Re: no such thing as bad publicity?
- From: fairwater@xxxxxxxxx (Derek Lyons)
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:13:22 GMT
mimus <tinmimus99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And, of course (I'm not going to worry about a spoiler warning here), the
whale wins, which is all nice and modern and fuzzy-warm . . . .
I'd have to call 'not really' on that one. In a modern sense the
whale would win because the had a Big Heart, or Persevered in the Face
of Overwhelming Odds, or at a minimum Wasn't Evil or somesuch
fuzzy-warmness.
The idea that the whale would win (as he did) because he was an
Awesome Force of Nature, Terrible in his Beauty and Implacable in his
Justice is strictly 19th century.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
.
- References:
- no such thing as bad publicity?
- From: Johan Larson
- Re: no such thing as bad publicity?
- From: David DeLaney
- Re: no such thing as bad publicity?
- From: Gary Thompson
- Re: no such thing as bad publicity?
- From: Andrew Plotkin
- Re: no such thing as bad publicity?
- From: Sea Wasp
- Re: no such thing as bad publicity?
- From: Jon Schild
- Re: no such thing as bad publicity?
- From: Joseph Nebus
- Re: no such thing as bad publicity?
- From: mimus
- no such thing as bad publicity?
- Prev by Date: Re: And you thought "Christians" hated Harry Potter before
- Next by Date: Re: Multiple-mode weapons
- Previous by thread: Re: no such thing as bad publicity?
- Next by thread: Re: no such thing as bad publicity?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|