Skip to main content

The superhero's day job

I'm a huge fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. (If you don't know the show, I'm not being sarcastic - I genuinely think it's one of the best TV shows ever made.) When I first got into it, my wife was highly suspicious that it had something to do with attractive young female cast members - but when she watched it herself she was quickly hooked on the combination of action, humour and superb dialogue.

Something Joss Whedon, the creator of Buffy, was always trying to do was to push at the conventions - and one of these was the matter of the superhero's day job. Clark Kent just isn't realistic. Being a success at anything else when you're busy saving the world isn't practical. It seems entirely reasonable that, like Buffy, a superhero would be bad at school and end up in a dead-end job (in her case, in a burger bar). It's just so right, and full of true dramatic irony.

So my suspicion is that the jolly ending, tacked on to the Harry Potter series of books, lacks verisimilitude. I think Harry would end up in an unlikely job. Not necessarily mundane, but unlikely. So I was pleased to find confirmation of my theory in the pretty little church of All Saints', in Liddington in Wiltshire. There on the organ, for all to see, was the truth of Harry Potter's career prospects.

Comments

  1. Always good to run across a fellow diehard Buffy fan among us ageing science types, Brian.

    I have recently been watching Whedon's Dollhouse on the SciFi cable channel. Interesting but not enough to make a judgement on thus far.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Absolutely - also loved Angel and Firefly. (Dr Horrible was fun too.) I've seen rather mixed views on Dollhouse - haven't had a chance to see it yet, but the feeling seems to be that it's not one of Whedon's best efforts, probably in part due to network mucking about.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, I liked Angel too, though never caught Firefly.

    One of the problems Dollhouse has is its central "personality transplant" theme. Although it is a neat idea, it means that the central character, though played by the same person (Eliza Dushku aka Faith from the Buffyverse), is effectively different each episode. Since series rather depend for longevity on people warming to one or more central characters, it is rather like giving themselves a big self-inflicted handicap. I guess it is fairly early days, though.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou