SPN rec and assorted linkage
First of all: desertport wrote this thing. Which I didn't link to before because I was busy having my crisis, but it's a SPN poem. And it hits me HARD square in the epic-heroic-tradition kink, but beyond that it's just lyrical and gorgeous and... God. Amazing.
Second: SG1 just gave me CANON BODYSWAP. Yes. CANON. BODYSWAP. Jack-in-Teal'c's-body being sarcastic! Jack-in-Daniel's-body and Daniel-in-Jack's body interacting and being all confused! CANON BODYSWAP. I just... *flappy hands* Oh, show &hearts
Now, I need bodyswap porn. Because there is never enough bodyswap porn in the world.
So I collect reviewers/essay writers. I mean, I collect authors who say things about works of fiction, and say them insightfully, and make me think about them. Because... well, that's the whole point. And while the squee and delight of fandom is great, sometimes you need a step-back, an approach with more paragraph breaks and less capslock and a bit more experience. For example, there's Abigail Nussbaum, who is basically the person I want to be when I grow up. (No, really. We have EXACTLY the same tastes, she's just orders of magnitude smarter than me) She has yet to recommend anything I ended up disliking, or dislike anything I liked. More importantly, I always feel like I'm thinking a text more clearly after I read her.
On the flip side, we have Andrew Rilsone, who I think is completely and utterly wrong about 75% of the time. He defends CS Lewis, trashes Harry Potter, likes Lord of the Rings for exactly the wrong reasons, and once wrote a six-part essay on the Star Wars prequels (yes. It was one of the most brilliant things I've ever read online, but was on his old site and isn't available anymore. Thank God I have it all saved on my hard drive). And now he has written one of the best argued pieces I've read in months trashing Dr. Who. The thing is, the rock-bottom basic of his argument is exactly the same argument I've been trashing Battlestar Galactica with for a whole season- if Ronald D. Moore obviously doesn't give a damn about his show anymore (as far as internal logic, planning, respect for his characters and universe, etc), why should I? Anyway, I think he's smart, clever, impassioned, and surprisingly insightful along the way at articulating the strange disconnectedness of the New Who's relation to the old series, and the problems that come along with trying to radically change the show's tone while maintaining mythology. I also think he's pretty utterly wrong about the quality of both Who and Torchwood (except that thing about Jack being the Face of Bo. That's pretty inexcusable, for exactly the reasons he says). Because I always think he's wrong. But dammit, you come out the other end thinking clearer, and harder, and differently, and that's always the point.
Second: SG1 just gave me CANON BODYSWAP. Yes. CANON. BODYSWAP. Jack-in-Teal'c's-body being sarcastic! Jack-in-Daniel's-body and Daniel-in-Jack's body interacting and being all confused! CANON BODYSWAP. I just... *flappy hands* Oh, show &hearts
Now, I need bodyswap porn. Because there is never enough bodyswap porn in the world.
So I collect reviewers/essay writers. I mean, I collect authors who say things about works of fiction, and say them insightfully, and make me think about them. Because... well, that's the whole point. And while the squee and delight of fandom is great, sometimes you need a step-back, an approach with more paragraph breaks and less capslock and a bit more experience. For example, there's Abigail Nussbaum, who is basically the person I want to be when I grow up. (No, really. We have EXACTLY the same tastes, she's just orders of magnitude smarter than me) She has yet to recommend anything I ended up disliking, or dislike anything I liked. More importantly, I always feel like I'm thinking a text more clearly after I read her.
On the flip side, we have Andrew Rilsone, who I think is completely and utterly wrong about 75% of the time. He defends CS Lewis, trashes Harry Potter, likes Lord of the Rings for exactly the wrong reasons, and once wrote a six-part essay on the Star Wars prequels (yes. It was one of the most brilliant things I've ever read online, but was on his old site and isn't available anymore. Thank God I have it all saved on my hard drive). And now he has written one of the best argued pieces I've read in months trashing Dr. Who. The thing is, the rock-bottom basic of his argument is exactly the same argument I've been trashing Battlestar Galactica with for a whole season- if Ronald D. Moore obviously doesn't give a damn about his show anymore (as far as internal logic, planning, respect for his characters and universe, etc), why should I? Anyway, I think he's smart, clever, impassioned, and surprisingly insightful along the way at articulating the strange disconnectedness of the New Who's relation to the old series, and the problems that come along with trying to radically change the show's tone while maintaining mythology. I also think he's pretty utterly wrong about the quality of both Who and Torchwood (except that thing about Jack being the Face of Bo. That's pretty inexcusable, for exactly the reasons he says). Because I always think he's wrong. But dammit, you come out the other end thinking clearer, and harder, and differently, and that's always the point.