#24: I know you were giving your perspective on Shelley and Frankenstein (for which, kudos!), but it occurs to me that this is you are also talking about the presidential administration of George W. Bush, too.
Which is as good a place as any to suggest Barbara Ehrenreich's Bright-sided : how the relentless promotion of positive thinking has undermined America.
Related quote, from William Gibson's twitter feed:
"The deeply sinful thrill of watching people who have no idea how much they don't know." --Ta-Nehesi Coates
"It's called a confidence game. Why? Because you give me your confidence? No. Because I give you mine." -- David Mamet, House of Games
I believe Dave Howell is taking the train up, having made a detour from Seattle.
As permanent as a Wikipedia page.
As relevant as last week's Wall Street Journal.
He's Exhibit A for what's the matter with Kansas.
As crowded as an unemployment line in Detroit.
As phony as a vegan in a leather jacket.
The job security of a drummer from Spinal Tap.
"What was that?"
"French horns."
How to embrace change? Parable of the Sower.
How to say no when pressured to say yes? The Cold Equations.
How to deal with new cultures: The Final Reflection.
Napoleon complex? The Essential Ellison.
Does Dianetics count as science fiction?
So, any guesses as to what the plot is?
Final Crisis.
Presses pants really fine,
Keeps those pleats right in line.
Hey hey-- there goes the Iron Man.
Avram @ 98: Clearly you haven't heard-- Marvel and Claremont are forking continuity. Chris is writing X-Men Forever from the point where he left the X-Men back in 1991. No Civil War, no Secret Invasion, no extra Summers brother, none of that. See the start of my interview with Claremont here.
So yes, it's current.
MT @ 144: Have you felt sodomized lately? If so, you probably aren't a dinosaur, and therefore don't have to uninstall.
(In the future, we will speak very strange sentences indeed.)
If one can't deconstruct a work down to the level of the work's particular ratio of dinosaurs to sodomy, then one is not a true deconstructionist.
(Hey look, I'm in a rut!)
Re: "adultery in Westchester County"-- oddly enough, I was just discussing that with an author today and his characters in Westchester that were in a love triangle. She loves two men-- one a strong upright leader type who's a bit of a stiff, and the other a gruff loner who's the best he is at what he does...
...on the other hand, Chris has a resolution to the triangle that's pretty severe coming up in a month or so.
Heresiarch is right. Including the crayons in the photograph is a much better way to match color, as there are so many places where the color can vary, starting with lighting, camera, and monitor.
For my money, buying a Huey monitor color calibrator is an absolute necessity. Worth every penny. But then, I work in the graphic arts, so my needs may be more than yours.
Originally posted in what may or not be the wrong thread, but:
If your very old MT install is screwed up, are you actually saying that your dinosaur has been sodomized?
Since you're stating that your very old MT install is screwed up, are you actually implying that your dinosaur has been sodomized?
ML folks: I've recently ported a few MT installs to WP (most notably PeterDavid.net, which gets a hefty amount of traffic and abuse); it is indeed pretty painless and I'd be happy to help. Most of the functionality of your current site is keepable right out of the box, and I suspect the rest can be had with a bit of searching for the right plugins. You have my numbers and email.
The blog hosts are secretly intergalactic crime lords. Pass it on.
Honest. Would Muppets lie?
#165: All of this -- yes, ALL of it -- boils down to, "Do you believe in the rule of law?" And there's an important corollary that you don't mention: "What kind of consequences are YOU PERSONALLY willing to take if you think a law needs to be broken?"
Now we're getting somewhere.
One of the big themes of the story is vigilantism, and what you take on yourself to address "higher laws". The credits sequence has numerous examples of that in almost every shot, including the death scene of the Silhouette and her lover (my reference to "obvious sexual deviancy" above, and at the time portrayed, completely believable), the monk setting himself on fire, the shooting of Kennedy, and the riots of the 70's all being cases of people going above and beyond to save their idea of the way the world should be.
Yes, I'm conflating questions together because there are different people who hold these ideas, and they all live on the same planet, sometimes right next door to each other. There are people who hold contradictory answers to these questions in their own heads. Hence all the conflict.
In no particular order:
Hayter, for whatever flaws he may have otherwise, did an incredibly tough job of taking what might be the one comic you really couldn't deviate from. It's easier to tell your own version of an origin story from an ongoing serial, and many people have. Doing Watchmen has been a tough go-- trust me, I read the earlier scripts. Eeeeeek. Claiming that he's just appropriating the power of Moore's work is like claiming Peter Jackson just appropriated Tolkien, or Frank Darabont just appropriated Stephen King. If you think it's easy, go watch "The Spirit".
Moreover, anybody making this film in the wake of 9/11 shows an act of cojones not seen since someone mounted a Broadway show of Chicago right after the OJ Simpson murder trial.
Re: I think that it shows that Hayter believes that Watchmen is a story about sex and violence and not a story about how "saving the world" means eight different things to eight different costumed heroes over the course of a forty year arc-- No. The entire question of Watchmen is "How far will you go to save your world?"
Quoting myself:
Would you kill a child molester who fed his victim to his dogs? Obvious sexual deviancy, right? What about killing lesbians, then?
Would you break into prison to release a criminal? What if you knew he wasn't a criminal, but couldn't prove it?
Would you shoot police officers who were getting in your way of saving the world? How about if they were just preventing you from beating up on crooks?
Would you lie to bring down a presidential candidate, perhaps by accusing him of being a Muslim (like that's bad in and of itself) in order to save the country? If character assassination is okay-- how about stealing an election? Or assassinating the President outright? Is that cool? Or assassinating reporters who might bring government misdeeds to light?
Would you kill a person to protect the world? How about killing someone in self-defense?
How about more than one person? How about three? Thirty? Three thousand? Three hundred thousand? Three million people? How many people is it okay to kill in order to protect the world? Would you fly a plane into a building? Would you invade a country? Would you nuke a city?
Who appoints themselves to make these decisions? And who watches over them?
Violence is certainly going to be a factor in your answers to those questions.
Oh, and just to drag it back to the original point of the thread: my suspicion is that Warner Bros. can't use the piece for promotion because I doubt Bob Dylan would license "The Times, They Are A'Changing" for commercials.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2009 | 20 |
| 2008 | 4 |
Total: 24 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Glenn Hauman:
Show all comments by Glenn Hauman.