Pushing Square Pegs in Round Holes
Oct. 20th, 2003 12:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatI've been trying to write a live journal entry all day, but the words don't feel right. Almost as if I no longer trust my ability for syntax. Each time I attempt to write something I feel as if I'm trying push round pegs into square holes. I've felt that way most of this week - on the posting boards, applying for jobs, reading for class, figuring out my career goals...like I'm a round peg that won't quite fit in any of the square holes currently available.
Long section on jobhunting, tv, fanboards, posters, James Spader, Spike, Angel The Series, and square pegs - possibly a little ranty and rambling in places...it's a mood thing:
My friend cjl would tell me to find a different hole or flip over the playing board. He was very sweet during our weekly dinner to discuss life,Angel the Series, and other miscellaneous items. This week he informed me that I flipped over the playing board when I quit the evil company, that making the choice to give up money and financial security to follow my own dreams and preserve my sanity knowing full well what was ahead of me, was an admirable thing to do. Then he gave me a brilliant play by play of game seven of Red Sox vs. Yankees. I'm not really a baseball fan, but cjl made me feel as if I was in the stadium hanging on every pitch, completely engrossed in the action. Complete with sound effects, gestures, and facial expressions. His point was simple - the game wasn't so important as the interaction of the fans and people there, just as he continues to point out to me during our weekly babble fests that the shows aren't as important as the people who have been brought together through them. Of course it helps that we have similar views on the shows. We disagree on a few tidbits here and there but nothing major. And we both enjoy Angel for pretty much the same reasons - the dark noirish undertones and adult metaphors. When we met this week, I'd been slightly spoiled on episode 8 by the ASSB board and was considering bailing on the series all together. Cjl (who is far more spoiled than I am) reassured me and reminded me that it was just one episode, he also reminded me of what I enjoyed about Angel's journey. And heck - there's at least 7 episodes in between. Also the problem with spoilers? They are always presented through someone else's lense, someone outside of the show and who isn't you. He pointed out the connection between Angel and Spike - how Angel in some ways created Spike, how Spilliam feels that Angel stole his human and vampire destiney by pushing him towards being Spike, influencing who he became, causing him to do things that his human self found reprehensible. And how in some ways this links back to Connor and Darla and Angel's own father. He reminded me that the reasons we love these characters is how convulted they are. Dark and prickly, without becoming laughably so. (None of the above is spoilers by the way, just speculation.)
But now, after an irritable weekend lurking on and posting on fanboards, I wonder. I feel somehow disconnected from everyone. As if they are marching to one tune and I another. I didn't identify with Buffy in S7 of BTVS - she didn't feel like "us" to me. Nor do I find my family outside of my parents, grandmother and brother, to me, my immediate family is the most trustworthy. Friends? Experience has taught me to treat with extreme caution. Nor do I believe we pick and choose our friends as much as we think, they pick us as well. Blood? Is a bit more unconditional. At least for me it is. Friends? There always appears to be conditions attached. I see that on BTVS as well, Joyce and Dawn love Buffy unconditionally, her friends? LOL! Hardly. Now with all the stuff I've read on Ats, I wonder is my favorite show going down the tubes? Catering to what the writers perceive the network wants? Am I going to be as disappointed in S5 of ATS as I was in S7 of BTVS? I don't know. Nor am I sure I understand why I care. Investing in a TV show is a fool's enterprise, this just too many factors that can go ka-blooey.
My mind is cluttered with topics tonight, perhaps that's why the words don't seem to come easily? OR maybe I fear I should not be uttering them and least of all in public, tempting me to privatize this post? But writing has always freed me. It makes me sane somehow whether others like it or not and there's something oddly thrilling about the idea of someone reading this and maybe even commisserating or agreeing? If that's possible. Makes one feel less alone, you know?
I watched the Practice tonight for one reason - James Spader. I don't particularly like the Practice or any David E. Kelly show - the writer bugs me, he creates over-the-top characters and has a tendency to preach to the audience, but James Spader just happens to be one of those actors that I will watch in just about anything. There's just something about him that I find reassurring and comforting. His eyes are warm, if that makes a lick of sense. Yep, eye girl. That's me. And oddly enough, The Practice seems better somehow with him in the lead than Dylan McDermott, whom I never liked - far too condescending, paternalistic and holier than thou for my taste. Spader? He seems to admit he's a louse, but a loveable one. And is sardonic when challenged. I like people who are upfront about things - yes, I'm a jerk, what of it? As opposed to people who act like they are all moralistic and nice, yet you scratch the surface and discover what complete hypocrites they are. I tend to be suspicious of moralistic people. That said, I'm not sure it's the character Spader plays or the actor himself I'm enjoying.
