Random natterings: Fannish edition
Oct. 23rd, 2007 10:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dragojustineDrabble meme! I requested a drabble from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
littlewings04 and she said she's working on them, so I guess I'll post this. I want to do some writing.
Meme: The first fifteen people to comment on this post get to request a drabble from you. In return, they have to post this meme in their journal. Post all fandoms you’re willing to write for.
Fandoms: Supernatural, Heroes, House, HP... aw, let's call it Chuck, Journeyman, and Pushing Daisies too (yaay for new shows!)
It's kind of funny, because for quite awhile now I've been focusing on Really Good TV. You know, the stuff that is genuinely brilliant in concept and execution and acting and dialog. The stuff that you whole-heartedly can recommend to everyone as proof that TV really can be far far better than the movies, as far as story and emotional connection and developing characters. The stuff that has the depth and complexity to sustain rabid fannish devotion. You know, Firefly and Rome and Slings&Arrows and BSG (back when it was good) and West Wing (back when it was good) and Prison Break and Heroes and Supernatural... So why is it that this season I have totally fallen for two complete throw-away, silly, unserious, not-brilliant shows? And why do they both have characters named Chuck?
I love Pushing Daisies. Because it's an incredibly weird dark science-fiction concept done in a totally totally cracktastic manner, complete with over the top costuming and sets, a slightly pompous very funny Voice of God narrator, and this over-saturated CGI comic visual style. Seriously, it's like reading crack fic, people! Crack fic on my TV! And it makes a joke out of EVERYTHING, right down to the heartbroken bullemic Dandelion or the closet full of dead bodies. I'm just... I have no idea how this show could possibly sustain itself for a whole season, but I am in love with the crack!TV.
And Chuck is just such a blast! I admit it's becoming a pretty slashy show for me. I mean, the show is pushing Chuck/Sarah hard, but I am all over the Chuck/Casey like whoah, not to mention the post-tango Chuck/Awesome. And if we must go het, can we make it Casey/Sarah? Dude, the show is funny and silly and unserious and even their slapstick fight sequences are clever and tongue in cheek. Now all I need is for someone to write me implausible Chuck/Casey... Oh, Adam Baldwin. How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
Everybody in the world already reacted to Bad Day at Black Rock. There is nothing I can possibly ad. Except to say that I laughed untill I quite literally cried through pretty much the entire thing and my squee at "I lost my shoe" could be heard for miles. Oh Jared, you have mad pratfall skillz.
Supernatural in general continues to be a good show. I mean, I will keep watching it even if it totally goes to the dogs because the fandom is so rewarding, but it is better than I hoped this season. Ruby still annoys me in that "I am so sick of tiny blond action chicks, now someone get the damn girl a scrunchie" sort of way but it looks like they will do something interesting with her at least. Bella rocks my world, though I dearly wish she was older- what's up with the "no women over 30" rule? Best of all, I so far see no romance in the works with either boy or either girl, and Bella looks like she could be an absolutely wonderful on-going antagonist for whom they eventually develop a certain amount of respect. Also, the return of Gordon makes me happy. And Gordon's new disciple- when even Gordon thinks you're 'round the bend, you've got trouble!
Anyway, I have entirely mixed feelings about this season's attempt to expand the hunting world- because world building is good, but at the expense of the time the brothers actually interact is bad. And I have a lot of mixed feelings about the possible course of this season's mytharc, which I think I will restrain from babbling about for the present. But the boys are pretty and the boys are funny and the boys are emo and angsty and the boys love each other very much and really, for now, it's enough.
On Dumbledore being gay, OR, you can measure my level of ambivalence by the number of hands I have!
On the one hand, it is so nice to see this fandom's equivalent of Xavier/Magneto or Gandalf/Sauruman being canonical. That is, for the value of canonical that includes things the author says in interviews, which I don't normally strictly count. So not canonical, but maybe just more acceptable to the general reading public, who care about authorial intent?
On the other hand, there is always the question of why this isn't cannon. If she envisioned the character this way, why do we not find out in the books? To which the answers are many: "This is Harry's story and Harry doesn't give a damn about the sexuality of his very old headmaster", "This is a childrens' book and how were you planning on just dropping it in anyway?", "Dude, it is in the books! Dumbledore/Grindelwald was so obvious even non-slashers caught it. That barely counts as subtext anymore!" See also this hilarious post here mocking this very question.
On the third hand, why is it that the only gay character is an old man, truamatized into asexuality, who was pretty damn literally tempted away to the dark side by his romantic entanglement? That sure as hell doesn't sit right with me.
On the fourth hand, if she wanted to include a gay character, why oh why oh why oh why couldn't she have just given us Remus/Sirius and left out the entire Remus/Tonks mess? Why oh why?
littlewings04 and she said she's working on them, so I guess I'll post this. I want to do some writing. Meme: The first fifteen people to comment on this post get to request a drabble from you. In return, they have to post this meme in their journal. Post all fandoms you’re willing to write for.
Fandoms: Supernatural, Heroes, House, HP... aw, let's call it Chuck, Journeyman, and Pushing Daisies too (yaay for new shows!)
It's kind of funny, because for quite awhile now I've been focusing on Really Good TV. You know, the stuff that is genuinely brilliant in concept and execution and acting and dialog. The stuff that you whole-heartedly can recommend to everyone as proof that TV really can be far far better than the movies, as far as story and emotional connection and developing characters. The stuff that has the depth and complexity to sustain rabid fannish devotion. You know, Firefly and Rome and Slings&Arrows and BSG (back when it was good) and West Wing (back when it was good) and Prison Break and Heroes and Supernatural... So why is it that this season I have totally fallen for two complete throw-away, silly, unserious, not-brilliant shows? And why do they both have characters named Chuck?
I love Pushing Daisies. Because it's an incredibly weird dark science-fiction concept done in a totally totally cracktastic manner, complete with over the top costuming and sets, a slightly pompous very funny Voice of God narrator, and this over-saturated CGI comic visual style. Seriously, it's like reading crack fic, people! Crack fic on my TV! And it makes a joke out of EVERYTHING, right down to the heartbroken bullemic Dandelion or the closet full of dead bodies. I'm just... I have no idea how this show could possibly sustain itself for a whole season, but I am in love with the crack!TV.
And Chuck is just such a blast! I admit it's becoming a pretty slashy show for me. I mean, the show is pushing Chuck/Sarah hard, but I am all over the Chuck/Casey like whoah, not to mention the post-tango Chuck/Awesome. And if we must go het, can we make it Casey/Sarah? Dude, the show is funny and silly and unserious and even their slapstick fight sequences are clever and tongue in cheek. Now all I need is for someone to write me implausible Chuck/Casey... Oh, Adam Baldwin. How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
Everybody in the world already reacted to Bad Day at Black Rock. There is nothing I can possibly ad. Except to say that I laughed untill I quite literally cried through pretty much the entire thing and my squee at "I lost my shoe" could be heard for miles. Oh Jared, you have mad pratfall skillz.
Supernatural in general continues to be a good show. I mean, I will keep watching it even if it totally goes to the dogs because the fandom is so rewarding, but it is better than I hoped this season. Ruby still annoys me in that "I am so sick of tiny blond action chicks, now someone get the damn girl a scrunchie" sort of way but it looks like they will do something interesting with her at least. Bella rocks my world, though I dearly wish she was older- what's up with the "no women over 30" rule? Best of all, I so far see no romance in the works with either boy or either girl, and Bella looks like she could be an absolutely wonderful on-going antagonist for whom they eventually develop a certain amount of respect. Also, the return of Gordon makes me happy. And Gordon's new disciple- when even Gordon thinks you're 'round the bend, you've got trouble!
Anyway, I have entirely mixed feelings about this season's attempt to expand the hunting world- because world building is good, but at the expense of the time the brothers actually interact is bad. And I have a lot of mixed feelings about the possible course of this season's mytharc, which I think I will restrain from babbling about for the present. But the boys are pretty and the boys are funny and the boys are emo and angsty and the boys love each other very much and really, for now, it's enough.
On Dumbledore being gay, OR, you can measure my level of ambivalence by the number of hands I have!
On the one hand, it is so nice to see this fandom's equivalent of Xavier/Magneto or Gandalf/Sauruman being canonical. That is, for the value of canonical that includes things the author says in interviews, which I don't normally strictly count. So not canonical, but maybe just more acceptable to the general reading public, who care about authorial intent?
On the other hand, there is always the question of why this isn't cannon. If she envisioned the character this way, why do we not find out in the books? To which the answers are many: "This is Harry's story and Harry doesn't give a damn about the sexuality of his very old headmaster", "This is a childrens' book and how were you planning on just dropping it in anyway?", "Dude, it is in the books! Dumbledore/Grindelwald was so obvious even non-slashers caught it. That barely counts as subtext anymore!" See also this hilarious post here mocking this very question.
On the third hand, why is it that the only gay character is an old man, truamatized into asexuality, who was pretty damn literally tempted away to the dark side by his romantic entanglement? That sure as hell doesn't sit right with me.
On the fourth hand, if she wanted to include a gay character, why oh why oh why oh why couldn't she have just given us Remus/Sirius and left out the entire Remus/Tonks mess? Why oh why?