I haven't made a lot of sense out of the current uproar about LJ. Probably there's something privacy- or copyright-invading in the TOS, but if I wanted to put up really sensitive material I'd sit on my fingers and not do it. Others must make their own decisions. I suppose I'll have to start slouching over to DW to see what everyone else is up to, but I like being able to back up LJ to pdf using Bookblogger and I'm too lazy to see if it works on Dreamwidth.
Did I miss something? It read to me as though Saffron was considering being a Bad Cat but never did it.
Objections to the new Terms of Service include that you have to accept them to do anything on LJ, but the English version is not legally binding, only the Russian one is; and that you're supposed to treat any mention of queerness or queer people as essentially pornographic and label it as "sensitive material," suitable for those over 18 only. This latter has had responses ranging from, "No way in hell am I labeling my daily life that way" through "Bring it on, creepy bastards" from queer people, and down through "I'm not queer but I don't want to be associated with an organization and a government that persecutes and tortures queer people" through "I'm not queer and so I wouldn't be a target of this." One is also forbidden to post political material that would offend standards not clearly articulated. Again, some people will stay and do this defiantly, some people don't generally do it but don't want to give any support to a platform that makes this kind of stricture, some people don't do it and aren't concerned
( ... )
3000+ people, which of course can be interpreted as actual people, page impressions, or anything in between. But, they appear on a skim to have taken that out of the TOS (as I read it in the pop up), since it's not in the TOS on the actual site, so that's... interesting. I'll try and figure out if I just missed it, but later, since I have to go to a meeting.
As for Saffron, she wasn't bad in the broad sense -- that label is kind of tongue-in-cheek much of the time anyway -- but I didn't feel I could leave the tulips unsupervised given her persistence and the fact that she is very smart and has done a lot of things I didn't think she could do. So she was more Inconvenient than Bad. Nothing got broken.
I think the idea that the Fool and Cordelia were doubled is correct, but it doesn't explain why the Fool just vanishes; surely other roles in other plays were doubled as well, without that happening. My guess is that the Fool's fate occurred solely in stage business that wasn't written in or recorded, though that doesn't explain all that much as Shakespeare never has that happen in any other play.
Cordelia's weight also comes up in the play The Dresser by Ronald Harwood, about an aging actor ("Sir") and his dresser Norman, who is unrequitedly in love with him. Sir romances a young understudy, tells her she'd make a wonderful Cordelia, and literally sweeps her off her feet, to her delight; Norman later crushingly informs her that Sir wasn't overcome with her youth and talent, but was making sure he could carry her.
Oh, I've heard of that play, though I've never seen or read it. The anecdote made me do a kind of snort-giggle. I can see that with an elderly actor and a young woman, the question would always arise, which of course is why "Slings and Arrows" has that scene, with details that tie in to their own story and the characters they have.
Huh. I saw the movie of The Dresser at the Uptown Theater umpteen years ago. I might have seen it with Raphael, or that might have been before R moved to Minneapolis. I remember discussing it with zir, though.
Oops, stopped too soon. Yes, lots and lots of parts in Shakespeare are believed to have been doubled, but it's generally handled quite deftly; almost no other character vanishes quite like that. There are so many things that could have happened to make a more orderly exit disappear from the text we have, it's hard to even pick one.
Comments 14
Did I miss something? It read to me as though Saffron was considering being a Bad Cat but never did it.
Reply
Reply
Reply
P.
Reply
Reply
P.
Reply
Reply
P.
Reply
Cordelia's weight also comes up in the play The Dresser by Ronald Harwood, about an aging actor ("Sir") and his dresser Norman, who is unrequitedly in love with him. Sir romances a young understudy, tells her she'd make a wonderful Cordelia, and literally sweeps her off her feet, to her delight; Norman later crushingly informs her that Sir wasn't overcome with her youth and talent, but was making sure he could carry her.
Reply
P.
Reply
Reply
P.
Reply
I've finally dusted off my DW journal but I am still trying to figure out how to back up my LJ on there and how to cross-post.
I liked your review of the Shakespeare plays - and I always love it when you put in nods to the bard in your own books.
Reply
Leave a comment