Dearest readers, forgive me. Not only is this edition of I Read the Internets late (which isn’t actually my fault), it’s also short (which is). I’ve been super-distracted this week, and have hardly read any internets at all! Fortunately, Reb at Adventures in Lame has put together a great edition of the Feminist SF Carnival, with enough links to keep anyone busy for hours on end. Some of the posts she links will be familiar to readers of this column, but there are also oodles of posts from corners of the internets that I have never read before (and am bookmarking as we speak). Go check it out!
In 1979 terms, just having a female action star, particularly one who ends up living while all the boys perish, may well be cause for adulation. And maybe I’m just being too demanding, but I wanted more. At the very least, I wanted some sense of style, some comedy, some dramatic flair. Instead, Ripley just grimly goes through the motions. She doesn’t save anybody (well, besides the cat), and she shows no particular joy in saving herself. Nothing about her is particularly likable, which makes it hard to care whether she wins or loses.
I’m a little bit more enthusiastic about Ripley than Grace is, but I think she’s absolutely right that it’s kind’ve sad that Ripley seems to be “at least 50% of the population’s example of a female action hero.” I think most people could name quite a few male characters or actors when asked to provide good examples of action heroes. We should have more than just Ripley to fall back on when trying to talk about action heroines.
For a review of a more current movie, those who are not spoilershy might want to head over to tales of an unreal city for the scathing “Anti-Rec: 300.“ That review + what I’ve read about the source material = me not seeing that movie, kthx. Even though the music in the trailers is kind’ve awesome (psst – anyone happen to know where the music came from?).
Moving away from movie reviews, E. Cabell Hankinson Gathman has another awesome article about gaming up at Strange Horizons: “The (Anti)Social “Casual” Gamer, or the Game Is Not the Thing“:
it seems to me that the main way in which games differ is this: are they played alone, or with others either physically or virtually co-present?
This question is particularly relevant given the persistence, in the mainstream culture, of the image of the antisocial video game player. This may be another reason that “casual games” are not considered “real games” for the purpose of talking about video games; they’re not masculine enough, but they’re also not violent or antisocial enough. I would argue that this perception is extremely skewed, and that in fact, there is less of a difference between “casual games” and more “traditional” video games, even MMOGs, than one might initially think.
It’s a long article, but well worth the time it takes to read it.
To close with humor – one new internet I started reading this week is webcomic Wonderella. Any comic that can slyly reference Women in Refrigerators Syndrome one week, and “Rappaccini’s Daughter“ the next is definitely a comic I want to be reading.
That’s it this time, but I promise to read lots more internets before next week!