This is nothstine's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following nothstine's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Hi, Lance. Paul Krugman has an interesting blog post - especially the last block quote - on semantic/rhetorical problems with [mis]using the "E word."
Guilty confession: For 30 years I've kept practiced on Desperado in both B and C [she's recorded them in both keys] in case -- just in case -- I one day find myself in a room with her and a piano. I confess it's a pretty unlikely opportunity, but if it happens I won't it pass. I heard Linda's version of Poor, Poor before I heard his [long story there]. Hers is good; his is better. bn
But maybe the Prius is of a piece with the owner’s reasons for joining the Tea Party. Guy might just hate parting with money. He doesn’t want to pay his share of taxes and he doesn’t want to pay for gas. Nah. This would involve a Tea Party follower assuming it's smarter [more conservative?] to spend more money now in order to save money in the long run. This has never appeared to be one of their hallmarks.
I remember from somewhere an interview in which Brett told [or perhaps recounted being told] the secret of playing Holmes: Most actors, he said, look for ways to reveal Holmes' inner workings--his secret desires, his unspoken longings, the childhood trauma that made him who and what he is. The trick is to understand that he doesn't have any. There's nothing inside. That's cold, but it sounds right to me: Like Hammett's Spade, we can know Holmes only from the outside in. I think that's where the expansion of 'The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton' into the Brett story 'The Master Blackmailer' erred. It's not that invented elements in the plot arc of his [ahem] dysfunctional engagement to the housemaid are, strictly speaking, noncanonical. It's that they represent a rare [for that series] and unsuccessful attempt to get inside Holmes's head.
Toggle Commented Dec 27, 2009 on Holmes contra Holmes at Lance Mannion
As soon as I hit Send, I realized that first sentence was wrong. Of course the Dems will still ritually grovel before Joe if he's a Republican--same as the do with Snowe et al., if the circumstances are right. They just won't do it as much, or as lavishly. bn
I agree w/ Chris--once he joins the GOP there's no need for the Dems to debase themselves for his amusement anymore. And unlike the Dems, the GOP will do business with Joe but they will never trust him. We haven't mentioned his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee, where he convened no meetings during the Bush years but now is using it as another way to be a pest. bn
My theory is that the rule kicked in very shortly after the last of the counterexamples you mentioned, somewhere in the mid-80s. That's when the lone male lead got replaced by pairing strong male and female leads, and part of their definition was that they weren't "in" a "relationship." Early Usenet discussion groups used to call it "UST"--unresolved sexual tension. The approach-avoidance thrill of UST was popular with fans. And it made for some good TV--until, in each case, it got resolved. UST helped make "Remington Steele" great fun--until a story arc sent Steele and Laura to the UK where they discovered Steele's true identity [another fun driver of the series] and got married. It was a double-dose of the "Very Special Episode" whammy: filmiing in England, and getting married. Mr. Steele, meet the shark. The series ended at that point, although it's not clear which was cause and which was effect. UST was at the heart of the slick, stylish "Moonlighting." David Addison and Maddie Hayes loathed each other, but needed each other to keep their detective agency afloat. Like "Remington Steele," it's hard to say which did more to drive the show into oblivion in its last season: David and Maddy finally "doing it" or the writers' strike. And UST made Scully and Mulder the hottest non-couple on television for five or six seasons--after which the resolution of the unresolved sexual tension [they had a baby, although the details are fittingly obscure] replaced their wonderful friction with exchanges of mushy love declarations. Oddly, the departure of Duchovny as Mulder in the last two seasons only managed to make this worse. There was a moment early on in the X-Files--just a moment, only a few seconds, much less time than it will take to read my description, I'm afraid--that captured the excitement of UST perfectly. Loyal X-Philes will know this scene as soon as I start describing it: Scully believes that Mulder is dead at the hands of the Cigarette Smoking Man. Mourning her partner's death, fearing for her own life, and convinced that their boss, A.D. Skinner, could no longer be trusted, Scully confronts Skinner and an episode ends with the two of them squared off, guns leveled point-blank in each other's face. [This scene had a sphincter factor of about 9.5.] The next episode begins as Mulder, apparently returned from the grave, bursts in, gun drawn, forcing Skinner to back down. Scully is speechless, gobsmacked. Seeing the split-second look that raced over her face--and watching her force it away again just as quickly--when she realized he was alive, was electric, It spoke volumes about their enigmatic relationship, its joys, its pains, and its complexities and trade-offs. No night of sweaty passion between the sheets for Sweeps Month could have told more. It's probably not a coincidence that this is about the time that strong female leading characters were becoming more numerous on television. It's tempting to suppose that writers just had--have--a difficult time imagining them, and their male opposites, as being anything *but* attached. What that says about the writers, or about TV characters as a lagging indicator of both the success and failures of feminism, I'll leave to others. bn
Toggle Commented May 31, 2009 on The Bonanza Way at Lance Mannion