(no subject)

Pot-luck Dinner party went well or better than expected. I got lost on the way there, but asked five different people for directions and managed to find my way. New Yorkers generally speaking are incredibly helpful and friendly - don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

One of the suggestions made at the dinner party - was if you are trying to get your self-published book into Barnes & Noble, or your published one for that matter, a trick you may want to try is to take it into Barnes and Noble and buy it there - they'll scan it into the system as a book that was recently bought there but out of stock. The computer will automatically log it as a book to stock. (I have no idea if this true or if it works, but if you decide to try it and it does or doesn't as the case may be, do be sure to let me know.)

Discovered yet another struggling writer. The son of the people hosting the party, who wasn't in attendance, is a television comedy writer for the John Stewart Daily Show, CNN, Discovery Channel, and the History Channel. He's also published two sci-fi satires that are in the same vein as Terry Pratchett and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. (I was unfortunately the only one at the dinner party that was interested - I have yet to meet fellow geeks at these things. The geeks of NYC remain well-hidden.) I remember the writer's name but not the name of the novel. His name is Michael Rubens.

On TV front..watched one of the Elementary episodes that I've saved to the DVR. This is the second episode. It's actually not a bad series. One of the better procedurals I've seen and definitely one of the more likable Holmes. In comparison to the BBC's Sherlock? Welll...

Elementary's Sherlock is more likable and Watson is more interesting. And their relationship is tad more innovative and less "been there done that 50 times already but hey let's try it again". That said, the BBC's version is definitely better written and to a degree better directed and acted. It's shiner. Yes, the Brits have actually produced a shinier tv series than the Americans.
Moffat is a far better plotter of mysteries than whomever is writing Elementary. His plotting has teeth, Elementary's is a bit on the wimpy/predictable end of the fence.

But...Elementary does a better job with characterization. Elementary's Sherlock is less over-the-top and far more complex and in some respects, more believable not to mention likable. You can empathize with him. While the BBC's is a borderline sociopath and frenetic, as if he has an untreated case of ADD or is just manic 24/7. In short, he's a bit too much like Robert Downey Jr. and not enough like Basil Rathbone. Johnny Lee Miller to give him credit plays neither, and does his own thing - which I find intriguing. Also Lucy Liu's Watson is different than any of the other Watson's I've seen to do date, she's smarter for one thing. And less tolerant for another.
Not to mention more assertive. The mystery here is who Sherlock is, why did he become an addict, and why is he acting the way he is? He's - her mystery to figure out.

The common thread in all Sherlock films is Watson, we are always watching through Watson's eyes. We see what happens mainly through Watson's pov. Liu's Watson is different from the other's not just because she's female, but because Sherlock is her job, she's assigned by an outside party, in this case his father, to see that he gets better. The relationship is neither romantic nor subordinate (aka Cuddy/House) nor is it like Kate/Castle or Bones/Booth or any those buddy detective stories. Joan Watson is not involved with Sherlock to help him solve cases, nor is she all that interested in his cases...she's involved to heal Sherlock, she's his doctor, or rather he's her mystery to solve. This is a wrinkle that I haven't seen done before. How and if they move from doctor/patient to friends...is part of the story.

The BBC version is mainly asking the question - is Sherlock a complete sociopath? Does he care about others? Is he capable of caring for anyone outside himself? Which was the same question that the tv series House, asked. This version isn't asking that question. Elementary's Holmes is not a sociopath, he's a recovering addict - which goes back to Conan Doyle's original depiction of the character. In both the books and earlier 1930's Basil Rathbone Holmes films, Sherlock was an addictive personality, not a sociopath.

At any rate...I'm intrigued enough to continue and it doesn't require too much focus.

More TV stuff...

Watched a third episode of Elementary and I think I may be hooked. The mysteries aren't as predictable as they are on well...all the other procedural series I've seen to date. Either I'm off my game..or it's just slightly better? Don't know.

I also like Joan Watson - who is realistically not a detective, she's a surgeon. One of my issues with the other procedurals is I find it difficult to believe that someone who isn't a trained detective just jumps in and becomes one. What I liked about the original Conan Doyle series was Watson wasn't a detective right off the bat. And Joan is fairly clever about Sherlock, but she's also distracted. I find the character relatable and less cliche. She reminds me a little of House's Cuddy, except not in the boss role. It may help that I liked House, and this version reminds me in some respects of House, except Sherlock is more likable and not a sociopath.

Plus, it definitely helps that I adore the cast Aiden Quinn ( a long-time favorite - I rented Legends of the Fall for Aiden Quinn NOT Brad Pitt...), Lucy Liu (nice to have a minority female on a TV show), and Johnny Lee Miller (who I've always found to be interesting). I do like the BBC Sherlock, but the two series couldn't be any more different.

So, will continue with Elementary. At least for now.

Also completed my watch of Walking Dead's last two episodes this season or their 3rd Season Mid-Season Finale. Will state this if you gave up on the Walking Dead in S2? You might want to try S3...it is REALLY good. Best season to date. Also truly frightening in places. And quite violent and creepy.

Tight plotting. Good character development. And great metaphors - they've expanded on the whole walking dead/zombie as disease metaphor or the idea of death stalking you and wanting to devour you whole and your entire family. It also once again emphasized that humans can be monsters depending on the circumstances. I watched the mid-season finale of Revolution and Walking Dead back to back, and Dead blew me away. Revolution is very weak in comparison and somewhat cliche. Dead has better writing, better production value, and better direction. Also much better acting.
Not to mention a far more interesting cast.

Highlights? The creepy Governor (who is incredibly complex and a sort of dark version of Herschel) and Michonne (who reminds me a far smarter and interesting version of the First Slayer).

In other news? Watched Nashville's Season Finale. Not the best show on the planet. Quite soapy, and not in a fun Vamp Diaries sort of way. Granted no oppressive love triangles from hell at least not yet, give it time. And no one true love (again not yet - although there appears to be two in the works...so we shall see). But we do have the cliche subplots that are beginning to annoy me.

What works? Juliette Barnes and Rayana's chemistry. And I really like Juliette and am rooting for her. Also Hayden Pantierre is a great singer. Connie Britton less so. The best singers on this show are Jonathan Jackson, Hayden Pantierre, and the guy who plays Deacon. There's a good soundtrack, now if the writing would just get there.

What doesn't? Scarlette. An example of why good, nice, sweet, innocent, morally upstanding characters don't work on soaps. They have a tendency to be incredibly whiny. OR in the case of Gunner - insanely holier than thou/self-righteous. I want to kick both of them. This only happens in soaps, not other serial dramas. Parenthood, Walking Dead, and The Hour don't really have this problem. The nice characters on those shows are not whiny and not too self-righteous. They are also more realistic and 3 dimensional. On soaps, good characters tend to feel flat and dull. Again a soap problem.
It's another way you can tell the difference between quality serial and pulp wonky soap.

It's a long-running complaint that I have with soap operas (the fun pulpy kind). Yes, I adore them, as you know, obviously. [Some people adore procedurals, others adore soap operas. There's no rhyme and reason to it. And some love both.] But they tend to write immoral characters or amoral characters better for some reason. The murderer or vampire is often more interesting than the human who hasn't killed a soul. OR the snarky reluctant hero who kills people occasionally and tells everyone they are nuts is more bearable than the long-suffering classic hero, who has a holier-than-thou god complex (ie he's been spending too much time channeling Hercules). The problem is nasty characters tend to be more pro-active, less passive aggressive, and not as whiny. This is true on Nashville too. Rayna is terribly whiny at times, while the in your face Juliette isn't or not as much.

And yes, I guess you could say that I'm whining myself...so this post is incredibly ironic, isn't it? Don't answer that. ;-)