![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat Started with five phone calls to the temp/staffing companies, including the one I met with last week which neglected to provide me with a contact name. That tale is a nightmare for another day. Applied to eight jobs - three of which involved fighting corporate web sites to get my application accepted. Bertlesmain's site is just plain evil. Several companies I've applied to before for different positions. No word on jobs from anyone.
In other news, mother is coming to stay with me next week - apparently my neice is sick, she's been crying non-stop since she was born apparently, with just about an hour or two breaks between crying jags. They think she may be allergic to her mother's breast milk, but aren't sure. So KidBro asked Mom to come up and help. She's staying with me at night, since kidbro has no room for her to sleep. Incovenient time for me - since I'm a basket case and with Mom here? No late night writing, internet - etc, but what can you do? Around and around we go, where we stop nobody knows.
What got me through the day was reading my friend Schrodiner'scat book, which she asked me to look at. Wonderful read - I really identify with the main character and it gave me something to look forward to in between hunts. I even stopped reading Butcher's Grave Peril, to read it. Butcher is good. But Schrodiner'scat's novel either fits my mood better or I just find her characters and story more engrossing.
Fanboards for some reason are resurrecting the infamous and highly annoying/aggravating Robin Wood debates, painful topic for me. Very painful. The latest was a thread on Wood/Holtz that caused much blood pressure spikeage. Bit like having salt water poured on a raw wound again. Had to restrain myself from posting a *really* nasty response. But it did get me thinking about how most if not all of the analysis on these shows is purely subjective and says more about us than the shows. (Yes, this is how I deal with things that make me crazy, I analyze the behavior - strange, but true.)
I often wonder how I'll view S7 of BTVS ten years from now after not watching any episodes. Will I like it more or less? I know why I wasn't overly fond of S7 and wrote a detailed explanation of the reasons which you can find, if you are so inclined at www.geocities.com/shadowbtvs.
I also know and freely admit that I was obsessed with the show that year and desperately wanted to see certain storylines on air, anticipated them, and when I got other storylines instead was incredibly disappointed. I despised the character of Robin Wood for instance - oh lord, I don't think I've ever hated a character on a TV show or in a book as much as him, Prof. Umbridge in Harry Potter is a close second. I literally had to leave the room or flip off the TV during Storyteller because of a couple of scenes between Wood and Buffy.
Why? It goes back to how something on screen touches something in your life or reminds you of something or pushes an emotional button - the closer it hits that button the more enraptured or disgusted you become. In a recent post on a certain fanboard, someone admitted after a lengthy analysis of why Holtz is worse than Wood, and Wood is actually a nice guy, that Holtz reminded him of his brother. Another recent post on a fanboard, which analyzed all the characters according to Myers Briggs determinators, admitted somewhat sheepishly that he overidentifies with Angel, and sees his wife as Buffy, and ex-wife, who hasn't spoken to in years, as Spike. For me:Robin Wood's mannerisms in S7 BTVS from Lessons onwards, his attitude towards Buffy, how he treated her and Spike - was too close to the behavoir and mannerisms of someone who put me through a traumatic ordeal in Aug 2001- November 2002, an ordeal that resulted in my current situation. Wood's mannerisms and smugness reminded me of someone who hurt me. (The person Wood reminded me of, oddly enough was a White, Heavyset, and looks like the Guy in the Brit comedy The Office or Dilbert's Boss. So DB Woodside did not in any way resemble the individual physically - it was his mannerisms on BTVS that did, his behavior, how he treated others. He did not bug me in this way on 24, I actually enjoyed his performance on that series. Just as the character Wood.)
So when Wood came onscreen - I felt this overpowering rage, I wanted him destroyed. I'm only telling you this to give you an example of how someone can react to what is on screen in an emotional way. I know there are people out there who felt that way about Spike or Buffy or Giles or Xander. It's when art elicits an emotional response, often one the writers may not intend. I seriously doubt ME meant for me to despise Robin Wood or see him as a smug, sociopathic, misogynist who used people for his own ends. And only helped save the world, so he could get in a slayer's pants and look cool. That was what I saw onscreen, but not what the writers necessarily wanted me to see. This clearly was a projection - I realize that, but I still see it. I still feel it.
