delphipsmith: (all shall be well)
...all of you, for your kind words and warm thoughts and hugs; they were and are much appreciated. G's funeral is tomorrow, and then we can begin to figure out how life goes on. Because it *does* go on, which is the difficult gift at the heart of all loss.
delphipsmith: (weeping angel)
It has been a very difficult few days here at Chez Psmith. Mr Psmith's brother G was unexpectedly taken to hospital on Monday morning; things went very bad very quickly, and he died Tuesday afternoon. We are all still a bit numb; it is hard to even know how to think about such a lightning bolt out of nowhere. G was only forty, and leaves my sister-in-law with three little children, our niece and two nephews. I don't know how one explains such things to a child who just wants their daddy to come home. My heart aches for them, and for all of us...
delphipsmith: (gumbies)
Cool: What fire looks like in zero gravity

Cool but makes my head sort of want to explode: Some infinities are bigger than others

Creepy but also still cool: A lyre made out of a human skull

Creepy and really, really not cool: Major fantasy/sf author Marion Zimmer Bradley (Mists of Avalon, etc.) allegedly abused her own daughter for years; see here and here. So disappointed and sad...*

*Edited for clarity, sorry for the ambiguity of original sentence
delphipsmith: (wand-waving)
You may have seen the amazing fan-made Harry Potter movie, "For the Greater Good," which brings to life the break between Dumbledore and Grindelwald, and the death of Ariana. (If you haven't seen it, go watch, it's amazing!)

The same folks now want to do a full-length fan film that explores the relationship between Snape and the Marauders, and they've kicked off an Indiegogo campaign to fund it. (Thanks to [livejournal.com profile] laralee88 for her post that let me know about it!) I REALLY hope this gets fully funded -- it looks really impressive, from the casting to the planned budget to the special effects. So spread the word :)

delphipsmith: (McBadass)
Eighty-one -- yes that's right, EIGHTY ONE -- luscious, inspiring, wonderful, original, stimulating, thought-provoking, fascinating, sexy, dramatic, exciting, angsty, funny, prompts. Go ye and claim!

Photobucket

Minerva_Fest! Prompt Claiming Through 30 June


(banner by [livejournal.com profile] featherxquill; art by Kit466 [used with permission])
delphipsmith: (bookgasm)
My first crush on a fictional man was at about age eight or nine: Prince Gwydion from Llloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Prydain. Well, how could he not be? With his green eyes and wolf-grey hair and the sword and cloak and also hello, a prince, he was everything that a girl bored with sappy Disney royalty would adore. He didn't waste his time rescuing princesses, he was fighting THE LORD OF DEATH, for Merlin's sake. And I loved that he was noble yet accessible: a prince for working days, as it were, not in the least high and mighty, because he didn't need to be.

My next fictional crush was Laurie from Little Women (so sweet and funny and romantic, and played the piano with such passion -- Jo, how could you turn him down?!) closely followed by Dan from Jo's Boys (my black-eyed wounded rebel soul, I'm still sad he didn't win the heart of Bess).

Then I read Dragonsong and fell hard for Masterharper Robinton, with his sharp intelligence, his weakness for Benden wine, his wit and his generous heart; when he and Menolly were alone on the boat in Dragondrums I thought, "At last, at last!!" but the silly tart thwarted me, a betrayal for which I still have never quite forgiven her.

Next: a toss-up between Lord Peter Wimsey -- war hero, collector of incunabula, and sooo very persistently faithful -- and Laurie R. King's Sherlock Holmes. The scene with Peter and Harriet on the bank of the river is one of the all-time sexiest scenes ever, even though they never touch each other, and the night that Holmes tasks Mary Russell with wanting to propose to him caused me to cheer out loud.

You'll notice that Aragorn, Legolas, Boromir, Eomer & Co. are conspicuously absent. They were a bit too distant for me when I first encountered them, I think -- I was eleven, and at the time they all struck me as rather biblical, probably due to Tolkien's elevated language. Snape is also absent from this list since he didn't ring my bell until I saw Alan Rickman. After that it was very hubba hubba, but I don't feel right about including him in this list when it was a real person that actually spurred my interest.

So tell me, who are/were your fictional (book) crushes and why?
delphipsmith: (ooooo)
Yes, apparently the first Friday in June is National Donut Day (fooled you, didn't I? You thought I meant the other D-Day).

Neither of which are to be confused with National DoUGHnut Day* which is in November. Because donuts are so awesome they need two celebratory days, I guess.

* Until I wrote that I never realized that "doughnut" has the word "ugh" in it. Which is just ridiculous, right? Because NOMZ.
delphipsmith: (thinker)
Quite a few folks on my flist are doing this. It's quite an interesting test -- I particularly like that you are free to place your answers anywhere along a spectrum rather than just YES or NO. I am totally unsurprised at my results, especially the very very tiny box at lower right :)

I am a RESPECTFUL INVENTOR.



Your imagination, self-reliance, openness to new things, and appreciation for utility combine to make you an INVENTOR.

You have the confidence to make your visions into reality, and you are willing to consider many alternatives to get that done.

The full spectrum of possibilities in the world intrigues you—you're not limited by pre-conceived notions of how things should be.

Problem-solving is a specialty of yours, owing to your persistence, curiosity, and understanding of how things work.

Your vision allows you to identify what's missing from a given situation, and your creativity allows you to fill in the gaps.

Your awareness of how things function gives you the ability to come up with new uses for common objects.

It is more interesting for you to pursue excitement than it is to get caught up in a routine.

Although understanding details is not difficult for you, you specialize in seeing the bigger picture and don't get caught up in specifics.

You tend to more proactive than reactive—you don't just wait for things to come to you.

Your independent streak allows you to make decisions efficiently and to trust your instincts

You are balanced in your approach to problem-solving, not letting your emotions hold you up.

You prefer to have time to plan for things, feeling better with a schedule than with keeping plans up in the air until the last minute.

Never one to be found in chic boutiques or trendy clothing stores, you take an extremely practical approach to getting dressed.

Generally, you believe that you control your life, and that external forces only play a limited role in determining what happens to you.


Your reserved nature, understanding of the world, and faith in others make you RESPECTFUL.

You trust those around you to do the right thing, so you tend not to get involved in other people's affairs.

You have fewer friendships than some, but the relationships you do have are very meaningful and important to you.

Your careful and practical observation of your environment has led you to understand that others' situations can be very complex.

Because of this, you are slow to pass judgments on others, even if sometimes you can't see what it is about certain things that upsets them.

You tend to enjoy the world through ideas and reflection, which allows you to get a lot out of the time you spend alone.

Your friends would describe you as laid-back and easy-going.

As someone who is calm and centered, you aren't likely to rush into things—this patience allows you to see many different perspectives and options.
delphipsmith: (classic quill)
There are some excellent prompts over at the prompting post for [livejournal.com profile] hp_silencio. Some would be quite challenging to do without dialog. I shall have to go through some of my Anita Brookner books for tips; she's so good at that.

Also this!!

MinervaBanner3

Minerva_Fest! Prompt Posting Here Through 13 June


(banner by [livejournal.com profile] featherxquill; art by Makani)
delphipsmith: (hobbes_giggle)
Two book recs for today. I don't recommend you actually read them, necessarily, just...well, take a look :)

Latawnya the Naughty Horse Learns to Say No to Drugs

BIRTH CONTROL IS SINFUL IN THE CHRISTIAN MARRIAGES AND ALSO ROBBING GOD OF PRIESTHOOD CHILDREN!!

Those exclamation points aren't mine, ladies and gentlemen -- they're actually part of the title.

Read the reviews, they are hilarious. And the "People who viewed this also viewed..."
delphipsmith: (books-n-brandy)
Prompting is open at [livejournal.com profile] hp_silencio, where the challenge is to write a dialog-free fic. Very intriguing. I tend to rely heavily on dialog (probably too heavily), so I'm thinking of signing up to challenge myself.

Silencio2014
delphipsmith: (Taggart Transcontinental)
Ever wonder why the Ministry of Magic chose a train as the method of travel for getting to Hogwarts, or why even students from Scotland have to go all the way to London to board? Wonder no more! My paper for the [livejournal.com profile] hp_canon_love Meta Fest has posted :)
delphipsmith: (George)
And I want him.


[Error: unknown template video]
delphipsmith: (Elizabethan adder)
I have no idea how I ended up reading a story about Peaches Geldof (daughter of musician Bob Geldof), but I did. And I found this sentence fragment:

"Detective Chief Inspector Paul Fotheringham of the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate"

It just doesn't get any more British than that :)
delphipsmith: (BA beta)
Normally when I go to a conference there are at least one or two sessions where I skive off to do something else -- take a walking tour of whatever city we're in, have a nice long lunch and sit in the sun, whatever. Not this one. For every slot there were multiple sessions I wanted to go to; if only I could have cloned myself! This is super long, so I've put the session summaries behind cuts.

So, 8am Thursday I jumped right into "Gender and Sexuality Politics in U.S. Television Culture" with three excellent papers. The first one, "Queered Telefeminism and Female Friendships," among other things showed clips from a very funny episode of Designing Women in which Suzanne encounters an old beauty pageant colleague/competitor who announces she's "come out." At first Suzanne doesn't get it ("Well ah do think forty is a little old to be a debutante, but ever'one deserves a pahty" lol!) but then she assumes the friend must be in love with her. Later she and the friend are in a sauna and Suzanne says, "Ah'm sorry, we just cain't be anythin' more than friends" at which point an older woman who has been listening to their conversation leaves in a huff, and Suzanne leans out the door to shout, "Y'all have a lot more problems then lesbians in your sauna!!" *snerk* The second paper looked at masculinity in Buffy, and raised the interesting point that traditional "macho" masculinity is more often than not portrayed negatively in the series. Examples given include Adam is hyper-strong but constructed, unnatural; Riley's excessive strength and macho abilities come from a drug; Warren is a brilliant engineer but also a misogynistic murderer; Caleb represents classic evangelical viewpoint, women are meant to be dominated. Buffy and Willow, on the other hand, have natural in-born power. The third paper, "The Cinderella Scientist: A critical reading of The Big Bang Theory and Women in Science," really made me think: the presenter reviewed the episode where Leonard is tasked with speaking to a class of high school girls about women in science and pointed out that although the alleged mission is encouraging women in science, the actual women in science are off at Disneyland getting dressed up/made up as princesses, the men ultimately fail at their task and yet they are rewarded (Howard gets to role play as Prince Charming, Leonard gets all hot over Penny in her princess dress, and Amy is lying on the sofa being Snow White and waiting -- in vain, of course -- for Sheldon to kiss her awake. This didn't make me like the show any less, but it did make me think about the degree to which it truly shows women as equals in STEM fields.

Next, a Stephen King session with three papers drawing on his latest novel, Doctor Sleep. Since I'd recently finished reading it, this one caught my interest. The first argued that Dr. Sleep and Joyland, which were written basically during the same time period, could be read as companion texts -- that is, having read one gives you a richer reading experience of the other. King of course is notorious for interlocking people, phrases, ideas, etc. across his entire body of work. The second paper, "Filing/Defiling in Stephen King," explored the extended metaphor of files/memory, and was the most interesting for me as an archivist. At the start of The Shining, the man who's interviewing Jack Torrance for the caretaker position has all these files on him; the Overlook sucks Jack in by pushing its files at him -- the scrapbooks, the boxes of clippings in the basement (like a virus?); in Dreamcatcher Jonesy hides information from the alien possessing him by visualizing his mind as a room of file cabinets and hiding information by misfiling things or putting them behind the cabinets; in Dr. Sleep Abra and Dan share "files" mentally (including the "meme" of a cartoon pedophile that they modify and send back and forth) and Abra visualizes her mind as a room of file cabinets in order to entrap Rose the Hat. It was quite interesting, made me think of Caryn Radick's excellent paper on an archival reading of Dracula. The third paper was about teacher/student relationships in King, specifically Danny/Halloran in The Shining (though of course there's also his father's relationship with his students), and then Danny/Abra and to a certain extent Rose/the girl she turns in Dr. Sleep.

Next session: "Fans Crossing: Cross-Textual, Cross-Media, Cross-Fandom." The first paper was my favorite, about how frustrated viewers of Angel were that Fred and Wesley never had a chance to get together, and then Joss cast them as Beatrice and Benedick in Much Ado About Nothing. The larger point was about creators whose body of work functions as a unified whole that's greater than the sum of its parts, something called (if I wrote it down correctly) "hyper-diegesis." Hyper-diegetic casting, then, is where one character gets to do something as another character, through the medium of the actor playing them both. Like Fred and Wesley, who (sort of) ended up together as Beatrice and Benedick, because Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof played both parts. Then there was one about Walking Dead and how it keeps the fans going through "transmedia storytelling" -- that is, through tv, video games, comic books, etc., so there really is no "off season." The last session was particularly interesting to me as a writer of fanfic: it explored what makes a crossover fic work. Essentially the presenter's argument was that crossovers work when they are able to inhabit a larger universe in which the "strange" elements of both worlds can coexist and neither breaks or conflicts with the other. So for example, a Harry Potter/Twilight crossover in which Lupin grows up in the werewolf community in Forks is perfectly reasonable. She referred to these as "second degree imaginary worlds" which I thought was kind of cool. This is why I love Discworld/Harry Potter crossovers -- all those witches and wizards seem perfectly compatible :)

I was really tempted by the Gothic Classic film session (Dracula, The Haunting, I Walked with a Zombie, Jane Eyre) but instead fell prey to my love of Star Trek and Star Wars. Among other things, I learned that every single one of the Star Wars movies follows the 17 stages of the classic monomyth, that Kirk=Dionysos and Spock=Apollo, and that the Enterprise may be a representation of the Divine Feminine. Yes, really. One interesting snippet of argument is that in Jungian terms one could view Kirk and Spock as each other's "shadow self" which may explain why they're the original and most enduring slash couple: because we perceive them as two halves of a whole.

The last session of the day was maybe my favorite (though it's hard to pick): The Borders of Fandom, Female Desire in Fandom. The first paper was about fan edits like The Phantom Edit which re-cut Episode II to remove all trace of Jar-Jar Binks :D He drew a parallel between this and Hollywood's now-familiar habit of releasing alternate cuts, extended cuts, director's cuts, etc. suggesting that the latter was an outgrowth of the former, and listing some of the informal rules that the fan-edit community has evolved in an attempt to respect copyright. The second paper, "Fake Geek Girls": Who Called the Fandom Police?" was brilliant; it started with Tony Harris' rant against cosplay chicks, then talked about how badly Twilight fans were treated at the 2009 Comic-Con, and questioned the definition of a "real" fan. Does it depend on real-life participation, knowledge of the source material, breadth or depth of engagement? Ultimately (she argued), questioning the authenticity of female fans arises from an assumption of male heterosexuality: "Women do this to get attention from men because." Very interesting and provocative. The last paper was on Johnlock erotica so it was just plain fun :D However, she also made the salient point that good erotica relies on satisfaction for the characters, not just for the reader.

Along the way I also learned an excellent quote from Einstein: "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift, and the rational mind is a faithful servant; we have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

Whew, OK, that was fun! If anybody wants to know more about any of the sessions, let me know. For now, I'm off to bed so I can get up at 6am to catch a 7am train ::cries::
delphipsmith: (McBadass)
So yay, I finally have time to write about the Pop Culture Association conference, which as I said the other day was brilliant. I think I'll break it up and do one post for each day, since there's so much to say about it.

So first, the background: I've wanted to go to this conference for ages, ever since my brother told me about it when he first presented there six years ago (his field is horror movies) and I looked at the program. This year not only was my brother presenting again, my boss at work was also presenting, plus it was in Chicago (easily accessible via Amtrak, plus I could do a side trip to see my mom, stepdad and grandmother). So this seemed the ideal time. I was not disappointed!

On the spectrum that runs from rabid fans on the one end to Spock-like academics on the other, this conference is tilted about 15 degrees toward the rabid fan side. This is both good and bad: on the one hand it makes for a different tenor than other professional conferences I've been too, very lively and kaleidoscopic; on the other hand the number of presenter no-shows and "lightweight" presentations was higher. It's also by far the biggest conference I've ever been to in terms of number of presenters -- the full program is over four hundred pages! -- and every session involved two or three people. This also was both good and bad: the sheer number of interesting topics was fantastic, but I was left wanting more in-depth information on just about everything, since regardless of how scholarly the paper, there was only time for a very surface overview.

Wednesday we arrived around 3pm so I only was able to hit one session. I chose one on Monsters and the Supernatural, which had three papers: "Which 'Witch' Is A Witch?: Negative and Inaccurate Portrayals of So-Called 'Witches' In Horror" (Charmed, Buffy, etc.), "Rooting for the Monster: 21st Century Creature Features and the Devaluation of the Human" (about how we now cheer for the monster in the movies instead of the humans, e.g. King Kong, Godzilla), and "Monsters and Men: Guillermo Del Toro and the Subaltern" (Pan's Labyrinth, The Devil's Backbone, etc.). I was tempted by another session, "Star Trek as a Mirror of American Culture," but that one seemed relatively obvious so I opted for the other one. "Rooting for the Monster" was particularly interesting, proposing that increased awareness of environmental issues may be part of why we now root for the "monster" -- that is, we don't automatically see man as the hero because we acknowledge the damage that homo sapiens has done to the planet. Instead of seeing Godzilla's or King Kong's death as this great victory, we recognize the tragedy inherent in the death of a unique creature.

Wednesday night we had an awesome time at the "Welcome to Our Nightmare" movie sponsored by all the different horror focus areas: Trilogy of Terror (eeeeeeeek!!!) They had a trivia contest before the show and gave away all kinds of cool stuff: movies, books, t-shirts, etc. The questions were ridiculously detailed (Q: Who played Jonathan Harker in the 1931 version of Dracula? A: No one, the Harker character wasn't in that version!) and of course sooo many people knew the answers, because FANS. (I got a Lon Chaney question almost right but not quite, drat the luck.) The movie itself was hugely entertaining, three tales based on stories by Richard Matheson. The first one was seriously unnerving, though perhaps not for quite the reasons the filmmakers intended (sexual predators being so much more in the news these days). The second was predictable, and the last was just utterly silly: a creepy little African statue comes to life and hunts a woman through her apartment, gnashing its tiny little teeth and waving its tiny little spear, like some kind of humanoid gremlin. It survives stabbing, drowning and being stuffed into the oven. I won't spoil it by telling you the closing scene, you really need to see it for yourself XD All in all it was a prime example of cheesy 1970s horror and the audience shouted things at the screen and laughed and so on, but it was all done with great affection (because, again, FANS!).

OK, enough for today. Tomorrow: Stephen King, "You've got more problems than lesbians in your sauna!", crossover fics, Star Wars and the monomyth, and who called the fandom police??

PCA WOW

24 April 2014 10:17 pm
delphipsmith: (GilesLatin)
So I went to the Pop Culture Association conference in Chicago last week and WOW because IDEAS!!! I came home with pages and pages and pages of notes from every panel I went to, and lists upon lists of topics I now want to research and write about. I will share all the things here, but I don't have time to do it justice until this weekend (and I may have to spread it out over several days so as not to bore y'all).

Suffice to say:
♥ ♥ ♥ IT WAS AWESOME ♥ ♥ ♥
delphipsmith: (books)
Mr Psmith is working on an elephant conservation paper, which involves a VERY SHORT survey. If any of you would be willing to take it so he has more data to work with that would be wonderful and I would hug you virtually! The survey is here, if you're willing. Thank you!!

Profile

delphipsmith: (Default)
delphipsmith

December 2022

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
1819202122 2324
2526 2728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 25 August 2025 01:44 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios