(no subject)
Jun. 16th, 2017 10:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. 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
Date: 2017-06-19 11:19 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2017-06-20 01:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-06-20 01:58 pm (UTC)LOL! Does it help, if I may have liked the episode if they cast Fran Krantz (who played Topher in Dollhouse) in it instead of Lenk? Because I think Lenk may have been part of it.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-23 06:31 pm (UTC)Missed this until now because it got caught in my spam filter. Not sure why.