It's ironic in a way - because the artist wants to elicit an emotional response. But what happens when it is a negative one? Have you ever read a book you wanted to throw across the room? (I have - American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis and House of Sand and Fog by Andre DuBois). It's not something a writer can control of course. And in some instances, in Easton Ellis' especially, that is the reaction they intend. There's a french film called Irreversible that has a 15 minute graphic rape scene that caused people to leave the theater sobbing. It was highly controversial film. The director intended that reaction, he wanted to know whether he could elicit a emotional response from people if they didn't know the character - the film is shot in reverse, so you get the rape scene before you meet the character or find out her name - it is like watching two strangers. The director was playing with how we deal with violence - is it an emotional response to the character's ordeal or to the violence itself? So he deliberately created graphic sequences to elicit an emotional response.
The question becomes, at least in analysis, how much of our criticism is based on emotion and how much on intellect? Can the two even begin to be separated? Should they? When we decide we like or dislike something - can we always pinpoint the reasons? Schroder'scat asked me to read her novel this weekend, she feels she may have a pacing problem. I'm reading it and trying to determin what it is that doesn't quite work. I'm loving her novel. But within the first 50 pages it seems slow or off somehow. What I'm trying to figure out, just as I tried with my own review of S7 BTVS, is what is pure emotional response or subjective, and what is objective? Objective she can fix. Subjective? Hey, she has no control over that. That's like making a lemon sweet because people don't like the sour tast. You don't change the lemon. You just find something else. So I guess, we do need to find a way to separate subjective and objective - because otherwise we'll be attempting to turn lemons into oranges.
So, whenever I read a post on a fanboard - I check to see if the poster is talking about him or herself or about the show.
How close have they blurred the lines? Because it the post is purely subjective, an emotional response, there's is nothing you can say or do to change the person's mind. They aren't thinking with their head - they are thinking with their heart and heads are far easier to convince than hearts, hearts move to another rhythm entirely.
In other news, mother is coming to stay with me next week - apparently my neice is sick, she's been crying non-stop since she was born apparently, with just about an hour or two breaks between crying jags. They think she may be allergic to her mother's breast milk, but aren't sure. So KidBro asked Mom to come up and help. She's staying with me at night, since kidbro has no room for her to sleep. Incovenient time for me - since I'm a basket case and with Mom here? No late night writing, internet - etc, but what can you do? Around and around we go, where we stop nobody knows.
What got me through the day was reading my friend Schrodiner'scat book, which she asked me to look at. Wonderful read - I really identify with the main character and it gave me something to look forward to in between hunts. I even stopped reading Butcher's Grave Peril, to read it. Butcher is good. But Schrodiner'scat's novel either fits my mood better or I just find her characters and story more engrossing.
Fanboards for some reason are resurrecting the infamous and highly annoying/aggravating Robin Wood debates, painful topic for me. Very painful. The latest was a thread on Wood/Holtz that caused much blood pressure spikeage. Bit like having salt water poured on a raw wound again. Had to restrain myself from posting a *really* nasty response. But it did get me thinking about how most if not all of the analysis on these shows is purely subjective and says more about us than the shows. (Yes, this is how I deal with things that make me crazy, I analyze the behavior - strange, but true.)
I often wonder how I'll view S7 of BTVS ten years from now after not watching any episodes. Will I like it more or less? I know why I wasn't overly fond of S7 and wrote a detailed explanation of the reasons which you can find, if you are so inclined at www.geocities.com/shadowbtvs.
I also know and freely admit that I was obsessed with the show that year and desperately wanted to see certain storylines on air, anticipated them, and when I got other storylines instead was incredibly disappointed. I despised the character of Robin Wood for instance - oh lord, I don't think I've ever hated a character on a TV show or in a book as much as him, Prof. Umbridge in Harry Potter is a close second. I literally had to leave the room or flip off the TV during Storyteller because of a couple of scenes between Wood and Buffy.
Why? It goes back to how something on screen touches something in your life or reminds you of something or pushes an emotional button - the closer it hits that button the more enraptured or disgusted you become. In a recent post on a certain fanboard, someone admitted after a lengthy analysis of why Holtz is worse than Wood, and Wood is actually a nice guy, that Holtz reminded him of his brother. Another recent post on a fanboard, which analyzed all the characters according to Myers Briggs determinators, admitted somewhat sheepishly that he overidentifies with Angel, and sees his wife as Buffy, and ex-wife, who hasn't spoken to in years, as Spike. For me:Robin Wood's mannerisms in S7 BTVS from Lessons onwards, his attitude towards Buffy, how he treated her and Spike - was too close to the behavoir and mannerisms of someone who put me through a traumatic ordeal in Aug 2001- November 2002, an ordeal that resulted in my current situation. Wood's mannerisms and smugness reminded me of someone who hurt me. (The person Wood reminded me of, oddly enough was a White, Heavyset, and looks like the Guy in the Brit comedy The Office or Dilbert's Boss. So DB Woodside did not in any way resemble the individual physically - it was his mannerisms on BTVS that did, his behavior, how he treated others. He did not bug me in this way on 24, I actually enjoyed his performance on that series. Just as the character Wood.)
So when Wood came onscreen - I felt this overpowering rage, I wanted him destroyed. I'm only telling you this to give you an example of how someone can react to what is on screen in an emotional way. I know there are people out there who felt that way about Spike or Buffy or Giles or Xander. It's when art elicits an emotional response, often one the writers may not intend. I seriously doubt ME meant for me to despise Robin Wood or see him as a smug, sociopathic, misogynist who used people for his own ends. And only helped save the world, so he could get in a slayer's pants and look cool. That was what I saw onscreen, but not what the writers necessarily wanted me to see. This clearly was a projection - I realize that, but I still see it. I still feel it.
It's ironic in a way - because the artist wants to elicit an emotional response. But what happens when it is a negative one? Have you ever read a book you wanted to throw across the room? (I have - American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis and House of Sand and Fog by Andre DuBois). It's not something a writer can control of course. And in some instances, in Easton Ellis' especially, that is the reaction they intend. There's a french film called Irreversible that has a 15 minute graphic rape scene that caused people to leave the theater sobbing. It was highly controversial film. The director intended that reaction, he wanted to know whether he could elicit a emotional response from people if they didn't know the character - the film is shot in reverse, so you get the rape scene before you meet the character or find out her name - it is like watching two strangers. The director was playing with how we deal with violence - is it an emotional response to the character's ordeal or to the violence itself? So he deliberately created graphic sequences to elicit an emotional response.
The question becomes, at least in analysis, how much of our criticism is based on emotion and how much on intellect? Can the two even begin to be separated? Should they? When we decide we like or dislike something - can we always pinpoint the reasons? Schroder'scat asked me to read her novel this weekend, she feels she may have a pacing problem. I'm reading it and trying to determin what it is that doesn't quite work. I'm loving her novel. But within the first 50 pages it seems slow or off somehow. What I'm trying to figure out, just as I tried with my own review of S7 BTVS, is what is pure emotional response or subjective, and what is objective? Objective she can fix. Subjective? Hey, she has no control over that. That's like making a lemon sweet because people don't like the sour tast. You don't change the lemon. You just find something else. So I guess, we do need to find a way to separate subjective and objective - because otherwise we'll be attempting to turn lemons into oranges.
So, whenever I read a post on a fanboard - I check to see if the poster is talking about him or herself or about the show.
How close have they blurred the lines? Because it the post is purely subjective, an emotional response, there's is nothing you can say or do to change the person's mind. They aren't thinking with their head - they are thinking with their heart and heads are far easier to convince than hearts, hearts move to another rhythm entirely.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Try
Date: 2004-07-13 12:53 am (UTC)TCH
Re: Try
Date: 2004-07-13 09:44 am (UTC)my icon in my livejournal. Sorry, should have put that instead.
Eek
Date: 2004-07-13 12:54 am (UTC)TCH
no subject
Date: 2004-07-13 05:27 am (UTC)Both. I admit mine is. Characters, when well written, cannot help but draw out our emotion. I do not want to compartmentalize so I can only view things through my own lens. But with those lens I like to see other's view also.
"Can the two even begin to be separated?" Probably not or at least not in an non-academic setting. I prefer, personally, that they are not separated.
"Should they?" Probably not. If only an academic view is taken, something in the analysis can be missed. Your view of Wood, so personal, lends something, reveals something about him, that someone else may have missed because they didn't have that reaction. That is why I like to see the personal reasons. I think that they bring out parts of a character that others mightn't see. I knew there was something about Wood that didn't strike me quite right and you put your finger on it with smugness. He seemed to be a little bit of a social climber because he was a slayer's son. I didn't have the reaction you had, but all reactions I think lend texture to a character.
I can understand a little bit about Holtz I think because of what I have been through but I would like someone's take on it that lost their child in a brutal way. I didn't. I am so impressed that the writers get it right. They write reactions to situations that are honest and true. Angel's reaction to the loss of Connor was true. I think like we bring ourselves to the table, they do to and that makes for much more realistic portrayals. With both writer and watcher doing this the level of honesty and revelation of character is incredible.
But even I am thinking subjectively, I am open to other's take on any situation. But that is me. I realize others aren't. I wrote of Holtz from my personal view, but that isn't the whole story and I always welcome any other view. The characters can take it because they are so well written.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-13 11:47 am (UTC)Truth is, I don't think Wood was very well-written. Agree with pony on this below. This character was almost an after-thought on the part of the writers and it shows. His attributes created to serve plot-points as they arose, not created ahead of time.
The writers leave it almost completely to their viewers to construct this character, which isn't good writing so much as quick short cut writing and granted in TV that's what you have to do.
Holtz on the other hand is a fascinating and well-developed character which the writers clearly worked hard on. We get flashbacks regarding his past relationship with Angel and his family. We get insight into his plan. We even see the relationship he constructed with Connor and the ambiguity of it.
You're right - the writers hit the loss of a child very well. They also do a very good job of making the father/son issue a complex one.
I don't think they are quite as adept with son/mother issue - which seemed more cliche in places and straight out Fruedian. Also not nearly as well constructed and that could be because they were less comfortable with it.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-13 07:46 am (UTC)Wood's a harder case since I think for most of s7 I took the structural problems quite personally! The guy was set up to be somewhat creepy and ambiguous which was fine, but then don't expect us to be invested in his journey. Also it was one more complication to the already too muddled character dynamics going on. Those could be objective reasons, but on some level I'm pissed that he distracted from the things I cared about. So yeah, I don't like Wood either.
I don't read most s7 debates anymore because again I find it hard to separate the subjective and the objective. I'm hoping that will change, I know it's possible to look at something that once generated an emotional response and study it from a craft level. I think the important thing though is to study the source material, and not the memory that exists in our heads - that's always going to be personal and very different for everyone.
Agree
Date: 2004-07-13 10:12 am (UTC)Agreed. That's often what I rely on when doing analysis, emotions will always be there of course, but if I look at the craft and structure - it keeps me a little more constructive in my criticism.
For instance in Holtz' case I think he's a great character, with an interesting backstory, but there are many times when he holds back from his revenge, launches a too-complicated plot, that makes me see the hand of the writer manipulating things a bit too plainly. It may be arrogance on my part but I see that as a structural problem rather than something personal.
Agree. Holtz is a great character - but the writer kept holding him back or manipulating certain things in S3 and 4 in order to heighten the drama. I felt it at times. But by the same token, I had a strong enough sense of who the character was and why he was doing what he was doing, to buy it. His plot with Justine to take Connor, made perfect sense, since he accomplished three things - 1) hurt Angel in the same way Angel hurt him, 2)break up Angel's family and turn Angel against his best friend/confidante Wes, 3) make it impossible for Angel to stop him.
I can see Holtz coming up with that. I also understood the motivation - since the writer's set it up over a two year period. We'd seen flashbacks of Holtz chasing Angelus and Darla as early as S2, I think. And we saw what Angelus and Darla did to Holtz, way before Holtz grabbed Connor. The writers also played with the Watcher/Slayer relationship with Holtz and Justine - doing a wonderful parallel to Wes/Faith. So I see less structural problems here.
Nor did I require more info - everything Holtz did made sense to me in a way. There was no reason for him to ever like or trust Angel, soul or no soul.
Also the metaphor/analogy (?) was perfect - the religious father figure who rejects the son. Holtz in many ways represented Angel's father.
Wood on the other hand? Almost 0 character development and what we get is slap-shod and sketchy at best. Also just a tad on the trite side. (Son of a vampire slayer and raised by her watcher? Rolls eyes). The writers clearly had no idea what to do with this character until half-way through the season, they'd planned one thing, changed their mind, did another. Holtz - clearly had a plan. Wood - no plan until the last minute. It was almost as if when it came time to decide how to resolve Spike's trigger, the writers looked at each other and said, which character do we have that can have a conflict with Spike? I know, Wood. But what is his motivation? Oh wait, he sort of resembles that subway slayer - let's make him her son. And have him have hot sex with Faith. Cool. (Sigh. This is one of the many reasons I did not like S7 BTVS and thought S4 and S3 Angel was much better.). Of course it's too late by that point to go back and edit previous episodes so it tracks and feels less contrived and
creepy. I think if they'd made him less smug and overwhelmingly into himself, I could have handled the character - but if they'd done that? There wouldn't be any personality - that was the only personality he had.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-13 11:01 am (UTC)Being online in a community means that parameters for discussions are set by others. There's a dynamic to interactions that never really happens when you are just thinking to yourself and watching tv.
Frex, half the time I used to get irate not by the actual point being argued but more by how someone was arguing it, and how they framed their point - suddenly I'd start feeling strongly about something I'd never thought about!
But also, participating in a fannish community has a really great side to it too. You get to meet like minds. You get to have opinions you didn't realise you had, and in that way, shape the way you see the world, and find out something about yourself.
Also, fannishness is just a whole lot more enjoyable when there are people out there making incredible videos, icons and stories.
So pretty much on the fence here
no subject
Date: 2004-07-13 11:34 am (UTC)This is very true. If for instance we were on a conservative, Republican board, we'd probably find
ourselves having a whole different discussion regarding Farenheit 9/11 than if we were on a Democrat or more liberal board.
Same goes for TV shows. I've seen two boards discuss Spike's jacket recently. What was interesting was the level of interaction between the two fanboards.
One fanboard started the discussion as a sort of offshoot of an analysis that really had zip to do with it. Two of the people tracking the discussion on that fanboard, referred to the discussion on another unrelated fanboard. The new fanboard picked up the discussion but took it in the reverse direction. Would be sort of like having an argument on board about Michael Moore and how horrible he is, when you sort of like him - then jumping to another board and finding yourself overwhelmed with how many people love him and thinking, maybe you should play devil's advocate? The paramaters are in a sense set by who runs the board. If the person or persons running the board are known Michael Moore supporters - they'll get one group, if they are known to be ambivalent or dislike Moore, they'll get another.
In livejournal, we get to set our own. Yay! Nice to have a small bastion of control, however illusionary, in this world.
I think there's also an extra dimension that's involved in taking part in online communities - if say, I was watching alone at home, I wouldn't even *think* about these debates.
Also very true. There are several things that never would have occurred to me if I hadn't come online.
For instance, I didn't notice any flaws in The Girl in Question onscreen, until I went online. And I didn't see anything worthy in Storyteller, until I went online. Our opinions are influenced by outside forces in some respects, I think, whether we want them to be or not.
Frex, half the time I used to get irate not by the actual point being argued but more by how someone was arguing it, and how they framed their point - suddenly I'd start feeling strongly about something I'd never thought about!
Agree. I have the same problem. I often get more upset by the tone or how the writer is phrasing the argument more than the argument itself. There are a couple of writers online that I simply cannot read on any topic. Something about their writing style causes my bloodpressure to spike. Not sure what it is. I also have the same problems with some novelists. I've never been a huge fan of Hemingway for example and Nathanial Hawthorn equally annoys me. Frex - smugness, for some reason I have been unable to handle smugness/condescension (or I'm *right* and Your *so* wrong and you poor little stupid thing, I'll pat you on the head now and teach you the way of the world)in writing since 2001.
But also, participating in a fannish community has a really great side to it too. You get to meet like minds. You get to have opinions you didn't realise you had, and in that way, shape the way you see the world, and find out something about yourself.
Agreed. The fan community has gotten me through these past two years by the skin of my teeth. You meet fascinating people with like interests that challenge your perceptions of the universe. Wouldn't give that up for the world.