(no subject)

[shadowkat]

Are there any nice people? Depends on the day of the week I suppose. And the passing mood. Are there any nice fandoms, again day of the week and the passing mood. Any nice politicians - most likely not - they looked like they were going to eat each other alive in the gubernationational debate tonight (governor's debate for NY). You think you have problems? People aren't always nice.
Never really liked that word anyway. I prefer interesting. Nice makes me think of Miss Universe contestants with plastic smiles and speeches. Or Pollyanna with the Shirley Temple curls.

Remember getting into a bit of a debate with someone on a fanboard back in 2003, don't remember what it was about (most likely Spike or Angel - that was usually the subject, we fought about the same things back then that people fight about now, the arguments haven't changed, just the players) and they said that they thought of me as a nice sort of girl. My retort? Oh, whatever, gave you that idea??? Then I ripped apart his argument. It was not a proud moment, but admittedly fun. For some reason the word "nice" rubbed me wrong. It's such a boring word. Lacks texture. Flavor. Like the word sad or ugly. Well, it was fun, that is, until someone popped up and ripped apart my argument, and so on, and so forth...until we grew tired of pissing each other off and one upping each other, in what amounted to little more than an unwinnable pissing contest and called it a night or a month depending on the debate. You sing tomato..and I sing tomatoe...let's call the whole thing off.

What I love about my flist is the majority of it does not look at things the same way I do. Diversity while admittedly annoying is something I've always sought, masochistically at times.
They talked me into trying Angel the Series again when I completely gave up on it, and convinced me to see the characters of Angel and Cordelia in a new and different way. And they did it without pissing me off. They also...talked me into trying Doctor Who, even if it didn't work for me the first season or two. And a whole host of other things. The people I've known since 2003, when I first jumped on board this thing - have seen me go through a lot, as I have watched them. The ups and downs. We aren't always nice to each other, or even remotely tolerant, and I've had knock down, drag out battles with most of them - but in the end...it was a wash, and we called it a night and gave each other a cyber hug or wave or just a shrug.

Life or so I've discerned or gathered, my syntax sucks I know - why do you put up with me? is often about contentious relationships...and navigating our way through them. Work, net, etc...it's tiring at times. Wish it were easier. But hey, I snark therefore I am. And I try not to take any of it too seriously, laugh at this comedy of errors...and hopefully my self in the bargain. And don't sweat the small stuff...

It's late and to bed must go I.

Note to self - no more bubblegum after eight o'clock.

Comments

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

"we fought about the same things back then that people fight about now, the arguments haven't changed, just the players"
actually it is frequently the same old blow hards (at least that is what I find at Whedonesque: people who have nothing new to say, but who keep having to repeat it ad nauseum).

Personally I like to read your posts for your unique point of view and snarky attitude. It probably helps that you rarely attack things that I love....
BTW Steven Moffat's Sherlock will be starting on PBS next week (this weekend I think), be sure to DVR it!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

BTW Steven Moffat's Sherlock will be starting on PBS next week (this weekend I think), be sure to DVR it

Thanks for the reminder. Momster wanted me to watch Wallender (but no time), but now that Mad Men has ended, I can do it.

actually it is frequently the same old blow hards (at least that is what I find at Whedonesque: people who have nothing new to say, but who keep having to repeat it ad nauseum).

Should have stated new to me. Hee. I admittedly spent the vast majority of my time on a board that found it more interesting to argue about whether water boarding was a truly effective mode of torture for a vampire - than one that liked to argue about whether Whedon hated Spike or Cordelia. I did argue about those things (guess which stance I took?) but it was infrequent, and I've admittedly forgotten or lost track of the players.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

Oh I loved Wallander, but it is very depressing... not one little bit of humor in the whole thing from beginning to end (luckily Kenneth Branagh is very appealing or it would be unwatchable).

Well actually circular arguments with no resolution online can be amusing, particularly when they are about things like vampires (ie things with no real world impact). I think that that is one of the strengths of sites like livejournal: a place to find people who are equally passionate about things that have no connection with real life.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Oh I loved Wallander, but it is very depressing... not one little bit of humor in the whole thing from beginning to end (luckily Kenneth Branagh is very appealing or it would be unwatchable).

I think that may well have been why I didn't watch it. I've been in an odd mood - tv shows and movies that lack humor, aren't interesting me at the moment. Granted - I've an odd sense of humor so I find things funny many people don't.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

PS - I love your icon.

[petzipellepingo.livejournal.com]

Well, it's the full moon right now so that may definitely effect things.

we fought about the same things back then that people fight about now, the arguments haven't changed, just the players)

And sometimes it's still the same people ranting over and over...

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Well, it's the full moon right now so that may definitely effect things.

possibly. Either that or abject boredom. People get ansty when bored.


And sometimes it's still the same people ranting over and over...

Quite true. Have to say I miss the days in which we argued about whether Joseph Campbell was a sexist pig (still on the fence about that one) and a popular but inaccurate mythologist (similarily on the fence), or how Xander figured out where Willow was at the end of Grave in order to run over there and stop her. There was also a rather interesting argument on whether water boarding vampires was truly an effective means of torture, considering that they don't breath?

[harsens-rob.livejournal.com]

Your post sort of reminds me of one of my favorite sayings...

*aheeeem* (clearing throat dramatically)

"The world would run a lot smoother if everyone would just do what I say when I say it."

(But then I think to myself, 'But it would also be so frickin' boring'.)

Obviously, if you disagree with me, you're wrong (but thank God you're so interesting).

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Hee. ;-)

[shapinglight]

I'm a consensus lover, I'm afraid. Hate arguing. I admire those who can do it,though, especially if they can stay friends with the people they argue with afterwards.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Prefer consensus as well. I hate conflict, but unfortunately unavoidable. Well except at church so far...it's the one peaceful place I have. ;-)

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

I loved the debates on the board when they were like discussions and people actually seemed to be listening to each other. The people who just kept hitting the same notes over and over again without dealing with any of the points raised in reply drove me nuts. Though at a certain point I realized that I was deliberately checking out posts by particular authors precisely for that guaranteed little jolt of outrage. Addicted to internet annoyance is not a good thing, it would make for a very sad and cranky support group. It's made me very wary of those kerfuffle-y pile-ons that regularly sweep through LJ - even if the cause is just I wonder if people are looking for some fuel for their own fire.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Though at a certain point I realized that I was deliberately checking out posts by particular authors precisely for that guaranteed little jolt of outrage.

Hee. Me too. Although, I reached a point in which I was "forcing" myself to avoid them due to the blood-pressure spikage and sanity (ranting in one's head at somebody on the net for two days - is a scarey thing). Although, will admit I got off on arguing with quite a few, much to my own chagrin. (I blame the law school education.) And I've learned the hard way - if a post or response upsets me so much that my hand is shaking and I can't type to respond to it? I probably shouldn't. I probably should take the high road and ignore. (Easier to do when it's not in response to something in your own journal. Those get emailed to me.)

It's made me very wary of those kerfuffle-y pile-ons that regularly sweep through LJ - even if the cause is just I wonder if people are looking for some fuel for their own fire.

I find myself wondering the same thing. There's a danger of sounding a bit too high and mighty when you engage in those or coming across as self-righteous. Far more constructive to fight for social justice by doing things offline than on, with your name attached. As for fandom? Kerfuffles are part of it, I guess,
but I think sometimes that fans in general take themselves and their fandom a tad too seriously (I include myself in that mix).
I mean - why do people care how Whedon and/or Lynch decide to portray their favorite characters in comic books. It's almost as if they were slandering their kids or something. Maybe that's it.
You write about a character enough be it in fanfic or meta, after a while you begin to think they are you or yours? (shrugs)
I don't know.

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

I mean - why do people care how Whedon and/or Lynch decide to portray their favorite characters in comic books. It's almost as if they were slandering their kids or something. Maybe that's it.
You write about a character enough be it in fanfic or meta, after a while you begin to think they are you or yours?

I'm certainly guilty of that! I even wrote an email to the editors about my frustration with the Buffy comic - it was around the same time Astonishing X-Men was out and I was so irritated that Joss was doing all this wonderful complex and adult work in comics and Buffy seemed to be going back to junior high writing-wise. Then I just stopped with the comics to restore my sanity!

It's a very intimate thing to read or watch in a fannish way - we're letting things into our brains after all, it's hard not to get very particular about that. But yes, perspective is the key thing, and ultimately it's the creator's sandbox.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Did you get a response? Or do I want to know??

My frustration with the comics is the same as yours. I was also reading Astonishing X-men and for some reason, when I heard Whedon was doing Buffy - I expected him to write it like he did Astonishing, with the same meticulous attention to detail, love of the characters, and delving into the evolving relationships. Was a bit disappointed when I realized Whedon was doing something else. I can't fault him for trying new things with his creations. I get that he's playing with sort of asburdist version of an Americanized Female Magna Bubblegum comic. But, it's not an easy thing to read...and I'm never quite sure how to interpret it. I'm either really offended and want to strangle the bastard, or highly amused. It's a toss-up.

I can see why the academically inclined on my flist are having a field day with the comics. Can equally see why the rest of the Buffy fandom wants to hang Whedon up by his toenails or has chosen my route, which is, having a blast making fun of them and Whedon, while we're at it. (The guy asked his editor of all people, who doesn't have a great deal of writing experience, to write the last three issues of the series because he got too busy. That's a new one.]

It's a very intimate thing to read or watch in a fannish way - we're letting things into our brains after all, it's hard not to get very particular about that. But yes, perspective is the key thing, and ultimately it's the creator's sandbox.

I very much agree with your statement here. Well put. There's a certain level of trust between a writer and the reader - that is established over time. The reader is investing their time and energy in reading the writer's work.

As yuki_ona quotes in her journal - if you can imagine two people pulling a puma- one on end, holding the rope and one on the other - the puma in between - and think of the puma as what one man has captured or nurtured and is about to give to the other to devour, and think of the tension involved in attempting to get to that puma - you may understand the tension involved between a reader and writer.

The writer trusts the reader with his/her baby, to devour it, and relish it, and love it and understand it, while the reader trusts the writer to give him/her something wonderful. But it can have claws and it can scratch the reader's eyes out. There's a certain level of risk involved.

If the writer fails in his/her task - and disappoints the reader, he/she has lost the reader forever. The reader will drop the rope and not pull the puma towards them. They won't pick up that next book or story. And if reader fails the writer, and does not relish what they've gotten, the writer may stop playing in the sandbox, stop creating castles, stop weaving tales for the reader's consumption - he/she may keep such tales to themselves or direct the Avengers (another person's story).

I know this is true of myself, I am admittedly wary of sending out my novel to readers who may not relish or devour it. And I see it with fanfic writers and the professional writers on my flist, who flail in the same way. Writing in of itself isn't that hard, it's the sharing of it that keeps me awake at night.