![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatTired of applying for jobs - let's see, applied to over 24 this week, which meant scanning and reading through over 1000 job postings, writing and forming cover letters and resumes and determining how to send each. Recruiters and employers are incredibily individualistic on this. Some hate attachements.
Some prefer attachements. Some want you to apply through their website - which is the method I despise, since you tend to have a less likely chance of being called. Some want faxes. Some want emails. Some demand cover letters and want salary specifics - which is also dicey. Some don't. I've decided if there is a hell recruiters get the top rung, and their punishement is to be perpetually hunting a job and being treated the exact same way they treated their applicants. Honestly, I think they get so many resumes they forget these are people they are looking at.
Tried to look at more job postings this morning and apply to more. But am burnt. Completely. Need a breather.
Wandered over to ATPO board, where there's a rather lengthy and somewhat redundant debate on Spike's coat and Spike/Slayers. However, I did find something of interest in the arguments - so posted a two responses in a role. Nicely hidden in the margin of the board. Don't really have much to do with the arguments themselves and sort of hanging out there. Heh. I'm betting no one sees them and they get ignored entirely. To find them you have to literally scroll through the thread to the far margin, and there I am hidden right under one of Pip's responses to dlgood. (It's the![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
londonkds ATS S5 review thread.)
Here: http://www.voy.com/14567/12238.html
Why'd I post anything? Well, what hit me, is that in all this criticism of BTVS/ATS - I see more projection of the critics own moral issues and world-view than a good critical analysis of text. Lots of pigeon-holing of characters, imposing moral world-views on to characters, and over-identification with characters going on here. I've come to the conclusion that Whedon's universe doesn't hold up under strict analysis or the attempt to impose a structure or template on it. You can't just analyze it as The Hero's Journey, or the Moral Progression of a Person, or through Jung, or through Existentialism. Because Whedon and ME didn't go with the neat structure, they bascially grabbed every genre they knew, every idea, their own experience and subsconcious issues as well as those of their actors and friends and folded them into their universe. BTVS/ATS is a post-structuralist's dream come true, but would probably after a while drive a structuralist batty.
Think about it? Whedon goes off on tangents with his verse.
Examining different issues or whatever plagues him at the moment. He's not really interested in telling the *straight forward, clearly plotted tales* you see in most sci-fi. Whedon's more interested in doing riffs on different topics. We get the lapsed Christian/Calvinist/Catholic struggling to come to terms with existentialism and the idea that you create your own fate. We get the existentialist struggling to come to terms with the idea there may be a meaning outside of that which he himself imposes, that there may be a higher power, a reason and a purpose worth fighting for and that fate does exist even if you have a role in creating it. Within that, other themes are explores - themes that clearly intrigued Whedon in his youth and he examined in film school - ranging from the Old West gun fights and the WWII/Vietnam War movies. Both styles examine the nature of violence and how it changes us. Does the solider drafted for war, become changed by the war he fights? Does he regret the people he kills in the process, even if they are clearly evil and the enemy - or so he's told? Does war turns us into monsters? A theme that has been explored by everyone from Audi Murphy to Robert Heinlein to Graham Green to Paul Verhoven. Is any war just?
What frustrates many viewers, I think, is the fact that they want just one of these themes addressed and addressed in a coherent clear fashion a la Starship Troopers (Paul Verhoven). Rigid rules. Clear universe. Clear structure. ATS is about the Hero's Journey and just that. Or it's about Existentialism and just that. What frustrates people is that Whedon didn't have an agenda when he wrote these tales and produced them. Except to entertain and tell the tale in his head. If you watch BTVS or ATS with a structuralist eye and attempt to impose a template on it - stating this is a noir tale only or fits in this category - you will probably be unsatisfied, it does not hold up.
The difference between ATS/BTVS and Firefly/Wonderfalls is ATS/BTVs take place in a more structured universe. It's less random. There are rules in place, even though the writers keep breaking them here and there, because they themselves may not see the universe as a rigid one, but more as a random one. In Firefly - you get a much looser structure, more a sense of randomness. It's far more existential. And that may be why the network and advertisers balked. Same thing with Wonderfalls. Too random. Too chaotic. Not focused enough. Again the networks balked.
On the other hand, I admit that I wasn't overly fond of S7 BTVS, but not because of the themes addressed or the structure per se, but because I got bored with the tale. I wasn't interested in the peripheral characters that seemed to take over the story - Robin Wood, Andrew, Kennedy, the SIT's didn't interest me in any way. I found them grating and annoying and would never have watched a series dedicated to them. I could barely stand them on the screen as it was. And that has very little to do with structure, theme, narrative arcs - just a personal reaction to a character. So in a way, it's impossible to explain why some people loved a show and others hated it, without saying more about the person than the show. Because like it or not - everything we watch or read is experienced through the lense of our experiences, thoughts, desires, and emotions. Separating those from the text itself, may be well nigh impossible. The trick may be in recognizing it and not imposing our own view onto someone else, and realizing their view while completely different and possibly opposite of ours is valid?
I've found this to be true of movie reviews. Which I've more or less stopped reading by the way. Why? Because unless you know what the reviewer likes or dislikes and how close those likes and dislikes are to your own it's impossible to know whether to trust their view. Also they have a tendency to give the entire movie away.
That said, I have read movie reviews in livejournal.
buffyannotater are interesting. So are revdorothyl. Particularly their diametrically opposed reviews of Chronicles of Riddick. buffyannotater hated it. Called it the worst film ever. revdorothyl - loved it. Adored it. And has seen it twice. This left me in a quandry. Who to trust? Both also liked Van Helsing - which makes me leery, since, I despised Van Helsing. Worste Movie Ever. Yet, I agreed with both on other topics, such as their views of BTVs. And wasn't overly fond of Lost in Translation, which my RL friend Wales loved and apotch also adored. Finally decided to just rent Riddick. I'm broke and wasn't that overly fond of Pitch Black or Vin Diesel, which I think does make a difference. (Well I liked Vin until I made the mistake of seeing that spy movie he did.)Also by and large, my tastes and buffyannotater tend to fit. With a couple of exceptions here and there. So I read his King Arthur review, since it had been a movie I was considering seeing this week, possibly at a cheap matinee. And was once again struck by the fact that the critic is imposing his expectations on to the film. To his credit, he readily admits that. That he came into the movie expecting one thing and got something else. He expected a new twist on the traditional King Arthur tale. Instead, he got an entirely reconstructed version that bore no resemblance outside of names and setting to the original tales. I can't help but wonder if he would have reacted differently, if he had no expectations? Or if the story had not been called King Arthur? Or he hadn't ever read the tales? Would he have enjoyed it more? Was his familarity with King Arthur the problem? His review did turn me off of the movie, not because it didn't track with the original tales, I really don't mind that, but because I got the impression from his review that the narrative itself was so poorly constructed, filled with laughable cliche's - the fact the audience laughs through most of it - was not a good sign. So, another rental, maybe?
It's hard to tell based on someone else's impressions whether you will like or dislike something. Every time I review a movie for friends, I consider their tasts. I loved Spiderman 2 for instance for all the reasons others have pointed out in livejournal. And while I planned to see it any way, based on the trailers, buffyannatator's review certainly motivated me further. That said, I'm not sure some of my RL friends or even my family would enjoy it. One of my brother's favorite movies is The Hulk - I know, go figure. But he adores how it was filmed and the whole Oedipal complex. He liked Spiderman 1 but wasn't nearly as thrilled by it. I can't imagine Wales loving Spiderman 2, she's not a fantasy fan or into comics, although she makes an effort. Nor would my friend Janet enjoy it, she prefers reality shows and romantic comedies. Tast is a weird thing and I think it does interfer with valid criticism.
Also not everyone has the ability to explain why they love X and hate Y. They just know they do.
Hmmm not sure where I was headed with this ramble.
Just musing on things, I suppose. Better livejournal cut it so it doesn't fill up too much space on my friends list.
Some prefer attachements. Some want you to apply through their website - which is the method I despise, since you tend to have a less likely chance of being called. Some want faxes. Some want emails. Some demand cover letters and want salary specifics - which is also dicey. Some don't. I've decided if there is a hell recruiters get the top rung, and their punishement is to be perpetually hunting a job and being treated the exact same way they treated their applicants. Honestly, I think they get so many resumes they forget these are people they are looking at.
Tried to look at more job postings this morning and apply to more. But am burnt. Completely. Need a breather.
Wandered over to ATPO board, where there's a rather lengthy and somewhat redundant debate on Spike's coat and Spike/Slayers. However, I did find something of interest in the arguments - so posted a two responses in a role. Nicely hidden in the margin of the board. Don't really have much to do with the arguments themselves and sort of hanging out there. Heh. I'm betting no one sees them and they get ignored entirely. To find them you have to literally scroll through the thread to the far margin, and there I am hidden right under one of Pip's responses to dlgood. (It's the
londonkds ATS S5 review thread.)Here: http://www.voy.com/14567/12238.html
Why'd I post anything? Well, what hit me, is that in all this criticism of BTVS/ATS - I see more projection of the critics own moral issues and world-view than a good critical analysis of text. Lots of pigeon-holing of characters, imposing moral world-views on to characters, and over-identification with characters going on here. I've come to the conclusion that Whedon's universe doesn't hold up under strict analysis or the attempt to impose a structure or template on it. You can't just analyze it as The Hero's Journey, or the Moral Progression of a Person, or through Jung, or through Existentialism. Because Whedon and ME didn't go with the neat structure, they bascially grabbed every genre they knew, every idea, their own experience and subsconcious issues as well as those of their actors and friends and folded them into their universe. BTVS/ATS is a post-structuralist's dream come true, but would probably after a while drive a structuralist batty.
Think about it? Whedon goes off on tangents with his verse.
Examining different issues or whatever plagues him at the moment. He's not really interested in telling the *straight forward, clearly plotted tales* you see in most sci-fi. Whedon's more interested in doing riffs on different topics. We get the lapsed Christian/Calvinist/Catholic struggling to come to terms with existentialism and the idea that you create your own fate. We get the existentialist struggling to come to terms with the idea there may be a meaning outside of that which he himself imposes, that there may be a higher power, a reason and a purpose worth fighting for and that fate does exist even if you have a role in creating it. Within that, other themes are explores - themes that clearly intrigued Whedon in his youth and he examined in film school - ranging from the Old West gun fights and the WWII/Vietnam War movies. Both styles examine the nature of violence and how it changes us. Does the solider drafted for war, become changed by the war he fights? Does he regret the people he kills in the process, even if they are clearly evil and the enemy - or so he's told? Does war turns us into monsters? A theme that has been explored by everyone from Audi Murphy to Robert Heinlein to Graham Green to Paul Verhoven. Is any war just?
What frustrates many viewers, I think, is the fact that they want just one of these themes addressed and addressed in a coherent clear fashion a la Starship Troopers (Paul Verhoven). Rigid rules. Clear universe. Clear structure. ATS is about the Hero's Journey and just that. Or it's about Existentialism and just that. What frustrates people is that Whedon didn't have an agenda when he wrote these tales and produced them. Except to entertain and tell the tale in his head. If you watch BTVS or ATS with a structuralist eye and attempt to impose a template on it - stating this is a noir tale only or fits in this category - you will probably be unsatisfied, it does not hold up.
The difference between ATS/BTVS and Firefly/Wonderfalls is ATS/BTVs take place in a more structured universe. It's less random. There are rules in place, even though the writers keep breaking them here and there, because they themselves may not see the universe as a rigid one, but more as a random one. In Firefly - you get a much looser structure, more a sense of randomness. It's far more existential. And that may be why the network and advertisers balked. Same thing with Wonderfalls. Too random. Too chaotic. Not focused enough. Again the networks balked.
On the other hand, I admit that I wasn't overly fond of S7 BTVS, but not because of the themes addressed or the structure per se, but because I got bored with the tale. I wasn't interested in the peripheral characters that seemed to take over the story - Robin Wood, Andrew, Kennedy, the SIT's didn't interest me in any way. I found them grating and annoying and would never have watched a series dedicated to them. I could barely stand them on the screen as it was. And that has very little to do with structure, theme, narrative arcs - just a personal reaction to a character. So in a way, it's impossible to explain why some people loved a show and others hated it, without saying more about the person than the show. Because like it or not - everything we watch or read is experienced through the lense of our experiences, thoughts, desires, and emotions. Separating those from the text itself, may be well nigh impossible. The trick may be in recognizing it and not imposing our own view onto someone else, and realizing their view while completely different and possibly opposite of ours is valid?
I've found this to be true of movie reviews. Which I've more or less stopped reading by the way. Why? Because unless you know what the reviewer likes or dislikes and how close those likes and dislikes are to your own it's impossible to know whether to trust their view. Also they have a tendency to give the entire movie away.
That said, I have read movie reviews in livejournal.
buffyannotater are interesting. So are revdorothyl. Particularly their diametrically opposed reviews of Chronicles of Riddick. buffyannotater hated it. Called it the worst film ever. revdorothyl - loved it. Adored it. And has seen it twice. This left me in a quandry. Who to trust? Both also liked Van Helsing - which makes me leery, since, I despised Van Helsing. Worste Movie Ever. Yet, I agreed with both on other topics, such as their views of BTVs. And wasn't overly fond of Lost in Translation, which my RL friend Wales loved and apotch also adored. Finally decided to just rent Riddick. I'm broke and wasn't that overly fond of Pitch Black or Vin Diesel, which I think does make a difference. (Well I liked Vin until I made the mistake of seeing that spy movie he did.)Also by and large, my tastes and buffyannotater tend to fit. With a couple of exceptions here and there. So I read his King Arthur review, since it had been a movie I was considering seeing this week, possibly at a cheap matinee. And was once again struck by the fact that the critic is imposing his expectations on to the film. To his credit, he readily admits that. That he came into the movie expecting one thing and got something else. He expected a new twist on the traditional King Arthur tale. Instead, he got an entirely reconstructed version that bore no resemblance outside of names and setting to the original tales. I can't help but wonder if he would have reacted differently, if he had no expectations? Or if the story had not been called King Arthur? Or he hadn't ever read the tales? Would he have enjoyed it more? Was his familarity with King Arthur the problem? His review did turn me off of the movie, not because it didn't track with the original tales, I really don't mind that, but because I got the impression from his review that the narrative itself was so poorly constructed, filled with laughable cliche's - the fact the audience laughs through most of it - was not a good sign. So, another rental, maybe?It's hard to tell based on someone else's impressions whether you will like or dislike something. Every time I review a movie for friends, I consider their tasts. I loved Spiderman 2 for instance for all the reasons others have pointed out in livejournal. And while I planned to see it any way, based on the trailers, buffyannatator's review certainly motivated me further. That said, I'm not sure some of my RL friends or even my family would enjoy it. One of my brother's favorite movies is The Hulk - I know, go figure. But he adores how it was filmed and the whole Oedipal complex. He liked Spiderman 1 but wasn't nearly as thrilled by it. I can't imagine Wales loving Spiderman 2, she's not a fantasy fan or into comics, although she makes an effort. Nor would my friend Janet enjoy it, she prefers reality shows and romantic comedies. Tast is a weird thing and I think it does interfer with valid criticism.
Also not everyone has the ability to explain why they love X and hate Y. They just know they do.
Hmmm not sure where I was headed with this ramble.
Just musing on things, I suppose. Better livejournal cut it so it doesn't fill up too much space on my friends list.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Hmmmmm
Date: 2004-07-10 08:55 pm (UTC)I mentioned Starship Troopers cause of the DVD edition I recently saw. I didn't mean the season was exactly like Starship Troopers but that it has echo's of the same. It's the episode "Why We Fight" that brings home the fact that in any conflict leading to war that we adopt a mindset that allows us to see the enemy as a thing therefore easy to destroy. The result of this mindset is that what was once innocent (mainly our young) is no longer who they were. It also speaks to the use of propoganda as a tool to get the masses behind a leader who is ready to wage war. The character of Lawson is a young man who is idealistic and has a purpose. Becoming a vampire creates a lost man who no longer has any reason to fight, only an impulse to destroy. He seeks out Angel because he can only blame the man who made him who he became. To seek a purpose.
Later in the season we see the gang go to war with the Partners through the destruction of the Black Thorn. Each character is fighting but if you ask them why parts of their answer may vary. Lorne is the one most clearly in conflict over the tactics that Angel used to get what he wanted done. Something in Lorne understood Lindsey in a way that no other character could. Angel said to Lindsey earlier that some men can't change, so why is anyone surprised that Angel took him out of the equation?
Waiting for Godot is a great reference for who and where the characters of Angel and Spike are. We can stress the individual differences in the characters personalities but the end result is similar...both men are the same kind of monster. With souls they found themselves at a similar crossroad where the quest for Buffy was just an illusion keeping them in one place instead of moving on to what they could be.
Rufus
Re: Hmmmmm
Date: 2004-07-10 09:09 pm (UTC)Oh, I knew that. I wasn't referring to your comment so much as KDS's response to you, which was he'd have been more satisfied if it was more clearly Starship Troopers. My point is that he and others wanted the series to fit one model and I think that it's more interesting because it doesn't.
Something in Lorne understood Lindsey in a way that no other character could. Angel said to Lindsey earlier that some men can't change, so why is anyone surprised that Angel took him out of the equation?
I think the problem here is that the viewer doesn't agree with Angel's assessment. Lindsey doesn't seem to be clearly bad in this. And his character's motivations seem odd. Yes, he planned to get into the Black Thorn, but the viewer is thinking - wait, how does that jibe with Lindsey in Dead End, who left town. OR the fact that there is no way in hell the Black Thorn would have let him in. What you have is a resistance to the text. I see what you're getting at - which is Lindsey left town to get power to come back and take on Angel, get into the seat of power and maybe challenge SP's himself. Even when Angel asks him to be part of the team, Lindsey still wants that power. He's still looking for the angle. He's basically Spike in Primeval S4, okay, that plan failed, I'll help you now. The difference being that Buffy isn't a killer, and Angel is.
Angel will kill someone if they could end up being a threat - at this point in time. Buffy reserves that for demons. Angel for instance would have killed Warren, Buffy wouldn't.
So the viewer is struggling with that dichotmy.
We can stress the individual differences in the characters personalities but the end result is similar...both men are the same kind of monster.
Yes and no. They are both vampires. Yes. But they aren't the same kind of vampires just as they aren't the same kind of men. That said, their crimes are equally abhorrent and equally difficult to overcome, how they do it is as different as the crimes themselves.
Re: Hmmmmm
Date: 2004-07-11 06:44 pm (UTC)I thought so right off. Buffy and Angel as series has mined everything from comics to movies and literature, not content to stay in a box in regards to the story. People seem to think that cause one reference is mentioned that it means that the whole season or point of the series is that one reference.
He's still looking for the angle. He's basically Spike in Primeval S4, okay, that plan failed, I'll help you now. The difference being that Buffy isn't a killer, and Angel is.
Angel will kill someone if they could end up being a threat - at this point in time. Buffy reserves that for demons. Angel for instance would have killed Warren, Buffy wouldn't.
So the viewer is struggling with that dichotmy.
Lindsey says as much when he talks to Eve and says that once this conflict is over who knows what will happen. His mistake was forgetting that Angel is a killer (my husband still insists the whole lot of them are, just different types) and won't hesitate to deal with others in a ruthless way. With Warren I'm not sure how Angel would react. If he caught him in the act I have no doubts Warren would be in little pieces, but I somehow think that Angel just may deliver a wrapped but still living Warren to the cops.
Yes and no. They are both vampires. Yes. But they aren't the same kind of vampires just as they aren't the same kind of men.
Yup, that was my point. It's that similar experience of being the same "kind" of monster, and monsters that killed and lived together that create that history both men can't escape. They are both vampires, therefore the same kind of monster, but it's the personality and memories or being men that create the differences in how they act as vampires. They also share in that they both now have a soul. Even though Spike did seek a soul, the sting and slow realization of what he has been took a while to sink in. Angel had years to react and Spike had to do that in a shorter period of time. This doesn't say that either men are the "best" type of men, but that they took different and sometimes longer paths to get to where they were in "Not Fade Away".
Rufus