(no subject)
Feb. 11th, 2007 02:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatOne of the drawbacks of reading one's flist on Sat and Sunday morning - is that you are reading these posts "one-five" days after they've been posted, in which case, you really can't respond to them...well you can, but don't expect the writer to remember what in the heck they wrote or understand the context of your response. Be like waiting five days to respond to an email. Letter's this was doable. IM messaging, lj posts, and emails - in an age in which everyone has instant access and apparently 0 patience, not so much.
The other drawback - is it is a tad overwhelming to read 100 posts in two hours. Although fun too. I scan. Also most people just post pictures or five sentences - so not a problem.
There were, however, at least five different posts, I'd love to comment on. One that really intrigued me was by![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
rahirah and it sort of covered everyone elses' as a theme:
The fact is, when something is important to us, we want to fit it into our pre-existing structure of Important Stuff, a structure we've been building since we were two years old and that rotten kid next door stole our fire engine. Love or duty? Justice or mercy? Pleasure or virtue? Relatives or absolutes? False dichotomies or excluded middles?
We all construct our own moral geometries, be they Euclidean or hyperbolic or absolute, and when parallel lines comes along, we'll force them to meet - or not - based more upon our own expectations than upon the behavior of the lines. But the lines, however we interpret them, will remain. Chugging off towards infinity, two by two.
The context? Oh, an old fandom battle over the ability of a vampire without a soul to be redeemed.
Within the comments of this post, was another equally interesting bit, bypeasant
about how sometimes you just want to explore something, discuss it - you don't care if people agree or disagree - you are not attempting to persuade, you are merely sharing your thoughts.
Which is what I'm doing here, by the by. But some people don't seem to get that - they feel the need to persuade you, convince.
Other interesting bits courtesy of flist:
1.rozk- came up with the best spec for Heroes - I sort of wish they'd do it but they won't. Too complicated. And doesn't fit with the premise. But would be wicked cool. That Nathan, Claire's biological Mom or fireGal, and Invisible Man were a superhero team led by Bennet under his center's authority - sort of a La Femme Nikita for superpowered beings. And only Invisible Man and maybe Claire's Mom remembers it.
Rozk also clarified something regarding transgender in a post about Ugly Betty - that hit me as quite apt. One's sexual preferences really have nothing to do with one's gender. Or interests for that matter. For example, just because you are a guy who adores Broadway musicals and likes to do flower arrangements, does not make you "gay" or interested sexually in "men". Any more than if you were a gal who loved to play football, do construction work and wear men's clothes makes you "gay" or interested sexually in women. I've met gay men who hated musicals, loved to play football, and were very "masculain". Just as I've met heterosexual men who adored musicals, hated football, and were "effeminate". Same with women. Gender and sexual preference? Not necessarily connected. But we are taught at an early age that they are - so it's hard to wrap our mind around the fact that they aren't. Same with interests - taught that if a boy plays with dolls and a girl plays with trucks, they have gender identity issues or are gay. Not true!
2.buffyannatator linked to an interview with Orson Scott Card, the writer of Ender's Game. Apparently the writer is nothing like the books he writes. A homophobic, militaristic bigot - yet his books according to those reading them are the exact opposite. This is why I try not to read too much about the authors of my favorite books or feel any desire to meet actors, writers, filmmakers - etc - in person. There are a few exceptions of course. But usually the more I know about their personal lives/intent the more it ruins my enjoyment of their work - and I hate that. Also if I'm honest with myself, I could care less what these people think or do in their personal lives, all that interests me is their work and the process that went into creating it. Non-fiction is a different story of course, talking just about fiction here.
