Ahhh...

[shadowkat]

Tired 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 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.

Comments

[petzipellepingo.livejournal.com]

I'd like to say "Just keep the faith" but I know how incredibly exhausted and annoyed you are with the job hunt. My sister went on an interview two weeks ago where the HR person praised her resume and told her she was exactly what was needed but never called her back. I'm sure you feel as she does that somehow she's just not good enough despite having a stellar career for my years. It makes you feel small, unloved and petty at the best of times. Sending all my best wishes.

[sideshowsue2003.livejournal.com]

I enjoyed all your comments--including the posts on the margins of the ATPO board. I especially liked your comments on the projection of a reader's world view, personal experience and moral code onto a text. It inevitably colours people's readings, reactions and reviews. And as you pointed out, unless you have a firm grasp on the reviewer's tastes and point of view, it's difficult to trust implicitly the commentary.


About the job hunt, anything I could say just seems hollow and glib. Even "Good luck!" seems ridiculous, even though that's what I'm left with. Best of luck and don't let the (evil, money-mongering, profiteering, hell-spawned) bastards get you down.

[atpolittlebit.livejournal.com]

First thing, my sympathies on the job searching and fervent wishes that there was something more practical I could offer.

I tend to agree with much of what you're saying here about AtS/BtVS, and the criticisms that are currently being leveled at it. While the shows were indeed conceived from certain points of view, neither of them followed a single viewpoint all the way through to the end or, perhaps more accurately, neither had that viewpoint unencumbered by others. Yes, there's a strong existentialist thread in AtS; it's the strongest one there. BtVS has strong components of the Hero's Journey, but to follow it as the journey only leaves too much unresolved. What I like about the multiple philosophies and multiple themes and the differing journeys that the characters take is that in many ways this reflects life. There's a reason, it seems to me, why there are so many differing philosophies. No single one has yet encompassed the entirety of human existence. So for me, a show that reflects the wide range of personality and themes works because it reflects more of what I observe in the world around me. For someone who acts generally for the good of others, known and unknown, there's also someone who acts more selfishly, or who can be ruthless in the pursuit of a greater good. Those who act for the good of others aren't flawless paragons, but have their own issues, doubts and moments when the burden seems to great to bear. Those who fight at their sides are no less flawed. There is pettiness, jealousy and disagreement among the groups. These are the things that brought me to love both the shows. That characters never had the "personal issue of the week" that got resolved by the end of that episode, but that the true flaws are slowly developed and revealed until we, the audience, realize that they need to be dealt with. And I have to say that even the frustration produced when the character never does deal with the issues we're shown (*cough*Xander*cough*) that too is what happens in life. Not all the lessons get learned, not all the problems get resolved. Depression is boring and irritating to those who aren't depressed. Addiction and psychological issues are mis-diagnosed, and never addressed by a professional. (In the context of the show, understandable). Again...life.

And in non-sequitor, regarding your comment about wondering if Rob would have liked "King Arthur" better had he had no preconceptions about it, or had it been called something else, I can say that I wasn't terribly crazy about "Wicked" when I read it. I know for certain that it's because I know all the Oz books. I actually read all the 'other' books before I ever read "The Wizard of Oz." So for me "Wicked" simply had too many things 'wrong' even with the flipped point of view. If I hadn't known the stories that well I think I'd have liked it a great deal. There were parts of it that I did like, but the book began to lose me at the point where it directly joined Baum's Oz. I was curious, though, so I got "Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister" by the same author. I loved it. I loved reading the Cinderella story turned sideways. I wondered why I had such different reactions and I think a part of it may well be that Oz is the concept and construction of a single mind, so that when that construction was breeched it leaped out at me. The Cinderella story has many different tellings (in the one I grew up with the step-sisters were quite lovely to look at, but very cruel as persons) so one more that presented the story from a different direction didn't stand out. Funny that. I'm guessing that I won't be any too fond of "King Arthur" in no small part because of the bogus claim of being the "true story." I've read variants of the Arthur legend that can make one wonder if they're talking about the same legend. My preference lies somewhere between (among?) Le Morte d'Arthur, The Once and Future King and Camelot. Although that latter one may have most to do with how much I've always loved Arthur's answer when asked who the boy was who was sent behind the lines and exhorted to 'not forget': "Less than a drop in the great shining motion of the sunlit sea. But some of the drops sparkle, Pelly, some of them do sparkle."

And as I am now rambling, I shall stop.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the support and the response. I agree with much that you have to say.

So for me, a show that reflects the wide range of personality and themes works because it reflects more of what I observe in the world around me...

And I have to say that even the frustration produced when the character never does deal with the issues we're shown (*cough*Xander*cough*) that too is what happens in life.

Agreed. What I liked most about the show is it didn't take an easy way out or resolve everything in nice neat little bow. I was very pleased that Buffy did not show up on ATS and resolve the S/B/A conflict by choosing one of the two guys and riding off into the sunset with him - for example. Because that seldom happens in life. Usually we are faced with missed meetings or unresolved relationships.
Xander doesn't get to tell Anya he loved her always as she dies in his arms. Instead he can't find her on the way out and is left with Andrew's version of the events. As frustrated as I got with the show at times, I treasured its ability to surprise me and to not be neat and tidy. To show life as difficult.

Re: Wicked. Interesting response. I enjoyed Wicked</>. I did not fall in love with it like many people I know have - partly due to the way the story was told and partly because I came at the story with certain expectations. I wanted Elsphaba to be a little grayer, a little darker than the writer allowed. Instead she came across as a misunderstood heroine, while Glinda and the Wizard were more wicked per se. It never sat quite right with me.

I'm guessing that I won't be any too fond of "King Arthur" in no small part because of the bogus claim of being the "true story." I've read variants of the Arthur legend that can make one wonder if they're talking about the same legend. My preference lies somewhere between (among?) Le Morte d'Arthur, The Once and Future King and Camelot. Although that latter one may have most to do with how much I've always loved Arthur's answer when asked who the boy was who was sent behind the lines and exhorted to 'not forget': "Less than a drop in the great shining motion of the sunlit sea. But some of the drops sparkle, Pelly, some of them do sparkle."

I'm thinking I may have the same response. Although I like the idea of Guinever as a warrior queen and strong as opposed to the damsel who falls in love with Lancelot. Always had difficulty with how Guinever was portrayed in the Arthurian tales, which may explain why I never got that into them. That said, my favorite version is somewhere between John Boorman's Excaliber and the musical Camelot. With the Mary Stewart Arthur books somewhere in between. I particularly adore her first one on Merlin, cannot remember the names of them. The last was The Hollow Hills. Couldn't get into Marion Zimmer Bradley's feminist reworking of the tale. Again the Guinevere dilemma. So it is unlikely I'll like this presentation - due to the fact that it seems to focus more on fighting and less on character. Taking the stance that the legends embellished on what was in reality a pretty straight forward war tale? Doesn't quite fit - what I've read of the legends in the Mabinogi, which is an even older source than Morte de Arthur.

[atpolittlebit.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I think I 'read' the shows from a very different perspective than others do. Not necessarily a 'better' one, just different. When I worked as an occupational therapist I learned very early to listen and to listen well, but when what I was being told contradicted what I observe, I went with what I saw. So there were things like the 'magic addiction' that never bothered me. Just because Buffy called it that, and Willow latched onto it as yet another way of not dealing with the real issues, it wasn't necessarily accurate; what I'd observed for some time was the need for power and control. I'll spare you, and stop there with my list.

Loved the Mary Stewart books as well. I'm surprised I forgot to mention them, but that might be because I always think of them as a telling of the Merlin legend rather than the Arthurian legend. I totally loved "The Crystal Cave" and "The Hollow Hills" but the love dimmed just a bit with "The Last Enchantment" perhaps because that was when the legend dimmed as well. As for the movie...I'd heard about Guinevere as a warrior queen which wouldn't be inconsistent with Pictish women, but they lost me when I saw the costume. I can agree that she might be a warrior, I'll even agree that she may well have worn leather. But I steadfastly refuse to concede that she would be so stupid as to wear a strippy leather bikini and leave that much of her body unprotected. Just my opinion, but I just won't believe it. [wink]

Impudent response

[hankat.livejournal.com]

As for the movie...I'd heard about Guinevere as a warrior queen which wouldn't be inconsistent with Pictish women, but they lost me when I saw the costume. I can agree that she might be a warrior, I'll even agree that she may well have worn leather. But I steadfastly refuse to concede that she would be so stupid as to wear a strippy leather bikini and leave that much of her body unprotected. Just my opinion, but I just won't believe it.

Well, Guinevere looks like she came to the Arthur story after a summer tour as a stripper.........who makes these costumes?...I say men of little moral fiber....;)

Rufus.....finally back online

Hmmmmm

[hankat.livejournal.com]

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.

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

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

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.

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.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I actually didn't have the problems most people did with the Willow arc. I found it a little clumsy at times, but generally, I saw the magic as crack a mislead. I think what I had problems with is what Rob had problems with regarding King Arthur, oddly enough, I came into Season 7 expecting more concentration of Willow's issues than I got. In my head I had outlined what I wanted to see and when I didn't get that - I was disappointed. I can't help but wonder how I would have related to the tale if I'd come to it less invested. I'm a fan of S6 BTVs.
And what I struggled with - are issues that I blame more on the tv medium then on the writers. I think had they had more time to write some of these episodes, it would have been more polished in places and they may not have fallen into some of the traps they did. ie. Spike may have bitten Buffy instead of the attempted rape - which fits more with the foreshadowing, on the other hand maybe not, since it's more twisty if he does the human crime, which Seeing Red was all about - human crimes. I don't know. I can see multiple sides of the issue. Why people had problems, why others didn't, and where my own views fit - which is somewhere between the two extremes.

As for the movie...I'd heard about Guinevere as a warrior queen which wouldn't be inconsistent with Pictish women, but they lost me when I saw the costume. I can agree that she might be a warrior, I'll even agree that she may well have worn leather. But I steadfastly refuse to concede that she would be so stupid as to wear a strippy leather bikini and leave that much of her body unprotected. Just my opinion, but I just won't believe it. [wink]

Bikini? Sigh. Beautiful girl warrior in tight ill fighting hot costume? Men. Have to give Whedon credit, at least Buffy was in slacks through most of S5-S7.

Re: Hmmmmm

[hankat.livejournal.com]

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.

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