(no subject)

Simon and I were discussing, amongst other things, a term for non-mutants in X-Men.

(If you don't know, in X-Men, there's an X-gene which gives people various invariable useful if often inconvenient special powers. These people are called Mutants, and everyone else is referred to as Human by exclusion, although human would by any sane definition include both as well.)

Peter won, in my opinion, with a suggestion in the pub last night, "Wild type" which in biology means "members of a species not having interesting mutations" (very roughly, someone give a more precise definition below).

But it got me thinking. What do the following terms all have in common:

Human (as in non-mutant)
Carnivore/Omnivore (as in non-vegetarian)
Neurotypical (as in non-autistic)
Heteronormative
Cis (as opposed to trans- or trans-gender)
Atheist

They all define everyone apart from members of a specific group. And hence don't really have any cohesion within themselves. And so the terms can be used literally, but most are generally used with either a grin or a sneer, admitting non-X doesn't just mean non-X, but "what I find annoying about non-X people, particularly their opinions of X people" and "lets see how they like being labelled". To magneto, human is an insult.

I don't know if it's relevant, but I think no-one ever means vegans when they say "non-vegetarians" :) (So a term meaning sometimes-meat-eating is actually more accurate.)

"Wild type", apart from sounding a hell of a lot cooler than "human" and lacking existing prejudice, seems to do a nice job of describing a default state, without implying anything about it as a whole. Of course, it's probably too obscure a term to catch on, but I like it.

I know sometimes it can be difficult to decide which is a group and which isn't. For instance, traditionally religion-X might consider people not of religion X to have more in common than not (and to some extent be right, if religion X is true). But I was enchanted by the analogy between atheist and neurotypical, etc. I'm sure it says something (though I'm not yet sure what).

Rainbows End

This was another sequel I was looking forward to in the order I made in December. I'd heard mixed opinions on it. At least now I've read it I no longer get the title mixed up with "Gravity's Rainbow" :)

It's an extension of ideas in the short story "Fast Times at Fairmont High". I thought the world was wonderfully conceived. It's a middle ground between living in a cyber-reality and not. The cyber reality is overlaid on the real one: people wear glasses/contacts that overlay both straight information and enhancements to location on your vision.

For instance, people might present themselves as avatars instead of what they really look like, and everyone who's seeing the default view of the street will see that. Or project their avatar somewhere else, to visit other people without physically moving. And there are thousands of others, eg. fantasy world interpretations of places.

The world is fascinating, it's really good.

The story I didn't like so much. I quite enjoyed the characters, but the plot didn't seem as well balanced in the world as Vinge managed in the even-more sweeping worlds of Fire Upon and Deepness.

In fact, I think I prefer the short story as book, although the longer book expands a lot of things. The short story is better with the expanded (and only occasionally changed) view of the characters gained from reading the novel.

I'm curious to see what everyone else thinks, if they've read it.

I feel like I'd like to read another book in that world, but experience teaches me that sequels that take the most interesting aspects and then do them right are quite rare. (Although sometimes spawn whole series and genres when they get them right.)

Apropos

Thinking about it, *do* I make different sorts of posts on friday and monday? I know some people do, do you?

(no subject)

Sonic and I went to see the new St. Trinians. I did not expect to post a review tonight, nor to write quite so much, but since I did write so much just jotting notes, I might as well post it now, before I feeled compelled to edit it down into something more considered and coherent, *that* would be more time spent analysing a comedy than I can justify :)

It was pretty good. It's not perfect, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who dislikes silly films, but it was pretty funny in lots of places (which is very high praise from me). I think sonic found it more funny than I did, but I laughed a lot, which always makes me consider a film well worthwhile. I had feared it might be cringeworthy where it wasn't funny, but was pleasantly surprised to discover it wasn't. Not everything worked, but none was painful to watch. I was very glad I went.

Sonic will tell you how close it was to the original, but I could tell it was taking the ideas and making them modern and larger than life, which often produces films that work very well, whether or not they're really true to the original. I gather Misters Everett and Firth had genuine affection for the original and wanted to do it well.

There were several famous actors. Rupert Everett as siblings Mr. and Mrs. Fritton. Mrs Fritton was supposed to be inspired by Camilla Parker Bowles, and I don't know whether she was supposed to be sympathetic (or if we were supposed to laugh at her) but she wa sympathetic to me.

The Bridget Jones film obviously represents some sort of drippy-to-weasel treadmill of hunks, Hugh Grant having played the villain in *that* after a lifetime of mostly lost sweet men, and now Colin Firth playing the villain in *this*, with many glorious references to his other roles.

Stephen Fry played Stephen Fry. OK, the character had a different name I can't remember, and Stephen Fry is a good actor who can portray lots of roles, but it was the genial expansive sort of bloke he excels at.

Does anyone else know Celia Imrie? Other than rcv1. She played the matron. She crops up in lots of pleasant British films and comedies and really quite famous films. She's always lovely, or rather, she *looks* like she's lovely.

The film was a little obvious at times. Firstly, for instance, in showcasing the various groups of girls, described as the chavs, the goths, the posh totty, the first years, the geeks and so on. However, only a litte, the groups didn't have the diversity they might really have, but they looked like they could be real girls. There was no group of normal girls and a series of outcasts, you fell into one group or another.

And some people in prereviews felt the film was a bit mean, but to me it seemed to suggest that all these antisocial people really got on with each other. The pupils and teachers were mad in lots of ways, but on the other hand, they genuinely seemed to enjoy what they were doing and care about each other, which isn't such a bad message as antisocial comedies go. And yet, that wasn't driven into the ground.

Secondly, some of the jokes were a bit obvious, as in a longer run in where you can see what's going to happen (after all, in pretty much every comedy ever made, no-one ever says "Something is blah-blah-blah-bad-blah" and pauses unless the next line is a joke that no, themselves/the owner not the dog/their friend rather than a historical character, is what they meant, haha!). However, not painfully so. It just mean it was a good comedy rather than an excellent comedy.

This is probably not relevant but the questions for the inter-school quiz seemed very well chosen, in that I could nearly, but not quite guess the answers. Presumably someone actually paid some attention to that detail! Or they copied them from somewhere good. Or had someone with approximately my depth of knowledge deciding them. Or cribbed them from high-school classes. Or something.

I've got a feeling there must be lots of objections to this film, but hopefully someone will come and provide them for me. I still think I was right about ghost rider too :)