Five associated things, list three
Five things lafemmedarla associates with me:
The Daroga
Not surprising, given my username and my propensity to mention him at every opportunity. I originally became a "champion" of the daroga because he was left out of most version of the story; it was sort of an underdog thing more than anything else. Later I came to identify with him very much, though whether it was because I naturally am inclined to do so or because over the years I twisted things that way, I cannot be certain.
One of the things that makes the daroga unique (or different from most characters, anyway) is how he is in the inner circle, knowledge-wise, but is still not a major protagonist. I've seen his presence criticized as plain old deus ex machina, but even if that was Leroux's intent it's still interesting that a man who seems to have no other purpose, who has no obvious personal stake in the matter, risks his life repeatedly. It's one of the ways in which I identify with him, because he likes being involved but is not the one who makes things happen.
The oversight on Leroux's part--the fact he didn't give the Persian anything outside an old servant and some dueling pistols--means that in the context of the story (rather than Leroux's writing of it) we have to assume that Erik is the daroga's entire life. And that is such a strange, complex relationship, ultimately a very sad and unfulfilled one. Which leads me to the next topic...
Erik/Daroga
I did not always ship/write Erik/Daroga. And my process towards doing so was halting. I don't know if other writers do this, but even though my stories don't necessarily exist in the same universe, there is a clear pattern of me getting closer to both defining their relationship (at least partially) in sexual terms and in displaying it explicitly.
I don't think there's anything particularly sexual about Leroux Erik/Daroga. Erik is difficult to ship with anyone, in the end. But sex is a convenient (too convenient?) way to explore the relationship I mentioned above. The Persian has no one else in the world (besides Darius, and there's no telling what they mean to one another), and has certainly invested everything he has in 1) hounding Erik and 2) seeing that Erik does not come to harm through his doing. Obviously this does not equal sex--but it's a lot more plausible than many shippers' causes.
I once received a review/complaint that I was more or less wasting my time writing these two, and that Erik/Christine made more sense. I beg to differ; while I don't see this happening in the context of Leroux's novel, some sort of sexual relationship between Erik and the Persian seems far more likely to me. Essentially because the Persian is never going to be the love of Erik's life, and because they are men, and because the Persian's view on these things may not be a Western one and because Erik's view on these things may not be society's. This allows the relationship to be conducted on any number of levels, from unrequited love to mere physical gratification. There are complexities to mine there (not that there aren't for Erik/Christine) and I don't think many people have.
Julian Sands
Julian Sands is amazing.
He is not amazing because he is a brilliant actor. He is, rather, amazing because he is so strange in every movie I've ever seen him in that I cannot figure out why he's there, and yet cannot take my eyes off him. I don't understand why he speaks the way he does (his voice seems to be produced in a different part of his mouth than other peoples', like Ralph Fiennes but more pronounced) or why he's so intensely twitchy or what anyone is thinking when they cast him. This sounds very insulting, and probably is, and yet I love him because he is so strange. I have yet to see him in a film where I found him believably human but at the same time it hardly seems to matter.
The first movie I saw him in was Impromptu, where he plays Liszt and which includes Bernadette Peters, Mandy Patinkin, and Judy Davis as well as Hugh Grant and the most manic Emma Thompson ever. Putting these people in the same movie was a stroke of genius that never ceases to amaze me. Of course the main attraction here is his presence in Dario Argento's The Phantom of the Opera, which I have the unpopular opinion of liking and I actually find him and Asia Argento really hot together. Then there's Boxing Helena, which is crack of a whole other kind, and has to be seen to be believed.
I am somewhat troubled that anyone puts Julian Sands in a top five things associated with me list.
Books
It is very common for people like me to profess a love of books, or reading. This is highly unspecific. After all, someone could mean they collect first editions and read lots of Russian literature or philosophy and it could mean that someone is on top of every new mystery book with recipes in. It could mean one likes to read, and could mean one fetishizes the object itself, the binding and the smell of paper and would not stand for a paperback copy of their favorite.
I certainly like owning the books I love, but I have no real criteria about the physical books themselves beyond readability, which makes used book stores essential. And most of the books I love are not classics, or "good" literature. I love things that make me feel, and those things more often than not turn out to be Diana Wynne Jones and versions of Beauty and the Beast and romances with girls and robots.
My librarything account, if it is accurate, says I own 473 books. I have not read all of these, nor are they all strictly mine. I don't think it's a terrible lot of books, for someone who loves them, but I also work at a library and have done for years, making ownership much less essential than it might otherwise be.
William shatner
Ah, William Shatner. It seems as though I am known for defending him. Here's the thing about Shatner: I think he was excellent in the first two seasons of Star Trek, and judged by them his reputation is undeserved. Sure, he's a little over the top, but doesn't that make Capatain Kirk what he is? Is that a fault? I will admit that one man's charm is another man's ham, but for my money there are few more charming screen personas than early Kirk.
Which is strange, because all my life (until maybe three years ago) I maintained a strong anti-Kirk, pro-Picard stance. Picard was my kind of man, my kind of captain. He was rational, literate, etc. Kirk/Shatner was overblown, overly masculine, brawn-over-brains. And then I managed to actually watch TOS and realized that (at least to my eyes) Kirk relied on his feminine wiles as often as his fists, never shy of batting his eyes at men as well as women, in a rather exclusive guy-love relationship with Spock, and altogether far too absurdly awesome for me to deny any longer. I cannot say, other than actually watching it, what led to this shift of opinion. But everything our culture and my assumptions had told me about Kirk seemed, to me, to be wrong.
But you asked about Shatner, not Kirk. Shatner, in my opinion, was what made Kirk work. In the writing I could certainly see myself disliking him intensely, disagreeing with his methods and decisions. I still often do. But I think Shatner brought the pretty charm thing to Kirk, and saved him from being merely a manly man. Obviously specific charm doesn't work on everyone, so there's room to differ. But Shatner somehow managed to make someone who was "not my type" in both physical presence and style and make me adore him.
The other great thing about Shatner is how he's managed to make his reputation work for him, and used his ridiculousness to forge an entire media identity. I think it's brilliant. And Has Been is a great album. And also, bizarrely, he says his favorite movie is Lawrence of Arabia.
I'm not sure how to feel about having the same favorite film as William Shatner.
The Daroga
Not surprising, given my username and my propensity to mention him at every opportunity. I originally became a "champion" of the daroga because he was left out of most version of the story; it was sort of an underdog thing more than anything else. Later I came to identify with him very much, though whether it was because I naturally am inclined to do so or because over the years I twisted things that way, I cannot be certain.
One of the things that makes the daroga unique (or different from most characters, anyway) is how he is in the inner circle, knowledge-wise, but is still not a major protagonist. I've seen his presence criticized as plain old deus ex machina, but even if that was Leroux's intent it's still interesting that a man who seems to have no other purpose, who has no obvious personal stake in the matter, risks his life repeatedly. It's one of the ways in which I identify with him, because he likes being involved but is not the one who makes things happen.
The oversight on Leroux's part--the fact he didn't give the Persian anything outside an old servant and some dueling pistols--means that in the context of the story (rather than Leroux's writing of it) we have to assume that Erik is the daroga's entire life. And that is such a strange, complex relationship, ultimately a very sad and unfulfilled one. Which leads me to the next topic...
Erik/Daroga
I did not always ship/write Erik/Daroga. And my process towards doing so was halting. I don't know if other writers do this, but even though my stories don't necessarily exist in the same universe, there is a clear pattern of me getting closer to both defining their relationship (at least partially) in sexual terms and in displaying it explicitly.
I don't think there's anything particularly sexual about Leroux Erik/Daroga. Erik is difficult to ship with anyone, in the end. But sex is a convenient (too convenient?) way to explore the relationship I mentioned above. The Persian has no one else in the world (besides Darius, and there's no telling what they mean to one another), and has certainly invested everything he has in 1) hounding Erik and 2) seeing that Erik does not come to harm through his doing. Obviously this does not equal sex--but it's a lot more plausible than many shippers' causes.
I once received a review/complaint that I was more or less wasting my time writing these two, and that Erik/Christine made more sense. I beg to differ; while I don't see this happening in the context of Leroux's novel, some sort of sexual relationship between Erik and the Persian seems far more likely to me. Essentially because the Persian is never going to be the love of Erik's life, and because they are men, and because the Persian's view on these things may not be a Western one and because Erik's view on these things may not be society's. This allows the relationship to be conducted on any number of levels, from unrequited love to mere physical gratification. There are complexities to mine there (not that there aren't for Erik/Christine) and I don't think many people have.
Julian Sands
Julian Sands is amazing.
He is not amazing because he is a brilliant actor. He is, rather, amazing because he is so strange in every movie I've ever seen him in that I cannot figure out why he's there, and yet cannot take my eyes off him. I don't understand why he speaks the way he does (his voice seems to be produced in a different part of his mouth than other peoples', like Ralph Fiennes but more pronounced) or why he's so intensely twitchy or what anyone is thinking when they cast him. This sounds very insulting, and probably is, and yet I love him because he is so strange. I have yet to see him in a film where I found him believably human but at the same time it hardly seems to matter.
The first movie I saw him in was Impromptu, where he plays Liszt and which includes Bernadette Peters, Mandy Patinkin, and Judy Davis as well as Hugh Grant and the most manic Emma Thompson ever. Putting these people in the same movie was a stroke of genius that never ceases to amaze me. Of course the main attraction here is his presence in Dario Argento's The Phantom of the Opera, which I have the unpopular opinion of liking and I actually find him and Asia Argento really hot together. Then there's Boxing Helena, which is crack of a whole other kind, and has to be seen to be believed.
I am somewhat troubled that anyone puts Julian Sands in a top five things associated with me list.
Books
It is very common for people like me to profess a love of books, or reading. This is highly unspecific. After all, someone could mean they collect first editions and read lots of Russian literature or philosophy and it could mean that someone is on top of every new mystery book with recipes in. It could mean one likes to read, and could mean one fetishizes the object itself, the binding and the smell of paper and would not stand for a paperback copy of their favorite.
I certainly like owning the books I love, but I have no real criteria about the physical books themselves beyond readability, which makes used book stores essential. And most of the books I love are not classics, or "good" literature. I love things that make me feel, and those things more often than not turn out to be Diana Wynne Jones and versions of Beauty and the Beast and romances with girls and robots.
My librarything account, if it is accurate, says I own 473 books. I have not read all of these, nor are they all strictly mine. I don't think it's a terrible lot of books, for someone who loves them, but I also work at a library and have done for years, making ownership much less essential than it might otherwise be.
William shatner
Ah, William Shatner. It seems as though I am known for defending him. Here's the thing about Shatner: I think he was excellent in the first two seasons of Star Trek, and judged by them his reputation is undeserved. Sure, he's a little over the top, but doesn't that make Capatain Kirk what he is? Is that a fault? I will admit that one man's charm is another man's ham, but for my money there are few more charming screen personas than early Kirk.
Which is strange, because all my life (until maybe three years ago) I maintained a strong anti-Kirk, pro-Picard stance. Picard was my kind of man, my kind of captain. He was rational, literate, etc. Kirk/Shatner was overblown, overly masculine, brawn-over-brains. And then I managed to actually watch TOS and realized that (at least to my eyes) Kirk relied on his feminine wiles as often as his fists, never shy of batting his eyes at men as well as women, in a rather exclusive guy-love relationship with Spock, and altogether far too absurdly awesome for me to deny any longer. I cannot say, other than actually watching it, what led to this shift of opinion. But everything our culture and my assumptions had told me about Kirk seemed, to me, to be wrong.
But you asked about Shatner, not Kirk. Shatner, in my opinion, was what made Kirk work. In the writing I could certainly see myself disliking him intensely, disagreeing with his methods and decisions. I still often do. But I think Shatner brought the pretty charm thing to Kirk, and saved him from being merely a manly man. Obviously specific charm doesn't work on everyone, so there's room to differ. But Shatner somehow managed to make someone who was "not my type" in both physical presence and style and make me adore him.
The other great thing about Shatner is how he's managed to make his reputation work for him, and used his ridiculousness to forge an entire media identity. I think it's brilliant. And Has Been is a great album. And also, bizarrely, he says his favorite movie is Lawrence of Arabia.
I'm not sure how to feel about having the same favorite film as William Shatner.