![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Movies and Book Reviews..
I saw several flicks with mother via streaming and television during my visit. I also completed The Devil Takes You Home and started Starling House.
Movie Reviews
1. Air - direct by Ben Affleck, staring Matt Damon, Jason Bateman, Viola Davis, and Ben Affleck.
The story focuses on the deal that Nike struck with Jordan to have him sponsor and brand the Air Jordan - which basically made Nike. Sunny (Matt Damon's character) is a basketball talent scout working for Nike in the 1980s. At that time - Nike didn't have a good basketball shoe or program, it was mainly know for running shoes, and losing to Converse and Addidas.
Jordan had two deals on the table - one with Converse and one with Addidas and was swinging towards Addidas. Sunny decides to get Jordan for Nike, and pulls out all the stops to do it - with various obstacles in his path including his own management.
Mother loved it - she's a huge spectator sports fan (the only person in my immediate family who follows football, basketball, tennis, baseball, etc. My brother barely watches, and hasn't since he killed his cable cord. You all know where I stand.) I thought it was okay, interesting in the business deal making. Also I like basketball (both my brother and I played it at one point or in my case (tried) to - so we can follow it for the most part). It did make mother and I cry at the end - mainly because it shows the ground-breaking deal Jordan's mother, Viola Davis, made that allowed players a higher percentage of the proceeds from their endorsements. But also showed how fame and fortune ravaged Jordan's life, yet at the same time, the deal - made it possible for his mother to give back to her community and help the unfortunate.
Currently Streaming on Amazon Prime. (It's worth a view.)
2. The Phantom Thread [ETA : I accidentally called it the Phantom Menace previously - it is a lot better than that film by the way.] - starring Daniel Day Lewis, Lesly Mansville..directed by Paul Wesley Anderson. It's Day Lewis's last film.
[By the way? Daniel Day Lewis is Jewish. I state this because there's a view that Jews are a "disadvantaged" minority in Hollywood. (they are not, that's laughable). I didn't read that on Dreamwidth - it was on Xitter and Bluesky - where some idiots were upset that Bradley Cooper was playing Leonard Bernstein, and he "doesn't" look Jewish. That's ridiculous. Paul Newman was Jewish. Paul Simon is Jewish. Daniel Day Lewis is Jewish. You really can't tell if someone is Jewish unless you ask. My niece is Jewish. Just because you are discriminated against and people hate or want you dead based on your "race" or "ethnicity" doesn't necessarily make you disadvantaged or under-represented. They aren't the same thing. Critical thinking really needs to be taught in school.]
Anyhow...
Mother: Daniel Day Lewis' is amazing, but this is a slow film.
Me: It's Paul Wesley Anderson - all of his films are slow. And weirdly detailed on minutia.
Mother: What else did he do?
Me: Boogie Nights, Punch Drunk Love, Magnolia...
Mother: Magnolia?
Me: Yup.
Mother: Ah.
Me: I saw all his films, I just can't remember much about them except they are slow, and I got bored, then at the end it took off.
If there is a film equivalent of the Joycian stream of consciousness style, it's Paul Wesley Anderson. There is a kind of cinematographic visual poetry to his work, also it's more cohesive and easier to follow than well the director who did Days of Heaven, Tree of Life, and Badlands (Terrence Malik). If you like visual poetry - this may work for you. If you don't - skip.
I fall somewhere in the middle - I keep watching his films, so obviously I don't mind it. Mother also liked it. Although we did do other things during it. Including, at one point, Mother talked to niece for about thirty minutes on the phone.
The film is about a couture dress-maker (think someone along the lines of Chanel or Ralph Lauren), during the 1950s. He chooses different women as his muse, but never marries them - then he becomes enamored of a young waitress, who is from an Eastern European country. He takes her in and they begin a somewhat fraught co-dependent relationship.
I'm not sure I'd call it romance exactly, so much as a historical character piece. Day Lewis disappears into his role per usual. But I loved Mansville's quiet performance as his sister.
It's currently streaming on Hulu? (I think).
3. The Wonderful Life of Henry Sugar - directed and adapted by Wes Anderson, starring Benedict Cumberbatch, Ben Kingsley, and Ralph Fiennes. It's adapted from a Ronald Dahl short story - they've been adapting his short stories on Netflix, where it is currently streaming.
Eh, it is Wes Anderson - which means it is slow and kind of boring, and told in Anderson's surrealistic style. People don't talk to each other, they talk to the camera, and narrate their portions of the story - as opposed to telling it or having dialogue. There is some interaction but not a lot. It's really made for filmophile's or film fanatics.
I find Anderson arty for art sake. But it does kind of work here - in a 30 minute format. Anything longer - not so much. That said, our attention wandered during it.
The story is about a gambler, who learns how to see with his eyes closed in order to win at cards.
4. The Little Mermaid - Live Action Version - Disney +
Better than I expected. Held both of our attention for the most part. Neither of us remembered the animated film that we'd seen in theaters in the 1990s. They updated it a bit. And shortened it.
The casting worked very well, and I was rather impressed with the young actors playing Ariel and Eric. Also it featured all the key songs.
The changes - such as they were - were minor and worked. Better than expected.
Little Mermaid was during the Disney Princess era. Before Frozen kind of changed all of that.
***
We also watched bits of old movies on TCM, which is my mother's go-to station, that and CNN, and PBS for news, also ABC National News. Mother is a news, old movie, and sports junkie.
I've seen more national news this past week than I've seen in the last year. One of the many reasons I can't live with mother.
***
Book reviews
1. The Devil Takes You Home by Gabino Iglesias - this is a noir horror novel, which is kind of gory in places. It won the Stoker and Shirley Jackson awards. And was rec'd to me by a social media friend.
I've mixed feelings about it. While well written in places, the author can be a bit heavy handed with his metaphors and philosophizing. There's way too much telling in the book - or navel gazing, as my brother would call it. Which indicates that the writer doesn't trust his reader enough? Or is fairly new at the craft. (I've read a lot of Steven King and others who write in a similar vein, and while they are also quite descriptive and dare we say a touch on the wordy side, they don't preach and they don't ruminate quite as much.)
Part of the problem is the first person point of view - which is dicey to say the least. First Person often leads to characters over-ruminating, and making themselves out to be either awful or wonderful. It can be used effectively and has been here - in some respects (hence the mixed feelings) - in that I'm not sure the plot and reveal work if we aren't in the first person. The narrator is so wrapped up in himself and his grief that he can't really see what is happening around him, and misreads all the signs - his visions are attempting to convey. His grief has consumed him, and he looks at everything through its veil, so everything he sees or hears is kind of muddled, and foggy. As a result the reader often doesn't have a clear view of what is going on nor a clear understanding until the final act or reel. And in order for that to work effectively - you need to be in first person.
What's different here than other books of a similar stripe - is that the narrator is Hispanic or Latino, Puerto Rican - to be precise, he's not white. So, often the Spanish isn't translated - because he understands it and is talking to himself. Why would he translate it? His misunderstandings, and inability to grasp things - has nothing to do with the languages being spoken around him - but the haze of grief that he is attempting to hear them through.
To get this across - the author goes a bit overboard with his metaphors, which is not translating the Spanish (I was actually fine with this - because that works with the character, who would only translate the bits that deeply resonate), and the gory metaphors (which could have been a bit more understated?). I'm of two minds about the use of untranslated Spanish in the novel. As a metaphor it works beautifully on multiple levels, also it works as plot device. Mario believes, perhaps wrongly, that those who speak to him purely in Spanish are trustworthy and have his best interests at heart, while his friend who only speaks English doesn't. And that's necessary for the plot to unfold the way it does. The metaphor is multiple here - it's about not understanding, of course, but is also about thinking you do understand what is happening - a kind of arrogance in taking this for granted, without looking deeper - or bothering to translate or analyze it - which is Mario's downfall, along with Brian's.
In Noir - the protagonist(s) often are confused, they don't know what is happening, and kind of drowning in misinformation. Easily played - because they are either desperate, grief-stricken, guilt-ridden, or out of their depth. And therefor trapped. The author uses the Spanish-English language barrier to emphasize that confusion and misinformation - how language can confuse and how simple misunderstandings form. Mario misunderstands everything that is happening - but doesn't realize it until it is too late.
Mario's own racism gets the better of him. And that is an interesting tactic, if a risky one. Also it's hard to convey without going overboard and getting annoying - far too much ruminating. I rarely see reverse-racism in action in novels. Usually, it's the white guy whining about the other or demonizing the other in noir, and being all offensive about it. Which is a big turn-off in noir. (And the other in noir is either POC or Women.) Here, Mario demonizes all whites, including his friend Brian. Blaming them for what happened to him and his family. And seeing the non-whites as his comrades. He generalizes both, lumping them into groups, and while he does appear at times to acknowledge this, he also doesn't - in part due to the grief that is smothering him. He lumps everyone together at times - and this in part leads to his ruin. He has similar problems with women - who he over-romanticizes and also to a degree sees as other.
The difficulty with first person point of view - is if you have any issues with the narrator or protagonist - it's going to be rough going. I didn't like Mario. He irritated me. I found him to be whiny and arrogant, and abusive. Also, just a touch entitled. Because of my reaction to the main character, which is admittedly a subjective one, I struggled with the book.
Other's mileage will most likely vary on this point.
Mario seems to think that he deserves a better life. And if he were white he'd have it. All evidence to the contrary. And I give the writer credit for planting that evidence in the book. Mario is better off than his friend Brian or the two dweebs he meets at the gas station. But he doesn't quite see it. His wife Melissa, who is also Hispanic, makes better choices. Mario like most noir heroes is doomed from the start because of his own selfish choices. He rationalizes his actions and choices, by believing he is somehow better than those he condemns. A reflection of Mario is Juanca, who does much the same things, and ends up playing him.
By demonizing the other, Mario inadvertently demonizes and dooms himself. Until there is no way out for him and he is lost to himself. Drowned in grief and misery.
Like I said, mixed feelings. The novel is littered with pithy philosophical musings throughout - poetical in prose, but I felt unnecessary - I think the book would have been better off without them. I found them okay at first, and even kind of interesting, but after a while they felt indulgent and got on my nerves. That's what I mean by going overboard in places?
While it is a gory book - it's not as bad as I expected. (I've read King, Edgar Allen Poe, and Thomas Harris, this is nothing). And he actually understates it in places. We do have a zombie that eats people once unleashed. And crocodiles. Also the creation of the zombie. Far creepier are the critters below the surface and the story about one in the barn.
I'm not entirely sure that bit was required, and it kind of stands outside the novel without really going anywhere - except re-emphasizing the metaphor of alienation throughout. (It may have been a shout out to HP Lovecraft or Del Toro, I really don't know.)
Overall, an interesting book. I recommend, but with a few caveats, if you are an impatient reader who doesn't link linguistical hurdles, or has issues with gore - you may want to skip? Does it end happily? Well it is a horror noir and not subversive in that context, actually I'd say outside of one or two things - it's pretty much straight up horror noir - so...
2. Started reading Starling House by Alix E. Harrow - which is a gothic haunted house novel, about a Latino or POC woman and her brother, and a house in an old Kentucky coal mining town, that calls to her.
It's written in a post-modern style - with wikipedia pages created and put into the novel, and references to her brother's videos. Also has illustrations. And heavily references a horror children's book or nightmare book, entitled The Underland - which was written by the first owner of the house, a recluse, who died in it.
My favorite horror genre is haunted houses.
3. And on audible... Slayers : a Buffyverse Story by Amber Bensen and Christopher Golden - it stars James Marsters, Emma Caulfield, Amber Bensen, Juliet Landau, Anthony Stewart Head, James Cleary, and Daniel Strong.
It's actually surprisingly good. I was surprised by it. I don't usually like play style novels on audible - because I can't tell folks apart, but the voices in this are distinctive. They are all excellent voice actors - voice acting is hard.
Emma Caulfield does multiple voices - Anya, Anyanka, and Anyanka as a dog.
The set-up? Spike is undercover - when a new slayer pops up and blows it.
With Clem in tow, Spike is trying to find a watcher for the new slayer, Indira, when Cordelia Chase whizzes in from an alternate reality courtesy of that reality's Anya. In the alternate reality, Cordelia is the one and only slayer, Buffy and Willow never existed, and Dru is the Big Bad. As is Tara McLay, who got tricked into touching a grimoire or dark magic, and has become possessed by it - and as a result is now the paramour of Dru. Tara got seduced by dark magic. Apparently Cordelia killed off that verse's Spike. She's coming into this one to get Spike to pose as her reality's Spike because he always had a calming effect on Dru and may be able to pry her from Tara and help them save Tara and the world.
Of course things go wonky.
It's a lot of fun - particularly if you were more of a Spike, Tara, Giles, Anya, Cordelia and Clem fan than well, a Xander, Willow, Buffy, and Angel fan. (I was - I got bored of the other four eventually.) It also reclaims all the characters who were killed off in S6, S7, (Buffy) and S4 (Angel).
I'm enjoying it more than the other two. It works in the verse. (Let's face it everything written post Angel S5 is probably fanfic at this point. And this is really good fanfic or it's fanfic created by the actors on the series.)
