Characters or how characters are written that are turn-offs

Systems were down at work today. Somewhat sluggish week, but after last week, it provides me with the time to get some other things done. Also less people intense. On apt front? Back looking again with agent, while landlord has finally hired an exterminator to get rid of the mice (which I've not seen for two years, but whatever). I think I'm in a writer mull, not a block, just sort of mullish quicksand. Brain won't work. Words are stuck in my head like in mud or I'm skipping over them. I blame work, although in the current climate, one, I suppose, should be grateful for work. And I am, actually. Best and highest paying job I've ever had. Sure the locale could be better - but it's odd when it comes to work, I don't much care where it is located, and am fairly flexible. Just so long as my commute is no more than an hour - and I can get there by train, no cars or buses, everything is fine and dandy.

1. Forgot to take a picture of the rows of miniature American flags that are still hanging from every stoop on my block. ( American Flags and Patriotism )

But enuf politics...

2. With all the posts about tv shows online lately, yes, I know when aren't there lots of posts about tv shows online? Well maybe when there are lots of posts about politics, movies and comic books? I tend to focus on the entertainment related posts - because it serves as a better distraction than personal posts do.

Anywho...I've been thinking about things that will take me out of a story, or make it difficult for me to continue watching, reading, or listening. I'd say it was the writing, but honestly? It depends. A story can be horribly plotted or somewhat amateurish, yet if there's a character that is written in an interesting manner? I'm there. The opposite is also true - a story could be brilliantly plotted, excellent dialogue, and beautiful prose - snaps and crackles in all the right places - but if the characters rub me the wrong way - I'm gone. Often, oddly, it does come down to characters and on television? Characters and performance. Yet, there have been cases in which the plot is so bad or so offensive to me that even though I love the characters and want to know what happens to them? I can't stick with the story. Just can't. And after a while, I'll stop caring about the characters due to the plot and just give up. Vice versa - there have been instances in which the plot is so twisty and so new, that even though I can't really connect to the characters - I'll stick with it, because the writing blows me away. (In this case I'm usually just ambivalent about the characters - I do not hate or despise them, they don't rub me the wrong way.)

So narrowing it down? I'd say it really is about the characters, how they are performed, written, depicted, and constructed, what their arcs are and how that arc plays out. Which brings me to the next question what is it that turns me off of a character? And can I really define it. (Someone reading this, assuming they got this far, is probably thinking...and I care, because? Why are you even analyzing this? You either like it or hate it. Done. Which is a valid point. But understanding why I hate or like things, helps me understand others tastes better...and be more tolerant. It also helps me figure out what works for me in writing and creating a character or character trope and what does not work. That and I'm a frustrated psych major, but we've covered that in previous posts.)

Characters that turn me off or rub me the wrong way, aren't what you'd think...for example I really don't have much problem with characters that do evil things - such rape, pillage, murder, etc. It's often why they do these things that means more to me. The thing in of itself isn't an issue. Nor do I have issues with anti-heroes or irredeemable characters - as long as they aren't one dimensional, we're fine.

No. For me? It's how the character is written and performed. What follows is an explanation with examples of three big turn-offs or what takes me out of a story. In short turn-offs that are fairly subjective and perception based. Not turn-offs like bad grammar.

a.Are they whiny? Otherwise known as the Scarlett O'Hara syndrom.
( Whiny Characters )

b. Are they painfully Smug?
( Painfully Smug )

c. Has the story and/or characters become too Preachy?
( Death by Preachiness or the Ayn Rand Syndrom )

There are other things of course. But I'm tired and hungry, and I want to watch my guilty pleasure tv shows.

3.I'm slowly making my way through Feast of Crows, and ( Vague Book Spoilers )

When reading Martin's books - it's always best to "Bet" against the character achieving what they want. Very rare for a character to succeed in these books. And even if they do? It's usually at a great price or does not turn out the way they wanted it too and they deeply regret it later. To call Martin's books grim and ponderous is an understatement, they make Tolkien look postively cheery in comparison. OTOH...I do like the characters or at least 50% of them..and find it compelling, even if it is most likely going to take me a year to read Feast and Dragon, by the time I finish Dragon, he will have finished the next book. Which has been the case to date. I seem to always be about two books behind Martin and well everyone else.

4.As an aside, not to continue flogging a dead horse but after reading a quote from HBO in EW about this...I can't resist:

Dear HBO, ( The difference between the Big Death in Game of Thrones and the Big Death in True Blood - cut for spoilers )

Guilty Pleasure Television: Ringer and Glee

Well, the second episode of Ringer is a lot better than the first or pilot, which bodes well for the series. But Hitchcock it's not, more like Jackie Collin's or maybe Hitchcock by way of a Danielle Steele gothic romance (did Danielle do any? Or was that just Victoria Holt and Phyllis A Whitney and Mary Stewart - who, alas, were never mainstream enough to get a tv miniseries. Shame that, they were better writers.) Reminds me a great deal of those 1980s and 1990s Jackie Collins, Danielle Steele and Jacqulaine Suzanne mini-series. Remember those? This was before HBO did it's own programming or AMC figured out how to. If you want smart fare - you watched only PBS' Masterpiece Theater, Hallmark Hall of Fame or the big ABC Mini-series which were often hit or miss.

Ringer is a lot of fun in places. Deep and thought-provoking television, it ain't. No one is going to laud it with emmy's or teach a course on it or analyze it or write meta or fanfic (although stranger tv shows have gotten fanfic, *cough*teletubbies*cough*). I was laughing through most of this episode - which is subtitled, ( vague spoilers )

But it felt more like Danielle Steele or maybe All My Children's riff on it. Soap Operas can be hilarious if you aren't expecting Shakespeare.

Also Gellar has improved tremendously - she clearly changed hairdressers, colorists, makeup and costume designers since the pilot. Dark colors work much better on her. I also think she may have gotten a tan and figured out to use eyeliner.

Still seems to have three acting modes though - but this episode gave her a lot more to play with.
And we got shiny new characters. I don't recommend it to people who hate soap operas. Let me put to you this way - if you don't like Jackie Collins, Danielle Steele or East Enders, you're not going to like this. Although, it is admittedly more Danielle Steel than Jackie Collins...sort of a really really subdued Jackie Collins.

Is it just me or does anyone else feel like network television is borrowing heavily from the early 1980s and late 1970s this year? Pam Am, Playboy Club, Charlies Angels, Ringer, Revenge all remind of things I saw back then, albeit far more risque versions, the 1980s and 1970s tv was little bit more prudish and sanitized (this was before HBO really took off with the Sopranoes).

Glee - has also improved tremendously. It's almost as if Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuck read my list of things they needed to change. ( vague spoilers )