Angel ,'Shells'
Discussion of episodes currently airing in Un-American locations (anything that's aired in Australia is fair game), as well as anything else the Un-Americans feel like talking about or we feel like asking them. Please use the show discussion threads for any current-season discussion.
Add yourself to the Buffista map while you're here by updating your profile.
Yes-- salt taken. Here's another interesting page. At the moment, I've only skimmed, but it raises some interesting points:
from the early seventeenth century, if not earlier, there was a widespread appreciation of the existence of a sort of transvestite and male prostitution subculture, and by the early nineteenth century it was often assumed in court cases that a married man was less likely to be guilty of buggery offences with another man.
Though I do sometimes wonder whether it's even possible to do an English Major properly without having studied history.
Well, that's what I did...but that does mean I always feel like I'm fudging a lot on history (ha, now I tell you all!), and literary studies is more history-focused than it's ever been, so I'd definitely recommend doing some history if you have the chance/inclination. (Then again maybe insanely detailed historical analysis will go out of fashion in lit crit and we can all get back to good old fashioned close reading or inpenetrable abstract theorising...here's hoping! t wink )
That last link looks terrific and very reliable Am-Chau; Jeffrey Weeks is an extremely well-respected historian in this area.
Jeffrey Weeks is an extremely well-respected historian in this area.
That's good to know-- I'll give it the time for a careful read through.
Then again maybe insanely detailed historical analysis will go out of fashion in lit crit and we can all get back to good old fashioned close reading or inpenetrable abstract theorising...here's hoping!
Dear lord, please let this happen. I get to have two Arts subjects a semester, I don't wanna do history! t /whine My main reason for avoiding the subject was the having to have a source which will back up your wild theories (whereas in English you can have a theory and there's no need for anyone but the marker to agree with you *cough*), but since nothing can be as hellish as the citing required of my first Law assignment, I should just give up on using that as an excuse.
whereas in English you can have a theory and there's no need for anyone but the marker to agree with you *cough*
It's funny because it's true!
It's funny because it's true!
No, really, it's not. t /humorless ex-English teacher
Then again maybe insanely detailed historical analysis will go out of fashion in lit crit and we can all get back to good old fashioned close reading or inpenetrable abstract theorising...here's hoping!
Yes! The close reading and the inpenetrable theorising! I'm good at those. History is interesting, but I'm not so good at it.
in English you can have a theory and there's no need for anyone but the marker to agree with you *cough*
In fact, sometimes they don't even have to agree! You just have to argue it convincingly.
It's those damn pesky facts. They ruin everything, I tells ya.
Edit: now I look crazy, because everyone has faster fingers than me. Facts ruin history, that's all I'm sayin.
It's those damn pesky facts. They ruin everything, I tells ya.
I don't mind facts so much, it's having them in so many places and in so much doubt. I mean, "the text says blahblahblah" is a fact, and easy, and neat, because either it does or it doesn't and the only thing in doubt is what blahblahblah means, which is entirely personal; but "in 1430, people did blahblahblah" is presented as a fact, but it might not be. Especially if in three others books it says, "in 1430, people did yaddayaddayadda". And then you have to reference all four books, and that's okay when you're really interested in both blahblahblah and yaddayaddayadda, but when you not? It's no fun.
Um. Yeah. I may just be a little bored, here, and it's making me boring.