91 comments posted · 34 followers · following 2
V unq nyjnlf cynaarq gb jngpu guvf fubj riraghnyyl sebz sevraqf' erpbzzraqngvbaf, ohg gura vg ernyyl jrag gb arnere-gur-gbc-bs-zl-yvfg jura V fnj gung Yrfyvr Bqbz We. (nxn gur cresbezre jub punatrq zl yvsr nf Nneba Ohee va gur BOP bs Unzvygba) unf n erpheevat ebyr. V whfg tbg gb uvf ragel rcvfbqr naq V pna'g JNVG sbe Znex gb trg gurer. Nyy bs Pbyyvre'f punenpgre naq qvnybthr vf *fhcre* vagrerfgvat jura pbzcnevat uvz gb Nneba Ohee (juvpu vf fbzrguvat V unir gb qb sberire sebz abj ba -- V'z tbvat gb or sbyybjvat Yrfyvr'f pnerre sbe gur erfg bs zl yvsr!!) Jura Pbyyvre tbg gb gur yvar nobhg pubbfvat npgvba bire ncngul evtug orsber fubbgvat Xehtre = !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
One of my favorite shows is QI*, and there's an episode where we learn that the ancient Greeks did not have a word for the color blue. They called the sky "bronze-colored" and the ocean "wine-colored." Stephen Fry went on to explain that the ancient Greeks apparently didn't think it was overly important to refer to things using color as a descriptor, because other characteristics were more important, so they had no consistency in their color descriptors and their preferred word choices were often, I suppose, more metaphorical in nature. (I'm extrapolating but maybe they thought the ocean was wine-colored because the sea is tumultuous because of Poseidon and stuff, which reminded them of wine and drinking? I have no idea but hopefully the point is there.)
^This all seems ludicrous to me because of how things are now, and I can scarcely imagine a society where this is the case -- but I do kinda get it based on that explanation! So for the Tamarians, maybe they just don't have a need to ever communicate simple concepts. It would never occur to them to say out loud "I'm hungry," unless it could be expressed in way they would understand!
*I know lots of facts on QI are exaggerated or sometimes later found out to not be true, but I think in this case, it's still a widely accepted fact!
I know what you meant but of course this is all I could think of in response:
So the ridiculous thing is that the reason I have seen it three times is because I have actually won the lottery three times. THREE. TIMES. WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have entered a total of 26 times to date, but now unfortunately have to scale back my efforts significantly, since summer is over and real life has started up again, and therefore I can no longer reliably leave work by 5:15 pm and hustle it to Times Square by 6:00 every day. On July 13th when previews opened and 700+ people entered the first lottery, I was like o.0 o.0 o.0 and thought, I HAD to buy a ticket since I knew it would sell out and I might never ever win the lottery. So I splurged on a very expensive nice seat in the orchestra for my birthday in October -- but then I was like BUT I CAN'T WAIT UNTIL OCTOBERRRRRRRRRRR!!!!
Luckily I don't think quite that many people have entered any of the subsequent lotteries, but the odds are still virtually impossible -- something like 400 people almost every day! So therefore it's utterly absurd that I have now seen it three times (I guess 4 if you also count off-Broadway too!) And I will see it again in October. I've now seen it exactly once a month since it opened, haaaaaaaaa! 2 wins were for the regular front row and then my most recent win last weekend was standing room -- never have I ever been more excited to stand for three hours straight!!!
I haven't been obsessed with a Broadway show since RENT and Noise/Funk in middle school. I'm certainly a Broadway fan, but it's not something I'm super focused on most of the time -- I haven't usually made the effort to see things with any regularity. There's never EVER been another show I've loved as much as Hamilton, and which I feel the need to see as. many. times. as. possible. forever. and. ever. I WORSHIP *every* cast member. Especially Leslie and Chris and Daveed and Renee. And Lin OBVIOUSLYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!! I hope you get a chance to see it again because I CANNOT imagine only seeing it once!!! xD
To make that more relevant to this thread, I also love Matilda and saw it twice (once in the UK and then in NYC last summer!) Go Bruce Bogtrotter!!
I contemplated bringing it for Mark to read at the first event of his I was going to attend back in 2013. But I didn't, because, as far as novelizations of bad movies go, it's actually pretty good! It would not have fit the bill for something terrible at all, compared to other things that have been put forth in the past ;)
So when Riker was acting the same exact way that Shelby was, he was apparently rewarded for that behavior by being chosen for First Officer, rather than dismissed or disliked for it.... whereas the show seems to be written in such a way that we're supposed to dislike Shelby for exhibiting the same behavior. If they were both exhibiting the same behavior and a man was praised for it while a woman was disparaged = that is where some folks are seeing the distinction.
Also, just for (more) fun: another group of her students analyzed the Death Eaters from Harry Potter with an elaborate archive, visualizations, and timeline, and analyzed the results!: https://deatheaterstudies.wordpress.com/