![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
note: many of the thoughts here arrived to via various conversations with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lierdumoa ::glomps::
Been rewatching SGA eps for vids.
God. God I say, because I love my show.
And I can't even believe I'm saying that, because I didn't ever think there would be a show or a fandom that fit me so *well* but...dude.
It's the morbid and the horrific and the absurd and the ridiculous, all wrapped up together. And I've said it before how much the show feels like it was made to utterly suit my brain alone, except it suits other people so well too and it's like a call saying, hey, you're not alone.
I'm frankly a little shocked that SGA even exists because it's not only a show about misfits, but it's a misfit show. It's a tv show acting like it's a movie. It's a sci-fi series made along the tempermental lines of NYPDblue. It's on the surface a genre show that, if you look closer, is really all about the characters. It's making fun of sci-fi and critiquing it, while at the same time paying it homage. It's in a genre that's all about "saying something" and "social critique" and instead refusing to say anything at all, only reflecting back a world that is very familiar and almost too close.
It is...space. If that makes any sense. It gives you *space* for your mind.
If it helps to explain, I think SGA is a very post-modern series. Where modernist art is densely filled and opaque to the audience, to force the audience to look closer and to force them to divine the author's meaning, post-modernist art tends to push notice away from the author's intent and the author's subjectivity. It is a space for the *audience's* sake and the audience's subjectivity, and not a place for the author to provide meaning; it is a space for the audience to meditate.
In that regard SGA is not only a "space" but an entire universe for the audience to fill.
I really think that SGA might've only been possible with the Sci-Fi channel; that without BSG and SG1, SGA would not have been made, because the show is not only self-reflexive, but reflecting every which way, on the genre (ie. "Sanctuary"), on the structure of a show (ie. "38 min"), on the structure of playacting (ie. "The Tower"), and perhaps even, if you wish to look at it , on the current political and social and cultural structures that we are all living in (ie. "Suspicion", "The Gift", "Siege II", "Trinity", "Critical Mass"). And it doesn't judge, only reflect. How awesome is that? And how rare?
'cause like, it doesn't present choices like, say, saving 2,000 people versus saving 200 people. It's sort of like that choice, but not quite.
With SGA, instead you get two black boxes. In one box you might save ~200 people (and you don't know how many), in the other box you might also save ~200 people (and you don't know how few), but they are different people. You don't get to know who is in which box. You sometimes get to know if choosing one box might condemn the other. Half of the time, you don't even know if you're choosing a particular box for a positive or negative effect.
THAT, folks, is SGA.
And I don't think I've seen it ever done so consistently and so well in a tv show (instead of a movie) that's popular and that's run for so long, 'cause maintaining that sort of tone is insane if you want an audience. People funding a project back away hella quickly if a show isn't escapist, and I think SGA's saving grace is that it's funny. And really, comedy is needed to cut the morbid, and what's more? Morbid things, are as a whole, often funny and ridiculous and absurd. The best of the horrific is intensely facinating and often comedic, and I'm so glad that SGA's providing essentially a place, also, to laugh.
It's post-modernist in a "Butterfly Effect", the theatrical release, kinda way, where the guy wins and loses simultaneously; instead of the Director's Cut, which is more modernist in intent. It's post-modernist in an "Eternal Sunshine" kinda way, it's we're so fucked, but we'll still give it our all and we're still gonna smile, it's you kinda suck, but I love you anyways, it's forgiveness. It's characters who are trying hard and fucking up immensely and trying again, it's a show deeply aware of it's own flaws and playing off them, it's ...a home made on conflict.
And I resonate to that. Or SGA resonates to me. Or something.
[edit]
::headsmack:: so I realized that I should probably define post-modernism as I understand it and am using it in this entry, 'cause it has a bit of a twisty definition and is always wrapped up with and juxaposed against the concept of modernism. Both of these refer to elements of style and elements of intent; in this entry I'm referring more to intent than to style.
Anyhoo, to understand post-modernism, one sorta have to see it against modernism.
modernist: universal truths, fear/sadness/mourning in the midst of dissolution, subjectivity of the author, order out of chaos, search for the fundamental/stable, knowledge for knowledge's sake
post-modernist: diversity/contradiction of truths, celebration in the midst of dissolution, subjectivity of the audience, chaos out of chaos, acceptance of the provisional/temporary, the application of knowledge
Here is it's wiki entry for post-modernism, the part I'm referring to for SGA is this:
lierdumoa ::glomps::Been rewatching SGA eps for vids.
God. God I say, because I love my show.
And I can't even believe I'm saying that, because I didn't ever think there would be a show or a fandom that fit me so *well* but...dude.
It's the morbid and the horrific and the absurd and the ridiculous, all wrapped up together. And I've said it before how much the show feels like it was made to utterly suit my brain alone, except it suits other people so well too and it's like a call saying, hey, you're not alone.
I'm frankly a little shocked that SGA even exists because it's not only a show about misfits, but it's a misfit show. It's a tv show acting like it's a movie. It's a sci-fi series made along the tempermental lines of NYPDblue. It's on the surface a genre show that, if you look closer, is really all about the characters. It's making fun of sci-fi and critiquing it, while at the same time paying it homage. It's in a genre that's all about "saying something" and "social critique" and instead refusing to say anything at all, only reflecting back a world that is very familiar and almost too close.
It is...space. If that makes any sense. It gives you *space* for your mind.
If it helps to explain, I think SGA is a very post-modern series. Where modernist art is densely filled and opaque to the audience, to force the audience to look closer and to force them to divine the author's meaning, post-modernist art tends to push notice away from the author's intent and the author's subjectivity. It is a space for the *audience's* sake and the audience's subjectivity, and not a place for the author to provide meaning; it is a space for the audience to meditate.
In that regard SGA is not only a "space" but an entire universe for the audience to fill.
I really think that SGA might've only been possible with the Sci-Fi channel; that without BSG and SG1, SGA would not have been made, because the show is not only self-reflexive, but reflecting every which way, on the genre (ie. "Sanctuary"), on the structure of a show (ie. "38 min"), on the structure of playacting (ie. "The Tower"), and perhaps even, if you wish to look at it , on the current political and social and cultural structures that we are all living in (ie. "Suspicion", "The Gift", "Siege II", "Trinity", "Critical Mass"). And it doesn't judge, only reflect. How awesome is that? And how rare?
'cause like, it doesn't present choices like, say, saving 2,000 people versus saving 200 people. It's sort of like that choice, but not quite.
With SGA, instead you get two black boxes. In one box you might save ~200 people (and you don't know how many), in the other box you might also save ~200 people (and you don't know how few), but they are different people. You don't get to know who is in which box. You sometimes get to know if choosing one box might condemn the other. Half of the time, you don't even know if you're choosing a particular box for a positive or negative effect.
THAT, folks, is SGA.
And I don't think I've seen it ever done so consistently and so well in a tv show (instead of a movie) that's popular and that's run for so long, 'cause maintaining that sort of tone is insane if you want an audience. People funding a project back away hella quickly if a show isn't escapist, and I think SGA's saving grace is that it's funny. And really, comedy is needed to cut the morbid, and what's more? Morbid things, are as a whole, often funny and ridiculous and absurd. The best of the horrific is intensely facinating and often comedic, and I'm so glad that SGA's providing essentially a place, also, to laugh.
It's post-modernist in a "Butterfly Effect", the theatrical release, kinda way, where the guy wins and loses simultaneously; instead of the Director's Cut, which is more modernist in intent. It's post-modernist in an "Eternal Sunshine" kinda way, it's we're so fucked, but we'll still give it our all and we're still gonna smile, it's you kinda suck, but I love you anyways, it's forgiveness. It's characters who are trying hard and fucking up immensely and trying again, it's a show deeply aware of it's own flaws and playing off them, it's ...a home made on conflict.
And I resonate to that. Or SGA resonates to me. Or something.
[edit]
::headsmack:: so I realized that I should probably define post-modernism as I understand it and am using it in this entry, 'cause it has a bit of a twisty definition and is always wrapped up with and juxaposed against the concept of modernism. Both of these refer to elements of style and elements of intent; in this entry I'm referring more to intent than to style.
Anyhoo, to understand post-modernism, one sorta have to see it against modernism.
modernist: universal truths, fear/sadness/mourning in the midst of dissolution, subjectivity of the author, order out of chaos, search for the fundamental/stable, knowledge for knowledge's sake
post-modernist: diversity/contradiction of truths, celebration in the midst of dissolution, subjectivity of the audience, chaos out of chaos, acceptance of the provisional/temporary, the application of knowledge
Here is it's wiki entry for post-modernism, the part I'm referring to for SGA is this:
"incredulity toward metanarratives", meaning that in the era of postmodern culture, people have rejected the grand, supposedly universal stories and paradigms such as religion, conventional philosophy, capitalism and gender that have defined culture and behavior in the past, and have instead begun to organize their cultural life around a variety of more local and subcultural ideologies, myths and stories.
Tags:
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Yes. I think I'm growing to love SGA in that way. At first I was a little too blown away by it to have any deep feelings beyond numbness, but my infatuation with Rodney just grows and grows. He, like, tops my love for the show and for other shows. Except I-Man. I-Man has this special place in my heart. And then there's Due South. And The Sentinel. Of course, there's the brotherslash show.
Er. I think I'm too polyfannish for my own good.
no subject
no subject
And..they wavedanced in the O.C.? o.o
no subject
so, totally with you on all the SGA love, but i think it's for its very non-postmodernism, for its honest embracing of an almost pre-modern sensibility that doesn't shy away from world building and letting us live in these worlds, that gives us room, yes, but so does realist fiction, doesn't it???
so, i kind of see where you're saying it is pomo, but that requires a level of intent that i'm not sure i'm giving the producers (and boy, i cannot believe i'm actually going there, but i've always felt postmodernism is a function of intent on some level, b/c there's aq huge differnce between existentialist depressing absurd and pla(y)giaristic postmodern absurd, for example...purpose matters...are you taking and reusing material b/c you can't help it or are you commenting on the old as you're making the new...)
ok...shutting up now...very interesting questions and provocative suggestions!
no subject
(you're totally right in that BSG is more stylistically post-modern now that I think on it)
I think I was aiming towards the difference between cyber-punk and post-cyber-punk, and it depends on how you view pre-modern sensibility (which I view as "traditional hollywood").
no subject
'Underground' was particularly striking to me, because of the entire tone of it all. Bleak, victory at any cost. No happy endings. That's tends to be my signal that i have a decent piece of work on my hands, when something doesn't have constant happy endings. Particularly early on in things. Saiyuki has that same appeal(and still owns me, heart and soul at the moment). I'm wondering if this cast will get as developed as Minekura has done with her own characters as things go on... *grins*
Rodney is fun, as is Sheppard's sly humor.(and how much they bicker like a married couple this soon into things) *laughs* Glad to see you enjoying that new fandom though. ^_^ And your vacation time too!
no subject
::nods:: they really trust the audience to connect the dots! =D
And the wisecracks by the characters using old references to a bunch of other scifi shows. That made me giggle SO hard the first time i heard one.
::bounces:: dude, me too! and it keeps on coming!
'Underground' was particularly striking to me, because of the entire tone of it all. Bleak, victory at any cost. No happy endings.
::nodnodnod:: yeah, and just, they're pissing of *so* many people in the Pegasus Galaxy, which seems more realistic to me than being welcomed with open arms like other series or ::coughlikeinIraqcough::
I'm wondering if this cast will get as developed as Minekura has done with her own characters as things go on... *grins*
Oh god, they do, they do. Like, tell me when you've hit the end of the first season, or god, tell me when you've watched The Eye...
(and how much they bicker like a married couple this soon into things)
::nodnodnod:: oh GOD yes! And they later have "you are SO sleeping on the couch" sections and yet they come back together (over the course of several episodes, and the resonances of it is STILL happening), and it just fills my heart with joy.
And thank you! I hope your holidays are going well too! ::hugs::
no subject
::blinks:: er? could you go into this in more detail? I think we might or might not be talking about the same thing, but I'm not sure.
I am referring to SGA being postmodernist in intent; I feel that way too, and that without this intent there'd be nothing to play with. And I do honestly think it's pla(y)giaristic absurd because I get a almost palpable sense of joy from the show's creators and actors, many of whom are sci-fi fans themselves.
I think they are commenting on the old explicitly, all the references to older shows, and the way in (for example) Aurora how the Ancients were coded as Star Trek and how they were both celebrated and critiqued in that episodes and in episodes prior.
no subject
I love this post, btw. I did a secret squee to myself when I saw you falling for SGA because I've always loved how you talk about the fandoms that excite you (your love letter to PoTC is still one of my favourite posts ever)
I actually think SGA is too much of the moment - this post-millenial moment - to be postmodern in any comprehensive sense. Maybe it's because I'm coming from a litcrit point of view, or broadly so anyway, where it's sort of generally accepted that pmodism has had its day and we've moved on to other practices and engagements. So while there are elements of the pmod in SGA (damn right about the refusal of the grand narrative), the show is too contemporary to be truly *steeped* in it. It's more that it *uses* the tactics it will have learned from the pmod moment to deal with the themes and issues it wants to examine.
Also - sense of joy - yes. Not necessarily, like, "jouissance," but definitely joy. Whee!
no subject
But god...yeah.
My own personal marathon-to-catch-up-in-prep-for-season-2-part-2 is coming up soon. As is squee...for you...in various forms. ^_~ Hope you don't mind belated xmas presents. :D
no subject
i think permetaform's concept of fans as creators and the joy that brings as well as the inherent intertextuality are all true, but again that may simply be part of the general media convergence that jenkins talks about (hills has done a lot, for example, with Dr Who, and I think in terms of mocking self-referentiality, we could make an easier case for DW to be self-referential].
so, i don't think it stands out stylistically and i'm really not sure, permetaform, the case can be made content wise (and here i'm slipping into postmodernity to an extent): can we really argue that it destabilizes anything? b/c i don't see it underminming or questioning any metanarratives or establishing local contingent narratives. the bad guys are clearly evil, the good guys are good, we have the existence of alternate timelines, but on ametalevel they are explained. i don't think at any point does the text suggest that identities are performed...i mean, any of the typical venues to define postmodernism above and beyond what has already seeped into popular culture (such as breaking down the fourth wall which has become almost common yet isn't even done here) kind of don't ping for me...
emelerin, as i said, i'm a child of pomo theory (heck, pla(y)giarism showed up in my diss way way way too often (though i drew the line at the hyphen thingy ...ok, one of my orals list was called (post)modernism/ity ... guilty as charged :-)
so, i am fascinated by your death to postmodernism...what would you suggest has replaced it as a theoretical and cultural practice? i mean, most of my work these days draws from cultural studies (esp. queer studies, of course, for the slash stuff), but i always feel like i see the heavy influence of pomo and deconstruction...(i.e., gender trouble, for example, was derridean and lacanian to the core...though not necessarily the best reading of either ;-) anyway, in my own work i'm at this weird point where i'm being told that my framework is dated yet i haven't been given or offered one that replaces it to my satisfaction...oh, i'm just realizing, i'm looking for metanarratives again...i always do that *g* i'll take habermas's point against lyotard any day of the week (not just in terms of nationality and readability :-)
no subject
Because I think you're just so much better at expressing what we feel. :D
I'm re-watching season 1 right now and all I can do is flail. And go: 'oh, that's a GOOD episode' *content sigh*. (re: Suspicion) 'Oh, this one too, omg I can't believe they went there'. (re: Poisoning The Well). And everything after The Storm, is just OMGFLAIL.
no subject
Drive-by fic rec: Quarks, Quantum Chromodynamics and Other Unproven Theories (http://www.amireal.com/Quarks.htm)
no subject
Anyway - firstly, on SGA. I agree with much of what you said at the start there, that fanfic (and in this case, fannish interpretation of a contemporary tv show) is in and of itself postmodern in style and context. I think that *we* are postmodern people, that we live in it and think through it and are affected by it on many levels. I think SGA is born of the postmodern, without necessarily containing all of the characteristics of a "typical" postmodern text. Where I disagree with you is in your choice of which elements of SGA do or do not fit into a postmodernist paradigm. This is less about our reading of pmod though, than our reading of the show, I bet. For instance:
i don't see it underminming or questioning any metanarratives or establishing local contingent narratives. the bad guys are clearly evil, the good guys are good,
Oh my lord, no. I disagree. I don't think there's a stable good or bad guy in the whole damn show. There are those with uniformly good intentions, sure, but SGA plays with the underlying idea of what a good intention is, where it comes from, exposing how much of it really is just... internal ideology. Take Elizabeth's sanctioning of torture, for example. She is supposed to be the most enlightened of humans, the best we have, good intentions up the wazoo. Take the Wraith, the most obviously 'evil' force in the pegasus galaxy. They started out as plain life-sucking machines with fancy outfits, and have become much more complicated. Now, they have internal politics, they have a civil war brewing, and they have, as we learned in the ep with the young girl wraith, the capacity to love, to empathise, to fight what biology and society requires them to become. Everyone in SGA is steeped in an extraordinary amount of realness. They're all so fallible and prone to making stupid jokes and messing up and getting crushes on the wrong people and even when they're good (and even when they're bad) they disagree and make mistakes. SGA seems to me to be a product of the postmodern in that it rejects the good/evil dichotomy and questions the idea of the quest/adventure as the path of righteousness (ie see how ascension is treated) and I love it because the people who created it are just like me - products of the postmodern, and they know what makes me tick. Plus, hotness.
re postmodernism as discipline - I can tell you that the whole thing was puzzling me a fair bit as well (if pmod is over, what has replaced it?) and as i had used some pmod theory in my phd proposal, i needed to figure it out. I'm not there yet, because in general, nothing DID replace it. Instead, a series of smaller disciplines that existed alongside pmodism and fed off it while being part of it (like postcolonialism, for example, and cultural studies such as you're involved in) have become more prominent in the sturcturing of english departments across Ireland and the UK. So while these disciplines are not postmodern and while they reject some of the tenets of pmod, those strategies for tackling texts and interpretation are now treated as universal, as an inheritance of sorts. Such is my impression, anyway. I've always been fascinated by pmodism myself, while having problems with certain aspects of it (such as illustrated by arguments between pmodism and feminism) and the opinions I'm talking about here are just ones I've managed to glean from my first few months of work, so take them with a pinch of salt!!
Wasn't Habermas the first great internet fan, anyway? So I'm with you there!!
no subject
Even if you hadn't convinced me to watch it yet, though, I would definitely have to start after this. Besides, the way you describe it... this misfit show that says we're not alone, that it's self-reflexive and reflexive of the genre...
And I really appreciate how you offer insight on it through the perspectives of modernism and post-modernism, and how you explain those. Although I was taking a major in English before the accident forced me to drop out of university, I never did manage to get to the classes that covered those periods/schools of thought/whatever, so I appreciate the definitions. The perspectives aren't new to me, though, they're things I've noticed and thought about on my own without knowing the academic terms for them -- or perhaps more importantly, terms to simply share with others so that for the sake of the discussion, we're using the same vocabulary, whether they're the most academically accepted ones or not. (Yes, I'm fascinated by the debate of what is postmodernism in this context, even if I don't know enough to join in.)
I think I started being a huge SF fan when I was about 10 or 11, and Star Trek: The Next Generation began airing. I obsessed over it, I really wanted to like it, but I felt like it kept betraying me. Too many episodes that would just have me squirming in my lack of suspension of disbelief, doing the how-stupid-do-you-think-we-are facepalm, or just left feeling alienated and uncomfortable at the forced Messages, and eventually deciding that whatever seed of Something Special I'd first connected with was being betrayed too often. And since then I "started" being a huge SF fan with various other shows (and books and such), but I almost always run into that squirmy feeling sooner or later.
So far, I've had none of that squirmy feeling with SGA, and I'm beginning to trust that it won't happen. Sure it will make me squirm in other ways, and I have yelled "Agh you dork!" aloud at the characters and probably will do so again, but no squirming in the insulted disbelieving way.
It does make me wish I'd stuck with watching more of those squirm-inducing other SF shows, though, so I could catch even more of the references in dialogue, and better appreciate how they're taking those tired plot themes and finally doing something right with them. ~_^
(I've now watched up to the end of The Eye, btw. And I need to go find myself some SGA icons, without spoilering myself....)
no subject
I guess I'd have to say that, IMO, SGA is more late modern than post modern, using Giddens as my rulestick for late modern. The characters, certainly, reflect their time and place, as do the creators, as part of a post-traditional, late modern world.
But still, squeeing over SGA. ;)
no subject
I'm going to have to reply to this more later, but I wonder if part of the problem is that I come to the postmodern/modern discussion via filmcrit and they're still not completely over modernism yet and are sorta in the middle of the postmodern discussion, or it seems that way to me with the back-forth going on between my profs.
no subject
no subject
see, i really don't see sga as complex or sophisticated as either one of you does, i guess. in fact, i think that's what makes it so interesting as a source text, b/c i've readmore interesting portrsyals of the genii and even the wraith in fanfic that i ever gather from the show.
to return to my bsg example here: conmpare the cylons with the wraith as the central antagonists...i'd argue the cylons are portrayed in a much more sophisticated manner, are much more ambiguous...at this point in time, i can't really wholeheartedly support *anyone*'s actions, and i think that's a good thing.
sga on the other hand creates holes where *we* fill in ambiguity, i.e., *we* debate how ethical it was to let the wraith feed on the prison planet, but the text itself does very little to question the protagonists' decisions...or look at the tower!!!
let's look at the torture scenes...i really don't think there existed the same levels of complexity in critical mass as there did in the torture episode on bsg (and i'd have to think about it a bit more to give a complete analysis)...which is not to say that i don't love sga with the passion of a thousand hearts...it's just that i think it requires *us* to do more of the work whereas on bsg i don't feel the need to complexify the characters b/c they're already there (and i'm not sure complex characters are even a characteristic of postmodernism in the end but i guess ambiguity is and i just don't see it in sga to a level that moves beyond anhy good modernist text)
ok...i get the many-theories-model and that's where i'm at right now just taking from wherever...the experience i seem to be having is that my vocabulary gets derided as obsolete while the underlying ideas are scavenged and used at will (sorry, i have this entire hypertext trauma at the moment that really doesn't belong in permetaform's lj :-)
no subject
Err, seriously. Nicely thought out. Definitely something for me to think about.
no subject
no subject
I haven't seen so much as a clip of BSG so I can't really comment there, but coming at it from the other side of the interpretive equation, with a show like Smallville, where viewers of any sense were almost *forced* to apply wild interpretations to dumb-seeming text just to get any sense out of the show at all (ha - like the theory that lex spent most of season 4 completely brainwashed), I can definitely see how there are grades of interpretation there. I don't know that I buy the heart of your theory about SGA being relatively simple and the audience creating depth through interpretation, mainly because it's such a *subjective* theory. *You* feel that SGA is unsophisticated, but I don't, and there's no real way to measure the *actual* sophistication of a show when to guage it immediately requires interpretation by a subjective audience. Do you see what I mean? I can't give concrete examples with BSG but I'd happily spend time talking about the complexity of the SGA verse.
And a hypertext trauma sounds painful!!!!
no subject
I'm frankly a little shocked that SGA even exists because it's not only a show about misfits, but it's a misfit show.
Know the feeling. Keeping expecting the plug to be pulled and no more show because networks are known to make bad decisions and I can’t even think about that without a shudder.
no subject
no subject
Whoa, whoa, whoa! I'm gonna call a flag on this play. Just because we are all postmodernists now does not mean that a particular text isn't PoMo; if anything, I'd say the realization that postmodernism is a defining aesthetic of our age makes it all the more urgent that we interrogate it carefully.
(Theory battles - much more fun when no tenure decisions are hanging on them!)
no subject
I.e., to call a particular fan text postmodern b/c it is intertextual would make any and all fan texts postmodern. So how do we distinguish something that is truly experimental from a story that is modernist in style and sentiment and whose only pomo characteristic is its intertextuality?
Similarly, I don't argue that all shows are pomo or that none are. I was arguing that to me SGA's postmodern qualities (such as its ludic referentiality to earlier sf/f texts and tropes) is not sufficient to make it pomo when neither style nor content are (as far as i'm concerned...clearly others see the show differntly)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Actually,
::GLOMPS YOU for SGA:: 'cause man, what a fandom, eh?
no subject
no subject
and yeah, god, I can't believe they did what they did in Suspicion and had so much distrust of Teyla, and the fact that it keeps on being brought up, I LOVE that!
no subject
no subject
eeeee. ::WINCE::
also ::HUGS::
no subject
And in a way, I think I enjoy it more by having things explained to me (for instance how "red shirts" connotate some's gonna die because so much cannon fodder have been wearing red shirts in sci-fi)
no subject
::HUG::
no subject
no subject
no subject
(incidentally why I prefer using "postmodernism" instead of "pomo", it helps me keep all the signifiers in place without creating a new one)
no subject
*GLOMPS YOU BACK* It's a shiny, happy place most of the time! And the show's good, too, which isn't necessarily always true. Hehehe.