(no subject)

Well in between books again. Finished reading Dreaming of You (Gamblers #2) by Lisa Kleypas - which was okay. In some respects better written than the last two, her sex scenes make more sense. And in other's not as good, Ashley's dialogue is better.

Trying to read Jeffrey Eugendes The Marriage Plot - which is still dull as toast.
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that I'm just not a fan of Jeffrey Eugenides writing, he reminds me a little of Bret Easten Ellis and Donna Tartt, except without the bite. Of the three, the only one that seemed to have anything innovative to say was Donna Tartt and she's not exactly written all that much. If you like the tv series "Girls" - you'll probably like the Marriage Plot, if you find the tv series Girls grating, you won't. My problem with Girls - though, was oddly similar to my problem with Sex in the City once I moved to NYC - which is, I know these people, I've met them, was close friends with them, and eventually broke up with them. I really don't want to see them on my tv set each week.

The problem with realism is that it tends to be depressing and dull. Hardly an escape from stress or frustration. So what's the point? I sometimes think realism as a literary trope exists purely for the frustrated English Literary majors out there to endlessly analyze and contemplate their own navels with. On the other hand...there's something to be said about good writing. Eugenidis can write well. I found the argument between Madeline and her disgusting paramour, Leonard, regarding her ability to take a dump in front of him, rather entertaining. But why is it that male characters in books written by men are unattractive, and female characters are beautiful? Considering we are in Madeline's pov, I would think it would be the opposite. As a result, Madeline comes across as insanely vain or unbelievable. Eugenidis doesn't capture the female psyche well, possibly because he thinks there's more difference between the genders than there actually is?

Off to eat breakfast, watch Bunheads, and possibly True Blood.

Television Round-up

1. Incident in or at Belgrave - Sherlock S2, Episode 1 - well finally got around to watching this one. Thought during it - okay someone has been reading a lot of Raymond Chandler mysteries. Also incredibly convoluted plot - I think Moffat gets bored easily like I do and feels a need to complicate his plots just to amuse himself. Other than that? I rather liked the Sherlock/Irene Adler storyline and banter. Also loved the ending.
Sherlock was rather hot in this episode - or hot when he was being brainy and devilish.
Woobie Sherlock does zip for me. Benedict Cumberbatch has too weak a jaw to pull woobie off well. Character wise? I liked the development. Sherlock actually apologizes. Blows Watson away. I don't think I ever read the Conan Doyle tale upon which this one was based.

2. Bunheads - Pilot, by Amy Pallindino-Sherman, starring Kelly Bishop and Sutton Foster (who won the tony in Anything Goes and was really the only reason to see it - she's obviously not in it now). Bunheads is what Smash should have been. The writing is wickedly on target, quippy and a mile-a-minute. Great one-liners. Reminiscient of Gilmore Girls. And the set-up is similar too - it's about women of various generations attempting to get along. Sutton Foster plays Michelle, and Kelly Bishop plays her new mother-in-law, who runs a ballet school out of her house. Michelle's an ex-chorus girl/Vegas show-girl, dancer. She marries Bishop's son, Hubble, after the man literally romances her to death.
He's no looker and she's not in love with him. But he breaks down her will-power during a weak moment, when she just lost a part in Chicago. So she marries him...and finds herself in the sleepy one-horse town of Paradise, which doesn't have a movie theater, and only real form of entertainment is a local bar and the view of the beach. I'd say more...but spoilers.

3. True Blood - I'm still enjoying it. It was rather funny in places. Sookie and Lafayette's attempts to deal with last year's scenarios made me laugh. Black humor true.
But funny all the same. I felt sorry for Pam, although not that sorry - my guess is Pam will get the better part of this deal. And Eric/Bill as the buddy act...was enjoyable.
I think I ship Eric/Bill over everyone. Sam's story is still boring. Jason's ditto.
Not sure what to make of Terry. And Alcide is at least pretty. Oh, and Tara is still in the show...so not all is lost. Albeit, not exactly in the way ...that we'd expect.

( spoilers )

4. On the romance novel front...lately I've come to realize I tend to like dominant or strong male characters in these novels.( Read more... )

(no subject)

So I'm watching the revival of Dallas and I have the same problem with it now that I had back in the 1980s... the only interesting characters are Sue Ellen and JR. Everyone else is grating and can't act. It is the acting...Larry Hagman loved playing JR, and he was fun to watch and Linda Gray loved it too. Patrick Duffy's Bobby was so self-righteous.
And the actor just...is boring. I've tried to watch him in other things...and ugh.

This revival has similar issues. John Ross is sort of interesting but everyone else but maybe Annie, Bobbie's new wife...is dull as toast.

Soaps only work with good and complex characters that pull you in. They aren't like procedurals or mysteries, where you can hang in there for the puzzle. You have to get into the characters and actors, or its dull. The writing is also so Danielle Steele...by that I mean cliche and boilerplate. (I've read Danielle Steele...god, boring.)

ETA: Now that I've watched all of it, its not bad - multiple level double-crosses. And lots of mysteries. We have Marta double-crossing John Ross, John Ross double-crossing JR, JR double-crossing John Ross, and someone else involved. Plus Bobby and his son manipulating each other. It's sort of fun. Also not one but three strong female characters.
And god, Linda Gray, Larry Hagman and Patrick Duffy look old. Time it flies.