![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatAnother crappy subject title - this is why Twitter does not appeal to me, you have to come up with subject headings.
Last weekend, I had drinks with an old college friend, Ames, and her husband. As we chatted the conversation eventually turned, as most do, to what we watch and read. The usual - what movies, tv shows, and books have you read lately? Ames and her hubby mentioned a fondness for Bones, while I preferred Dexter and House. They didn't much like Dexter - found it too gory and the dialogue uneven. While I had similar criticisms for Bones. Stating that while I'd seen Bones, it was not something that held my attention. Ames grinned at that point - "that's right," she said, "you were always into 'the characters'. It explains why you'd love House."
It may be worth noting: Ames and I both majored in English Lit, and minored in anthropology. Except Ames did quantitative anthropology with a focus on how minorities were being numerically represented on campus and whether affirmative action was a workable program or merely to fill minor pre-established quotas. Mine was cultural anthropology - or qualititative analysis- my focus was on understanding the role of the oral narrative, why certain narratives were repeated and other's weren't, and the female role within those narratives - specifically urban folktales, modern welsh ghost stories as compared to older religious myths and stories - how the two overlapped and were similar. I focused primarily on specific characters within those stories. Our thesis in English also differed - Ames analyzed the stories of Edgar Allen Poe - with emphasis on the time period and plotting. While I compared the characters of Molly Bloom in Joyce's Ulysses to Caddy Thompson in Faulkner's Sound and The Fury - focusing on the perceived authorial intent, as well as the character's emotional and psychological evolutions and how the men around them perceived them.
I got to thinking about Ames comment - and it reminded me of something an old creative writing professor once stated about my own writing. What he told me has always haunted me, partly because it took me a bit by surprise and partly because it seems to be the one constant in everything I enjoy for entertainment purposes. He said: " As a writer - you appear to be interested in the ugly emotions, the one's below the surface, that we don't want to admit that we have or try to ignore. You seem to want to explore those and understand them. The difficult emotions in people. The difficult drives. And our guilt regarding them. Each of your stories does this - this one for example is exploring why the man wants his sick mother to die, feels it would be easier somehow, and feels deeply guilty about that - while at the same time he loves her and misses her."
I think that what we watch or read is in some ways directly related to how and what and why we write. Just as how and what and why we write is directly related to how and why we watch or read what we do. The whats, why's and hows affect our perception of the shows and our critiques of them.
Last night, I watched several tv shows - and one this morning. They were all different. One I'll probably forget by the end of the week, three will haunt me for a while. And one, I'm not sure will make it past thirteen episodes, even though I love it.
NUMBERS - I finished watching this morning. It's a tv show I've seen about five to ten episodes of over the three to four years that it has been on. And from what I've seen? The characters have not changed a whit. Nor has the dynamic. It's easy to follow. You don't need to know what happened last week or last year. Episodes can be run out of order yet still make sense. The show's focus is on explaining how numbers relate to solving problems. How the language of mathematics can show how and why things occur. The characters are merely there to explain this and provide a structure for the weekly action to take place. This week's story which focused on jury tampering to get an arms dealer off of a murder charge - was not interested in the character's motivations. We saw rather little of Ray Wise's juror consultant, James Marsters - international arms dealer (Damie Lake), and the victim Erica - who informed on Lake. We got brief sketchs of each character. The focus wasn't on them - it was on the numerical equations - how the FBI Agent's brother, a mathemtics professor, figured out there was jury tampering based on a probablity study computer program he'd created.
BATTLESTAR GALATICA - is the opposite of Numbers. It, like Numbers, is interested in science and mathematics, but only as setting or plot point. It does not focus on them. The primary focus of BSG is on characters. The characters drive the plot not the other way around. Also the characters are a gnarly bunch - filled to the brim with difficult emotions and flaws. BSG is interested in what it means to be human. Damien Lake characters abound on this series, but they are not painted nearly as black and white as NUMBERS painted Lake. Some are actually stars of the series - such as John Cabal, Ellen Tigh, Sol Tigh, Kara Thrace, and Torres - all characters that have done atrocious things - which in a show such as NUMBERS - they'd be arrested for, and that's it. Here we examine why - we see complexity. How they became what they are, why they are what they are, and the motivations for what they do are not as cut and dried as we think they are.
DOLLHOUSE - is a quirky show. It is all about character. The plots are only there to service the characters and themes of the series. One of the main characters is a Damian Lake type character - except far more complex. Olivia Williams plays the head of a secret agency called the Dollhouse - which procures and provides actives to fulfill the desires of clients for a hefty fee. Her motives are at this stage unclear. She's assisted by another, somewhat shady character, played by Reed Diamond. And a scientist, who manages and runs the software program which enables each active of the Dollhouse to take on a new personality for their assignment, forgetting the old one. The show reminds me a great deal of La Femme Nikita and My Own Worste Enemy in its set-up. But unlike those two series - the goal of the agency is not to help or assist a government interest, nor is it about counter-terrorism, or stealing state secrets. The goal is to provide whatever it's clients require - whether that be the dream date or a negotiator to faciliate an exchange. The organization in Dollhouse convinces its players to wipe their minds and act as a sort of empty avatar - taking on the memories and identities of whomever their employers choose to imprint upon them. An idea that relates back to Alfred Bester's Demolished Man - about how criminals are rehabilitated by having their minds and personalities wiped and a new mind or personality put in place. Like NUMBERS - the episode concludes in one hour - Echo, the lead, finishes her assignment. But the main story does not conclude. Nor can you just watch one episode and skip a few, then watch another - as you can with Bones or Numbers. This show is in that regard more like BattleStar Galatica and La Femme Nikita - you need to turn in each week or you will be lost.
I really liked the pilot and I think I'm going to enjoy the series. I keep flipping it around in my head. But I can't imagine Ames watching it with her hubby, nor Wales enjoying it. They'd flip it off in disgust five minutes. Nor can I see my parents or brother watching it. In fact, the only people I can see enjoying this series are reading this post on lj at this very moment. I remember thinking as I was watching it - "oh this is really cool, I love this, and no one else is going to. Most likely for all the reasons I adore it."
SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES - another series that is more interested in character than plot. The plot is sort of all over the place in this series. It is entirely driven by the characters. And the series itself is mostly interested in examining human morality, psychology, and why we do what we do. It like Dollhouse and BSG is also interested in identity - what makes us who we are? Our actions? Our memories? Our choices? Our environment? What defines us? And how do we define ourselves? And how does that effect how we relate to others?
Before I watched those four tv shows, I read two critical reviews this week. One on Wall-E and Coraline. The other on the Dresden Files. Both reviews focused on items in the stories that enraged the reviewers. In the Coraline review - the reviewer hated Wall-E, he saw it as commerical and negative take on humanity, a rip-off of ET. To such an extent that his hatred of Wall-E took over the review. Coraline was good because it wasn't Wall-E or anything remotely like Wall-E. Comparing the two was a bit like comparing an orange to an apple. After a while the review felt a bit like a rant. The reviewer was a professional - in that his review was published in a newspaper - the New York Press and he was probably paid for it.
The other review, also emotionally charged but far more readable, was about the inherent misogyny in the Dresden Files. The reviewer prefered the tv series to the books because the misogyny was less apparent. He felt the main character demonstrated misogynistic attributes in how he patronized women, as did the writer in depicting women in these limited types of roles - Demon/Whore/Virgin/Mother/Saint. The second review reminded me a great deal of critical reviews I've read online regarding Buffy Comics, Angel Comics, Supernatural, and BattleStar Galatica. The writers of those reviews both male and female, are equally enraged by how either certain cultures, gender, or sexual orientation is represented. Their focus seems to be centered in on that item to the point it colors everything else.
I got to thinking as I read the reviews described above - how it was that I saw completely different things in the works they were reviewing to the extent that we might as well have been watching or reading completely different things. And I wondered what the reviewer must think about people such as myself who enjoyed the Dresden files and loved the central character or loved Wall-E? Does the reviewer judge us along with the writer for enjoying these things? Can the reviewer understand why we enjoy them? Can we understand why the reviewer hates them? Particularly if we don't see the same things or perceive the shows in the same manner? Also who is correct in their perception? Either of us? Neither? Both? And is being right as interesting as why we see and focus on different things?
When I read the Dresden Files - I see a writer exploring through his main character his own conservative gender stereotypes, struggling with those stereotypes, many of which come from his own upbringing and religious background. The character often gets beaten up for them or shot down. He's an edgy character, filled with a lot of self-loathing. Who never really knew his mother and whose first love betrayed him. He's struggling with how he views men and women in his life. And he was raised by a father, two father's actually, who seem to represent both sides of his psyche. I find Harry Dresden a fascinating character and am admittedly a bit in love with the character - because he's so torn up inside, yet desperately trying to do the right thing. He's not misogynist to me in the least. Chauvinistic? Certainly. Not to mention Patronizing at times, with a bit of a savior/protector complex. But I've gotten used to that. And Harry does get kicked in the teeth for it, repeatedly. Murphy - also a complex character, calls him on his views of her, and often rails at him for it. They are unable to get together partly because of Harry's issues and partly because Murphy has had her fill of damaged men. I don't like everything the writer writes, but his exploration of a character who wants to believe in a male god, but doesn't quite, and is struggling to deal with the increasingly powerful women who surround him - fascinates me - possibly because as a strong powerful woman, I'm struggling with my own relationships with the men in my life and how they wish to perceive me and what roles they wish to place me in. I love men, but I'm not sure I understand them or for that matter women, or why we are being forced to play roles that have slowly over time become antiquated (sp?) - unnecessary.