I don't quite know why we think we'll love the writer because we love the books. The writer is not the same as the work he/she creates. Plus you are looking at their work through your lense - bringing your ideas, experiences, and views to it, interacting with - so what you are reading is not necessarily what was in the writer's head - part of it was, sure, but you are adding something to it. And - when someone tells a story, if it is a good story - the story takes over, it takes on a life of its own. The writer may give it substance, but he/she does not completely control it. So yes, it is more than possible for you to despise the actors, writers, directors, painters, potters, poets, novelist, what-have-you of your favorite works of art. Why? Because human beings are complex organisms and the work they've created is merely one facet of who they are - and it is also part of the world outside of them, it contains other things they've read and interacted with, and it is being seen through your lense. This is why I still love the character of Preston Burke, even though I strongly disagree with the behavior and politics of the actor portraying him. I can separate his acting ability and performance from his political beliefs, homophobia, etc. One does not necessarily inform the other. And Isiah Washington like all human beings is complex, with multiple facets. Same with TS Eliot, Flannery O'Connor, Orson Scott Card, and Virgina Woolf. While their views/etc do to a degree influence their work - it is not the only thing that does, and more often than not their work can ironically become a contradiction of those views. Shakespeare could have been a misogynoistic ass, but he still created some amazingly interesting female roles. Why? Because it served the story.
3. Masq explains in her lj, as does RozK - why I'm not loving the L Word this season. The only characters I like anymore are Alice, Shane, and Helena. I miss Tina and Bette - they were interesting in the first two seasons. Jenny has become even more narcisstic, self-indugent, manipulative and whiny than before - and I wasn't sure that was even possible.
Have decided to give up on it.
DVR's are really cool things by the way. Apparently I can now, rewind, fastforward and pass during a live television broadcast, even re-watch bits while it is live. Sooo cool.
Finished making gluten-free brownies, filled out some forms for tomorrow, and just vegging.
Low-key day.
The other drawback - is it is a tad overwhelming to read 100 posts in two hours. Although fun too. I scan. Also most people just post pictures or five sentences - so not a problem.
There were, however, at least five different posts, I'd love to comment on. One that really intrigued me was by
rahirah and it sort of covered everyone elses' as a theme:The fact is, when something is important to us, we want to fit it into our pre-existing structure of Important Stuff, a structure we've been building since we were two years old and that rotten kid next door stole our fire engine. Love or duty? Justice or mercy? Pleasure or virtue? Relatives or absolutes? False dichotomies or excluded middles?
We all construct our own moral geometries, be they Euclidean or hyperbolic or absolute, and when parallel lines comes along, we'll force them to meet - or not - based more upon our own expectations than upon the behavior of the lines. But the lines, however we interpret them, will remain. Chugging off towards infinity, two by two.
The context? Oh, an old fandom battle over the ability of a vampire without a soul to be redeemed.
Within the comments of this post, was another equally interesting bit, by
peasantabout how sometimes you just want to explore something, discuss it - you don't care if people agree or disagree - you are not attempting to persuade, you are merely sharing your thoughts.
Which is what I'm doing here, by the by. But some people don't seem to get that - they feel the need to persuade you, convince.
Other interesting bits courtesy of flist:
1.
rozk- came up with the best spec for Heroes - I sort of wish they'd do it but they won't. Too complicated. And doesn't fit with the premise. But would be wicked cool. That Nathan, Claire's biological Mom or fireGal, and Invisible Man were a superhero team led by Bennet under his center's authority - sort of a La Femme Nikita for superpowered beings. And only Invisible Man and maybe Claire's Mom remembers it. Rozk also clarified something regarding transgender in a post about Ugly Betty - that hit me as quite apt. One's sexual preferences really have nothing to do with one's gender. Or interests for that matter. For example, just because you are a guy who adores Broadway musicals and likes to do flower arrangements, does not make you "gay" or interested sexually in "men". Any more than if you were a gal who loved to play football, do construction work and wear men's clothes makes you "gay" or interested sexually in women. I've met gay men who hated musicals, loved to play football, and were very "masculain". Just as I've met heterosexual men who adored musicals, hated football, and were "effeminate". Same with women. Gender and sexual preference? Not necessarily connected. But we are taught at an early age that they are - so it's hard to wrap our mind around the fact that they aren't. Same with interests - taught that if a boy plays with dolls and a girl plays with trucks, they have gender identity issues or are gay. Not true!
2.
buffyannatator linked to an interview with Orson Scott Card, the writer of Ender's Game. Apparently the writer is nothing like the books he writes. A homophobic, militaristic bigot - yet his books according to those reading them are the exact opposite. This is why I try not to read too much about the authors of my favorite books or feel any desire to meet actors, writers, filmmakers - etc - in person. There are a few exceptions of course. But usually the more I know about their personal lives/intent the more it ruins my enjoyment of their work - and I hate that. Also if I'm honest with myself, I could care less what these people think or do in their personal lives, all that interests me is their work and the process that went into creating it. Non-fiction is a different story of course, talking just about fiction here.I don't quite know why we think we'll love the writer because we love the books. The writer is not the same as the work he/she creates. Plus you are looking at their work through your lense - bringing your ideas, experiences, and views to it, interacting with - so what you are reading is not necessarily what was in the writer's head - part of it was, sure, but you are adding something to it. And - when someone tells a story, if it is a good story - the story takes over, it takes on a life of its own. The writer may give it substance, but he/she does not completely control it. So yes, it is more than possible for you to despise the actors, writers, directors, painters, potters, poets, novelist, what-have-you of your favorite works of art. Why? Because human beings are complex organisms and the work they've created is merely one facet of who they are - and it is also part of the world outside of them, it contains other things they've read and interacted with, and it is being seen through your lense. This is why I still love the character of Preston Burke, even though I strongly disagree with the behavior and politics of the actor portraying him. I can separate his acting ability and performance from his political beliefs, homophobia, etc. One does not necessarily inform the other. And Isiah Washington like all human beings is complex, with multiple facets. Same with TS Eliot, Flannery O'Connor, Orson Scott Card, and Virgina Woolf. While their views/etc do to a degree influence their work - it is not the only thing that does, and more often than not their work can ironically become a contradiction of those views. Shakespeare could have been a misogynoistic ass, but he still created some amazingly interesting female roles. Why? Because it served the story.
3. Masq explains in her lj, as does RozK - why I'm not loving the L Word this season. The only characters I like anymore are Alice, Shane, and Helena. I miss Tina and Bette - they were interesting in the first two seasons. Jenny has become even more narcisstic, self-indugent, manipulative and whiny than before - and I wasn't sure that was even possible.
Have decided to give up on it.
DVR's are really cool things by the way. Apparently I can now, rewind, fastforward and pass during a live television broadcast, even re-watch bits while it is live. Sooo cool.
Finished making gluten-free brownies, filled out some forms for tomorrow, and just vegging.
Low-key day.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-11 09:20 pm (UTC)I'll have to keep a DVR in mind, but since I live alone I'm the only one who could screw up my videos!
BTW, don't forget The Office this thursday, it is Joss' episode and from what I hear it'll be a great one!
no subject
Date: 2007-02-11 11:38 pm (UTC)and the other is Bones (just for Stephen Fry, who I missed this past week b/c I was watching FNL instead.)
But there's only so many hours I can watch or tape so going to be
dicey. Am thinking of DVR'ing The Office and 30 Rock, while watching Ugly Betty and Grey's Live. That works better. And DVR'ing FNL while watching Bones live.
Didn't have a choice - since VCR did not work and even when it did, could only tape the channel that was on - ie. could not tape VM while watching House and certainly could not tape House and VM at the same time.
I think DVR's are really giving ad guys a run for their money. Since you can fastforward even during a live program with a DVR. Like I said, wickedly cool.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 12:14 am (UTC)the best scene is near the end between Boone/DB and his Psychiatrist/Stephen Fry... it was wonderfully done. Frankly I didn't know that David Boreanaz could do so well!
no subject
Date: 2007-02-13 12:51 am (UTC)