shadowkat | (no subject)

(no subject)

1. Well, the Super managed to fix the outlet in the kitchen, so no more hazardous extension cords. Progress. The bathroom leak, however, has somehow begun to leak into the wall and ceiling of the living room with a few water stains. Hasn't begun to drip in the living room, yet, but I moved the television set just in case. (It was directly below it). Still leaking in the bathroom. They aren't sure what is causing this, since they removed and replaced a huge pipe with a hole in it on Friday.
The plumber is coming to look at it tomorrow.

2. While I'm still enjoying, Captive Prince - Kings Rising, I'm not sure the plot works. Actually it just jarred me out of the story. Having some of the same issues with it that I had with Scandal S4's plot, which also jarred me out of the story. (I think we're on S4). Neither quite tracks. I'm super-sensitive to plot issues, as you probably already know by now because I keep whinging about them when they pop up in television series and books. So it may just be me. (shrugs)

In Captive Prince - Kings Rising,

Jokaste, who betrayed Damen, manages to keep him from killing her by claiming to have sent his son to Laurent's uncle. The only way he'll get his son back is if he trades Jokaste for the boy. Laurent figures out that Jokaste probably didn't have Damen's son at all but Kastor's, so he let's her go. (Mainly because he realizes she cares more for Damen than Kastor, but could see where things were going and chose the means to save Damen's life, which was to take up with Kastor and convince him to sell Damen into slavery, instead of merely killing him. Kastor is the evil half-brother, who lost everything when Damen, the true heir was born.) Laurent also figures out that his uncle could care less about Jokaste and really just wants him to beg for Damen's life and go on trial and be executed instead. And it will be his uncle that they are meeting and not Kastor, or Jokaste's handmaiden/wet nurse -- like Damen believes. Why he doesn't confide any of this to Damen, so they can prepare, I've no clue. Also, why Damen doesn't realize at some point that the Uncle could care less about Jokaste, I've no clue.

Instead they stupidly ride into the King's Meet, where no one is permitted to draw swords on another, upon pain of death. The Uncle, all moustache a-twirling villainy on show, baits Damen into drawing his sword and trying to kill him. By telling him how he'd molested Laurent. (Seriously? Damen hadn't figured that out previously? And what did he think he would achieve by attacking him there, where they are surrounded by armed guards? He may be a bit on the reactionary side, but he's not a total idiot.) And he does it, after Damen is told that's what the Regent was planning on doing...so he just plays right into his hands? Then Laurent begs to be taken into custody? Why doesn't the Regent just kill Damen and take Laurent into custody? Why leave Damen free? There's no reason to bargain, he has both of them at his mercy.

The problem I'm having with the plot is it depends on all the characters acting like idiots to move forward and doing things that are slightly out of character.

I got irritated. The writer clearly had an agenda, she wanted her characters to get to point C. But didn't know how to get them there. So took a weird ass short cut.

Plotting is hard.

In regards to Scandal...

It should be noted that Shondra Rhimes is not a good plotter. She plots like a soap opera writer. So I tend to handwave them most of the time. Since they are emotionally based. That said, this plot...was more off-kilter than most.

Cyrus Beene, Frankie's Vargo's VP, turns out to be the person aka mastermind behind Frankie Vargo's, President Elect's death after all, albeit via an indirect route. He puts in Vargo's wife's head the idea that if Vargo is at his strongest when elected, if and when he gets shot, she'll be the most favorable candidate. She runs with his idea, at his urging, and hires this nasty group to kill her husband, which results in her becoming VP.

Except, the nasty group didn't want her to become VP, they wanted someone else in that slot. Nor did they originally intend for her husband to die, just lose the election. And they framed Cyrus for the assignation and wanted Cyrus to take the fall for it, possibly be executed. If it were up to them, he would have been. And for Mellie to become their puppet President.

Cyrus couldn't have planned all of that, or manipulated it, since he had no way of controlling or knowing that Olivia and her friends would take down the nasty group, LuAnne would become VP or that they'd even catch the nasty people. He's not omniscient. Nor is Luanne. There's too many uncontrollables. And I'm sorry, Cyrus isn't superhuman.

It doesn't work. I thought, yeah, right.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

You're reminding me why I ended up only getting through one and a half seasons of Scandal on Netflix. It was the plotting that got to me because they were already going off the deep end.

The second season of Scandal worked up to a point -- that's when I got hooked on it, and enjoyed the political satire.

But everything after that...began to gradually lose me. Each week, it was if they just wanted to shock the audience for the sake of well shocking the audience, regardless of whether the plot tracked or worked.

I was able to hand-wave it for a while, because you know, soap opera, but I finally got fed up with it this season.

Sounds like you're just about finished with Book 3 so I'll link you to my take on it: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6043963

I finished the book today on the ride to work, and then proceeded to read and finish the short story - The Summer Palace, which acts as a sort of epilogue. (It reads more like fanfiction than an actual epilogue, and addresses things like "first times" and Laurent's reaction to motherhood. Along with Damen's issues with his brother. And wraps up what happened after the final chapter of Kings Rising. But little else. It also feels rushed, and more like a romance novel epilogue or fanfic romance novel epilogue than...well an actual one.)

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote in your review. Book 3 for me, felt less like a fantasy novel and more like a romance novel, which was odd. You'd think it would have been the opposite at this point.

The Kingsmeet and the plot arc leading up to it, worked better for you than me. It makes no sense that they took off from both their armies to deliver Jokaste in return for a child, that may or may not be Damen's. I'd have sent someone. Also, up to this point, Laurent is shown as wickedly bright, yet he does some profoundly stupid things here, as does Damen.

It made no sense that Damen reacted the way he did at the Kingsmeet. Or even had a sword with him.

I was thrown out of the book at that point. And the endlessly repetitive evil monologues from The Regent did not help. I started to just scan at a certain point.

Oh, got to go to bed.

Ah, I hadn't even heard about The Summer Palace. I knew she was writing some side stories but must have missed that one. It does, however, make me understand some choices made in fanfic.

And yes, I was thrown out of the book entirely by that point too, although all along I could tell that things weren't really holding up as well -- probably because I had just finished reading the first two novels again (which I kind of needed to as it had been years). It just seems so unfortunate because this could have been a really stunning series, but it just petered out instead of going bigger.

It does, however, make me understand some choices made in fanfic.

Your point in your review regarding how many items felt like fan-service, is actually a good critique/description of a certain category of fan-fiction,. particularly romance or non-Gen fic. Where the writer appears to be attempting to write what can be best described as everyone's perfect sexual/romantic fantasy. (Which I hand-waved after a bit, because I realized that's what the writer was aiming for, so...)

It's also true of the romance genre -- where writer's stick heavily to certain "conventions" or "tropes" to appease or attract or satisfy a nitch audience, that expects them. The readers expect a certain number of sex scenes, the more explicit, the better, and for the main or core focus to be on the "romance" between the two lead characters. They really don't want much else. Anything that detracts from that focus annoys them. So if the writer spends a lot of time on secondary characters, battle scenes, world-building that takes away from those two characters and their "love" and their "HEA" then, they'll scream and stop reading. (You should see some of the reviews I've read on Good Reads and Amazon.)

I think the decision to stick to romantic conventions, for the most part, and cater to the readership, may well have resulted in some of the issues we both had with the third book.

The okton game is an excellent example of this -- it didn't work for me either, and made little sense. They are at war, with unstable armies. and taking time out to do what exactly? Also Laurent was obviously injured.

although all along I could tell that things weren't really holding up as well -- probably because I had just finished reading the first two novels again (which I kind of needed to as it had been years).

I'd read the first two some time ago as well, but remembered them well enough not to feel the need for a re-read. Also, she does recap them a bit in the third novel. I think the reason I didn't pick up on the problems as quickly, is I was sort of hand-waving them as romance conventions. (Been binging a lot of romance novels lately, and several of the problems that you noted in the first half of the book -- are definite romance conventions and tropes. It's funny, women writers think they are subverting the trope or being unconventional by making it about two men, instead of male/female, but the tropes are still there, and the only unconventional bit is the m/m romance. Also, they kept with the convention of one being physically weaker than the other, as opposed to both being equals physically and mentally)

It just seems so unfortunate because this could have been a really stunning series, but it just petered out instead of going bigger.

I agree. I think she could have pushed past the romance novel conventions and made the novel more interesting. Not sure if getting a traditional publisher may have been part of the problem or if she'd have catered to the fans online in either event.

I rather liked your suggestion of turning it into a type of puzzle with multiple perspectives. That may have worked better. There was more secondary character development in the first two novels, I think, while here, it felt very rushed, and there was no secondary character development. While I wasn't that surprised by Paschal coming forward with the documents...he vaguely mentions something about his reasons for supporting Laurent to Damianos in passing...I think more development there may have helped. Just as I think more development of Jokaste, Kastor, and The Regent would have made their characters a touch less one-dimensional. Jokaste is a little less so, but it was hard to care what happened to her or to understand why Laurent felt the need to free her.

I can't help but wonder if the writer got stuck after the first two were completed, and the story just wasn't coming after that?

The writer may have gotten stuck but what I've often noticed about long WIPs that suddenly stall (as opposed to having stuttery updates, which is fairly common for all sorts of outside reasons) is that the story is going somewhere that the author knows the audience doesn't want. We both noticed that there seemed obvious cases in Book 3 where the characters weren't acting like themselves or were making really poor decisions for no clear reason. It reminds me of a meta I read about Merlin that had this really good line about Arthur's lack of development:

""That position—unconscious on the ground—is the only time the show feels really safe around Arthur and his distressing ability to bring about real change. Even so short a distance from the end of the show, it cannot bear to let him up. Arthur is unconscious and on the ground in the first episode, and he is dead and on the ground in the last. The frequency with which the show has to do this means the character is fighting it every step of the way—and rather than treating this as a sign that the show is doing something wrong, the creators treat this as a sign that Arthur is."

I was struck by this again when I saw a Hitchcock/Truffaut documentary, where, in response to Truffaut's naturalistic film style, Hitchcock says something to the effect that his characters would run away with the narrative if they were allowed to express themselves."

I agree that readers' desire for a more conventional romance story was really dictating the events of the third book, and the farther it went along the more true this was. I would have assumed everyone would have been satisfied with a longer series, but perhaps now that there was actually something at stake it was going to be easier to satisfy audience's demands than really go where the story dictated?

I agree with much of what you say here.

In particular...

I've often noticed about long WIPs that suddenly stall (as opposed to having stuttery updates, which is fairly common for all sorts of outside reasons) is that the story is going somewhere that the author knows the audience doesn't want. We both noticed that there seemed obvious cases in Book 3 where the characters weren't acting like themselves or were making really poor decisions for no clear reason

That's the problem with catering to people who are only reading the story for the "ship". Although to be fair I've seen it happen to writers who realized they had to kill off a fan favorite, then struggled with the aftermath. Or in a thematic direction...the audience doesn't want.

Some writers do it anyway. I had to respect Whedon for ignoring his audience and doing whatever he wanted. That's actually the true meaning behind Whedon's statement - "Don't give the audience what it wants, give it what it needs." In other words, don't cater to the audience, tell your story. Because the audience tends to be fickle, contradictory, and often hasn't a clue what it wants. Also there's no real consensus.

Actually, Whedon is also a good example of how a writer can put his own thematic agenda above the characters and the story. (i.e what you stated here: I was struck by this again when I saw a Hitchcock/Truffaut documentary, where, in response to Truffaut's naturalistic film style, Hitchcock says something to the effect that his characters would run away with the narrative if they were allowed to express themselves.")

So I think it can happen when the writer caters to the audience, or when they put a thematic agenda above story/plot or characters.

Stephen King used to state that if the action doesn't serve the story, get rid of it. And if the characters aren't propelling the action, get rid of it.

I think Pascat's mistake may have been in paying too much attention to all the people she thanks in the acknowledgments. An instance of the fans hurting the story.

Because the audience tends to be fickle, contradictory, and often hasn't a clue what it wants. Also there's no real consensus.

This exactly. I mean if you have a lot of options and you want to figure out what might be a good direction to take, I think it doesn't hurt to look at what your audience is asking for. For example, creating a past for Angel was part of the purpose of developing the Fanged Four, but bringing Spike on as a regular in S4 was definitely in response to fan demand. In that case the option was there because they had lost some of their other characters and so were looking for replacements. But to try and constantly use audience demands for storylines is never a good idea -- especially these days when who you hear from does not necessarily reflect the wider audience.

Yes, that's likely the biggest part of it. When people have been faithfully waiting for 4 years for a conclusion and are paying for that story (which they hadn't before), it would be a bold move to disappoint them if you're not planning to keep the story going.

I think it is a bigger problem when there's a large gap between books or episodes, and if there is a sizable fan base. I actually think that may be the reason GRR Martin is having issues completing Song of Ice and Fire, well that and the fact that he's competing now with the television adaptation. He killed off a major character at the end of his last book, a huge fan favorite, but the television series not only killed the character but brought the character back.

And I think, you're correct, it's important to listen to fans or readers to an extent -- in regards to television more than books. I do not think the same rules apply in writing a television series to a book series, mainly because television doesn't have the same level of authorial ownership. It's a different animal than film or books, in that it is by it's very nature a WIP, with each episode scripted often without the writer knowing what they'll write next or what the next season will bring, or if the series will even be continued. Television also by it's very nature is seldom "stand-a-alone", each episode builds on the next, unless it's purely anthological. And even then, television is a collaborative process with no one person responsible for the offering. Add to that, it is either subscriber or advertising revenue based for the most part, so longevity depends on how many people are watching or viewing. (Although this does happen with long-running novel series as well -- being picked up or having your next novel published does depend on the number of sales of the last novel. Often writers can get trapped into writing a novel series about one set of characters, that they've begun to lose interest in, due to the popularity and demand for the series. This happened to Agatha Christie and Conan Doyle, for example. Conan Doyle grew to hate Sherlock Holmes.)

Because television isn't authorial in nature, and has multiple hands involved, I think there's less resistance to listening to input from outside sources. A lot of television shows have people on staff whose sole purpose in life is to scan social media for news of the show, promote the show on social media, and interact with it. You can sort of tell the one's that pay the most attention to social media.

Of course there are television series that have more of an authorial control or tighter authorial feeling to them, where either the show-runner writes all the episodes and directs them, or two people, the show-runner and a director do, or you have a team. Sense8, Fargo, Legion, and True Detective are examples. HBO's The Wire also had a tighter authorial control -- although more writers. As does Game of Thrones. The cable and streaming channels tend to.

Broadcast television shows have far less authorial control. Which is why the plotting is often haphazard in broadcast television shows, the direction substandard, the acting uneven, etc.

I think art works better when there are less people involved, and there's tighter control. If there's too many external influences...it doesn't hold together quite as well. If that makes sense.

Yes, it does make sense and I think that you've got a good point about how television both varies and yet can be the same depending on its production schedule. With those shows written entirely by one or two people, and which are completed before airing is not unlike a series of books. But I think that it's the gaps that matter -- how much of a gap is there between books, between seasons, between sequels, etc. I agree that the greater the gap the more the pressure grows.

The number of influences does make a huge difference, as does the intended audience. What's interesting is often that last one and thus where the conflicts come about. Networks tend to be concerned about a broad audience with creators often concerned with a much more narrow one, which is likely why they're more easily affected by audience reaction.

Agreed. It's very hard to appeal to a broad audience, I think. People, let's face it, have wildly unpredictable and weird tastes. Also often something that is wildly popular five years ago with the masses, isn't now.

I remember taking a marketing course once and being told how impossible it was to accurately predict the market or which way it would lean. And ideas often had a saturation point.

Much easier to appeal to solid nitch audience. And easier to maintain. But even then, depending on the nitch, they can be demanding of specific tropes or conventions. And publishers/networks which pay a lot of attention (possibly too much) to marketing trends, focus groups, and which way the audience is leaning...often pressure the creators to stick to a certain formula or convention.

The only ones allowed to take risks are the established writers, who make millions, like JK Rowling and Stephen King, and literary writers who have grants and prestige, and even those writers are forced to work within the boundaries of the industry's demands.

Really, the only way you can do whatever you want is to self-publish and not care whether you make any money or not. And even there...as a writer you are limited a bit.

It does explain why so many writers sound the same, and don't have a distinctive voice. I've read a lot of books this year, and I can think of only one or two that were distinctive in voice and plot. The rest blur together.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only