Yes, I know I reblogged it before; I’m reblogging it again.
This image epitomises the delight I get from transformative works, and it’s a beautifully eloquent response to Robin Hobb’s misguided rant about fanfiction:
“The intent of the author is ignored. A writer puts a great deal of thought into what goes into the story and what doesn’t. If a particular scene doesn’t happen ‘on stage’ before the reader’s eyes, there is probably a reason for it. If something is left nebulous, it is because the author intends for it to be nebulous. To use an analogy, we look at the Mona Lisa and wonder. Each of us draws his own conclusions about her elusive smile. We don’t draw eyebrows on her to make her look surprised, or put a balloon caption over her head. Yet much fan fiction does just that. Fan fiction closes up the space that I have engineered into the story, and the reader is told what he must think rather than being allowed to observe the characters and draw his own conclusions.” Robin Hobb on fanfiction
http://web.archive.org/web/20050630015105/http://www.robinhobb.com/rant.html
And she’s wrong, she’s SO wrong. Granted, drawing a mustache onto the Mona Lisa would be a bad thing, a final thing, a change-the-source thing, but there are COUNTLESS images that mess with the Mona Lisa without ever actually damaging the source image, without ever preventing a viewer from engaging with the pristine source image and interpreting it as they see fit. The Mona Lisa remains inviolate, regardless of weed-smoking iterations or The Da Vinci Code, and the audience are free to interpret her as they will. Transformative works based upon her are examples of people sharing one possible interpretation, or addressing problems they perceive, or bringing a marxist/feminist/whateverist reading to the fore, or just making their friends giggle.
This, though, this is so much better than anything I’ve seen that transforms the Mona Lisa. This takes that gorgeous, familiar image of Vermeer’s Girl With A Pearl Earring (an image that the book and movie of the same name have made familiar to people outwith Art History students [who might know it as the ‘Mona Lisa of the North’]) and reworks it with brilliant and elegant simplicity.
Manet’s painting ‘Olympia’ does something similar with Titian’s ‘Venus of Urbino’ (which is itself a reworking of Giorgione’s ‘Sleeping Venus’); Georgione dresses up his objectifying & titillating high class porn as an image of a goddess, and has her eyes closed - she doesn’t know we’re ogling her. She’s helpless before our (male) voyeuristic gaze. Titian’s nude knows we’re ogling her, but she’s still putatively a goddess, and despite that she’s glancing coyly away as she consciously provokes the viewer, offering herself up to him. Manet’s nude, however, is unambiguously presented as a human and a prostitute, and she looks straight out at the viewer, her hand on her thigh making it clear that she alone chooses who gets access to her sex. The painting was received with shock and disgust and had to be protected from those who wanted to destroy it for its obscenity - not for showing naked flesh, but for making the naked woman into a subject, rather than an object.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_%28Manet%29
God, I’m rambling. Anyway, point being - transformative work, intratextual work, is most emphatically not a new thing, nor a creatively barren thing. It’s awesome. And this image here is delicious, because it takes that lovely painting, in which the model is mysterious, alluring, her parted lips gleaming and her eyes wide as she looks out at the viewer, objectified - and it drags it straight into the 21st century by adding the camera, making it into that recognisable MySpace pose, making her the CREATOR of the image not just the object. She is looking at herself, not at us, and this careful composition becomes an ephemeral snapshot, a fleeting moment in her day.
I mentioned this tumbl-essay on twitter last night, but I think it’s worth reposting in a more semi-permanent form.
As much as I love tumblr, it’s sometimes hard to track down who wrote the words, who provided the re-tumbl, and who made the animated gif (the three parts to any successful tumbl).
So as best I can tell, credit goes to theumbrellaseller for adding words to hemsworthss’s moving images, and that it came to my attention via ashleeta.
But I concur with all of them: the comparative $1 worth of good writing and acting in the talkin’ quadrants of the gif make the $100,000 and <30 seconds of CGI in the action quadrant actually meaningful, and suddenly NOT a total waste of time and money.
science bros.
There are no words to describe my feelings about this relationship. But I’m going to try.
First of all, their parallels. Both geniuses, top of their field. Both suffered an accident that physically changed them, forever, and not in a wholesome Spider-Man kind of way. Both try to do what they can to help others despite their own issues; Banner heals people, Tony works on developing clean energy. And both struggle, in their own way, with duality; Tony and Iron Man, Bruce and the Hulk. Two identities, one body. Only difference is Iron Man’s bad side is Tony.
I mentioned somewhere that Tony sees a bit of himself in Banner because they both have a monster inside them that they can’t control, a creature that springs fully formed from the id, the base impulses and the nasty stuff at the back of the mind. Bruce’s is a giant green rage monster. Tony’s trashed a party in Iron Man 2. Banner has a control over his that Tony hasn’t quite achieved yet; don’t think I didn’t notice Tony pouring himself a whiskey when confronting Loki. Tony is envious, fascinated, and most of all, impressed by Bruce’s control.
So he doesn’t walk on eggshells around Bruce like the others, because that’s not what Bruce needs. Tony sees Bruce’s restraint, sees the quiet, brilliant man making self-deprecating jokes in the corner of the room, sees the way people look at him like he’s going to snap any second, and thinks “nope”. Tony does what no-one else aboard that Helicarrier does. He trusts him. He makes jokes and jabs him and teases him and above all, treats him exactly how he would treat anyone else— he has a great regard for Bruce’s brilliance, and tells him so, but he doesn’t try to ignore the Hulk in the room. When he says “wow, you’ve really got a handle on this, haven’t you?” he’s not saying “gosh, it’s incredible you haven’t snapped yet and killed everyone on board” he’s saying “I know you have a handle on this, you wouldn’t be here if you didn’t, so I’m gonna poke you with this sharp object to prove it”. And you can see Bruce relax, and smile, and trust him back.
But then Tony goes even further, and invites Bruce to come to his R&D department. I’m pretty sure the two of them drive off together in Tony’s car at the end of the movie to do just that. And, okay, sure, Bruce is smart, but Tony’s tech is his baby. How many people get invitations to come and see his work? He invites Bruce because he recognises his brilliance, yes, but there’s another reason. He’s inviting Bruce to come down and work with him after this is over. He’s giving Bruce something to do next, a purpose, an alternative to disappearing into the ether to be alone with his monster. Tony knows from experience that being alone with your issues doesn’t end well, so for what’s only the third time in his life he extends the hand of friendship to a guy he’s known barely an hour.
And then, he tells Bruce to let the beast loose. Not just because they need him to fight, but because it will help him. If Bruce can take this thing that he sees as a curse and turn it into a gift, well, that’s going to lift him out of a very dark place. I’m not saying Tony knew about Bruce’s attempted suicide, but I think he had a suspicion that Bruce had been, in his words, “low”. So he encourages Bruce to take all that crap and pain and the Other Guy and use him to help people; after all, that’s what he did.
And it pays off. Nobody— nobody— thinks Bruce is going to turn up for that final battle. You can see the look on Natasha and Steve’s faces when Tony asks if Bruce turned up yet. They’ve counted Bruce out. Guy’s a mess, right? He’s too volatile. Doesn’t play well with others. He could never work as part of a team. No-one thinks he’ll come through when it matters. Except Tony. He has faith in him, and that faith is rewarded. It’s no wonder the Hulk is the one to catch Tony. Tony’s the one who helped let him out. He’s just returning the favor.
(via korashime)
Martin Freeman filming the Sherlock Pilot
(via anarmydoctor)
![lornasp:
Benedict Cumberbatch Flattered By Racy ‘Sherlock’ Fanfic I was amazed at the level of artistry; people have spent hours doing it,’ British actor tells MTV News
British actor Benedict Cumberbatch is so hot right now. He is almost literally in everything, including last year’s awards-season favorites “War Horse” and “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy,” the hit BBC/PBS revival of “Sherlock” and two highly anticipated future blockbusters “Star Trek 2” and “The Hobbit.”
Cumberbatch fans should be excited to see him reprise his role as the quirky and slightly sociopathic Sherlock Holmes when the second season premieres this Sunday (May 6) on PBS’s Masterpiece. MTV News recently caught up with the very busy and talented actor, who attributes the show’s success to its “extraordinary” and “very intelligent, very loyal” fans and promised that they won’t be disappointed with the action that unfolds in the second season.
Speaking of those intelligent fans, we asked Cumberbatch if he was aware of the extensive collection of creative and explicit fan fiction that has surfaced online since the premiere of the show’s first season.
“I am startlingly aware of it,” Cumberbatch said with a smile. “I don’t go seeking it, but Martin Freeman, who was an absolute luddite on the first series, suddenly came back from New Zealand having done a little radio short drama called “The Hobbit,” he came back and he had this beautiful Mac [computer] with him and said ‘Hey, look at this Tumblr.’ And I said, ‘What? Tumblr? What?’ He knows more about it than I do and he was showing me some of them. Some of it is really racy, un-viewable even on MTV. It’s cool.”
The charming Brit went on to say that he is flattered by a few of the depictions he’s come across and that he’s amazed how much time some fans have put into their work.
“I suppose my bodily proportions are quite flattering. I’m ripped, doing something I wouldn’t normally do with my body, or having done to it, involving Watson,” he said cheekily. “So that’s as far as I’ll hit about that one, but it’s all there on the Web if you want to find it. I was amazed at the level of artistry; people have spent hours doing it. And there’s some really weird cross breeding stuff that goes on. The news got out that I was playing Smaug in ‘Hobbit’ and suddenly there were lots of dragons with purple scarves flying around so it’s crazy, it’s crazy.”
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1684328/benedict-cumberbatch-sherlock-holmes-fan-fiction.jhtml](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3eqbvkS0b1qdyeteo1_400.jpg)
Benedict Cumberbatch Flattered By Racy ‘Sherlock’ Fanfic I was amazed at the level of artistry; people have spent hours doing it,’ British actor tells MTV News
British actor Benedict Cumberbatch is so hot right now. He is almost literally in everything, including last year’s awards-season favorites “War Horse” and “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy,” the hit BBC/PBS revival of “Sherlock” and two highly anticipated future blockbusters “Star Trek 2” and “The Hobbit.”
Cumberbatch fans should be excited to see him reprise his role as the quirky and slightly sociopathic Sherlock Holmes when the second season premieres this Sunday (May 6) on PBS’s Masterpiece. MTV News recently caught up with the very busy and talented actor, who attributes the show’s success to its “extraordinary” and “very intelligent, very loyal” fans and promised that they won’t be disappointed with the action that unfolds in the second season.
Speaking of those intelligent fans, we asked Cumberbatch if he was aware of the extensive collection of creative and explicit fan fiction that has surfaced online since the premiere of the show’s first season.
“I am startlingly aware of it,” Cumberbatch said with a smile. “I don’t go seeking it, but Martin Freeman, who was an absolute luddite on the first series, suddenly came back from New Zealand having done a little radio short drama called “The Hobbit,” he came back and he had this beautiful Mac [computer] with him and said ‘Hey, look at this Tumblr.’ And I said, ‘What? Tumblr? What?’ He knows more about it than I do and he was showing me some of them. Some of it is really racy, un-viewable even on MTV. It’s cool.”
The charming Brit went on to say that he is flattered by a few of the depictions he’s come across and that he’s amazed how much time some fans have put into their work.
“I suppose my bodily proportions are quite flattering. I’m ripped, doing something I wouldn’t normally do with my body, or having done to it, involving Watson,” he said cheekily. “So that’s as far as I’ll hit about that one, but it’s all there on the Web if you want to find it. I was amazed at the level of artistry; people have spent hours doing it. And there’s some really weird cross breeding stuff that goes on. The news got out that I was playing Smaug in ‘Hobbit’ and suddenly there were lots of dragons with purple scarves flying around so it’s crazy, it’s crazy.”
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1684328/benedict-cumberbatch-sherlock-holmes-fan-fiction.jhtml
(via anarmydoctor)
First, one of the most observant men in the world thought John was flirting with him. Now, the most observant woman in the world thinks John is in love with Sherlock, just like she is, in defiance of sexual orientation. Look at us both. Neither of us are interested in men, yet we both want this one.
The evidence is stacking up against you, John.
I like to think of this moment as a turning point, because he doesn’t deny it again after this. I mean, they’re still not a couple to way people think they are. But they might as well be, at this point. They’re a couple for all intents and purposes. No one means more to John than Sherlock does. They share flat, they sometimes share a room, they’re joined at the hip, and John loves Sherlock. And Sherlock loves John.
Irene is the one who must be jealous. John is the one Sherlock’s chosen. John is the one Sherlock talks to, even if he isn’t there. Sherlock always gets the last word, John says; their conversation never ends, but Irene can’t get one started. Sherlock sends John texts beckoning him, sends him texts when he goes for a walk on the moor, follows him wherever he goes. Irene’s texts go unanswered. John’s the one Sherlock has dinner with, in the end, even when he’s not hungry.
Irene turns out to be far more morally ambiguous than Sherlock is, heavily leaning toward the evil side even as she isn’t strictly evil herself. She’s willing to play with Moriarty if it serves her interests, in spite of the fact that he’s vicious and doesn’t care who will get hurt along the way. Innocent victims are his bread and butter. Irene doesn’t seem to mind that. Sherlock doesn’t mind either, per se, but he strives to prevent innocent victimhood all the same, not to participate in it. Irene choses to participate in chaos while Sherlock always choses to turn chaos back into order. Devil on the side of the angels? Perhaps. Irene is most definitely not on the side of the angels.
Knowing that Sherlock loves John, and that John loves Sherlock, she makes an extremely agressive play for Sherlock anyway. She knows what she’s disrupting. She knows she’s making john jealous and uncomfortable. She takes what she wants, that one. Or she tries to. She’s not even shy about it, not in the least.
Man, I love Irene.
Look at us both. Yes, indeed. She’s right: it’s a useful comparison. Sherlock isn’t interested in getting into bed with moral ambiguity, literally or figuratively. He’s got John, his north star of moral principle. Irene kisses Sherlock on the same spot John punches him: both of those actions are performed with love. And Sherlock, being Sherlock, chooses the straight forward punch over the complicated kiss.
…3am is the perfect hour to search for references and doing this kind of stuff hearing this:
Let’s say they are wearing suits not because I searched these on a suited men nsfw site, but because they were attending Mycroft’s wedding.
Re: The whole custody thing
I feel like somewhere along the line people are getting so caught up in Emma Vs. Regina that they’re forgetting there’s an actual kid involved in this process.
Martin Freeman’s introduction to The Sign of Four.
I debated whether to scan this but several people have their copies thanks to BBC Shop.
You can buy the Sherlock tie in novels via Amazon and BBC Shop where Sherlock books are currently 3 for the price of 2.
(via anarmydoctor)
Otters Who Look Like Benedict Cumberbatch: A Visual Examination.
All otters are from The Daily Otter, for all your ottery Tumblr needs!
(via anarmydoctor)
Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins: The Hobbit Behind the Scenes
Benedict on visiting New Zealand to start work on The Hobbit [x]
(via anarmydoctor)
![unlockaflockofwords:
Yes, I know I reblogged it before; I’m reblogging it again.
This image epitomises the delight I get from transformative works, and it’s a beautifully eloquent response to Robin Hobb’s misguided rant about fanfiction:
“The intent of the author is ignored. A writer puts a great deal of thought into what goes into the story and what doesn’t. If a particular scene doesn’t happen ‘on stage’ before the reader’s eyes, there is probably a reason for it. If something is left nebulous, it is because the author intends for it to be nebulous. To use an analogy, we look at the Mona Lisa and wonder. Each of us draws his own conclusions about her elusive smile. We don’t draw eyebrows on her to make her look surprised, or put a balloon caption over her head. Yet much fan fiction does just that. Fan fiction closes up the space that I have engineered into the story, and the reader is told what he must think rather than being allowed to observe the characters and draw his own conclusions.” Robin Hobb on fanfiction
http://web.archive.org/web/20050630015105/http://www.robinhobb.com/rant.html
And she’s wrong, she’s SO wrong. Granted, drawing a mustache onto the Mona Lisa would be a bad thing, a final thing, a change-the-source thing, but there are COUNTLESS images that mess with the Mona Lisa without ever actually damaging the source image, without ever preventing a viewer from engaging with the pristine source image and interpreting it as they see fit. The Mona Lisa remains inviolate, regardless of weed-smoking iterations or The Da Vinci Code, and the audience are free to interpret her as they will. Transformative works based upon her are examples of people sharing one possible interpretation, or addressing problems they perceive, or bringing a marxist/feminist/whateverist reading to the fore, or just making their friends giggle.
This, though, this is so much better than anything I’ve seen that transforms the Mona Lisa. This takes that gorgeous, familiar image of Vermeer’s Girl With A Pearl Earring (an image that the book and movie of the same name have made familiar to people outwith Art History students [who might know it as the ‘Mona Lisa of the North’]) and reworks it with brilliant and elegant simplicity.
Manet’s painting ‘Olympia’ does something similar with Titian’s ‘Venus of Urbino’ (which is itself a reworking of Giorgione’s ‘Sleeping Venus’); Georgione dresses up his objectifying & titillating high class porn as an image of a goddess, and has her eyes closed - she doesn’t know we’re ogling her. She’s helpless before our (male) voyeuristic gaze. Titian’s nude knows we’re ogling her, but she’s still putatively a goddess, and despite that she’s glancing coyly away as she consciously provokes the viewer, offering herself up to him. Manet’s nude, however, is unambiguously presented as a human and a prostitute, and she looks straight out at the viewer, her hand on her thigh making it clear that she alone chooses who gets access to her sex. The painting was received with shock and disgust and had to be protected from those who wanted to destroy it for its obscenity - not for showing naked flesh, but for making the naked woman into a subject, rather than an object.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_%28Manet%29
God, I’m rambling. Anyway, point being - transformative work, intratextual work, is most emphatically not a new thing, nor a creatively barren thing. It’s awesome. And this image here is delicious, because it takes that lovely painting, in which the model is mysterious, alluring, her parted lips gleaming and her eyes wide as she looks out at the viewer, objectified - and it drags it straight into the 21st century by adding the camera, making it into that recognisable MySpace pose, making her the CREATOR of the image not just the object. She is looking at herself, not at us, and this careful composition becomes an ephemeral snapshot, a fleeting moment in her day.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1syic0Qkr1qghk7bo1_500.jpg)

