Amongst the random connections I am drawing
Amongst the random connections I am drawing between the Lymond Chronicles and my other fannish interests...
Richard is Jeanie and Lymond is Ferris Bueller. Doesn't that totally work? The older sibling, driven by resentment and jealousy to thwart the bratty, charismatic younger sibling who seems to get away with everything? And in the end, the self-realization and change of heart, so that the older sibling actually ends up saving the younger?
(Stop laughing. I can't help that my other interests are so low-brow.)
Jerott and Marthe I already mentioned as reminding me of Sean and Maggie from "Rescue Me."
The chess game scene at the end of "Pawn in Frankincense" is like the Buffy episode "The Gift" if Buffy hadn't had the easy-out of sacrificing herself, but actually had to kill Dawn to save the world, and then had to live with it afterward. Lymond even *tries* to sacrifice himself instead of Khaireddin, and can't.
That scene has been completely haunting me. I'm re-reading the first book, and it looms over the whole series. It's just so shattering, and no wonder Lymond is so screwed up afterwards. And no wonder he's so reluctant to get close to Philippa, after losing Eliose, Christian, Will, Oonagh, Chancellor....
I like Will so much better on this re-read. The first time, I was just so frustrated with how young and hot-headed and clueless he was. But now that I know that this is part of his maturation process, that he actually does learn and grow up and turn out pretty well--and then die tragically!!!--I adore him. Especially since his narrative function ends up usurped by Jerott, and Jerott is just so much less entertaining than Will.
What else...? I wonder what Lymond really feels about Christian. It's obvious that he cares for her deeply and that her death has a profound impact on him. But I do wonder whether he had romantic feelings for her, or whether it was just such a comfort that she was a kind and intelligent person who believed in him. Either way, I really love their relationship.
Lymond and Richard is still my favorite relationship, though. I've read that scene after Hexham like four times already. I love the way it's written--the characterization is so complex. The way that Richard initially decides to nurse Lymond back to health because he wants to see him suffer, and wants to break him, and wants him to die a humiliating public death... but at the same time, he chooses to nurture his brother back to health rather than to leave him to die, and you have to wonder if even then he had a subconscious desire to help his (shattered, near-death) brother.
And then the transition, as he first revels in Lymond's pain and helplessness, tries his best to break him... and then when he does, it's not what he wanted at all. And the way he just decides to leave--he's packing up his horse and thinking about what he's going to do when he gets home--but meanwhile his subconscious has pretty much already decided that he has to help Lymond, and it finally hits his conscious mind and of course he goes back and saves his brother for real. It's just so complex and so honest, all of those conflicting emotions--the way love and hate, sympathy and resentment can exist simultaneously. Relationships in fiction so rarely capture that complexity that exists in real life.
A lot of the moral choices in these books are really interesting. One moment that seriously surprised me was when Lymond sacrificed Joleta to save himself. It made perfect logical sense: Gabriel was evil and out to seriously fuck up the world, and if Lymond died no one would stop him. (And Gabriel would've found a way to kill Joleta anyway.)
The sacrifice of one semi-innocent (however sociopathic, she was a sixteen year old girl who'd lived a tragic life) to "save the world" is, you know, a logical moral choice. But it's not one that your typical hero would make; usually it's the "third option," the hero refuses to sacrifice the innocent, and then is rewarded in that some other method of saving the world pops up. (For example, Buffy chooses not to sacrifice Dawn and then realizes that she can still save the world by sacrificing herself.) But realistically, there is NO third method that saves the pure hero from dirtying himself with an ugly moral choice. I love that Lymond has to deal with the hard choices, and has to live with the consequences.
The other obvious example is the chess game. Lymond sacrifices his own son to "save the world," and he ends up a complete emotional mess because of it. The whole time you're reading that, you're pleading with the author for an "out," some escape from the horribleness of that choice, but there is none. It's uncompromising and awesome and terrible, and to end it any other way would have been a cop-out.
And another of the things that makes Lymond a hero is that, though he's willing to sacrifice innocents to save the world, he does everything in his power to avoid it first, and he takes as much burden as possible onto himself. The choice of Khaireddin was such a powerful thing because, once again, it was logical. Kuzum was more likely to grow up healthily and happily; Khaireddin was already so broken. And Lymond wanted to save Philippa the pain of losing Kuzum, so he took upon himself the pain of losing Khaireddin. Gah, it's just awful.
(And of course, this is what Lymond always does... tries to take all the pain onto himself and protect those he loves... but since they don't know what he's doing he tends to drive them crazy.)
Anyway. I've been so busy that I'm still only halfway through re-reading "Game of Kings," but I'm seriously enjoying picking up all the nuances and things I missed as I barreled through it the first time. And this reading group especially has a lot of interesting posts to spark my thoughts... I loved this post for example.
What else? I haven't been posting much. Let's see...
I went to Las Vegas and ate vegan donuts. That was fun. Details and pictures are here.
And then there was this... which I don't even want to write about so I'm going to copy and paste from an email I wrote to 10zlaine:
I was kind of just going with it... enjoying the pool while ignoring the massively overpriced bad food and the leers of drunken frat boys... and my front row seat was perfect... the show was amazing... AIC played "No Excuses," which I hadn't heard yet... I cheered like an idiot when they announced Sean Kinney's name--he's the drummer, and my favorite member of any band ever, and I've adored him since I was 11 years old due to his combination of ass-kicking musical ability and genuinely funny and good-natured personality... and at the end, he came over and HANDED ME A DRUM STICK... I was in heaven... already imagining how I'd frame it in glass and make it the center-piece of my apartment... I carried it around with me for 40 minutes while waiting in line for a drink... I went back to my seat... put the drumstick in my bag, put my bag on the floor between my feet and the barrier... and SOME ASSHOLE REACHED INTO MY BAG AND STOLE THE DRUM STICK.
No matter how much I tell myself that it's just a THING, and the cool moment was when Sean handed it to me... I am so fucking pissed off and I seriously wish I could flay alive the person who stole it from me... and that pretty much ruined the vacation, and killed my ability to ignore the disgusting exploitative sleaze of Vegas...
So yeah. This time when I say "I am never going back to Las Vegas," I mean it.
At least the donuts were good.
On Tuesday I saw Ian McKellen in "King Lear" at BAM. It was SO GOOD. I am not a theater person at all, so I can't really comment technically, I can just say that I was completely riveted every time McKellen was speaking, and completely riveted during the entire last act. The seats were incredibly uncomfortable and the view was weird (so steep that we were nearly looking at the top of the actors' heads) but I didn't even notice for the last hour or so. I'd never seen or read "King Lear" so I was really into the story, too. (I know, stop laughing at my ignorance.) I'm SO glad that I got to see it. If you ever have a chance to see Ian McKellen in anything, definitely go.
Then last night jaydk and I saw her favorite soap opera actor, Tom Pelphrey from Guiding Light, in a play in this weird little office-building theater that seated about 40 people. We were literally sitting on the stage. Pelphrey was good, but the play was pretentious and terrible. Alas. I'm sure it also suffered in comparison to Lear! I did make jaydk stick around and get Pelphrey's autograph, though--it was totally worth it to see her happy fangirl expression. ;)
And this weekend I'm going to Austin to see Alice in Chains unplugged. Honestly I'd rather just stay home and sleep, but, plane tickets already booked....
*is exhausted*
[Cross-posted to my InsaneJournal]
Richard is Jeanie and Lymond is Ferris Bueller. Doesn't that totally work? The older sibling, driven by resentment and jealousy to thwart the bratty, charismatic younger sibling who seems to get away with everything? And in the end, the self-realization and change of heart, so that the older sibling actually ends up saving the younger?
(Stop laughing. I can't help that my other interests are so low-brow.)
Jerott and Marthe I already mentioned as reminding me of Sean and Maggie from "Rescue Me."
The chess game scene at the end of "Pawn in Frankincense" is like the Buffy episode "The Gift" if Buffy hadn't had the easy-out of sacrificing herself, but actually had to kill Dawn to save the world, and then had to live with it afterward. Lymond even *tries* to sacrifice himself instead of Khaireddin, and can't.
That scene has been completely haunting me. I'm re-reading the first book, and it looms over the whole series. It's just so shattering, and no wonder Lymond is so screwed up afterwards. And no wonder he's so reluctant to get close to Philippa, after losing Eliose, Christian, Will, Oonagh, Chancellor....
I like Will so much better on this re-read. The first time, I was just so frustrated with how young and hot-headed and clueless he was. But now that I know that this is part of his maturation process, that he actually does learn and grow up and turn out pretty well--and then die tragically!!!--I adore him. Especially since his narrative function ends up usurped by Jerott, and Jerott is just so much less entertaining than Will.
What else...? I wonder what Lymond really feels about Christian. It's obvious that he cares for her deeply and that her death has a profound impact on him. But I do wonder whether he had romantic feelings for her, or whether it was just such a comfort that she was a kind and intelligent person who believed in him. Either way, I really love their relationship.
Lymond and Richard is still my favorite relationship, though. I've read that scene after Hexham like four times already. I love the way it's written--the characterization is so complex. The way that Richard initially decides to nurse Lymond back to health because he wants to see him suffer, and wants to break him, and wants him to die a humiliating public death... but at the same time, he chooses to nurture his brother back to health rather than to leave him to die, and you have to wonder if even then he had a subconscious desire to help his (shattered, near-death) brother.
And then the transition, as he first revels in Lymond's pain and helplessness, tries his best to break him... and then when he does, it's not what he wanted at all. And the way he just decides to leave--he's packing up his horse and thinking about what he's going to do when he gets home--but meanwhile his subconscious has pretty much already decided that he has to help Lymond, and it finally hits his conscious mind and of course he goes back and saves his brother for real. It's just so complex and so honest, all of those conflicting emotions--the way love and hate, sympathy and resentment can exist simultaneously. Relationships in fiction so rarely capture that complexity that exists in real life.
