later, at nighttime, when we brought up the game, we all reflected upon so many different occasions, details I might have overlooked had I looked at my own cellphone even more. So almost always there is a trade-off. You will come across moments when the mobile phone may distract you. That muddiness can be a awful thing (when you should be discussing with a loved one) or possibly a good thing (when you’re sad and alone and want something to cheer you up). It can disconnect you (when you avoid another person by diving into social media) or enable you to get together (if you look up a joke to see or employ your cellphone to turn on music to boogie to). Let us not hold our equipment responsible for your condition. A couple, lovers, let’s say, lying down in bed. In a single moment, they are both on their cell phones, lost within their own sides. In the next, their particular phones will be off, for the bedside table. What happens subsequent? Anything could happen. It’s up to the two people included. That’s true whether you may have your telephone in your hand or not. Of course, if you do, you also choose how to use your telephone: in a disconnecting way or possibly a sharing approach. If you’re sense bad or perhaps responsible about being with your mobile phone, guess what happens you should carry out. You really should trust your gut. Is essential to carry the person having the phone accountable, do not blame the product.

[tone of genuine curiosity, as clarified in an elcor-esque fashion because the internet renders all emotion an uncertain factor] You're welcome to skip this ask if you ain't up for it, but re: the perpetual debate over Problematic Subjects In Media, I've seen you in the past write many a critique on how fandom writes/treats women / BDSM / etc. Does this not fall under the idea that the writer has a responsibility in how they handle / frame certain issues in their writing?

Hi Silt! I’m up for it, but buckle in, because this is gonna get long. :)

Okay so the thing is, this is a broad topic and these days I try to resist treating it as a zero-sum game with “No Critique Allowed” on one side and “Relentlessly Harass People Who Make Bad Content According to Our Arbitrary But Obviously Correct Standard” on the other. 

Let me state clearly for the record: both of those options are terrible. Fortunately, it’s not all or nothing, and those aren’t the only horses in the race.

The way that female characters, characters of color, disabled characters, and other representations of marginalized groups are treated in media remains very much of interest to me. That hasn’t changed. My approach has changed somewhat over the years (as I’d hope it would, if I’m continuing to grow as a person), largely due to understanding that some rhetorical styles are more effective than others when you actually want to reach people or change something.

If I gave the impression that I want to absolve creators of all responsibility, that was never my intent. In fact, I mentioned critique and growth as part of the process in one of my recent posts. I do critique the media I regularly consume, and in fact the more heavily I am immersed in something, the more in-depth my criticism, because we’re best able to examine the things we know best.

What I do feel is that creators need room to grow, and fandom can be a great test bed for exploration, where creators work with elements of established media to explore different ideas and techniques. I’m not saying fandom is only a test bed, or like, a trial run for original work, because I don’t think that; I think fanworks are worthwhile in their own right, written for enjoyment and personal indulgence. But the fact is that many of us do or will create original work, and for many of us, creating fanworks helps us build a skillset we’ll use for original work too. 

That said, the cultural impact of fandom is more limited than that of popular media. I’m not saying it has no impact–and indeed, in a time when we have multiple known works of popular published fiction that are retooled from fanfics, when TV writers are on twitter regularly interacting with their fanbases, it’s probably safe to say fandom has more impact on popular media than it ever has before, but neverthelesss, its impact is still limited. The average piece of fanfiction does not reach an audience on the scale of a piece of popular media, that’s just a fact.

Does that mean we shouldn’t bother looking at patterns in fandom and fanworks? Hell no! Fandom is a microcosm–the patterns we see in fandom do absolutely reflect wider social patterns and in fact for very immersed fans it can make those patterns more apparent. And I think it’s good for us to discuss them, address them, become more aware of how we play into them–especially if we’re creating or planning to create original work.

Because these kind of discussions, when they are actually discussions, do work. I talk about the season 10 climate in the RvB fandom a lot, but even back then, I saw people change their minds about Carolina, not because they were accused of internalized misogyny or told to feel guilty for not liking her (shockingly, shaming people for their taste doesn’t have a high success rate in changing their minds), but because someone presented them with a compelling case for a more nuanced reading of her character. My experiences in past years led to me almost checking my watch to see fans turn on RvB’s newest female character this season, and you know what? It hasn’t happened. Things do change, and I don’t think fandom turnover is the sole reason. I would love to see some shifts in other patterns as well. For example, I would love to see trauma in female characters given as much weight as it is given in male characters. I would love to see more artists willing to draw Tucker with brown eyes. Those will be discussions, and we’ll continue to have them.

What I’ve seen happening in recent years, though, is a turn toward a certain ideal of purity in fanworks. It’s not an ideal of working toward more complex and thoughtful portrayals of characters; rather, it’s an all or nothing attitude that says some characters and ships and topics are Good and worthy to be explored in fanworks, while other characters, ships, and topics are Bad and anyone who touches them or likes them is Bad, and also fair game for targeted harassment.

I keep drawing comparisons between fanworks and original work for a reason–the attitudes that I find most unsupportable in fandom are the same ones I find untenable when it comes to original work, and when you apply them to the latter, their limitations are far more obvious. 

One example: the idea that it’s wrong to find any reasons to sympathize with an antagonist, or to look for an interesting and complex backstory, one that might make sense of (not even to say justify) their actions. That’s all well and good when you’re engaging purely from a fan perspective I guess, but what happens when you want to write a novel? If it’s morally wrong to find complexity and interest in villains, are you morally obligated to make your antagonist as bland and cartoonish as possible, to be sure no one could possibly relate to them? Is that good writing? Is that what we want?

Or take the idea that it’s morally wrong to ship unhealthy ships–and this attitude in fandom goes that shipping certain ships is wrong regardless of how or why, to the point that people will proudly identify themselves as “anti-[ship],” thus building a kind of identity around not shipping a Bad Ship (and giving rise to the umbrella term “antis” to refer to this attitude). Carry this into original work and… you’re not allowed to write unhealthy relationships? You’re not allowed to write any conflict into a relationship between two “good” characters lest it be perceived as “abusive” or “toxic?” 

Then there’s the idea that it’s morally wrong to write fic with dark subject matter, which is what my most recent posts were about. I’m never going to argue these things can’t be done badly but I’m absolutely going to push back against the idea that they can’t be done at all. And I could write paragraphs more about how incredibly reductive I find the whole idea that certain topics are just off-limits for fiction, that art isn’t allowed to be catharsis (especially in a tiny niche setting like fandom, for corn’s sake) but this post is long enough, so I think I’ll put a lid on it here. ;) But frankly, if someone’s going to write dark fiction insensitively, in bad taste, or just plain poorly, there are worse places for it to exist than on AO3 tagged with content warnings, where nobody’s paid a hot cent for it and the way out is just clicking the back button.

"Does architecture have a Harvey Weinstein hiding within its ranks?"

Architecture has a culture of quietly condoning sexist behaviour, just like Hollywood, argues Anna Winston.

"To be dangerous is to be artistically daring". In all the comment pieces I have read so far on the Harvey Weinstein scandal, this, from British playwright Lucy Prebble's piece in the London Review of Books, stood out. This was the piece that came closest to pinning down what it was about this whole debacle that made me feel both relieved and angry.

If you're a woman working in architecture, you might not be so surprised to hear that it reminded me of your industry – an industry I have been writing about for more than 10 years.

Prebble's comment hit home because it reflected a common trope in architecture – the eccentric but brilliant man who is allowed, even encouraged, to behave badly and is thus tacitly allowed to treat other people like things.

Architecture, like Hollywood, has a culture of quietly condoning and facilitating gender-related power games and sexually inappropriate behaviour from men while publicly wringing its hands about equality. I have been directly affected by this, and I'm not even an architect. Even architecture journalism is infected with this disease of silent acceptance.

Does architecture have a Harvey Weinstein hiding somewhere within its ranks? The simple answer is, probably, yes. But wherever he is, he is being enabled by a much wider problem, and one that the seemingly endless debate about women in architecture – with its worthy awards programmes and debates – has sadly had too little effect on.

Prebble's text contains more than just the one parallel. "Today's monster is yesterday's 'character'…" it reads. "Hollywood is run on charm as well as tantrums. There are elements of machismo that are glorified as an eccentricity of showbiz power. The flare-ups of big producers and agents are legendary… Ex-assistants will exchange war stories with the relish and nostalgia often reserved for remembering a classic Broadway production."

This too: "In the arts, professionalism can be interpreted as a sort of inauthenticity, and those who can't control themselves are seen as more 'instinctive'." Now doesn't that sound familiar?

It's not always easy to put your finger on why something made you uncomfortable

Weinstein was enabled by an industry caught up in a sticky and insidious web of power and control. Architecture is not the same as the film industry. But when pundits scratch their heads about the disparity between the number of women who study architecture and the number of women who actually end up working in senior positions within the industry, it's hard not to want to bang your head against a brick wall.

How is it that so many people can't see that the problem is not women deciding to have children? It is not the long hours, or the bad pay. It is the power structure. It is the condoning of otherwise unacceptable behaviour in the name of genius or talent. It is, in the words of actress Emma Thompson "a system of harassment and belittling and bullying and interference".

To give you some idea of the scale of this problem, more than half of the women who took the 2017 Women in Architecture Survey said they had experienced direct or indirect discrimination in the past year. Of those, 14 per cent experienced sexual harassment, while 32 per cent reported sexual discrimination. One architectural assistant was even told "women do not belong in architecture as they bring too much emotion to the subject".

The findings included incidents where women had been expected to flirt with clients, been ignored and talked over, and been expected to prepare food and drink when male colleagues were not.

A survey carried out last year in New Zealand found that women accounted for only one per cent of senior roles in architectural practices. Architecture schools in the country have had more than 50 per cent female students since 2000. It takes a long time to qualify and even longer to make it to the top in architecture, but this incredible disparity can't be accounted for by time alone.

The stats vary, but they tell variations of the same story. In 2013, 44 per cent of architecture students in the UK were female, while just 12 per cent of partners in practice were women. In the US last year it was more like 50 per cent of students and 18 per cent of registered, practicing architects.

All of these stats are easy to find, thanks to a small handful of women who pushed for the data to be gathered and disseminated. You don't really need the stats though. A quick glance around the industry will quickly demonstrate that in architecture, women are still largely the facilitators, while men are the feted geniuses.

This has been changing slowly, and there are an increasing number of female-led practices, but it will take more than a handful of visionary women to change the culture of the profession.

It will take more than a handful of visionary women to change the culture of the profession

The Architecture Foundation – one of the rare examples of an organisation that actively promotes equality through its programming instead of just talking about it – still struggles to sell tickets to lectures by female architects in the same volume as it does for lectures by men of equal professional standing.

For more of what we're up against, read some of the comments on stories about inequality in architecture on Dezeen – and bear in mind that the worst sexist comments don't even get published, thanks to the poor moderators who have to read them.

Or attend one of the international festivals or exhibitions where men regularly put their colleagues into uncomfortable positions by pursuing younger, less powerful women within the same field in plain view, often cheating on their wives – who are sometimes their colleagues or professional partners as well.

Or remember that Zaha Hadid is still the only female to have won both the Pritzker and the RIBA Gold Medal in her own right. Or that she was often described in disparaging terms for behaviour that, in men, generally becomes part of their genius mythos.

There is a pattern that recurs across architecture. Women handle the promotion, organisation and dissemination of the work and ideas, creating space and platform for the men to do the actual architecture – or at least to take credit for it. It is no coincidence that most of the biggest and best-known architecture firms are led by men, but the most successful architectural PRs and specialist PR practices are led by women.

"I think the design world's Harvey Weinsteins are a special breed of horrific and especially prey on the intellectual labour of women," one architect told me.

I don't think many women in architecture and its related fields would ask for positive discrimination

It doesn't just affect women either. The culture of bullying and belittling that this is part of affects people of all genders, colours and backgrounds.

Many of the powerful men in architecture are wonderful to work for and with – capable of engaging in fiery debate, and pushing us to do better without making it a power play and without bringing sex into the dynamic in any way. But most of us know the stories about those who might be described as more "problematic". You are warned about them before accepting jobs or commissions. You go in knowing that you need to focus on the positive effect the association will have on your careers long-term and grit your teeth to get through a few months or years. Your livelihoods hang in the balance if you say anything. Architecture is a small world – much smaller than Hollywood.

It's not always easy to put your finger on why something made you uncomfortable, to pinpoint exactly when you realised that something was awry, to explain why you left that job or didn't go to that event. It isn't an easy thing to publicly identify specific examples and talk about solving this problem.

In a recent Facebook thread relating the Harvey Weinstein, a Seattle-based curator, writer and educator – who studied architecture at Yale – wrote: "In architecture, art, academia, they are too genteel for anger. Instead we'll get frozen out and gaslit with the implication that the confrontation is evidence of our lack of analysis and intellectualism."

Women have their own secret language of warning and sympathy when it comes to handling unwanted sexual attention. There is the quiet suggestion to watch out for wandering hands and bat away inappropriate comments. The sympathetic glance when the inappropriate hug from that older male architect goes on a bit too long at a social event. The gossip about the womanisers and the late night sharing of knowledge over drinks on the rare occasions when there are no men around. The quiet support for women who have held on and made it through despite everything. Some might argue that these quiet support systems are part of the problem. But for most of us, it's the only coping mechanism available, and the pressure shouldn't be on us to name and shame.

This pervasive problem is all over the design industry too. Perhaps it seems more pronounced in architecture, as the role of the architect carries more historic baggage and more anxiety about its relevance and power today. Perhaps it is because being a "character" was, for a long time, the best way to get a building through all the hoops from inception to opening without compromising on absolutely everything, and it just became a habit. Perhaps it's that seven years of education produces a sense of entitlement, swiftly followed by disillusionment and an endless angst. Perhaps it is because it is to do with the way practices are structured, how much work you need to do before you get paid, and how hard it is to go it alone. Or perhaps it is because it is so closely in contact with the development and property industries, where the sexism is both rampant and often far more blatant. Perhaps I just know more architects. Ultimately, it doesn't matter why the problem is there. What matters is that it stops.

Let us do our job without all the gender-based power games

I don't think many women in architecture and its related fields would ask for positive discrimination. And they don't necessarily want to be labelled as "women architects" or "female architects", or even "female architecture journalists" or "female critics". Some women in architecture have pointed out that this kind of language can be useful in recognising and focusing on the achievements of women who would otherwise be neglected. But you could easily argue it also normalises the idea that men are more entitled to be architects because they don't need to qualify their job title with an extra word.

"I am not a female architect. I am an architect," argued Danish architect Dorte Mandrup in a piece published by Dezeen. "When we talk about gender, we tend to talk about women. Men do not really have a gender. They are just... neutral. Non-gender. That is why you do not recognise the term 'male architect'."

We are not asking to be the female equivalent of anything. We are just asking to be architects, designers, journalists, critics, consultants, directors, partners, professionals, without having to be wary or to make ourselves small, without being overlooked or having to be a "bitch" and "difficult" to be heard. Let us do our job without all the gender-based power games, pay us fairly for it, and I promise you that the entire industry will benefit.

In the process of writing this piece, I spoke to a number of people who shared their experiences of abuse, assault, harassment, discrimination, gas-lighting, predatory and manipulative behaviour and more. Some of them have given very specific examples and have named names. They include some of the most famous architects in the world, as well as rising stars in respected practices, curators, heads of schools, tutors, colleagues and friends. They are not easy to talk about or read. This is a problem in every kind of practice and at every level. Anyone that would like to share their own experiences is welcome to contact me.

Anna Winston is an award-winning editor, writer and curator. She is a former editor of Dezeen and Bdonline, and has been working in architecture and design for over a decade. Based in Antwerp, she is currently researching the future of augmented reality and public space, and is also working on a project focusing on the design of death.

Photograph is by FangXiaNuo.

The post "Does architecture have a Harvey Weinstein hiding within its ranks?" appeared first on Dezeen.

from ifttt-furniture https://www.dezeen.com/2017/10/25/opinion-architecture-harvey-weinstein-scandal-hollywood-sexism-anna-winston/

Wushu Watch: Dojo Storming for a Better Tomorrow

Style-versus-style remains one of the most attractive promises in combat sports. For some reason nothing is more interesting to the casual observer than fights that supposedly prove the superiority of one fighting style over another. Boxing versus MMA, karate versus kung fu, wrestling versus judo—you name it, someone has booked it and marketed it. Even in the modern UFC 'striker versus grappler' is still a compelling match up, despite training daily with top tier Brazilian Jiu Jitsu practitioners, Khabib Nurmagomedov can get people talking about 'sambo versus jiu jitsu', and of course fictional news about Conor McGregor versus Floyd Mayweather makes the headlines in publications that should know better every couple of weeks.

The dojo storming is a proud and silly tradition in style-versus-style debates, not just true styles but even sub styles of the same martial arts. For every Gracie family or Kano Jiu Jitsu dojo storming where an important and overlooked principle of combat is proven, there are a hundred that are just stupid beyond words. For examples of sublimely ridiculous dojo wars one need only read about the life of Count Juan Raphael Dante. Count Dante (who predictably was not a Count or Spanish) had various run ins with the Chicago Cobra Kai, supposedly had a friend murdered in a dojo storming, and was caught strapping dynamite caps to a rival dojo in 1965. When he died of a bleeding ulcer at just 36-years-old, Dim Mak rumours started flying.

For an example of the kind of disgusting, pig-headed stupidity that can be involved in this almost tribal dojo storming stuff you need only look up the footage of the Bobby J. Blythe incident wherein a mentally retarded man was supposedly beaten to death. The 'supposedly' is because conflicting stories have been drummed up in the aftermath, but you can readily watch the man have his head stomped into the floor on camera and be dragged out leaving a trail of blood after already verbally yielding long before. Video of the incident is available all over the Internet but as a fair warning: it is revolting and watching it will ruin your day. It is hard to find information about the aftermath but it seems as though nothing ever came of the video evidence of what seems to be at the least grievous bodily harm or even attempted murder.

Xu Xiaodong vs. Wei Lei

Style versus style challenge matches are back in the news this week as a retired MMA fighter named Xu Xiaodong met a Taichi master named Wei Lei in Chengdu for the honour of Chinese martial arts. Wei Lei was apparently the hot thing in Taichi since appearing on a Chinese documentary demonstrating chi-based magic tricks such as using a force field of chi to prevent a bird from leaving his hand. In the kung fu canon of street magic—and it is a grand tradition with an interesting history—that was a new one for this writer. As magical feats go it was also kind of underwhelming.

Apparently the populace believed it though, and why wouldn't they? Fighting is hard to appreciate and magic is not. The legendary Mas Oyama built his reputation on magic tricks and feats he learned as a performing strong man more than his actual fighting ability. It is well worth reading Jon Bluming's account of his time with Oyama and the many methods of 'monkey business' that Oyama used. The footage of Mas Oyama wrestling a bull seems remarkable but there is something off about it that you just can't put your finger on. Then you realize that it is just an old, dying ox that they then hit in the horn with a hammer until it was hanging so that Oyama could karate chop it off. This explains why the 'bull' at no point fights back and just wants to be left alone, and the video becomes a lot sadder. But that one piece of theatre on film was evidence enough that you will now regularly hear the story of how Oyama fought and killed almost thirty bulls with his bare hands in his lifetime.

Xu Xiaodong was apparently largely self-taught which is believable because mixed martial arts is still in its infancy in China. And doubly believable when you see that even against Wei Lei, who clearly has no clue how to carry himself, he runs straight past the Taichi master as the latter pivots off line by accidental instinct.

However, Xiaodong followed up with his running, lunging strikes and easily put Wei Lei down, following up with strikes on the ground for an easy knockout to a stunned silence from the crowd. The impetus for the fight was Xiaodong calling Chinese martial arts outdated and fake, and the results certainly helped his case. Now he is public enemy number one to the Chinese martial arts community and is attempting to hustle together money fights with professional boxers and the bodyguards of millionaires. One Chinese soft drink magnate has just offered a two million dollar bounty to any kung fu stylist who can beat Xiaodong, missing the point entirely by treating Xiaodong himself as the problem. Xiadong is not the problem and in fact he is completely unremarkable as a fighter. Beating him does not restore the honour of Chinese martial arts to anyone with an ounce of common sense. Xiaodong's victory over Wei Lei should instead be seen as a symptom of a focus on mysticism and a fear of actual feedback within the Chinese martial arts world.

