Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Week)   Someone probably spent $100,000+ on an education just so they could write: "Solidarity and the Scoobies: an analysis of the-y suffix in the television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer"-their parents must be so proud   (theweek.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, solidarity, ancient Romans, Bowling Green State University, Northern Illinois University, Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, research papers, Dawson's Creek, Fresh Prince  
•       •       •

1648 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Mar 2013 at 12:54 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-21 12:34:02 PM  
Well, at least the writer of that paper get to point and laugh at the guy who wrote the   Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The aesthetics of phallo-militaristic justice one
 
2013-03-21 12:59:11 PM  
Gotta appreciate a writer who can list a bunch of crap without linking to anything at all. Worthless article is worthless.
 
2013-03-21 12:59:13 PM  
Nah, they probably got a Federal grant, so ultimately you* paid for it.

* - "you" in this instance being the 53% that actually pay Federal taxes
 
2013-03-21 01:00:34 PM  
I remember a Transformers fan-fic of mine getting an A+ in a class on the problem of free will and determinism. Later I saw a bookshelf full of "Transformers and Philosophy" and realized that I had wasted my time getting a Master's degree when some BA got published.
 
2013-03-21 01:00:35 PM  
Personally I love reading that sort of stuff. One of my favorite non-academically published essays: Towards a Juggalo Theory of Value.
 
2013-03-21 01:02:28 PM  
Why is this wrong? Shakespear's plays were mass market entertainment when they were written. If Shakespear were alive today he'd probably be writing for TV.  Buffy was a great show, not claiming it will be considered Shakespear in four hundred years time, but it has a lot in common. This paper looked at the Buffy writers making up words, something Shakespear did. Buffy had vampires, werewolves and demons. Shakespear had ghosts, witches and nymphs. They're narrative devices.

So why is studying Shakespear good but a paper about Buffy is bad?
 
2013-03-21 01:08:43 PM  

Nurglitch: I remember a Transformers fan-fic of mine getting an A+ in a class on the problem of free will and determinism. Later I saw a bookshelf full of "Transformers and Philosophy" and realized that I had wasted my time getting a Master's degree when some BA BS got published.


/FTFY
 
2013-03-21 01:13:14 PM  
Caine and Hackman in the same scene!  This is my thesis!
 
2013-03-21 01:13:46 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Why is this wrong? Shakespear's plays were mass market entertainment when they were written. If Shakespear were alive today he'd probably be writing for TV.  Buffy was a great show, not claiming it will be considered Shakespear in four hundred years time, but it has a lot in common. This paper looked at the Buffy writers making up words, something Shakespear did. Buffy had vampires, werewolves and demons. Shakespear had ghosts, witches and nymphs. They're narrative devices.

So why is studying Shakespear good but a paper about Buffy is bad?


Actually from the description you could probably assume the paper in question looks pretty much along the same lines as studying in-group language and slang that has been done numerous times for numerous groups (gangs, schoolkids, techies, social cliques, lawyers, doctors, etc.) You could do one on Fark and show how the group defends itself against outsiders and validates itself by creating identifying markers in comments to show who knows all the right phrases and idioms (Duke sucks, rotsky, balls caught in a chair guy, the squirrel, etc.) You can even compare it to the behavior of monkeys grooming each other, fads in fashion/music and so on that are specific to sub-populations the world over (and into the animal kingdom for social animals as noted).
 
2013-03-21 01:14:51 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Why is this wrong? Shakespear's plays were mass market entertainment when they were written. If Shakespear were alive today he'd probably be writing for TV.  Buffy was a great show, not claiming it will be considered Shakespear in four hundred years time, but it has a lot in common. This paper looked at the Buffy writers making up words, something Shakespear did. Buffy had vampires, werewolves and demons. Shakespear had ghosts, witches and nymphs. They're narrative devices.

So why is studying Shakespear good but a paper about Buffy is bad?


Who says studying Shakespear is good?
 
2013-03-21 01:19:10 PM  
Poopie doopie you so loopy
 
2013-03-21 01:21:45 PM  
Ha! I spent $250,000 on a French language and literature education in three countries and still can't say "merde" right.

There's a trick to it. You have to be born French. If you are, you can make a whole paragraph out of one syllable. If you're not French, you're lucky if you can pronounce it correctly, let alone express yourself correctly.

It does help to pretend to be Inspector Clousseau or his long-suffering boss.

Also, it helps to pretend that you are hanging by a fragile dandelion root from a cliff above a Bengal tiger and you see one perfect strawberry and you eat it and it turns out to taste sour and nasty.

Écoutez et répétez: Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeerdah.

If you did it correctly, you expressed centuries of cynicism, ennui, angst, boredom and contempt for people who speak any other language than French. If you did it wrong, you just said merde.

Whoopity-doo!
 
2013-03-21 01:26:13 PM  

Flint Ironstag: So why is studying Shakespear good but a paper about Buffy is bad?


Because The Poet's stuff is all Shakespeary while Buffy is not.
 
2013-03-21 01:37:44 PM  

Proof that the last digit of pi is a 1



Pi is an irrational and transcendental number. In layperson terms, that means that it is non-terminating and non-repeating number. it can not be expressed as a relation of two rational or whole numbers. And it does not start to repeat at any point, so there are always more digits to write it out accurately.

In binary, however, pi and all other numbers can be written out with just the two digits, one and zero. One or the other of them must always be the last digit when you calculate or stop. Logically, it can not end in a zero because if pi ended in a zero, it would not be an irrational transcendental number. It would end in a repeating zero because the last digit calculated or stopped on would always be a zero. Therefore, by a process of elimination, pi must end in a one. There is no alternative.

Q.E.D.

This is the kind of Bullshiat you can write with ten years of university or if you are a genius, or both. Remember my rule--you should always add "or both" to a dichotomy. Chances are high that it is a false dichotomy. Of course, chances are also high that it is a false dichotomy and the correct thing is to add "or neither". But that is a problem for another time.
 
2013-03-21 01:48:56 PM  
 
2013-03-21 01:55:48 PM  

Priapetic: Nah, they probably got a Federal grant, so ultimately you* paid for it.
* - "you" in this instance being the 53% that actually pay Federal taxes


1.  The author is at a British university, so your federal taxes comment doesn't apply.
2.  It is false that 47% of Americans don't pay federal taxes.
 
2013-03-21 02:10:40 PM  

brantgoose: Proof that the last digit of pi is a 1

Pi is an irrational and transcendental number. In layperson terms, that means that it is non-terminating and non-repeating number. it can not be expressed as a relation of two rational or whole numbers. And it does not start to repeat at any point, so there are always more digits to write it out accurately.

In binary, however, pi and all other numbers can be written out with just the two digits, one and zero. One or the other of them must always be the last digit when you calculate or stop. Logically, it can not end in a zero because if pi ended in a zero, it would not be an irrational transcendental number. It would end in a repeating zero because the last digit calculated or stopped on would always be a zero. Therefore, by a process of elimination, pi must end in a one. There is no alternative.

Q.E.D.

This is the kind of Bullshiat you can write with ten years of university or if you are a genius, or both. Remember my rule--you should always add "or both" to a dichotomy. Chances are high that it is a false dichotomy. Of course, chances are also high that it is a false dichotomy and the correct thing is to add "or neither". But that is a problem for another time.


This is false, because there is no last digit of pi, and hence pi cannot "end" with anything.
 
2013-03-21 02:35:53 PM  

brantgoose: Proof that the last digit of pi is a 1

Pi is an irrational and transcendental number. In layperson terms, that means that it is non-terminating and non-repeating number. it can not be expressed as a relation of two rational or whole numbers. And it does not start to repeat at any point, so there are always more digits to write it out accurately.

In binary, however, pi and all other numbers can be written out with just the two digits, one and zero. One or the other of them must always be the last digit when you calculate or stop. Logically, it can not end in a zero because if pi ended in a zero, it would not be an irrational transcendental number. It would end in a repeating zero because the last digit calculated or stopped on would always be a zero. Therefore, by a process of elimination, pi must end in a one. There is no alternative.

Q.E.D.

This is the kind of Bullshiat you can write with ten years of university or if you are a genius, or both. Remember my rule--you should always add "or both" to a dichotomy. Chances are high that it is a false dichotomy. Of course, chances are also high that it is a false dichotomy and the correct thing is to add "or neither". But that is a problem for another time.


Or there is Graham's Number. It's a number so big that there is not enough stuff in the universe to make enough ink to write it out.

But it ends in a 7.
 
2013-03-21 02:37:20 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: Flint Ironstag: Why is this wrong? Shakespear's plays were mass market entertainment when they were written. If Shakespear were alive today he'd probably be writing for TV.  Buffy was a great show, not claiming it will be considered Shakespear in four hundred years time, but it has a lot in common. This paper looked at the Buffy writers making up words, something Shakespear did. Buffy had vampires, werewolves and demons. Shakespear had ghosts, witches and nymphs. They're narrative devices.

So why is studying Shakespear good but a paper about Buffy is bad?

Who says studying Shakespear is good?


Is there a Fark headline mocking someone for writing a paper on Shakespear?

At least Joss Whedon knows how to spell his own damn name consistently.
 
2013-03-21 02:43:53 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Why is this wrong? Shakespear's plays were mass market entertainment when they were written. If Shakespear were alive today he'd probably be writing for TV.  Buffy was a great show, not claiming it will be considered Shakespear in four hundred years time, but it has a lot in common. This paper looked at the Buffy writers making up words, something Shakespear did. Buffy had vampires, werewolves and demons. Shakespear had ghosts, witches and nymphs. They're narrative devices.

So why is studying Shakespear good but a paper about Buffy is bad?


fals dichotomy.  Yes Shakespeare's plays were mass market entertainment when written.  But so was bear-baiting, and any number of other competitors of his who wrote dreadful dreck than is thankfully lost to history. Yet you don't see critical analysis written of the highlights of a particular bear-bating match, now do you?

Why? because history's seive has filtered out the dreck of that era and passed down to us only the best, the stuff worthy of study and analysis.  The decade Since Buffy's run is not enough distance to start making judgments about its eternal merits.
 
2013-03-21 02:45:23 PM  

Flint Ironstag: brantgoose: Proof that the last digit of pi is a 1

Pi is an irrational and transcendental number. In layperson terms, that means that it is non-terminating and non-repeating number. it can not be expressed as a relation of two rational or whole numbers. And it does not start to repeat at any point, so there are always more digits to write it out accurately.

In binary, however, pi and all other numbers can be written out with just the two digits, one and zero. One or the other of them must always be the last digit when you calculate or stop. Logically, it can not end in a zero because if pi ended in a zero, it would not be an irrational transcendental number. It would end in a repeating zero because the last digit calculated or stopped on would always be a zero. Therefore, by a process of elimination, pi must end in a one. There is no alternative.

Q.E.D.

This is the kind of Bullshiat you can write with ten years of university or if you are a genius, or both. Remember my rule--you should always add "or both" to a dichotomy. Chances are high that it is a false dichotomy. Of course, chances are also high that it is a false dichotomy and the correct thing is to add "or neither". But that is a problem for another time.

Or there is Graham's Number. It's a number so big that there is not enough stuff in the universe to make enough ink to write it out.

But it ends in a 7.


Sure you can -- just make each subsequent digit half the size of the previous numeral.
 
2013-03-21 02:55:29 PM  
The weird spacing of the font used led me to read one of those as "5. The use of music on Barney & Friends: Implications for music the rapy practice and research"

I always knew Barney was evil, but no one would ever listen.
 
2013-03-21 03:04:34 PM  
This article offers a sociolinguistic analysis of selected dialogue from 66 episodes of the television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer (BTVS). While the research record reveals an interest in the use of language on the show, it is argued here that the issue of language in relation to friendship bonds has thus far received insufficient treatment. In response, this study asks if Buffy and her friends (the Scoobies, as they call themselves after the ghost-busting teens in the cartoon Scooby-Doo) are represented as using vernacular variants to demonstrate in-group identity. Marked -y suffix adjectives (e.g. Heart-of-Darkness-y) are adopted as the linguistic variable, and the data are interpreted with reference to Lesley Milroy's social network theory and Mick Short's concept of embedded levels of discourse in drama dialogue. The findings demonstrate that marked -y reveals shifting alliances within the Scooby gang, as it characterizes not the gang as a whole, but only certain members. The findings also suggest that knowledge of how language is used in the formation of friendship groups may be part of sociolinguistic competence (as theorized by Michael Canale and Merrill Swain). Further investigation into whether this is accomplished above or below the writer's level of conscious awareness is offered as a suggestion for future research.

From here http://lal.sagepub.com/content/16/1/53.abstract

You have to pay to see the whole article, I believe.
 
2013-03-21 03:12:28 PM  

Magorn: Flint Ironstag: Why is this wrong? Shakespear's plays were mass market entertainment when they were written. If Shakespear were alive today he'd probably be writing for TV.  Buffy was a great show, not claiming it will be considered Shakespear in four hundred years time, but it has a lot in common. This paper looked at the Buffy writers making up words, something Shakespear did. Buffy had vampires, werewolves and demons. Shakespear had ghosts, witches and nymphs. They're narrative devices.

So why is studying Shakespear good but a paper about Buffy is bad?

fals dichotomy.  Yes Shakespeare's plays were mass market entertainment when written.  But so was bear-baiting, and any number of other competitors of his who wrote dreadful dreck than is thankfully lost to history. Yet you don't see critical analysis written of the highlights of a particular bear-bating match, now do you?

Why? because history's seive has filtered out the dreck of that era and passed down to us only the best, the stuff worthy of study and analysis.  The decade Since Buffy's run is not enough distance to start making judgments about its eternal merits.


By that argument anything new is off limit to scholarly research or academic discussion. We can't say how Buffy will be viewed in four hundred years but we can discuss it now and consider its merits and how it has influenced other shows.

If this was left to scholars in hundreds of years time much of the context would have been lost, This way future academics will be able to look at how it was considered today and compare it to how they viewed it. So many things about Shakespear are lost and unavailable to us today because they were not documented at the time.
 
2013-03-21 03:13:42 PM  

HallsOfMandos: Caine and Hackman in the same scene!  This is my thesis!


You can finally stop watching TV!!!!!

/Aaaaaaaagh, pins and needles PINS AND NEEDLES
//Blow me where the pampers is
 
2013-03-21 03:42:38 PM  

Ambitwistor: Priapetic: Nah, they probably got a Federal grant, so ultimately you* paid for it.
* - "you" in this instance being the 53% that actually pay Federal taxes

1.  The author is at a British university, so your federal taxes comment doesn't apply.
2.  It is false that 47% of Americans don't pay federal taxes.


Most things a quick googling revealed you are right. It's 46.4%, not 47.
 
2013-03-21 03:49:13 PM  

mjbok: Ambitwistor: 2.  It is false that 47% of Americans don't pay federal taxes.

Most things a quick googling revealed you are right. It's 46.4%, not 47.


Also false.
 
2013-03-21 04:03:33 PM  

mjbok: Ambitwistor: Priapetic: Nah, they probably got a Federal grant, so ultimately you* paid for it.
* - "you" in this instance being the 53% that actually pay Federal taxes

1.  The author is at a British university, so your federal taxes comment doesn't apply.
2.  It is false that 47% of Americans don't pay federal taxes.

Most things a quick googling revealed you are right. It's 46.4%, not 47.


Your mistake is not including the word Income.  Everyone pays FICA if they work.
 
2013-03-21 04:51:26 PM  
I wrote a paper discussing how British shows were remade for American TV, talking to the changes made due to series length, allowing for commercials and run time. I talked about shows like Til Death Us Do Part being remade as All in the Family, Man About the House becoming Three's Company, Queer as Folk, Steptoe and Son becoming Sanford and Son, and several that failed early on. I even talked to the fact that one country was unaware of the TV of the other apart from certain network hits. A lot of people don't realize that Max Headroom originally was a British production even though with a mostly American cast, which got picked up and remade.
 
2013-03-21 05:06:47 PM  

Ambitwistor: Also false.


The number is referencing federal income tax.  Not FICA, payroll, gas, cigarette, or any other tax.  Just Federal Income Tax.
 
2013-03-21 05:08:01 PM  
 
2013-03-21 05:43:32 PM  

mjbok: Ambitwistor: Also false.

The number is referencing federal income tax.  Not FICA, payroll, gas, cigarette, or any other tax.  Just Federal Income Tax.


FICA is sorta a gray area as it directly funds a specific program and is paid back directly.

Sales tax, sin taxes, etc are at the state level. So really, he's not that far off. Save for the Medicare tax, most don't contribute directly to the federal budget that covers things like education grants.

Key word here is "directly"
 
2013-03-21 05:55:41 PM  

imgod2u: mjbok: Ambitwistor: Also false.

The number is referencing federal income tax.  Not FICA, payroll, gas, cigarette, or any other tax.  Just Federal Income Tax.

FICA is sorta a gray area as it directly funds a specific program and is paid back directly.

Sales tax, sin taxes, etc are at the state level. So really, he's not that far off. Save for the Medicare tax, most don't contribute directly to the federal budget that covers things like education grants.

Key word here is "directly"


I look at it as the line item of Federal Taxes on the W2.
 
2013-03-21 06:05:07 PM  
I don't see a problem with this. Television, movies, music, they're all a part of our culture and they all help shape us into what we become. Studying the influences of these things is how we understand how much little things in a highly popular TV show or movie can have an impact.

Once again people(I'm looking at YOU, Subby), not EVERYONE is a cancer researcher, so stop with the "rather than working on curing cancer" buillshiat...
 
2013-03-21 06:06:51 PM  

meddleRPI: brantgoose: Proof that the last digit of pi is a 1

Pi is an irrational and transcendental number. In layperson terms, that means that it is non-terminating and non-repeating number. it can not be expressed as a relation of two rational or whole numbers. And it does not start to repeat at any point, so there are always more digits to write it out accurately.

In binary, however, pi and all other numbers can be written out with just the two digits, one and zero. One or the other of them must always be the last digit when you calculate or stop. Logically, it can not end in a zero because if pi ended in a zero, it would not be an irrational transcendental number. It would end in a repeating zero because the last digit calculated or stopped on would always be a zero. Therefore, by a process of elimination, pi must end in a one. There is no alternative.

Q.E.D.

This is the kind of Bullshiat you can write with ten years of university or if you are a genius, or both. Remember my rule--you should always add "or both" to a dichotomy. Chances are high that it is a false dichotomy. Of course, chances are also high that it is a false dichotomy and the correct thing is to add "or neither". But that is a problem for another time.

This is false, because there is no last digit of pi, and hence pi cannot "end" with anything.


It ends with an empty pan on the counter, and at least one sad person in the house.
 
2013-03-21 06:56:34 PM  

mjbok: imgod2u: mjbok: Ambitwistor: Also false.

The number is referencing federal income tax.  Not FICA, payroll, gas, cigarette, or any other tax.  Just Federal Income Tax.

FICA is sorta a gray area as it directly funds a specific program and is paid back directly.

Sales tax, sin taxes, etc are at the state level. So really, he's not that far off. Save for the Medicare tax, most don't contribute directly to the federal budget that covers things like education grants.

Key word here is "directly"

I look at it as the line item of Federal Taxes on the W2.


That would just be pedantic. Ignoring the obvious self-victimization of his claim, the OP's point was that education grants come from taxes paid by approximately 53% of the population. This statement is essentially correct -- ignoring that this is the UK and not the US we're talking about and it is unknown whether said person used education grants.
 
2013-03-21 07:17:24 PM  

imgod2u: That would just be pedantic. Ignoring the obvious self-victimization of his claim, the OP's point was that education grants come from taxes paid by approximately 53% of the population. This statement is essentially correct -- ignoring that this is the UK and not the US we're talking about and it is unknown whether said person used education grants.


My original comment was a follow-up to a comment that said it is not true that 47% do not pay federal taxes.  My comment was completely about a comment and had nothing to do with the article.  The 47 comment (obviously) was from the last election, and so many people seem butthurt about not only that it was said, but moreso that it is true.  It is true in the way it was intended, not necessarily how it was expressly worded to include income only and exclude FICA, etc.  And this wasn't a case of a politician using weasel words or semantics to tell an Obi-Wan truth, because this was a comment that was never meant to be heard by the general public.
 
2013-03-21 07:51:55 PM  

mjbok: imgod2u: That would just be pedantic. Ignoring the obvious self-victimization of his claim, the OP's point was that education grants come from taxes paid by approximately 53% of the population. This statement is essentially correct -- ignoring that this is the UK and not the US we're talking about and it is unknown whether said person used education grants.

My original comment was a follow-up to a comment that said it is not true that 47% do not pay federal taxes.  My comment was completely about a comment and had nothing to do with the article.


That seems rather pedantic....
 
2013-03-21 07:53:09 PM  
Also, TFA is missing:  Who Really is the Boss? A critical analysis of the power structure in television's Who's The Boss
 
2013-03-21 07:59:28 PM  

Priapetic: Nah, they probably got a Federal grant, so ultimately you* paid for it.

* - "you" in this instance being the 53% that actually pay Federal taxes




I finally know what they were saying, so it has that going for it.
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-21 08:33:34 PM  

imgod2u: Also, TFA is missing:  Who Really is the Boss? A critical analysis of the power structure in television's Who's The Boss


What was happening?

agencyentourage.com
 
2013-03-21 09:20:04 PM  

xria: Flint Ironstag: Why is this wrong? Shakespear's plays were mass market entertainment when they were written. If Shakespear were alive today he'd probably be writing for TV.  Buffy was a great show, not claiming it will be considered Shakespear in four hundred years time, but it has a lot in common. This paper looked at the Buffy writers making up words, something Shakespear did. Buffy had vampires, werewolves and demons. Shakespear had ghosts, witches and nymphs. They're narrative devices.

So why is studying Shakespear good but a paper about Buffy is bad?

Actually from the description you could probably assume the paper in question looks pretty much along the same lines as studying in-group language and slang that has been done numerous times for numerous groups (gangs, schoolkids, techies, social cliques, lawyers, doctors, etc.) You could do one on Fark and show how the group defends itself against outsiders and validates itself by creating identifying markers in comments to show who knows all the right phrases and idioms (Duke sucks, rotsky, balls caught in a chair guy, the squirrel, etc.) You can even compare it to the behavior of monkeys grooming each other, fads in fashion/music and so on that are specific to sub-populations the world over (and into the animal kingdom for social animals as noted).


kpbs.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com
 
2013-03-21 11:34:35 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Why is this wrong? Shakespear's plays were mass market entertainment when they were written. If Shakespear were alive today he'd probably be writing for TV.  Buffy was a great show, not claiming it will be considered Shakespear in four hundred years time, but it has a lot in common. This paper looked at the Buffy writers making up words, something Shakespear did. Buffy had vampires, werewolves and demons. Shakespear had ghosts, witches and nymphs. They're narrative devices.

So why is studying Shakespear good but a paper about Buffy is bad?


I seriously hate when academics put Shakespeare on that upper shelf of high brow literature.  He wrote for the masses.  He wrote plays that would fill the Globe.  Thus, blood was obligatory (obscure?).

/I was once a Shakespearean actor
//The fun kind at the Ren Faire
///Fart jokes!
 
2013-03-22 12:04:05 AM  

Psychopusher: The weird spacing of the font used led me to read one of those as "5. The use of music on Barney & Friends: Implications for music the rapy practice and research"

I always knew Barney was evil, but no one would ever listen.


He's been hanging out with Bert.
 
2013-03-22 12:06:15 AM  
Buffy was a very popular topic in Academia a few years back. It was coined "Buffy Studies", and there were courses taught at colleges and universities around the world. Several academic conferences have been held with the show being the sole topic. I've read a few of the papers, some of them were great while others sucked the fun right out of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffy_studies
 
2013-03-22 12:14:58 AM  
 
2013-03-22 12:19:28 AM  
The nation needs more plumbers, engineers, welders, factory workers and accountants. Fewer Star Bucks coffee jocks.
 
2013-03-22 01:34:00 AM  

OgreMagi: Flint Ironstag: Why is this wrong? Shakespear's plays were mass market entertainment when they were written. If Shakespear were alive today he'd probably be writing for TV.  Buffy was a great show, not claiming it will be considered Shakespear in four hundred years time, but it has a lot in common. This paper looked at the Buffy writers making up words, something Shakespear did. Buffy had vampires, werewolves and demons. Shakespear had ghosts, witches and nymphs. They're narrative devices.

So why is studying Shakespear good but a paper about Buffy is bad?

I seriously hate when academics put Shakespeare on that upper shelf of high brow literature.  He wrote for the masses.  He wrote plays that would fill the Globe.  Thus, blood was obligatory (obscure?).

/I was once a Shakespearean actor
//The fun kind at the Ren Faire
///Fart jokes!


Now you can combine both interests! Much Ado About Nothing out soon starring lots of ex Buffy, Angel, Firefly and Dollhouse actors!

upload.wikimedia.org


/Sadly no Kate Beckinsale.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report