copperfyre

After a couple of years of really struggling with mood and creativity, between burnout and family issues and god knows what (and I know I've been hard to deal with in fandom, at times), things are suddenly ... good! I can write again, I'm signing up for exchanges, whatever has been blocking me has gotten a whole lot better.

July is my birthday month, therefore Best Month, obviously, and I would really like to try to do some kind of "post a short fic every day" thing if I can make it work. Unfortunately I'm suffering a dearth of appropriate challenges, because of course now that I want one and have the mental bandwidth to do something with one, daily month-long prompt challenges and/or bingo card challenges for July are nowhere in sight. The closest thing is July Break Bingo, but I've asked for cards for this before, and I just ... never really do anything with them; I appreciate that it exists, but I think I need more of a - I don't know, social element to it, I guess? Less open-ended, more directed? Their cards just don't really click with me somehow. And I can't find a Tumblr prompt/whump/whatever themed promptfest thing for July.

So I'm kicking around a few different ideas. Why not throw it out to a completely nonbinding poll?

Poll #33243

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 6

View Respondents

What should I do for July?

View Answers

A custom bingo card/prompt list created (by me) from all my favorite tropes
4 (66.7%)

A personal challenge to finish older inbox prompts/unwritten prompts from past fests
2 (33.3%)

Find a prompt list from a previous (non-July) fest that I didn't do at the time, and use that
2 (33.3%)

Ask my flist for new prompts until I get 31 of them for fresh inspiration
3 (50.0%)

Run a comment fest over at the Biggles comm
3 (50.0%)

Something else that I will suggest in comments
0 (0.0%)

osprey_archer

What I’ve Just Finished Reading

A reread of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. I had intended to reread Through the Looking-Glass, too, but to my distress I found that I no longer enjoyed the absurdism of the first book (maybe politics have imitated art a little too hard in this area recently?), so it seemed pointless to subject myself to the second as well.

Maybe I’ll give it another go in a decade or two and find that I’ve come back around to enjoying it again.

What I’m Reading Now

A little bit of this and a little bit of that, but nothing that merits a progress report right now. My attention has been mostly taken up with the exigencies of a plumbing crisis, alas.

What I Plan to Read Next

Still waiting for the library to bring me Evelina!

sholio

whumpex revealed tonight! (And H/C-ex is supposed to in a few days, if it's not delayed. All the hurtcomfort all the time.)

I got:

Staying Power (Babylon 5, Londo & Vir, 4200 wds)

I asked for (among other things) Londo reacting to something bad happening to Vir, or Vir taking a hit for him, and my Mysterious Gifter took me up on it most delightfully!

As usual, there is a fic or two of mine running around loose in the collection as well.

troisoiseaux

Emily Burns' new adaptation of Frankenstein at the Shakespeare Theatre Company is phenomenal— I've been struggling to explain it in a way that a. doesn't undersell how well it works and b. isn't just the Jenny Slate Drunk History meme, but trust me, it's so good. It's a reimagining of Mary Shelley's original plot— the first half takes the events of Victor's return to Geneva and re-centers it on his foster sister/fiancée(!) Elizabeth, and on Justine, the servant framed for the murder of Victor's younger brother; the second half departs from the book entirely, but has more than a little of Mary and Percy Shelley's history in its DNA— with a distinctly contemporary voice, but it weaves in Mary Shelley's original text in ways that carry new meanings: ( ... ) The dynamic between Victor and Elizabeth is messed up in a way that makes for delicious theater— Victor is the worst, in an "abusive boyfriend learns therapy words" way that, I swear, you could feel the audience (which, at least where I was sitting, skewed towards younger women) mentally screaming for Elizabeth to throw the entire man out; this play leans into the Gothic faux-cest vibes with flashbacks to the pair of them sniping like siblings— and the main theme is one of parents and children, explored through three different plot threads: obviously, that of Victor Frankenstein's refusal to take responsibility for the creature he created, which hangs over most of the play as an unspoken but omnipresent rebuke; the undercurrent of grief (mutual), resentment (Victor's), and guilt (Elizabeth's) over the fact that Victor's mother died because she'd nursed Elizabeth when she was ill; and ( spoilers! )

Also saw The Untitled Unauthorized Hunter S. Thompson Musical at the Signature Theater, having finally wised up to the fact that if a new musical is being produced in DC it's probably on its way to Broadway, so I might as well see it now. (Cheaper tickets! Potential bragging rights!) This is exactly what it says on the tin - a rock musical by Joe Iconis about writer Hunter S. Thompson, father of Gonzo journalism in the 1960s-70s - and certainly timely; to lean into the inevitable Hamilton comparisons, Hunter...'s Burr is Richard Nixon as a so-sleezy-it's-camp psychopomp haunting Thompson's final hours as he runs through his life story, and the parallels to, you know, that other guy are about as subtle as a bonk to the head. Very meta, overall: as it goes on, the other characters begin to confront Thompson over his version of events and demand to speak for themselves. There was a frequent use of puppets, including a peacock, a baby that could make a fight the man! fist and flip the bird, and a giant Nixon head. (Yes, in addition to the actor playing Nixon. It was a whole thing.) I enjoyed this a lot!! But the one downside of seeing a show that's still in the pipeline is that I've had random snippets of lyrics and melodies floating around in my head for days and there's no cast recording to listen to. (ETA: There is an official trailer, though!)

selenak

About a month ago, I bought the Big Finish episodes around the War Doctor in which the late John Hurt reprises his role. They're basically three episode storyarcs - "Only the Monstrous", "Infernal Devices", "Agents of Chaos" and "Casualties of War" - all set during the Time War. Now, because of the setting, the usual Doctor-Companion combinations are out, though the Doctor meets a likeable idealistic person in each of these three episode adventures (and can save some though not all). But the great charm of any Doctor Who tale are those relationships. So what did Big Finish do? It had the inspired idea of pairing up John Hurt with Jacqueline Pearce, playing, no, not Servalan, but a ruthless female politiician nonetheless, a member of the Gallifreyan War Council named Cardinal Ollista. She and the Doctor are the sole characters in all the four story arcs I've listened to, and the way their relationship develops was probably my favourite aspect in these stories.

Because this is the Time War, and this regeneration of the Doctor specifically is on a self loathing maximum while fighting it, Ollista is initially a good foil because she, who really does only prioritize Gallifrey and initially sees everyone not a Time Lord as expendable, shows that despite what he's telling himself, he is still the Doctor, he still has ethics and lines he won't cross and will fight for and have another way. But Ollista isn't simply an Evil McEvil megalomaniac, either, hence me saying "Gallifrey" and not "her personal power", and so the Doctor in the course of those stories develops a grudging respect for her while she while denying she does so finds herself defending, in the last story arc, precisely the kind of (non-Gallifreyan) people she in the first story arc would have dismissed as necessary casualties of war. Whether they argue or work together, all the Doctor-Ollista scenes are golden, and with both John Hurt and Jacqueline Pearce now gone, I am really glad they had the chance to work together near the end of their lives and create two more remarkable characters for us to appreciate.

Current Mood: impressed
Current Location: Bamberg

sholio

justmarriedexchange nominations close tomorrow (the 10th).

I will almost certainly be signing up for this one, I'm just saying. And you do need three distinct fandoms for this exchange.

*my existing assignments side-eye me*

osprey_archer

The university where I work happens to have a bronze cast of Degas’ “Little Dancer Aged Fourteen”, so before I read Camille Laurens’ book of the same name (recommended by

troisoiseaux), I went to have a good long look at the sculpture.

It’s less than life-size - perhaps two-thirds, one-half the size of the actual fourteen-year-old dancer. You can see the bronze creases in her stockings at the ankles and knees, the places where socks begin to wear out. Her forehead slopes back sharply, more sharply really than I think the human forehead can. Her hair hangs down her back in a rope braid, which is tied with a golden satin ribbon. A real ribbon, fabric rather than bronze.

