Peasant

( Spoilers )

Title

The Greatest of These

Author

Peasant

Setting

15th May 1883

Summary

Darla engages in a routine piece of hunting.

Warnings

Events involve a small child and vampires, but nothing graphic is described.

Date Written

31st October 2009

Notes

Written for shapinglight’s Darla Ficathon. Many thanks to her for organising the ficathon and then performing an excellent beta job.

---

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

King James Bible: 1 Corinthians 13

( Read more... )

I've updated my stable of greasemonkey scripts so the LJ ones work with Dreamwidth as well now. And there is a spiffy new find/replace functionality on the textarea editor, and also a new script making find/replace available for wikipedia editing.

They can be found here: Script Spot. They all do exactly what they say on the tin.

If you use Firefox and you don't know what a greasemonkey script is then here is an explanation. Basically, to get started you need to first install the Greasemonkey extension, restart Firefox, and then you can install any of my scripts by just clicking on the link of the one you want.

If you don't use Firefox, then you are probably beyond all aid ;)

A while ago karma_fucked asked me a question about whether I thought the Master was really stuck in game face, and if so how it might have happened.

OK, this probably deserves to be proper meta, but I'm tired and brain dead so I'm going to cheat.

I've had detailed thoughts on the Master in the past.

I have also remarked that

Vampires stay young and beautiful. They are renowned for it. "Things change," Angel said. "Not us. Not vampires," Spike replied hotly (School Hard). Except that of course for Jossyverse vamps it isn’t actually true: the Master and Kaikistos both show that a vamp can grow as old and ugly as the best of us, and even Dracula was a little long in the tooth. Which means that for the Jossyverse not even the eternally youthful actually keep their looks – a dry comment from Mr Whedon on Hollywood values, perhaps?

It is worth bearing in mind though that while the Master had apparently lost his looks by the age of two hundred odd (Darla), at four hundred Darla still hadn’t developed a bat nose yet. There is clearly no hard and fast rule for how vampires age.

And finally it occurs to me that there is something in this that relates to the fact that vampires seem over-adapted for their environment. They are too fast, too strong, can kill their chosen prey too easily and then on top of that they chose to remain secretive and hidden so the bulk of their prey is unaware they even exist. That sounds in ecological terms like an alien species actually, but also one that you would expect to be causing significant invasion problems (and no the single Slayer would not be enough to check them, regardless of how swift and strong she is). Hence they seem to be self-regulating both in terms of their own numbers and their discretion - which as a sentient species they are perfectly capable of doing and they are part human (we are also self-regulating, at least in our natural hunter-gatherer environment).

How then would losing the ability to change fit into all that? It would seriously minimise an elderly vampire's hunting capabilities using the observed hunting patterns, but if those hunting patterns are entirely a matter of cultural choice rather than necessity, that might not matter.

Against this, game-face does seem to be involved with status and deference markers - vamps in the presence of the Master specifically donned their game faces. Now that could play either way - it could be that since game-face brings status and represents the revered demonic aspect, an elderly vamp would claim to have lost the ability to change as a means of attracting extra status. Or it could be the other way around - game face has increased status because it is particularly associated with very old and hence high status vamps.

Finally there is the possibility that the Master dabbled in some magic and got stuck that way - he is after all the incompetent who got jammed in a pond of blood in a church for half a century.

Yes, well, so lots of things to think about - and as I say, I'm tired and brain dead so I'm going to leave it all to you:
Poll #1449773
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 24

Was the Master really stuck in game face?

Everyone going to Writercon have a brilliant time!

I'm really sorry to be missing it this year. And we want lots of juicy write-ups please - full disclosure, none of your 'we had a nice time'.

My twopence on the NHS kerfuffle. (Does it count as a kerfuffle when every single post you've seen is in agreement?)

Mostly copied over from my comment on liz_marcs' post where she is collecting comments.

I'm British (specifically English, since that is relevant). I'm also a Conservative so if people are thinking all this is only the left-wingers supporting the NHS then they are wrong.

( Read more... )
Oh and Stephen Hawking is British. His voice synthesiser has an American accent because that was the only thing available back when he first had it over 20 years ago and he hasn't wanted to change what is now the normal sound of his own voice. He is British and we are very proud of him, kindly do not try to appropriate him.

Reading the Radio Times this morning I had one of those sudden realisations. Would I lie to You is starting up again - a pleasant enough panel game that passes the time in an inoffensive sort of way. Looking at the picture in the RT though it struck me that it matches a pattern you get in a lot of panel games. There are two team captains and a host. The host is more or less irrelevant - a point most clearly emphasised by Have I Got News For You where the host changes every week. But the team captains tend to stay the same and they also tend to follow a pattern of one upper-middle class type who plays the toff and one lower-middle/working class type who plays the rough diamond.

Have I Got News For You: Ian Hislop = toff, Paul Merton = rough diamond.
Would I Lie to You: David Mitchell = toff, Lee Mack = rough diamond.
They Think it's All Over: David Gower = toff, Gary Linnaker = rough diamond.
The News Quiz: Francis Ween/Simon Evans/Armando Iannucci = toff, Jeremy Hardy/Andy Hamilton = rough diamond

The only slight variation I can think of from this set-up is QI, where unusually Stephen Fry plays the toff character and he is the host, but it almost is the exception that proves the rule because weirdly they have only one regular team player - Alan Davies - and he is indeed the rough diamond/Everyman character.

I also suspect they are actively encouraged to play up to their roles. After all, David Mitchell isn't that posh, he's a pretty ordinary bloke really, yet on WILTY they really play up that side of his character. The same with Paul Merton who I suspect actively cranks up the working class act for HIGNFY.

This realisation made me consider, firstly how much the good natured class antagonism contributes to the shows - they play off and play up to the stereotypes. In fact maybe there are plenty of shows that don't have this set-up and they just aren't as funny to me so I am unaware of them.

And secondly it made me wonder what happens in similar shows in other countries where presumably the class stuff wouldn't serve the same purpose. Do they appeal to some other form of tribalism? Or maybe the whole idea of a comedy panel show doesn't really occur anywhere else. They certainly don't seem to import them from anywhere that I am aware of.

So, am I on crack and seeing patterns where they don't exist, or am I on to something here?


Also my mind started to wander down the path of wondering if there is Stephen Fry/Alan Davies slash. And then my mind backed out very rapidly and ran away to hide.




ETA Warning One comment thread now includes Spoilers for Children of Earth. To remain unspoiled, do not read the thread started by Antelope_writes.

I need a bit of Torchwood canon help.

I keep seeing mentions in fic and a few other places that Ianto went to university. Anyone know if this is canon or fanon, and if the former where does it come from?

( Children of Earth spoilers )

From an interview with RTD:
( Children of Earth spoiler )

::sob!::

( spoilers )

I’m seeing a tendency to dismiss people who disliked Torchwood as screaming fan-girls. I think people need to stop and think a bit before they do that.

( cut for spoilers )

I apologise to those on my flist who hate it when I get up on my soap box. I'll try to stay off it for a good long while again.

There's actually only two extras on the DVDs - a Torchwood Declassified, and Eve Myles reading an excerpt from the next audio book.

( spoilers for the show, plus of course for the DVD extras if you care about that sort of thing )

( spoilers for whole of series 3 )

I have a request for Buffy peeps and anyone familiar with London:

Anyone know where in London this building is or have suggestions for where it might plausibly be?



It is of course the Watchers' Council HQ just before it blew up and I need to know the part of London where it could plausibly be located, given its general architectural appearance etc.

Yes, I am writing again. No, I shouldn't expect results any time soon, this is me after all.

( spoilers, spoilers, day 5 spoilers )


If you’ve got any spoilery thoughts you wanted to say on earlier posts and want to say them now, then please say them here so the other posts remain spoiler free for anyone who hasn’t caught up yet.

( spoilers, spoilers, day 4 spoilers )

Notice: You know the drill - this post is to be a spoiler safe zone. Comments must not contain any references to episodes later than this one. Blah blah. No speculation. Yada yada yada. No sneaky asides. Only one day to go though, and then we can all say anything we like. Comment with the secret message: ‘The green frogs cross the desert by night’ if you actually read this. This means you.

( Read more... )

( spoilers, spoilers, day 3 spoilers )

Notice: This post is to be a spoiler safe zone. Comments must not contain any references to episodes later than this one, and speculation is only permitted if you genuinely have not seen the next episode yet. No subtle hints, no knowing nudges and winks, no sneaky asides. This means you.

( spoilers, spoilers, spoilers )

Notice: This post is to be a spoiler safe zone. Comments must not contain any references to episodes later than this one, and speculation is only permitted if you genuinely have not seen the next episode yet. No subtle hints, no knowing nudges and winks, no sneaky asides. This means you.

The actual proper meta post. Now with guaranteed 20% less squee.

( spoilers, spoilers, spoilers )

Notice: This post is to be a spoiler safe zone. Comments must not contain any references to episodes later than this one, and speculation is only permitted if you genuinely have not seen the next episode yet. No subtle hints, no knowing nudges and winks, no sneaky asides. This means you.

( reaction, not spoilers )

So the third season of Torchwood starts next week! ::does dance of joy::

I know there are a bunch of you who read this journal for the Torchwood meta so I thought I'd explain what I plan to do.

It's going to be shown in the evening every day for five days. Now it is rather past my bedtime, so I will definitely be at least one day behind, and then given real life I may well slip a day or two more behind their schedule. That means I'm going to be avoiding spoilers like crazy. And if I'm going to have to do that anyway then I might as well spread things out in order to savour them, because if this is going to be the last Torchwood we ever get, I want to wring everything I can from it.

All of which means I fully plan to write up meta as I go - and hopefully quite detailed meta, not just reaction and squee posts - but my 'as I go' will like as not be a lot slower than everyone else's. Possibly to the extent of spreading it out over several weeks.

I'm also going to say that if anyone spoils me in comments they will see me in full on wrath mode. Folk who know me will back me up that there is nothing worse than a peasant spoiled so please, please be careful. I'll put reminders on individual posts about what stage I am caught up to, but anyway as a general courtesy to any readers who may be even further behind, I think I will insist on a rule that in a post about any particular episode the commenters may only consider canon up until that episodes. If need be I might do some later posts to reconsider earlier eps in the light of subsequent understandings - if only to laugh and point at my own usual inability to predict things with any accuracy. I like this journal to be a safe place for spoilerphobes, myself included, so I would appreciate your help in keeping it that way.

rahirah made an interesting observation about darkfic:

When I set out to write a story that I think is dark, it's almost always about the characters doing something bad. When I click on a story labelled darkfic, it's almost always about something bad being done to the characters. Not always, either way. But an awful lot of the time. I suppose that Means Something.

Well I think she is exactly right, so I've been pondering what it might Mean and why.

First off, the vast majority of fic that I would consider part of the darkfic genre - either because it is labelled that way, or because it appears on coms such as sickchicks, or because it is by writers who are associated with the genre - is written from the POV of the person experiencing the slavery/torture/domination/rape/general badness. Even in those situations when the author is not very experienced with handling POV, or is trying something experimental, the story will still have the underdog as the protagonist and the reader is clearly intended to sympathise with and see the world through the eyes of the underdog.

The main thing that all this type of darkfic has in common therefore is the lack of agency of the recipient. They are having terrible - sometimes very terrible - things happen to them with little or no choice about it. Even where there is a nominal choice, there are normally huge emotional pressures involved in the set-up of the story to ensure that the choice is in fact just illusory. Whether the 'bad' is sexual domination, corporal punishment, BDSM, medical procedures, torture, slavery, being made to listen to 1980s pop music or something even worse - the common thread that makes it darkfic is this lack of agency.

Now, various suggestions spill around about why people might like that sort of genre. I have often seen it suggested that it appeals to people who are naturally responsible in real life and who find it relaxing to step down from that position and imagine themselves in the head space of someone from whom all responsibility and agency has been removed. Hence the cliché of the High Court Judge playing a naughty schoolboy for his dominatrix. Personally though, I know people who enjoy darkfic and related genres who are in positions of great responsibility and people who have no responsibility at all, they can be from every class from upper to lower, male, female and the people in between, straight, gay, asexual, left wing, right wing and just about every other variant I can think of. So I reckon it is just a kink preference like any other - you either have it or you don't. Maybe we were all frightened by teddy bears as children or have a common gene or were exposed to a certain balance of chemical in the womb - who cares, it is a very common preference and so it is not surprising that the darkfic genre has evolved to express and cater to it.

However, there is still a substantial minority of fic which is written from the POV or focus of the top-dog. At first glance therefore this form of darkfic is not about the person who is experiencing bad things but explores the mindset of those who like to perpetrate them.

Now, naturally these two things need not be mutually exclusive. Someone who enjoys experiencing bad stuff through the eyes of the underdog probably will have an interest in what motivates the one on top. But that is probably going to be more of an intellectual interest - it won't push the buttons in the same way. And if it does push buttons, then I would suggest those were a different set of buttons - no reason why they might not occur in the same person, after all - and that therefore fic from the top-dog's POV should really be classified under a different genre (topfic, perhaps).

But in fact something a little more subtle is going on, which I reckon brings a fair few of these top-dog POV fics back into the darkfic fold. Because if you look at who features as the protagonist in these top-dog-centric fics they have a thread in common. (I'm going to use examples from the Buffyverse since they are the ones I and most of my readers are familiar with.) There are a lot of women - Buffy, Willow and Faith especially - and amongst the men Spike, Wesley and Xander all feature prominently. But you very seldom get Giles, Angel or Riley as the POV top-dog character in a darkfic, let alone people like Darla, the Master or Sebassis - all of whome would fit into the role with very little affront to canon. What then is the distinction?

Well the obvious distinction is that the top-dog POV characters who do appear a lot are all characters with whom it is possible to identify as having underdog characteristics. Buffy, Faith and Willow may all be strong in one way, but they are also fragile women to whom some pretty ghastly things have happened over the years and the audience are used to empathising with their pain. The same with Spike, Wesley and Xander - they have their strengths, but they have also been beaten up, abandoned, outcast or otherwise suffered in canon. By contrast, Giles has suffered, but it is very hard to see Giles as an underdog, the same with Darla, or Riley. They have been knocked about a bit from time to time, but never cowed, and people tend not to be writing them.

So suddenly these apparent top-dog POV stories come back into the darkfic fold because they are no longer quite so clearly about the top-dog, but are about what happens when an underdog lashes out. They are the abused kid growing up to become an abuser, with all the rage, violence and lack of mental control that implies - and suddenly you can see why they might appeal to the same audience.

Angel is an odd one and he could potentially be a top-dog who is really an underdog for some people, and I think I have seen him be so once or twice, but it is pretty rare, probably mainly because most of us are very unused to thinking of a large physically strong white male in that way, and once Angel is given the whip hand it takes a very good writer to keep reminding us of his underdog characteristics. Hence I would say that most darkfic I have seen that has Angel in the top role tends to be written from the POV of the underdog - Spike, Wesley, Buffy or whoever.

So I reckon we have a rule for what is darkfic, and why so much of it is about bad things happening to people rather than people doing bad things - darkfic is by and for those who, for whatever reason, like to imagine the world through the eyes of an underdog.

I can actually only think of one exception to this rule which is the Giles Through a Glass Darkly series by glassdarklyuk, which is about Giles subjugating Spike and it is written from Giles's POV with no noticeable background of trauma for Giles to 'explain' his actions. That could just be the exception that proves the rule, but I would say it is because Glassdarkly is one of the very best writers in the genre, and like all very good writers she innovates, she takes the expected rules of the genre and twists them so that part of the pleasure of reading one of her stories is to see that she is doing something new within the familiar confines. Of course somebody with no other experience of the genre could still enjoy GTaGD just for itself, but to those of us who are familiar with the genre and its unspoken rules there is that extra twist of interest to see Glassdarkly innovate.

So what do other people think? Have I missed the mark widely? Do you consider darkfic to be something else entirely? Can you think of a sub-set of undoubtedly darkfic stories that disprove my 'rule' in some way? What about the enigma of Angel? And what would be a good name for the perfectly valid and interesting genre that rahirah has suggested she likes to write - fic that explores the mindset of people doing bad things? I've written some of that myself (Butterfly Catchers, for example) and it is indeed a great genre to write as an author, but its not darkfic and I don't know what to call it instead.

So I see the warnings debate has come round again.

I reckon there is no perfect solution to this problem, because styles and posting habits vary too much, but this is what I do, and it might help give some ideas to someone.

( Read more... )

So there it is, that is what I do. It's by no means a blueprint for everyone because everyone has their own notions of what is required and different technical restraints, but I hope it might suggest a few ideas. I hope that my system has the advantage of simplicity - at heart it consists of providing a link ahead of any warnings so it is always easy to skip the warnings completely, and then writing around the problem of spoilers as well, and that is something everyone can do without any technical knowledge.

The revolution rumbles on quietly - more tumbrils going past in this morning's paper: looks like we'll be losing the Chancellor in the next few days - so like lots of people, I guess, I've been giving some thought to what I'd like to happen.

1. Fixed term parliaments - say four years
2. But the electorate (not the executive) can force an early election if need be
3. individual powers of forcing a by-election on a constituency by constituency basis
4. referendums on vital issues (the big constitutional questions, war, etc..), and the electorate have some means of forcing one if they want to
5. fewer MPs, say only about 300
6. Hence we can afford to pay them properly
7. A return to parliament doing most of its work in the evenings so most MPs are able and expected to hold down a proper job as well
8. Proper childcare or whatever support arrangements for the tiny minority this might penalise
9. Independent bodies/the House of Lords to oversee rates of pay, boundaries and other things they shouldn't be doing for themselves
10. reduction in the size of the cabinet and pseudo-cabinet government payroll jobs
11. an end to virtually all whipping - pretty much every vote should be conscience based to represent the constituents who elected them
12. an end to guillotines except in exceptional circumstances, so bills are properly debated and discussed
13. PM questions twice a week not just once
14. Only English MPs can debate or vote on English matters.
15. all committee proceedings, expenses and everything else you can think of to be published on-line

And here is a small list of things I don't want.

1. A written constitution - I don't see any advantages and it will only encourage abiding by the letter of the rules not the spirit, which is what got us in this mess
2. any more tinkering with the House of Lords while the problems with the Commons are unresolved
3. Separating the executive from the Commons and having them directly appointed non-MPs - that sounds the least democratic suggestion I have heard. (A government of Mandelsons!)
4. An English parliament or any other cock-eyed solution to the West Lothian question - we've got a perfectly good parliament, we just need the Scots and Welsh not to vote when it only concerns us.
5. Proportional Representation - I used to like this idea in my youth, now I am convinced it gives too much power to the parties and prevents all legislation except compromise. It is important that the rate of legislation be slowed down, but that should be done by insisting on proper scrutiny and debate, not as a by-product of something else.

Obviously I've got a whole other wish-list of how I would like to see the country organised and run, but those are my constitutional ones. The biggest, most important one though, of course, is the thing almost everyone wants:
A general election
(say around September to give everyone time to think and then prepare properly) so that these reforms can be introduced by a government and a parliament with the proper democratic authority to implement them.

If we're going to be paying for a moat at least make it a decent moat - something with room for two swans abreast.

Feeble

This is the obligatory Dreamwidth post.

I've got an account - http://peasant.dreamwidth.org/ (note lack of underscore) but I'm really not doing anything with it until I've seen which way the wind blows. When I can raise the energy I will subscribe to everyone who has subscribed to me, but having just lost my laptop in an accident and having had to do a complete reinstall of everything on the new one, that is way down my list of priorities so may be postponed for a long time.

I'm also not quite sure how I will use the account, if I do, so for the present I am only granting access to the most obvious people until I work that out. It's not as if I ever post so you will hardly be missing anything, but feel free to throw a huff and feel frightfully hurt and upset if you wish. Please join the line over there for outraged silence, or help yourself to the drinks in the corner for working yourself up to yelling at me. Needless to say this policy is designed to insult as many people as possible because I hate you all.

Oh and I seem to have a bunch of invite codes, comment if you want one and I will see what I can do. Priority will be given to people with usernames likely to get snaffled quickly and those who offer large bribes or make their comments particularly amusing.

Exciting news for all those who care about green methods of generating electricity.

Finetics.

Sadly the online version doesn't include the diagram showing exactly how it would work or the graph measuring species of fish against 'kettles boiled'.

Hear, hear, sir.