Same thing with Spike - I'm not completely sure it's the actor or the character. The character does have some prickly edges, but I like prickly edges - they make a character multi-dimensional. And I just don't see all the stuff that the Spikehaters see in him, the misogyny? Nope sorry. Killing slayers seems to be the opposite to me somehow - I guess because it would be like going after the champion the top dog, the head warrior of the human clan - the person who can fight you as opposed to someone who can't. What's misogynistic about that?? Don't see it. The only character who came across as misogynistic was Warren. Also all the posts about how big a jerk Spike is and how poor Angel has to put up with him? Again I don't see it. Also tired of the "I really dislike Spike for a, b, c reasons" in response to posts that are just querying about how he might be a shadow of another character. Now I understand posting this in response to a post bashing another character or a character war post - that is just asking for it. But for an honest post that's attempting analysis? That's just insulting and makes me wonder why I bother posting at all. I get that some people don't respect my views on Spike, I know who they are, so stop hitting me over the head with it. It hurts and it doesn't change my mind about the character all it does is make me change my mind about the poster. So is it bloody worth it? Is it worth it to pick fights with people and make an ass out of yourself online? I always hate myself when I do it, which I pray is rare. When will people figure that out? Ugh. People piss me off sometimes. (That said, I would like to point out that there are a couple of people online who always seem to be impartial in regards to the shows and treat others with respect, never snarking at them - cjl and TCH on the ATPO board are always like that. I don't think I've seen them snark or bash any poster or any character on the shows. Actually I think TCH might have the best and most impartial take on ATS right now - if TCH ships for anyone, I can't tell in his posts, nor can I really tell if he dislikes anyone. He also writes beautifully. TCH is my posting role model. (I'm afraid I'm far too emotional though to ever quite live up to his posts.)
I do live in fear that Spike will become stagnated in one role or one metaphor - I really don't want a replay of S4 Spike throughout S5 ATS. I'm hoping the writers are more creative than that. So far? Don't see much evidence of it, which worries me. It also worries me that the character of Angel appears to have stagnated, he doesn't appear to have changed much from S2. I really don't see much evidence of the Epiphany in this character, I've looked. He still seems to be saving people for some sort of outside benefit whether that be the champion title, the shanshu, or the whole hero saving damsel thing. I'm hoping that this gets addressed soon. Actually it would be brilliant if Spike takes on Angel S1-S2's cloak - of thinking that if you save so many people you get redeemed, while Angel gives up that dream completely and tries to get across to Spike that it doesn't work that way - that you do good to have the opportunity to do more good and redemption may or may not come. That would make sense to me and be in keeping with the older/younger brother theme. The theme of growing up, of becoming a man. What I'm somewhat nervous about is that the writers will take the easy way out and go the cliche route - a la Smallville - where one brother becomes good and heroic and the other evil. Didn't they already do that with Connor? And Cordelia? I would much prefer that they have Angel try to undue what Angelus may have done to William, try to help Spike? I just think it's the harder, more interesting, and ultimately more positive uplifting story. But Angel The Series being as dark as it is? I'm not very hopeful. It is just a TV series after all, not great drama. Okay sorry, about the long rambling rant - but had to let off a little steam, silly as it sounds some of the above has been keeping me awake at night. Yep, Insomina is my middle name.
But back to the whole square pegs in round holes idea. Truth is I've always been a square peg - even when I was little. The group would go one direction, I would go the other. My tastes always differed. Still do, I guess. I'm also bull-headed. Stubborness and Pride two fatal flaws. So it's not surprising that I feel the way I do right now, somewhat stressed with the job hunt and this new assignment to research licensing companies and try to pitch myself to them. I keep wondering if that's the right fit? Any of it? I feel as if I'm splitting myself in so many different directions hunting that square slot - whether it be marketing, human resources, licensing, negotiation, even writing - I'm beginning to lose faith in my ability to do any of the above. I'm even wondering right now if I've lost my ability to write effectively - are my own talents starting to grow stale? Or did I even have those talents to begin with? Not sure all this second guessing is good for the soul.
Between books right now - or actually attempting to read three books at the same time. 1) A regency romance, The Ideal Husband by Nonnie St. George, whom I met from the online world - it's a bit of a parody of a regency romance with inside jokes about Buffy and Angel in the text. I borrowed it from a friend of mine. 2) Young Miles - which I started several months back but had to put down due to other reading obligations. 3) Marketing by Pride and Ferrel for my Marketing class. Very informative, but a little on the dry side.
Made it through approximately 70 pages of the Marketing book this weekend, 50 pages of the regency and a 20 of Young Miles. Feeling very confused. Reading three books at once does not work for me.
Also listening to the Rolling Stones - Hot Rocks CD, I keep rewinding to hear Paint it Black and Sympathy for the Devil. What can I say it's a mood thing.
Long section on jobhunting, tv, fanboards, posters, James Spader, Spike, Angel The Series, and square pegs - possibly a little ranty and rambling in places...it's a mood thing:
My friend cjl would tell me to find a different hole or flip over the playing board. He was very sweet during our weekly dinner to discuss life,Angel the Series, and other miscellaneous items. This week he informed me that I flipped over the playing board when I quit the evil company, that making the choice to give up money and financial security to follow my own dreams and preserve my sanity knowing full well what was ahead of me, was an admirable thing to do. Then he gave me a brilliant play by play of game seven of Red Sox vs. Yankees. I'm not really a baseball fan, but cjl made me feel as if I was in the stadium hanging on every pitch, completely engrossed in the action. Complete with sound effects, gestures, and facial expressions. His point was simple - the game wasn't so important as the interaction of the fans and people there, just as he continues to point out to me during our weekly babble fests that the shows aren't as important as the people who have been brought together through them. Of course it helps that we have similar views on the shows. We disagree on a few tidbits here and there but nothing major. And we both enjoy Angel for pretty much the same reasons - the dark noirish undertones and adult metaphors. When we met this week, I'd been slightly spoiled on episode 8 by the ASSB board and was considering bailing on the series all together. Cjl (who is far more spoiled than I am) reassured me and reminded me that it was just one episode, he also reminded me of what I enjoyed about Angel's journey. And heck - there's at least 7 episodes in between. Also the problem with spoilers? They are always presented through someone else's lense, someone outside of the show and who isn't you. He pointed out the connection between Angel and Spike - how Angel in some ways created Spike, how Spilliam feels that Angel stole his human and vampire destiney by pushing him towards being Spike, influencing who he became, causing him to do things that his human self found reprehensible. And how in some ways this links back to Connor and Darla and Angel's own father. He reminded me that the reasons we love these characters is how convulted they are. Dark and prickly, without becoming laughably so. (None of the above is spoilers by the way, just speculation.)
But now, after an irritable weekend lurking on and posting on fanboards, I wonder. I feel somehow disconnected from everyone. As if they are marching to one tune and I another. I didn't identify with Buffy in S7 of BTVS - she didn't feel like "us" to me. Nor do I find my family outside of my parents, grandmother and brother, to me, my immediate family is the most trustworthy. Friends? Experience has taught me to treat with extreme caution. Nor do I believe we pick and choose our friends as much as we think, they pick us as well. Blood? Is a bit more unconditional. At least for me it is. Friends? There always appears to be conditions attached. I see that on BTVS as well, Joyce and Dawn love Buffy unconditionally, her friends? LOL! Hardly. Now with all the stuff I've read on Ats, I wonder is my favorite show going down the tubes? Catering to what the writers perceive the network wants? Am I going to be as disappointed in S5 of ATS as I was in S7 of BTVS? I don't know. Nor am I sure I understand why I care. Investing in a TV show is a fool's enterprise, this just too many factors that can go ka-blooey.
My mind is cluttered with topics tonight, perhaps that's why the words don't seem to come easily? OR maybe I fear I should not be uttering them and least of all in public, tempting me to privatize this post? But writing has always freed me. It makes me sane somehow whether others like it or not and there's something oddly thrilling about the idea of someone reading this and maybe even commisserating or agreeing? If that's possible. Makes one feel less alone, you know?
I watched the Practice tonight for one reason - James Spader. I don't particularly like the Practice or any David E. Kelly show - the writer bugs me, he creates over-the-top characters and has a tendency to preach to the audience, but James Spader just happens to be one of those actors that I will watch in just about anything. There's just something about him that I find reassurring and comforting. His eyes are warm, if that makes a lick of sense. Yep, eye girl. That's me. And oddly enough, The Practice seems better somehow with him in the lead than Dylan McDermott, whom I never liked - far too condescending, paternalistic and holier than thou for my taste. Spader? He seems to admit he's a louse, but a loveable one. And is sardonic when challenged. I like people who are upfront about things - yes, I'm a jerk, what of it? As opposed to people who act like they are all moralistic and nice, yet you scratch the surface and discover what complete hypocrites they are. I tend to be suspicious of moralistic people. That said, I'm not sure it's the character Spader plays or the actor himself I'm enjoying.
Same thing with Spike - I'm not completely sure it's the actor or the character. The character does have some prickly edges, but I like prickly edges - they make a character multi-dimensional. And I just don't see all the stuff that the Spikehaters see in him, the misogyny? Nope sorry. Killing slayers seems to be the opposite to me somehow - I guess because it would be like going after the champion the top dog, the head warrior of the human clan - the person who can fight you as opposed to someone who can't. What's misogynistic about that?? Don't see it. The only character who came across as misogynistic was Warren. Also all the posts about how big a jerk Spike is and how poor Angel has to put up with him? Again I don't see it. Also tired of the "I really dislike Spike for a, b, c reasons" in response to posts that are just querying about how he might be a shadow of another character. Now I understand posting this in response to a post bashing another character or a character war post - that is just asking for it. But for an honest post that's attempting analysis? That's just insulting and makes me wonder why I bother posting at all. I get that some people don't respect my views on Spike, I know who they are, so stop hitting me over the head with it. It hurts and it doesn't change my mind about the character all it does is make me change my mind about the poster. So is it bloody worth it? Is it worth it to pick fights with people and make an ass out of yourself online? I always hate myself when I do it, which I pray is rare. When will people figure that out? Ugh. People piss me off sometimes. (That said, I would like to point out that there are a couple of people online who always seem to be impartial in regards to the shows and treat others with respect, never snarking at them - cjl and TCH on the ATPO board are always like that. I don't think I've seen them snark or bash any poster or any character on the shows. Actually I think TCH might have the best and most impartial take on ATS right now - if TCH ships for anyone, I can't tell in his posts, nor can I really tell if he dislikes anyone. He also writes beautifully. TCH is my posting role model. (I'm afraid I'm far too emotional though to ever quite live up to his posts.)
I do live in fear that Spike will become stagnated in one role or one metaphor - I really don't want a replay of S4 Spike throughout S5 ATS. I'm hoping the writers are more creative than that. So far? Don't see much evidence of it, which worries me. It also worries me that the character of Angel appears to have stagnated, he doesn't appear to have changed much from S2. I really don't see much evidence of the Epiphany in this character, I've looked. He still seems to be saving people for some sort of outside benefit whether that be the champion title, the shanshu, or the whole hero saving damsel thing. I'm hoping that this gets addressed soon. Actually it would be brilliant if Spike takes on Angel S1-S2's cloak - of thinking that if you save so many people you get redeemed, while Angel gives up that dream completely and tries to get across to Spike that it doesn't work that way - that you do good to have the opportunity to do more good and redemption may or may not come. That would make sense to me and be in keeping with the older/younger brother theme. The theme of growing up, of becoming a man. What I'm somewhat nervous about is that the writers will take the easy way out and go the cliche route - a la Smallville - where one brother becomes good and heroic and the other evil. Didn't they already do that with Connor? And Cordelia? I would much prefer that they have Angel try to undue what Angelus may have done to William, try to help Spike? I just think it's the harder, more interesting, and ultimately more positive uplifting story. But Angel The Series being as dark as it is? I'm not very hopeful. It is just a TV series after all, not great drama. Okay sorry, about the long rambling rant - but had to let off a little steam, silly as it sounds some of the above has been keeping me awake at night. Yep, Insomina is my middle name.
But back to the whole square pegs in round holes idea. Truth is I've always been a square peg - even when I was little. The group would go one direction, I would go the other. My tastes always differed. Still do, I guess. I'm also bull-headed. Stubborness and Pride two fatal flaws. So it's not surprising that I feel the way I do right now, somewhat stressed with the job hunt and this new assignment to research licensing companies and try to pitch myself to them. I keep wondering if that's the right fit? Any of it? I feel as if I'm splitting myself in so many different directions hunting that square slot - whether it be marketing, human resources, licensing, negotiation, even writing - I'm beginning to lose faith in my ability to do any of the above. I'm even wondering right now if I've lost my ability to write effectively - are my own talents starting to grow stale? Or did I even have those talents to begin with? Not sure all this second guessing is good for the soul.
Between books right now - or actually attempting to read three books at the same time. 1) A regency romance, The Ideal Husband by Nonnie St. George, whom I met from the online world - it's a bit of a parody of a regency romance with inside jokes about Buffy and Angel in the text. I borrowed it from a friend of mine. 2) Young Miles - which I started several months back but had to put down due to other reading obligations. 3) Marketing by Pride and Ferrel for my Marketing class. Very informative, but a little on the dry side.
Made it through approximately 70 pages of the Marketing book this weekend, 50 pages of the regency and a 20 of Young Miles. Feeling very confused. Reading three books at once does not work for me.
Also listening to the Rolling Stones - Hot Rocks CD, I keep rewinding to hear Paint it Black and Sympathy for the Devil. What can I say it's a mood thing.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-10-20 12:03 am (UTC)Wow- thanks shadowkat
Date: 2003-10-20 04:36 am (UTC)As for Season Five, I'm less spoiled than both you and cjl, but I do think it's worth remembering how some magnificent Seasons start with a weak-ish run (Season Two of Buffy, Season Three of Angel), and some Seasons which are so-so for me start off very strongly (Season Seven Buffy for example). If after 'Conversations With Dead People' somebody had told me I would rate Season Seven as the weakest season overall, I would have laughed at them. There's a long way to go, and I personally think 'Unleashed' really represented the starting position of the group for this Season, the status quo from which they'll develop. The first two episodes were exposition-heavy fiddling, complemented with Baddy of the Week, which meant it took a while to hit an even keel. I see 'Unleashed' as Season Five's 'Judgement'. For better or worse...;-)
TCH
no subject
Date: 2003-10-20 05:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-10-20 06:54 am (UTC)For me when I start getting incensed about the direction of the show based on spoilers that's when I start dialing back on the spoilers. Right now I don't read reactions to them at all, since the tendency of many on spoiler boards is to freak right out. We don't know how things will play onscreen - I read a detailed description for Unleashed and thought "hey, that's going to be a tight little episode" but my reaction was meh.
Good points
Date: 2003-10-20 08:54 am (UTC)Online craziness, tv shows
Date: 2003-10-20 11:37 am (UTC)The online fandom is a constant melodrama. There are corners of it where I'm comfortable and have a good time. Then there are vast stretches of it that are simply hostile territory no matter who you are or who you favor or ship.
As a diehard Spike fan, I must admit I've been guilty of razzing Angel/DB on many occasions in the past. He's an easy target. And the thing of it is I don't even dislike Angel or DB. DB is no great shakes, but he's a decent enough actor. Then, I go online and I see the Spike/JM bashing and I get all defensive. Frankly, I find it mystifying because I can't imagine hating any character so much that I'd feel the need to bash him repeatedly. What does that kind of posting serve, I wonder?
FREX, Warren was a pretty despicable character, but I felt that he was so well-written and acted, that I could enjoy his villainy. His misogyny was creepy and repulsive, yet he was strangely compelling. However, he exists only as a character to me. I was appalled to hear that a fan at Moonlight Rising wanted to spit at poor Adam Busch for killing Tara! Some fans really don't have a grip on reality.
Even fans who are capable of intelligent conversation about these shows are often obvious in their unfair biases. I suppose you can't help the way you feel about things, people, tv shows, but is it too much to ask for people to think before they post? At most forums, you'll find people posting their opinions after each episode, with precious little in the way of analysis or attempt to understand the shows. Opinions and kneejerk reactions are a dime a dozen. The majority of fans simply want to be heard, regardless of what they have to say or whether they have anything to say. Some fans just want the opportunity to say "That sucked!" or "That was the best episode ever!" I keep trying to remind myself whenever I get riled up that it's really not about the shows at all, it's about us. That's why everyone is so godawful emotional about stuff that is basically not that important. Somehow we all managed to have a life before BtVS/AtS and somehow, we'll all manage to have a life after it. In the meantime, it's not a life and death situation. Or as Methos says, "Live, grow strong, fight another day."
Sometimes, it's good to jump in and fight the good fight. Other times, not so much. Pick your battles or the fandom will eat you for breakfast. That's my wise old lady voice talking.
BTW, I had such a good time at HoJo's the other night! I had a lousy day and after talking to you about BtVS/AtS for hours and hours, I remembered "hey, tv shows are fun!" Life still sucks but, I can handle it better when I'm in a good mood! Since I can't afford mood-enhancing medications, I guess I'm stuck with you and these shows!
Punkinpuss
Re: Online craziness, tv shows
Date: 2003-10-20 11:57 am (UTC)I had a wonderful time at HoJo's too. It helps to take a break from the crap life throws at us every once and a while and actually talk about something amusing and fun. We need to do it again soon!
You also managed to remind me of what I like about the shows and Angel. And it helped to have someone to commisserate with. Someone who enjoys the characters flaws intact and doesn't feel a need to romanticize them. That's my difficulty with many of the Spike and Angel fans online is a tendency to romanticize the fictional character, when I happen to like their prickly and dark aspects. If I wanted nice moral, upstanding guys - I'd be a Clark Kent shipper and into Seventh Heaven. I tend to prefer fictional characters who are more convoluted. It's actually what I loved about James Spader's character on the Practice last night. Agree - Sharon Stone's character was highly annoying. Thank god, it was just a guest role.