(no subject)
Aug. 24th, 2019 10:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Finished Time Served by Julianna Keyes -- don't recommend. It's an okay subway read, but overall, forgettable, with some very sexist and ultimately disturbing undertones. But, I've begun to notice this is a trend with contemporary romance novels. Historical romance novels aren't quite as bad, which is odd. Also weirdly, the superhero comics that I've read lately have more fully developed and well-rounded female characters, and aren't nearly as sexist -- also they appear to be commenting on toxic male and sexism, while the contemporary romances seem to be supporting the traditional view and status quo and are oblivious to their own sexism. What's astonishing about these differences is well, the comic books that I've been reading are written by men, and romance novels written by women.
Also regarding reviews? There's a disturbing trend among reviewers --- who do two things:
* They indicate Hero = H, and Heroine = h, or they will capitalize Hero and put in lower case heroine. Demonstrating that they feel the heroine is subordinate to the male hero.
* They rant about heroines who don't cater to the guy and help him at every turn, stating the heroine is stupid and ill advised.
Anyhow, the book started off good -- the first half of it I enjoyed, and then, the writer got stuck and fell into various writing traps. In short she didn't really know what to do with her lead characters once she got them together, outside of a lot sex -- which after a while is akin to reading stereo instructions sideways. So, we build to a conflict.
Instead of focusing on the subplot -- which was interesting and could have resulted in a thrilling moment or two -- she goes for a less interesting and more annoying approach. In the subplot, Rachel is racing against time to find enough people and register enough for a class action suite, including the smoking gun that will the case -- in order to get second chair. She's racing against super-competitive, impossible to work for, Caitlin Dufrensque. Who Rachel believes has the partner's in her back-pocket because she slept with them. (So a little slut-shaming in the book. Rachel has no female friends, only male friends, and the women outside of Rachel have no personality. It's made pretty clear that Rachel dislikes women, but this is never fully explored, making me wonder if the author does?) Anyhow the plot-line about the class-action suit is not only interesting, it doesn't follow a romance trope to the point of being cliche, and it isn't sexist or misogynistic. For a while, I thought the author was going to have Rachel get seriously hurt on the job -- someone go after her. Or that she and Caitlin would join forces, get the case back on the map, and share second chair -- putting her in conflict with Dean, who wants a more traditional girl-friend, and Dean has to give a little and let her be who she is.
But that's not where the writer was going. Instead, Caitlin takes all the credit for Rachel's actions, and gets second chair, with Rachel serving "under" her. Humiliated, Rachel tries to leave, but Dean, who'd she brought with her to the party in which this was announced, decides to confront Caitlin and take her down publicly. And I was blown out of the book. It was out of character for the normally shy Dean, who doesn't come across as confrontational -- but rather the strong stoic type who takes his aggression out in the boxing ring. But here he does -- and it makes no sense. Also it made no sense that they announced it at a party or that the put a lawyer who can't work well with others in charge of a team. Good way to lose a case.
Also good way to lose associates.
Then Rachel frets about losing her job. Why? It was the date who she brought to the reception who acted poorly, after she left and then came back to try and stop him.
You're not responsible for a date. He wasn't her husband or fiancee. Just someone she'd been dating. (They don't fire her, just give her a warning and ask her to apologize to Caitlin and she'll be working with Caitlin not under her. That made no sense either -- since the two women clearly can't abide each other. You don't put people who dislike each other on the same case. Not when you have fifty lawyers at your disposal.)
And Dean and her break up -- and we're supposed to feel sorry for Dean. Rachel apologizes to him profusely. We're also supposed to be upset with Rachel for dumping Dean (Dean is two years older and a criminal) at the age of seventeen, to get away from her alcoholic abusive mother and use the scholarship she won to get an education. At the time she dumped Dean, he was planning an armed robbery at a jewerly store -- he got caught and sent to prison for ten years. He was a scary dude on a one-way track to self-destruction. He's furious at her for leaving in the middle of the night without a word, and furious she didn't visit him in prison.
While, I'm thinking -- okay, there's selfless and stupid, honey, leaving Dean and your mother - was the smartest thing you ever did.
Then later, he confesses that he used to fantasize about raping her. But couldn't go through with it. He's hoping she'll remember he couldn't go through with it. I'm thinking -- yeah, but Dude, you are six foot and well over 300 pounds of muscle. I'd be terrified in your company.
But she isn't. She's upset, but it's not long after this that they have sex. Again.
The sex is okay, the writer is clearly going for realism here -- because the heroine rarely comes when they are having intercourse, so much as when he goes down on her, and does the foreplay. Also a lot of the sex is to appease him. Erotica, it isn't.
Contemporaries go for a lot of kinky realistic sex that tends to be on the graphic side. At first it works well enough and pushes forward the action -- the sex here is rough sex -- so more interesting, but that gets old after a while. I started skimming over the sex scenes past a certain point, mainly because I found them to boring and repetitive.
Both characters are likable, I just found it disturbing how the only likable female character is Rachel. And the people who are nasty to Rachel are all women. One, a best friend from high school who hates her for leaving. And two Caitlin. And both seem to emphasis differences in class and job decisions. Rachel, according to the writer, picks the perfect option -- she sets up a boutique law firm with two male co=workers who also left evil law firm, and has a nice house, a fence, a yappy dog and an apple tree. Plus Dean who took a job as a supervisor. And I'm rolling my eyes.
The writer has been watching The Good Wife. Except the Good Wife is better.
2. Also re-watched the Hugh Jackman/Trevor Nunn production of Oklahoma that was filmed by Sky Productions -- while it was playing in London's West End. This was before Jackman won the role of Wolverine, and his film career took off. I actually watched it before thing. An online friend loaned me a DVD of it -- to show her latest crush. And yes, it's hard not to fall for Hugh Jackman in that role.
But it sort of underlined when I decided not to pay $140-$160 to see the Broadway Revival of Oklahoma, and why I've never liked the musical very much.
It's actually adapted from Lynn Riggs 1931 play "Green Grow the Lilacs", and was first produced on Broadway in 1941. So a lot of my issues with it -- are actually realistic depictions of various human conflicts at that time. Back then, women were considered property. They got married and were then the property of their husband to use as he pleased. If they stay unmarried - it's just as bad, particularly on the frontiere. Lori in Oklahoma has a problem, she has two men after her -- one is her friend, Curly, a local cowboy, who is also a bit of a ladies man. The ladies love him. He flirts with her, but she's cautious. Meanwhile, Judd, who is sort of creepy with his girly magazines, is their hired hand and lives in their smokehouse. She's a little afraid of Judd -- and well she should be, since he basically wants her in the physical sense of the word.
The musical is basically about two courtships, Able Annie's, and Lori's. They are paralleled with each other. Annie is also trying to decide between two men, not so smart cow-poke Will and the peddler, Ali Hakim, who is smart, but has no interest in marrying and just wants to have a night or two with Annie in the local hotel. He keeps dodging her pappa's gun and is forced to marry her -- until he can get Will in position to do so, and beg off with regret (and considerable relief). He does get it though when he marries the annoying merchant's daughter with her annoying laugh.
Annie's is about Annie wanting to live life, not be tied down, kiss other men. Will wants to tie her down. Then she accuses him of a double standard -- about how he wants to live his free-going life and not letting her do so as well.
Lori -- has a nightmare -- a dream dance sequence -- where she's about to marry Curly, but instead ends up with Judd, Curly killed by Judd. And Judd and Curly fight over Lori -- by bidding on the hampers -- which are in reality symbolic of bidding on the women. Curly gives up his saddle, his horse, and his gun to win. Judd furious tries to blind him with a device the peddler sold him -- Aunt Ella stops it. And then later Judd tries to rape Lori, who pushes him off and fires him, and then once he's gone, falls crying in Curly's arms. (At least she did that on her own and Curly didn't save her.) After Lori and Curly marry, Judd reappears and fights Curly, eventually falling on his own knife. His death is ruled an accident, and Curly rides off with Lori to the tune of Oklahoma.
The sexism and how women are viewed as inconsequential is implied. As is the violence between the cattlemen and the farmers -- symbolized by Curly and Judd's animosity.
It's a complicated musical, with some rather dark themes throughout -- although the writers are apparently commenting on female sexuality and how poorly women were treated.
As an aside Broadway HD is a mixed bag --- the sound went out at various points in Oklahoma, but it worked well with Kiss Me Kate. And it is rather nice watching old theater performances on the tv.
3. Finished the first three episodes of The Expanse S3 -- so far enjoying this season more than the last two. They've brought together a few characters -- which have helped move things along. Chrisianne is now aboard the Pintos Cochintra aka the Rocianeot, with Holden, Naomi, Amos, Alex, and the botanist. And they are finally sharing information.
Naomi and Holden are both making me crazy. Naomi wants to go back to Tycho and join forces with Fred Johnson, while everyone else wants to go to Jupiter IO, except for Bobby and Christianne who want find a way to send their information on the bad guy at the UN to the proper parties.
I want to kick Naomi at the moment -- she's become insanely self-centered. All she cares about is the Belt. Holden's not much better -- he feels guilty about lying to the botantist about his daughter and not helping him find his daughter -- so they are going to find the botanists daughter or die trying.
Meanwhile Fred Johnson has climbed in bed with the Martians, and is betraying the Belt at the chagrin of his second in command who is royally pissed at both Naomi and Johnson.
Then there's the group on the UN Agatha -- who have just been comandeered by one of the bad guys associates. And they are trying to find a way out.
Plus the group on earth that called in a Rev to help them justify their war. Rev Anna -- played by Elizabeth Mitchell. (Actually I like this Rev Anna better than the one at my church.) She's interesting.
And Mao on Jupiter with the evil Strickland. Mao has grown a conscience -- apparently his daughter's demise affected him after all -- because he's commanded Strickland to put a halt to the experiment, they are not going to experiment on the children any longer, in order to turn them into weapons. They still have no understanding of the molecule, all they are doing is trying to selfishly weaponize and control something they do not understand. He just wants to understand it.
Making Mao less of a moustache twirling villain has helped. Now, if they can just give a bit more depth to Strickland.
The female characters in this series are kick-ass, more varied and they have interactions that have nothing to do with men. The male characters are also diverse.
With time it's coming into its own.
If you gave up on the Expanse in S1 -- it's worth giving it a second go. Season 2.9 onwards is rather good and it just gets better as we go.
Also regarding reviews? There's a disturbing trend among reviewers --- who do two things:
* They indicate Hero = H, and Heroine = h, or they will capitalize Hero and put in lower case heroine. Demonstrating that they feel the heroine is subordinate to the male hero.
* They rant about heroines who don't cater to the guy and help him at every turn, stating the heroine is stupid and ill advised.
Anyhow, the book started off good -- the first half of it I enjoyed, and then, the writer got stuck and fell into various writing traps. In short she didn't really know what to do with her lead characters once she got them together, outside of a lot sex -- which after a while is akin to reading stereo instructions sideways. So, we build to a conflict.
Instead of focusing on the subplot -- which was interesting and could have resulted in a thrilling moment or two -- she goes for a less interesting and more annoying approach. In the subplot, Rachel is racing against time to find enough people and register enough for a class action suite, including the smoking gun that will the case -- in order to get second chair. She's racing against super-competitive, impossible to work for, Caitlin Dufrensque. Who Rachel believes has the partner's in her back-pocket because she slept with them. (So a little slut-shaming in the book. Rachel has no female friends, only male friends, and the women outside of Rachel have no personality. It's made pretty clear that Rachel dislikes women, but this is never fully explored, making me wonder if the author does?) Anyhow the plot-line about the class-action suit is not only interesting, it doesn't follow a romance trope to the point of being cliche, and it isn't sexist or misogynistic. For a while, I thought the author was going to have Rachel get seriously hurt on the job -- someone go after her. Or that she and Caitlin would join forces, get the case back on the map, and share second chair -- putting her in conflict with Dean, who wants a more traditional girl-friend, and Dean has to give a little and let her be who she is.
But that's not where the writer was going. Instead, Caitlin takes all the credit for Rachel's actions, and gets second chair, with Rachel serving "under" her. Humiliated, Rachel tries to leave, but Dean, who'd she brought with her to the party in which this was announced, decides to confront Caitlin and take her down publicly. And I was blown out of the book. It was out of character for the normally shy Dean, who doesn't come across as confrontational -- but rather the strong stoic type who takes his aggression out in the boxing ring. But here he does -- and it makes no sense. Also it made no sense that they announced it at a party or that the put a lawyer who can't work well with others in charge of a team. Good way to lose a case.
Also good way to lose associates.
Then Rachel frets about losing her job. Why? It was the date who she brought to the reception who acted poorly, after she left and then came back to try and stop him.
You're not responsible for a date. He wasn't her husband or fiancee. Just someone she'd been dating. (They don't fire her, just give her a warning and ask her to apologize to Caitlin and she'll be working with Caitlin not under her. That made no sense either -- since the two women clearly can't abide each other. You don't put people who dislike each other on the same case. Not when you have fifty lawyers at your disposal.)
And Dean and her break up -- and we're supposed to feel sorry for Dean. Rachel apologizes to him profusely. We're also supposed to be upset with Rachel for dumping Dean (Dean is two years older and a criminal) at the age of seventeen, to get away from her alcoholic abusive mother and use the scholarship she won to get an education. At the time she dumped Dean, he was planning an armed robbery at a jewerly store -- he got caught and sent to prison for ten years. He was a scary dude on a one-way track to self-destruction. He's furious at her for leaving in the middle of the night without a word, and furious she didn't visit him in prison.
While, I'm thinking -- okay, there's selfless and stupid, honey, leaving Dean and your mother - was the smartest thing you ever did.
Then later, he confesses that he used to fantasize about raping her. But couldn't go through with it. He's hoping she'll remember he couldn't go through with it. I'm thinking -- yeah, but Dude, you are six foot and well over 300 pounds of muscle. I'd be terrified in your company.
But she isn't. She's upset, but it's not long after this that they have sex. Again.
The sex is okay, the writer is clearly going for realism here -- because the heroine rarely comes when they are having intercourse, so much as when he goes down on her, and does the foreplay. Also a lot of the sex is to appease him. Erotica, it isn't.
Contemporaries go for a lot of kinky realistic sex that tends to be on the graphic side. At first it works well enough and pushes forward the action -- the sex here is rough sex -- so more interesting, but that gets old after a while. I started skimming over the sex scenes past a certain point, mainly because I found them to boring and repetitive.
Both characters are likable, I just found it disturbing how the only likable female character is Rachel. And the people who are nasty to Rachel are all women. One, a best friend from high school who hates her for leaving. And two Caitlin. And both seem to emphasis differences in class and job decisions. Rachel, according to the writer, picks the perfect option -- she sets up a boutique law firm with two male co=workers who also left evil law firm, and has a nice house, a fence, a yappy dog and an apple tree. Plus Dean who took a job as a supervisor. And I'm rolling my eyes.
The writer has been watching The Good Wife. Except the Good Wife is better.
2. Also re-watched the Hugh Jackman/Trevor Nunn production of Oklahoma that was filmed by Sky Productions -- while it was playing in London's West End. This was before Jackman won the role of Wolverine, and his film career took off. I actually watched it before thing. An online friend loaned me a DVD of it -- to show her latest crush. And yes, it's hard not to fall for Hugh Jackman in that role.
But it sort of underlined when I decided not to pay $140-$160 to see the Broadway Revival of Oklahoma, and why I've never liked the musical very much.
It's actually adapted from Lynn Riggs 1931 play "Green Grow the Lilacs", and was first produced on Broadway in 1941. So a lot of my issues with it -- are actually realistic depictions of various human conflicts at that time. Back then, women were considered property. They got married and were then the property of their husband to use as he pleased. If they stay unmarried - it's just as bad, particularly on the frontiere. Lori in Oklahoma has a problem, she has two men after her -- one is her friend, Curly, a local cowboy, who is also a bit of a ladies man. The ladies love him. He flirts with her, but she's cautious. Meanwhile, Judd, who is sort of creepy with his girly magazines, is their hired hand and lives in their smokehouse. She's a little afraid of Judd -- and well she should be, since he basically wants her in the physical sense of the word.
The musical is basically about two courtships, Able Annie's, and Lori's. They are paralleled with each other. Annie is also trying to decide between two men, not so smart cow-poke Will and the peddler, Ali Hakim, who is smart, but has no interest in marrying and just wants to have a night or two with Annie in the local hotel. He keeps dodging her pappa's gun and is forced to marry her -- until he can get Will in position to do so, and beg off with regret (and considerable relief). He does get it though when he marries the annoying merchant's daughter with her annoying laugh.
Annie's is about Annie wanting to live life, not be tied down, kiss other men. Will wants to tie her down. Then she accuses him of a double standard -- about how he wants to live his free-going life and not letting her do so as well.
Lori -- has a nightmare -- a dream dance sequence -- where she's about to marry Curly, but instead ends up with Judd, Curly killed by Judd. And Judd and Curly fight over Lori -- by bidding on the hampers -- which are in reality symbolic of bidding on the women. Curly gives up his saddle, his horse, and his gun to win. Judd furious tries to blind him with a device the peddler sold him -- Aunt Ella stops it. And then later Judd tries to rape Lori, who pushes him off and fires him, and then once he's gone, falls crying in Curly's arms. (At least she did that on her own and Curly didn't save her.) After Lori and Curly marry, Judd reappears and fights Curly, eventually falling on his own knife. His death is ruled an accident, and Curly rides off with Lori to the tune of Oklahoma.
The sexism and how women are viewed as inconsequential is implied. As is the violence between the cattlemen and the farmers -- symbolized by Curly and Judd's animosity.
It's a complicated musical, with some rather dark themes throughout -- although the writers are apparently commenting on female sexuality and how poorly women were treated.
As an aside Broadway HD is a mixed bag --- the sound went out at various points in Oklahoma, but it worked well with Kiss Me Kate. And it is rather nice watching old theater performances on the tv.
3. Finished the first three episodes of The Expanse S3 -- so far enjoying this season more than the last two. They've brought together a few characters -- which have helped move things along. Chrisianne is now aboard the Pintos Cochintra aka the Rocianeot, with Holden, Naomi, Amos, Alex, and the botanist. And they are finally sharing information.
Naomi and Holden are both making me crazy. Naomi wants to go back to Tycho and join forces with Fred Johnson, while everyone else wants to go to Jupiter IO, except for Bobby and Christianne who want find a way to send their information on the bad guy at the UN to the proper parties.
I want to kick Naomi at the moment -- she's become insanely self-centered. All she cares about is the Belt. Holden's not much better -- he feels guilty about lying to the botantist about his daughter and not helping him find his daughter -- so they are going to find the botanists daughter or die trying.
Meanwhile Fred Johnson has climbed in bed with the Martians, and is betraying the Belt at the chagrin of his second in command who is royally pissed at both Naomi and Johnson.
Then there's the group on the UN Agatha -- who have just been comandeered by one of the bad guys associates. And they are trying to find a way out.
Plus the group on earth that called in a Rev to help them justify their war. Rev Anna -- played by Elizabeth Mitchell. (Actually I like this Rev Anna better than the one at my church.) She's interesting.
And Mao on Jupiter with the evil Strickland. Mao has grown a conscience -- apparently his daughter's demise affected him after all -- because he's commanded Strickland to put a halt to the experiment, they are not going to experiment on the children any longer, in order to turn them into weapons. They still have no understanding of the molecule, all they are doing is trying to selfishly weaponize and control something they do not understand. He just wants to understand it.
Making Mao less of a moustache twirling villain has helped. Now, if they can just give a bit more depth to Strickland.
The female characters in this series are kick-ass, more varied and they have interactions that have nothing to do with men. The male characters are also diverse.
With time it's coming into its own.
If you gave up on the Expanse in S1 -- it's worth giving it a second go. Season 2.9 onwards is rather good and it just gets better as we go.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-26 02:23 am (UTC)Heh.
Skimming your commentary on The Expanse, since I'm behind where you are, but even without having gotten to 2.9, it's definitely better in s2 than s1. And season one wasn't bad, but... I think I mentioned on my DW that for a show with a lot of characters of color, the narrative focused way too much on the white dudes for my own tastes. And season two has already improved in that regard. And I'm not going to celebrate now that Miller is apparently dead, but I'm not exactly crying tears over it, either. (Okay, maybe I'll celebrate a little bit.)
no subject
Date: 2019-08-26 02:32 am (UTC)I think the writers heard the criticism and took notice?
S3 is even better than S2 in this regard. And far more interesting. I found S1 rather slow, and first part of S2 drug -- up until 2.8 or 2.9. Then it takes off big time.
I liked Miller better than you did, but I wasn't upset they killed him off either..