She wears, too, a cloth tutu, and the curator told us (when I visited with my parents months ago) that the tutu has to be replaced every now and then, always to great debate about exactly how it should look, as the tutu on Degas’ original statue (wax, not bronze) was long gone when collectors decided to make a metal cast. How long should it be? What color? What kind of fabric?

The one at my university is about knee-length, much pleated, creamy pale layers of some fabric that might be tulle, the outer layer purposely frayed for the bottom quarter inch or so. The dancer’s feet are in the fourth position, but her hands are behind her back, and seem rather large for her size.

Thus prepared, I dived into Camille Laurens’ Little Dancer Age Fourteen: The True Story Behind Degas’ Masterpiece, translated by Willard Wood. Laurens is attempting to write a biography of Marie van Goethem, the girl who posed for the famous sculpture, but as there is very little material about Marie, it becomes a hodgepodge of other things, including a partial biography of Degas (and indeed it’s filed under his name at my library).

The book is also about the historical conditions of the young dancers at the Paris Opera, who were called rats and generally assumed to offer sexual favors on the side, giving the ballet a scandalous vibe that most 21st century viewers probably don’t pick up from looking at Degas’ pictures, since nowadays ballet is seen as a refined high art. (Is a picture, or a sculpture, worth a thousand words? Or can it tell us anything that we don’t already know?)

And it’s about the initial reception of Little Dancer Aged Fourteen, which more or less universally appalled viewers when it was first exhibited. Was it because Degas modeled the sculpture’s head to fit what was then considered the physiognomy of criminals? (Hence the sharply sloping forehead.) The association of ballet dancers with prostitution, which perhaps becomes a little queasy-making when you look at this flat-chested statue of a child?

Or the fact that the original statue was modeled in grayish wax, so the little dancer must have looked just a little corpse-like? A completely different viewing experience than the bronze cast I studied so carefully.

Degas, Laurens notes, was upset about the restoration attempts on a famous painting in the Louvre, a Rembrandt if I recall correctly. It was not the quality of the attempt that he objected to, but the fact that an attempt was made at all. Art, Degas thought, is a living thing; and like all living things, an artwork has its time to die.

sholio

I like Ken Follett's books, and I like airplanes, and I like historical books, but this one was just kind of lackluster for me, unfortunately. It kept me reading, and parts of it were very engaging, but I ended up feeling kind of "That was it?" at the end. I mean, to be fair, this book is set early in WW2 and there's a lot of war still to go, but it feels like we didn't quite get the full plot or the amount of airplane that was promised by the title. The airplane-promising title manages to be a big spoiler while not actually delivering on its promise. (Although, to be fair, I guess it did get me to read the book.)

( Spoilers in general )

troisoiseaux

Read Real Ones by Katherena Vermette, discovered via

sabotabby: a novel about about two adult sisters, who are Michif/Métis on their dad's side (this is important), grappling with the public exposure of their estranged mother's false claims of Indigenous ancestry, which she's used to build a career as an artist. I feel like most of the novels I've read tackling race-faking for profit/clout/??? in academia/the arts are biting satires - R.F. Kuang's Yellowface, Elaine Hsieh Chou's Disorientation - and even Louise Erdrich's The Sentence uses supernatural elements to express the violence of white people appropriating Indigenous identity; this one feels... subtler, maybe? It's very much grounded in the family drama of two sisters being betrayed and disappointed yet again by a self-absorbed mother who's betrayed and disappointed them over and over for as long as they can remember, this time playing out with a Greek chorus of op-eds and Twitter takes on a scandal now so weirdly familiar that Vermette tends to reference them obliquely rather than in detail. Really good; I especially liked how distinct the two sisters' voices were, as alternating POV characters.

Read With a Bare Bodkin by Cyril Hare, which fell short of Hare's Tragedy at Law, imo, but honestly, what wouldn't? This one had some fun concepts— set against the backdrop of a minor government agency housed in some sprawling pile for the duration of WWII, the plot kicks off with a conversation about how one of the civil servants is a mystery novelist on the side and everyone going "oooh wouldn't this office be a great setting for a murder mystery?", so it's got quite a crossover of tropes— and also the distinction of being one of the few mysteries where the author pulls a "clearly signaling something as A Clue by having the main character realize that some detail is Significant" and I actually immediately twigged to the discrepancy being hinted at and remembered where to cross-reference the detail earlier in the book, although, to be fair, this was not exactly subtly dropped, either in context or by the author to the reader.

osprey_archer

Joan Aiken finished the last two books in the Wolves of Willoughby Chase sequence just before her death in 2004. The penultimate book, Midwinter Nightingale, has certain flaws that indicate a rushed or weary author, but before I discuss these flaws I do want to state that I’m very glad Aiken did write these books, as it seems right and proper that the series should come full circle with Dido and Simon at the end.

The main flaw in Midwinter Nightingale was the pacing, which is usually Aiken’s strong suit: in most of her book she packs so many happenings into a chapter that

littlerhymes and I struggled to discuss all the developments. But here, the characters spend the first half of the book wandering more or less aimlessly before the plot really kicks off.

Also, this is petty but I just have to complain, Aiken offers three separate and incompatible lengths for the time that has elapsed since King Dick’s coronation. It happened 15 years ago, as it coincided with his marriage to his (second) wife Princess Adelaide. (As it turns out, Prince Davie who died in the mines was the son of King Dick’s hitherto unmentioned first wife, which means Davie was a teenager when he went to investigate the mines, which is better than going off to investigate at the age of about five as I first thought.)

But it also happened six years ago, because that’s when Dido said she first got back to England, and as we know Dido saved the ceremony which otherwise would have been interrupted by St. Paul’s Cathedral rolling into the Thames. But then Dido mentions her adventures on the island of Aratu, which happened before her return to England, as occurring “two or three years ago.” WHICH IS IT, AIKEN? Please just stop giving us numbers.

However, it is lovely to be back with Dido again. Is is fine but she’s just not the same. I enjoyed the reappearance of Aiken’s trademark ferocious creatures in the form of a moat filled with man-eating fish and crocodiles (although I’m still so sad they killed spoiler redacted and spoiler redacted!), and also the unexpected plot point of two completely non-ferocious bears. They just want Simon to give them head massages to help them cope with the wet cold of England! Who among us has not dreamed of a bear friend?

The next (and last) book is very short, and was in fact published posthumously. I envision Aiken writing it on a legal pad in her hospital bed, and will not hold it against her if it occasionally devolves from prose into a list of bullet points.

nineveh_uk

1) The Shortest Way to Hades, Sarah Caudwell. Light, bright, a lot of fun, and a clever mystery. Also a pleasant change to have a detective story that doesn't involve sexual violence. I found myself thinking partway through that the most 80s thing about this 80s book is not the absence of email or mobile phones and that documents are typed, the boozy lunches, the fact that every single character with the possible exception of Hilary* is undoubtedly a Tory, but a relatively junior barrister not only owning a car but driving it through central London in the afternoon as apparently the quickest way to get anywhere.

2) Silent Parade, Keigo Higashino. Not lacking sexual violence (though no detailed description), but very good, and the thing that was annoying me as I was thinking "but why aren't they all doing X" turned out to be a twist, so that was fine. I'd not read any Higashino before and this was clever, readable, and I'll read more. I just wish that UK translations of Japanese novels would indicate at the beginning which way round they are putting the family name and given name. Either is fine, but since it seems to vary which is chosen in different books, I would like it to be made clear so I know.

3) Simon Boccanegra, Verdi. Opera North semi-staged production at the Royal Festival Hall, which means comfy seats, excellent sightlines, and much cheaper prices than otherwise in London. Rather tortuous trains, which the presence of

antisoppist made more endurable. The performances, vocal and orchestral, were fantastic and it was a thoroughly enjoyable evening, but it's not going to join the list of my favourite operas because while the music is great, the drama isn't so strong. Too much of the plot happens off-stage with characters then reporting to others, ultimately I wasn't moved by the piece as a whole in the way I want to be by the operas that really work for me.

*Possible Liberal Party?

selenak

Which I would have watched on the big screen if I could have, but a brief showing time and my tight schedule did not allow it. Anyway: this is the movie in which Natalie Portman plays a (tv) actress, Elizabeth, who wants to play Gracie (Julianne Moore) in a movie based on events taking place about two decades plus earlier than the film's setting, which is 2015. (Though the film itself premiered in 2023.) Said events consisted of Gracie, at age 36, having had a "relationship" with a thirteen years old boy, Joe ,whom she after some years in prison for statuary rape married; he's currently 36 (as is Elizabeth), the same age she was back then, and played by Charles Melton, who I osmosed before this movie was mostly famous for playing a jock type in Riverdale but who is absolutely stunning in this film (and should at least have gotten an Oscar nomination), which given he's working with Julianne Moore and Natalie Portman at their best, is truly saying something. There are also kids (the one Gracie was pregnant with when she got caught is now in college, and thn there are twins about to graduate), as well as Gracie's offspring from her earlier marriage, with her son Georgie being the same age as Joe. The movie is directed by Todd Haynes, and dives right into how incredibly messed up a story this is.

Now, if you start the film knot knowing what it's about, then the first few minutes might let you assume it's a black comedy about suburbia; Gracie, Joe and their children live in the proverbial idyllic white fenced area somewhere in South Carolina, with Gracie (who runs a small scale bakery) coming across as somewhat high strung but popular among her neighbours - and then Elizabeth arrives, only to find an anonymous package at the couple's front door which contains feces. There are some comedy beats throughout the remaining movie, but actually I would classify it as emotional horror. Gracie is still absolutely incapable of admitting she ever did anything wrong, and we get an early taste of her ability to manipulate and achieve emotional control when she comments on her daughter's choice of prom dress: "You're so brave to show your arms! I wouldn't have dared", with the result that of course the poor girl doesn't buy that dress but the one Gracie likes. Elizabeth isn't the film's heroine, either, though in the first half her investigation provides the audience bit by bit with the backstory from various povs via the characters Elizabeth talks to; the movie goes full throttle about what a disturbing and ruthlessly exploitative process an actor working on a role can be if that role isn't a fictional character but a real person. (BTW, of course Portman and Moore don't look much alike, but that only helps enhancing the sense of disquiet as Elizabeth adopts more and more of Gracie's mannerisms, with the scene where Gracie gives Elizabeth a makeover with her own makeup and lipstick being a showcase in point.)

Meanwhile, Joe starts out on a quiet background note when compared to the two women, and then the story shows more and more how messed up not just the start of his relationship with Gracie was but how messed up their present day relationship still is. More than one review described Joe as a thirteen years old still locked in the body of an adult man, and before watching the film I assumed this meant Joe would be characterized as a manchild, but no, that's not what was meant at all. If anything, he's the most reasonably and responsibly acting adult in this film. But emotionally, it becomes clear he's never had the chance to process what happened, not least because his entire life is still built around keeping Gracie happy. He became a father years and years before growing up, and the scene where due to his teenage son for the first time sharing pot with him his quiet and calm facade finally cracks and some of that repressed emotion breaks through is incredibly good and heartbreaking.

Incidentally: making a movie which deals with an adult grooming a kid without getting voyeuristic with a young actor sounds near impossible - but May-December by showing us the aftermath and the long term effect everything had on Joe decades later proves it can be done. At the same time, we do get a visual reminder of just how young he was when Elizabeth gets sent video clips of teenagers auditioning to play Joe. (The audition clips don't show more than them introducing themselves with their name and age.) Elizabeth looks appalled, and the audience might think it's because it hits her how young thirteen really is.... and then a few scenes later, she's on the phone with her producer and tells him these guys are just wrong because they don't look sexy enough. Which tells you something about Elizabeth.

Despite how good this film is - with script, acting and cinematography all outstanding - , I'm not surprised it wasn't a box office success (while getting deservedly criticial praise.) It's hardly a subject lending itself to relaxation, and despite its three leads all being very attractive people, any sexual activity is basically the opposite of fanservice - like I said, it's an emotional horror show. Not something I'll rewatch any time soon, though I am glad I watched it once, and am full of admiration for what it achieves.

Current Mood: thoughtful
Current Location: Bamberg

skygiants

A while back,

lirazel posted about a bad book about an interesting topic -- Conspiracy Theories About Lemuria -- which apparently got most of its information from a scholarly text called The Lost Land of Lemuria: Fabulous Geographies, Catastrophic Histories by Sumathi Ramaswamy.

Great! I said. I bet the library has that book, I'll read it instead of the bad one! which now I have done.

For those unfamiliar, for a while the idea of sunken land-bridges joining various existing landmasses was very popular in 19th century geology; Lemuria got its name because it was supposed to explain why there are lemurs in Madagascar and India but not anywhere else. Various other land-bridges were also theorized but Lemuria's the only one that got famous thanks to the catchy name getting picked up by various weird occultists (most notably Helena Blavatasky) and incorporated into their variably incomprehensible Theories of Human Origins, Past Paradises, Etc.

As is not unexpected, this book is a much more dense, scholarly, and theory-driven tome than the bad pop history that

lirazel read. What was unexpected for me is that the author's scholarly interests focus on a.) cartography and b.) Tamil language and cultural politics, and so what she's most interested in doing is tracing how the concept of a Lemurian continent went from being an outdated geographic supposition to a weird Western occult fringe belief to an extremely mainstream, government-supported historical narrative in Tamil-speaking polities, where Lost Lemuria has become associated with the legendary drowned Tamil homeland of Tamilnāṭu and thus the premise for a claim that not only is the Lemurian continent the source of human origins but that specifically the Tamil language is the source language for humanity.

Not the book I expected to be reading! but I'm not at all mad about how things turned out! the prose is so dry that it was definite work to wade through but the rewards were real; the author has another whole book about Tamil language politics and part of me knows I am not really theory-brained enough for it at this time but the other part is tempted.

Also I did as well come out with a few snippets of the Weird Nonsense that I thought I was going in for! My favorite anecdote involves a woman named Gertrude Norris Meeker who wrote to the U.S. government in the 1950s claiming to be the Governor-General of Atlantis and Lemuria, ascertaining her sovereign right to this nonexistent territory, to which the State Department's Special Advisor on Geography had to write back like "we do not think that is true; this place does not exist." Eventually Gertrude Meeker got a congressman involved who also nobly wrote to the government on behalf of his constituent: "Mrs. Meeker understands that by renouncing her citizenship she could become Queen of these islands, but as a citizen she can rule as governor-general. [...] She states that she is getting ready to do some leasing for development work on some of these islands." And again the State Department was patiently like "we do not think that is true, as this place does not exist." Subsequently they seem to have developed a "Lemuria and Atlantis are not real" form letter which I hope and trust is still being used today.

osprey_archer

I’ve never owned my own TV before, but one of my friends had an extra which became mine when I moved into the Hummingbird Cottage. A Target gift card had just come into my possession as a housewarming gift, so I traipsed off to Target for a DVD player.

“I didn’t know we sold those anymore,” the bemused clerk informed me. (Target does, however, have a large record selection. Also WiFi enabled record players. What a time to be alive.)

Undeterred, I made my purchase, and drove home happily dreaming of all the new movies and shows I would watch.

I did in fact manage to watch a couple of new movies: Studio Ghibli’s The Red Turtle, a wordless movie about a man marooned on an island who ends up marrying a turtle who turns into a woman (as turtles are wont to do), and Werner Herzog’s Happy People: A Year in the Taiga, which is a fascinating documentary about trappers in the taiga, although it does keep saying things like “These trappers are almost untouched by modern civilization” as the trappers zoom off in their snow mobiles. I mean. Maybe a little touched by modern civilization?

