![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatIt's been a rough and tumble week. Work was hellishly stressful this week, and looks to be even worse next week. The rain, which has not let up in 11 days is making me crazy. Woke up this morning feeling like crap on toast, with eggs cracked on the side. Slept badly. Horrid headache. And wanting to crawl out of my skin. It was the weather of course - the changes in barometric pressure have an adverse effect on my body chemisty. If you have suffered any injury in your lifetime - changes/drops in barometric pressure will cause a dull throbbing pain.
So, I decided to wimp out on the multicultural writers meet and take the day off. Vegging in front of the telly, knitting, and playing a bit on the net. It's no big loss - I did manage to write the query letter that I had been procrastinating and am making progress on the dreaded synopsis. Also got the first three chapters printed off. I call that progress. Plus, I think I may have found another writer's group that is closer, that may or may not fit my needs. It meets on Tuesday - which is not a good night for me, so we shall see. Tomorrow, I have an appointment with a personal trainer to set up an exercise regime to get back in shape and strengthen my ankle/knees. The trainer has a background of knee and ankle injuries - so will most likely be able to give me some good pointers. I'm an active person and not being able to work out or walk off my tension/stress is driving me crazy.
On the telly or tv front - been watching Disc 4 of the Season one TRU BLOOD DVDs. While I find TRu Blood enjoyable at times, I can't say I'm in love with it. It has a lot of problems and is incredibly slow at times. The best things about the series so far are Sam Trammel, Tara, and Layfayette. Which have significantly more screen time than they did in the books not to mention more character development. Also, like Eric and Bill, who are far more interesting here, not to mention have better dialogue, than they did in the books.
My difficulty with TRU BLOOD and I'm clearly in the minority on this front - so am hesistant to say it - is that I find most, not all, but most of the sex scenes to be dull. And repetitive. This may be deliberate. Jason is clearly meant to be an addictive personality - who is addicted to the personal high he gets from sex and the imagined connection - yet he doesn't really connect to anyone. The one person he has sex with that he thinks he connects to - he does via a drug "V" - which reminds me a lot of "ecstasy". It's all superficial. Not real. In fact, none of the people having sex appear to actually connect with one another on any level. The sex feels superficial, like getting high. It's great for a moment. But the moment doesn't last. It's all hype. In fact, sex in TRu Blood much like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel - seems to be linked to addiction, and a need for a connection that is not possible. The vampire metaphor is still clearly about sexual violence, penetration, rape, dominance, and sexual power. The episode where Bill sires a teenage girl - underlines the rape metaphor. As does the draining of Eddy by Jason and Amy to fuel their mutual V/sex addiction. V - vampire blood - acts a sort of libidio inducer, not unlike viagra, which makes sex even better - again it reminds me a lot of ecstasy - which more or less was supposed to do the same thing.
The other issue I have with TRU BLOOD is Sookie. She grates on me. Much as she did in the novels. She's a romantic female trope that I clearly don't like very much. Another thing I'm in the minority on. Pacquin plays her well. It's not Paquin that I'm having troubles with, it is the character. It may change. But right now, she grates on my nerves.
This doesn't mean I don't enjoy the series, just that I'm not going to rush out to subscribe to HBO to see new episodes. I can wait until next summer, when Season 2 comes out on DVD, and I can rent via netflix. Love netflix. After I finish Tru Blood, I'll start on Weeds.
The other thing I watched was BuffyS4, which I finished my rewatch of this morning. Rather fascinating season - which I didn't appreciate as much the first go around. It's not an overly plotted or structured season, so much as a season that explores, often in sizable depth, character arcs. Of the seven seasons - Season 4 probably gives us the most in regards to character examination. And may actually develope and tell us the most about the characters and how the writers view them. The focus here was on character, then plot. It was also a season with a couple of fascinating thematic arcs - figuring out who you are and not letting society or someone else tell you (taking your own "initiative"), the moral quandry/ethical quandry of behavioral modification and changing someone to fit society's needs - which reflects back on the prior theme, and how people around us will influence our paths.
Very complex season.
What's also interesting about it - is in all the commentaries - the writer continues to tell us that he is literal minded and not good with metaphors. I disagree. No one who is literal minded could write Hush, Once More With Feeling, the Body, or Restless. Actually no one who is literal minded could write a tv show or come up with a tv show entitled Buffy the VAmpire Slayer. Purely literal minded folks tend to veer away from that series. To be honest? I think most of us are both, and like everything else, it depends on the situation. I'm very literal minded when it comes to social interactions - puns and jokes often go over my head. I can't always tell when someone is kidding. But give me a poem, and I can analyze it pretty quickly, and I had no problem figureing out Restless or Ulysess. Also I tend to use metaphors a lot in my writing. But the writer's statement that he is too literal minded - explains a similarily odd statement in commentary regarding S6, where he states he said au revoir monsieur metaphor - he didn't. I'm not sure he knows what metaphors are? Because Season 6 was filled with metaphors, they were just more subtle and less obvious than the prior seasons. The commentaries proved to me that writers can't be trusted to tell us about the meaning of their own work. They might be able to tell us the intent. But in truth? I doubt most writers know.
Another interesting comment that Whedon made, which I hadn't picked up on before - was that he usually carefully structures his stories. That he can't write if he doesn't know where the story is going. He has to have it outlined out first. Know exactly what the beginning, middle and end is. Restless was a departure from that - he'd never done anything like it before or since. He plots everything out ahead of time.
Odd. I assumed he did the opposite. This sort of throws my assumptions about his writing, including my defense of some of the plot holes and wonky metaphors out the proverbial window. Although to be fair, he implies that he sucks at metaphor and tends to be too literal minded to use them consistently or effectively. Not sure what to think about the writer's process now. Except that he is right in Restless - his main theme is sex and sexism. His metaphors regarding sex and sexism are obvious - perhaps that's what he means by literal - that he goes for the obvious sexual metaphor, not the more subtle literary ones people were finding in his work. I'd agree with that. A huge theme in the series - from Season 1-Season 4 is sexism, how men objectify women and demean them, how sex is used as either a weapon, a means of control, or manipulation or power play. That women from a male perspective are sexual objects and/or mothers. And what is wrong with that perspective, why it exists, why it is skewed, and why we should question it and not cater to it, as well as why we often fall into the trap of doing so. Very heavy theme in the series. At times, I felt as if he were hitting me over the head with a hammer regarding it - and I think, to be fair, the writer states just that in his commentaries, almost apologetically. Stating - yes, I was going for the sex metaphor there.
And yes, that was a statement about sexism. It also, if you know anything about Whedon's personal background or writing history - makes sense. He studied westerns and horror films,
his mother was a founder of NOW - the feminist movement, he wrote Buffy for his mother,
and his first job was on Roseanne.
If you have the DVD's? Go rewatch the S4 Overview and the first part of the Restless commentary - that's where I heard the bits about sexism, sex, and metaphors.
So, I decided to wimp out on the multicultural writers meet and take the day off. Vegging in front of the telly, knitting, and playing a bit on the net. It's no big loss - I did manage to write the query letter that I had been procrastinating and am making progress on the dreaded synopsis. Also got the first three chapters printed off. I call that progress. Plus, I think I may have found another writer's group that is closer, that may or may not fit my needs. It meets on Tuesday - which is not a good night for me, so we shall see. Tomorrow, I have an appointment with a personal trainer to set up an exercise regime to get back in shape and strengthen my ankle/knees. The trainer has a background of knee and ankle injuries - so will most likely be able to give me some good pointers. I'm an active person and not being able to work out or walk off my tension/stress is driving me crazy.
On the telly or tv front - been watching Disc 4 of the Season one TRU BLOOD DVDs. While I find TRu Blood enjoyable at times, I can't say I'm in love with it. It has a lot of problems and is incredibly slow at times. The best things about the series so far are Sam Trammel, Tara, and Layfayette. Which have significantly more screen time than they did in the books not to mention more character development. Also, like Eric and Bill, who are far more interesting here, not to mention have better dialogue, than they did in the books.
My difficulty with TRU BLOOD and I'm clearly in the minority on this front - so am hesistant to say it - is that I find most, not all, but most of the sex scenes to be dull. And repetitive. This may be deliberate. Jason is clearly meant to be an addictive personality - who is addicted to the personal high he gets from sex and the imagined connection - yet he doesn't really connect to anyone. The one person he has sex with that he thinks he connects to - he does via a drug "V" - which reminds me a lot of "ecstasy". It's all superficial. Not real. In fact, none of the people having sex appear to actually connect with one another on any level. The sex feels superficial, like getting high. It's great for a moment. But the moment doesn't last. It's all hype. In fact, sex in TRu Blood much like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel - seems to be linked to addiction, and a need for a connection that is not possible. The vampire metaphor is still clearly about sexual violence, penetration, rape, dominance, and sexual power. The episode where Bill sires a teenage girl - underlines the rape metaphor. As does the draining of Eddy by Jason and Amy to fuel their mutual V/sex addiction. V - vampire blood - acts a sort of libidio inducer, not unlike viagra, which makes sex even better - again it reminds me a lot of ecstasy - which more or less was supposed to do the same thing.
The other issue I have with TRU BLOOD is Sookie. She grates on me. Much as she did in the novels. She's a romantic female trope that I clearly don't like very much. Another thing I'm in the minority on. Pacquin plays her well. It's not Paquin that I'm having troubles with, it is the character. It may change. But right now, she grates on my nerves.
This doesn't mean I don't enjoy the series, just that I'm not going to rush out to subscribe to HBO to see new episodes. I can wait until next summer, when Season 2 comes out on DVD, and I can rent via netflix. Love netflix. After I finish Tru Blood, I'll start on Weeds.
The other thing I watched was BuffyS4, which I finished my rewatch of this morning. Rather fascinating season - which I didn't appreciate as much the first go around. It's not an overly plotted or structured season, so much as a season that explores, often in sizable depth, character arcs. Of the seven seasons - Season 4 probably gives us the most in regards to character examination. And may actually develope and tell us the most about the characters and how the writers view them. The focus here was on character, then plot. It was also a season with a couple of fascinating thematic arcs - figuring out who you are and not letting society or someone else tell you (taking your own "initiative"), the moral quandry/ethical quandry of behavioral modification and changing someone to fit society's needs - which reflects back on the prior theme, and how people around us will influence our paths.
Very complex season.
What's also interesting about it - is in all the commentaries - the writer continues to tell us that he is literal minded and not good with metaphors. I disagree. No one who is literal minded could write Hush, Once More With Feeling, the Body, or Restless. Actually no one who is literal minded could write a tv show or come up with a tv show entitled Buffy the VAmpire Slayer. Purely literal minded folks tend to veer away from that series. To be honest? I think most of us are both, and like everything else, it depends on the situation. I'm very literal minded when it comes to social interactions - puns and jokes often go over my head. I can't always tell when someone is kidding. But give me a poem, and I can analyze it pretty quickly, and I had no problem figureing out Restless or Ulysess. Also I tend to use metaphors a lot in my writing. But the writer's statement that he is too literal minded - explains a similarily odd statement in commentary regarding S6, where he states he said au revoir monsieur metaphor - he didn't. I'm not sure he knows what metaphors are? Because Season 6 was filled with metaphors, they were just more subtle and less obvious than the prior seasons. The commentaries proved to me that writers can't be trusted to tell us about the meaning of their own work. They might be able to tell us the intent. But in truth? I doubt most writers know.
Another interesting comment that Whedon made, which I hadn't picked up on before - was that he usually carefully structures his stories. That he can't write if he doesn't know where the story is going. He has to have it outlined out first. Know exactly what the beginning, middle and end is. Restless was a departure from that - he'd never done anything like it before or since. He plots everything out ahead of time.
Odd. I assumed he did the opposite. This sort of throws my assumptions about his writing, including my defense of some of the plot holes and wonky metaphors out the proverbial window. Although to be fair, he implies that he sucks at metaphor and tends to be too literal minded to use them consistently or effectively. Not sure what to think about the writer's process now. Except that he is right in Restless - his main theme is sex and sexism. His metaphors regarding sex and sexism are obvious - perhaps that's what he means by literal - that he goes for the obvious sexual metaphor, not the more subtle literary ones people were finding in his work. I'd agree with that. A huge theme in the series - from Season 1-Season 4 is sexism, how men objectify women and demean them, how sex is used as either a weapon, a means of control, or manipulation or power play. That women from a male perspective are sexual objects and/or mothers. And what is wrong with that perspective, why it exists, why it is skewed, and why we should question it and not cater to it, as well as why we often fall into the trap of doing so. Very heavy theme in the series. At times, I felt as if he were hitting me over the head with a hammer regarding it - and I think, to be fair, the writer states just that in his commentaries, almost apologetically. Stating - yes, I was going for the sex metaphor there.
And yes, that was a statement about sexism. It also, if you know anything about Whedon's personal background or writing history - makes sense. He studied westerns and horror films,
his mother was a founder of NOW - the feminist movement, he wrote Buffy for his mother,
and his first job was on Roseanne.
If you have the DVD's? Go rewatch the S4 Overview and the first part of the Restless commentary - that's where I heard the bits about sexism, sex, and metaphors.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-06-21 04:21 pm (UTC)Regarding your second point? I think you nailed it.
While the actors were not permitted to improve in most cases, Whedon does mention that he kept Xander's line about doing a spell in Restless - and that he changed a line or two because he liked how the actor interpreted it, more than how he wrote it.
He has also been known to redirect and rewrite scenes that did not work. Beneath You is the best example.
I'd also agree that Whedon is most interested in the emotional arc or internal/psychological arc of the characters, which may explain why he liked Season 4 in some respects the best. Dollhouse in some respects reminds me a great deal of Season 4 Buffy. This does pose problems at times, because plot points can fall through the cracks. You are more likely to write yourself into a corner focusing on an emotional arc, than you are if you are focusing on world-building and external plot. On the other hand - the danger of focusing too much on world-building and external plot is that you lose the characters, leave them behind.
They end up becoming pawns of your external plot.