![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
1. I found myself agreeing in part with this assessment of The Josh Whedon Wonder Woman Script by the Mary Sue.
Except, I'm starting to think during various discussions with people about various topics...that we don't necessarily define words or concepts in the same way, and people have different perspectives based on background, etc.
For example? Years ago I had a lengthy discourse on the nature of the human soul on my journal, or rather it was a lengthy discourse on what the term soul actually meant. Because no one agreed or defined the story the same way.
Here, I think...it's possible not to see Whedon's script as either sexist or misogynistic and see that he may well be commenting on it and our societal view of it. Which he's been doing in various ways in his work for quite some time -- commenting on it. Whedon's work tends to have a meta-narrative element, which many people don't realize, and often a satirical element, that many take literally. He is familiar with the comics and history, also how our world handles powerful women -- so he wrote his script through the point of view of a modern everyday male encountering a woman who is more powerful in many ways...and how does he deal with that? A question Whedon asks himself.
While the writers of the movie, made it more about the woman and less how she's viewed by society.
2. There's a fascinating podcast on SmartBitches about branding and why we read what we read, what attracts us to a novel. It's promoting a story anthology that doesn't reveal who wrote which story until September. And each author writes something in a genre or on a topic they've never written before or are uncomfortable with in some way.
What's interesting is it is a challenge to their readers. Because with genre readers, people tend to read one author whose style they like, or one genre. They don't tend to jump or take risks. So by requesting the author's take risks, their reader's do as well -- both jump outside the comfort zone.
Also the writers mention how unrecognizable some of their fellow writers works are -- style wise, they've changed their style.
Some writers can do this, some can't. Like some actor's can do it, some can't. For example? Cary Grant was always playing well Cary Grant. But Dustin Hoffman is often unrecognizable. You always tend to know it is Elizabeth Taylor, but Meryl Streep disappears in her roles.
They mention a "No Name" series that Louisa May Alcott wrote for, and in 1911, there was a concert series that works were presented anonymously.
I think it is harder to be anonymous on the internet. Though in a way by adopting an pseudonym, we are doing that here, aren't we? I feel freer here under my internet name, than under my real one on Twitter or Facebook or Good Reads. Here...I can say and write things with less...worry, somehow.
Except, I'm starting to think during various discussions with people about various topics...that we don't necessarily define words or concepts in the same way, and people have different perspectives based on background, etc.
For example? Years ago I had a lengthy discourse on the nature of the human soul on my journal, or rather it was a lengthy discourse on what the term soul actually meant. Because no one agreed or defined the story the same way.
Here, I think...it's possible not to see Whedon's script as either sexist or misogynistic and see that he may well be commenting on it and our societal view of it. Which he's been doing in various ways in his work for quite some time -- commenting on it. Whedon's work tends to have a meta-narrative element, which many people don't realize, and often a satirical element, that many take literally. He is familiar with the comics and history, also how our world handles powerful women -- so he wrote his script through the point of view of a modern everyday male encountering a woman who is more powerful in many ways...and how does he deal with that? A question Whedon asks himself.
While the writers of the movie, made it more about the woman and less how she's viewed by society.
2. There's a fascinating podcast on SmartBitches about branding and why we read what we read, what attracts us to a novel. It's promoting a story anthology that doesn't reveal who wrote which story until September. And each author writes something in a genre or on a topic they've never written before or are uncomfortable with in some way.
What's interesting is it is a challenge to their readers. Because with genre readers, people tend to read one author whose style they like, or one genre. They don't tend to jump or take risks. So by requesting the author's take risks, their reader's do as well -- both jump outside the comfort zone.
Also the writers mention how unrecognizable some of their fellow writers works are -- style wise, they've changed their style.
Some writers can do this, some can't. Like some actor's can do it, some can't. For example? Cary Grant was always playing well Cary Grant. But Dustin Hoffman is often unrecognizable. You always tend to know it is Elizabeth Taylor, but Meryl Streep disappears in her roles.
They mention a "No Name" series that Louisa May Alcott wrote for, and in 1911, there was a concert series that works were presented anonymously.
I think it is harder to be anonymous on the internet. Though in a way by adopting an pseudonym, we are doing that here, aren't we? I feel freer here under my internet name, than under my real one on Twitter or Facebook or Good Reads. Here...I can say and write things with less...worry, somehow.
no subject
The characters are in the past. They aren't real. There's no comparison, no worry, I can relax. No stress. When I get to work and sit inside my cubicle, flip on the computer, plug in the phone, and start my day...the story doesn't play with my mind or stick with me, at least not most of the time. I can concentrate on the task at hand. And when I sit to write my own stories, it doesn't effect them or change them.
The men are kind, the women are too. There's no violence. No killers waiting in the bushes. Just witty banter. It's sugar for the brain. Without the calories. Serotonen, without the nasty side-effects.
We read for different reasons. And different things at different times.
I wish at times we were like the characters in Sense8, where we could sense what each other feels. But alas we are not. So all we can do is rely on flimsy words...and hope for the best.
no subject
Speaking of this and romances, I can't recall, have you watched the Miss Fisher Murder Mysteries?
no subject
no subject
It's not going to stand up well against Sens8 right now because it's such a different genre. But it's definitely a show about women, and rich in kind characters as well as fun.
no subject
Doesn't help that I'm a moody watcher, and have too many television shows to watch or check out as it is. If it doesn't hold my interest after twenty minutes, it tends to be gone. Because too many frigging television shows. ;-D
no subject
no subject
They are laughing, judging the art. Saying it is shit-packer porn. And Hernandez states...are is what the viewer sees. If you see that -- then that is a representation of who you are, if you see two man making love, then you that says something of who we are.
When I read the romance novels...I see two people who fall in love but are struggling to communicate or find a way to communicate, even though it feels impossible. My brain is off, that critical demon that feels the need to judge everything...I see that. I want to turn that part off sometimes.
no subject
I also have the reverse problem though, which is stories or shows that I wish I could like more, but they just don't engage me.
no subject
But I'm never able not to see the writing problems with something. It matters most to me when something smacks of laziness -- that the writers don't have any respect for their characters or the audience but want us to handwave obvious problems and jerk the characters around on strings to make them do what the plot requires.
I can't get past that either. Although...
It depends on the book and my mood. And to an extent it is admittedly a subjective thing.
All genres, including surprisingly enough, literary have those issues. The best-sellers, weirdly are among the worst offenders. And I can't stand the romance novels at the top of the best-seller list or found in book stores. I like the ones off the beaten track, which subvert the genre and do weird things. But you have to find them on Amazon and they are often rec'd by word of mouth or on places like Good Reads or SmartBitches.
SmartBitches isn't reliable, because taste varies, and they love contemporary, which tends to annoy me. (Mainly because I have difficulty buying the same gender/wealth inequalities emerging in a contemporary than I do in a historical. And I often want to strangle the heroine for being an idiot and sticking with the guy, when she can easily leave. In historicals, that's harder to do. Also historicals have the added benefit of being in the past and not relevant to today's world -- so better escape.) I'm not a fan of contemporary -- the writing is lazy, and the characters often under-developed. (Although there are exceptions.) Not a fan of Nora Roberts (I find her deathly dull), Debbie Macomber, or any of the known ones. Although no one is as bad as Danielle Steel, who doesn't bother with dialogue or to develop her characters much at all, and is a watered down version of Sydney Sheldon. So I do agree the genre does get a bad rap for a reason - quite often the writer is playing to the publisher or the readership which wants their formula and trope dang-it, and will only buy books that give it to them. And a lot of writers write too fast, and there's a formulistic style to their writing that like you said above, smacks of laziness.
This, however, is also unfortunately true of the other genres. I've lost count of how many bad mysteries and sci-fic books I've read, not to mention comic books. (I binge-read mystery novels over a period of twenty years possibly more before I finally got burned out on the genre, the serial killer trope basically did me in. Agatha Christie, Conan Doyle, Robert Harris, JA Jance, MJ McGregor (which is out of print now), Patricia Cornwell, Robert Parker, Tony Hillerman, VJ Warchowski, Janet Evonouviche, John D. McDonald, PD James, Minette Walters (the best of the bunch), Ruth Rendell (aka PD James), David Baldouchi, Scot Turow, John Grisham, Elmore Leonard (who I loved) Carl Hianssin, Sara Paretsky, etc.)
There's something about having to push out five - ten books a year that diminishes the writing. Read one mystery/legal thriller that was so bad, it was funny, nothing worked, and my suspension of disbelief flew out the window. Can't remember the name of it. David Baldaccio is popular, but redundant. James Patterson - sigh, can't read him, such a lazy writer -- assuming he even writes them any longer.
no subject
My own contribution was that it allowed for indirect language about sex. This occurred to me because I was reading fanfic at the time where the author even called mocking attention to the fact that the terms and form of discussion about it hadn't been heard outside of an 18th century novel. And I suddenly realized that you just couldn't do that in a contemporary novel. Well, I mean, you could but really it would seem so absurd and pretentious and completely unlike how you know men actually discuss it.
Oh I agree about other genres, and I wasn't even thinking of romances when I wrote that. In fact I was thinking of fantasy TV shows. And I expect that it's for a similar reason, which is not enough time to get stories done properly. I understand that writer's rooms are not common for British TV shows but they also are scheduled in a very different way (not just shorter seasons but also longer shooting times), and they often begin with the entire season already written.
Regarding fantasy tv shows..
Regarding sex in romance novels?
Eh, the one's I'm reading have graphic sex. And their euphemisms are similar to fanfic, some better, some worse. There's less of it, sex, I mean in the historical than contemporary. Also it takes much longer for them to have sex -- more build up. The contemporary tend to be "kinky" sex and often, rough sex or seduction - rape. More so than the historical. Also the writer's get bored and start doing weird things with sex...like toys, bondage, spanking, three-somes, etc. Or repetitive. And the language is well ...somewhat funny, in how crude it is in contemporary novels.
That's not to say historical writers don't write that too. They do. But usually it's not as casual or sex just for sex's sake. They occasionally will have it out of wedlock in a historical...which just doesn't quite work for that time period. I keep wondering why the heroine hasn't had a kid yet.
You can't really generalize about the genre as much you think, I've pretty much seen everything. But, Regency's due tend to be rather tame. I don't really like the Regency novels, they bore me. I can't read Georgette Heyer, who is the Queen of the Regency, but sucked at dialogue, and has no sex in her books. Reading Heyer is like reading a rip off of Jane Austen. Rather read Jane Austen.
I prefer the non-Regency's which are the other periods, that have sex in them, and often a plot -- such as mystery, or a conflict outside of the misunderstanding.
Re: Regarding fantasy tv shows..
I keep wondering why the heroine hasn't had a kid yet.
That made me laugh because it's so true. Amazingly in historical romances, no one gets a prolapsed uterus from excessive childbirth.
Re: Regarding fantasy tv shows..
Looked up Sense8 on Wiki, because I was worried the Whispers/Will situation didn't get resolved in S2. (It does). I didn't spoil myself on anything else.
But found out how they came up with it and how long it took them to develop it. They took it to HBO first, but they didn't understand the concept.
According to the Wachowskis, the origins of Sense8 date back several years before the announcement of the show to "a late-night conversation about the ways technology simultaneously unites and divides us".[32] Straczynski recalls that when the Wachowskis decided to create their first series, because of Straczynski's extensive experience working with the format, Lana chose to invite him to her house in San Francisco to brainstorm ideas together.[31][33] Both the Wachowskis and Straczynski agreed that if they were to do a television series, they wanted to attempt something that "nobody had done before",[34] and change the "vocabulary for television production" the same way The Matrix became a major influence for action movies.[35] After several days of discussion they decided on creating a show that would explore the relationship between empathy and evolution in the human race, and whose story would be told in a global scale, necessitating filming on location in several countries over the world, in contrast to the standard production model for television which attempts to limit or fake that as much as possible.[31][36] A source of inspiration for Straczynski was his own experience concerning friends of his who live in different parts of the world but coordinate to watch a movie at the same time and comment to each other online about it.
The trio became so excited with the concept they came up with, they decided to do initial development on their own instead of pitching it to someone else.[31] The Wachowskis wrote three hour-long spec scripts,[39] and together with Straczynski attempted to shop them around, such as at Warner Bros. and HBO,[40] but when they saw that nobody could understand the concept they decided to shelve it.[36] A few years later, when they felt that the landscape of television had become friendlier towards more experimental concepts, they decided to pitch it a second time.[36] On October 2, 2012, Variety first reported the existence of the show, by writing that the Wachowskis, with the help of Straczynski's Studio JMS and Georgeville Television, would be shopping Sense8 around Los Angeles the week to follow.[39] If the series was picked up, the sisters and Straczynski would be sharing showrunner duties. Additionally, the Wachowskis were planning to direct a few episodes of the show if their schedule permitted it. According to Straczynski, the first meeting with potential buyers was with Netflix. The Wachowskis and Straczynski talked to them about subjects such as gender, identity, secrecy and privacy.[41] According to Lana they pitched shooting on location all over the globe to which Netflix responded favorably, which was in contrast to the "clearly impossible" response they had received by other outlets during their earlier abortive attempt.[40] They also told Netflix they were only interested if they had the freedom to "do anything", like "crazy psychic orgies with all sorts of different bodies" and "live births even" to which Netflix also responded positively.[42] After the end of the meeting, despite it having seemingly gone well,[31] they worried they had made a mistake because they had not pitched any action or otherwise commercial aspects.[41] By noon, and before they had the chance to pitch it to other outlets, such as HBO,[35] Netflix called them to preemptively offer to buy and produce the first season.[31] Netflix announced that they had ordered a 10-episode first season for the series on March 27, 2013.[32] Later, during filming,[43] because of the density of the scripts and the extended length of the first cut of the first episode, the showrunners and Netflix came to an agreement to extend the season to 12 episodes.[33]
Before filming began, Straczynski and the Wachowskis mapped out five seasons worth of stories for the series,[33] including the series' final episode, similarly to what Straczynski had previously done on his Babylon 5 series.[44] The actors cast were signed for five seasons. "We pitched it as a five-year story. We've mapped out five seasons of this thing, our actor deals are being made for five seasons, five or six depending on the breaks", said Straczynski.[45] The first season acts as the origin story for the characters.[46] When asked how long is their story bible, Straczynski replied "It's in our heads".[41] However, Straczynski did compile a 30-page document detailing the key points of a hypothetical second season should the first season become a success.[47]
I wish it hadn't been cancelled. It's weird, series like Grey's and Supernatural, where the writers don't plan at all and have no character bible or pre-plotted stories, last forever, while series that are pre-plotted, with extensive character bibles, which take big risks, don't. Frustrating. But Sense8 cost about $4M per episode. While Supernatural costs more like $400,000 per episode if that.
Re: Regarding fantasy tv shows..
A source of inspiration for Straczynski was his own experience concerning friends of his who live in different parts of the world but coordinate to watch a movie at the same time and comment to each other online about it.
Heh, so this is inspired by online fandom, especially since it sounds like they came up with this around 2009. I've always found it so underreported or acknowledged how online fandom has been having a pressuring effect on the way that entertainment is released globally.
I wonder if Straczynski will create books with the remaining seasons for Sens8?
Re: Regarding fantasy tv shows..
The more simplistic and careless a show is, the easier it is to write for (and possibly produce). Plus, a lot of people prefer TV they don't have to follow closely or think about so it tends to repeat well. I generally think that the number of characters in a show is often indicative of how well it's received -- the fewer there are the easier it is to keep track of the storyline and the more people will occasionally watch it
So true. True of books as well...just look at most of the best-seller list and the popularity of James Patterson. I get it. And I know a lot of people, including my parents, who prefer that in a way...in television shows not so much books. You don't have to think, you don't have to work that hard, and it's a nice escape.
The only shows that have had multiple characters that have last multiple seasons tend to be hospital dramas, where the focus is often on the case of the week, and people come and go, or the police procedural drama like NCIS, again where the focus is on the case of the week, and one season is interchangeable with the last one, as are the writers.
Also genre plays a role, the more expensive the show, the harder to maintain. And fantasy/sci-fi is more expensive than something like NCIS or Grey's Anatomy (both going into 13 or 14 seasons and counting, and at the top of the ratings). Sci-fi also appeals to a narrow or nitch audience, so there's that as well. And that audience often prefers violent horror/action to what Sense8 is.
I can see why it got cancelled.
Which is one big reason why the success of Game of Thrones has been such an anomaly.
Well, GoT had a few things that Sense8 didn't. 1) a ready-made audience or fandom going into it. The book fandom is huge. The books were best-sellers prior to the series getting made. 2) a best-selling book series that it was adapted from, with the original creator/writer of the books a co-executive producer, who wrote two or three of the episodes.
You can't beat that. It's why Lord of the Rings got made and had that audience. The marketing campaign just writes itself. And you can do cross-promotion.
Add to this that GoT is a violent, fantasy series aimed at heterosexual men and to some degree women. Specifically those who like historical war epics, with macho characters, and political intrigue -- a very popular trope. It's actually a "mainstream" fantasy series. Very few monsters, more realistic, fantasy for the mainstream audience who doesn't usually like fantasy shows or books. Oh and zombies and dragons, which are crowd-pleasures. Plus sexual violence, and graphic fight scenes. But few if any consensual or loving sex scenes, very little gay or lesbian sex.
While Sense8 was very cult, very risky, and promoted things and ideas that would make a mainstream audience uncomfortable. Sad but true.
I wonder if Straczynski will create books with the remaining seasons for Sens8?
Oh, I hope so. I'd read them. I may have to hunt down fanfic after I finish S2. There's a couple of characters playing with my head at the moment.
no subject
I also have the reverse problem though, which is stories or shows that I wish I could like more, but they just don't engage me.
Yep, me too. People will rec things to me, and I'll try them and think...this is just not engaging my attention. Recently tried an urban fantasy story that focused on greek myths but it just did not hold my attention.
I don't really know why. Same with the series "Better Call Saul" -- which people love and I couldn't make it past the first two episodes.
no subject
no subject
If so, I had the same problem. I couldn't get past the first episode. Comedy's and me don't always work. It's very hit and miss, and more often than not, they will annoy me.
no subject
no subject
There's another one...Downward Dog, that should work for me but doesn't. I can't seem to make it past the first fifteen minutes. Of course I don't like the documentary comedy set-up,, so that's probably the problem with Downward Dog.
no subject
Years after the episode ended you are still trying to change my mind about it. ;-D (Beer_good_foamy tried too, as did cjl for two hours after the episode had originally aired, TCH on the ATPO forum, Rob, and let's see...various others.)
yeah, I got the message. This isn't new by the way, it's been done before. Star Trek liked to do it a lot, and I actually preferred Trek's take on it with the holodrom, Twilight Zone played with the idea, and various sci-fantasy novels including most recently, the acclaimed Ready Player One. So too did Pirandella, Shakespeare, and various playwrites in various guises. Some better than others. My personal favorite was a Star Trek Next Generation Episode which wondered if they too were just a story in someone's head? Then there was Normal Again, which also played with that trope -- are we just stories in your head? Or are we real? What is real? Stop telling stories or role playing! I thought Normal Again had a bit more nuance. So too Once More With Feeling and Hush, in how they dealt with the idea of stories.
Whedon did this sort of thing a lot actually (see episodes listed above amongst many others). The plot would be moving along at a nice clip, then all of a sudden, he'd feel the need to step outside of it and play film professor, and explain the themes, etc to the audience and comment on the story he was telling. Probably the frustrated academic in him. People say he created the meta-narrative, but not really, people were doing it before -- he just did it A LOT. Sometimes it worked for me, sometimes it annoyed me. It worked better for me when Whedon wrote the episode than someone else, like Espenson, whose writing I've come to realize over time that I'm not overly fond of and is rather weak in places. (I wanted to be...but she's more interested in slapstick comedy or physical comedy, aka embarrassment humor which just makes me cringe and want to leave the room.)
Storyteller in theory should have worked for me. I should have loved it. But from the moment it began, I cringed. Each joke irritated me. And I was rooting for Andrew to trip and fall into the Hellmouth by the end of it. I found the character poorly developed, poorly acted, and poorly written -- he was a walking cliché of the fanboy stereotype and watching him was like listening to nails go down a chalkboard. I probably would have liked the story better if it had been Jonathan or Dawn or anyone else.
no subject
Yeah, I agree that Storyteller being about Andrew makes it a particular problem if the character irritates you to start with. I thought it was interesting that at WhedonCon Nick Brendon mentioned he hated Xander in S7. He was a little ineloquent as to why, but I gathered it was because Andrew got to be funnier and Xander didn't have that much to do. But perhaps that was also my impression because I've heard it expressed by fans that Andrew got to take the comic relief role from Xander, who had otherwise usually been the one to have a good line or moment to break up tension or drama.
Clearly Whedon really liked Tom Lenk too because he's been in several of his (personal) projects, and playing a very similar character at that. (And I just realized I have no Andrew icons)
no subject
Whedon, however, liked Tom Lenk and so did all the writers, they thought he was hilarious, and let him improvise and gave him more leeway than the rest of the cast. It hurt the series in S7 and cost them fans and ratings. But they didn't care.
I don't like the actor or the character. Tom Lenk has no range and basically plays himself in everything he does. Topher Grace who played a similar type of role in Dollhouse and later in Cabin in the Woods, is such a better actor, I wished he'd gotten the role. Or the guy who plays Howard in Big Bang Theory. Or even the guy who played Jonathan and Warren, both good actors. But no, they kept they bad one. (Sigh. Television Writers. Sigh).
But, alas, I know people who adore Lenk. (shrugs).
no subject
Funny you brought up Topher (though I think you meant actor Fran Krantz) as it had always struck me that Topher was an Andrew-type character. But then Joss had used Kranz in Cabin earlier (the movie was stuck in distribution limbo for a long time but had been filmed soon after Serenity) and perhaps realized the same thing you said, since Krantz got the main role and Lenk just a small part ;)
no subject
Yes, "Fran Krantz", I'd forgotten his name. I'd agree Topher felt like an Andrew type character, but the actor was so good that he was able to provide a certain level of nuance to the role, that Lenk just didn't. Lenk came across as if he was acting. I could feel him acting. His performance, much like Eliza Dusku's often felt too mannered somehow. I still wish they'd made Dichen, the other lead actress on Dollhouse the lead. She was very good.
While Krantz was the character. And I think, you are correct, Whedon began to agree.
Of course, Brendon's idea that he was campaigning for with Joss for S7 was a romance with Buffy which I think a lot of people would have preferred not to have
Apparently SMG and NB were both campaigning for it. And Whedon shot them down right out of the box. He stated, no, that won't work, it goes against the characters and story thread. (It did. Made no sense for those two characters to get together, they had a brother/sister vibe at that point.) Whedon suggested Robin Wood as a romance, but SMG didn't want it. They tried it, but the actors had bad, really bad to zero chemistry. Wood had chemistry with Giles, Spike, and Faith but no one else. So, they went a route that played on the chemistry he had with the other three characters. Wise move.
no subject
no subject
That was always a problem in Dollhouse for me, that the weakest actress was the lead
Mine as well. You know there's a problem when everyone in the cast is stronger than the lead. She should have just produced it and taken a supporting role. She worked well in Buffy, because it was a supporting role and didn't demand as much. But in Who Are You, which was more demanding -- Gellar unfortunately blew her out of the water and it showed. I don't know why Whedon didn't see her limitations in Who Are You. (shrugs) Mileage varies, I guess.
Amy Acker would have been a better choice.
I would have liked to see him more with Giles and Faith but of course ASH had limited time on set, and Faith didn't appear until much later by which time the plot was ramping up.
Shame they couldn't have brought Faith in sooner, gotten rid of Andrew, and focused more on Giles, but actors schedules, etc, interfered.
I can sort of see why they wanted to do a spin-off with Wood, Faith and Spike. Although...I think Dusku would have been the weak link. (Apparently Dusku was also struggling with substance abuse issues at the time -- she recently came out about it.)
no subject
Yes, the network was interested in a Faith and Spike spinoff hence the scene of the two in the basement that was supposed to be a sort of test scene for how they'd work together. But Dushku was offered money and a contract at FOX and then the WB wanted Marsters to come to Angel as part of the agreement for a S5.
no subject
But Dushku was offered money and a contract at FOX and then the WB wanted Marsters to come to Angel as part of the agreement for a S5.
Not sure why FOX did that...did backfire. Every thing she did with them, crashed and burned. (Tru Calling, which was Zach Galifankes (Baskets, and various comedies) first role, and Dollhouse, and something else. Nothing she did after Buffy lasted more than one or two seasons and got horrible ratings.
But yeah, that was the reason she headlined Dollhouse. Both Whedon and Dusku had contracts with Fox. Also why she didn't do the spin-off.
She had a good following with the two Bring it On movies, plus a horror film, and the Faith fandom. But not enough to overcome her limitations.
no subject
Did I post it in the wrong place? I was answering his email from work.
no subject
no subject