However, what I’ve mostly been doing is rewatching old favorites. I rewatched the Romola Garai Emma and the pre-Raphaelite miniseries Desperate Romantics (both of which I own), and contemplated borrowing the 2006 Jane Eyre and 2008 Sense and Sensibility miniseries from the library before deciding that no, it was better to wait till I could find them used somewhere, and therefore enjoy the thrill of the hunt.

(I have not yet found either of those miniseries, but on my last visit to Half Price Books I DID find a copy of the 1981 Brideshead Revisited miniseries for a mere $10!!! which was instantly stolen by a friend who hasn’t seen it yet. Which is fair enough I guess.)

I did get the first two seasons of The Vicar of Dibley from the library, and have now started in on their Poirot collection, and was disconcerted to discover that with Poirot in particular I have barely any memory of the show. Things like the bit where Miss Lemon says “Poirot looked middle-aged even as a baby,” yes. The solutions to the mysteries? No. Gone. Might as well have never watched the show. Which is convenient for a rewatch, admittedly.

As much as I’m enjoying my rewatches, however (season one of Downton Abbey next?), I would like to stir a few new-to-me things into the mix as well.

1. I’ve started the 1981 sitcom A Fine Romance, because (a) it stars Judi Dench, and (b) the episodes are half an hour long. (I’m a sucker for shows with half hour episodes.) It’s cute, but I’m not totally sold yet. Will give it a few more episodes and see how I feel.

2. On the topic of half hour shows (actually 22-minute shows), I’ve heard Abbott Elementary is fantastic. Yes? No? Maybe so?

3. Given my love of Poirot, I was looking thoughtfully at the Miss Marple adaptations. But alas they’re all two hours long, and I turn into a pumpkin at about 60 minutes.

4. Has anyone seen Flambards? Would you recommend it? I’m considering it because it’s on the shelf at the library and I have a vague memory of someone, somewhere, gushing about it, except maybe they were gushing about the book that it’s based on and not the show.

5. I attempted to watch a Vanity Fair miniseries, by which I mean that I got a copy out of the library and then never even put it in the DVD player because the thought of watching Becky Sharp be mean to people while smiling sweetly was too stressful. Strongly suspect I would feel the same way about the classic 1979 Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy miniseries, which is unfortunate as it would be the perfect capper for my George Smiley readings.

6. However, as a general rule, I do enjoy book to miniseries adaptations, especially if they’re period pieces and the episodes are less than an hour long. So please let me know if you have recs!

sholio

The recent "only one bed" meme (which I still haven't finished, as per usual) led to only-one-bed thoughts and this missing scene for B5 5x16.

One Safe Harbor (also on Ao3 - G'Kar/Londo, 2300 words, explicit)
Missing scene on the flight from Babylon 5 to Centauri Prime in 5x16. Two people in a very small sleeping space. Also, some feelings are had.

( One Safe Harbor - 2300 wds )

sholio

I watched the first 15 minutes of "In the Beginning" back in May, and finally watched the rest last night. I enjoyed it, despite not being that interested in the 10-years-earlier part of the timeline (or the Minbari, for the most part). Annoyingly, the audio/video was a little out of sync for most of it, and I'm not sure why.

( Spoilers for a 25-year-old TV movie )

rachelmanija

This sequel to one of my favorite books of last year, a young adult post-apocalypse novel with a lovely slow-burn gay romance, fell victim to a trope I basically never like: the sequel to a romance that starts out by breaking up the main couple or pitting them against each other. It may be realistic but I hate it. If the main thing I liked about the first book was the main couple's dynamic - and if I'm reading the sequel, that's definitely the case - then I'm never going to like a sequel where their dynamic is missing or turns negative. I'm not saying they can't have conflict, but they shouldn't have so much conflict that there's nothing left of the relationship I loved in the first place.

