The whine post
Jan. 30th, 2005 02:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat(After some thought, decided to make this thread public, let me know if this is
a problem.)
Not having the best day...my printer seems to be ka-put. I can't figure out how to stop it from just spooling. It doesn't grab paper, it doesn't print, it just spools or makes that whirling sound they make when paper supposedly is grabbed and printed. Also my computer just seems to get slower and slower, the dial-up disconnects more and more...methinks I should either overhaul the whole thing and get a new set up or maybe just try and get a new printer.
I sort of need the printer to do turbo tax. Since the government hasn't deigned to send me the tax forms this year. Dang government. They send them when I have nothing to file and don't when I finally do. Not that much, true, but still.
Party made me grouchy. Fighting a combo tension/sinus headache at the moment.
Also feel somewhat overwhelmed by all these things I need to get but don't really want: 1. cell phone (I hate phones, not many people call me anyways and the only reason I need one is well for situations like I had last week worrying about getting to work on time or that whole Xmas fiasco. Also cell phones? Tiny. How do people talk on such a tiny thing?) 2. New printer (why can't the old one just work? I think I killed it trying to print those S6 screenplays off the internet to read, actually. I can't get a new one - it has to be delivered and they always deliver on weekdays and there's no one home then. I can't stay home for a possible delivery - don't have that much vacation time.) 3. Computer is frigging slow lately - does this mean I need a new one? Don't want a new one - have to transfer all the old stuff to it, plus I have no clue what to get and they are bloody expensive. Can't afford a new one.)
Ugh. Just want to hurl things at the wall. The printer being one of them. Already sent email to Lexmark to see if they'll do anything. It's a Lexmark z65 Ink Jet printer.
Strolled through flist - people still are discussing the last two seasons of BTVS, specifically the B/S relationship, for unpopular seasons they are certainly discussed a lot, particularly by those who didn't like them. Same with the relationship. Amusing that. Personally, the B/R and B/A relationships bug me far more in retrospect and make me wonder about these writers and the fans who liked them -maybe because in both, Buffy is shown as tiny little girl and Riley/Angel are portrayed as the all-knowing father figure/mentors, oh and she is usually stronger than they are. This is not made better by the casting of a 90 pound, 5'2 18 year old to play Buffy and 26 year olds to play Riley and Angel - both as huge men around 6'3 and the tallest in the bTVS cast. They look like they are in their late 20s physically. Gellar looks 15 in comparison. Also Buffy is portrayed as ditzy valley girl while Angel and Riley are portrayed as actually fairly intellectual - reading Sartre no less and TA in a psychology course. There's an underlying feeling of pedophila/little girl should stay in her place, while big brighter man tells her what to do going on here that just squicks if you think about it too much and the fact that these relationships are treated as ideal is just creepy. The fact that Buffy is a slayer with an older, somewhat sexy, unmarried male Watcher doesn't help.
I'd think I was imagining things, but this uneasy feeling is heightened by well the Wes/Fred relationship - although at least in that relationship Wes and Fred were portrayed as close to the same age and with the same interests and more equal power levels - it's clear intelligence is emphasized over physical strength which may be why Wes/Fred oddly enough squicks me less now than B/A and B/R currently do. But once again we have a woman cast in the part who is tiny in physique and age wise younger than the male leads. She looks pre-adolescent and brings back memories of Audrey Hepburn romances where a 18-21 year old Audrey is paired with 30-50 something Humphrey Bogart, Gregory Peck and Gary Cooper. In B/A and B/R - the emphasis was on how much brighter and wiser the guys are, while Buffy was superstrong and the same strength level as them but not as bright or knowledgable. The fact they attempted to do the same thing again with Wood - makes it odder still. And more noticeable. Once again the older/wiser mentor/father to the little daughter figure. And when Wood doesn't get Buffy? He rides off into the sunset with Faith - as a nice replacement for the Mayor. The fact that that is the only heterosexual relationship that survives - really makes me wonder about the writers.
I think what I liked about B/S was that they were equal strength and she is portrayed as actually brighter than he is or at least at the same level. What is sad here - is when we finally have a relationship of equal strength and where the guy isn't wiser than the girl or portrayed as older/mentor figure - it goes evil. There's no father/daughter vibe going on here (even though technically speaking he's much older agewise - Marsters was 37 at the time, he plays it far younger) they feel more like siblings or equal age as written.
What's weird is the writers for some reason never put Buffy in a long-term romance with someone her age or equal - someone like Xander. The closest they came may have been Spike. In short? Did Buffy have a healthy relationship on that show? Nope. Which was the most unhealthy? Is a matter of opinion and perspective I think.
What is more interesting is the continued need to discuss, to ruminate over something that ended over two years ago. Endlessly. Over the same ground, the same arguments. The same issues. No one really changes their minds. Okay not true - I changed mine about B/A. This compulsion reminds me a little of a discussion I had with someone at the party last night - he was discussing giving up smoking. How hard it was and why. He said - when he was hooked, all he could think about was having that cigarette. He'd be in the middle of a discussion with someone and half of what they were saying wouldn't be heard because he was just thinking about that cigarette. Dinner - same thing - he'd be thinking when can I get out and have my cigarette? I really want it now.
When he told me this - I realized it described in a nutshell my BTVS obsession.
What I'd done in 2001 was use the show to distract myself from painful situations. Whenever I got pulled into the evil boss' office - I'd tell myself to replay images from Smashed or Once More With Feeling in my head. So I'd smile at him, not think about what he was saying, not react. Not let it get to me. I think most addictions probably sprout from a coping mechanism - something you rely on to deal with something that you can't handle directly.
Be it stress or whatever. We seek out a salve to deal with the pain. Problem is - once the situation changes and the salve is no longer needed, it's hard sometimes to let it go or move on. We become addicted to the salve, even if it is a rough one and far from healing.
a problem.)
Not having the best day...my printer seems to be ka-put. I can't figure out how to stop it from just spooling. It doesn't grab paper, it doesn't print, it just spools or makes that whirling sound they make when paper supposedly is grabbed and printed. Also my computer just seems to get slower and slower, the dial-up disconnects more and more...methinks I should either overhaul the whole thing and get a new set up or maybe just try and get a new printer.
I sort of need the printer to do turbo tax. Since the government hasn't deigned to send me the tax forms this year. Dang government. They send them when I have nothing to file and don't when I finally do. Not that much, true, but still.
Party made me grouchy. Fighting a combo tension/sinus headache at the moment.
Also feel somewhat overwhelmed by all these things I need to get but don't really want: 1. cell phone (I hate phones, not many people call me anyways and the only reason I need one is well for situations like I had last week worrying about getting to work on time or that whole Xmas fiasco. Also cell phones? Tiny. How do people talk on such a tiny thing?) 2. New printer (why can't the old one just work? I think I killed it trying to print those S6 screenplays off the internet to read, actually. I can't get a new one - it has to be delivered and they always deliver on weekdays and there's no one home then. I can't stay home for a possible delivery - don't have that much vacation time.) 3. Computer is frigging slow lately - does this mean I need a new one? Don't want a new one - have to transfer all the old stuff to it, plus I have no clue what to get and they are bloody expensive. Can't afford a new one.)
Ugh. Just want to hurl things at the wall. The printer being one of them. Already sent email to Lexmark to see if they'll do anything. It's a Lexmark z65 Ink Jet printer.
Strolled through flist - people still are discussing the last two seasons of BTVS, specifically the B/S relationship, for unpopular seasons they are certainly discussed a lot, particularly by those who didn't like them. Same with the relationship. Amusing that. Personally, the B/R and B/A relationships bug me far more in retrospect and make me wonder about these writers and the fans who liked them -maybe because in both, Buffy is shown as tiny little girl and Riley/Angel are portrayed as the all-knowing father figure/mentors, oh and she is usually stronger than they are. This is not made better by the casting of a 90 pound, 5'2 18 year old to play Buffy and 26 year olds to play Riley and Angel - both as huge men around 6'3 and the tallest in the bTVS cast. They look like they are in their late 20s physically. Gellar looks 15 in comparison. Also Buffy is portrayed as ditzy valley girl while Angel and Riley are portrayed as actually fairly intellectual - reading Sartre no less and TA in a psychology course. There's an underlying feeling of pedophila/little girl should stay in her place, while big brighter man tells her what to do going on here that just squicks if you think about it too much and the fact that these relationships are treated as ideal is just creepy. The fact that Buffy is a slayer with an older, somewhat sexy, unmarried male Watcher doesn't help.
