beer_good_foamy: (Default)
[personal profile] beer_good_foamy
Here's a fic I had to write after the s1 finale of Agent Carter.

Title: Don’t Rock The Moat
Author: Beer Good ([personal profile] beer_good_foamy)
Fandom: Agent Carter
Rating: PG13
Word count: ~830
Characters/Pairing: Peggy/Angie
Summary: Late one night a few months after the season 1 finale, Peggy gets a phone call. Apparently, that thing she did on Brooklyn Bridge has come back to haunt New York City. Fortunately, it doesn’t seem to pose a major threat. Or a captain one either.

Having a phone in every room was really swell, most of the time. But 3AM on a cold night was not one of those times, especially when they were all extensions of the same line. )

Always in crisis, actually

Mar. 1st, 2015 02:32 pm
oursin: Photograph of Stella Gibbons, overwritten IM IN UR WOODSHED SEEING SOMETHIN NASTY (woodshed)
[personal profile] oursin

(I did wonder about using the urgent phallic icon for this post, srsly)

If a man publishes a six volume autobiographical novel of excruciating quotidien detail and self-revelation, it is naturally going to be proclaimed a masterpiece, no? Norwegian writer Karl Ove Knausgaard’s bestselling, deeply exposing six-part memoir has been a literary sensation the world over – and upset not a few of his relatives.

It sounds to be MI MANPAIN I SHOW U IT (o dear) and I do feel that it may end up in the same unvisited area of secondhand bookshops along with similar endeavours, e.g. Romain Rolland's Jean-Christophe sequence, C P Snow's Strangers and Brothers, that American writer whose name I always can't remember, etc etc; anyway, big and much-praised in their day but off the radar now.

I can't find this one dissenting quote in the lists of plaudits from the print edition of The Observer online, but I do wonder if Michel Faber has actually nailed it: 'I suspect that Knausgard's lifelong yearning to achieve literary immortality may prove biodegradable too.'

On reflecting about this, I remark that there are seem to be few examples in this genre which have the staying power of A La Recherche de Temps Perdu. We wonder if this is because M Proust did not have all these anxieties about Being A Man:

The issue of masculinity is a recurring theme in My Struggle. He says he formed his views on male identity as a child growing up in the 1970s. He was teased by the other boys for being a “jessie” or gay.

“It put such doubt in me that I’ve never really recovered from it,” he says. “I have all these notions of what it is to be a man. You shouldn’t cry for instance [he spends many pages crying or trying to conceal his tears] and you shouldn’t talk about feelings. I don’t talk about feelings but I write a lot about feelings. Reading, that’s feminine, writing, that’s feminine. It is insane, it’s really insane but it still is in me.”

Plus, you know, the social vistas Marcel presents.

Wot a charmer Knausgard sounds -

He met Bostrom at a writer’s conference while he was still married to his first wife, the journalist Tonje Aursland. He made a pass at her, which she rejected, and, in a drunken state of demoralisation, he deliberately cut up his face with broken glass. He later left Aursland and moved to Sweden, but she only learned of the initial episode with Bostrom when she read the second volume, A Man in Love, where it is recorded with characteristically scrupulous candour.
I was thinking, no, Plath actually bit Hughes' cheek herself on their first meeting, right?

As well as all his upsetting families, friends, etc through this tell-all process.

I note that we also have, in the Observer Magazine, a tiresome piece on The Crisis of Modern Masculinity, as though (a historian comments) masculinity has not always been in crisis, or at least, complaints that it is woe woe in crisis have been a recurrent theme over the centuries, if not Since Time Immemorial.


And, on seeing something nasty in poncey overpriced restaurants, both Marina O'Loughlin and Jay Rayner have had very bad (if amusingly written up) experiences this week.

(no subject)

Mar. 1st, 2015 12:48 pm
oursin: Brush the Wandering Hedgehog by the fire (Default)
[personal profile] oursin
Happy birthday, [personal profile] polydad!

Black Sails 2.06

Mar. 1st, 2015 12:23 pm
selenak: (Ship and Sea by Baranduin)
[personal profile] selenak
In which the characters are blissfully unaware of the fanboy wailing due to last week's episode and continue with their shady, convoluted lives.

Read more... )

The Musketeers 2.07

Mar. 1st, 2015 10:43 am
selenak: (Porthos by Chatona)
[personal profile] selenak
Murder and genre switches, oh my.

Read more... )

RIP Leonard Nimoy

Feb. 28th, 2015 09:33 am
fresne: Circe (Default)
[personal profile] fresne
Star Trek was my first fandom. Some of my earliest memories are of watching Trek. My first fannish interactions were at local Star Trek Cons. I fondly remember reading Trek magazine compilations and doing my first analysis on Star Trek. 

Nimoy was such a large part of the fabric of my fannish consciousness. My first alien.  Extending on into In Search of... with this sense of the odd and strange just around the corner of the really real world.

Everything I've ever heard about him has been of a warm, kind human being. The most human.


Link that spam, link that spam

Feb. 28th, 2015 05:10 pm
oursin: Brush the Wandering Hedgehog by the fire (Default)
[personal profile] oursin

I have no intention of linking to a particularly egregious example, with nasty personal attacks included, of whingeing about current manifestations in sff and how they are polluting its clean scientific lines with gender and race and diversity generally. However, I will suggest that, hello, these issues have been there for a long time, citing in evidence this post on the personal papers of Jim Kepner.... a passionate science fiction fan and a pioneering activist for LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer) rights[.] Kepner (1923-97) belonged to both camps, and his collection of zines, artwork, and other sci-fi materials reveals hidden harmonies between the two movements and this piece, which although primarily about current black sff writers sets them in a context looking back to the longer tradition of Afrofuturism.

And while on the topic of sff tropery, I like this swingeing attack on the Campbellian model of the Hero's Journey, which resonated with other thoughts I've been having more generally about theorists who produce a unified Theory of something that people then apply as a fixed pattern, leading them to overlook the ways in which what they are looking at does not conform to it (this may be about a conversation I had during the week about Laqueur's Making Sex, ahem).


This motif of having a particular mindset about something and then plonking it down rather than thinking whether it really fits the evidence rather than providing yet another predictable piece of woezery about Teh Intahnetz, was in my thoughts on reading this piece the other day: How sharing our every moment on social media became the new living. Maybe it's Ma Genarayshun, but although I spend a fair amount of time on social media, I don't share my every moment, and I don't actually perceive that this is A Thing Which Is Going On. People are selective in what they post and I wonder that people who go on and on about this have never read e.g. Erving Goffman's The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life which it seems to me might be usefully applied to how individuals present themselves in different online venues.

Apart from the whole subsuming 'social media' to FaceBook, Twitter, and Instagram, not that people don't even get those skewed or misread: Social media, with their chattering pursuit of “likes”, followers, comments and shares, are overwhelmingly biased in the direction of an airheaded, cringe-inducing positivity. Look at the breathless Twitter feeds that babble about the sheer wonderfulness of everything, or the groups on Facebook and elsewhere consisting of people gathering together to save the world and spread niceness by, er, gathering together. Does not map to my experience, srsly, rly.

I am not even sure that Henry Moore's daughter, in this interesting piece, is correct in claiming that

We don’t look at things, it’s terrifying, it’s happening more and more and more. People see two-dimensionally on their phones and laptops and iPads; they don’t see shapes or understand form.


Further to my recent grump about the gospel of decluttering, with particular reference to declutterers inability to understand Readers of Books, I was highly amused by this: It’s important to be very rich but have almost no items in your home. This will confuse vengeful spirits that come looking to destroy your possessions.


Also I guess on the subject of the domestic sphere, I really want to read Matt Cook's new book on queer domesticity, and did so even before reading this interview. I've heard bits of his work at conferences and read articles and chapters, but I'm looking forward to the whole thing.


I strong second this recommendation of the 1990s hospital drama series, Cardiac Arrest.


I have a big honking question here: I love my wife to bits. The problem is that she lies. If it was a one-off lie it wouldn’t matter, but there are all these small things where I feel like she lies to get me to do things. I really, really, want to know what those things are, and if this is the only way that she can get him to do them. Wot, me, cynical?


I wonder if online dating websites are – for some men – a safe place to be rude to women - I would not be at all surprised, or at least, a place for them to be rude to women who have the nerve not to fit in with their off-the-shelf criteria of What They Want in a woman, and may even, o horrors, have some views on what they require in a man.

Wolf Hall and History, the end

Feb. 28th, 2015 01:26 pm
selenak: (Young Elizabeth by Misbegotten)
[personal profile] selenak
Now I've watched the last episode, which I thought condensed the second part of the novel it's based on, Bring Up The Bodies, well and contained good acting. Historically, err, welllll, more about that in a moment. What I was most curious about in the tv version was how they would handle something the novel did, and the theatre plays based on it didn't, not least because I couldn't see anyway to do it in a visual medium without letting Mantel's Cromwell do something utterly OOC for him and speak these thoughts out loud. The theatre version of Mantel's two Cromwell novels does what Bring Up The Bodies the novel doesn't, it ends on a note of triumph (Theatre!Cromwell gets to square off against an intimidated Stephen Gardiner). What the novel does is different. After having build a case against Anne and her supposed lovers based on nothing but gossip and innuendo, and inventing thought crime while he was at it (one exchange between Norris and Cromwell the tv version leaves out), Cromwell suddenly starts to wonder about his own late, much mourned and missed wife. How does he know she was faithful? That his daughters were his daughters? And the thought can no longer be unthought. The memories he cherishes, which gave him strength, are now tainted. It's the start of karmic retribution, but since it's all happening in Cromwell's head, and he really would not talk of this to anyone, you can't invent a dialogue to get it across. The tv series doesn't do voice overs. So, would it go like the play for triumph instead?

As it turns out, it didn't. Nor did it find a way to get Cromwell's mind applying what he did to his own memories across. But it does come up with something else, which turns out to be a absolutely brilliant ending and sublime foreshadowing, and since it's unique to the tv version, I will cut for this one ).

Now for the comparisons of tv show versus history. As I expected, and as the novel had done, they cut Anne's speech at her trial (which you can read here), but unlike the novel, they reinstalled Anne's scaffold speech. (Hilary Mantel deprived Anne of both speeches, just as her More doesn't get to say any of the things he did at his execution, either. Though Anne's execution is still a moment of pathos in her novel - Cromwell thinking/murmuring "put down your arm" is in both.) They even found a way to include one of the key sentences of the novel - "He needed guilty men, and so he chose men who were guilty, if not necessarily as charged" by letting Cromwell say it to Henry Norris in the first person. Both novel and tv show, however, make it look at least likely some adultery happened, which is historically highly questionable (because the court case was really lousy, see last entry on this; no one but Mark Smeaton - the only commoner, and hence the only one who could be threatened with torture - ever confessed, and none of the accused was ever confronted with witnesses testifying against them). Of course, neither the book's nor the novel's Cromwell really care whether or not it happened; his choice of these particular five men to die with Anne is due to them participating in the masque mocking his patron and father figure, Cardinal Wolsey, after Wolsey's death.

This is one of Hilay Mantel's key inventions in the entire Cromwell saga. The "Cardinal Wolsey goes to hell" masque did happen; it was commissioned and paid for by Thomas Boleyn (stay classy, Thomas!), at this point Earl of Wiltshire, and his brother-in-law the Duke of Norfolk and staged at Thomas Boleyn's house at a dinner for the new French Ambassador. How do we know this? Because Eustace Chapuys, the Imperial Ambassador, mentioned it in one of his dispatches. Quoth he:

“Some time ago the Earl of Wiltshire invited to supper Monsieur de la Guiche, for whose amusement he caused a farce to be acted of the Cardinal (Wolsey) going down to Hell; for which La Guiche much blamed the Earl, and still more the Duke for his ordering the said farce to be printed. They have been ever since [Jocquin’s departure] entertaining the said gentleman most splendidly, and making the most of him on every occasion, and yet I am told that however well treated by them he still says very openly what he thinks of them, and laughs at their eccentricities in matters of government and administration.”

In other words, Daddy Boleyn and Ghastly Uncle Norfolk wanted to impress upon the French Ambassador that now that the Cardinal was dead, they were the go-to men at the English court, and he wasn't impressed at all. Note who isn't mentioned as being present on that occasion? Henry VIII. and Anne Boleyn. (And you can bet that Chapuys would have mentioned it if they had been; he would have reported it as eagerly as he reported Henry's river parties during Anne's trial and execution, or Anne wearing yellow when Katherine of Aragon died.) Guess who also wasn't there? Norris, Weston, Bereton and Smeaton. George Boleyn may have been, but it's very unlikely he'd have been one of the participants; that's what his father hired professionals for.

Now it's pretty obvious why Mantel invented this and why the tv show kept it. Least of all because it's visual (which it is), but it gives Cromwell an understandable 21st century type of motive against these five particular men, in addition to political expediency. (In fairness, Mantel and the tv show also bring up a genuine historical motive for Cromwell re: Bereton, the later's hanging of one of Cromwell's men. But that's not mentioned on the tv show before or after, so the "avenging the Cardinal" motive still prevails.) Revenge for Wolsey is this, but when Mantel plotted the novels, it must have occured to her it's tricky to justify especially for Henry Norris, because historical Henry Norris, far from having been mean to the Cardinal during the later's fall, is actually on the record for his kindness towards Wolsey. For this, the witness is none other than George Cavendish (who shows up as a character in Mantel's novels and in the tv show - he's the guy wo spots Cromwell crying in the first episode and whom Cromwell tells at the end that God won't have to avenge the Cardinal, he will), whose Life of Wolsey Mantel names as one of her key sources at the end of Wolf Hall. It’s Norris whom Cavendish shows us bringing Wolsey the King’s ring as a sign of continued favour (and to whom Wolsey gave his piece of the True Cross by way of thanks) and earlier, it was “Gentle Norris” who saw to it that the displaced and out of favour Wolsey had a place to stay. Cavendish reports that when the papal legate, Campeggio (aka the one who DIDN'T give Henry his annulment), was on his way to King Henry to take his leave, travelling together with Wolsey, per royal order Wolsey was humiliated by not being given rooms while Campeggio did. At which point:

"And by way as he was going, it was told him that he had no lodging appointed for him in the court. And therewith astonished, Sir Harry Norris, groom of the stool with the King, came unto him (but whether it was by the King’s commandment I know not) and most humbly offered him his chamber for the time, until another might somewhere be provided for him. “For, sir, I assure you,” quoth he, “here is very little room in this house, scantly sufficient for the King; therefore I beseech your grace to accept mine for the season.” Whom my lord thanked for his gentle offer, and went straight to his chamber."

Good on Henry Norris. (Who seems to have been a stand-up guy otherwise, too. The tv show hints at something which it doesn't show,and which actually happened, that Henry VIII. after having been informed by Cromwell's men of Mark Smeaton's "confession" had Henry Norris, who was a firm favourite with him, accompany him and asked him point blank for confirmation of these stories. Possibly a deal was offered; Cavendish thinks so, but Cavendish had left the court at this point and thus, as opposed to the Wolsey tales, is no longer an eye account witness. At any rate, Norris refused to confess and confirm and went to his death proclaiming Anne's innocence.) But you can see the problem for Hilary Mantel in having to present THIS man as being mean enough to the Cardinal to justify Cromwell putting him on his hit list. And thus "Gentle Norris" becomes Dragging-the-Cardinal-to-Hell Norris.

Now book and tv show, like 90% of Tudor novels, present Anne's sister-in-law Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford, as the source of the incest accusation against her husband and Anne, and as a primary source of the "Anne has lovers!" stories, full stop, and presents her as having a catastrophcally bad relationship with her sister-in-law, who bullies her, and with her husband. Hilary Mantel in the tv show are in a firm tradition here; because it was the universal depiction, I had never questioned it myself until Julia Fox in 2006 presented her Jane Boleyn biography which among many other things unearthed the interesting facts that no contempory source names Jane as the source of the incest and other adulteries charge, or depicts her relationship with Anne as bad, or with George. Says Fox: "And, significantly, two contemporaries, John Husee and Justice Spelman (who was on the bench at Anne’s trial) named two different women entirely. John Husee felt information had come from the Countess of Worcester; Spelman said it came from Lady Wingfield. One man, or both, clearly had it muddled, but neither mentioned Jane." The very popular story that at her own execution eight years later, Jane declared she'd falsely testified against her sister-in-law and husband out of jealousy, has no contemporary source, either. She definitely didn't profit form her actions; since George Boleyn was executed as a traitor, his lands and other sources of income reverted to the crown. (Jane Boleyn had to write a begging letter to Cromwell to get him to help her compell her father-in-law for some money; that letter still exists, and makes no mention of Cromwell owing her anything, which you'd think it would if she'd been his key informant.) (BTW this wasn't the first time Cromwell was begged to help getting Thomas Boleyn cough up some cash for an income-less female relation. Mary Boleyn, cut off by her father for marrying commoner William Stafford some years earlier, did the same thing, and that letter is about the only document allowing for a glimpse at Mary Boleyn's personality that we have.) Fox makes her case for Jane in condensed form in this post, if you're interested.

(Since 2006, a few non-villainous Jane Boleyns have showed up in fiction; in Howard Brenton's play Anne Boleyn, she is presented as Anne's friend instead of her enemy and is bullied by Cromwell into a panicked testimony. Even Julia Fox doesn't claim she never told Cromwell anything at all, because there is one thing we know she did say, which is brought up at George's trial, according to Chapuys: "I must not omit that among other things charged against him as a crime was, that his sister had told his wife that the king was impotent. This he was not openly charged with, but it was shown him in writing, with a warning not to repeat it. But he immediately declared the matter, in great contempt of Cromwell and some others, saying he would not in this point arouse any suspicion which might prejudice the king's issue." (Note the tv show and Mantel's book make two changes here: instead of Anne making that indiscreet remark about Henry not getting it up to her sister-in-law (which btw implies the two women must have gotten along), who tells her husband (George), George is asked whether Anne told him this directly. The other change is that the tv show, like the novel, lets him panic after having read it out loud, whereas Chapuys' first hand account lets him - after reading it out loud (I guess George at this point must have known he'd die anyway and must have thought, fuck you, Henry) - remark "in great contempt of Cromwell" (not in a panic) that he wouldn't have spread such gossip since it obviously casts doubt on the paternity of the king's (and his sister's) children.)

Anyway, in the end we don't know much about Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford, other than her involvement in Catherine Howard's fate a few years later, which as opposed to her role (or lack of a role) in Anne Boleyn's fate is better documented. That one makes her look none too bright at the very best (covering for a girl married to Henry VIII. when she's meeting a young man when you're an experienced courtier and have better reason than most to recall what happened the last time a Queen was accused of adultery is nothing short of suicidal, surely), but it doesn't say anything, one way or the other, about what she did and didn't do during her sister-in-law's fall. Her role in the tv version is convenient - it means Ladies Worcester and Wingfield don't have to be introduced and given motive for informing on Anne (Hilary Mantel does include Lady Worcester at least, in the novel) -, but it does a bit more than just follow the Evil Lady Rochford tradition; it also, by letting her approach Cromwell as opposed to the other way around, absolves him of coming up wiith the adultery & incest tales to begin with; they're given to him on a silver tablet. Before that, Jane also serves for yet another occasion to present Anne Boleyn as a Mean Girl (when Anne slaps her); going by the tv show and Mantel's novels, you could be forgiven if you assumed Anne Boleyn, when not "selling herself by inches" to Henry VIII., did nothing but bully her ladies-in-waiting. The justification for this on Mantel's part is that some of them informed on her for Cromwell, and therefore she must have done something to deserve their hostility. Given that most of Anne Boleyn's ladies in waiting used to be the much beloved Catherine of Aragon's ladies in waiting, and given that - as was shown by Jane's fate later with Catherine Howard - a lady-in-waiting accused of having covered up the queen's adultery risked execution herself,I don't think it needed any invented yelling and slapping on her part to explain why some of the women told Cromwell what he wanted to know. In any case, since he didn't produce any of them as witnesses at the actual trial, he either must have thought them not convincing enough, or must have struck a deal as to not embarrass them by letting them testify in public. Or maybe he remembered how the Richard Rich testimony had gone down at Thomas More's trial. As opposed to the tv show, which only shows Rich testifying and More unconvincingly denying, at the real trial after More's scathing defense speech about Rich's reliability as a witness the two other men who'd been in the room when the alleged conversation had taken place, packing up More's books, were called in, and, according to chronicler Edward Hall: therefore (Rich) caused Sir Richard Southwell, and Mr. Palmer, who were in the same Room with Sir Thomas and Mr. Rich when they conferred together, to be sworn as to the Words that passed between them. Whereupon Mr. Pal­mer deposed, what he was so busy in thrusting Sir Thomas’s Books into a Sack, that he took no notice of their Talk, And Sir R, Southwell likewise swore, that because his Business was only to take care of conveying his Books away, he gave no ear to their Discourse.

(In other words, they folded and gave the 16th century equivalent of "I did not hear nothing, guv!" Very embarrassing for Rich and Cromwell, that one had been. Imagine if a witness against Anne had similarly folded. Even with the outcome in no question, it would have displeased Henry.)

The tv show lets Anne hope until the last moment there will be a reprieve, that her husband will be merciful. The novel has Cromwell wonder whether she hopes for this but doesn't make it a certainty. The actual records, due to the Governor of the Tower, Kingston, writing down everything Anne said and reporting it to Cromwell, present her resigned to her fate at this point. (She still had hope early on but certainly not anymore after the five men were executed.) Since this was tested by the French executioner being delayed, which must have meant another day and night of nerve wrecking (she was ready to go when Kingston had to tell her, twice, that there was a delay), her self composure really must have been remarkable. In the tv show, she's barely holding it together. Which I think is meant as sympathy inducing - Anne for most of the tale is presented relentlessly as unsympathetic, so making her very vulnerable at the end is a counterpoint - but still doesn't fit with the woman "brave as a lion" (historical Cromwell on her behavior) in the face of her own death, even in extremis. So I conclude with the report Kingston made to Cromwell on that extra day Anne got due to the executioner's delay:

This morning she sent for me, that I might be with her at such time as she received the good Lord, to the intent I should hear her speak as touching her innocence always to be clear. And in the writing of this she sent for me, and at my coming she said, "Mr. Kingston, I hear I shall not die afore noon, and I am very sorry therefore, for I thought to be dead by this time and past my pain ". I told her it should be no pain, it was so little. And then she said, "I heard say the executioner was very good, and I have a little neck", and then put her hands about it, laughing heartily. I have seen many men and also women executed, and that they have been in great sorrow, and to my knowledge this lady has much joy in death. Sir, her almoner is continually with her, and had been since two o'clock after midnight.

(no subject)

Feb. 28th, 2015 12:24 pm
oursin: Brush the Wandering Hedgehog by the fire (Default)
[personal profile] oursin
Happy birthday, [personal profile] ceb, [personal profile] miapatrick and [personal profile] shark_hat!


Feb. 28th, 2015 08:35 am
selenak: (Live long and prosper by elf of doriath)
[personal profile] selenak
There are tributes for Leonard Nimoy everywhere in the media, fannish and professional. My two favourites, short and deeply felt, are this one on what he created when playing Spock, and this brief and wonderful Tolkien/Star Trek crossover.

Being a Star Trek fan, I loved Spock. I did not know Leonard Nimoy. But what glimpses I got of him the long distance way fans do - at conventions, through articles and memoirs - showed a gracious, courteous man, wo, rare in a competitive profession, seems to have had a keen sense of justice when it came to his fellows. George Takei and Walter Koenig both mention in their memoirs that back when Star Trek was off the air and it lookedl ike the only future it would ever have was the cartoon series, the network wanted just to hire the big three - Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley - and let the rest of the crew be voiced by new (and cheaper) actors. Nimoy made sure that Nichelle Nichols, George Takei, James Doohan and Walter Koenig were hired as well. And even further back, during the original run, as Koenig put it in an interview: When it came to the attention of the cast that there was a disparity in pay in that George and I were getting the same pay but Nichelle was not getting as much, I took it to Leonard and he took it to the front office and they corrected that.

I did not know Leonard Nimoy. I am so thankful for what he gave his audience - and that he had a long life, with family and friends at his side, to do so.

(no subject)

Feb. 27th, 2015 11:30 pm
denise: Image: Me, facing away from camera, on top of the Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome (Default)
[staff profile] denise posting in [site community profile] dw_maintenance
If you're seeing slow page load times, pages not fully loading, missing icons, 'naked' pages (the text of the page only, without any styling, etc): please shift-refresh your browser, clear your browser cache, and then just hang tight. We're switching CDN providers, so your browser may have cached the wrong copy of things.

If the problem hasn't cleared up by tomorrow, then let us know and we'll look into it further!

Another quick 3-sentence fic

Feb. 28th, 2015 01:24 am
beer_good_foamy: (Default)
[personal profile] beer_good_foamy
Another fill for the 3 sentence ficathon

Star Trek / Tolkien, Spock & Bilbo, the Ballad of Bilbo Baggins

"It's strange," Bilbo said from his cot as the Grey Havens disappeared behind the horizon, "I never knew sailing could be so... Did you ever hear about how I escaped in a barrel from the elf-king's halls?"

"I've heard that, yes," the tall Vulcan standing next to said with a thoughtful nod, "though I don't think this trip will be quite as turbulent... save, perhaps, for the odd whale."

The ship kept sailing steadily west as night fell, and the dark calm waters reflected the myriad of stars above.

But does this make me a book snob?

Feb. 27th, 2015 03:43 pm
oursin: Photograph of small impressionistic metal figurine seated reading a book (Reader)
[personal profile] oursin

Rather annoying article which I feel is addressed to some kind of straw-person: How to Be a Book Snob.

Does this even follow:

Sharing lists of obscure books you absolutely adore on social media is an excellent means to illustrate how much better you are as a reader and a human being.
Far from
express[ing] [my] shock and outrage should any of [my] “friends” not have read and appreciated them all.
there is the perhaps rather pathetic hope that someone, somewhere, loves and appreciates them as I do and finds them worth discussing (o hai, [ profile] trennels, [community profile] renaultx).

Plus, what even does it mean to
'take no action whatsoever to encourage other people to read.'
You know, apart from expressing one's enthusiasm about one's own reading? What is one supposed to do? Thrust books into the hands of random passers-by? Stand on the corner with a megaphone preaching the gospel of reading? Enquiring minds want to know how one encourages people to read by any means other than communicating how immensely pleasurable and rewarding one personally finds it?

This piece comes over as 'Loving bookz ur doin it RONG': not, I feel, a helpful message.

The Blue Screen Of Death

Feb. 27th, 2015 09:12 am
petzipellepingo: (heads desk spike by lmbossy)
[personal profile] petzipellepingo
is still causing issues so it's back to the shop for the tower. I don't know for sure when I'll be back. Hopefully soon. And hopefully they can figure out what's wrong because we've put a dedicated electrical line in and a battery backup and it's still misbehaving.

 photo 152014ericgif_zps310841dc.gif
oursin: Fotherington-Tomas from the Molesworth books saying Hello clouds hello aky (fotherington-tomas)
[personal profile] oursin

Today is a lovely (if still somewhat chill) day, bright sun, blue sky etc.

I had occasion to go the Post Office (and there was a time, my dearios, that conducting some small transaction requiring a PO did not require careful planning and strategising, sigh).

Which involves crossing two Bloomsbury squares (Tavistock out, Gordon back).

Daffodils! Croci!


Hounz ov Spring be straining at leash - walkies? walkies?? walkies???

(no subject)

Feb. 27th, 2015 11:11 am
oursin: Brush the Wandering Hedgehog by the fire (Default)
[personal profile] oursin
Happy birthday, [personal profile] redsixwing!

The Americans 3.05

Feb. 27th, 2015 09:09 am
selenak: (The Americans by Tinny)
[personal profile] selenak
This show. This show. It really has become one of the most complex things on tv right now, and why it doesn't get all the awards in the world, I can't understand.

Read more... )

Hit and miss

Feb. 26th, 2015 06:25 pm
yourlibrarian: Everyone falls about the bridge (TREK-Aieeee-pureglasscup)
[personal profile] yourlibrarian
1) I'd been looking forward to the Oscars but I suspect everyone expected too much of NPH. Some bits were well done (notably the quip about Benedict Cumberbatch being John Travolta's effort to pronounce Ben Affleck) but on the whole very little paid off and I was surprised how many stumbles there were given how polished he usually is and how much practice he has doing this. Read more... )

2) I liked the concept of Agent Carter much better than the actual show. Read more... )

3) I enjoyed this season of Downton Abbey. During Spratt and Denker's suitcase faceoff, I told Mike that I bet someone was hatesex-shipping them already. Read more... )

4) Brooklyn99 continues to be highly enjoyable. We've found Black-ish to be fun at times, but I suspect part of my disinterest is that it's a family-centered sitcom and domestic storylines rarely appeal that much to me.

5) Along those lines we've recently been watching Moone Boy and SPY. Also fun to a degree, though we've already burned through all the Moone Boy episodes.


shadowkat: (Default)

March 2014


Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Mar. 1st, 2015 04:37 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios