Charloween

Sometimes, I read academic work on a series I'm familiar with, and I wonder "Are they watching the same show I did?"

But sometimes, there'll be something like this:

...and, yeah, the author was definitely watching the same show I did.  (Apollo spends a lot of the series stunned.)

(From Patrick B. Sharp, "Starbuck as 'American Amazon': Captivity narrative and the colonial imagination in Battlestar Galactica." In Science Fiction Film and Television, Volume 3, Issue 1, Spring 2010, pp. 57-78.)

Also, vaguely related to this; I've finally started using my Kindle for academic stuff. Turns out syncing a pile of pdfs to the Kindle is a snap, and as I've got the keyboard version (boo touch screen) it's quite easy to make notes after highlighting bits.  I don't know how it would work with full textbooks, but for shorter works (~<30 pages) it's functional and simple.  It means I can sit on a bus and flick through a stack of recent papers on a topic area, mark a few bits to come back to, save trees, and spend less time scrolling up and down on a pdf reader app.*

*it lags a bit, bless it, but I'm willing to accept that ...for now

The thing I was told the Kindle could do, but I never tried to make it do, actually turns out to be a time-saving thing to do, and not difficult at all.  

And it maintains the pagination of the original document.  Magnifique.

( Criminal Minds, I would watch all of you now but I need to sleep sometimes )

ALSO: academic-types, do you have any recommendations for good writing on BSG that isn't completely consumed with how serious and important the show is? On twitter, I called it Quality-itis. (The thing with Quality TV is that critics may love it and fans may adore it, but even taking downloads and DVD sales into account, its audiences are of modest size.*) Anything focusing more on gender would be good, but really anything that isn't too blindly worshipful would be good. Ebsco is letting me down.

*I picked this list of viewing figures because it's a quick way to represent gross audiences, but doesn't take into account the fracturing of US three-network broadcasting, methodological shortcomings of ratings sampling, or after-broadcast recirculation of episodes. i.e. people don't watch less TV now; when MASH aired there weren't today's hundreds of options competing for attention.