Aliveness

Xu Xiaodong wasn't born a better fighter than Wei Lei or any other Chinese martial arts master. He became a better fighter by fighting, and that is the part that so many traditional martial arts purists struggle to deal with. A blacksmith learns to make horseshoes by making a thousand rubbish horseshoes. An artist learns to draw by trying his best a thousand times and producing nothing but fractionally improving garbage. Why would fighting be any different? You don't have to take professional fights to get better at fighting, but you do have to struggle against the will of other people regularly. This so called 'aliveness' in training is what makes people better and prepares people for the worst. But Wei Lei had a set idea of what he was going to do coming in and so did the famous kiai-jutsu master who was easily drubbed in a challenge match a few years back:

I don't know much about Xu Xiaodong or the fighter from the above clip, but I can guarantee you that they spent their first grappling session being smashed, their first boxing session unable to touch their opponent, and their first kickboxing session getting kicked in the leg whenever they had just missed a kick of their own. That is the real value of 'aliveness' in training, it prepares you for the absolute worst and builds you from the ground up. Dominick Cruz goes into a fight looking to stay off the fence, but he knows what to do if and when he gets there. A kiai master finds out that he cannot paralyze his opponent with his shout in the opening seconds and then what is there? When the opening gambit fails for a man who has been repeatedly promised that his non-fighting training will making him unbeatable in a fight, it undermines ten to twenty years of belief he has placed in magic. What would be a minor setback becomes an all-out crisis of faith. But when something goes wrong for someone who trains with people better than him, day in and day out, it is just a mild inconvenience that necessitates a quick tactical adjustment. In the aftermath of the Wei Lei – Xu Xiaodong 'superfight', Lei is apparently claiming that he held back his true internal strength for fear of killing Xiaodong. We can only hope that this is an embarrassing attempt to save face and not something that Wei Lei actually tells himself to rationalize his inability to fight.

But that is the real shame about challenge matches like these, and the reason it can be hard to get joy out of them. Real charlatans don't agree to challenge matches publicly and invite the press along. Men claiming to have the death touch or the 'answer' to MMA are a dime a dozen, but you won't see many backed into the corner of actually proving it. When a no touch knockout master fails to make someone fall down in a careful demonstration, there are zero repercussions with the believers—maybe he had a bad lunch or something. But the fact that Wei Lei and the kiaijutsu master actually drummed up the interest, set the date and turned up to prove their art suggests that they aren't knowingly running a scam and stealing people's money for techniques that don't work. It means that they themselves actually believe in what someone else sold them. When you look at it like that it is hard not to feel bad for these men.

Dojo Storming for the Better

Style-versus-style fights have served their purpose. While James Toney versus Randy Couture in the UFC and Conor McGregor versus Floyd Mayweather in a boxing ring will tell the experienced fan or practitioner nothing at all about their 'styles', there have been style-versus-style fights that change the way we practice martial arts. When Jigoro Kano was advocating a style of jiu jitsu which abandoned more dangerous techniques in order to allow more free sparring or ' randori', he and his students were able to prove not the superiority of Kano's 'style', but the superiority of his practice methods and philosophy. When the Gracie's were storming dojos and winning vale tudo tournaments the lesson learned was not really that 'Gracie Jiu Jitsu' is the best martial art, but that ground fighting is an enormously important and undervalued element of fighting generally.

Wushu Watch: Dojo Storming for a Better TomorrowOn the other hand, however, it is a good thing that these campaigns were not entirely successful. There were plenty of taekwondo or karate practitioners who saw the Gracies In Action tapes and quit their art thinking it was useless in a real fight because at the time it seemed to be the truth. In the modern era techniques and principles from karate, taekwondo, and a dozen other arts are changing fights at the highest levels of MMA. The absorbing of ideas and testing them is what makes a martial artist, not whose flag or gi patch he's sporting. Certainly there is value in examining the old if only for the inspiration it provides. Studying classical forms and texts is an excellent past time for the bored or injured martial artist. The old Chinese text The Bubishi contains some remarkably solid ideas about fighting and self-defence, but also contains a heap of disproven nonsense about the death touch, chi meridians, and alchemy. Who knows, maybe one day chi will be proven to exist and effectively weaponized—but no one is going to do it without testing it day in and day out against resisting, competent sparring partners. Whether someone believes in chi balls or not is relatively unimportant: the fact that there are apparently still hordes of angry Chinese martial artists who believe they can fight without meeting an ounce of resistance or adversity in the gym is extremely disappointing.

Wushu Watch: Dojo Storming for a Better Tomorrow published first on http://ift.tt/2pLTmlv