A Day In The Life

The Four Emperors (Book Series)

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 09:02:18 GMT

Consisting of four different novels covering the "Year of the Four Emperors"; I had heard good things about these books, and reading Flavius Josephus with cahn finally made me check them out. These four novels cover the "Year of the Four Emperors", aka the time between the uprising against Nero and his suicide and the emergence of Vespasian as the final victor of a year long struggle for the rule of the Roman Empire during which three different candidates before Vespasian all rose and fell. These novels' most inspired narrative decision was to tell these events from the pov of the palace staff, slaves and freedmen (and -women) alike, so we have an ongoing set of characters, partly historical in origin, partly fictional, through whose eyes we see wannabe Emperors come and go.

The individual novels are: "Palatine" (Nero dies mid book already, because the rise and fall providing the red thread of the novel isn't his but of one of the two Praetorian Prefects, Nymphidius Sabinus, who is instrumental in Nero's downfall but then gets ideas before the agreed upon successor, Galba, even has arrived in Rome), "Galba's Men" (Galba finally shows up in Rome; it doesn't end well for him), "Otoh's Regret" (Otho finds out what being Emperor really means) and "Vitellius' Feast" (Vitellius manages to make Nero look good postumously). And while the Emperors on question do get narrative space - I think Otho gets the most, because he's already an important character in "Galba's Men" - , none of them is ever the main character - their rise and fall just provides the outward plot, while what the novels are really about is how this effects our main cast who occupies all variations between "just tries to survive this insanity"' and "is very ambitious themselves" , with "can't stand seeing things done incompetently" and "actually starts to believe it's important who is Emperor'" are featuring as motivations.

This bunch of main characters we follow through all the novels are: Epaphroditos (Nero's wily private secretary, freedman, started out as a boy slave in the Julian-Claudian household in the reign of Tiberius), Philo (Epaphroditos' assistant - "the private secretary's secretary" - , very competent and sweet natured, too sweet natured, in fact, for his own good), Artemina ("Mina", quick-tempered, starting out as a towel holder for Nero's Empress but determined to do very much more), Sporus (eunuch, Nero's favourite), Lysander (announcer) and Felix (head of slave placements and overseers), Teretia (daughter of Philo's landlady, in love with ihm) . There are others, female and male alike, who don't make it through all four novels or are introduced not in the first one but later, like Caenis, a freedwoman of the Imperial Household (and thus everyone's old acquaintance) showing up in "Otho's Regret" with very much an agenda of her own (and I have to say this is my favourite fictional depiction of Caenis yet, including Lindsay Davis' novel about her, which alas I felt was a bit of a let down mid novel onwards), or the moody teenager who is the younger son of Caenis' lover, one Domitian. (gelliaclodiana, you were looking for a depiction of Domitian where he's not a (present or future) psycho; this is it. He has teenage angst, but is clearly bright, and the sympathetic characters of the novel like him.) There are also those who for entirely non lethal reasons are just in one novel but noth another (not least because they wisely high tail it out of Rome when their survival demands it, like Nero's mistress of the wardrobe - and orgy choreographer - Calvia Crispinilla). As I said, some of these are actual historical figures (like Epaphroditos, Sporus or Caenis), others are fictional, but all of them have had the experience of powerlessness in the past even if they don't in the present, and that means the emotional stakes are there in a way they probably wouldn't be if we were just following the Emperors. For example: there are plenty of good reasons to depose Nero, of course. You don't fret for Nero himself. But then you realise the Praetorians taking the palace also means they're going to feel themselves entitled to have a go (i.e. rape) at Nero's slaves, and suddenly you care very much. Or: there is a famous incident involving the crowd when Galba arrives at the Milvian bridge. But Teretia and her father are within the crowd who has shown up to greet their new Emperor, which means said incident now feels incredibly personal. and so forth.

There is a lot of black humour in these books, and yet - or perhaps even because of that - the actual tragedies hit very hard. (I was reminded of the tv adaption of I, Claudius in this regard.) And for 99% of the characters three dimensional characterisations. (Including the Emperors. The only one who is just 100% awful is Vitellius.) The narrative premise that the palace staff is the one who actually keeps the Empire going irrespective of who happens to be Emperor also reminds me of British tv, though in this case Yes, Minister, but of course there is no slavery in 20th century Britain. And since most of the main cast are either former slaves or currently slaves, I was curious ahead of reading the books of how the author would treat the subject. For starters: not via the Spartacus approach (i.e. focusing on slaves fighting for their freedom). None of the characters think slavery per se is wrong; the freedmen (and -women) have slaves themselves. (This is historically accurate but quite often doesn't make it into fictional depictions.) There is also, early on, a lot of emotional identification with their masters' causes. At the same time, the narrative, I think, succeeds in making it clear that being a slave, even if your owner is the "considerate" type actually bothering to use your name instead of "boy" or "girl" , is to be in constant non stop danger of life and limb, simply because there is no legal protection whatsoever, and even if your current owner doesn't see themselves as entitled to have sex with you or beat you, the next one might, and/or any misfortune they suffer could lead to your own (painful) death. For all the banter and black humor, this undercurrent is there.

(I also thought the relationships between classes and free/unfree worked for me. For example, ( Epaphroditos and Nero. )

Nitpicks: the first two novels feature one of my pet peeves, to wit, characters using the expression "okay", even in initialized form (i.e. "ok"). I'm not a linguistic purist when it comes to historical novels, but that's one of the exceptions. So I was really glad novels 3 and 4 no longer had this.

Trigger warnings: did I mention the main characters are either former or present slaves in a society where the idea of consent for anyone not a freeborn Roman man is non existent? I will say that explicit scenes in the sense that we get detailed descriptions are rare, not because they don't happen but because the author usually works via implication and/or showing the aftermath.

State of the history: While Suetonius and Tacitus are clearly the main sources here, I would say the novels take the current state of historical research into account. I.e. Nero may be loathed by the Senate and increasingly by the higher ranking military, but he's wildly popular with the masses (and not responsible for the Great Fire of Rome), Domitian does not spend his spare time as a moody teen killing flies to signal the future. The big twist of Otho's life - ( which is spoilery ) is build up to through two novels. I wll say that in addition to the above mentioned "OK" in the first two novels, I am thrown by some of the very Anglophone shortening of names (hence Mina, or Alex for Alexander), but the slave names themselves, where invented, strike me as plausible (mostly Greek, which is what the Romans liked to do), and the various celebrations of Roman festivals, not just the well known ones like the Saturnalia, to mark the year are a good way to get some exposition about Roman every day life across. Notably NOT catering for what's popular is the fact that is no gladiator among either the main or the supporting cast. I found that ever so refreshing.

In conclusion: an enjoyable series of novels set during a truly outrageously bizarre year of Roman history.

comments

The Testaments 1.04 and For All Mankind 5.04

Sun, 19 Apr 2026 13:22:40 GMT

The Testaments 1.04: again, my only nitpick with this wasn't about the episode itself but solely source material related, as in, my favourite element of the source material is still not in it. As an episode buildng on the first three, it's tops, acting and script wise, continues to flesh out the two woman characters, heightens the stakes, and does, in fact, a better job with one of them than the book did. (I thought this in the first three eps as well.) I'm also intrigued by some of the chances due to what they could mean long term. ( Spoilers beneath the cut. )

For All Mankind 5.04: In which we get introduced to a new cast member and learn an old acquaintance is on their way. Also: (some) answers about the latest dastardly scheme.

( Spoilers wait with their reveals until after mission launch )

comments

Jo Graham: The Autarch's Heir

Mon, 13 Apr 2026 16:21:51 GMT

This week starts with some actual rl good news, as the foreunner of right wing autocrats on this continent, Victor Orban, was crushingly defeated. Among other things, this caused a lot of J.D. Vance memes going viral, given the Orange Menace had sent him to campaign for Orban; my favourite is the suggestion from one of our green politicians, Ricarda Lang, for Vance to campaign for the AFD next. This sounds like a great idea to me, except he already did that when speaking at the G7 last year, so maybe his magic touch fails over here.

On to fictional joy. I've read The Autarch's Heir, the fourth volume of Jo Graham's space opera saga The Calpurnian Wars (No.3 was reviewed by me here, and it is as compulsively readable as the previous entries. Though I have to admit I was half-wrong about the previous entry presenting us with the Space!Egypt to the Space!Rome that is the expansion-hungry Calpurnia), in that while the previous location definitely had Egyptian elements, so does Lono, the location of The Autarch's Heir. As before, while there are some characters from the previous cast around - in this case, sisters Aurore and Dian Melian - , we get new central characters to go with the new location, to wit, one Bel Alan, con man, and the drunk and depressed Calpurnian Commander Antisia, formerly the Faithful Lieutenant of murdered Autarch Julus, who has her own problems, such as one Thurinia gunning to be next Autarch, aided by her commander Vipsani. (I must admit that fond of ancient history as I am, I continue to get a kick out of the Roman paralles. In this case: what's not to love about Mark Antony as a Lesbian in space?) It's the first novel to give us something more about the Calpurnians than their expansionism, not just through Antisia's pov, and now I'll have to call them Space!Sparta as well because the way they're raised is definitely more in line with Sparta, transported into a sci fi frame, than with Rome. Anyway: the plot kicks off when Bel Alan, our main character, is contacted by the Lono resistance to steal the priceless Solaste Crown by pretending to be the natural son of the late Julus. At which point, and here I have to go for a spoiler cut, I did think: ( Spoilers made an assumption based on history. ) And yes indeed, it was. Bel makes for an engaging hero because he really isn't into either revenge scenarios or monarchy. He's also, a first for a main character in this series, not a believer. (I find this refreshing within this universe, not because I dislike the various numinous connections the other main characters in previous novels had, but in terms of world building we were due one atheistic sympathetic main character.) I also continue to love the way this series treats compassion and kindness and redeemability as important. Dian, one of the Melian sisters who in the previous novel was in what was probably my favourite scene in which Caralys, the heroine of said novel, was kind to her despite Dian having been hostile towards Caralys the entire novel. And now we see Dian more fleshed out and in a scenario where she in turn is able to show charm, wit and compassion - without negating the earlier issues. Not only is her sibling relationship with Aurore fun, but her hook up with Antisia is a great take on the "relationship started for utiliarian motives becomes meaningful" trope. (Btw, and speaking of Antisia: ( Here it gets spoilery again. ))

The one caveat I have is that while this novel tells its own story, I wouldn't start the series with it but start at the beginning if you're a new reader. (None of the novels are very long, so this doesn't mean years of your reading life, don't worry.) By now, I just think knowing the previous goings-on adds a lot of satisfying texture to what is already a very enjoyable story.

comments

For all Mankind 5.03

Sun, 12 Apr 2026 15:28:12 GMT

In which there is added poignancy due to the sole good RL news these past ten days, i.e. the Artemis II moon mission, which I admit to following avidly.

( Are you ready? )

comments

The Testaments (1.01 - 1.03

Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:21:07 GMT

The first three episodes of The Testaments have been dropped in my part of the world on Disney +. It's an adapatation of Margaret Atwood's novel of the same name, which is a decades later written sequel to her famous dystopian classic The Handmaid's Tale; when it was published, I reviewed it here. Just to make their lives more complicated, though, the show is also a sequel to the tv series The Handmaid's Tale. The first (very good) season of which I watched, but not the later ones, as word of mouth about diminishing quality and lack of time have detained me, but I did osmose this presents a problem because not only is the backstory the showin its later seasons developed for one of the central characters (Aunt Lydia) very different from her backstory in the novel, but the timeline of another central character is different as well. With this in mind, my spoilery reaction to the first three episodes is beneath the cut. Above cut: those first three episodes are well acted and produced and make some interesting choices re: adapting the source material - and I don't mean "interesting" as a euphemism for bad -, but haven't revealed yet how they'll solve the Lydia problem.

( The perils of being a female teenager in Gilead )

comments

Easter Wells of 2026

Sat, 04 Apr 2026 16:39:50 GMT

Mind you, the non-fannish world feels like one long Good Friday for humanity these days, but still: time to share the annual joy of our Franconian Easter Wells. (And bridges.)

( Lots more eggs and wells beneath the cut )

comments

For All Mankind (5.02)

Sat, 04 Apr 2026 14:15:13 GMT

In which Boyd becomes even more my favourite among the new characters, Kelly gets herself a mission, and Ed.... but that would be telling.

( Spoilers are on the case )

comments

Paradise 2.08 (Season finale)

Tue, 31 Mar 2026 16:10:04 GMT

In which season 2 comes to an end with a bang and a whimper both.

( Spoilers have just heard there will be a third and final season, which is good )

comments

For all Mankind 5.01

Sun, 29 Mar 2026 11:26:34 GMT

I finished s4 of For All Mankind with mixed feelings - you can read my review of the season 4 finale here, which goes into details as to why - but not so much that I wasn't curious about s5, which started on Friday.

( Spoilers finally found out what happened to Oleg from The Americans )

comments

Paradise 2.06 + 2.07

Mon, 23 Mar 2026 15:20:01 GMT

In the former, Jane sees herself as Alice to Sinatra's Luther, while in the later, Sinatra is informed it all comes down to Vader and Luke.

( Spoilers are saying hello to.... )

comments

Of Navajo cops and future arch nemesis

Sun, 15 Mar 2026 14:17:54 GMT

Dark Winds, Season 3: continues to be both beautifully acted, thoughtfully and empathically written, and a visual feast. Also heartbreaking in the day it follows up on s2's conclusion for Joe Leaphorn and his wife Emma. ( Small spoilery remark. ) Also I was more grateful than ever that the show takes place in the 1970s and wasn't updated to the present because Bern's new job with border patrol would have felt very differently even before her subplot kicks in.

Young Sherlock: aka the one by Guy Ritchie which doesn't feel like a prequel to his Holmes movies and is the better for it. I mean, I didn't dislike his first Holmes movie, which was the only one I saw, but I wasn't crazy about it, either, and never felt the need to see it again. Also it was made at a time where all the various iterations of Sherlock Holmes seemed to lean into emphasizing his arrrogance. Now, this show is entertaining fluff with only the vaguest nods to when it's supposed to be set: female students galore in Oxford, 1870, for some reason a rich and high ranking visitor takes the carriage instead of the train to Oxford, while someone in the production team actually remembered the Paris Commune happened, they evidently forgot or ignored both the near starvation of the population part of that and that there was also the Franco-Prussian war going on, so everyone makes a trip to Paris for one episode with no armies in sight, but the Folies Bergeres being in business with dancing girls, etc., etc., etc. Not to mentiion ( something extremely plot spoilery ) But honestly, because the show doesn't pretend to be anything but fun fluff, I did not mind. What I do suspect is someone in the production team has watched at least some Smallville and thought, hm, that "Clark and Lex were bffs for a while when young before Lex went evil" premise is great, we should do that with Holmes and Moriarty". And proceeded to follow up on this idea. Young Sherlock, played by a member of the gifted Fiennes clan, and young James M, played by Mat (the second one) from Wheel of Time, have the necessary chemistry and homoerotic subtext, they hit it off famously, and at the same time the seeds for future supervillaindom in Moriarty are there. And the show does make it believable these are two young guys smarter than most others around them and on each other's level. Most importantly, though: this Sherlock Holmes is the first one in what feels like eons who is not introduced being a jerk to the people around him. (I love Elementary ! But while Elementary's Sherlock was never as extreme as Sherlock's Sherlock, he, too, started out being rude to his Watson and everyone else.) It might come with the much younger territory, but while he's cocky, he's not (yet?) abrasive, downright tender with his mother, and, lo and behold, civil to people who aren't awful to others in front of him. Otoh, it may also be that Guy Ritchie and his production team watched the last season of Sherlock and thought, hm, dysfunctional Holmes family drama, unexpected relations, we like it, we like it, but how about giving the women better parts? ( Spoilers were very entertained indeed by the result ) Oh, and absolutely no one gets raped or threatened with rape. Like I said, this fluffy show with a heavy emphasis on the bromance manages to do very well by its female characters. Anyway, whether nor not this gets another season - which it doesn't really need for the story it has told - I enjoyed myself.

comments

Beware of mailmen and self build bombs

Thu, 12 Mar 2026 14:10:51 GMT

( Paradise 2.05 )

( Star Trek: Starfleet Academy 1.10 )

comments

Of post apocalyptic sagas and trekking cadets

Sun, 08 Mar 2026 17:49:07 GMT

I had an extremely busy week, so am very late with my reviewes.

( Paradise 2.04 )

( Star Trek: Starfleet Academy 1.09 )

comments

Star Trek: Starfleet Academy 1.08

Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:18:43 GMT

In which we find out the writers of this show must really like both Thornton Wilder and the last two seasons of Angel: The Series while having issues with one particular Voyager episode, or rather its aftermath. Also, at last, at last, SOMEONE is back an my screen!

( Spoilers take back a key nitpick from last week and are an Angel fan anyway )

comments

Paradise Season 2, episodes 1- 3

Thu, 26 Feb 2026 10:39:44 GMT

Last year I marathoned the very well made series “Paradise” (Hulu in the US, Disney + for the rest of us), but was quite torn about whether or not I was happy regarding the announcement of a second season due to the show’s success. It seemed to me the first season told a mostly self contained story and the premise would lose its key ingredient in a second season. Also, there had been a couple of shows which were terrible when more than one season was greenlighted because they clearly hadn’t planned for it. Otoh: nitpicks aside, I did love Lost, which made a pretty radical premise change and pulled it off. And the first season of Paradise had been pretty perfect for what it was. So I watched. And based on the first three episodes now released (and there is a reason why the first three came together, more beneath the spoiler cut), I am happy to report that it looks like I was wrong in my fears. Those three eps are excellent.

( Spoilers are now all pumped up and ready… )

comments

Star Trek: Starfleet Academy 1.07

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 10:35:42 GMT

In which we get what is clearly supposed to be the Star Trek: Starfleet Academy equivalent of the TNG episode Family - but is it?

( Spoilers want to watch meteor showers as well… )

comments

Star Trek: Starfleet Academy 1.01. - 1.06

Thu, 12 Feb 2026 16:11:58 GMT

Because there was good word of mouth from various friends and trusty reviewers, I decided to give the latest Star Trek show a go, have now marathoned the six episodes released so far, and can report that word of mouth was correct: this latest installment, which is set in the 31rd century last seen in Star Trek: Discovery, shows none of the weaknesses of the third season of ST: SNW and is actually really good. Mind you, watching the first three episodes I thought, okay, they're good, not not groundbreaking, and some of the reactions made me expect more, but then came episodes 3 - 6 . building on the previous ones and fleshing out more characters, and I went "wow!" myself. And also "awwwww" at certain points. More beneath the spoiler cut.

The reason why I wasn't wowed by the first three in the way I was by the later three is that they included some clichés I never much cared for, such as a Marine, err, Starfleet instructor yelling "give me 100 pushups" . And the only school/school prank war I enjoyed fictionally was Das fliegende Klassenzimmer by Erich Kästner, plus I thought, really, do we need more mean Vulcans. These nitpicks aside (and the prank war did have its plusses as well), the first three episodes do a solid job in introducing the premise, the setting, and some of the main characters. They also showed versatality in format: the pilot episode has more action while the second episode is a classic ST ethical dilemma with lots of debate type of episode (and not the last one of the first six), and the third episode while having some serious character stuff mainly goes for broad comedy. Which is all fine, and confidence-building, but with episode 4, the show simply becomes more than that as we get our first hardcore (previously supporting) character episode which simultanously is an ethical dilemma episode and adds to the overall Star Trek lore because it tells us how the Klingons fared post Burn, something Disco did not. Now after a quiet spotlight on supporting character episode I expected the next to revert back to ensemble or main character format, but no! We got another " (different) supporting character in the spotlight" episode - which also doubled as an unabashed love declaration to one Benjamin Sisko in particular and DS9 in general. Which was great, because while other more recent ST shows did include some nods to DS9, it never got as much love as TOS and TNG did from the new kids on the block. Until now. And it was especially lovely to see because it did nostalgia right instead of going ST: Picard season 3, sigh, or follow ST:STNW's increasing tendency to become ST: TOS in its cast. Instead, it did a Star Trek: Prodigy. By which I mean: The love for the "old" characters as strong and great - but it was used in service of character fleshing out and growth of the new characters of the new show. Complimenting them, instead of replacing them. Homage, instead of a rerun. It was great. And then episode 6 went for a taut space thriller while also using what we learned so far about the characters and sharpening the profile of who seems to be the season's main villain. (And it took me until this episode to finally recall where I had heard the voice before. It was John Adams, I mean Paul Giametti!)

One more general observation: As a Discovery fan, I was delighted to see Admiral Vance again in most of the episodes, being his calm and responsible self, ditto for Jett Reno snarkng and being dead-pan as ever, and a bit surprised that Mary Wiseman has yet to make an appearance because I thought she was supposed to be a regular. Speaking of Discovery, its last two seasons feature a supporting guest star, Laira Rillak, who has both Bajoran and Cardassian heritage, and I thought that was great and that by the 31st Centuy, there ought to be a lot more "hybrids" of spacefaring nations with centuries of interaction . Starfleet Academy thought so, too, and we got indeed not just another hybrid in the regular cast but also several others popping up. And I really like the sheer number of middle-aged women we get in addition to the kids. Oh, and evidently the return to Discovery territory also meant the return to featured queer relationships. Excellent.

( Now onto more spoilery territory with comments on the individiual characters and their development so far. )

In conclusion: it's a really good first season so far! May it continue to be!

comments

The Night Manager (Season 2)

Sun, 08 Feb 2026 16:40:31 GMT

I am really torn about this one. On the one hand, all the downsides I assumed when first hearing about this and when watching the trailer turned out not to be the case. On the other hand, something I hadn't expected did happen - two somethings, actually - and both to my favourite character from the original, and I'm still massively annoyed about this.

What I thought/feared: because The Night Manager had been such a success, they'd simply go for the (unnecessary) repeat sequel formula, with Jonathan Pine motivated by personal loss and vengeance (again), and the two new characters, arms dealer Teddy Santos, as a Richard Roper copy, and the sole woman focused on in the trailer, Roxana, in the role of beautiful girlfriend of the villain falling in love with our hero. This turned out not to be the case, though the first episode seemed to indicate it would be, with just enough differences to make it entertaining. Then more episodes happened, and I sat up and thought: Oh. Oh. That....is actually a really clever twist on the formula. Or several. But also, come episode 3, the first of the two things happened. And, well, I can't talk about this without spoilers....

( Spoilers think that if the original version was more optimistic than Le Carré's novel, this sequel decided to go all in with the cynism (though not nihilism) )

comments

Vid recs

Sun, 01 Feb 2026 17:26:03 GMT

Festivids went online. I can't create vids myself, but I love watching them. Here are some which especially caught my eye this year:

Babylon 5 : I loved all three of this year's B5 vids, but Marching On really is a love letter to the entire show, and I adore it.

Conclave : The Devil you know : in which there is scheming, rise and fall, and gorgeous cinematography. Captures the spirit (and performances) of the movie really well.

Elementary: Read my mind: my favourite incarnations of Holmes and Watson get a superb outing in this one.

Foundation: So it goes: captures the grandeur, the insanity, the messed up parent/mentor/child (protegé) relationships really really well. (No material from the third season used as far as I can tell, if anyone hasn't watched it yet and doesn't want to be spoiled.)

Knives Out Movies: Now you know: Sondheim/Knives Out OTP! Witty and moving take on all three leads, their stories and the connecting elements.

Star Trek: Prodigy: Find your people: which is what our young heroes do so very well in this lovely show - and in this vid.

comments

Wonder Man (TV Miniseries)

Sat, 31 Jan 2026 16:14:30 GMT

Aka a new Marvel miniseries which like, say, Moon Knight, does its own thing and tells its own story though it does take place within the MCU. By which I mean that if you've never watched a single Marvel movie, you'll still have no problems following the plot and character arcs. (Though if you do have watched Iron Man 3 and Shang-Chi, you already know the backstory of one of the two main characters, which otherwise you quickly learn within the first episode.) There is also minimum super power content,though the fact they exists is plot relevant in the way that, hm, Willy Loman's profession is to Death of a Salesman. Genre-wise, I'd qualify this as a dramedy, and much like Agatha all Along references various Horror shows and movies and Wanda Vision various tv comedy shows in its structure while offering their own story, Wonder Man is a take on both Hollywood on Hollywood films, and "out of luck odd couples trying to make it within a system set against them" stories, with the one referenced the most being Midnight Cowboy (1969 movie starring Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman, if you haven't watched it yet, which you should). (There is also a John Steinbeck flair to the tale, from both Grapes of Wrath and Mice and Men. )

The premise and story: Our hero Simon (played by the same actor who gave a great performance as Angela's husband in Watchmen the tv series, to describe his character there as unspoilery as possible) is an actor going through the gruelling audition after audtion for bit parts routine which most actors other than the very few stars out there have to live with; against him isn't just the fact he's prone to overthink everything and unable to read the room, though he does have talent and being an actor is his dream, but the fact he secretly has superpowers, and due to a catastrophic accident on a film set a few years earlier, actors with superpowers can't be hired anymore. Just after he managed to get himself fired from playing a victim in the latest American Horror Story installment, he runs into none other than Trevor Slattery (played by Ben Kingsley, enjoying himself in the role even more than he did in Iron Man 3 and Shang-Chi), recently landed in LA and trying to return to show biz. Trevor turns out to be the Ratso to Simon's Joe, the George to his Lennie, and we follow these two through auditions, improvs, filming...and their past catching up with them, because Simon isn't the only one who has a secret.

The moment when I knew I'd love the show was the scene early on when Simon and Trevor are quoting/acting favourite scenes at each other, and Trevor goes into one of Salieri's monologues from Amadeus. Note that Ben Kingsley doesn't deliver this by imitating F. Murray Abraham's performance. Or, dare I say, how he'd play it, were he cast as Salieri in an Amadeus production. He plays/quotes it the way Trevor would - an actor who in the MCU, we learn, actually did a lot of Ben Kingsley's earlier parts, like playing in East Enders, but never had the big Gandhi breakthrough, let alone the aftermath, did way too much drugs and drinks and then did what he did in Iron Man 3 . The series for all its various hilarious send-ups - that there are movies named "Cash Grab" in it is the least of it - also is great with its depiction of the actorly life. For example, the sequence when Simon, Trevor and some other contestants have to do improvs for the director of their potential breakthrough, if they get hired, has its comedy, but the actors given various situations to play out aren't hamming it up, they really try to embodiy the situation/emotion asked for.

Another enjoyable aspect of the show is that Simon's family are immigrants from Haiti (Simon was born in the US and doesn't speak but understands Creole, while his mother and the older relations often drop in and out of it) - and there isn't a single cliché involved. No voodoo. No suddenly revealed warlord past. They're simply an immigrant family.

Speaking of immigrants: like several other more recent MCU properties, this one features the "Department of Damage Control" going after supers, and here the subtext is not so sub without overhwelming the story. I mean, it's impossible not to think of current day events when you watch what they're doing, and it's important to the plot, but it doesn't overhwelm the story. Whose heart is the developing relationship between Simon and Trevor and, as different as they are from each other, their passion for acting. I did not have this on my yearly wish list, and the show was a very pleasant suruprise for me.

comments

January Meme: James VI and I (Stuarts II)

Tue, 27 Jan 2026 08:45:18 GMT

As opposed to his son, where I would describe my opinion only getting slightly modified, not really changed, over the years, I really did do a turnaround on James. For a long time, basically neither of the two main associations I had when thinking of him were to his credit: a) when his mother was about to be executed, James lodged a token protest with Elizabeth but simuiltanously sent a letter to Leicester to ensure it wouldn't be taken too seriously, and b) he wrote one of those ghastly books encouraging witchhunts in the 17th century, with devastating results. Yes, I also knew that during his reign, the English equivalent of the Luther bible was created (i.e. just as Luther's translation of the bible into early modern German is a major major step in the develpment of the language and was to prove influential for writers up to and including the decidedly not religious Bertolt Brecht, the "King James bible" did the same for early modern English), but since as opposed to Martin L., James didn't do the translating himself, I did not consider this to be a plus in his favour.

I think the first to make me question this low or at least limited opinion was jesuswasbatman, who had just watched Howard Benton's play about James and Anne Boleyn (in two different timelines, obviously), and then deborah_judge who was also an advocate. A decade, some biographies and a few podcasts later... Okay, I admit it: He was, to tongue-in-cheekily quote a current day translation of a very different epic, a complicated man.

As to not making more than a token protest: given he never knew his mother (he'd last seen her when he was four months old and she had left the country when he was a little more than a year), and was raised by a gallery of her bitterest enemies who kept teaching him she was the worst, this is really not surprising. What is actually interesting is that both James and Mary inherited their Scottish throne as babies, had regents until they were adults and became responsible for a nation with a lot of internal strife, an uncomfortably powerful neighbour next door and nobles with a power that the British nobility had lost post Wars of the Roses, but the results when they took over became very very different. Yes, in a sexist age James had the advantage of being a man and also of not being a Catholic in a country with a majority Protestant population. But he still deserves credit for being the first Scottish ruler in a long time who managesd to stablize the country, lead it well and avoid costly wars with the English. (The fact that he was King of Scotland for a staggering 58 years - to the 22 years of his English and Irish Kingship - tends, I'm told, to be overlooked on the English side of the border in the public consciousness. Even if you discount his childhood and youth., i.e. the years before his personal rule, that's still an impressively long reign.) And he did after a childhood which was if anything even tougher than that which had served as a tough apprenticeship to Elizabeth Tudor (and was so crucially different to his mother Mary's childhood as the darling of the French court): his uncle and first regent, Moray, was shot in 1570, followed by his second regent and grandfather, whom a five years old James saw bleeding to death because Lennox was equally assassinated. This bloody regent turnover continued and got accompagnied with uprisings. When James was eleven, Stirling Castle was raided by Catholic rebels. At sixsteen, he was kidnapped by William Ruthven, earl of Gowrie, and imprisoned for ten months. And then there was his teacher, George Buchanan, who managed to get him fluent in Scots, English, French, Greek and Latin, but did so via constant beatings and humiliations. Buchanan had the declared aim of teaching him about not just his mother being the worst but all the Stuarts being rotten and that as a King he was to exist for his subjects, not for himself. Unsurprisingly, what James actually learned when those lessons where conveyed via beatings was to dissemble, and conclude that it wasn't his ancestors but but rebels who were "monstrous". He also had Buchanan's writings on limited Kingship forbidden as soon as the man was dead.

By now, I've come across a considerable number of royals whom in modern terms we'd classify as gay or at least as bi with a strong preference for men, of which James definitely was one, and who were married because that was par the course for royalty. This often, but not always, means misery for their wives. Compared some of the truly castastrophic to at least very cold marriages (Henriette Anne "Minette" of England/Philippe d'Orleans "Monsieur", Edward II/Isabella of France, Frederick II of Prussia/Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick etc.), James and Anne of Denmark didn't do badly. They even had a sort of romantic origin story, in that Anne, after being married by proxy as was usual, was supposed to be delivered to Scotland via ship, terrible weather made it impossible and her ship ended up in Norway instead, so young James, for the first and last time making a grand romantic gesture for a woman instead of a man, instead of waiting tilll weather and sea were calm enough for Anne to make the trip from Norway instad took the boat to Norway himself, united with his bride and brought her home to England. (His son Charles would decades later try to accomplish something similar by travelling to Spain to woo the Spanish Infanta. It did not have the same results.) This resulted in a good start to the marriage, but also in a dark time for some other women in Scotland because James believed all the bad weather was undoubtedly the result of witchcraft and someone had to be punished for that. Later on, the biggest disagreements James and Anne had weren't about his male favourites but about who got to raise their children, specifically the oldest son, Henry. Anne wanted to do this herself. James, whose own childhood had been a series of bloody turnovers in authority figures (see above), wanted Henry to be raised in the most secure castle in Scotland and by an armed to the teeth nobleman. This made for a lot of rows and repeated attempts by Anne to get her oldest son by showing up at his residence and demanding he be handed over, with the last such occasion coming when James was already en route to England to get crowned.

James' iron clad conviction of the dangers of witchcraft still is chilling to me, but even that is more complicated than, say, the utter ghastliness that was going on in German speaking countries in the 17th century, because James in his later English years actually paired his anti-witchcraft attitude with the admoniishment of judges not to be fooled by conmen and -wen, superstituions and local feuds, and the few times he got personally involved in England (as opposed to earlier in Scotland) it was in the favour of the accused. This doesn't mean women and men didn't die on other occasions in the realm(s) ruled by a monarch known to fear witches, but I still can't think of a parallel among the "theologians" who wrote their anti-wtiches books simultanously in my part of the world, and who never would have admitted the possibility of false accusations, let alone admonished their judges to be sceptical and discerning.

Some of what got James a bad press back in the day now looks good to us, most of all the fact he genuinely and consistently disliked war. BTW, this was less different from Elizabeth I's own attitude than historians and propagandists for a long time presented it. Elizabeth had avoided actual war with Spain for as long as she could, and hadn't been very keen on supporting the Protestant rebels in the Netherlands directly, either, much preferring it if she got someone else to do it. Once the war was there, of course, it had to be fought, but those eighteen years of war had left both England and Spain exhausted and with enormous debts, and one of James' signature policies, the peace of Spain, was undoubtedly to the benefit of both countries. That in the later years of his reign a majority of people yearned for war with Spain again, for a replay of the late Elizabethan era's greatest hits (without considering the expense of all that national glory), and that James still held out against it is to his credit, especially given the results when his son Charles actually pursued such a policy after ascending to the throne. Something that's also to James' credit as a monarch though not as a father is that he kept England out of the 30 Years War while he lived despite the fact that his daughter Elizabeth and his son-in-law were prime protagonists in its earliest phase and might never have become King and Queen of Bohemia if the Bohemians hadn't believed that surely, the King of England (and Scotland, and Ireland), leader of Protestants, would support his daughter against the Austrian Catholic Habsburgs if they elected his son-in-law as a counter condidate to said Habsburg. He also was ruthless enough to deny his daughter and son-in-law sanctuary in England once they were deposed and on the run, which wasn't very paternal but understandable if you consider that this was before his son Charles was married (let alone had produced an heir of his own), meaning that if he, James died and Charles ruled, Elizabeth was the next in the line of succession, and the thought of her husband, the unfortunate "Winter King" of Bohemia whose well-meaning but inept leadership had kickstarted the war, becoming the King of England if anything should happen to Charles gave James nightmares. In conclusion: not participating in one of the most brutal wars fought in Europe ever and in fact trying his utmost diplomatically to prevent it was a good thing. But in centuries where "manly" and "warrior" were going together in the public imagination, it's no wonder that it didn't make James popular.

Mind you: a misunderstood humanist, James wasn't, either. And something that can definitely be laid as his doorstep (though not exclusively so) is that his relationship with the English (as opposed to Scottish) Parliament went from bad to worse every time there was one during his reign, which definitely played a role in what was to come once his son Charles became King. (ironically, Prince Charles had his first and as it turns out last time as a firm favourite of Parliament when he led the opposition to continued peace with Spain and the pro War party in the last year of his father's life.) Why do I qualify this with "not exclusively"? Because Parliamentarians didn't always cover themselves with glory, either. I mean, as I understand it, James' first English parliament went like this:

James: Here I am, fresh from Edinburgh, your new King. Thanks for all the enthusiasm I encountered on the road, guys. Well, seeing as I am now King of England, Scotland and Ireland, I propose and will coin a phrase: A United Kingdom of Great Britain! How about that? Starting with an English/Scottish Union, not just by monarch but by state?

English Parliament: NO WAY. Scots are thieving beggars who are by nature evil and will deprive us of our FREEDOM and RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES if they are treated as citizens of the same country. WE HATE SCOTS. You excepted, because that would be treason.

(Meanwhile in Scotland: Are ye daft, Jamie? We hate those English murderous bastards!!!!!)

James: So basically no one except for me wants a United Kingdom of Great Britain, got it. I still think I'm right and you're wrong, but fine, for now. How about some money for me, my queen, my kids and my lovers?

EP: About that....

Which brings me to the topic of the Favourites. Most monarchs have them. They're usually hated. (It's easier to count the exceptions.) Ironically, one of the very few exceptions, the only one of Elizabeth I's favourites who wasn't hated while being the Favourite, the Earl of Essex, had all the qualities royal favourites are usually hated for - he held monopolies that provided him with lots of money (and one of the fallouts between Essex and Elizabeth was when she refused to prolong said monopoly), his attempts at playing politics were disastrous (and also outclassed by his rival Robert Cecil), and the only thing he had going for himself really were good looks and cutting a dashing figure when raiding Spanish coastal cities. In over forty years of Elizabeth's reign, a court culture wherein the male courtiers played at being in love with the Queen had been established, and certainly all her long term favourites were framing their relationship with her in romantic language. Now presumably when James became King, people who hadn't been paying attention to gossip from Scotland had expected things to go back to the Henry VIII model where certainly the King still had his faves but the romantic language was out . But lo and behold, while it's impossible to prove James actually had sex with any of the young handsome men he favoured, the language used in his letters to at least two of them (Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset, and George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham) is certainly suggestive, and he did kiss them and others in public. While men kissing men in that day and age wasn't necessarily coded erotic, especially coming from a monarch, James did it often enough for ambassadors to notice and report. And certainly when courtiers wanted to remove the current Favourite, they tried it via presenting young good looking men to James. (This worked in one case - the toppling of Somerset in favour of Buckingham, though there were other factors involved as well - but failed when Buckingham's earlier sponsors, realizing they had just traded Skylla for Charybdis, tried to do the same thing again. No matter how many sexy young things were presented, Buckingham remained James' Favourite till James' death.) Favourites were on the one hand certainly a symptome of the corruption inherent int he absolutist system, but otoh also hhighly useful in that they offered an out for both King and subjects in whom to blame for unpopular policies. Instead of critiquing the King, the opposition could frame its complaints in being the venting of loyal subjects about the Evil Advisors (tm), while the King could sacrifice a scapegoat if things went too badly to quench public anger. As opposed to his son, James was ready to do that if needs must. But his Favourites still contributed to the overall perception of the court as a den of sin and corruption. (Which, yeah, but as opposed to which previous court?)

(BTW, and speaking of the usefulness of scapegoats for monarchs, my favourite example for the story about Henry starting out as this charming well meaning prince going bloodthirsty monarch only after he didn't get his first divorce and had a tournament accident being wrong remains the fact that when Henry ascended to the throne at age 18, one of the first things he did was to accuse two of his father's more ruthless tax men of treason and have them beheaded in a cheap but efficient bid for popularity. Now, no one could deny said two officials, one of whom, Edmund Dudley, was the grandfather of Elilzabeth's childhood friend and life long favourite Leicester, had been absolutely ruthless in their mission to squeeze money out of the population by every legal or barely legal trick imaginable. But they had done so under strict instructions from Henry VII, and the accusation of treason for this was ridiculous. Note that Henry VIIII could simply have dismissed them when he became King. But no. He went for legal murder from the get go. However, since everyone hates tax men, absolutely no one minded and many celebrated instead of thinking of the precedent. This is why the Tudors, by and large, when governing had a genius for (self) propaganda the Stuarts just didn't.)

I wouldn't agree with one of the latest biographers, Clare Jackson, that James was the most interesting monarch GB had, but he certainly is interesting, and far more dimensional than younger me gave him credit for.

The other days

comments

January Meme: The new 1930s?

Sat, 24 Jan 2026 17:27:41 GMT

maia asked: Compare and contrast the US right now and Germany in the 1930s.

Welll, that's the 1 billion question, isn't it. (Literary so, given that the Orange Felon wants to have this sum of money from any fellow autocrat so they can join his "board of peace".

Now: being German, I instinctively shy away from invoking Godwin's law, so I'll start at the outset by declaring that no, I don't think the Orange One is Hitler 2.0, or that ICE are the Gestapo. (The SA during the late Weimar Republic might be a better comparison, as in, paramlitary units lustily doing their best to create and exude violence in the cities so that the dear leader can declare only he can restore order.) Also, I wish we'd have had as many demonstrations against our newly authoritarian government in, say, 1933-1935 as there are in the US right now, instead of, well, none. Individual acts of resistance, sure. Also the SPD being the sole party speaking out against the Ermächtigungsgesetz after the Reichstag burning. (Don't remind me that our current bunch of Neonazis wants to inhabit the very room named after the brave SPD guy who spoke against Hitler on that occasion in 1933.) But no equivalent to the "No Kings" demonstrations, or the current ones in the bitter cold of Minnesota, not until it's the 1940s and the women married to some of the last free Jews in Berlin actually demonstrate in front of Gestapo headquarters when their men get rounded up. I respect and admire the hell out of these women, but given the reaction by Goebbels & Co., who really didn't know how to handle this, I can't help but which these kind of demonstrations had happened in 1933 already, when the ostracisation and taking away of civil rights of everyone's neiighbours started.

Anyway: where I do see parallels is the way rich industrialists paved the way and/or quickly fell in line and profit from the autoritarian government that came to power legally and then promptly started to destroy the republic it was supposed to govern from the inside, and the way huge swaths of the media of the day even before complete state control lis established cleave to the new Overlords. And on the other side of the political spectrum, I see a parallel in the tendency of the left and/or liberal parties to attack each other instead of allying against the authoritarians. (This would be the early 1930s pre 1933.) Now this is hardly unique to the 1930s; a friend of mine who is in his late 80s and actually is a member of the SPD, our traditional centre-left party, said you can always rely on the left to attack each other with more vehemence than anyone else to the profit of their opponents.) Seriously, in the late Weimar Republic the Communists might have had their streetfights with the Nazis, but they kept declaring the SPD was the true enemy, and never mind the communists, your avarage progressive journalist was far more likely to attack and complain moderate or left leaning politicians than the Nazis. (Famously, journalistic icon Karl Kraus declared this was because "nothing about the Nazis inspires my imagination" ("Zu den Nazis fällt mir nichts ein"). Thanks, Kraus.) I'm not saying Democrats should be above criticism, absolutely not, but honestly, I have no time at all for the type of purist who declared they couldn't vote for Kamala Harris (or Hilary Clinton before her) because "Republicans and Democrats are the same anyway" or other arguments along that line. They knew what was at stake, just as anyone paying attention back in the Weimar Republic day did.

Of course, the Orange Menace has been far more open about his grifter status and his unending greed than the Nazis back in the day, but that's because of the difference in eras and societies; financial shakedowns and mafia tactics are getting admiration from huge parts of US society, it seems, whereas the Nazs while being no less interested in robbery by state (some were a bit more blatant about it like Goering, but it really was practised on every level, starting, of course, with forcing German Jews to "sell" their property for ricidiculous little sums) felt the need to dress it up far more, not least because part of Hitler's image included priding himself on "asceticism" and "living for the people". But they - and pretty much every populist/authoritarian system not just in the 1930s - use the same basic structure in their rethoric which unfortunately keeps working through the decades (centuries?).

1) You, the audience, are the best, you're perfect, anyone who wants you to change or adjust is an evil tyrant.

2.) But evidently your life isn't perfect. This is the fault of THEM. (Never, ever, is it the slightest bit your responsibility.) THEY are a mixture of external bogeymen and within-the-society scapegoat. THEY have absolutely no redeeming features and so you don't have to consider talking or negotiating or what not - THEY just deserve to be squashed. Punishing THEM will also magically solve whatever problems your society currently has.

3.) Of course, the squashing and punishing of THEM cannot be done with those lame old laws already existing. On the contrary, these have to be gotten rid off. Any attempt to restrain the punishment and squashing of THEM is clearly treason anyway.

4.) The glorious movement you, you wonderful person, are now a part of is led by the best leader ever. If he doesn't deliver all you want from him immediately, well, he's punishing both the weak traitors and the evil brutes for you, and isn't that the best part anyway?

Meanwhile, any half way responsible take on political situation basically has to start with "it's complicated", analyze and use "maybe it's this way, but maybe there are also other factors" type of qualifications, and any policy of a democratic government is by nature of the government a compromise. Meaning you always leave some disappointment in your electorate. And in an age with an ever shorter attention span, where the majority of people are not bothering with reading or listening to longer explanations anymore and just want short and punchy reassurances, this is possibly more dangerous a fertile ground for the transition of a Republic to a totalitarian state than Germany of the early 1930s was.

Not least because Germany, not as the Kaiserreich nor as the Weimar Republic nor even as the Third Reich, was ever the most powerful state of the world, with the largest miilitary and economic might. The fact the US won't be this for much longer anymore if things continue the way they are going isn't a comfort, because then it will be China.) It did a lot of damage when ruled by evil people anyway. But it had at no point the type of power the US has right now. This is not a comforting thought, either.

Lastly: in school, we were taught that a problem the Weimar Republic had was that there weren't enough republicans with a small r in it, that the Empire had conditioned its subjects to a strictly hiearchical society, that as opposed to England Germany hadn't had a centuries long transitonary period between absolutism and parliamentary rule, let a centuries of a Republic with the resulting self-understanding the way the uS has. On the one hand, I am a bit more sceptical on tha last part now. I mean, I always knew that The West Wing wasn't reality tv, but I didn't think The Handmaid's Tale was, either. Especially with the Nixon precedence, where the Republicans did turn against their blatantly caught at wrong doing President instead of removing their spine and denying he could have possibly done something wrong, I did believe the whole checks and balance thing I had learned about in school did work. For enlightened self interest reasons if not for moral reasons, because who would want their career to depend on the whim of a despot with more self control than a toddler? But no. On the other hand, see above. I only wish we would have had so much visible protest and opposition to horrible injustices in the 1930s as I see every day happening in the US. The Weimar Republic ceased to be within three months of Hitler becoming Chancellor, basically. By autumn, the transformation into hardcore dictatorship was complete. Whereas the US is still a Republic. If you can keep it.

The other days

comments

January Meme: Public transport Options while Travelling

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 10:30:05 GMT

hannah asked: I'd love to hear you talk about assorted public transportation options you've taken while traveling, both domestically and internationally, and whether or not any stuck out to you for any reason.

Domestically: Well, it's practically a German cliché to complain about Die Bahn, but the truth is that while it truly is in a bad state, due to sixteen years of conservative ministers of transport defining their office as "lobbying for Mercedes, BMW and Audi" and endlessly delaying necessary repairs of the railway system, I still consider our public transport system my favourite way to travel within Germany. Both the trains, and in cities the busses and streetcars and underground trains. In most cases, it's possible to reach any given destination by train and from the railway station by local public transport. And one great invention that was added in, I think, the second Pandemic year, was Das Deutschlandticket, meaning a ticket you pay per month and which you can use for all public transport within Germany that is not - forgive me using now traumatizing initials - ICE or IC. (ICE in Germany means our fastest trains, to put it simply. ICs are second fastest trains. Both are the type of trains which can bring you from Munich to Berlin in less than five hours.) Which means that if, say, you live in Munich like me, and go to a conference in Hamburg, you do not have to buy extra tickets to use the public transport system in Hamburg, you can simply use your Deutschlandticket . Very neat indeed.

Anyway, the terrible state of our railway system means that currently practically every second long distance train is late, but there are a lot of them, and you do get notified at least an hour before the supposed departure of your train, so you can, using the Bahn app,, easily find a replacement connection. Well, most of the time. Not that people without a mobile device and internet access are screwed, and the are still a considerable part of older folk for whom this is true. Yours truly, in her fiftyseventh year of life, does not have this problem and thus can navigate the perils of the public transport system while using its benefits. Which I still very much prefer to taking the care, believe me. I am a German who isn't crazy about the Autobahn.

Internationally: Back in what turned out to be the last year of the Soviet Uniion (I think? 1991?) my APs and self spent two weeks in Russiai, one in Moscow and one in Leningrad/St. Petersburg, respectively. Among the many memorable things in Moscow were a couple of subway stations which looked like mini palaces, complete with chandeliers. I dimly recall being told these hailed from Stalin's era and were meant to demonstrate how well off the people were in the worker's paradise, which sounds like him, and of course looking like mini palaces does not enhance the usefulness of a subway station, but it still was an unexpected and impressive view! Also, the APs and yours truly actually managed to get to all the sightseeing spots we wanted to visited via the Moscow Metro and armed with a guide book and a map, so all hail the public transport system in Moscow in the year 1991. That same journey also included going by train overnight form Moscow to Leningrad (as it was still called), which worked fine, and while the cabins were hardly luxurious, they were comfortable enough for such a journey.

I also remember the main railway station in Madrid which includes a palm tree garden to relax in, which was lovely. And the cable cars of Lisbon from when I was there two or so years ago; last year, there was a terrible accident featuring one of them, so I don't know whether they'll still continue to be used that way, but they certainly were a signature part of the city (and usually you stand when using them, because they're that crowded.)

The country other than my own where I used the public transport system most often would be the United Kingdom. Generally, I've found British cars to be less comfortable but far more reliable than German ones, and the one time when I did a criss cross journey through the country on my lonesome, I got pretty much anywhere by train easily. As for the London "Tube", it's responsible for some occasions with much adrenaline pumping and transpiration from when I needed to reach the airport but was stuck in the Picadilly Line unexpectedly, but so far - knock on wood - in each of these cases, I did manage to reach the airport in time after all. Oh, and the one time I had to go from Heathrow to Oxford via bus directly, it worked perfectly as well, so good on you, British busses.

Let's see, what else? Oh, right, I once had a chance to housesit a palazzo in Venice for ten days which was awesome, and while I went everywhere on foot, I did take the vaporetto now and then, which was fine, as was the train connection to Padua when I used the chance to see the Giotto frescoes there.

The other days

comments

January Meme: Adventure in Time and Space to Accept or Decline

Mon, 19 Jan 2026 12:41:27 GMT

Given all space and time, and all history and fiction, which offer of adventure would you be most likely to accept - and which one would you definitely decline? ffutures asked.

Well, I'm tempted to say "none, because I'm chicken and would rather read about those adventures than experience them". But that would be a boring answer, and there are some which don't carry the risk of dying of smallpox or being turned into a Cyberman, one presumes. So, let's see....

Fictional: To get the obvious out of the way first: assuming that I'd live in a universe with the Doctor in it for real (the only universe worth thinking about, according to the Master, who ought to know), and that I would not live in one of those eras where one can google at least asome appearances of his which ought to give me an inkling about the risk travelling with him involves... I think I'd say yes if 'Thirteen offered me a trip with the TARDIS. She's not my favourite Doctor, but she conveys trustworthiness if she wants to, and even if I did manage to look up her companions, thehir rate of not just survival but lack of heartbreak (Yaz always excepted) at the end of their travels with her is promising. Most of the other Doctors would in real life make me think "nah, you seem to be interesting and/or crazy, but I wouldn't trust you to bring me home again".

I would definitely say no to Gandalf. Especially if I were in Bilbo's position. Firstly, stagemanaging an intrusion by loads of uninvited guests is just rude, and secondly, no way you're getting me anywhere near a real life dragon to be torched. No thank you. And that's before we're talking about the travel conditions. I can't ride, and while I do like long hikes, taking these in eras where I could get eaten by trolls... no, really not. I'm just not Burglar material.

Real: If I was dared as Nellie Bly was to travel around the world in 80 Days a la Jules Verne, with a newspaper paying for it, absolutely, I would have tried my best.

Would not have joined: any expedition involving the Artic. I like snow in winter, and I also like to ski, but I like it with the perspective of afterwards returning my heated apartment and being able to take a luxurious long hot bath. Not from the perspective of someone looking for the North West Passage on a sailing boat in the 18th century or someone racing to the Pole in the 20th century. I like my limbs unfrozen and uneaten, thanks.

The other days

comments

January Meme: Andor: Syril Karn on Ghorman, on "going native?"

Thu, 15 Jan 2026 10:26:31 GMT

Considering this prompt by bimo, it did occur to me that Syril Karn’s part of the Ghorman arc in the second season of Star Wars: Andor in a way is the Mirrorverse, twisted version of a rather popular trope.

( Filling the spoilery darkness with order and light )

The other days

comments