I am the Kat that Walks By Itself

I've read a few MCU/Sentinel crossovers recently that gave the impression that the author had never watched an episode of The Sentinel in their life. Which is kinda sad. There's two things that attracted fans to the show: the buddy cop vibe, and the worldbuilding. Lots of fan writers took the worldbuilding and ran with it, sometimes very far away. One of the most influential worldbuilding-extensions was the "GDP" series by Susan Foster. More on that later. The Sentinel has been described as "the little black dress" of fandom, because if you just take the worldbuilding aspect of it, you can cross it over with practically anything. And it seems that people are writing crossovers based on the fanfic they've read, rather than the actual series.

So I'm going to do an introduction to the Sentinel worldbuilding, what is canon, what is fanon, and possibly what is in-between.

( Read more... )

Finished reading "The Android's Dream" by John Scalzi. First bit of non-fanfic fiction I've read in a while. Initially hard to get into, but soon got caught up in the shenanigans. So many shenanigans! It was fun. ( spoilery philisophical ramblings )

This time of year, there's a lot of argument about the "real" meaning of Christmas. And other times of year, there are arguments about other festivals and about the "real" meaning of symbols, such as the rainbow. It tends to boil down to two main arguments:

1. the earliest meaning is the original, it got in first, so that is the only legitimate meaning.
2. the latest meaning is what it evolved into, that's what it means now, how dare you tell me it can't mean what it means.

It is just as legitimate (or illegitimate) for the LBGT crowd to co-opt the rainbow as their symbol, as it was for the Celtic Christians to co-opt the Triquetra Celtic knot as the symbol of the Holy Trinity. You can't have it both ways. Either the earlier meaning is the only legitimate one, or the later meaning is the only legitimate one -- if one uses the oldness/newness of the meaning as the argument for its legitimacy. People who declare that Christmas is "really a Pagan holiday" (and that the Triquetra symbol "really" is about the Threefold Goddess) can't then turn around and try to argue that, somehow, the "oldness" argument doesn't apply to the symbolism of the rainbow as a promise of God to Noah after the Flood, since Noah predates the LGBT movement by, er, thousands of years. But they still want to have it both ways.

Of course, what they really want is to control the discourse in their favour.

So, please, none of these silly arguments about what a symbol or festival "really" means. All you can be really sure of is what it means to YOU.

There is no "real" meaning. There is ALL the meanings. Pick one. Pick several!

I'm not saying that symbols are meaningless or arbitrary. Far from it! That would be like saying that art or poetry are meaningless or arbitrary in their meaning. Nor am I saying that the meanings of symbols shouldn't be discussed. But let us use these discussions to enlighten each other, not quarrel with each other. Peace.

( side note )

It just occurred to me to wonder... why do the Hogwarts Houses have passwords to keep people out? (*) It is yet another thing which divides the Houses and prevents them from getting to know each other. Why should one have to barricade oneself inside a tower when Hogwarts is supposed to be the safest place in Britain? Surely one wouldn't need protection from within the castle?

No wonder the poor Sorting Hat had to keep singing about unity - none of the staff of Hogwarts bothered to lift a finger to facilitate it. Almost complete segregation was the rule. The only times people from different Houses are allowed to interact are when they are competing against each other, (a) in class and (b) Quidditch. Yes, it is possible for classes to be set up so that cooperation rather than competition is the norm, but in practice, even when students are working in teams, they are always split along House lines.

I mean, I'd already noticed that the mealtime segregation wasn't helping, but the passwords on the House entrances is yet another enforcement of isolation - even if one had friends in other houses, one isn't allowed to bring them into one's common room. Or at least, strongly discouraged from doing so. This means that two opportunities for socializing (meals, and relaxation time) have been completely cut off. For no good reason. Yes, I don't think "tradition" is a good reason. And I'm wondering how that tradition started, and when.

(*) Yes, I know there are Plot Reasons. I am looking at this from a Watsonian perspective, not a Doyleist one.

Doctor Who?

( first try )

( second try )

( third try )

( almost )

( not quite )

( but then... )

( once more )

( no, that won't do at all )

( and it did count )

( no half-measures )

( once more from the top )

( but don't forget... )

( resetting )

( I give up )

Please, someone explain to me what "bromance" means.

One of the things that bothers me about the Harry Potter series is the role of Albus Dumbledore, or, more specifically, Dumbledore's actions and motives in regard to Harry and the war in general. Especially the reasons behind his actions. Because I keep on having to toss my hands in the air and exclaim, "What was Dumbledore thinking?"

I find it very difficult to come to a conclusion about what motivated Dumbledore. I am certain that he meant well, but beyond that, I am baffled. He said one thing and did another. He was supposedly wise, and yet did incredibly foolish things. Why? It's not enough to say "he wasn't perfect" or "he was only human"; this isn't a question of imperfection, but inconsistency. In the light of what we know at the end of the series, a number of Dumbledore's actions really do not fit with someone who is both wise and loving. Because if he was loving, he was incompetent, and if he was wise, he was callous. Was Dumbledore aware of the likely consequences of his actions or not? Was he blindly optimistic, a well-meaning incompetent, a bit senile? Was he as cunning as a fox? Did he consider any price worth paying for the greater good, even if he wasn't the one paying the price? Did he genuinely love the ones he claimed to love, or were they all pawns?

I'm not going to attempt to come to a conclusion. What I am going to attempt is to list the problematic incidents and give a range of answers as to why Dumbledore did what he did. And in some cases, not give any answers at all, because I can't think of any.

( pondering problematic plots )

---

I'd appreciate if you could suggest further answers and further unanswered questions for this, as well as pointing out any mistakes I've made.

ETA: Decisions in Harry Potter may be helpful to look at as another aspect of the chain of influence that Dumbledore was involved in.

Yesterday, I was reading Who Gets To Be a Geek? Anyone Who Wants to Be and the following passage struck me:

Many people believe geekdom is defined by a love of a thing, but I think — and my experience of geekdom bears on this thinking — that the true sign of a geek is a delight in sharing a thing. It’s the major difference between a geek and a hipster, you know: When a hipster sees someone else grooving on the thing they love, their reaction is to say “Oh, crap, now the wrong people like the thing I love.” When a geek sees someone else grooving on the thing they love, their reaction is to say “ZOMG YOU LOVE WHAT I LOVE COME WITH ME AND LET US LOVE IT TOGETHER.”

I thought, I am a geek for Christ.
( Read more... )

Best reason ever for not turning to the Dark Side of the Force: "Why would I want to be angry and miserable all the time?"

Credit where credit is due: this idea came from a Star Wars/Stargate Atlantis crossover fusion (The Dark Side by Astolat) which I stumbled across while looking for podfic, started reading it, and stopped when I realized it was slash (the version I found wasn't the one I link to here, and for some reason, that version (which I can't find again) didn't have warnings on it).

Signs in fanfic that mean I should stop reading the story, because it won't be worth finishing it. I don't always listen to myself, though.
( here are the signs )