![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Nov. 8th, 2010 10:15 pmWatched the latest Sherlock but my mind kept wandering. Just couldn't focus on it. I think work has killed my brain again, well that and church and apartment hunting...so I really can't focus on any entertainment that requires any deep thought. Which explains why I review comic books. LOL!
There was however one great line in Sherlock that made me laugh my head off.
Sherlock upon realizing Watson was blogging about him and his cases online. "Go ahead Watson, go back to inflicting your personal opinions on people online." Sigh, unfortunately, that is what we do folks. We inflict our opinions on each other - sometimes politely....
The older I get the more I realize that not everyone interrupts things the same way. Sent out a Request for Proposal last week - and got five different questions all interpreting it differently.
Made me wonder if everyone read the same RFP. People boggle my mind. The range of ways you can interpret the same thing.
For the folks busy arguing about Angel's modus operandi and whether he was invested in saving souls or lives or whatnot? May I suggest that you check out :
http://atpobtvs.com/sindex.html
That site literally analyzes Angel the Series episode by episode, with in depth analysis, annotations, and philosophical meta by people who actually have advanced degrees in the topic.
It's possibly the most extensive site you'll find on Angel. Or at the least amongst them. As well as the most objective and thorough.
I'm used to arguments about Angel - I was on not one but two Angel boards back in 2002-2005. And we had battles, because I see Angel as more of an anti-hero, who pretty much deserved everything he got and then some, but was struggling to pick himself up and find redemption no matter how often his flaws got the better of him. What I liked about Angel was what the writers stated about the series at the time - its about those of us who aren't chosen, who aren't special, who are struggling to make our way. In some respects Angel was about struggling to find meaning in an increasingly meaningless universe. It was a complex story, with a wide variety of conflicting metaphors. But my friends on the ATPO board and Angel's Soul Board saw Angel very differently than I did. Many saw him as a hero, noble, many as just a guy struggling to make life work. What made the character interesting was the varied views.
That said? The character does not work for me in either the Dark Horse or the IDW comics. One has him too heroic, the other too moronically anti-heroic. Apparently this is a character no one can write convincingly - outside of the tv series, who knew? Either that or I really haven't given David Boreanze enough credit. Possibly a bit of both? Turns out Spike is easier to write. But that does make sense if you think about it, Angel after all is the traditional/classical hero (think Batman or Hercules), while Spike is a far more modern hero...think John Constantine or Iron Man.
Damn, it smells like waffles - from the hallway. I'm wondering about my neighbors.
There was however one great line in Sherlock that made me laugh my head off.
Sherlock upon realizing Watson was blogging about him and his cases online. "Go ahead Watson, go back to inflicting your personal opinions on people online." Sigh, unfortunately, that is what we do folks. We inflict our opinions on each other - sometimes politely....
The older I get the more I realize that not everyone interrupts things the same way. Sent out a Request for Proposal last week - and got five different questions all interpreting it differently.
Made me wonder if everyone read the same RFP. People boggle my mind. The range of ways you can interpret the same thing.
For the folks busy arguing about Angel's modus operandi and whether he was invested in saving souls or lives or whatnot? May I suggest that you check out :
http://atpobtvs.com/sindex.html
That site literally analyzes Angel the Series episode by episode, with in depth analysis, annotations, and philosophical meta by people who actually have advanced degrees in the topic.
It's possibly the most extensive site you'll find on Angel. Or at the least amongst them. As well as the most objective and thorough.
I'm used to arguments about Angel - I was on not one but two Angel boards back in 2002-2005. And we had battles, because I see Angel as more of an anti-hero, who pretty much deserved everything he got and then some, but was struggling to pick himself up and find redemption no matter how often his flaws got the better of him. What I liked about Angel was what the writers stated about the series at the time - its about those of us who aren't chosen, who aren't special, who are struggling to make our way. In some respects Angel was about struggling to find meaning in an increasingly meaningless universe. It was a complex story, with a wide variety of conflicting metaphors. But my friends on the ATPO board and Angel's Soul Board saw Angel very differently than I did. Many saw him as a hero, noble, many as just a guy struggling to make life work. What made the character interesting was the varied views.
That said? The character does not work for me in either the Dark Horse or the IDW comics. One has him too heroic, the other too moronically anti-heroic. Apparently this is a character no one can write convincingly - outside of the tv series, who knew? Either that or I really haven't given David Boreanze enough credit. Possibly a bit of both? Turns out Spike is easier to write. But that does make sense if you think about it, Angel after all is the traditional/classical hero (think Batman or Hercules), while Spike is a far more modern hero...think John Constantine or Iron Man.
Damn, it smells like waffles - from the hallway. I'm wondering about my neighbors.