![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
bromancing
+ Crack picspam: I love Galactica!. This will make sense only if you've seen the Discovery ad xkcd parodied a couple of days ago. It's Adama/Roslin-ish, but that won't stop you from enjoying this. Boom-de-yada D'Anna!
+ As a part of my ongoing Read More, Less TV campaign, I read Salman Rushdie's Shame. I loved it. In many ways, it is better-written than Midnight's Children. Better constructed. His language here is carefully controlled and elegant (as opposed to the self-indulgent gibberish of his later books), with passages of extraordinary lyricism (such as the description of Babar Shakil's 'descent' to heaven). It's also an angry book, the narrative structure allowing the author to directly intervene and comment on things (the political situation in Pakistan). And the device actually works, because it's so beautifully controlled, and you actually enjoy the author's unabashedly political opinions (sharp, biting prose) on dictatorship and Islamic fundamentalism. What I found particularly impressive was his handling of gender issues, one of my biggest problems with Midnight's Children. Omar Khayyam's story began in a manner very similar to Saleem Sinai's, and I thought, here we go again. But it wasn't the same, he knew what he was doing, and that's just awesome. I will also not forget the final scene - Omar Khayyam embracing the fiery Shame and going up in flames, that *image* - anytime soon.
In short: great book, better written than Midnight's Children, even though it didn't ping me emotionally the way Midnight's Children did (probably because it deals with some issues very close to my heart).
(Also, were Iskander Harappa and Arjumand meant to be parodies of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto? Hmm. I'll go check. ETA: So it would seem! I object to the use of the word 'secede' - in this article I've linked to here - with respect to the creation of Pakistan, however, because that assumes that there *was* an India to secede *from*. There wasn't. We embarked on our 'tryst with destiny' on 14th and 15th August, 1947, respectively. Morover, 'secede' undermines the significance of the Partition, which never goes down very well with me.)
Next up: The Glass Palace, Amitabh Ghosh.
+ Meanwhile, HIMYM: Alexis Denisof *AND* Amy Acker in one episode? I LOVE THIS SHOW AND ITS GUEST STARS.
This show is just a bundle of delight, and I've loved every moment of it. My love for every single character cannot be textually rendered, so I'll just let it rest with one more SQUEEOMG.
What I find really interesting about this show is how neatly it takes the standard sitcom conventions and turns them over their head. Ted and Marshall, for instance, do all the conventionally 'feminine' things without being your standard television effeminate parody, and the most conventionally 'masculine' character is *Robin* (Barney doesn't count).
Actually, speaking of Barney - I don't want to w00bify him at all, but I'm beginning to suspect that Barney is still secretly a *little* sensitive. Very secretly. Only a small part of his self. A very small, AWESOME part. The part that says "Hey!" and looks unaccountably hurt everytime Ted fails to be a suitable bro. ♥
Also - I know I'm supposed to ship Barney and Robin together, and I probably will, once the show gives me more than what we got in Zip. Zip. Zip (which was awesome, of course), but right now I'm kinda enjoying Ted and Robin doing whatever it is that they're doing.
MARSHALL AND LILY ARE AWESOME. Seriously, it's SO AMAZING to see Aly Hannigan doing something like this after all these years, and YAY MARSHALL AND LILY!
Now on to Season 2. YAY!
+ As a part of my ongoing Read More, Less TV campaign, I read Salman Rushdie's Shame. I loved it. In many ways, it is better-written than Midnight's Children. Better constructed. His language here is carefully controlled and elegant (as opposed to the self-indulgent gibberish of his later books), with passages of extraordinary lyricism (such as the description of Babar Shakil's 'descent' to heaven). It's also an angry book, the narrative structure allowing the author to directly intervene and comment on things (the political situation in Pakistan). And the device actually works, because it's so beautifully controlled, and you actually enjoy the author's unabashedly political opinions (sharp, biting prose) on dictatorship and Islamic fundamentalism. What I found particularly impressive was his handling of gender issues, one of my biggest problems with Midnight's Children. Omar Khayyam's story began in a manner very similar to Saleem Sinai's, and I thought, here we go again. But it wasn't the same, he knew what he was doing, and that's just awesome. I will also not forget the final scene - Omar Khayyam embracing the fiery Shame and going up in flames, that *image* - anytime soon.
In short: great book, better written than Midnight's Children, even though it didn't ping me emotionally the way Midnight's Children did (probably because it deals with some issues very close to my heart).
(Also, were Iskander Harappa and Arjumand meant to be parodies of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto? Hmm. I'll go check. ETA: So it would seem! I object to the use of the word 'secede' - in this article I've linked to here - with respect to the creation of Pakistan, however, because that assumes that there *was* an India to secede *from*. There wasn't. We embarked on our 'tryst with destiny' on 14th and 15th August, 1947, respectively. Morover, 'secede' undermines the significance of the Partition, which never goes down very well with me.)
Next up: The Glass Palace, Amitabh Ghosh.
+ Meanwhile, HIMYM: Alexis Denisof *AND* Amy Acker in one episode? I LOVE THIS SHOW AND ITS GUEST STARS.
This show is just a bundle of delight, and I've loved every moment of it. My love for every single character cannot be textually rendered, so I'll just let it rest with one more SQUEEOMG.
What I find really interesting about this show is how neatly it takes the standard sitcom conventions and turns them over their head. Ted and Marshall, for instance, do all the conventionally 'feminine' things without being your standard television effeminate parody, and the most conventionally 'masculine' character is *Robin* (Barney doesn't count).
Actually, speaking of Barney - I don't want to w00bify him at all, but I'm beginning to suspect that Barney is still secretly a *little* sensitive. Very secretly. Only a small part of his self. A very small, AWESOME part. The part that says "Hey!" and looks unaccountably hurt everytime Ted fails to be a suitable bro. ♥
Also - I know I'm supposed to ship Barney and Robin together, and I probably will, once the show gives me more than what we got in Zip. Zip. Zip (which was awesome, of course), but right now I'm kinda enjoying Ted and Robin doing whatever it is that they're doing.
MARSHALL AND LILY ARE AWESOME. Seriously, it's SO AMAZING to see Aly Hannigan doing something like this after all these years, and YAY MARSHALL AND LILY!
Now on to Season 2. YAY!
no subject
Would you believe that it still gets better?
(IMO. I know people who started watching in S1 and liked S3 less; I love it, and I love S2, and my favorite episodes are actually mostly in those two seasons.)
(no subject)
no subject
I haven't been able to see all of season one, because my computer won't allow torrents. But, what I have seen is so awesome. So rarely do I find a show where I genuinely love virtually every single character. Especially Barney. Because, truly, his awesomeness knows no bounds.
(Is the one where Barney's brother shows up in season one? I don't remember, but if it is and you've seen it, I think there needs to be a little bit of fan-flailing, yes?)
And I totally second the Marshall and Lily! (It's so strange, I've been watching Buffy at the same time as HIMYM, and the Hanniganness is overload. In a fabulous way. But so strange to see Evil!Willow, followed by adorable Lily. But, GREAT FUN, let me tell you.)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)