![[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}
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.