non contemporary

just saying but most iconic front women from rock/music history have had lesbian relationships. janis joplin? joan jett? josephine baker? debbie harry? amy winehouse? the godmother, the QUEEN, of all rock music sister rosetta tharpe? ALL have expressed in public (or private) their attraction for women as well as men. lesley gore, the 60s pop artist who gave us “you don’t own me”? a lesbian. ma rainey, a blues artist who gave us one of the first recordings of actual, non-subtextual lesbian content in “prove it on my blues”. and these are just the women who are, for the most part, well-known for their music and image. women who love women have done so much for music, and this is most likely only scratching the surface

I think that the power of art is the power to wake us up, strike us to our depths, change us. What are we searching for when we read a novel, see a film, listen to a piece of music? We are searching, through a work of art, for something that alters us, that we weren’t aware of before.
—  Jhumpa Lahiri, “The Metamorphosis,” In Other Words.
Why am I bitter about NBC canceling Timeless?

Let me count the ways:

Forgetting all the “OMG I LOVE THIS SHOW” stuff, which exists, there are other reasons, too. Forget, for a moment, the chemistry that the cast has and the storylines that are unfinished - we’ll get to those.

Financially speaking, why would you cancel a TV show that has a cast, a crew, a set-up, and  a fanbase to start over from scratch, hoping that whatever you pick will do as well? This isn’t the first time that NBC has even done this - any Revolution fans wanna stand up and be counted? Thanks.

The storylines that come from new shows will have to be rebuilt; right now there is a story, a myth-arc that exists, and a compelling reason for fans to tell other (potential) fans why THIS SHOW needs to be watched. Busy and non-contemporary lives mean that people DVR or stream when it’s convenient and those ‘numbers’ aren’t always available for networks to focus on when it comes to revenue - at least at first.

Word of mouth, social media (twitter, facebook, tumblr, etc), and the like all play a pivotal role in helping fans communicate with actors, crew, writers, and each other to talk about plot and converse about what the show has upcoming. Following those trends would help a network/creators know more about their fanbase and what should be available to them in the future.

Generalities aside, Timeless had more for the New Fan than most shows:

  • women in power
  • women of color
  • women of color, in power, that are gay (I LOVE YOU AGENT CHRISTOPHER)
  • Malcolm Barrett as Rufus Carlin, a black man, willing to travel through history while openly acknowledging that there was 'nowhere in history’ that was safe for him
  • Jiya - a woman of color who was smart, educated, and learning to pilot the machine that made the series go. ALSO? A strong love interest for a main character.
  • Lucy - the woman leading the team (and ships Rufus/Jiya like it’s her job)
  • Wyatt - who’s, you know, not ugly

This show explored the past in a way that was more true to life than what we hear in most classrooms, give or take a few things, but was also fun to watch. Also, talked about Katherine Johnson at NASA before Hidden Figures came out! :D The writing on this show was INCREDIBLE.

Basically, NBC did wrong. Way, way wrong. And I knew I was wrong to get invested in a show on NBC again, I knew it. But I’d hoped. And now I know better.

… but I still really love the Carlin/Logan/Preston callback to Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure.

Also, Agent Christopher. ♥

What does a word mean? And a life? In the end, it seems to me, the same thing. Just as a word can have many dimensions, many nuances, great complexity, so, too, can a person, a life. Language is the mirror, the principal metaphor. Because ultimately the meaning of a word, like that of a person, is boundless, ineffable.
—  Jhumpa Lahiri, “The Fragile Shelter,” In Other Words. 

anonymous asked:

Hi Pauline ! Can you recommend me books about literary interpretation, intersemiotic translation, and literary appropriation ? I hope you have a wonderful day ! You're lovely.

Yes I CAN! How exciting, this sounds like good, wholesome research. 

A few books on LITERARY INTERPRETATION
Roland Barthes, The Death of the Author
Roland Barthes, The Rustle of Language
Jean Rousset, Towards a Reading of Forms
K. M. Newton, In Defence of Literary Interpretation : Theory and Practice
Peder Skyum-Nielson, Rhetoric and Stylistics Today : an International Anthology
John Haynes, Introducing Stylistics
Joan Boase-Beier, The Stylistics of Translation
David Lodge, The Art of Fiction
Mikhail Bahktin, Problems of Dostoyevsky’s Poetics
Gérard Genette, Narrative Discourse Revisited
Gérard Genette, Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree

A few works on INTERSEMIOTIC TRANSLATION/ADAPTATION
Susan Bassnett, Still Trapped in the Labyrinth: Further Reflections on Translation and Theatre
Helciclever Barros Da Silva Vitoriano, The Raven Flights: Intersemiotic Translations and Legacy for Media Arts
Pilar Mur Duenas, Intra- and Intertextuality of Literary Translation: The Case of a Non-Contemporary Piece of Work
Laurence Raw, Translation, Adaptation and Transformation
Sirkku Aaltonen, Theatre Translation as Performance
Sirkku Aaltonen, Rewriting narratives in Egyptian theatre : translation, performance, politics
Deborah Cartmell and Imelda Whelehan, Adaptations: From Text to Screen, Screen to Text. 

A few works on LITERARY APPROPRIATION/ADAPTATION
Christy Desmet and Sujata Iyengar, Adaptation, appropriation, or what you will
Linda Hutcheon, A Theory of Adaptation
Jean I. Marsden, The Appropriation of Shakespeare
David J. Ling, Manners and Customs of Literary Appropriation: Mirrors of Ink from Borges, Burton and Lane
Daniela Caselli, Beckett’s Dantes intertextuality in the fiction and criticism
Mikhail Bahktin, The Dialogic Imagination

Have fun!

anonymous asked:

What good stand-alone (non-contemporary) novels do you know about?

I’ve broken them down into genre - starred books do have sequels, but can be read as stand-alones.

Contemporary fantasy

A Monster Calls by Patrick Ness

As I Descended by Robin Talley

Carry On by Rainbow Rowell

Coraline by Neil Gaiman

Every Heart a Doorway by Seanan McGuirre*

Teeth by Hannah Moskowitz

Un Lun Dun by China Mieville

High fantasy

Crimson Bound by Rosamund Hodge

Cruel Beauty by Rosamund Hodge

Graceling by Kristin Cashore*

Hunted by Meagan Spooner

Sabriel by Garth Nix*

Historical

Black Dove, White Raven by Elizabeth Wein

Code Name Verity by Elizabeth Wein*

Maggot Moon by Sally Gardner (alternate history)

Pirates by Celia Rees

Revolver by Marcus Sedgwick

Under a Painted Sky by Stacey Lee

Historical fantasy

The Book Thief by Markus Zusak

Deathless by Catherynne M. Valente

The Ghosts of Heaven by Marcus Sedgwick

The Lie Tree by Frances Hardinge

Midwinterblood by Marcus Sedgwick

The Night Circus by Erin Morgenstern

Revolution by Jennifer Donnelly

The Song of Achilles by Madeline Miller

A Thousand Nights by E.K. Johnston

Science Fiction

More Happy Than Not by Adam Silvera

More Than This by Patrick Ness

On the Edge of Gone by Corrine Duyvis

Railhead by Philip Reeve*

Ever since I was a child, I’ve belonged only to my words. I don’t have a country, a specific culture. If I didn’t write, if I didn’t work with words, I wouldn’t feel that I’m present on earth.
—  Jhumpa Lahiri, “The Fragile Shelter,” In Other Words.
So-called contemporary art does nothing but repeat Duchamp’s gesture by filling the museums, which are nothing but organs of the market devoted to accelerating the circulation of merchandise which, like money, have attained a state of liquidity and which they want to continue to value as if they were works of art, with non-works and non-performances. This is the contradiction of contemporary art: it abolishes the work of art and then puts a price tag on the result.
— 

Giorgio Agamben, “God didn’t die, he was transformed into money”.

One thing about moving back to the US I’m particularly dreading is having to be around “middle class Americans”. I hate them; it’s been close to a decade being away. The upwardly mobile US citizen with a nice household income, expensive car, and who enjoys showing off their wealth and education is the kind of person who can afford to be optimistic in an uncritical manner. They’re colorblind if white; well, even when not. The likely know it all in any given conversation and often fiercely invested in bullshit centrism that these days involves having a thing-they-don’t-like-most that they won’t stfu about. These are the sine qua non for contemporary Democrat and Republican parties. They are the biggest barrier keeping the working class from taking on capitalists. They are true believers in ethical capitalism, private property, good cops, and the long arm of the law. And they will turn on workers at every opportunity.

4

Fractured - Courtney Jackson 2014

Mirrors on wooden rods, painted in black acrylic, mounted on wooden base

I created my first concentration piece using the theme of reflection.  I created distortion by using rods of different heights and radii.  I included multiple pictures in order to show the true appearance of the piece, which is hard to capture because the surface is completely mirrored.

3

Batman & Robin (1997)

I unabashedly love this movie. It’s got a terrible, pun-laden script, hammy acting, a cast evenly divided between great actors slumming and future has-beens, and some of the strangest day-glow-gothic production design I’ve ever seen. 

It’s one of the first contemporary non-animated films I saw as a kid (on VHS, naturally) and to me it will always represent that vaguely-remembered time in the late 1990′s. It’s a horrible, compulsively-watchable high-camp classic.

Scholarly Saturday: Richard the Lionheart and 12th-Century Sex Scandals

Yesterday, we learned about Richard the Lionheart and some of the reasons why he’s a misunderstood and underappreciated historical figure who deserves to be represented as he truly was, instead of a growing trend that continues to generally and pointlessly demonize him as a religious fanatic only interested in gruesomely killing people (if you read my post, you’ll realize why both of these are very incorrect). Insofar as Richard is granted any depth at all, people tend to focus on his contested sexuality. This then becomes a way to “prove” that he was gay or straight, which then become reflections of the author’s sociopolitical feelings and their need for Richard to be one or the other, regardless of the actual evidence. John Gillingham, author of one of the best Richard biographies, unfortunately falls into this trap. Writing a sympathetic and informed work on the king at a time when Richard’s reputation had become quite tarnished thanks to irresponsible scholarship, I feel as if it was necessary for Gillingham to rehabilitate Richard further.  This includes “exonerating” him from any “accusations” about his sexuality and setting the record (so to speak) straight.

In recent years it has become fashionable to claim that a whole roster of historical luminaries were actually gay – William Shakespeare, Abraham Lincoln, so on and so forth – and thus, any similar conjectures about Richard can possibly be dismissed as being in the same tabloid-exposé vein. Gillingham himself takes this approach, stoutly maintaining that all such theories are based on scanty, mischaracterized, or out-of-context evidence, and that there is no reason to think that Richard was anything other than properly heterosexual.

Keep reading