This book starts out with Jamison and Andrew semi-broken up and not speaking to each other or walking on eggshells around each other, because Andrew wants to stay in the nice post-apocalyptic community they found and Jamison wants to return to their cabin and live alone there with Andrew. Every character around them remarks on this and how they need to just talk to each other. Eventually they talk to each other, but it resolves nothing and they go on being weird about each other and mourning the loss of their old relationship. ME TOO.

Then half the community's children die in a hurricane, and it's STILL all about them awkwardly not talking to each other and being depressed. I checked Goodreads, saw that they don't make up till the end, and gave up.

The first book is still great! It didn't need a sequel, though I would have enjoyed their further adventures if it had continued the relationship I loved in the first book. I did not sign up for random dead kids and interminable random sulking.

tozka

Happy Thursday! I'm leaving this housesit tomorrow-- I have the weekend free for sightseeing and then I need to make my way over to Evanston, Illinois for my next (short) sit. Today is a lot of cleaning, packing, and trying to eat whatever's left in the fridge!

For now, here's some links for y'all:

The Quantum Bang multi-fandom fix-it big bang is live and stories are being posted now! (h/t

starwatcher)

June's theme at

fancake is female relationships (of all kinds). Come make recs!

unfitforsociety posted some Batman (Batfamily) fanfic recs. ( More links! )

osprey_archer

I went into John Le Carre’s A Legacy of Spies with a certain trepidation, as the book is a late-career novel that retreads the events of Le Carre’s first break-out hit, The Spy Who Came in from the Cold. Years after the events in the earlier book, Smiley’s right-hand man Peter Guillam finds himself the focus of a legal investigation into what exactly went down during that mission.

Frankly, the premise struck me as a tired rehash of an earlier success. But this is not a fair assessment of A Legacy of Spies, in which Le Carre cheerfully twists a few knives that he had hitherto left untwisted in the general Smiley saga. As such, this review will feature ( spoilers for all the Smiley books )

Despite my doubts, a perfect end to the series, really. Brings the story full circle, updates us on all the most interesting characters, continues the exploration of Le Carre’s favorite themes. Were we the bad guys? - by “we” meaning not England, or Europe, or the West, but the international brotherhood of spies.

sholio

This was written for one of last year's prompt fests - Whumptober, I think - and never posted. At the time, I was really struggling to get words out, feeing pretty insecure about the words I did write, and I could tell this needed editing and didn't feel up to dealing with it. Also, it was too long to just post as a snippet of fic like most of the others. I sat on it for a while with the idea that it might be possible to clean it up and use it in an exchange, but it didn't fit anything I was writing for, and I finally got around to editing and posting it.

Old Words (1978 words) by Sholio
Chapters: 1/1
Fandom: Biggles Series - W. E. Johns
Rating: Teen And Up Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Relationships: James "Biggles" Bigglesworth & Erich Von Stalhein
Characters: Erich von Stalhein, James "Biggles" Bigglesworth
Additional Tags: Post-Canon, Friendship, Developing Relationship, Secret Messages
Summary: Some time after Buries a Hatchet/Looks Back, Biggles and Erich find an old message in an abandoned dead drop.

Also posted under the cut.

( Old Words - 2000 wds )

Profile

copperfyre

December 2020

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Page Summary

Style Credit

Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by timeasmymeasure

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Jun. 12th, 2025 09:08 am

Reading

Contemplating July activities

Wednesday Reading Meme

Whumpex reveals!

Recent theater

Doctor Who: The War Doctor

A quick note for me and others

Book Review: Little Dancer Aged Fourteen

Hornet Flight - Ken Follett

Recent reading

Book Review: Midwinter Nightingale

Stories of violent death: novels and opera

May-December (Film Review)

(no subject)

Adventures in DVDs

Babylon 5 fanfic: One Safe Harbor

Babylon 5: In the Beginning (the rest of it)

The Only Light Left Burning, by Erik J. Brown: DNF

murdle, leather at pride, protest poetry

Book Review: A Legacy of Spies

Biggles fic: Old Words

Profile

December 2020

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags