chocolatepot: Ed and Stede (Default)
In order of watching.

Black Panther )

Jessica Jones )

A Wrinkle in Time )

I need to reread the L'Engles I have read and read the ones I haven't. Mayhap I will stop at the library tomorrow and see what they have.
chocolatepot: Ed and Stede (Default)
(c/p'd from what I posted to GoodReads)

Good literary fiction novel, not very good fanfiction. The writing is clear and evocative, the characters well-drawn.There is a little too much head-hopping: a semi-universal third person point of view works in Austen because she had an ironic detachment from the characters and the ability to raise an eyebrow even at the flaws of her heroines, but Baker goes so deep into her protagonist's thoughts and feelings that it's truly jarring when we're suddenly involved in another character's brain, but the writing itself is very sharp.

review )
chocolatepot: Ed and Stede (Default)
I don't understand why Wolf Hall is called Wolf Hall. Before I read the book I assumed it was the name of Cromwell's house because it's pretty apt, but it's not and they don't even go there and I don't understand if it's meant to be symbolic of anything.

The writing was very good - it might not age well, I don't know, but I thought it was just contemporary enough to sound natural without annoying me as anachronistic - and the pacing was much better than The Tudors. Knowing perfectly well what was going to happen didn't get in the way at all.

But there's a thing that's been getting to me in Tudor fiction and it's the way the Catholic/Protestant divide is handled. Maybe at some point in Bring Up The Bodies there will be more nuance (there isn't much at the point I'm in in that book), but the idea that Protestantism is inherently better seems to come from a combination of 1) the prevalence of Protestantism today and 2) the idea that society gets better when you go forward through history.

Because there are definite issues I have that never seem to come up in this fiction, it's just traditional/conservative/unimaginative people supporting Catholicism and free-thinking/sensible/clever people trying to bring in Protestantism. Like, faith vs. works - "you just have to believe" can be shown as a good philosophy, sure. But, personally, as an agnostic/atheist, I prefer the idea that doing good things > just believing. Or sola scriptura, when I feel that the Bible is flawed and it's perfectly plausible to me that later additions to dogma could improve on it. In a way, Henry VIII's completely self-serving interpretation of Protestantism is more sympathetic (or at least understandable) to me than Cromwell's as presented here. And nobody seems to work very hard to try to make these things sympathetic in fiction, they're treated as inherently noble things in their own right.

Aaaaaaaand I'm on a "non-drowsy" decongestant right now so none of this may make sense. "Decongestant" doesn't look like a word, like shouldn't we pronounce the G as hard? Oh dear
chocolatepot: Ed and Stede (Default)
After seeing it last night at Proctor's, I can say with certainty that We Will Rock You is the worst Broadway musical I know of. No redeeming qualities. None.

The plot was stupid but could have been saved with a heartfelt book and original music, but instead the book read like it was written by high schoolers. Really. The clunkiest dialogue, and no actual jokes - just punchlineless references to Names People Know. Annoyingly, they would reference Bohemian Rhapsody in loads of ways but never delivered on it, forcing it into an encore like people wanted to hear just one more song! when people really just wanted to hear the song that seems like the only one that's actually central to the plot.

The set was terrible, trying to look like a rock concert with a big lighted rigging above the stage, but all that did was put all this empty space above the character's heads, drawing focus away from them and making them look small.

There are two worst things. I can't decide which is The One, so, two, illogical though it may be.

1) The whole show is about celebrating the freedom, spontaneity, and soul of rock music ... but a big-budget musical like this is tightly controlled and entirely under the direction of people other than the actors, including the producers, who are there to make a profit (how GlobalSoft). This one has been reproduced more than 30 times in the past decade, making it an incredibly manufactured and processed production. The use of the Hard Rock Café as a ~home of rock~ when it is in fact just as much about plastering the images and memes of music over a corporate shell might have been a deliberate poke at all this, but thinking it all over I'm pretty sure it was not. At the same time as people are pretending to really care about music with rocks in on the stage, there's a huge and very talented band up in the flies that gets covered with a scrim and occasionally shown.

(Speaking of music with rocks in, you know what would have been so much better? A Soul Music musical. I want to hear Sioni Bod Da played on a harp.)

2) THIS SHOW HAS ACHIEVED MASSIVE SUCCESS AND A WORLD TOUR DESPITE EXTREMELY NEGATIVE CRITICAL REVIEWS. Even though it's complete garbage, the greater part of a generation loves it because it spits up songs that were key to their adolescence/young adulthood. Everyone was standing from practically the beginning of the bows.

Ugh. I just really want to go see a revival of something from the early 20th century, when shows had shitty dialogue because they were 100% written as vehicles for songs and everyone was aware of that and didn't try to pretend otherwise. The songs in Babes in Arms have about 5% to do with the characterization or plot that's present, but it doesn't matter because they don't shine bright lights directly into my eyes.

ETA: I FORGOT TO SAY. You know what it really reminded me of? Hit List, the second show-withing-a-show in Smash. Hit List is the only thing that could be worse than this, because HL was all about that doofus composer getting back at the world.
chocolatepot: Bodice of a woman from a painting by Ingres (Ingres)
(I've been on vacation for the past week and so I've seen very few posts and I should write about what I did, and I will later, but right now this.)

It's very rare that I won't finish a book. I think getting free ones for the Kindle is helping me get to the point where I can say, "Okay. This is not getting better. Let's not bother." The book pushing me onward this week is called His Not-So-Sensible Miss.

The first quarter or so of the book is seriously just about the hero and heroine, with nobody else appearing. The heroine, Emily, is the ward of a local duke (you will notice that I am unfazed at the casual use of a duke, because I am a broken woman) but the daughter of a vicar's daughter and a professor at Oxford, both deceased. She comes across the hero, Dillon Chambers, when he's working on this cottage he bought in the country and thinks he's a laborer - he lets her because he wants to ~get to know her~ without his money coming into it. They meet repeatedly at his cottage and have picnics and fall in love. Then he tells her to go have a Season like the duke/duchess are trying to get her to do and if she's still in love with him in a year to meet back there. Then he goes to London as well and meets her and of course she's angry and thinks he was fooling around with her. He starts pretending to court her not-sister, Claresta, to get near her, and Claresta agrees to help. This is about halfway through and where I put it down. (I should also mention that the Chamberses are a wealthy old family in the vein of the Darcys, but Mrs. Chambers is intent of getting a wife for her son with a courtesy title. This makes little sense. 1. That's not going to do anything for Dillon, he's not going to get a secondary courtesy title of his own. 2. It's not going to do anything for his children, unless he marries an only child whose father's title has nobody else to come to except his son. 3. That would be a worst-case scenario for any nobleman, sorry, men with titles could marry heiresses but noble daughters tended not to marry out of the nobility as they took their husband's status, so did their children, and the title could pass to someone who horrendously worked for a living.)

wow, this is long )
chocolatepot: Ed and Stede (Default)
(I'm about halfway through.) I picked this up because it was free at the time, I think, and the title caught my eye because of the ASoIaF connection. It's definitely a novel about a romance and there are a number of romance novel clichés, but at the same time there's a lot less emphasis on sex and eroticism, which leaves a lot more room for plot.

blah blah plot, fashion )
chocolatepot: The TARDIS against a wall (Tardis)
You know, I was all psyched to watch this because I'd seen people talking about how "inappropriate" (read: involves sex) and trashy it was. And when it started out, I was so happy that there was an important character (Miss Harkness) who was a semi-retired courtesan/madam, and the show wasn't judgmental about her profession. I like period media that addresses issues like that, that goes "hey, the Victorian/Edwardian 'fallen women are either heartless or constantly bemoaning their fate' thing wasn't really universal, more of the kind of thing society wanted to be true."

But then she gets all sad because she may have money and nice clothes, but really she has ~nothing~. And Marcus's lover, Ruth, is rude and cold and doesn't like the Grand (= she's Not Good). And Monica, the maid Miss Harkness took under her wing and taught to be a lady (just to be a lady, although I thought at first she was going to make her a successful mistress) oh no slept with a man and was his mistress despite Miss Harkness saying it was a bad life! And then when he leaves her to go back to London, she decides to take up prostitution, so of course she gets beaten up and raped by three men. And then she kills one and goes to prison, because Such is the Downfall of the Soiled Dove.

God damn it, Russell T Davies. You suck and ruin everything. I'm really not a hardcore sex-positive feminist in the "sex workers are all empowered" vein, but a well-off and successful prostitute in 1920 could have a lot more independence than most other women. And instead he chose to go with a completely unoriginal, cliché, and frankly regressive storyline. And that's without going into how Marcus starts off a total ass but seems to be redeemed by the love of a good woman, which is not even a storyline I have a problem with, in general.

Profile

chocolatepot: Ed and Stede (Default)
Enchanted

April 2026

S M T W T F S
   1234
56789 1011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Style Credit

Syndicate

RSS Atom
Page generated May. 5th, 2026 03:12 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Most Popular Tags