gdarklighter said:
Because they're apples and oranges. Different business model, different competition, different segment of the market.
Wow, I have a lot of work to do, then. I need to inform the literature departments of all schools everywhere that you cannot compare themes between plays and novels.
"Different business model, different competition, different segment of the market..."
In fact, we can compare the work done characterizing female narratives between broadcast TV and cable. The compromise is that the difference you brought up is a distinction that would be important within that comparison. It is not, however, a reason to abandon the comparison altogether. But it is context, and therefore should at least be held in mind while having the discussion, right?
I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear in my original comment. Comparing the work of two different creators without any acknowledgement of the outside factors influencing their work is not a fair comparison.
gdarklighter said:
Because they're apples and oranges. Different business model, different competition, different segment of the market.
Wow, I have a lot of work to do, then. I need to inform the literature departments of all schools everywhere that you cannot compare themes between plays and novels.
"Different business model, different competition, different segment of the market..."
In fact, we can compare the work done characterizing female narratives between broadcast TV and cable. The compromise is that the difference you brought up is a distinction that would be important within that comparison. It is not, however, a reason to abandon the comparison altogether. But it is context, and therefore should at least be held in mind while having the discussion, right?
I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear in my original comment. Comparing the work of two different creators without any acknowledgement of the outside factors influencing their work is not a fair comparison.
I have never been closer to feeling bad about forum snark that I generated than now. I congratulate you on putting that succinctly, and I agree completely.
Read Dune while I was still in high school but I can't remember anything about it besides very tiny bits and pieces and have no real desire to reread it. And I'm okay with that. (or maybe I've just been trying to suppress anything Dune-related from my memories since seeing the crap flick it was made into). Still like what I've read of Dick, Ballard, Burroughs, Gibson, etc. and in case you wonder why Gaiman is so beloved by some the Sandman GN series should provide some clues.
I haven't seen the finale (don't spoil it for me), but BSG I found only so-so; and I did not find Kara Thrace a particularly compelling character. Not much there, but I also didn't mind Callie. There, I said it.
Voyager wasn't bad. It was kind of like McDonalds: it's not much and it's not great, but it's consistent and you always know what you just ordered.
I never had a problem with Ewoks.
The modern John Byrne Superman is THE Superman, and all you silver-age fans can stuff it. For that matter, Superman is no less realistic than the guy who naturally became the world's greatest detective, learned every style of hand-to-hand combat, AND regularly MacGuyvers tools to beat any situation he could conceivably come across.
The Tick is only tepidly funny.
William Shatner may be cool, but Avery Brooks is cooler.
56
GreatEarthBeard
I'm lost
April 2009
MAY 20, 2009 09:02 AM
I don't and doubt I ever will enjoy Neil Gaiman or his works....I said it.
formerviking
Denver, PA
May 2006
MAY 13, 2009 06:52 AM