When I watched WALL-E - I saw hope not a negative utopia. I saw how the media and society can brainwash us if we let them. But by the same token, we can find joy and hope in entertainment. It made me happy. I did not get upset with the depiction of the slothal heavy set humans - mostly because it made sense - the corporate culture they'd given into took over - they became like children, babies to that culture. The revolt of the gadgets created by that culture to free them from their slothal existence, shows how technology can be our destruction and our salvation. The difficult balancing act between two extremes. The movie did not push my buttons. I saw something in it that comforted me as did others.
I think it's important while writing a review or critique of a piece of art, or even an interpretation - to keep in mind that not everyone reads, writes, or watches in the same way. Or interprets. And I don't think there is a right or wrong way in doing it.
And I think we are entertained by different things. For some it is the exploration of difficult issues. For example - I was highly entertained by Dollhouse, yet somewhat bored and dissatisfied by NUMBERS.
Keeping this in mind, I think, layers the review, makes it less slanted. Less pointed. But as I state that, it occurs to me that for some that's what makes the review interesting. Heck that's why I remembered those two reviews out of numerous ones I'd read this week. They were slanted and pointed reviews, they pushed buttons. I wonder if this is true with books and tv shows as well?
I don't know. I'm not even sure there are answers. Or we can ever know why others watch, read or write what they do or how they do it.
How we watch something, how we write it. For some it is intuitive. For others precise and exact. NUMBERS was detailed and exact, precise. Dollhouse was intuitively told and jumped about. Sarah Connor and BSG somewhere in between. Intiutive writers find their way as they go. Are more interested in characters and themes, focus more on psychology, and inter-relationships. Precise writers - who are into research, tend to focus more on plot, background, setting, and details.
The precise writer - will often research their book before they write it. They might even do an outline first or at the very least during or after.
The intuitive writer - will research as they write, if they absolutely have to. Often they avoid it - since it gets in the way of the process. They do it after the fact - fact-checking bits and pieces. And if they outline it will be brief and afterwards. They like not knowing where their story is going as they write it.
And of course there's people who fall between the two. I may be wrong about this - but precise writers don't tend to like imprecise books or tv shows, they will pick up on inaccuracies and factual errors far more so than the intuitive writer will. This gets into how we read, watch, and write things.
How I read is not the same as everyone else - I jump around. I scan. I re-read, constantly re-read and by re-read, I don't mean re-read a book once I've finished it. I rarely do that, it's not necessary - I remember it more or less to the letter. The reason I remember it - is I re-read paragraphs, I'll read, then read it again, often going back twice over the same page before moving to the next page. What happens is my eyes skip a line, I realize the paragraph makes no sense the way I read it. I re-read it. Fix the errors. Move to the next one. I'm not aware that I'm doing this by the way. It's completely unconscious at this point. Other's have noticed that I do it. I also sub-vocalize or move my lips at times while reading or read it aloud. And I've been known to get frustrated and flip ahead to see if the book gets better, then read back to the point I skipped. Sometimes I'll read the last chapter, first chapter, and three chapters in the middle before buying the book. It's weird and does to a degree infulence my perception of the novel.
How I watch TV is different too. I rarely watch things live. I will rewind back, rewatch a scene. I jump over commericials. If I can't? I read a magazine or do something else during them. And as I watch, I figure it out, like a puzzel. Who will do what, what will happen next, and why. I'll often talk to the tv - say things I'm thinking aloud. And I adore discussing tv shows - more so than books - because usually more people have watched them and their are more players involved - so our discussion isn't limited to the writer and the work. Enjoyed discussing theater and plays in school as well for the same reasons.
How I write? Ah, I'm intuitive mostly. I do fact-check, when necessary. And being a bit of a perfectionist - I edit as I write. I will double check each word as I am typing it. Which makes me a slow writer - in that I'll take an hour or two, but that's because I'm editing and writing at the same time. And fairly unconscious of the fact that I am doing it. I have a low tolerance for miniutia and while I'm detail oriented, I will let things slide. I won't for example go back and edit a ten page post just to fix one typo or one fact. While I plan what I'm writing sometimes, I'll often not write it that way. It will change as I write. I write much the same way that I watch or read, I focus on what interests me and ignore the rest. Often skimming over details. I do not outline. I hate outlines. I don't check the dictionary - they aren't always reliable especially when it comes to slang, I feel words out emotionally, and I go with my cut. So I'm also an emotional writer. But at the same time a logical or precise one - in that I'm a bit of a perfectionist and get annoyed when it's not the right fit or right word or sounds wrong or not clear.
The why, oh the why, I've sort of touched upon with the what and how. But it also eludes.
Because motivation is complicated. I'm not sure most of us know "why" we do the things we do. For example - why I opted out of going to brunch with a bunch of strangers at some Asian restaurant in the city today and decided to write this long insane post instead. I think it's because the idea of sitting in a restaurant with 20 people or even 8, listening to three conversations at once - gave me a headache. There's got to be a better way to meet new people. I liked the art tour idea better. And I wish I could do more with the meeting of people on this thing - because as forums go, this is the one I've enjoyed the most. Maybe because I can ramble on at will, then delete it all...if I so choose. Poof. And ignore those who piss me off, without being obvious about it. Also less noisy.
But is that a why?
On TV shows, writing, and reading - it gets back to Ames quote above. But it's more than that. That alone does not explain why I hate reading screenplays, teleplays, and plays in general and prefer novels. Or why I don't tend to like situation comedies - although I will watch them if hard-pressed or in the mood. I think those get back to how. Screenplays and plays - don't tell us much about the characters outside of dialogue. I want more. I want to see them. I want to know what they look like. What they are doing and wearing. What they are thinking. If they blink or frown. And that's not something you should write in a screenplay or teleplay. I want to fall inside the character, take up residence inside their head, feel what they feel, think what they think, know what they know...and through the experience - understand a little more of another perspective - particularly one that is different from mine. I want to know why Damien Lake in NUMBERS decided to become an arms dealer, why he chose to kill his girlfriend, what motivates him, how and why he became the person he is.
Why do I want to know this?
Because human motivations fascinate me. Why is that so? Because if I can understand it, it makes it easier to deal with some of the horrible things I've seen. To know how to handle the world around me. And to be able to forgive people including myself for doing horrible things. To feel there's more to all of this then well obtaining the good life whatever that is. To figure out through the pattern of other's lives, goals and motivations, what my own role is within that. And the degree to which our choices influence each other.
Or...I just don't know why.
The why...is elusive. I know the what, the how...but the why? I think sometimes it may be how I was raised? But I always felt this way, since my first memory. May be genetic.
An I want to try and understand why others feel the way they do about things. Because if I can understand - maybe see the world through their eyes, I can connect better. We can understand one another?
A friend, CW, once told me that she read Flannery O'Connor - a southern writer, known for her racism, to better understand that type of thinking. CW is a black woman, with roots in the South, yet a strong dislike for the Southern mentality. She felt that if she read writers who were prejudiced against people like herself, she would be able to get inside their heads, and understand why they thought that way. Then come up with a better counter-argument. That's why she read Flannery O'Connor. And to a degree How.
Last weekend, I had drinks with an old college friend, Ames, and her husband. As we chatted the conversation eventually turned, as most do, to what we watch and read. The usual - what movies, tv shows, and books have you read lately? Ames and her hubby mentioned a fondness for Bones, while I preferred Dexter and House. They didn't much like Dexter - found it too gory and the dialogue uneven. While I had similar criticisms for Bones. Stating that while I'd seen Bones, it was not something that held my attention. Ames grinned at that point - "that's right," she said, "you were always into 'the characters'. It explains why you'd love House."
It may be worth noting: Ames and I both majored in English Lit, and minored in anthropology. Except Ames did quantitative anthropology with a focus on how minorities were being numerically represented on campus and whether affirmative action was a workable program or merely to fill minor pre-established quotas. Mine was cultural anthropology - or qualititative analysis- my focus was on understanding the role of the oral narrative, why certain narratives were repeated and other's weren't, and the female role within those narratives - specifically urban folktales, modern welsh ghost stories as compared to older religious myths and stories - how the two overlapped and were similar. I focused primarily on specific characters within those stories. Our thesis in English also differed - Ames analyzed the stories of Edgar Allen Poe - with emphasis on the time period and plotting. While I compared the characters of Molly Bloom in Joyce's Ulysses to Caddy Thompson in Faulkner's Sound and The Fury - focusing on the perceived authorial intent, as well as the character's emotional and psychological evolutions and how the men around them perceived them.
I got to thinking about Ames comment - and it reminded me of something an old creative writing professor once stated about my own writing. What he told me has always haunted me, partly because it took me a bit by surprise and partly because it seems to be the one constant in everything I enjoy for entertainment purposes. He said: " As a writer - you appear to be interested in the ugly emotions, the one's below the surface, that we don't want to admit that we have or try to ignore. You seem to want to explore those and understand them. The difficult emotions in people. The difficult drives. And our guilt regarding them. Each of your stories does this - this one for example is exploring why the man wants his sick mother to die, feels it would be easier somehow, and feels deeply guilty about that - while at the same time he loves her and misses her."
I think that what we watch or read is in some ways directly related to how and what and why we write. Just as how and what and why we write is directly related to how and why we watch or read what we do. The whats, why's and hows affect our perception of the shows and our critiques of them.
Last night, I watched several tv shows - and one this morning. They were all different. One I'll probably forget by the end of the week, three will haunt me for a while. And one, I'm not sure will make it past thirteen episodes, even though I love it.
NUMBERS - I finished watching this morning. It's a tv show I've seen about five to ten episodes of over the three to four years that it has been on. And from what I've seen? The characters have not changed a whit. Nor has the dynamic. It's easy to follow. You don't need to know what happened last week or last year. Episodes can be run out of order yet still make sense. The show's focus is on explaining how numbers relate to solving problems. How the language of mathematics can show how and why things occur. The characters are merely there to explain this and provide a structure for the weekly action to take place. This week's story which focused on jury tampering to get an arms dealer off of a murder charge - was not interested in the character's motivations. We saw rather little of Ray Wise's juror consultant, James Marsters - international arms dealer (Damie Lake), and the victim Erica - who informed on Lake. We got brief sketchs of each character. The focus wasn't on them - it was on the numerical equations - how the FBI Agent's brother, a mathemtics professor, figured out there was jury tampering based on a probablity study computer program he'd created.
BATTLESTAR GALATICA - is the opposite of Numbers. It, like Numbers, is interested in science and mathematics, but only as setting or plot point. It does not focus on them. The primary focus of BSG is on characters. The characters drive the plot not the other way around. Also the characters are a gnarly bunch - filled to the brim with difficult emotions and flaws. BSG is interested in what it means to be human. Damien Lake characters abound on this series, but they are not painted nearly as black and white as NUMBERS painted Lake. Some are actually stars of the series - such as John Cabal, Ellen Tigh, Sol Tigh, Kara Thrace, and Torres - all characters that have done atrocious things - which in a show such as NUMBERS - they'd be arrested for, and that's it. Here we examine why - we see complexity. How they became what they are, why they are what they are, and the motivations for what they do are not as cut and dried as we think they are.
DOLLHOUSE - is a quirky show. It is all about character. The plots are only there to service the characters and themes of the series. One of the main characters is a Damian Lake type character - except far more complex. Olivia Williams plays the head of a secret agency called the Dollhouse - which procures and provides actives to fulfill the desires of clients for a hefty fee. Her motives are at this stage unclear. She's assisted by another, somewhat shady character, played by Reed Diamond. And a scientist, who manages and runs the software program which enables each active of the Dollhouse to take on a new personality for their assignment, forgetting the old one. The show reminds me a great deal of La Femme Nikita and My Own Worste Enemy in its set-up. But unlike those two series - the goal of the agency is not to help or assist a government interest, nor is it about counter-terrorism, or stealing state secrets. The goal is to provide whatever it's clients require - whether that be the dream date or a negotiator to faciliate an exchange. The organization in Dollhouse convinces its players to wipe their minds and act as a sort of empty avatar - taking on the memories and identities of whomever their employers choose to imprint upon them. An idea that relates back to Alfred Bester's Demolished Man - about how criminals are rehabilitated by having their minds and personalities wiped and a new mind or personality put in place. Like NUMBERS - the episode concludes in one hour - Echo, the lead, finishes her assignment. But the main story does not conclude. Nor can you just watch one episode and skip a few, then watch another - as you can with Bones or Numbers. This show is in that regard more like BattleStar Galatica and La Femme Nikita - you need to turn in each week or you will be lost.
I really liked the pilot and I think I'm going to enjoy the series. I keep flipping it around in my head. But I can't imagine Ames watching it with her hubby, nor Wales enjoying it. They'd flip it off in disgust five minutes. Nor can I see my parents or brother watching it. In fact, the only people I can see enjoying this series are reading this post on lj at this very moment. I remember thinking as I was watching it - "oh this is really cool, I love this, and no one else is going to. Most likely for all the reasons I adore it."
SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES - another series that is more interested in character than plot. The plot is sort of all over the place in this series. It is entirely driven by the characters. And the series itself is mostly interested in examining human morality, psychology, and why we do what we do. It like Dollhouse and BSG is also interested in identity - what makes us who we are? Our actions? Our memories? Our choices? Our environment? What defines us? And how do we define ourselves? And how does that effect how we relate to others?
Before I watched those four tv shows, I read two critical reviews this week. One on Wall-E and Coraline. The other on the Dresden Files. Both reviews focused on items in the stories that enraged the reviewers. In the Coraline review - the reviewer hated Wall-E, he saw it as commerical and negative take on humanity, a rip-off of ET. To such an extent that his hatred of Wall-E took over the review. Coraline was good because it wasn't Wall-E or anything remotely like Wall-E. Comparing the two was a bit like comparing an orange to an apple. After a while the review felt a bit like a rant. The reviewer was a professional - in that his review was published in a newspaper - the New York Press and he was probably paid for it.
The other review, also emotionally charged but far more readable, was about the inherent misogyny in the Dresden Files. The reviewer prefered the tv series to the books because the misogyny was less apparent. He felt the main character demonstrated misogynistic attributes in how he patronized women, as did the writer in depicting women in these limited types of roles - Demon/Whore/Virgin/Mother/Saint. The second review reminded me a great deal of critical reviews I've read online regarding Buffy Comics, Angel Comics, Supernatural, and BattleStar Galatica. The writers of those reviews both male and female, are equally enraged by how either certain cultures, gender, or sexual orientation is represented. Their focus seems to be centered in on that item to the point it colors everything else.
I got to thinking as I read the reviews described above - how it was that I saw completely different things in the works they were reviewing to the extent that we might as well have been watching or reading completely different things. And I wondered what the reviewer must think about people such as myself who enjoyed the Dresden files and loved the central character or loved Wall-E? Does the reviewer judge us along with the writer for enjoying these things? Can the reviewer understand why we enjoy them? Can we understand why the reviewer hates them? Particularly if we don't see the same things or perceive the shows in the same manner? Also who is correct in their perception? Either of us? Neither? Both? And is being right as interesting as why we see and focus on different things?
When I read the Dresden Files - I see a writer exploring through his main character his own conservative gender stereotypes, struggling with those stereotypes, many of which come from his own upbringing and religious background. The character often gets beaten up for them or shot down. He's an edgy character, filled with a lot of self-loathing. Who never really knew his mother and whose first love betrayed him. He's struggling with how he views men and women in his life. And he was raised by a father, two father's actually, who seem to represent both sides of his psyche. I find Harry Dresden a fascinating character and am admittedly a bit in love with the character - because he's so torn up inside, yet desperately trying to do the right thing. He's not misogynist to me in the least. Chauvinistic? Certainly. Not to mention Patronizing at times, with a bit of a savior/protector complex. But I've gotten used to that. And Harry does get kicked in the teeth for it, repeatedly. Murphy - also a complex character, calls him on his views of her, and often rails at him for it. They are unable to get together partly because of Harry's issues and partly because Murphy has had her fill of damaged men. I don't like everything the writer writes, but his exploration of a character who wants to believe in a male god, but doesn't quite, and is struggling to deal with the increasingly powerful women who surround him - fascinates me - possibly because as a strong powerful woman, I'm struggling with my own relationships with the men in my life and how they wish to perceive me and what roles they wish to place me in. I love men, but I'm not sure I understand them or for that matter women, or why we are being forced to play roles that have slowly over time become antiquated (sp?) - unnecessary.
When I watched WALL-E - I saw hope not a negative utopia. I saw how the media and society can brainwash us if we let them. But by the same token, we can find joy and hope in entertainment. It made me happy. I did not get upset with the depiction of the slothal heavy set humans - mostly because it made sense - the corporate culture they'd given into took over - they became like children, babies to that culture. The revolt of the gadgets created by that culture to free them from their slothal existence, shows how technology can be our destruction and our salvation. The difficult balancing act between two extremes. The movie did not push my buttons. I saw something in it that comforted me as did others.
I think it's important while writing a review or critique of a piece of art, or even an interpretation - to keep in mind that not everyone reads, writes, or watches in the same way. Or interprets. And I don't think there is a right or wrong way in doing it.
And I think we are entertained by different things. For some it is the exploration of difficult issues. For example - I was highly entertained by Dollhouse, yet somewhat bored and dissatisfied by NUMBERS.
Keeping this in mind, I think, layers the review, makes it less slanted. Less pointed. But as I state that, it occurs to me that for some that's what makes the review interesting. Heck that's why I remembered those two reviews out of numerous ones I'd read this week. They were slanted and pointed reviews, they pushed buttons. I wonder if this is true with books and tv shows as well?
I don't know. I'm not even sure there are answers. Or we can ever know why others watch, read or write what they do or how they do it.
How we watch something, how we write it. For some it is intuitive. For others precise and exact. NUMBERS was detailed and exact, precise. Dollhouse was intuitively told and jumped about. Sarah Connor and BSG somewhere in between. Intiutive writers find their way as they go. Are more interested in characters and themes, focus more on psychology, and inter-relationships. Precise writers - who are into research, tend to focus more on plot, background, setting, and details.
The precise writer - will often research their book before they write it. They might even do an outline first or at the very least during or after.
The intuitive writer - will research as they write, if they absolutely have to. Often they avoid it - since it gets in the way of the process. They do it after the fact - fact-checking bits and pieces. And if they outline it will be brief and afterwards. They like not knowing where their story is going as they write it.
And of course there's people who fall between the two. I may be wrong about this - but precise writers don't tend to like imprecise books or tv shows, they will pick up on inaccuracies and factual errors far more so than the intuitive writer will. This gets into how we read, watch, and write things.
How I read is not the same as everyone else - I jump around. I scan. I re-read, constantly re-read and by re-read, I don't mean re-read a book once I've finished it. I rarely do that, it's not necessary - I remember it more or less to the letter. The reason I remember it - is I re-read paragraphs, I'll read, then read it again, often going back twice over the same page before moving to the next page. What happens is my eyes skip a line, I realize the paragraph makes no sense the way I read it. I re-read it. Fix the errors. Move to the next one. I'm not aware that I'm doing this by the way. It's completely unconscious at this point. Other's have noticed that I do it. I also sub-vocalize or move my lips at times while reading or read it aloud. And I've been known to get frustrated and flip ahead to see if the book gets better, then read back to the point I skipped. Sometimes I'll read the last chapter, first chapter, and three chapters in the middle before buying the book. It's weird and does to a degree infulence my perception of the novel.
How I watch TV is different too. I rarely watch things live. I will rewind back, rewatch a scene. I jump over commericials. If I can't? I read a magazine or do something else during them. And as I watch, I figure it out, like a puzzel. Who will do what, what will happen next, and why. I'll often talk to the tv - say things I'm thinking aloud. And I adore discussing tv shows - more so than books - because usually more people have watched them and their are more players involved - so our discussion isn't limited to the writer and the work. Enjoyed discussing theater and plays in school as well for the same reasons.
How I write? Ah, I'm intuitive mostly. I do fact-check, when necessary. And being a bit of a perfectionist - I edit as I write. I will double check each word as I am typing it. Which makes me a slow writer - in that I'll take an hour or two, but that's because I'm editing and writing at the same time. And fairly unconscious of the fact that I am doing it. I have a low tolerance for miniutia and while I'm detail oriented, I will let things slide. I won't for example go back and edit a ten page post just to fix one typo or one fact. While I plan what I'm writing sometimes, I'll often not write it that way. It will change as I write. I write much the same way that I watch or read, I focus on what interests me and ignore the rest. Often skimming over details. I do not outline. I hate outlines. I don't check the dictionary - they aren't always reliable especially when it comes to slang, I feel words out emotionally, and I go with my cut. So I'm also an emotional writer. But at the same time a logical or precise one - in that I'm a bit of a perfectionist and get annoyed when it's not the right fit or right word or sounds wrong or not clear.
The why, oh the why, I've sort of touched upon with the what and how. But it also eludes.
Because motivation is complicated. I'm not sure most of us know "why" we do the things we do. For example - why I opted out of going to brunch with a bunch of strangers at some Asian restaurant in the city today and decided to write this long insane post instead. I think it's because the idea of sitting in a restaurant with 20 people or even 8, listening to three conversations at once - gave me a headache. There's got to be a better way to meet new people. I liked the art tour idea better. And I wish I could do more with the meeting of people on this thing - because as forums go, this is the one I've enjoyed the most. Maybe because I can ramble on at will, then delete it all...if I so choose. Poof. And ignore those who piss me off, without being obvious about it. Also less noisy.
But is that a why?
On TV shows, writing, and reading - it gets back to Ames quote above. But it's more than that. That alone does not explain why I hate reading screenplays, teleplays, and plays in general and prefer novels. Or why I don't tend to like situation comedies - although I will watch them if hard-pressed or in the mood. I think those get back to how. Screenplays and plays - don't tell us much about the characters outside of dialogue. I want more. I want to see them. I want to know what they look like. What they are doing and wearing. What they are thinking. If they blink or frown. And that's not something you should write in a screenplay or teleplay. I want to fall inside the character, take up residence inside their head, feel what they feel, think what they think, know what they know...and through the experience - understand a little more of another perspective - particularly one that is different from mine. I want to know why Damien Lake in NUMBERS decided to become an arms dealer, why he chose to kill his girlfriend, what motivates him, how and why he became the person he is.
Why do I want to know this?
Because human motivations fascinate me. Why is that so? Because if I can understand it, it makes it easier to deal with some of the horrible things I've seen. To know how to handle the world around me. And to be able to forgive people including myself for doing horrible things. To feel there's more to all of this then well obtaining the good life whatever that is. To figure out through the pattern of other's lives, goals and motivations, what my own role is within that. And the degree to which our choices influence each other.
Or...I just don't know why.
The why...is elusive. I know the what, the how...but the why? I think sometimes it may be how I was raised? But I always felt this way, since my first memory. May be genetic.
An I want to try and understand why others feel the way they do about things. Because if I can understand - maybe see the world through their eyes, I can connect better. We can understand one another?
A friend, CW, once told me that she read Flannery O'Connor - a southern writer, known for her racism, to better understand that type of thinking. CW is a black woman, with roots in the South, yet a strong dislike for the Southern mentality. She felt that if she read writers who were prejudiced against people like herself, she would be able to get inside their heads, and understand why they thought that way. Then come up with a better counter-argument. That's why she read Flannery O'Connor. And to a degree How.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-02-14 11:05 pm (UTC)But of course I'm not trying to sell you on liking NUMB3RS, just upholding my 'I'm not into procedurals' cred.
I totally agree with you about BSG, the plot was never the point there, and I love how the cylons are just as conflicted and confusing as the humans are! It is a dark and fascinating show.
Similarly with Dollhouse we already see hints that the people who are running the facility may be as conflicted and damaged as the 'actives'.... I posted my own short review at my lj, and basically I have to say that I loved it. I found myself dissecting exactly where Eleanor Penn ends and Echo begins, but then it hit me: this does seem to confirm that Eliza's performance was definitely working for me... otherwise there would be nothing for me to contemplate there. I want to spend a lot more time getting to know all the characters.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-14 11:31 pm (UTC)I'm not a math person, although I do have a great and abiding respect for math. And work with it every single day.
Dollhouse, BSG, and Sarah Connor are all about the characters.
I read your review on Dollhouse - sorry didn't get a chance to respond. I agree with you on it, though. I think there's a lot going on here. I also think Echo and Eleanor Penn may have a bit of overlap.
Whedon hints at something in the beginning of the episode - where Echo (Caroline - is that her real name?) states: "The problem with slates is no matter how often you clean them, the stuff you wrote still remains." It does, on chalkboards, you still see the ghostly words sitting behind the new ones. To what degree does Echo's old personas still sit behind each new one, bleed into it?
Eliza was working for me in this show. Actually all the actors are, which I hadn't expected. It's good to see Whedon found a role for Amy Acker. Wonder if he'll be able to insert any of his other former series regulars? Outside of the ones who are obviously busy elsewhere.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-14 11:40 pm (UTC)*sigh*
no subject
Date: 2009-02-14 11:57 pm (UTC)Very cool that we get Tudyk. I keep hoping Denisof and Marsters will show up, but I'm not holding my breath.
Head would also be a treat - particularly since Dollhouse reminds me a lot of VR5. It's very similar in some respects. It's sort of VR5 mashed up with La Femme Nikita. Head played a cross between the Reed Diamond role and the Ripper Giles roles in VR5.
But I don't see Head tripping across the pond again, not when he can get wellplaying gigs in his home country.
LOL! on the ED naysayers. Yeah I have a person on my flist who is upset that we didn't get the Faith series instead. She just wants to see Dusku as Faith and no one else.
I've always sort of liked Dusku as an actress. She was good in True Lies and Bring IT! (the cheerleader thing she did with Kirsten Dunst) and as Faith. I also liked her in Tru Calling. But I know a lot of people who don't like her much. Of course they love actors I can't stand and tv shows that put me to sleep. So to each their own, I guess. ;-) My post above was a somewhat awkward attempt to understand those somewhat frustrating differences in tastes. But I'm not sure it's possible.
PS: Thanks for the Valentine's Day card. Feeling an odd need to rewatch Firefly now. Shouldn't - still have over 24 hours of unwatched tv shows on my DVR, plus a netflix flick that I've had for two weeks. And there is my poor neglected book to work on.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-15 12:26 am (UTC)I've always liked Eliza too, I felt she managed to bring a lot of vulnerability to Faith, a role that a lot of people seemed to write off as just a sexy bad girl.
Oh and I have to say that I agree about Adam Busch, I always love to see him show up on screen... Warren was really a harsh character, but he is capable of bringing a lot of subtle humor and other layers to his roles... I would love to see more of him on tv!
no subject
Date: 2009-02-15 02:31 am (UTC)1. Ted Bundy in the Green River Killer (on screen for about 10-15 minutes, but powerful for those 10-15 min.)
2. Brainac - specifically in Season 5 - last year. He was an injured Brainac playing two characters against each other.
3. Damien Lake.
For some reason he seemed really uncomfortable in PS:I Love You, Torchwood, Cool Money, Without a Trace, and that Holly Hunter series. I'm not sure it is his fault. Head also seemed uncomfortable and a bit over the top in a Doc Who episode. We forget - when we watch film and tv shows that these aren't actors mediums. The actor is more or less the tool - it's the writers, directors, and film editors/producers that rule. This is why a lot of actors want to direct or produce episodes, even write them - it gives them more control over the medium.
In TV - the ruler or king - is the writer. But direction also plays a role.
Marsters has stated in interviews that the reason he was so good in Buffy was the writing and the direction. They made him look good. All he had to do is get the lines right, hit his markes and do whatever they asked. In theater he has more leeway - and I'm guessing he misses it. I think he does film and tv just for the money. Theater pays zip for most actors.
That said, I actually liked Marsters as Captain John. But then the only actors I think are any good in Torchwood are the ones who play Gwen, Rhys, Owen and Tosh. And the writing is well, cheesy most of the time. So, Marsters was in a way a breath of fresh air. But his character arc and the writing of the episode itself? Sigh. I wanted more depth. Made me miss Whedon.
Whedon goes for the juglar. RTD not so much.
Adam Busch was amazingly good in a small role on Sarah Connor.
Excellent singer too and quite charming in person. Much better singer and performer than Marsters - which surprised me, although to be fair - I saw Marsters in honky bar, out in Farmington, following a band that sort of ahem spoofed his performance, and with a bunch of fawning fangirls while he did what can best be described as the Chippendale dance with his clothes on. Not sure he sang - or if he did, I couldn't hear it. The music was just static from the speakers. Adam Busch - could hear his songs, he sounded great, and each song had humor and depth. I still listen to him on my ipod.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-15 12:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-15 02:35 am (UTC)My favorites:
1. WASH
2. Jayne
3. Zoe
4. Mal
5. River
6. Innara
7. Simon
8. Shepard
9. What's her name - the mechanic (she grated on my nerves for some weird reason)
no subject
Date: 2009-02-15 03:03 am (UTC)1. Jayne
2. Zoe
3. Wash
4. River (but really these top 4 are all beloved)
5. Book
6. Mal
7. Kaylee
8. Simon
9. Inara (I really didn't like Inara in any of the TV episodes, except 'Trash')