janedavitt: (sambyme)
( Oct. 16th, 2008 02:23 pm)
TV Guide interview with Jared about a certain debated plot point of the current season.

Don't click the link (under the cut) unless you've been watching S4; it doesn't spoil for upcoming episodes in itself, but avoid if you're completely spoilerphobic.

my reaction to the interview which has now been revised; both versions under the cut )
I was all set to write a meta post about Jim Ellison: The Human Hero because I'm getting a lot of comments about what a git he was in Mile in Your Shoes (and he totally WAS) and I had all these thinky thoughts about that being what I love about the character; that he is this petty, grudge-bearing, sometimes childishly petulant man -- with just as many good points to balance all that out, sure, but the human side of him is still there and it informs him as a hero and I love those nuances.

Then I came across an old interview

Q.What's the goofiest thing you've considered doing for a role?

RB: I have done some goofy things for auditions.
The goofiest thing I considered doing was driving into the studio naked and just be in that space--
to feel what it would feel like to experience that.
Talking to the security guard nude and going into the meeting nude.
I like the idea of driving around nude. In a pickup with tools in the back.

and really, what is there to say? Oh, RB. Never change :;hearts::

(Yeah. Jim. Total git at times. But still. Blair loves him).
janedavitt: (booksbyharmonyfb)
( Jun. 14th, 2008 10:10 am)
Gosh, it's been ages since I wrote meta; lots of fun but I really floundered at times; many thanks to [livejournal.com profile] wesleysgirl for holding my hand and beta reading the first draft ::hugs her::. I tore it to pieces after and added bits so any mistakes are mine.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to the links post; I tried to compile a list but do you know how many fics you gave me? Heheh. LOTS. In the end I simply linked to that post and plan a positive orgy of fic reading this weekend.

The essay is here if anyone wants to read it.
Tags:
janedavitt: (paullookbyor_mabinogi)
( Jun. 10th, 2008 11:52 am)
I'm doing a piece of meta on crossovers for the [livejournal.com profile] shared_wisdom comm and I'm ending with a list of some classics/my favorites. I want to cover as many fandoms as possible so could you rec me your favorites, from the short and sweet to the epics; PWPs, angst, humor, gen, whatever?

Look forward to finding some gems to read and thanks in advance to anyone who contributes :;hugs::
From Cypher (transcript from Becky's page):

Blair: Chris, wait. (sits up) You don't understand. She was dead. She was murdered -- drowned in her tub, and... it was awful. Her mouth was open. It looked like she was screaming and her eyes, man... I'll never forget those eyes.

Christine: (comes back and sits next to him) That must have been horrible for you.

Blair: I... I didn't even know her. Can you imagine what it would be like if it was someone I knew, cared about?

Front door opens only to be stopped by the chain lock. Both look up.


Let me just dwell happily on that moment.

someone I knew, cared about?

ENTER JIM BEFORE HE'S FINISHED SAYING THE WORDS.

I love this show. And I love the significance you could read into Blair being sexually active on Jim's couch, even as he locks Jim out of his own home. Challenge? Message? Subtle flirtation? I mean, come on, Blair; you had to know Jim would walk in and know exactly what you'd been up to...
The use of a name is significant in our culture. There are entire chapters in etiquette books devoted to the mode of address and even in our more casual society, the move from a formal salutation to the use of a first name is a sign of growing friendship or trust.

We attach importance to each time Jim calls Blair by his first name not because we need it as proof of either of those things; they're a given, demonstrated in many other ways, but because it's so rare. Blair, almost from the start, calls Jim, 'Jim'. Jim, on the other hand, addresses Blair mostly as 'Sandburg', 'Chief' or by a variety of off-the-cuff nicknames, appropriate to the situation (one of the most memorable being 'my little guppy' as he was about to teach Blair to cast).

This reluctance to call Blair 'Blair' is interesting because it's not a reluctance that Jim shows with other people. Simon is Jim's superior, yet Jim scatters his conversations with him with many uses of his first name, moving between 'Simon' to 'sir' and 'Captain'; he's friends with Simon; he feels at ease with him -- but both of those conditions apply to Blair, too.

Read more... )

The dialogue is all taken from Becky's Sentinel page, an invaluable resource which I use constantly.
Connected with my post about who wrote/directed which TS episodes here, and because it's best to get a wide sample, I'm going to ask people to tell me their

1. Top 5 slashy episodes of TS

2. Top 5 suckiest.

3. Top 5 significant episodes (major reveals about characters, Sentinel mythos etc).

4. Top 5 entertaining.

5. Top 5 favourites

6. Top 5 funniest

7. Top 5 saddest

8. Top 5 scariest.


If you can't make five or have more than five, or can think of a new category, go for it. The linked post has all the episodes if you can't remember names. No need to rank them.

Here are mine: Read more... )
janedavitt: (blairthinkbyme)
( Sep. 9th, 2007 04:35 pm)
With the English language being so rich and all, it's strange that if you look up the definition of 'procrastinator', 'butterfly' and 'unmotivated' they all say 'Jane' after them.

Got a million and one things to do, some even fun things, and I just dropped them all and made a table of every Sentinel episode title with the writer and director attached to see if I could identify any trends (slashiest writer, suckiest writer, writer we can thank for iconic moments...)


As ever, with a project like this, the place I started was Becky's Transcript site. So grateful for that site.

If anyone else wants to play:

episodes/writers/directors )
Gakked from [livejournal.com profile] fan_eunice who said:

I think we should all do this about whatever our fannish bliss is at the moment. Lets make it so that today it is impossible to turn around on LJ without running into a list of joy about some show or another. Who's with me? C'mon, I challenge you. A list of ten things that you love about your current fandom(s) posted to LJ and a challenge to all of your f'list to do the same.

I'm in.

::clears throat:;

Hello, my name is Jane, and for the last year I've been a fan of a show called The Sentinel.

Ten Reasons Why )
janedavitt: (blairbysori1773)
( Mar. 2nd, 2007 05:33 pm)
LJ is making me sad. I feel it struggle to load pages and comments and fail with a pitiful little wheeze and collapse on the floor, big, teary eyes staring up at me.

Get better soon, LJ! ::pets it::


I'm still trying to deal with a backlog of comments; not ignoring you all, just difficult with all the LJ errors.

And I see there's another round of oh, fandom, why are you not a level playing field with me as star striker, the one who gets the record-breaking transfer fee and the celebrity parties?.

At which I snicker heartlessly.

Never has been, never will be. Deal.

And that seems to flow into what fandom has a right to expect from us.

I don't think I owe fandom anything because fandom, as an entity, does not exist; go on; put salt on its tail; manage it? No? Let me know when you do and that's when I'll accept it has a coherent, single identity and feelings to be hurt. When fandom agrees in one loud shout that YES! a drabble is a hundred words, I'll listen to you, but I'm not holding my breath even on something that simple ;-)

The people who make up fandom; they're a different matter. Which is why (setting aside any nonsense about BNFs because they're rarer than you think and most people you think are ones, aren't really. Drop them in a fandom three doors over and they're newbies with damp ears. Unless they're a real BNF in which case, yes, they'll have had a terrible night's sleep on that pea-infested pile of mattresses) which is why, getting back on track, I do stuff I don't have to (yes! Even non-BNFs have social consciences!).

Like leaving feedback, reccing fics (should do that more often; I get shy about it which is silly), betaing for anyone who asks, taking part in ficathons and challenges, saying thank you to every piece of feedback, helping newbies with questions, uploading stuff... I don't HAVE to do any of it. No one can make me, although there can be social consequences if you don't do some of it.

But I feel like I should, because people did it/are still doing it for me and it gives me a lot of pleasure. I do it with a glow of belonging, paying it forward, whatever. It feels nice to help and it's what I was brought up to do.

I LIKE doing it. It's as much a part of the LJ experience as writing is for me.

But I don't have to and neither does anyone else.

Of course, if we all sat back and waited for someone else to do the work (and a lot of it is work; I do a tenth as much as some people; less; I'm in awe of their committment, enthusiasm and generosity with their time) we'd be staring at empty screens.

But you can't force participation, or guilt people into it.

I happen to want to do the little I do.

So I do.

That's not particularly meritorious. Ask me to do something I don't want to do and I'll be that rapidly retreating figure on the horizon.

I think I had a point in there somewhere...

Uh, fire bad, smut good?
Tags:
janedavitt: (Jackbykataclysmic)
( Nov. 7th, 2006 04:27 pm)
From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, emphasis mine:

Main Entry: race
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
1 : a breeding stock of animals
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics (the English race)
3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits

Racism is defined as

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

When I'm hated because I'm English, the colour of my skin is not an issue. The person hating is being racist by definition.

When you try and rank discrimination and dismiss the historical suffering of a nation (pre-dating the discrimination you're familiar with in your own country by many centuries) as not being sufficiently fashionable/painful to count, you are being breathtakingly arrogant.

When you use the term 'whiteys' you are being a tad on the offensive side.

When you reveal your naivety, insularity, narrow world-view, and poor grasp of world history you are... well, kind of funny, really...

(Do you really think you can dismiss facts that don't fit your half-baked theories and people won't notice? Or fail, as ever, to provide links to back up your specious assertions and not see how transparently disingenuous that is?)

And when you pitch a hissy-fit because a discussion didn't stay between lines you'd delineated, you're providing a shining example of why the adjectives in the paragraph up above aren't going to stop applying to you any time soon.

And do we really need to comment on the absurdity of attacking a foreign programme with precisely four episodes aired -- a programme set in a mostly white city (From Wiki: The ethnic make-up of Cardiff's population, at the time of the 2001 census was: 91.6% white, 2% mixed race, 4% Asian, 1.3% Black, 1.2% Chinese or other ethnic origin) with two of the five leads female, one of the male leads bisexual (his character; the actor is gay), two of the leads Welsh, one Scottish, one American, one of Japanese descent, the whole being set, astonishingly, in Cardiff with Welsh accents to the fore -- for failing to include the requisite number of 'people of colour' and therefore not passing some mysterious quota for political correctness?

We do? I guess we do...

ETA As of Nov 9, Jennyo locked down the entries so most of the above links don't work unless she has you friended. It's not that I can't do links :-)
Tags:
I wasn't planning on jumping in on the incest fics are wrong kerfuffle because -- well, because I've been kerfuffle-free since leaving the Buffy fandom, but [livejournal.com profile] kita0610 speaks for me here on the wider subject of fantasies being guilt-free zones.

And while I'm thinking about it...

You think you know what my fantasies are from my fics?

No. You really don't.

You think you have a vague idea of what turns me on from reading them?

Maybe. Maybe not. You sure as hell don't know what my actual sex life is like.

The thing is, when I'm writing a kink fic I'm quite capable of writing about something that doesn't do much for me.

Because it's not _about_ me.

I might think, ooh, I'd like Jack O'Neill to do that to me, but the crunch question when I'm writing, say, a Jack/Daniel smutfic is: would _Daniel_ like it and would Jack do it? Or vice versa.

They're the ones having sex, not me.

And, sure, sometimes there's an overlap, sure sometimes I take something I like, consider it, and think, yeah, they'd like it, too, let's use it... but not always.

And just as I can write convincingly about a place I've never been, I can write a kink that isn't mine by using my imagination.

That's where the 'fiction' bit comes in.

I've never understood why people assume because you're writing about sex it has to be something you've done or like doing. That assumption wouldn't be made about any other genre.
Tags:
janedavitt: (jimblairbygilkurtis)
( Sep. 28th, 2006 02:05 pm)
If I read ONE MORE fic where character A and character B find out they have feelings about each other and in the space of a short paragraph, including that realisation, kiss, head upstairs and immediately have sex, I'll... I don't know what I'll do.

Something.

You thought you were straight!

You thought he didn't want you!

You don't just have one kiss, ONE, and immediately start shedding clothes and fucking.

Why? Why would you? Why?

So, okay, you've waited a long time. UST's been building. I get that. And you're guys (in any fic I read, that's pretty much a given) and maybe not so much with the talking (except... Daniel and Blair, not to name names, kind of are) and hey, horny 24/7 because you're in a fic and sorry, there's no escaping that. You don't get to have headaches.

But even so, even so, guys... there's no rush. You can spend a night smooching. You can discuss this, just a little. You can, oh, I don't know, act like the new relationship between you is more than just about the hot, hot sex since you're destined, fated lovers whom the gods have decreed belong together (again, kind of an inescapable thing).

Date! Cuddle! Talk! Work up to it slowly!

Or at least take three paragraphs to get naked and sweaty in a good way.

Just three.

Three's good.

even two would be nice
Tags:
I was absorbed in an epic length fic this week, soaked in it, and having fun, when I noticed that the POV shifted mid-scene all the time. 'Oh,' I thought. 'The beta should've picked up on that. That's wrong, that is.'

Then I realised I liked it. Liked it a lot. You could tell who was thinking what, no problem there, and I was getting double the input which, in a smut scene especially, is double the fun. I got to know what they were both thinking/feeling, and it was nice, darn it.

I wrote like that when I started and was eventually told not to. Some of my earlier fics are still full of merrily-shifting POVs and not an asterisk break in sight.

And you know why I did it like that? Not because I was a newbie to writing (that was why I didn't double-space) but because I'd read untold thousands of books before starting to write and only a handful of fics, and in books authors do it all the time and I'd absorbed that.

I was reading a Nora Roberts (well, J D Robb) this morning. Eve and Roarke share the POV, swapping back and forth after a paragraph or two. Say what you like about Nora (me, I think she's secretly twins. Or owns a time machine; she redefines prolific) but she's a professional writer and no mistake and I haven't heard that she has a Rice-like ego that would resist editorial suggestions.

So if it's okay for them, why have we self-regulated ourselves into one POV only, or very neatly-delineated changes?

Whose idea was that?
Tags:
janedavitt: (rononbysorgenmond)
( Feb. 9th, 2006 03:15 pm)
This is something I've been puzzled about for a while because it crops up in discussion of pairings now and then.

Why is it even an issue that Teyla and Ronon are black when, within the context of the show, their skin colour is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever to them and wouldn't influence them in any way at all?

Or, to put it another way, how much should a show be analysed using contemporary attitudes as a yardstick when it's not set in our time and/or place?

We saw one racist society on SG-1 (which was left wiped out to the last man) but in the face of the threat to humanity from the Goa'uld/Wraith and Ori, it seems to be one prejudice that wasn't carried off-planet. With no history of being treated differently because of their colour that we know of, why would it ever occur to Teyla and Ronon to band together against the liberal, white leadership of Atlantis because of that factor? They might because they're native to the Pegasus galaxy and the Atlantis lot are clueless, interfering strangers who didn't even wipe their feet before walking in uninvited (only partially joking there), but even then, they're from very different planets and backgrounds.

It seems odd to load the characters down with baggage that doesn't belong to them.
Tags:
janedavitt: (Faithbykatekat1010)
( Nov. 14th, 2005 10:58 pm)
I can't write any more fic because my brain is now solid, sleepy fuzz but I've got 1,000 words of chapter 8 done, so go me.

This metafluffle going on...eesh. I'm seeing a lot of flippancy from the sidelines and very little real heat; I think that says it all, really.

Bored now.

Been there, done that so many times already, and we all know how it'll end. In tears, or this time yawns.

Not that that sure and certain knowledge should stop the questions being asked; hell, no; go for it; why not. Beats talking about the weather.

Just... when you ask a question and get a reply chorused back at you in dutiful unison because yes, we're all word-perfect now and know where we stand, it's really, truly our answer.

We're not holding back The Truth to the Ultimate Question of Why f/f gets less written/feedback/respect/love than m/m. We don't know, either. We can guess, we can speculate, we can ponder deeply and make icons, but we don't know for sure.

But somehow, whenever people join the discussions and pipe up innocently with an answer, bless their cotton socks, there's this attitude, it seems to me, of, 'Oh, yes, of course, your fandom has more interesting male characters with a high drool factor/you like men/you're straight and girl on girl doesn't do it for you/slash is OMG transgressive and I wanna hang with the cool kids/ I'm a f/b 'ho and I know I'll only get my fix writing about dicks or whatever...

but what did the Romans ever do for us?!'

Because an honest answer, maybe flip, or maybe not, because I know damn well I'm not writing slash for any deep and meaningful reason that will get my fic a footnote in a scholarly analysis of slash, never seems to be enough.

I have written f/f. Not much, but I have. Fred/Lilah, Buffy/Faith, Tara/Anya, Willow/Tara... I think that's all of it. Oh; some AU Dru/Faith in Secretary; I think I did a bit of that section of the story. It's not something I feel drawn to do and in some ways that's interesting because ...how to put this? a lot of my kinks play out hottest in my head when they're f/f or m/f. I don't get off by thinking about m/m.

But when it comes to reading or writing smut I want m/m for the most part because that's hottest for me in that context and interests me more to read and explore through my own writing.

I'm just a mass of contradictions; isn't that rebellious and annoying of me? And if someone as mundane as me is that tangled up, I'm guessing an answer you can fit on an icon just isn't out there.

So what was the question again? Why does fandom prefer m/m to f/f?

We just do. Or don't. Who said we did anyway? What data are you using to make that assumption? Could it be.... feedback? :;shocked hushed whisper::

Everyone knows feedback's not a reliable way of judging the worth of a fic; why, some really, really good authors don't get much, and some really really shoddy, mediocre ones get lots! So you see how that's not a good yardstick _at all_. :;removes tongue from cheek::

Nope, that's not going to fit on an icon.

Darn it.

How about the answer I secretly suspect some people think is the real one.

To piss you off.

Is it working yet?
Tags:
janedavitt: (Default)
( Sep. 7th, 2004 12:12 pm)
Recently, I saw 'fanon-ridden' used in a disparaging way and it got me thinking. Why is fanon considered a poor relation? Why is it verging on calling something a 'bad-fic' to label it fanon-heavy, when a fic full of canon would be praised, all things being equal?

Fair warning; this is me rambling on in my usual rambly way and is most likely full of errors, misconceptions and mistakes. Feel free to point them out and snicker - and equally free to duck right after as I throw things at you. Of course, I might be throwing champagne truffles, if you're smart enough to spot a typo ;-)


Spike is a coal miner and Buffy is his beloved pit pony )
Tags:
When I was in the throes of panic about my G/S essay for [livejournal.com profile] ship_manifesto, I asked for fic recs and Avidrosette very kindly emailed me with a long list that was very useful. She then sent me a detailed reponse to my essay that contained some wonderful Giles discussion and, as she doesn't have an LJ (yet!), I asked if she'd allow me to post it here, as I thought the Giles fans on my friends list would enjoy reading it.

The Darker Side of Giles: Response to Jane Davitt’s “Giles and Spike: The Watcher and the Vampire )
.

Profile

janedavitt: (Default)
janedavitt

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags