come back to me, no need to hide

i just need to have a little rant about lily allen and all the shit being chucked around re: will-she-won't-she-retire. i mean, fucks sake.
to start with, let me just say, yes i am a fan, so i am undoubtedly biased. but i still think that people tend to forget that she's an actual real person. it seems to me that she has several reasons to retire, all of them perfectly acceptable.
-she's constantly hounded and criticised in the press and online about her talent (or rather her supposed lack thereof), appearance and personal life. especially in the light of some personal tragedies in the last few years (which, believe it or not, fame and money don't immune you from), wanting to move away from the thing that brought her all this attention is a pretty reasonable reaction.
-after all these attacks she might not be feeling very confident in her abilities as a performer.
-she got into this pretty young, and she might have just found it isn't what she wants to do forever.
i don't know which of these, if any, have any truth in them but it just seems utterly ludicrous that people are making such a big deal out of this (yeah, i know, i'm a hypocrite). would you be bitching if this was someone you know talking about leaving their job?
as for her pushing back her retirement plans, if you had the chance to play with someone of the musical calibre of jay-z, would you say no?
in summary of that jumble of indignation, leave her alone, she's probably having enough trouble with this decision anyway. and for the record, although she should do what makes her happy, i really hope she doesn't retire, at least not permanently, because i'd love to seen her play live again.




and while i'm on a roll, what the fuck is with this nrl bullshit all over the news? "rugby club fudges books" is headlining every news bulletin, for christs sake. it's getting more attention than when they gang-raped that poor woman! what is it about fucking rugby? it's just a stupid game. how many iraqi civilians were killed today? perspective, people. once again, hypocrite.

i speak because i can

an old entry on belle de jour's infamous blog has inspired me to fire this old thing up after my unintentional hiatus of eight months... lucky i have no regular readership.
belle was discussing anonymity amongst female writers in response to a columnists claim that not using your own name was somehow anti-feminist.
it's an interesting point. i hadn't really thought about it but the female writers use of a nom de plume is a long and noble tradition, dating back even further than george eliot and the bronte/bells. In fact, there's really no way of knowing how many ancient authors were actually females in disguise. before the days of paparazzi, identity theft and the internet it would be pretty easy to get away with it. but as to why it's done...
originally, of course, it was because women had trouble getting published, or being taken seriously as writers. nowadays, however, in the "post-feminist" age, are nom de plumes used to disassociate oneself with potentially controversial ideas? or to avoid fame? perhaps the question should be why men are more likely to publish under their real name. might it not just be a matter of the stereotypical "male ego"? or a way to pick up...