jmatonak: (Default)
I am, as the song goes, still alive.

I assume, if you can read this, you are also. But if you're reading this from beyond the grave, that is unspeakably cool and (if possible) you should comment and tell me so immediately.

I keep having annoying problems when I try to log in to LJ, so I haven't tried in a while. My bad.

*wave*
jmatonak: (Default)
I miss Donna a lot.

See, the actual Doctor on the actual TV show really seems to have a problem relating to anyone who doesn't immediately and uncritically become a Doctor fan. This isn't something that just cropped up in the new show- it's really funny to go back and watch the First Doctor having what I can only describe as dick-measuring contests with Ian Chesterton. Liz, famous original Romana, Tegan... the companions who, for whatever reason, don't drink the Kool-Aid are the ones who just don't quite fit in. The Doctor, by all appearances, cannot abide having peers.

I'm going to be citing things from Season Six episodes.

Read more... )
jmatonak: (Default)
I truly, completely. deeply suck at LJ.

Um, hi.

For the first time in a long time, I have two front teeth again.
jmatonak: (Default)
So, I'm like alive and stuff.

I hope all of you are doing well.

Buffy Season 8 seems to have ended.

Spoilers )
jmatonak: (Default)
OK, so... when Jim Shooter came back to Legion of Super-Heroes, I was happy about it, and I posted about it, and ultimately it turned out to be less than great. Now, Paul Levitz, my all-time favorite LSH writer, is doing the book again, and I'm really happy about it, and I hope my happiness continues to be justified by the book this time.

For those of you who don't know, the Legion is a group of Super-Heroes (as we can see by the name) who operate in the 31st century. (It used to be the 30th century, but I think it ticked over when the 20th century ended.) Because readers' conceptions of the future, and particularly the technology of the future, have changed over the course of the book's history, early LSH issues look anachronistic and weird. As Levitz himself puts it:

Be warned that the phenomenon of "chronicler's error" lurks in all Legion tales- because technology changes so much in the next thousand years, it's impossible to neatly fit all the facts together, much less correctly depict all the changing technology (we once believed they used jet packs or flying belts, but in all probability the flight ring was their most important device from close to the team's inception.

In other words, "don't blame us because no one saw the personal computer coming in 1958." It's a fair point. And I don't mind. But I think it should apply to sociology as much as it does to engineering and history.

I think some Legionnaires should be depicted as what we would today call "people of color." It makes no sense to me that the future is as lily-white as it's usually painted. And I think it would be really nice if, without announcing any in-story reason for the change, some Legionnaires (and I don't really care which ones, frankly) were drawn to indicate non-white heritage. Because assuming the vast majority of Legionnaires are white makes just about as much sense as assuming the microchip was never invented. Maybe even less.

I'm not going to lie. I won't boycott the book over this. (Considering I'm boycotting Marvel over plot changes to Spider-Man, I'm not sure I like my priorities.) But I think any LSH artist that doesn't do this is missing a bet.
jmatonak: (Default)
I'm really not digging the new season thus far, and I can't put my finger on exactly why.

So what's going on here? Spoilers through episode 4 )
jmatonak: (Default)
I am a little fuzzy on the whole "good/bad" thing. I admit this freely, and I'm not being sarcastic. I have personal standards of "good" and "bad", but they're quirky and not always consistent.

One of my biggest problems with genre fiction is a tendency to excuse horrible things that a hero does because they are wearing a T-shirt that says "hero"- or, as I believe they'd put it over at TVTropes, holding the hero ball. It's not the excusing as such that bothers me- I am certainly capable of special pleading on behalf of characters I like. The thing that bugs me is some variation on. "it's okay to treat character X that way because character X is just an orc/a vampire/a Dalek/whatever." Deception, abuse both physical and mental, petty cruelty- all excused because the target is "bad." It absolutely drives me up a wall. Almost inevitably, we are later asked to hate the villain characters even more because they have the gall to treat the hero characters exactly as the heroes have treated them.

I prefer to read about, sympathize more with, and even admire more, characters who don't try to excuse their assholery with this kind of rationalization. I would much rather hear "yeah, I lied to him, and I'd do it again" than "I lied to him, but it's okay because he's bad."

A related complaint is this: I don't like it when heroes spit in the soup. If someone invites you over to dinner, you don't go into their home and then spit in the soup. You just don't. It doesn't matter if someone is a complete monster, in personal action as well as species. By accepting their hospitality, you've agreed to put that aside. (The same goes for offering them hospitality.) In particular, there is one scenario guaranteed to get me rooting against a hero faster than any other.

As happens, a hero and a villain are teaming up, to fight against a greater threat or just because the author thinks that would be cool or whatever. There's some downtime, while the truce is still in effect. The villain makes some idle, polite chitchat- the key here being that it's not a veiled threat or a deliberate attempt to needle the hero. It is, honestly, just making conversation. "I hear the Mets are gonna suck this year." And the hero gets all snippy and starts going "we're not friends, you suck, I am super super better than you."

That's when the little voice in my head starts rooting for someone to fuck the hero up, really really badly.

(And then there's the one where the hero gets all mad at some character who gives him a boner, just because she [heteronormative bias!] disturbed his equilibrium. But at this point, I should just do a post on how much I want to see Harry Dresden get the full Prometheus.)
jmatonak: (Default)
So last night this three year old girl comes at me with a piece of styrofoam about three times her height, explains that it is her sword, and challenges me to a fight. Those were pretty much her exact words: "This is my sword. We fight." And then she comes at me.

How cute is that?
jmatonak: (Default)
There's always a moment where RTD Goes Too Far.

Read more... )
jmatonak: (Default)
Merry Christmas, if you're into that sort of thing. :) Merry whatever-you're-into, in fact.
jmatonak: (Default)
Too... much... Doctor Who...

I've got to stop mainlining this stuff.

Huh.

Nov. 25th, 2009 05:26 pm
jmatonak: (Default)
Apparently, Michael Moorcock is going to write a Doctor Who novel.

It won't cross over with the Eternal Champion stuff (I hope!), but I can't help thinking...

Is the Time War another manifestation of the Conjunction of the Million Spheres? Because it sure seems like it. The Doctor is a Time Lord hero responsible for the destruction of his people. Since Romana was supposedly retrieved from E-space and made some kind of Time Lord mucky muck, there's room to posit her as the Ermizhad figure....

(Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion novels, which include Elric and almost everything else he's ever written at this point, rely on a cosmology that, frankly, I can't even sum up. If you're curious, try Wikipedia. Or Google. That's what I'd do.

There's always a tragic hero figure, there's almost always a woman who sparks a betrayal of someone/herself by the hero, and all the tragic heroes and the women are manifestations of the same "persons" playing out complicated, predestined schemes. Occasionally, the gender roles get swapped, so we get a tragic heroine and a hapless boy. Most of the time, the hero destroys the world. It started out as an attempt to write pulp fantasy as unlike Conan the Barbarian as possible, and it's better than I make it sound.)

I bet there's a Black Sword of Rassilon. :P If so, the Doctor should run away from it, fast and far.
jmatonak: (Default)
I watched Journey's End again. There are a lot of references in there to "the end of time."

Did Journey's End really see the fulfillment of all the "prophecies" Dalek Caan made?

Have we really seen the only reasons Donna Noble's "timelines" were so freaky and anomalous?

Knowing Russell Davies as I do- maybe I should say, knowing his work as I do- I'm pretty sure the answer is "yes" on both counts. Which is a shame.

There's this thing that happens on TV shows where "smart" characters get to make airy-fairy conjectures about the nature of time and space and being and reality, and speak with authority about situations no one has ever encountered, and always be right. It really bugs me.

I know the Doctor is the hero. But there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of even in Time Lord philosophy. Or, at any rate, there should be.
jmatonak: (Default)
I am not inclined by nature to be a "good soldier." I try not to be a jerk, and I will compromise when I need to, but there comes a point when I just can't do that anymore. I think I have that in common with a lot of people.

Politics )

I'm trying to cut down on the politics posts, I swear.
jmatonak: (Default)
“This court has never held,” Justice Scalia wrote, “that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.” -- New York Times.

Oh, Nino, no.

"There's no precedent for this!" is a stupid argument, especially in this case. You're arguing that someone should be executed for your procedural convenience. (Roberts actually gave you a pro-snuffing precedent, but that opinion was fucking stupid.) We can walk back through a long line of things the Court "never held"- until it did. One of the things the Supreme Court is for is overturning precedents, and you know it, and you've done it. It's amazing how much precedents matter to you when you agree, and how much they don't when you don't.

Oh, well. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, and maybe precedent should be revered. But I'm getting off the train when the argument is, "hey, wait, the fact that this guy is innocent makes bureaucracy uncomfortable."

Nino Scalia, ladies and gentlemen. What a maroon.

SDCC

Jul. 27th, 2009 12:35 pm
jmatonak: (Default)
1. EPIC FAIL: I managed to set up meetings with precisely no one from my friendslist. Maybe next year. :(

2. Joss Whedon's excursions into sophomore philosophy are boring. "THE CORPORATIONS OWN YOU OMG!!!" But the rest of the Dollhouse panel was cool.

3. Navigating through the Exhibit Hall in a wheelchair is one of the lesser known circles of Hell.

4. I saw plenty of Phoenices and no Emma Frosts.

I mostly stuck to comics panels, which was a coincidence but made me happy.

It seems like I should have more to say about specific events, but I don't. It was fun, though.
jmatonak: (Default)
Suppose I am reading an LJ and a commenter (not the journal owner) says something really pretentious and stupid. The correct thing to do is to keep my big trap shut, right? It's not polite to start flaming a commenter in a third-party journal?

That's what I thought.

Le sigh.
jmatonak: (Default)
When you see this, post a little weensy excerpt from as many random works-in-progress as you can find lying around. Who knows? Maybe inspiration will burst forth and do something, um, inspiration-y.

I wanted to write The Rani drunk.

Read more... )

Profile

jmatonak: (Default)
jmatonak

January 2012

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
151617181920 21
22232425262728
293031    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 22nd, 2017 06:43 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios