Yes, today is May 25th, the patron day of two of my fandoms, Discworld and Hitchhikers. I, for one, celebrate the latter, mostly because its hard to find lilacs in Ohio in May, and also because appreciating ones towel (or bandanna, in my case) is a much more positive experience that remembering a failed fictional revolution.

But thinking about this has lead me to think about some other fictional worlds I care about, and specifically the frustration I've found with being unable to share them.

( On Fantastica and References )

Just something to think about. Happy Towel Day, all!

- K

So I'm having a bit of an up and down week. Up: the application for graduation has been pushed back, giving me time to see the impossible-to-find adviser and convince him to sign my papers. Down: Emotional instability and my therapist canceling my appointment next week. (My first visit was a month ago. My second has been rescheduled for the end of this month. Bleh.)

But I'd rather not complain about that. Especially when there is a dead famous author to complain about. XD

( And unanticipated problem with That Hideous Strength )

I know I have a lot of fans and anti-fans of the show Sherlock on my time line, so I thought I'd reblog a comparison between the Sherlock/Watson dynamic and the Kirk/Spock/McCoy dynamic.

Its here</i>.

I think the article gets the reason why the modern remakes of these shows work so well. I personally don't think the dynamic between Kirk and Spock in the new movies was as complex as in the original, but her point still stands.

You know what? I have tried writing this post three times, and its always gotten messed up somehow. So just assume that the other essays were better, and bear with me while I try to spit this out one. last. time.

( Ungo - The Anti-Sherlock )

Stolen from scribblenautics

( hark, a meme! )

So I was told yesterday that there is a term for people who send in grad-school apps like mine. "Snots", aka people with high GRE scores but low grades. The characteristics include arrogant idiots who think they can save the world and who haven't done the work and probably won't be able to cut it. Oh, and they're likely male, but women are over-represented in the social sciences, so that really isn't a point in my favor either.

Well. I dusted up the shatters of my self-esteem and glued them back together appropriately, and since there was a lot of glue involved, the end result is that my ego has swelled a bit since, you know, people of my characteristics are arrogant egotistical dicks. So. ( Here is my arrogance: )

And as a side note, if you are going to use a much-researched sport as an example of a meritocracy, why are you using baseball? Lots of research and data - yes, that is a good reason. Lots of personal knowledge by the prof - also good. The fact that baseball is an American sport, and cuts through the societal constraints in our society - gr- wait a minute, what about the Cuban immigrants playing on American teams? Or the fact that the U.S. is regularly routed by Japan at the world stage? I guess my complaints come down to - why not use soccer? Yes, a baseball star performs individually (apparently? I don't know much about baseball), and thus isn't hindered by his team. But if you use American football when your examples run out...why not use a sport that pulls in people from every nation in the world? A sport that is recognized on the international stage, where players are traded between countries on a regular basis, and where stars come from every country imaginable. Is baseball more of a meritocracy than soccer? I honestly don't know. But the fact that in your example you are ignoring the entire rest of the world, and glossing over the international aspects of baseball within the example, and claiming something is a meritocracy without looking at the constraints that do exist...speaks to your own bias. Soccer can be played anywhere, using nothing more than an inflated ball. Baseball requires a set number of players, doubles the equipment, and has a heck of a lot more space. How many kids in the ghetto have access to a baseball diamond? How many kids in the slums of Lagos, or Rio, or Moscow have access to a football? There's your data, and your 'meritocracy'. You can't even begin to have a society based upon 'merit' when a huge portion doesn't even have access.

And if I really want to place myself on opposite theoretical sides of this argument, I'd like to point out one more thing. That 'huge portion without access'? How many girls play baseball, Mr. Professor?

Two posts in one day? What is this blasphemy?

The truth is, I've been meaning to talk a bit about the two most recent books I've read : Snuff and Absolute Midnight. Both were great fun, and it would be hard to choose which to focus on...

Were it not for the fact that I just finished Absolute Midnight and my brain hasn't quite yet stopped running in circles of "OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD THE PICTURES ARE GOING TO EAT MEEEEEEE THAT WAS SO GOOD AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH"

( No, Seriously. )

But man, was it good. Someone else should read it so I have someone to talk to!

Well, this is going to be my first official (non-writing journal) post on Dreamwidth. With any luck, this will mirror itself onto my LJ account as well. Exciting!

( Why move? )

Hmm. Now that I'm slightly more sensible, lets see if I can actually articulate what I've been thinking about.

( long thoughts on Perelandra )