Points of Interest in a Convergence Culture
People who follow this journal but not jennyo's needs to get over there and read this post. It's on what I've been calling monsters in this journal (and jennyo even uses that term herself): those characters who do some pretty major evil while willing good. For jennyo the archetypal monster is Laura Roslin; for me it is my fanon Dawn; in canon we see traits of monstrosity in Rupert Giles and full-blown monsterhood in Serenity's Operative.
jennyo just nails how these characters are at once exciting, alluring, and extremely scary--and God knows that in real life there is nothing more dangerous than someone who is certain that they are right and won't respect any limits on doing what they feel they need to do. The only difference, I suppose, is that in fiction we can be sure that our Mary Sues really are always right, at least in the moral order in which we read out of (or into) the text. But is this really all that separates a Roslin from an Operative? And what does that say (if anything) about real-world ethics? (And if ethics sometimes falls to the exigencies of a crisis, when is that crisis, and who draws the line? Some would claim we--meaning "the United States of America" or perhaps even "Western Civilization"--have already fallen into that sort of crisis.)
These are themes to which I constantly return in my fiction, particularly in my Watcher!verse!Dawn stories, and in my meta, and are ones about which I have been (if you haven't noticed) somewhat conflicted given my own political convictions.
How can I squee like crazy over the pure will-to-poweriness of a show like Commander-in-Chief, and yet at the same time agree 100% with the political reasoning in an article like this one ("Geena Davis Is Not My President"): "Geena Davis looks terrific, but we might do better with an awkward fat man"?
Using Roslin, jennyo explores the various implications of such a character in her most in-depth post on the subject yet as she notes that she "always find[s] it kind of surprising when people point out something incredibly wrong that Laura Roslin is doing and then wonder, 'she shouldn't be doing that, and why are we cheering her on?'." I'm tempted to provide some more quotes, but really I have to recommend that you read the whole thing.
* * * *
An article from the NYT on Google and its rôle in various legal battle arising from the way it manages the flow of information on the internet, including its acquisition of YouTube: We're Google. So Sue Us. My stance as usual is that information should be free (except where the equivalent of a flock is utilized, and even then . . .) and, whenever necessary, supported by advertising rather than charging the consumer directly.
* * * * *
An article, this one from the LA Times, on Stephen Colbert and his effect on Congressional House races: Running for office? Better run from Colbert. (Hat tip to my brother.)
* * * * *
*waits for Torchwood to download appear on the BBC3 station which just now magically appeared on my television?*
jennyo just nails how these characters are at once exciting, alluring, and extremely scary--and God knows that in real life there is nothing more dangerous than someone who is certain that they are right and won't respect any limits on doing what they feel they need to do. The only difference, I suppose, is that in fiction we can be sure that our Mary Sues really are always right, at least in the moral order in which we read out of (or into) the text. But is this really all that separates a Roslin from an Operative? And what does that say (if anything) about real-world ethics? (And if ethics sometimes falls to the exigencies of a crisis, when is that crisis, and who draws the line? Some would claim we--meaning "the United States of America" or perhaps even "Western Civilization"--have already fallen into that sort of crisis.)
These are themes to which I constantly return in my fiction, particularly in my Watcher!verse!Dawn stories, and in my meta, and are ones about which I have been (if you haven't noticed) somewhat conflicted given my own political convictions.
How can I squee like crazy over the pure will-to-poweriness of a show like Commander-in-Chief, and yet at the same time agree 100% with the political reasoning in an article like this one ("Geena Davis Is Not My President"): "Geena Davis looks terrific, but we might do better with an awkward fat man"?
Using Roslin, jennyo explores the various implications of such a character in her most in-depth post on the subject yet as she notes that she "always find[s] it kind of surprising when people point out something incredibly wrong that Laura Roslin is doing and then wonder, 'she shouldn't be doing that, and why are we cheering her on?'." I'm tempted to provide some more quotes, but really I have to recommend that you read the whole thing.
* * * *
An article from the NYT on Google and its rôle in various legal battle arising from the way it manages the flow of information on the internet, including its acquisition of YouTube: We're Google. So Sue Us. My stance as usual is that information should be free (except where the equivalent of a flock is utilized, and even then . . .) and, whenever necessary, supported by advertising rather than charging the consumer directly.
* * * * *
An article, this one from the LA Times, on Stephen Colbert and his effect on Congressional House races: Running for office? Better run from Colbert. (Hat tip to my brother.)
* * * * *
*waits for Torchwood to download appear on the BBC3 station which just now magically appeared on my television?*