A lot of the moral choices in these books are really interesting. One moment that seriously surprised me was when Lymond sacrificed Joleta to save himself. It made perfect logical sense: Gabriel was evil and out to seriously fuck up the world, and if Lymond died no one would stop him. (And Gabriel would've found a way to kill Joleta anyway.)
The sacrifice of one semi-innocent (however sociopathic, she was a sixteen year old girl who'd lived a tragic life) to "save the world" is, you know, a logical moral choice. But it's not one that your typical hero would make; usually it's the "third option," the hero refuses to sacrifice the innocent, and then is rewarded in that some other method of saving the world pops up. (For example, Buffy chooses not to sacrifice Dawn and then realizes that she can still save the world by sacrificing herself.) But realistically, there is NO third method that saves the pure hero from dirtying himself with an ugly moral choice. I love that Lymond has to deal with the hard choices, and has to live with the consequences.
The other obvious example is the chess game. Lymond sacrifices his own son to "save the world," and he ends up a complete emotional mess because of it. The whole time you're reading that, you're pleading with the author for an "out," some escape from the horribleness of that choice, but there is none. It's uncompromising and awesome and terrible, and to end it any other way would have been a cop-out.
And another of the things that makes Lymond a hero is that, though he's willing to sacrifice innocents to save the world, he does everything in his power to avoid it first, and he takes as much burden as possible onto himself. The choice of Khaireddin was such a powerful thing because, once again, it was logical. Kuzum was more likely to grow up healthily and happily; Khaireddin was already so broken. And Lymond wanted to save Philippa the pain of losing Kuzum, so he took upon himself the pain of losing Khaireddin. Gah, it's just awful.
(And of course, this is what Lymond always does... tries to take all the pain onto himself and protect those he loves... but since they don't know what he's doing he tends to drive them crazy.)
Anyway. I've been so busy that I'm still only halfway through re-reading "Game of Kings," but I'm seriously enjoying picking up all the nuances and things I missed as I barreled through it the first time. And this reading group especially has a lot of interesting posts to spark my thoughts... I loved this post for example.
What else? I haven't been posting much. Let's see...
I went to Las Vegas and ate vegan donuts. That was fun. Details and pictures are here.
And then there was this... which I don't even want to write about so I'm going to copy and paste from an email I wrote to 10zlaine:
I was kind of just going with it... enjoying the pool while ignoring the massively overpriced bad food and the leers of drunken frat boys... and my front row seat was perfect... the show was amazing... AIC played "No Excuses," which I hadn't heard yet... I cheered like an idiot when they announced Sean Kinney's name--he's the drummer, and my favorite member of any band ever, and I've adored him since I was 11 years old due to his combination of ass-kicking musical ability and genuinely funny and good-natured personality... and at the end, he came over and HANDED ME A DRUM STICK... I was in heaven... already imagining how I'd frame it in glass and make it the center-piece of my apartment... I carried it around with me for 40 minutes while waiting in line for a drink... I went back to my seat... put the drumstick in my bag, put my bag on the floor between my feet and the barrier... and SOME ASSHOLE REACHED INTO MY BAG AND STOLE THE DRUM STICK.
No matter how much I tell myself that it's just a THING, and the cool moment was when Sean handed it to me... I am so fucking pissed off and I seriously wish I could flay alive the person who stole it from me... and that pretty much ruined the vacation, and killed my ability to ignore the disgusting exploitative sleaze of Vegas...
So yeah. This time when I say "I am never going back to Las Vegas," I mean it.
At least the donuts were good.
On Tuesday I saw Ian McKellen in "King Lear" at BAM. It was SO GOOD. I am not a theater person at all, so I can't really comment technically, I can just say that I was completely riveted every time McKellen was speaking, and completely riveted during the entire last act. The seats were incredibly uncomfortable and the view was weird (so steep that we were nearly looking at the top of the actors' heads) but I didn't even notice for the last hour or so. I'd never seen or read "King Lear" so I was really into the story, too. (I know, stop laughing at my ignorance.) I'm SO glad that I got to see it. If you ever have a chance to see Ian McKellen in anything, definitely go.
Then last night jaydk and I saw her favorite soap opera actor, Tom Pelphrey from Guiding Light, in a play in this weird little office-building theater that seated about 40 people. We were literally sitting on the stage. Pelphrey was good, but the play was pretentious and terrible. Alas. I'm sure it also suffered in comparison to Lear! I did make jaydk stick around and get Pelphrey's autograph, though--it was totally worth it to see her happy fangirl expression. ;)
And this weekend I'm going to Austin to see Alice in Chains unplugged. Honestly I'd rather just stay home and sleep, but, plane tickets already booked....
*is exhausted*
[Cross-posted to my InsaneJournal]