BPAL, squee, spork-watching
13/1/08 17:21![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bronze_ribbonsBPAL log:
Kindly Moon - limited edition; tester
Lab description: Utterly ethereal, an exquisite expression of love: moonflower, lotus root, white gardenia, beeswax, peach blossom, blue musk, stargazer lily, golden osmanthus, ti, sandalwood, hyacinth, ylang ylang, and a touch of vanilla bean.
Ribbons's reaction: Smells like juice and musk, but more pleasant than "Paris." Not offensive, but I won't be ordering more of it. Two samples do not a representation make, but given my reaction to "Long Night Moon" (which I also thought on the sweet side) I'm wondering if Moon scents aren't my thing. (The LE series that has worked well on me so far is the Zodiac.)
Shameless squeeing:
Listened to some more of Cedar's reading of "The Hounding of the Baskervilles" over supper. Oh, is she good. *glee*
Spork-watching log:
The Deadly Hollow comment thread on chapter 7 has invoked both Tolkien --
-- and A. A. Milne:
These people are more insanely bitter and bitterly insane than I am. Considering I just caught myself harping on "limits of magic" and "acting on evidence only with sufficient fucking context" without even realizing I was doing so, that's saying something.
A misapprehension about/among fandom I keep seeing is that people write/read for the same reasons across the board (and the corollary implication that there's only one right/healthy reason or stance). It struck me yesterday that the notion of rereading a book one doesn't necessarily like/respect often seems weird and/or pointless to people who read strictly for enjoyment or advancement, whereas I belong to several traditions where it is practically a duty to engage with a text that has proven itself to be attractive and of importance to the culture at large, no matter how exasperating the actual material may be, and to write acres of commentary and alternate realities and reinterpretations (1) in an effort to comprehend why other people dig the canon, (2) in an effort to connect to other people by creating a rendition palatable to oneself, and/or (3) for the sheer entertaining because-I-can fun of it.
I should point out that, while this started out as a note about the Potterverse, everything I just said in the previous paragraph also applies to the Bible. This morning's church services were devoted to interpretations of the Psalms, and the preacher (a Franciscan friar turned UU music minister) focused on how selective and agenda-framed "translations" and exegeses can be (contrasting the NRSV and Stephen Mitchell renderings of Psalm 139) -- and also how difficult it can be for people to be truly aware and accepting that other lives are on wholly different tracks than theirs, making it hard for them to grasp from whence the readings they wouldn't ever themselves make are springing from. (He didn't put in those words -- that's my takeaway from the sermon -- but the example he gave, that of his three-year-old daughter becoming aware (and temporarily obsessed-disturbed) with another congregant's life being lived mostly outside of her view or knowledge ("Daddy, what's T. doing right now?" "I don't know, hon") -- that's stayed with me, since part of what I continually struggle with in my own creation and distribution of texts is (1) not being moved by texts that affect other people tremendously (during coffee hour, I needed a break after 3-4 conversations, so I retreated to a pew with a book of poetry that had been highly rated by other SF/F writers, and I just couldn't get into it, even though the writer and I nominally share quite a few interests), and alternately (2) investing a fair amount of time creating texts that end up connecting with few readers. (On the one hand, I would indeed write no matter what -- but on the other hand, there's a writing-for-self vs. writing-for-a-real-audience ratio that has to be respected in order to keep up with my mortgage payments.)
I do love the Stephen Mitchell version of Psalm 40 that led our Order of Service:
[ETA: Alternate, even more extended riff on the same theme (and notes about the rest of the morning) at my personal journal. Sometimes the compartments of my brain don't merely rub against one another but actively collide...]
Kindly Moon - limited edition; tester
Lab description: Utterly ethereal, an exquisite expression of love: moonflower, lotus root, white gardenia, beeswax, peach blossom, blue musk, stargazer lily, golden osmanthus, ti, sandalwood, hyacinth, ylang ylang, and a touch of vanilla bean.
Ribbons's reaction: Smells like juice and musk, but more pleasant than "Paris." Not offensive, but I won't be ordering more of it. Two samples do not a representation make, but given my reaction to "Long Night Moon" (which I also thought on the sweet side) I'm wondering if Moon scents aren't my thing. (The LE series that has worked well on me so far is the Zodiac.)
Shameless squeeing:
Listened to some more of Cedar's reading of "The Hounding of the Baskervilles" over supper. Oh, is she good. *glee*
Spork-watching log:
The Deadly Hollow comment thread on chapter 7 has invoked both Tolkien --
gehayi: I rather like the idea of young Tom fanboying Sauron. It does seem to fit amazingly well.
I bet he got bogged down mid-saga and never finished. If he had, he'd have known that putting all of your power into a piece of jewelry is NOT a great idea.
-- and A. A. Milne:
erastes [in reaction to Harry = Pooh, Ron = Piglet, and Hermione = Christopher Robin]: Does this make Voldemort the Heffalump, and Pooh, Piglet and Christopher Robin just walk around in circles?
These people are more insanely bitter and bitterly insane than I am. Considering I just caught myself harping on "limits of magic" and "acting on evidence only with sufficient fucking context" without even realizing I was doing so, that's saying something.
A misapprehension about/among fandom I keep seeing is that people write/read for the same reasons across the board (and the corollary implication that there's only one right/healthy reason or stance). It struck me yesterday that the notion of rereading a book one doesn't necessarily like/respect often seems weird and/or pointless to people who read strictly for enjoyment or advancement, whereas I belong to several traditions where it is practically a duty to engage with a text that has proven itself to be attractive and of importance to the culture at large, no matter how exasperating the actual material may be, and to write acres of commentary and alternate realities and reinterpretations (1) in an effort to comprehend why other people dig the canon, (2) in an effort to connect to other people by creating a rendition palatable to oneself, and/or (3) for the sheer entertaining because-I-can fun of it.
I should point out that, while this started out as a note about the Potterverse, everything I just said in the previous paragraph also applies to the Bible. This morning's church services were devoted to interpretations of the Psalms, and the preacher (a Franciscan friar turned UU music minister) focused on how selective and agenda-framed "translations" and exegeses can be (contrasting the NRSV and Stephen Mitchell renderings of Psalm 139) -- and also how difficult it can be for people to be truly aware and accepting that other lives are on wholly different tracks than theirs, making it hard for them to grasp from whence the readings they wouldn't ever themselves make are springing from. (He didn't put in those words -- that's my takeaway from the sermon -- but the example he gave, that of his three-year-old daughter becoming aware (and temporarily obsessed-disturbed) with another congregant's life being lived mostly outside of her view or knowledge ("Daddy, what's T. doing right now?" "I don't know, hon") -- that's stayed with me, since part of what I continually struggle with in my own creation and distribution of texts is (1) not being moved by texts that affect other people tremendously (during coffee hour, I needed a break after 3-4 conversations, so I retreated to a pew with a book of poetry that had been highly rated by other SF/F writers, and I just couldn't get into it, even though the writer and I nominally share quite a few interests), and alternately (2) investing a fair amount of time creating texts that end up connecting with few readers. (On the one hand, I would indeed write no matter what -- but on the other hand, there's a writing-for-self vs. writing-for-a-real-audience ratio that has to be respected in order to keep up with my mortgage payments.)
I do love the Stephen Mitchell version of Psalm 40 that led our Order of Service:
Grant me awareness; keep my gratitude fresh each day.
Let my song give blessing and insight to those who can't see for themselves.
And let your compassion always shine forth from the depths of my heart.
[ETA: Alternate, even more extended riff on the same theme (and notes about the rest of the morning) at my personal journal. Sometimes the compartments of my brain don't merely rub against one another but actively collide...]
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
14/1/08 03:33 (UTC)1. I just spent far too long getting caught up reading Deadly Hollow and annoying the SO with riotous laughter. Thanks for the point!
2. I belong to several traditions where it is practically a duty to engage with a text that has proven itself to be attractive and of importance to the culture at large, no matter how exasperating the actual material may be, and to write acres of commentary and alternate realities and reinterpretations (1) in an effort to comprehend why other people dig the canon, (2) in an effort to connect to other people by creating a rendition palatable to oneself, and/or (3) for the sheer entertaining because-I-can fun of it.
*loves you* I want to print this statement out and tape it to the fridge. I feel utter relief at hearing this stated so clearly and concisely. Those days when I step out of myself and say, "Why are you so invested in this again?" I'll read this and remember. Thanks, m'dear.