I'd think I was imagining things, but this uneasy feeling is heightened by well the Wes/Fred relationship - although at least in that relationship Wes and Fred were portrayed as close to the same age and with the same interests and more equal power levels - it's clear intelligence is emphasized over physical strength which may be why Wes/Fred oddly enough squicks me less now than B/A and B/R currently do. But once again we have a woman cast in the part who is tiny in physique and age wise younger than the male leads. She looks pre-adolescent and brings back memories of Audrey Hepburn romances where a 18-21 year old Audrey is paired with 30-50 something Humphrey Bogart, Gregory Peck and Gary Cooper. In B/A and B/R - the emphasis was on how much brighter and wiser the guys are, while Buffy was superstrong and the same strength level as them but not as bright or knowledgable. The fact they attempted to do the same thing again with Wood - makes it odder still. And more noticeable. Once again the older/wiser mentor/father to the little daughter figure. And when Wood doesn't get Buffy? He rides off into the sunset with Faith - as a nice replacement for the Mayor. The fact that that is the only heterosexual relationship that survives - really makes me wonder about the writers.
I think what I liked about B/S was that they were equal strength and she is portrayed as actually brighter than he is or at least at the same level. What is sad here - is when we finally have a relationship of equal strength and where the guy isn't wiser than the girl or portrayed as older/mentor figure - it goes evil. There's no father/daughter vibe going on here (even though technically speaking he's much older agewise - Marsters was 37 at the time, he plays it far younger) they feel more like siblings or equal age as written.
What's weird is the writers for some reason never put Buffy in a long-term romance with someone her age or equal - someone like Xander. The closest they came may have been Spike. In short? Did Buffy have a healthy relationship on that show? Nope. Which was the most unhealthy? Is a matter of opinion and perspective I think.
What is more interesting is the continued need to discuss, to ruminate over something that ended over two years ago. Endlessly. Over the same ground, the same arguments. The same issues. No one really changes their minds. Okay not true - I changed mine about B/A. This compulsion reminds me a little of a discussion I had with someone at the party last night - he was discussing giving up smoking. How hard it was and why. He said - when he was hooked, all he could think about was having that cigarette. He'd be in the middle of a discussion with someone and half of what they were saying wouldn't be heard because he was just thinking about that cigarette. Dinner - same thing - he'd be thinking when can I get out and have my cigarette? I really want it now.
When he told me this - I realized it described in a nutshell my BTVS obsession.
What I'd done in 2001 was use the show to distract myself from painful situations. Whenever I got pulled into the evil boss' office - I'd tell myself to replay images from Smashed or Once More With Feeling in my head. So I'd smile at him, not think about what he was saying, not react. Not let it get to me. I think most addictions probably sprout from a coping mechanism - something you rely on to deal with something that you can't handle directly.
Be it stress or whatever. We seek out a salve to deal with the pain. Problem is - once the situation changes and the salve is no longer needed, it's hard sometimes to let it go or move on. We become addicted to the salve, even if it is a rough one and far from healing.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-31 04:43 pm (UTC)I think they may have subverted the convention in B/A by
emphasizing how Angel in some ways was fulfilling that male authority figure role. The guy who saves you, protects you, guides you - comforts you. The sheild.
But if you flip it - you get Angelus, the control freak, who wants to break you off of all your friends, parents, everyone - who kills them and then controls you turning you into his little doll -ie. Drusilla. An apt description of how many women find themselves trapped in abusive relationships - they marry the romantic, dark, brooding guy - who protects and comforts and guides them, and he turns out to be, surprise surprise, a control freak who tears down their self-esteem and attempts to control their life - a type of vampire.
To give ME credit they did attempt to get that across with Angel, going so far to show how Buffy fell into Angel's arms around the same time her father disappeared almost completely from her life. That the things she does with Angel are the things (outside of the kissing and sex) she would have done with her father - the ice skating, the discussion about schools.
But did they succeed? There are quite a few people out there who still see the Buffy/Angel relationship as healthy and ideal. Was it muddied a little?
Buffy/Riley is a little less obvious - the subversion.
But I think it may still be there - in that Riley, unable to be the guiding force in her life, her protector, her hero, the leader - takes off. He can't handle either being her equal or her underling. He has to be boss. That said, it's unclear whether he is the boss when he returns with Sam in tow? So that may be
somewhat muddy as well.
But I agree that it is an annoying cliche - interestingly it sometimes seems like something that is more readily apparent in romanctic comedies, almost as though it is felt that a female character has to be pathetic in order to not threaten female audiences. Of course much of my crankiness on this subject stems from my passionately held belief that Hollywood was unable to realize that the first Bridget Jones book was actually a parody and have used its success as a way to continue dumbing down the genre. Oops tangent!
This in a nutshell may be why I haven't been able to sit through a romantic comedy without cringing since 2001.
And I agree - the best part of the book was the parody.
That got lost in the film version.