Movie Reviews
1. Air - direct by Ben Affleck, staring Matt Damon, Jason Bateman, Viola Davis, and Ben Affleck.
The story focuses on the deal that Nike struck with Jordan to have him sponsor and brand the Air Jordan - which basically made Nike. Sunny (Matt Damon's character) is a basketball talent scout working for Nike in the 1980s. At that time - Nike didn't have a good basketball shoe or program, it was mainly know for running shoes, and losing to Converse and Addidas.
Jordan had two deals on the table - one with Converse and one with Addidas and was swinging towards Addidas. Sunny decides to get Jordan for Nike, and pulls out all the stops to do it - with various obstacles in his path including his own management.
Mother loved it - she's a huge spectator sports fan (the only person in my immediate family who follows football, basketball, tennis, baseball, etc. My brother barely watches, and hasn't since he killed his cable cord. You all know where I stand.) I thought it was okay, interesting in the business deal making. Also I like basketball (both my brother and I played it at one point or in my case (tried) to - so we can follow it for the most part). It did make mother and I cry at the end - mainly because it shows the ground-breaking deal Jordan's mother, Viola Davis, made that allowed players a higher percentage of the proceeds from their endorsements. But also showed how fame and fortune ravaged Jordan's life, yet at the same time, the deal - made it possible for his mother to give back to her community and help the unfortunate.
Currently Streaming on Amazon Prime. (It's worth a view.)
2. The Phantom Thread [ETA : I accidentally called it the Phantom Menace previously - it is a lot better than that film by the way.] - starring Daniel Day Lewis, Lesly Mansville..directed by Paul Wesley Anderson. It's Day Lewis's last film.
[By the way? Daniel Day Lewis is Jewish. I state this because there's a view that Jews are a "disadvantaged" minority in Hollywood. (they are not, that's laughable). I didn't read that on Dreamwidth - it was on Xitter and Bluesky - where some idiots were upset that Bradley Cooper was playing Leonard Bernstein, and he "doesn't" look Jewish. That's ridiculous. Paul Newman was Jewish. Paul Simon is Jewish. Daniel Day Lewis is Jewish. You really can't tell if someone is Jewish unless you ask. My niece is Jewish. Just because you are discriminated against and people hate or want you dead based on your "race" or "ethnicity" doesn't necessarily make you disadvantaged or under-represented. They aren't the same thing. Critical thinking really needs to be taught in school.]
Anyhow...
Mother: Daniel Day Lewis' is amazing, but this is a slow film.
Me: It's Paul Wesley Anderson - all of his films are slow. And weirdly detailed on minutia.
Mother: What else did he do?
Me: Boogie Nights, Punch Drunk Love, Magnolia...
Mother: Magnolia?
Me: Yup.
Mother: Ah.
Me: I saw all his films, I just can't remember much about them except they are slow, and I got bored, then at the end it took off.
If there is a film equivalent of the Joycian stream of consciousness style, it's Paul Wesley Anderson. There is a kind of cinematographic visual poetry to his work, also it's more cohesive and easier to follow than well the director who did Days of Heaven, Tree of Life, and Badlands (Terrence Malik). If you like visual poetry - this may work for you. If you don't - skip.
I fall somewhere in the middle - I keep watching his films, so obviously I don't mind it. Mother also liked it. Although we did do other things during it. Including, at one point, Mother talked to niece for about thirty minutes on the phone.
The film is about a couture dress-maker (think someone along the lines of Chanel or Ralph Lauren), during the 1950s. He chooses different women as his muse, but never marries them - then he becomes enamored of a young waitress, who is from an Eastern European country. He takes her in and they begin a somewhat fraught co-dependent relationship.
I'm not sure I'd call it romance exactly, so much as a historical character piece. Day Lewis disappears into his role per usual. But I loved Mansville's quiet performance as his sister.
It's currently streaming on Hulu? (I think).
3. The Wonderful Life of Henry Sugar - directed and adapted by Wes Anderson, starring Benedict Cumberbatch, Ben Kingsley, and Ralph Fiennes. It's adapted from a Ronald Dahl short story - they've been adapting his short stories on Netflix, where it is currently streaming.
Eh, it is Wes Anderson - which means it is slow and kind of boring, and told in Anderson's surrealistic style. People don't talk to each other, they talk to the camera, and narrate their portions of the story - as opposed to telling it or having dialogue. There is some interaction but not a lot. It's really made for filmophile's or film fanatics.
I find Anderson arty for art sake. But it does kind of work here - in a 30 minute format. Anything longer - not so much. That said, our attention wandered during it.
The story is about a gambler, who learns how to see with his eyes closed in order to win at cards.
4. The Little Mermaid - Live Action Version - Disney +
Better than I expected. Held both of our attention for the most part. Neither of us remembered the animated film that we'd seen in theaters in the 1990s. They updated it a bit. And shortened it.
The casting worked very well, and I was rather impressed with the young actors playing Ariel and Eric. Also it featured all the key songs.
The changes - such as they were - were minor and worked. Better than expected.
Little Mermaid was during the Disney Princess era. Before Frozen kind of changed all of that.
***
We also watched bits of old movies on TCM, which is my mother's go-to station, that and CNN, and PBS for news, also ABC National News. Mother is a news, old movie, and sports junkie.
I've seen more national news this past week than I've seen in the last year. One of the many reasons I can't live with mother.
***
Book reviews
1. The Devil Takes You Home by Gabino Iglesias - this is a noir horror novel, which is kind of gory in places. It won the Stoker and Shirley Jackson awards. And was rec'd to me by a social media friend.
I've mixed feelings about it. While well written in places, the author can be a bit heavy handed with his metaphors and philosophizing. There's way too much telling in the book - or navel gazing, as my brother would call it. Which indicates that the writer doesn't trust his reader enough? Or is fairly new at the craft. (I've read a lot of Steven King and others who write in a similar vein, and while they are also quite descriptive and dare we say a touch on the wordy side, they don't preach and they don't ruminate quite as much.)
Part of the problem is the first person point of view - which is dicey to say the least. First Person often leads to characters over-ruminating, and making themselves out to be either awful or wonderful. It can be used effectively and has been here - in some respects (hence the mixed feelings) - in that I'm not sure the plot and reveal work if we aren't in the first person. The narrator is so wrapped up in himself and his grief that he can't really see what is happening around him, and misreads all the signs - his visions are attempting to convey. His grief has consumed him, and he looks at everything through its veil, so everything he sees or hears is kind of muddled, and foggy. As a result the reader often doesn't have a clear view of what is going on nor a clear understanding until the final act or reel. And in order for that to work effectively - you need to be in first person.
What's different here than other books of a similar stripe - is that the narrator is Hispanic or Latino, Puerto Rican - to be precise, he's not white. So, often the Spanish isn't translated - because he understands it and is talking to himself. Why would he translate it? His misunderstandings, and inability to grasp things - has nothing to do with the languages being spoken around him - but the haze of grief that he is attempting to hear them through.
To get this across - the author goes a bit overboard with his metaphors, which is not translating the Spanish (I was actually fine with this - because that works with the character, who would only translate the bits that deeply resonate), and the gory metaphors (which could have been a bit more understated?). I'm of two minds about the use of untranslated Spanish in the novel. As a metaphor it works beautifully on multiple levels, also it works as plot device. Mario believes, perhaps wrongly, that those who speak to him purely in Spanish are trustworthy and have his best interests at heart, while his friend who only speaks English doesn't. And that's necessary for the plot to unfold the way it does. The metaphor is multiple here - it's about not understanding, of course, but is also about thinking you do understand what is happening - a kind of arrogance in taking this for granted, without looking deeper - or bothering to translate or analyze it - which is Mario's downfall, along with Brian's.
In Noir - the protagonist(s) often are confused, they don't know what is happening, and kind of drowning in misinformation. Easily played - because they are either desperate, grief-stricken, guilt-ridden, or out of their depth. And therefor trapped. The author uses the Spanish-English language barrier to emphasize that confusion and misinformation - how language can confuse and how simple misunderstandings form. Mario misunderstands everything that is happening - but doesn't realize it until it is too late.
Mario's own racism gets the better of him. And that is an interesting tactic, if a risky one. Also it's hard to convey without going overboard and getting annoying - far too much ruminating. I rarely see reverse-racism in action in novels. Usually, it's the white guy whining about the other or demonizing the other in noir, and being all offensive about it. Which is a big turn-off in noir. (And the other in noir is either POC or Women.) Here, Mario demonizes all whites, including his friend Brian. Blaming them for what happened to him and his family. And seeing the non-whites as his comrades. He generalizes both, lumping them into groups, and while he does appear at times to acknowledge this, he also doesn't - in part due to the grief that is smothering him. He lumps everyone together at times - and this in part leads to his ruin. He has similar problems with women - who he over-romanticizes and also to a degree sees as other.
The difficulty with first person point of view - is if you have any issues with the narrator or protagonist - it's going to be rough going. I didn't like Mario. He irritated me. I found him to be whiny and arrogant, and abusive. Also, just a touch entitled. Because of my reaction to the main character, which is admittedly a subjective one, I struggled with the book.
Other's mileage will most likely vary on this point.
Mario seems to think that he deserves a better life. And if he were white he'd have it. All evidence to the contrary. And I give the writer credit for planting that evidence in the book. Mario is better off than his friend Brian or the two dweebs he meets at the gas station. But he doesn't quite see it. His wife Melissa, who is also Hispanic, makes better choices. Mario like most noir heroes is doomed from the start because of his own selfish choices. He rationalizes his actions and choices, by believing he is somehow better than those he condemns. A reflection of Mario is Juanca, who does much the same things, and ends up playing him.
By demonizing the other, Mario inadvertently demonizes and dooms himself. Until there is no way out for him and he is lost to himself. Drowned in grief and misery.
Like I said, mixed feelings. The novel is littered with pithy philosophical musings throughout - poetical in prose, but I felt unnecessary - I think the book would have been better off without them. I found them okay at first, and even kind of interesting, but after a while they felt indulgent and got on my nerves. That's what I mean by going overboard in places?
While it is a gory book - it's not as bad as I expected. (I've read King, Edgar Allen Poe, and Thomas Harris, this is nothing). And he actually understates it in places. We do have a zombie that eats people once unleashed. And crocodiles. Also the creation of the zombie. Far creepier are the critters below the surface and the story about one in the barn.
I'm not entirely sure that bit was required, and it kind of stands outside the novel without really going anywhere - except re-emphasizing the metaphor of alienation throughout. (It may have been a shout out to HP Lovecraft or Del Toro, I really don't know.)
Overall, an interesting book. I recommend, but with a few caveats, if you are an impatient reader who doesn't link linguistical hurdles, or has issues with gore - you may want to skip? Does it end happily? Well it is a horror noir and not subversive in that context, actually I'd say outside of one or two things - it's pretty much straight up horror noir - so...
2. Started reading Starling House by Alix E. Harrow - which is a gothic haunted house novel, about a Latino or POC woman and her brother, and a house in an old Kentucky coal mining town, that calls to her.
It's written in a post-modern style - with wikipedia pages created and put into the novel, and references to her brother's videos. Also has illustrations. And heavily references a horror children's book or nightmare book, entitled The Underland - which was written by the first owner of the house, a recluse, who died in it.
My favorite horror genre is haunted houses.
3. And on audible... Slayers : a Buffyverse Story by Amber Bensen and Christopher Golden - it stars James Marsters, Emma Caulfield, Amber Bensen, Juliet Landau, Anthony Stewart Head, James Cleary, and Daniel Strong.
It's actually surprisingly good. I was surprised by it. I don't usually like play style novels on audible - because I can't tell folks apart, but the voices in this are distinctive. They are all excellent voice actors - voice acting is hard.
Emma Caulfield does multiple voices - Anya, Anyanka, and Anyanka as a dog.
The set-up? Spike is undercover - when a new slayer pops up and blows it.
With Clem in tow, Spike is trying to find a watcher for the new slayer, Indira, when Cordelia Chase whizzes in from an alternate reality courtesy of that reality's Anya. In the alternate reality, Cordelia is the one and only slayer, Buffy and Willow never existed, and Dru is the Big Bad. As is Tara McLay, who got tricked into touching a grimoire or dark magic, and has become possessed by it - and as a result is now the paramour of Dru. Tara got seduced by dark magic. Apparently Cordelia killed off that verse's Spike. She's coming into this one to get Spike to pose as her reality's Spike because he always had a calming effect on Dru and may be able to pry her from Tara and help them save Tara and the world.
Of course things go wonky.
It's a lot of fun - particularly if you were more of a Spike, Tara, Giles, Anya, Cordelia and Clem fan than well, a Xander, Willow, Buffy, and Angel fan. (I was - I got bored of the other four eventually.) It also reclaims all the characters who were killed off in S6, S7, (Buffy) and S4 (Angel).
I'm enjoying it more than the other two. It works in the verse. (Let's face it everything written post Angel S5 is probably fanfic at this point. And this is really good fanfic or it's fanfic created by the actors on the series.)
no subject
no subject