![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWell, I survived my first week as a temporary consultant
at the finance company. Repeat TEMPORARY assignment. This could end in two weeks, three weeks, a month, three months - and I could be right back where I was two weeks ago. Temp/consulting/freelance assignments suck in that regard, don't they?
That said they want me back for another week. This is good. I like working. Read, organized files, and filed contracts all week. Beginning to get a clue what the business is about and am fascinated by it. Completely new business from the ones I've worked in before. Also the work environment is fairly pleasant - at least for the moment. A friend told me I'm a bit like a kicked dog who had a nasty owner, trying to adjust to a new, nicer, owner. Not a bad analogy. Evil company, which was in the publishing industry and not corporate, treated its employees like slaves. New company, which is far bigger and more corporate, treats it's employees like human beings. Morale? Don't judge a company by its business, profit-margin, or size. Trust me. The worst places I've worked for were the ones who said they were out to help the world. The best, were the ones who just wanted to make an honest profit. In real life, Shell Oil is more often than not a nicer place to work than Greenpeace, it's only in the movies that it's the other way around. Makes life confusing I know, but there it is.
Body took a bruising though - my own fault, not the company's. Wore ridiculously tight shoes one day, which caused nasty blisters to develop on the back heels of both feet. Discovered Band-Aid's Blister Blockers at a drug store in building's lobby, proved to be a miracle cure. Then cut my fingers on the files, bruised my knee against the corner of my desk. And woke with a charly horse or leg cramp in my calve Thursday morning at 5 am, which will not go away. Mother suggests tonic water or calcium. Work is hard on the body apparently.
In other news, I'm struggling with technology today. Aol won't let me email people, such as my parents and cjlasky. It keeps bouncing my email back.
Note to people using aol - according to a friend of mine the reason email gets bounced is that aol has a junk mail/spam blocker that blocks every address that isn't aol out, so friends and family with msn may or may not get your email or be able to send you email if you have your spam/junk mail blocker on. So you want to get email from non-aol users? Turn the spam/junk mail blocker off. This is why I prefer msn - it's a junk mail filter not blocker, a separate email box that I can scroll through and empty without reading. Much more efficient. (Not that I'm a huge fan of MSN, it has other problems - such as disconnecting me from the internet every ten minutes, slow download times for email, etc. But hey, at least I get my mail. I'd switch to another service if I wasn't worried about all those recruiters being unable to contact me. Can't risk changing email addresses just yet.)
The other tech problem was my cable went down. Apparently Time Warner is having cable service outtages around the city tonight. Not that I'm overly concerned - not much on on a Sat night anyway. But it is annoying. I hope it's back on in time for The 4400 and The Dead Zone on Sunday night or I'll be annoyed. There's about four or five dramas on TV right now that are gripping me: Nip/Tuck, Rescue Me, The Dead Zone, The 4400, and The West Wing reruns on Bravo (which stopped right before last year, damn-it! I missed last year's episodes because of Angel and wanted to catch up. Not that the last two years of The West Wing have been that gripping, but still, I was curious to see how they wrapped up the Zoey Kidnapping storyline.)
Rescue ME has potential. It's about a New York City Fire Department a year or so after the events of 9/11. Possibly the most realistic dramedy I've seen in a while. Dark humor. Pathos. Yes, it falls into some conventional cliches from time to time. But the relationships feel real and the acting is spot on. Probably helps that I'm a fan of Dennis Leary. If you like haunted, snarky heros - this is the show for you. But be warned - it doesn't pull its punches, it's offensive in places much like All in The Family and The Shield are - with realistic non-politically correct/abrasive characters. Which may be why I like it. Is it just me or is USA and FX and possibly Sci-Fi the only channels taking risks on drama any more? (Not counting the premium channels such as HBO and Showtime which don't have to deal with commercial advertisers). Everyone else appears to be copying each other's reality shows, family dramas, and situation comedies this summer. I've seen four rip-offs of The OC (nothing against the OC, it's fine, but do we really need copies of it? It's not that good), five of CSI and Law and Order, several of Everwood/Seventh Heaven, and more than I can count of just about every reality show on TV. All of which bore the hell out of me. Granted I have a short attention span and am not into games or competitions - which I think may be a necessity for anyone who loves reality shows. An old college pal can't get enough of them - she adores games and is highly competitve.
I do have a smidgen of hope for some new network offerings this fall: Desperate Housewives ( a nifty dark dramedy about murderous housewives), Lost ( which reminds me of a 1970s short lived sci-fi adventure series starring Roddy McDowell and Ike Eisenmen that I can't remember the name of and wonder if I imagined), and whatever Jane Espenson and Doris Egan have in store for Tru Calling. Plus - Wizard of Earthsea on Sci-Fi.
And the new revised BattleStar Galatica series, starring the actor who played Dr. Bashir, starting in January. Also looking forward to seeing 24 again. Not so sure about Alias - the characters I found interesting seem to be disappearing and the ones who got on my ever living nerve seem to be getting more story, if they decide to bring back Will, bulk up Weiss's story and give me more of Victor Garber and Ron Rifkin and Carl Lumby - I may change my mind. But I'm certainly not tuning in to see Michael Vartan/Jennifer Garner compete to see who can look the most stoic, I got better things to do and watch.
As for James Marsters, Dresden, and Angel movies? I don't have much hope. Sort of given up on those. I do hope Marsters does more than Richard Hatch did after Battlestar Galatica ended. Granted he's a far better actor than Hatch, who had a similar acting style to David Boreanze, Michael Vartan and Kevin Zorbo - ie. show as little emotion as I possibly can and look depressed all the time, but that doesn't mean anything in the entertainment business. It's all about connections baby. Connections, luck, and getting the right person to see you. Wait, that's not just the entertainment business, that's life.
In Books - I finished Summer Knight by Jim Butcher last night. Not bad. But not satisfying either. There's something missing in Butcher's Dresden series - that wasn't missing in Rowlings' Harry Potter and Dunnett's Lymond Chronicles. I think the characters evolve more in those series. In Butcher's Dresden seems to stay basically the same in each book which may be more a fault of the mystery genre he's writting in. All the mysteries serial novelists have this problem from PdJames, Conan Doyle, to Janet Evanovich. The characters tend to stay the same in each book, oh they have new things happen to them and are horribly tortured at times, but they don't really evolve or appear to learn much. Also the storylines tend to be similar in each book - a myster, jeopardy, almost killed five or six times, romance that can never be resolved, character survives to fight another day. In Lymond series - Dunnett resolves the storyline threads. Her characters do evolve and change. Each battle the character fights leads to something.
Dorothy Dunnett's character of Lymond is forced to deal with who he is and what he wants and the consequences of it. She tackles the character from an odd angle - outside of it, we see him through other's eyes. So we as a reader are often judging him based on what others tell us, finding out later, as they do, that we are wrong. A heavy theme in Dunnett's books is how risky it is to do things without all the information, one mustn't make rash judgements or assumptions. Through Lymond she examines the idea of biological heritage and inheritance - which had a great deal more importance in 16th Century Europe than it does now. Back then biological heritage and inheritance was everything. If you did not come from a good family and were not legitimate - you were limited in your occupational choices - ie. mercernary, clergy (if you weren't a bastard), and solider. Landowners usually inherited their land. Mercernary's could get it through the State, but there were always strings attached. Lymond's greatest enemy in Dunnett's novels is himself and his own desires. To succeed, he has to find a way to rise above his self-destructive weaknesses, and the weaknesses of his time. The success of her novels - demonstrates that this is not something limited to 16th Century Scotland, we all have to find a way to rise above our own self-destructive weaknesses.
Butcher attempts the same theme in the Dresden series, but doesn't quite pull it off. Yes Dresden appears to be self-destructive at times, but unlike Lymond, he never does anything truly base or ruthless. He is tempted by power, but never quite succumbs. Pawn in Frankinscense - the fourth book in the series depicts Lymond in a chess game that spans countries, a game in which Lynmond sacrifices lives, his own dignity, that of others, to kill one man. The fact that the final play entails the death of a child, a child that may very well be his own son, breaks him, it pushs Lymond over the edge of the cliff that Butcher won't take his character. Joss Whedon did the same thing with Spike, he pushed him off a cliff-face when he had the character attempt to rape Buffy - an action that horrified the character enough to cause the character to self-destruct. He sort of does the same thing with Angel in Season 5 but not quite. Actually Mutant Enemy in Season 3 and 4 come close to doing what Dunnett did with Lymond in Frankinscense, but pull back. It's easier to do, I think, with a supporting character, tough to do with a lead. But until you do it - your character remains stagnant, running in place - he needs a reason to change. Dresden runs in place, each book starts and ends the same way. Butcher wants to evolve Dresden - change him by torture. But the torture is the same - physical beatings, horrible visions, losses of comrades, girlfriends, betrayals, and unresolved issues with parents - he doesn't grow from these outtings so much as just repeat them in each book with different characters playing the roles. This last book, he saves the day, he survives, and he takes his first love's advice before she departs, to enjoy life a little, yet he hasn't really changed. Just lightened up a bit. Gotten a little more social.
It's probably unfair to compare Dunnett to Butcher. They are attempting separate things. Dunnett is not an author that one should skim or read quickly. You miss things. Her books are intricate political chess games amongst a multitude of characters. In them are two of the most complex historical villains you may ever come across: Lord Grey and Lady Margret Lennox. Neither are really villains, of course. In fact if you pick up another book they could very well be the heros. At the heart of the Lymond series is "inheritance" - who gets the power. In the very first book - Game of Kings, we have several family members fighting over who runs what country. The King of France is related to the Queen of Scotland, who in turn is related to the King of England, who is also related to the King of Spain. They gain power over each other by marriage and whose relatives and friends own the most land in which country.
The battle Lymond is waging is a similar one - does he put his own desires for power and prestige first or his family and country first? An echo of Dunnett's commentary on the political factions - do the King's and Queen's put the welfare of their countries first or their desires for power first? The answers are murky. Since in some respects Lymond can protect both Scotland and his family better if he is fighting and has power. Yet in going after the power he also can destroy them. On the other hand if he attempts to throw away the power or kill himself to protect them, he also destroys them. Sort of similar to poor Mary Queen of Scots - who loves Scotland, but can only protect her by marrying France, which she does with few qualms in Checkmate, yet by marrying France betrays Scotland because she gives power over it to another country. (Ironic this since in the first two books, Lymond and Scotland fight tooth and nail to make sure she marries France instead of England, yet by Checkmate, they have second thoughts once Elizabeth - a Protestant Queen emerges. Yes, it's also about religion. Mary and France are Catholic, and Lymond's family is Calvinist. Lymond himself believes in a state not ruled by one religion, but acknowledges the difficulty of accomplishing this.) Lymond similarly struggles - by going after Gabriel in Disorderly Knights and Pawn, he must leave Scotland and France and puts them at risk, as well as his family, he also puts his child at risk, yet if he doesn't go after Gabriel and kill him, Gabriel could obtain power and destroy his country and family. Gabriel is a man who uses religion to obtain power, he pretends to be a holy man in order to convince others to join him in a holy crusade to conqueor nations. Ironically he ends up joining the "infidels" he proposes to hate in the beginning, proving religion was just a tool for him, nothing more. Gabriel is in many respects Lymond's shadow self - what he could become if he allowed himself to give in to his basest desires. A charismatic man who loves nothing but power. Seeing himself in Gabriel in Pawn, Lymond flees to Russia in Ringed Castle. By staying in Russia, Lymond believes he protects his family, Phillippa, and his country from himself, yet by staying there he merely places them at risk from opponents in England, who will hurt them and him if he does not return. Also he risks empowering a mad Tsar who could end declaring war on them. And he risks becoming Gabriel, a man who lives only for power. Ringed Castle is a brilliant depiction of self-hatred and despair and how a character attempts to escape his fate, only to fall head-first into it by the manipulations of others. It shows that no matter what we do to control our own reality, we cannot control every element, there's always someone or something outside our grasp that will foul things up.
It's easy to judge Lymond's actions out of context - but within the context of the times, less easy.
Richard, his older brother has an easier time of it. He's a landowner, he's clearly legitimate, and titled by inheritance.
He doesn't have to worry about providing for wife and family.
Nor does he have to fight unless called to it by Queen or country. Lymond in contrast, does not have any inherited money - he must earn it, he can be sold in servitude or sent to the army by his father - younger sons often were at that time, and his options are limited to clergy and solidering as Lymond himself states on many occassions. That's why inheritance is *so* important. If you are the Baron or Lord Culter - you get the castle, the lands, and the court privileges that come with it. This isn't earned title, it's inherited through the father's line. Patriarchial. If you are proven to be illegitimate, not of your father's true line or his bastard, than your inheritance is moot, and falls to the next legitimate male heir, if there isn't one, the next female one - which could be your uncle, your nephew, your neice, etc.
If you think finding a job now is tough, try the 16th Century.
Lymond loved music, was a scholar, created poetry, but the avenue open to him was warfare. Fighting. Which he liked least. If he had been a landowner, he could have engaged more in the other pursuits. Since he was a good fighter and mercernary - he recieved court priveleges, land, and titles as a reward for his fighting ability. If he lacked these skills - he'd have had a life similar to Robin Stewart in Queen's Play. Robin Stewart was a second son and ended up not getting privileges etc for these reasons. Same deal with the villian in Queen's Play. Austin Grey, a Marquis in the last book, Checkmate, is another character who has it easy, he doesn't have to be a fighter - he has a title and land, he's a legitimate first born. He'll go to war, sure, but he can go back and just own land. But the mercernaries who fight with Lymond, they don't have it so easy, their choices are limited. One is a lawyer, one an architect (who can't find a job in war time outside of being a solider), and one an artist (who has a brief opportunity to work with maps).
In the Lymond Chronicles - Dunnett reveals the difficulties of the times, the politics, the game-playing, and the choices men and women had to make in order to survive. Phillippa has no choice in Ringed Castle or in Checkmate but to stay with the Queen at different points. She'd love to leave, but the Queen requests that she stay. At other points, she's forced to leave because of what the Queen wants. In those days, you were literally at the mercy of your monarch - they could kill, imprison, disinherit, destroy your family, or reward you on a whim. And if your enemy had their ear, they could do the same. Women during this period had few choices: they could serve at court, get married, work as servants, or act as an apprentice. It was rare to be in power and the one's who were, got there through birth or lineage - such as Queen Elizabeth. The historical power-plays in these novels are real by the way, the conspiracy between the Sulieman's wife and his councelor to get rid of his oldest son in Pawn, really did happen. Margret Lennox's political manipulations to get power also happened. She did manipulate Mary Queen of Scots to marry her son, she did manipulate them to challenge Elizabeth for the throne. (Ironic that her attempt succeeded in getting herself, Mary Queen of Scots and her son killed by Elizabeth. Part of the fun of reading these books, is knowing the historical ironies.) And Queen Mary Tudor did kill quite a few protestants and fall for King Phillip of Spain.
Rowlings in her Harry Potter novels also plays with politics.
She is not just writing a children's story, there's actually a little more going on in her books. And unlike Butcher, I see her pushing her characters closer to the cliff, evolving them a bit more. In the last book, Order of The Phoenix, Dumbledore was much greyer and his actions manipulative. He moves people into place much like a chess player would. Snape is also revealed to be multi-faceted as are James Potter, Lupin, and Sirus. Rowlings comments in her Potter books on how people treat one another, discrimination both institutional and non-institutional, the insidious nature of prejudice, and how judging others based on appearance or first impressions can be hazardous to one's health. Harry Potter, unlike Harry Dresden,
does appear to change, yes he's an angry little puppy in each book just as Dresden is an angry little puppy, but he seems to realize small things and change his views on others. It's subtle. Also the supporting characters are far more complex, including some of the nastier ones: Snape (his counterpart in Dresden's series in Morgan), Hermoine (Murphy in Dresden), Ron (Michael the Knight, Billy the Werewolf). We get more facets. And I think that may be the reason Rowlings, even though she appears on the surface to be writing a "children's book" is getting so many avid readers. The more complex your supporting cast is, the more universal the appeal. Why?
Your readers have more characters to choose from. It's limiting to only focus on one. In Harry Potter, if you're not nuts about Harry, you can always latch on to Ron, Hermione, or even Snape. Same with Dunnett, if you aren't crazy about Lymond, there's plenty of others to choose from. Although I think it would be difficult to read them if you hated the leads, sort of like hating Angel in his own series.
Now don't get me wrong, I like the Dresden novels. Nice quick read and Butcher entertains me. It's just not quite as satisfying a read as the other two series. I'd say it's because I didn't have to work as hard, but that's not completely true, since I certainly didn't have to work very hard to read Harry Potter. Dunnett, yes, but that's only because I read it carefully (translated the French in my head) and kept flipping back to figure out political set-ups.
Currently trying to decide between The Doomsday Book by Connie Willis, and Bridge of Birds Barry Hughart.
Need a break before reading Butcher's Death Masks.
at the finance company. Repeat TEMPORARY assignment. This could end in two weeks, three weeks, a month, three months - and I could be right back where I was two weeks ago. Temp/consulting/freelance assignments suck in that regard, don't they?
That said they want me back for another week. This is good. I like working. Read, organized files, and filed contracts all week. Beginning to get a clue what the business is about and am fascinated by it. Completely new business from the ones I've worked in before. Also the work environment is fairly pleasant - at least for the moment. A friend told me I'm a bit like a kicked dog who had a nasty owner, trying to adjust to a new, nicer, owner. Not a bad analogy. Evil company, which was in the publishing industry and not corporate, treated its employees like slaves. New company, which is far bigger and more corporate, treats it's employees like human beings. Morale? Don't judge a company by its business, profit-margin, or size. Trust me. The worst places I've worked for were the ones who said they were out to help the world. The best, were the ones who just wanted to make an honest profit. In real life, Shell Oil is more often than not a nicer place to work than Greenpeace, it's only in the movies that it's the other way around. Makes life confusing I know, but there it is.
Body took a bruising though - my own fault, not the company's. Wore ridiculously tight shoes one day, which caused nasty blisters to develop on the back heels of both feet. Discovered Band-Aid's Blister Blockers at a drug store in building's lobby, proved to be a miracle cure. Then cut my fingers on the files, bruised my knee against the corner of my desk. And woke with a charly horse or leg cramp in my calve Thursday morning at 5 am, which will not go away. Mother suggests tonic water or calcium. Work is hard on the body apparently.
In other news, I'm struggling with technology today. Aol won't let me email people, such as my parents and cjlasky. It keeps bouncing my email back.
Note to people using aol - according to a friend of mine the reason email gets bounced is that aol has a junk mail/spam blocker that blocks every address that isn't aol out, so friends and family with msn may or may not get your email or be able to send you email if you have your spam/junk mail blocker on. So you want to get email from non-aol users? Turn the spam/junk mail blocker off. This is why I prefer msn - it's a junk mail filter not blocker, a separate email box that I can scroll through and empty without reading. Much more efficient. (Not that I'm a huge fan of MSN, it has other problems - such as disconnecting me from the internet every ten minutes, slow download times for email, etc. But hey, at least I get my mail. I'd switch to another service if I wasn't worried about all those recruiters being unable to contact me. Can't risk changing email addresses just yet.)
The other tech problem was my cable went down. Apparently Time Warner is having cable service outtages around the city tonight. Not that I'm overly concerned - not much on on a Sat night anyway. But it is annoying. I hope it's back on in time for The 4400 and The Dead Zone on Sunday night or I'll be annoyed. There's about four or five dramas on TV right now that are gripping me: Nip/Tuck, Rescue Me, The Dead Zone, The 4400, and The West Wing reruns on Bravo (which stopped right before last year, damn-it! I missed last year's episodes because of Angel and wanted to catch up. Not that the last two years of The West Wing have been that gripping, but still, I was curious to see how they wrapped up the Zoey Kidnapping storyline.)
Rescue ME has potential. It's about a New York City Fire Department a year or so after the events of 9/11. Possibly the most realistic dramedy I've seen in a while. Dark humor. Pathos. Yes, it falls into some conventional cliches from time to time. But the relationships feel real and the acting is spot on. Probably helps that I'm a fan of Dennis Leary. If you like haunted, snarky heros - this is the show for you. But be warned - it doesn't pull its punches, it's offensive in places much like All in The Family and The Shield are - with realistic non-politically correct/abrasive characters. Which may be why I like it. Is it just me or is USA and FX and possibly Sci-Fi the only channels taking risks on drama any more? (Not counting the premium channels such as HBO and Showtime which don't have to deal with commercial advertisers). Everyone else appears to be copying each other's reality shows, family dramas, and situation comedies this summer. I've seen four rip-offs of The OC (nothing against the OC, it's fine, but do we really need copies of it? It's not that good), five of CSI and Law and Order, several of Everwood/Seventh Heaven, and more than I can count of just about every reality show on TV. All of which bore the hell out of me. Granted I have a short attention span and am not into games or competitions - which I think may be a necessity for anyone who loves reality shows. An old college pal can't get enough of them - she adores games and is highly competitve.
I do have a smidgen of hope for some new network offerings this fall: Desperate Housewives ( a nifty dark dramedy about murderous housewives), Lost ( which reminds me of a 1970s short lived sci-fi adventure series starring Roddy McDowell and Ike Eisenmen that I can't remember the name of and wonder if I imagined), and whatever Jane Espenson and Doris Egan have in store for Tru Calling. Plus - Wizard of Earthsea on Sci-Fi.
And the new revised BattleStar Galatica series, starring the actor who played Dr. Bashir, starting in January. Also looking forward to seeing 24 again. Not so sure about Alias - the characters I found interesting seem to be disappearing and the ones who got on my ever living nerve seem to be getting more story, if they decide to bring back Will, bulk up Weiss's story and give me more of Victor Garber and Ron Rifkin and Carl Lumby - I may change my mind. But I'm certainly not tuning in to see Michael Vartan/Jennifer Garner compete to see who can look the most stoic, I got better things to do and watch.
As for James Marsters, Dresden, and Angel movies? I don't have much hope. Sort of given up on those. I do hope Marsters does more than Richard Hatch did after Battlestar Galatica ended. Granted he's a far better actor than Hatch, who had a similar acting style to David Boreanze, Michael Vartan and Kevin Zorbo - ie. show as little emotion as I possibly can and look depressed all the time, but that doesn't mean anything in the entertainment business. It's all about connections baby. Connections, luck, and getting the right person to see you. Wait, that's not just the entertainment business, that's life.
In Books - I finished Summer Knight by Jim Butcher last night. Not bad. But not satisfying either. There's something missing in Butcher's Dresden series - that wasn't missing in Rowlings' Harry Potter and Dunnett's Lymond Chronicles. I think the characters evolve more in those series. In Butcher's Dresden seems to stay basically the same in each book which may be more a fault of the mystery genre he's writting in. All the mysteries serial novelists have this problem from PdJames, Conan Doyle, to Janet Evanovich. The characters tend to stay the same in each book, oh they have new things happen to them and are horribly tortured at times, but they don't really evolve or appear to learn much. Also the storylines tend to be similar in each book - a myster, jeopardy, almost killed five or six times, romance that can never be resolved, character survives to fight another day. In Lymond series - Dunnett resolves the storyline threads. Her characters do evolve and change. Each battle the character fights leads to something.
Dorothy Dunnett's character of Lymond is forced to deal with who he is and what he wants and the consequences of it. She tackles the character from an odd angle - outside of it, we see him through other's eyes. So we as a reader are often judging him based on what others tell us, finding out later, as they do, that we are wrong. A heavy theme in Dunnett's books is how risky it is to do things without all the information, one mustn't make rash judgements or assumptions. Through Lymond she examines the idea of biological heritage and inheritance - which had a great deal more importance in 16th Century Europe than it does now. Back then biological heritage and inheritance was everything. If you did not come from a good family and were not legitimate - you were limited in your occupational choices - ie. mercernary, clergy (if you weren't a bastard), and solider. Landowners usually inherited their land. Mercernary's could get it through the State, but there were always strings attached. Lymond's greatest enemy in Dunnett's novels is himself and his own desires. To succeed, he has to find a way to rise above his self-destructive weaknesses, and the weaknesses of his time. The success of her novels - demonstrates that this is not something limited to 16th Century Scotland, we all have to find a way to rise above our own self-destructive weaknesses.
Butcher attempts the same theme in the Dresden series, but doesn't quite pull it off. Yes Dresden appears to be self-destructive at times, but unlike Lymond, he never does anything truly base or ruthless. He is tempted by power, but never quite succumbs. Pawn in Frankinscense - the fourth book in the series depicts Lymond in a chess game that spans countries, a game in which Lynmond sacrifices lives, his own dignity, that of others, to kill one man. The fact that the final play entails the death of a child, a child that may very well be his own son, breaks him, it pushs Lymond over the edge of the cliff that Butcher won't take his character. Joss Whedon did the same thing with Spike, he pushed him off a cliff-face when he had the character attempt to rape Buffy - an action that horrified the character enough to cause the character to self-destruct. He sort of does the same thing with Angel in Season 5 but not quite. Actually Mutant Enemy in Season 3 and 4 come close to doing what Dunnett did with Lymond in Frankinscense, but pull back. It's easier to do, I think, with a supporting character, tough to do with a lead. But until you do it - your character remains stagnant, running in place - he needs a reason to change. Dresden runs in place, each book starts and ends the same way. Butcher wants to evolve Dresden - change him by torture. But the torture is the same - physical beatings, horrible visions, losses of comrades, girlfriends, betrayals, and unresolved issues with parents - he doesn't grow from these outtings so much as just repeat them in each book with different characters playing the roles. This last book, he saves the day, he survives, and he takes his first love's advice before she departs, to enjoy life a little, yet he hasn't really changed. Just lightened up a bit. Gotten a little more social.
It's probably unfair to compare Dunnett to Butcher. They are attempting separate things. Dunnett is not an author that one should skim or read quickly. You miss things. Her books are intricate political chess games amongst a multitude of characters. In them are two of the most complex historical villains you may ever come across: Lord Grey and Lady Margret Lennox. Neither are really villains, of course. In fact if you pick up another book they could very well be the heros. At the heart of the Lymond series is "inheritance" - who gets the power. In the very first book - Game of Kings, we have several family members fighting over who runs what country. The King of France is related to the Queen of Scotland, who in turn is related to the King of England, who is also related to the King of Spain. They gain power over each other by marriage and whose relatives and friends own the most land in which country.
The battle Lymond is waging is a similar one - does he put his own desires for power and prestige first or his family and country first? An echo of Dunnett's commentary on the political factions - do the King's and Queen's put the welfare of their countries first or their desires for power first? The answers are murky. Since in some respects Lymond can protect both Scotland and his family better if he is fighting and has power. Yet in going after the power he also can destroy them. On the other hand if he attempts to throw away the power or kill himself to protect them, he also destroys them. Sort of similar to poor Mary Queen of Scots - who loves Scotland, but can only protect her by marrying France, which she does with few qualms in Checkmate, yet by marrying France betrays Scotland because she gives power over it to another country. (Ironic this since in the first two books, Lymond and Scotland fight tooth and nail to make sure she marries France instead of England, yet by Checkmate, they have second thoughts once Elizabeth - a Protestant Queen emerges. Yes, it's also about religion. Mary and France are Catholic, and Lymond's family is Calvinist. Lymond himself believes in a state not ruled by one religion, but acknowledges the difficulty of accomplishing this.) Lymond similarly struggles - by going after Gabriel in Disorderly Knights and Pawn, he must leave Scotland and France and puts them at risk, as well as his family, he also puts his child at risk, yet if he doesn't go after Gabriel and kill him, Gabriel could obtain power and destroy his country and family. Gabriel is a man who uses religion to obtain power, he pretends to be a holy man in order to convince others to join him in a holy crusade to conqueor nations. Ironically he ends up joining the "infidels" he proposes to hate in the beginning, proving religion was just a tool for him, nothing more. Gabriel is in many respects Lymond's shadow self - what he could become if he allowed himself to give in to his basest desires. A charismatic man who loves nothing but power. Seeing himself in Gabriel in Pawn, Lymond flees to Russia in Ringed Castle. By staying in Russia, Lymond believes he protects his family, Phillippa, and his country from himself, yet by staying there he merely places them at risk from opponents in England, who will hurt them and him if he does not return. Also he risks empowering a mad Tsar who could end declaring war on them. And he risks becoming Gabriel, a man who lives only for power. Ringed Castle is a brilliant depiction of self-hatred and despair and how a character attempts to escape his fate, only to fall head-first into it by the manipulations of others. It shows that no matter what we do to control our own reality, we cannot control every element, there's always someone or something outside our grasp that will foul things up.
It's easy to judge Lymond's actions out of context - but within the context of the times, less easy.
Richard, his older brother has an easier time of it. He's a landowner, he's clearly legitimate, and titled by inheritance.
He doesn't have to worry about providing for wife and family.
Nor does he have to fight unless called to it by Queen or country. Lymond in contrast, does not have any inherited money - he must earn it, he can be sold in servitude or sent to the army by his father - younger sons often were at that time, and his options are limited to clergy and solidering as Lymond himself states on many occassions. That's why inheritance is *so* important. If you are the Baron or Lord Culter - you get the castle, the lands, and the court privileges that come with it. This isn't earned title, it's inherited through the father's line. Patriarchial. If you are proven to be illegitimate, not of your father's true line or his bastard, than your inheritance is moot, and falls to the next legitimate male heir, if there isn't one, the next female one - which could be your uncle, your nephew, your neice, etc.
If you think finding a job now is tough, try the 16th Century.
Lymond loved music, was a scholar, created poetry, but the avenue open to him was warfare. Fighting. Which he liked least. If he had been a landowner, he could have engaged more in the other pursuits. Since he was a good fighter and mercernary - he recieved court priveleges, land, and titles as a reward for his fighting ability. If he lacked these skills - he'd have had a life similar to Robin Stewart in Queen's Play. Robin Stewart was a second son and ended up not getting privileges etc for these reasons. Same deal with the villian in Queen's Play. Austin Grey, a Marquis in the last book, Checkmate, is another character who has it easy, he doesn't have to be a fighter - he has a title and land, he's a legitimate first born. He'll go to war, sure, but he can go back and just own land. But the mercernaries who fight with Lymond, they don't have it so easy, their choices are limited. One is a lawyer, one an architect (who can't find a job in war time outside of being a solider), and one an artist (who has a brief opportunity to work with maps).
In the Lymond Chronicles - Dunnett reveals the difficulties of the times, the politics, the game-playing, and the choices men and women had to make in order to survive. Phillippa has no choice in Ringed Castle or in Checkmate but to stay with the Queen at different points. She'd love to leave, but the Queen requests that she stay. At other points, she's forced to leave because of what the Queen wants. In those days, you were literally at the mercy of your monarch - they could kill, imprison, disinherit, destroy your family, or reward you on a whim. And if your enemy had their ear, they could do the same. Women during this period had few choices: they could serve at court, get married, work as servants, or act as an apprentice. It was rare to be in power and the one's who were, got there through birth or lineage - such as Queen Elizabeth. The historical power-plays in these novels are real by the way, the conspiracy between the Sulieman's wife and his councelor to get rid of his oldest son in Pawn, really did happen. Margret Lennox's political manipulations to get power also happened. She did manipulate Mary Queen of Scots to marry her son, she did manipulate them to challenge Elizabeth for the throne. (Ironic that her attempt succeeded in getting herself, Mary Queen of Scots and her son killed by Elizabeth. Part of the fun of reading these books, is knowing the historical ironies.) And Queen Mary Tudor did kill quite a few protestants and fall for King Phillip of Spain.
Rowlings in her Harry Potter novels also plays with politics.
She is not just writing a children's story, there's actually a little more going on in her books. And unlike Butcher, I see her pushing her characters closer to the cliff, evolving them a bit more. In the last book, Order of The Phoenix, Dumbledore was much greyer and his actions manipulative. He moves people into place much like a chess player would. Snape is also revealed to be multi-faceted as are James Potter, Lupin, and Sirus. Rowlings comments in her Potter books on how people treat one another, discrimination both institutional and non-institutional, the insidious nature of prejudice, and how judging others based on appearance or first impressions can be hazardous to one's health. Harry Potter, unlike Harry Dresden,
does appear to change, yes he's an angry little puppy in each book just as Dresden is an angry little puppy, but he seems to realize small things and change his views on others. It's subtle. Also the supporting characters are far more complex, including some of the nastier ones: Snape (his counterpart in Dresden's series in Morgan), Hermoine (Murphy in Dresden), Ron (Michael the Knight, Billy the Werewolf). We get more facets. And I think that may be the reason Rowlings, even though she appears on the surface to be writing a "children's book" is getting so many avid readers. The more complex your supporting cast is, the more universal the appeal. Why?
Your readers have more characters to choose from. It's limiting to only focus on one. In Harry Potter, if you're not nuts about Harry, you can always latch on to Ron, Hermione, or even Snape. Same with Dunnett, if you aren't crazy about Lymond, there's plenty of others to choose from. Although I think it would be difficult to read them if you hated the leads, sort of like hating Angel in his own series.
Now don't get me wrong, I like the Dresden novels. Nice quick read and Butcher entertains me. It's just not quite as satisfying a read as the other two series. I'd say it's because I didn't have to work as hard, but that's not completely true, since I certainly didn't have to work very hard to read Harry Potter. Dunnett, yes, but that's only because I read it carefully (translated the French in my head) and kept flipping back to figure out political set-ups.
Currently trying to decide between The Doomsday Book by Connie Willis, and Bridge of Birds Barry Hughart.
Need a break before reading Butcher's Death Masks.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-31 09:26 pm (UTC)Most likely "The Fantastic Journey" I think. Scientific expedition lost in the Bermuda Triangle, etc.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-31 09:42 pm (UTC)"Fantastic Journey, The" (1977)
[TV-Series]
Directed by
Barry Crane
Art Fisher
(more)
Writing credits
Katharyn Powers (writer) (4 episodes)
Michael Michaelian (writer) (3 episodes)
(more)
Genre: Sci-Fi
Plot Summary: A scientific expedition in the Atlantic Ocean becomes lost in the Bermuda Triangle and washes up on an uncharted island... and have
all sorts of science fiction oriented adventures.
Complete credited cast:
Jared Martin .... Varian
Carl Franklin .... Dr. Fred Walters
Ike Eisenmann .... Scott Jordan
Katie Saylor .... Liana
Roddy McDowall .... Dr. Jonathan Willoway (1977)"
And yup, Lost fits the description. Except the people in Fantastic Journey end up there by boat, in Lost, it's a plane crash.
The series reminded me of Twilight Zone.