Leave a comment

Comments 29

cwx July 6 2003, 22:31:56 UTC
Hooray for Pullman and racial guilt quandries! Lol, you know what I mean. Sounds like we have something in common after all. :) Maybe I'll make a more intelligent comment/post/whatever about Pullman and/or racial guilt quandries later, but right now I just wanted to post one of those infamous "me too" responses. Bwahaha...

Reply

dherblay July 7 2003, 06:23:09 UTC
I can't prove it, or even defend it, but I have an inkling that we have more in common that you suspect.

Reply

cwx July 7 2003, 23:40:37 UTC
Now that you mention it, the "didn't see relatives yay" thing reminds me of myself as well. Anyway, I hadn't really thought that carefully about whether we might have more or less in common. I will say that I can't imagine myself having one foot in Ohio (your home? maybe not), one foot in SF, another in London, another in Paris, etc as you seem to. A combination of "won't be able to" and "don't particularly want to." So that might shoot your theory (unless your travelling man rep has been exaggerated?)

Reply


scrollgirl July 6 2003, 23:12:58 UTC
4) Did not see scroll. Damn.

This, of course, is the most essential point on your list. It should've been right at the top! Hee :)

Sorry you didn't end up visiting, but I do hope you'll get a chance to come up this summer. Maybe we could have a mini Board Meet? I know ponygirl and Wolfhowl3 are in the area as well.

Reply

dherblay July 7 2003, 06:25:12 UTC
Yes. Scroll was at the top of my list of priorities; why should she be in the middle of my checklist?

A future trip to Toronto is definitely on my agenda. Board meet sounds good: ponygirl is an excellent poster (don't know Wolfhowl too well).

Reply

breaking out of lurk scrollgirl July 7 2003, 09:30:38 UTC
Thanks! I feel a little guilty about admitting to reading LJs, as though I'm confessing to eavesdropping... which I guess I am, but who can resist a compliment? In any case I hope I'm not intruding, aliera mentioned a few weeks back that she had a journal, I've been following the links from hers to other atp-ers.

A Toronto meet would be delightful, as long as we do it at a less humid time. I was at a bbq yesterday with some friends and all I could think about was how I wished they would go away and stop generating heat in my vicinity. Praise you O air-conditioner, long may you hum!

Re: Harry Potter. I do like the idea of Harry/Luna, though I find that most of my post-Phoenix thoughts are about Neville. But not in a shippy way. I'm kinda hoping that the little guy turns out to be the real hero of the piece.

ponygirl

Reply

Squeee! dherblay July 7 2003, 11:41:42 UTC
Your presence here just totally chuffs me! TCH, Sara, now ponygirl -- I get quality lurkers! Come on, people, speak up! There are no eaves here to drop from: this is a public forum!

(Now if mundus shows up, I'm going to have a coronary.)

Reply


Oooh, opportunity for ranking anonymous July 7 2003, 04:35:01 UTC
I like ranking- because it's pointless and unnecessary.

Azkaban is undoubtedly the best in the series, because as well as having all the aspects you mention above- it has a tautness that neither of the following books caputre, and a darkness that neither of the previous books introduce. It's where the moral ambiguity starts- I think I see Azkaban as 'Lie To Me', or even 'Innocence'.

Phoenix is troubling and surprising, and snapped me out of my patronsing grumbling about Rowling on the back of the badly directed movies and the brick-sized Goblet of Fire, despite the fact that the third quarter dragged.

Stone is actually ver 'Welcome to the Hellmouth' like in that it's beautifully executed- somewhat sideways on at the initiation to the supernatural, and feels silly and nostlagic when you go back and read it after longer, darker, more sinuous and stretchy books.

Goblet is too long, has several unnecessary plot-lines, has an introduction to a wonderful character who turns out to be not him, so that I feel cheated, (Moody's 'CONSTANT ( ... )

Reply

Re: Oooh, opportunity for ranking dherblay July 7 2003, 06:13:41 UTC
I suspect my Ginny/Harry ship runs in direct opposition to your Harry/Luna ship, so I won't mention it.
Based on Phoenix, I suspect that any possible 'ship involving Ginny will become canonical. Ginny/Harry, Ginny/Neville, Ginny/Snape, Ginny/Peeves -- she gets around.

When are you going to get yourself an LJ? Even if it is just for the icons.

Reply

Ummm anonymous July 7 2003, 07:32:00 UTC
I don't know how I'd go about it- and I don't know anything about icons- but apart from that it sounds an excellent idea!

Can I choose icons, or do I have to be either artistic or computer skilled? Cos either of the latter rules me out.

And our livejournals free?

TCH

Reply

Re: Ummm masqthephlsphr July 7 2003, 09:48:47 UTC
There are both free and pay versions of LJ. In order to get the free version, you need an existing LJ member to give you a secret code. I have many available, if you like.

: )

Reply


Harry Potter masqthephlsphr July 7 2003, 09:47:10 UTC
Trying not to read too much of this entry and its replies because I don't want to be spoiled for HP. A friend of mine just got back from sailing on the QE2 to England. I asked her to buy me a British copy of "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". She ended up buying me a copy of "Order of the Phoenix" instead.

Now I will have to get online to amazon.co.uk and get the first four books so I can read this series in my logical, anal-retentive purist order.

Can't read un-pretentious Rawling and MorallyAmbiguous!Harry until I wade through the more pretentious Rawling Perky/Conceited!Harry first.

Reply

Re: Harry Potter dherblay July 7 2003, 11:57:21 UTC
There's not much wading involved, actually. It's not that the earlier books are pretentious -- quite the opposite. It's more that they're more lightweight than what is to come. And I don't think Harry is ever "perky."

I'd lend you my copies of the first four, but I don't live in San Francisco (though there may be a possibility that I'll be visiting in August). Hmmm . . . dochawk's still in Britain, right? Anyway, having read the American version of no. 5, I have to say that it still retains enough of a British feel ("jumper" and "trainers" persist) to satisfy me, and I'm frankly glad they changed Fred and George's more-innocent-in-Britain "But we managed to keep our peckers up" to "But we managed to keep our chins up." That would have taken me right out of the narrative.

Reply

Re: Harry Potter masqthephlsphr July 7 2003, 12:10:27 UTC
I can get the boxed set of the first four books in paperback from amazon.co.uk for US $ 32.00 plus change. I think that's probably what I 'm going to do. Then I can do a reading marathon and move on quickly to book 5.

I think I'd rather have a book with the original "peckers" in it. But then I'm a purist about these things. ; )

"Peckers". Almost as funny as when Americans tell Aussies they're going to "root" for the home team!

Reply


1776! anonymous July 7 2003, 18:48:53 UTC
I love 1776! Can anyone not love William Daniels singing, or the great lines, or the beautiful "Molasses to Rum"? Daniels is the definitely the best of the non-singer Broadway singers! So are you a show tunes fan in general, or just 1776 in particular. I've gotten Graffiti somewhat indoctrinated, he loves Fiddler on the Roof, The Rothchilds (aaahhh, Hal Linden...), Shenandoah (again with the aaahh, this time for John Cullum, and West Side Story, but he doesn't get how Richard Kiley sends chills down my spine when we listen to Man of La Mancha. We were driving down to my mom's while listening to it, and everytime Kiley held a note, I'd hit Graffiti in the leg saying "Listen! Listen! Did you hear that!!!" Instead of anwering "Yes, that is the most profund use of music I've ever heard" he'd just give me the standard eye roll and "oh mom!" Well, I can't really complain if he loves Rothchilds ( ... )

Reply

Re: 1776! dherblay July 7 2003, 19:19:55 UTC
1776 is my favorite musical, but I'm not what you'd call a showtunes aficianado. (What do you call a showtunes aficianado? I generally go with "Rob.") Of the Broadway musical LPs my parents had when I was a kid, 1776 was certainly the most worn -- more so than either Hair (I've come to the conclusion that this rock musical fails as rock if not as a musical) or Camelot. I must confess that I can't remember ever listening to Sugar despite the source material being one of my favorite movies of all time. And 1776 was the only one of those I myself bought on CD (in fact, while I own a fair amount of film scores, the only other musical I've ever bought is "Once More With Feeling"). However, Rah loves the classic (pre-Rodgers and Hammerstein) musicals, so things may change. We were pretty close to seeing Anything Goes on a previous Cleveland trip, and I think that would be a good compromise: she'll go for Cole Porter, and I'll be there for P.G. Wodehouse.

Of course, John Cullum sings "Molasses to Rum" in the movie of 1776, and I think his ( ... )

Reply

Re: 1776! buffyannotater July 10 2003, 13:29:08 UTC
(What do you call a showtunes aficianado? I generally go with "Rob.")

Yes, I do have quite the show tune collection. I would say I easily have over 100 Broadway CDs, and also have pretty much photographic memory for lyrics. Okay, I know that didn't make sense, but what's the word for when you hear something once and remember it instantly? I can basically, after hearing a Broadway CD once or twice, sing the entire score for you ( ... )

Reply

Re: 1776! dherblay July 10 2003, 16:54:07 UTC
I'll have to check this out. I must say that the concept of a darker "Momma, Look Sharp" fills me with some trepidation. It's pretty damn dark to begin with! I don't have trouble taking William Daniels seriously in the role, because my first experiences with him were in the role of John Adams, not only in the movie 1776, but in the television miniseries adaptation of John Jakes's The Rebels. Not that he's typecast. The Rebels was the sequel to The Bastard, in which Daniels played Samuel Adams. He is also credited with playing John Quincy Adams in The Adams Chronicles on PBS; I'm surprised he didn't play all the roles.

Meanwhile, I have trouble taking Brent Spiner seriously (so there!), not only because of Data but also because of his role in Out to Sea, which I was subjected to as in-flight "entertainment" four times on one trip (a bad side effect to flying around the world westbound -- had I gone eastwards, I would have lost a day but gained Men In Black). It interests me that the two men who have performed the role on Broadway are ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up