Leave a comment

Comments 52

wemblee April 26 2010, 07:31:47 UTC
Completely off-topic regarding your wonderful post (and yayyy, love for Kira!), but do you have any meta on Pod!Aeryn, or links to other meta about that, and that season? Because I just finished rewatching the entire series, and I'd love to read about it, especially S4, which was so weird.

Reply

selenak April 26 2010, 08:18:38 UTC
I wrote a bit about Pod!Aeryn and the probable reasons for same here. kernzelda wrote some s4 meta in the last year, and at least one of the posts was about Aeryn specifically, but I don't have the time to hunt it down right now; will try later. nolivingman watched the entire show last year and reviewed, and I commented, but you proably have to be on her flist to read those posts.

I rarely wrote Farscape-only meta, but I did write one about the third season, which is my favourite.

Reply

kernezelda April 26 2010, 13:05:50 UTC
Psst... kernezelda

Can't think of any Aeryn meta right off the bat, and if there is, haven't put it in memories, so will look in my LJ a bit today.

Reply

selenak April 26 2010, 16:52:19 UTC
I was thinking of your post re: Aeryn demanding the Scorpius-related promise from John?

Reply


airie_fairy April 26 2010, 07:40:26 UTC
Mirroring to the villains might explain the sympathetic passages toward Uriah and Miss Havisham (I was always a little tripped out when David would say a long thing about everything that sucked for poor Uriah and then seem to hurriedly bring it back with "lalala whatever he's creepy ( ... )

Reply

selenak April 26 2010, 08:23:57 UTC
Well, Uriah is creepy. :) But I know what you mean.

They're right about the rape problem, but the point is why the hell are they talking about the movies anyway? It has nothing to do with the matter at hand. All it does is add a stain of pettiness to something legitimate.

*nods* Yes, exactly. Whether Chinatown deserves every accolade it got or is complete trash has nothing to do with Polanski raping the girl. I think both for the apologists and their opposition it comes down to the wishful idea that if you are a great artists, you are also a good human being; i.e. "he made those great movies, therefore he can't be that bad" and "he's that bad, therefore he can't have made any movies worth watching", and both are false assumptions.

I would have liked to be present during that Dickens & Dostoyevsky interview, but invisibly. Oh yes.

Reply

airie_fairy April 26 2010, 18:22:45 UTC
The knowledge that those two ever interacted makes my world better. I wonder if the entire article/transcript exists somewhere...

Reply

shezan April 26 2010, 19:11:53 UTC
I would have liked to be present during that Dickens & Dostoyevsky interview, but invisibly. Oh yes.

Where did you read it? Was it the Dostoyevsky article, and WHERE DO I FIND IT?

Reply


wee_warrior April 26 2010, 07:56:19 UTC
I don't think there is a general answer to this; it's something each individual has to decide for themselves. *nods* I'm constantly torn on this. I usually try not to let an author's personal life seep into my reading, and being a (however hesitant) Literaturwissenschaftler obviously helps with that, but in some cases... Do you remember Heavenly Creatures and the case it was based on? One of the girls went on to become a rather successful writer when she grew up and unfortunately for her, someone made the connection after the movie came out. I started reading her novels before I knew who she was, and I liked them, but afterwards they proved impossible to read without her deed colouring my perception ( ... )

Reply

selenak April 26 2010, 08:29:41 UTC
Heavenly Creatures: yes, I know, and I've read a lot of the novels as well, both before and after. After there was that constant awareness, though.

Time plays a huge role I think; I'm more likely to look past sexism in Anthony Trollope than in Frank Miller, to a point at least.

Same here. I mean, something like Bernini ordering his servant to cut his (Bernini's) mistress' face up as an act of sexual jealousy and revenge is revolting in any century. But Trollope going "feminists, aren't they hilarious?" is easier to deal with than Miller and his WHORES!obsession.

If his wife had had the opportunity to have a halfway equal position, to not be his helpmate and punching bag, he very likely still would have been a good writer, he simply would have drawn his inspiration elsewhere.
Yes indeed, and that phrases what I was trying to say re: Wagner even better. Yes, sometimes artists do draw from their dark sides but that does not mean they have to, or that one has to construct an absolute causality between horrid behaviour X and great ( ... )

Reply

shezan April 26 2010, 19:13:31 UTC
Trollope going "feminists, aren't they hilarious?

But Trollope writes fantastic three-dimensional independent women! Completely unlike Dickens! (And of course he owed his own mother for that.)

Reply

selenak April 27 2010, 12:38:12 UTC
I never said he didn't. :) One does not exclude the other. Still, the Signore Madeline Neroni alone makes it all worthwile.

Reply


watervole April 26 2010, 08:29:20 UTC
I always liked the way Kira's religious beliefs were handled. She balanced her work relationship with Sisko with her awareness of him as Emissary.

Reply

selenak April 26 2010, 16:53:43 UTC
Though I suspect that if he hadn't been the Emissary, they might have clashed more often.:) But seriously, yes, I really appreciated the way Kira's faith was handled as well.

Reply


lakrids404 April 26 2010, 09:37:55 UTC
I like "The Ninth Gate" it's strangely mellow and low key. Plus with not an over top antihero, and like all good supernatural film there are naked tits (yes, we men are simple creatures)

Normally I don't read anything about artist/creators that I like. I think the creation should stand on own, merits.

Reply

selenak April 26 2010, 16:54:54 UTC
Johnny Depp in a restrained role, verily, a rare occurence these days. :)

And that's probably a wise rule.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up