I don't know...this and that...
Mar. 13th, 2005 11:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatActually wrote quite a bit yesterday - not a huge amount, but a bit. Happy about that. And hope to write more today. Heard on some talk show a bit of good advice regarding writing - or my writing: "I write for myself without worrying about pleasing anyone else, but myself, there is a freedom in that, allows my imagination to play." I've never been particularly fond of criticism to be honest. It tends to shut my creativity down at times. Which does not bode well for a writing career. Human beings by and large tend to be a tad too harsh in their criticism. If we love something - we applaud it, if we don't? We rip it to shreds. Caring not for the sensibilities of those involved.
Speaking of criticism - saw Spamalot last night with cjlasky. Then read both buffyannatator's and Darby's reviews of it. [Don't ask me for the links, I'm horrid at including that stuff. ] Was it good? Uhm. I fall somewhere between Darby and Buffyannatator's reviews on it, Darby did *not* like it, Buffyannatator adored it. Per usual - I find myself settling nicely between extremes.
Better question - was I entertained? Yes. There were portions that I found incredibly funny, funnier actually than the movie. [Note: I am not a rampant Monty Python fan. I saw Monty Python and The Holy Grail twice in my life - once in college and once at New Year's, this past New Year's, and honestly look at as a tad over-rated. Also feel no need to see it again. Seen Life of Brian once. Parts of it here and there repeatedly. There are sections of Holy Grail that are quite brilliant, hilarous. Others that for me, drag on to long and I want to swat whoever is onscreen and say, "I get the bleeding joke, already! Can we move on now?" [The Knights who say Ni - drags on a bit long in the film.]This in a nutshell is actually my difficulty with most sketch comedy - they like to hammer you over the head with the punch line. But, when it comes to sketch comedy, I must say, I prefer the Brits brand of it. Bawdy, irreverent, yet played straight and not too over-the-top or crude. Benny Hill and Monty Python worked for me better than Saturday Night Live, SCTV, or Living Color ever did. It was subtler. ] There were also portions in the musical that drug on a bit long and like the movie made me want to glance at my watch. Actually - my difficulties with the musical were similar to some of my difficulties with the movie - an eye-rolling, oh please, how crude and juvenile can you get? And that my friends, is purely subjective and I knew I'd have those difficulties going in. Actually, was a tad worried I'd feel that way throughout. So, Spamalot was a pleasant surprise. I liked some of the bits they changed - a la, the whole Lancelot is gay bit. Also the inclusion of the song from the Life of Brian - "Look on the Bright Side of Life". I could have done without some of the Diva numbers - the joke went on a tad long in my opinion. But I liked her voice and I enjoyed the bit where she complains about not really having much of a role. I agreed with her. She didn't. She wasn't in the film at all. It was a subtle, somewhat sly joke about how you need a Diva or a female in a broadway musical - but you can get away without it in a film.
Being female, I could not decide whether to be offended by this, or ..It is hard to be offended by Python, they set out to offend everyone, if you aren't offended you'd feel left out.
Were the performances entertaining? Watching David Hyde Pierce dance was a treat. It always is. And I like Azira's voices. He had four roles in this one.
Also he has a nice body. Same with Tim Curry - man has a wonderful voice.
Not a lot to do though.
Do I recommend it? Only to people who enjoy Python humor. Have some knowledge of the movie - because there is that sort of Rocky Horror Picture Show feel to the proceedings, a la a bunch of people who can quote from the film and laugh before the joke is delivered because they know every line literally by heart.
Was it a good musical? Not really. The musical numbers went on a bit long and
felt draggy in places, I thought. But I'm not sure it was supposed to be a good musical. They were almost poking fun at the whole concept. Including the fact that musical numbers go on too long and drag in places. There's even a song about that sort of thing.
Was I entertained? Very much so. Laughed quite a bit actually. Highly amused.
And that's a good thing. Laughter is good for the heart. Good for the soul.
On the fanfic front - I'm still enjoying![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
herself_nyc fic about
a human Spike (William Merrit-Smith) trying to kill himself in Vietnam, while Buffy attempts to stop him. What I like about the fic is herself's portrayal and exploration of despair, self-hatred, and grief. The desire to save someone and being unable to find a way of doing it. The ugliness of the human condition. Of how our bodies don't do what we want. The desperation to die and not being allowed to. She does an interesting twist on the Shanshue prophecy no one has tried - which is treat it as a bit of a back-handed curse/gift all rolled into one. Spike shanshued. But he's no longer Spike. He's human. The demon is gone. And he can't kill himself. The prophecy is simple - the vampire with a soul will live until he dies. Naturally. Not by his own hand or that of others. (I'm assuming others). He's lost his friends. He's lost the one other person in the universe who can understand, Angel. HE is alone. And who should pop up but the girl who is partly responsible for him being here like this.
The girl he wanted so desperately, loved so much, yet now wonders why? What was the point of it all? We aren't in his point of view by the way, we are in Buffy's and while there are aspects of the Buffy character that do not work for me in the story, I find the explorationg interesting.
What didn't work: I don't see Buffy trying to keep Spike alive by having his kid although I sort of like what the author is doing with it, it's gritty and disgusting and risky. I also don't see Buffy sticking around, she'd take off and come back. Also I don't see her feeling as lost as she does here.
Buffy seemed pretty happy and together at the end of the series. But! it doesn't hurt the story - because I don't need the characters to fit whatever happened on the show in fic, necessarily and I strongly believe that we all have different interpretations of what we see in art, we all experience characters and stories differently based on our own journeys, and our experiences, and those interpretations are all valid. (Which may be one of the many reasons why I've lost patience with discussion boards and no longer participate on any of them - too many pointless debates about how one interpretation is more valid than another or how one person is more biased than another.) Just because the author's version of this character doesn't jib with mine, does not make it invalid, just different and in that respect, interesting. Sometimes I think we are far too judgemental and critical of art, projecting our own wants and desires on to it, frustrated when it doesn't deliver. Often lashing out at the writer or the art because of that frustration, instead of taking a far more creative approach, creating art that does have what we wanted, regardless of whether anyone else sees it or wants it. Part of why I write is to write the story I cannot find elsewhere. When I get frustrated and cannot find that thing I want in a tale or story, I start writing it myself. Question to anyone who has read this? Do you do the same thing? Write because you can't find the story elsewhere?
As I tried to tell a friend last night, you should write, I think, what is in you, what speaks to you, the rest of us be damned. IF people like it, read it, fine. If not...shrugs.
Speaking of criticism - saw Spamalot last night with cjlasky. Then read both buffyannatator's and Darby's reviews of it. [Don't ask me for the links, I'm horrid at including that stuff. ] Was it good? Uhm. I fall somewhere between Darby and Buffyannatator's reviews on it, Darby did *not* like it, Buffyannatator adored it. Per usual - I find myself settling nicely between extremes.
Better question - was I entertained? Yes. There were portions that I found incredibly funny, funnier actually than the movie. [Note: I am not a rampant Monty Python fan. I saw Monty Python and The Holy Grail twice in my life - once in college and once at New Year's, this past New Year's, and honestly look at as a tad over-rated. Also feel no need to see it again. Seen Life of Brian once. Parts of it here and there repeatedly. There are sections of Holy Grail that are quite brilliant, hilarous. Others that for me, drag on to long and I want to swat whoever is onscreen and say, "I get the bleeding joke, already! Can we move on now?" [The Knights who say Ni - drags on a bit long in the film.]This in a nutshell is actually my difficulty with most sketch comedy - they like to hammer you over the head with the punch line. But, when it comes to sketch comedy, I must say, I prefer the Brits brand of it. Bawdy, irreverent, yet played straight and not too over-the-top or crude. Benny Hill and Monty Python worked for me better than Saturday Night Live, SCTV, or Living Color ever did. It was subtler. ] There were also portions in the musical that drug on a bit long and like the movie made me want to glance at my watch. Actually - my difficulties with the musical were similar to some of my difficulties with the movie - an eye-rolling, oh please, how crude and juvenile can you get? And that my friends, is purely subjective and I knew I'd have those difficulties going in. Actually, was a tad worried I'd feel that way throughout. So, Spamalot was a pleasant surprise. I liked some of the bits they changed - a la, the whole Lancelot is gay bit. Also the inclusion of the song from the Life of Brian - "Look on the Bright Side of Life". I could have done without some of the Diva numbers - the joke went on a tad long in my opinion. But I liked her voice and I enjoyed the bit where she complains about not really having much of a role. I agreed with her. She didn't. She wasn't in the film at all. It was a subtle, somewhat sly joke about how you need a Diva or a female in a broadway musical - but you can get away without it in a film.
Being female, I could not decide whether to be offended by this, or ..It is hard to be offended by Python, they set out to offend everyone, if you aren't offended you'd feel left out.
Were the performances entertaining? Watching David Hyde Pierce dance was a treat. It always is. And I like Azira's voices. He had four roles in this one.
Also he has a nice body. Same with Tim Curry - man has a wonderful voice.
Not a lot to do though.
Do I recommend it? Only to people who enjoy Python humor. Have some knowledge of the movie - because there is that sort of Rocky Horror Picture Show feel to the proceedings, a la a bunch of people who can quote from the film and laugh before the joke is delivered because they know every line literally by heart.
Was it a good musical? Not really. The musical numbers went on a bit long and
felt draggy in places, I thought. But I'm not sure it was supposed to be a good musical. They were almost poking fun at the whole concept. Including the fact that musical numbers go on too long and drag in places. There's even a song about that sort of thing.
Was I entertained? Very much so. Laughed quite a bit actually. Highly amused.
And that's a good thing. Laughter is good for the heart. Good for the soul.
On the fanfic front - I'm still enjoying
herself_nyc fic abouta human Spike (William Merrit-Smith) trying to kill himself in Vietnam, while Buffy attempts to stop him. What I like about the fic is herself's portrayal and exploration of despair, self-hatred, and grief. The desire to save someone and being unable to find a way of doing it. The ugliness of the human condition. Of how our bodies don't do what we want. The desperation to die and not being allowed to. She does an interesting twist on the Shanshue prophecy no one has tried - which is treat it as a bit of a back-handed curse/gift all rolled into one. Spike shanshued. But he's no longer Spike. He's human. The demon is gone. And he can't kill himself. The prophecy is simple - the vampire with a soul will live until he dies. Naturally. Not by his own hand or that of others. (I'm assuming others). He's lost his friends. He's lost the one other person in the universe who can understand, Angel. HE is alone. And who should pop up but the girl who is partly responsible for him being here like this.
The girl he wanted so desperately, loved so much, yet now wonders why? What was the point of it all? We aren't in his point of view by the way, we are in Buffy's and while there are aspects of the Buffy character that do not work for me in the story, I find the explorationg interesting.
What didn't work: I don't see Buffy trying to keep Spike alive by having his kid although I sort of like what the author is doing with it, it's gritty and disgusting and risky. I also don't see Buffy sticking around, she'd take off and come back. Also I don't see her feeling as lost as she does here.
Buffy seemed pretty happy and together at the end of the series. But! it doesn't hurt the story - because I don't need the characters to fit whatever happened on the show in fic, necessarily and I strongly believe that we all have different interpretations of what we see in art, we all experience characters and stories differently based on our own journeys, and our experiences, and those interpretations are all valid. (Which may be one of the many reasons why I've lost patience with discussion boards and no longer participate on any of them - too many pointless debates about how one interpretation is more valid than another or how one person is more biased than another.) Just because the author's version of this character doesn't jib with mine, does not make it invalid, just different and in that respect, interesting. Sometimes I think we are far too judgemental and critical of art, projecting our own wants and desires on to it, frustrated when it doesn't deliver. Often lashing out at the writer or the art because of that frustration, instead of taking a far more creative approach, creating art that does have what we wanted, regardless of whether anyone else sees it or wants it. Part of why I write is to write the story I cannot find elsewhere. When I get frustrated and cannot find that thing I want in a tale or story, I start writing it myself. Question to anyone who has read this? Do you do the same thing? Write because you can't find the story elsewhere?
As I tried to tell a friend last night, you should write, I think, what is in you, what speaks to you, the rest of us be damned. IF people like it, read it, fine. If not...shrugs.