![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Was having an interesting conversation about metaphor with the Momster the other day - mainly in regards to the tv show Once Upon A Time. And this is a good story, actually, to demonstrate how differently people think, even those related to each other.
In last week's episode of Once Upon a Time, a man shows up in town with a big wooden box that he is carting around. Emma, the new sheriff, confronts him. He tells her that she probably wants to know what is in his box. And he could just cart the box around, never tell her, make her guess, torture her with it. Or she could agree to let him buy her a drink at some point in the future and he'd show her right now, what's in the box. Emma, a fairly upfront, no-nonsense, rational, plain-speaking character (basically common sense personified) tells him that he can buy her drink and to just show her what's in the box. And he reveals a type-writer. Not an electric typewriter. Not a computer. Not a lap-top. But an old fashioned type-writer. The type may Dad used to own way back in the 1960s and 70s. I actually learned how to type on a typewriter like that back in the late 70s, early 80s, before my parents bought me an electric type-writer. Emma peers at it then at the man. He tells her - I'm a writer, I'm in Storybrook because I've found stories here. Let's just say it inspires me and always has.
Anyhow...
Momster (rational scientist): can you explain to me why he's carrying around an old typewriter. Why not a computer or a lap-top?
Me: It's a metaphor.
Momster: For what?
Me: He's the writer of the story. He wrote the fairy tale book "Once Upon a Time" that Henry has.
Momster: Whoa...I did not pick that up at all. How did you pick that up?
Me: Well he tells her that he is inspired by the stories in that town. And it's an old type-writer, indicating magic, not technology...it's the poetry of the piece.
Momster: Oh...
Me: You were looking at it rationally or logically. You can't apply logic to a fantasy series like Once Upon a Time. Or rational...it's metaphor and emotion based. Everything in that show is a metaphor for something else.
Momster: You were always better at reading metaphors than I was...
Me: Well that's why you don't like poetry that much, it's pretty much all metaphors. And I sort of think that way.
This conversation haunts me. Because it serves as a good metaphor for a lot of conversations I've had. We are asking different questions. My mother was bugged by the fact that a guy is lugging around a heavy ancient typewriter in the 21st Century, while my question is oh that's an interesting metaphor, who is this guy? I'm guessing he's the writer of the story. OR god. God as a writer...and of course he's carrying around an old typewriter. The magic won't work otherwise.
I think a scientist is less likely to love Once Upon a Time than a philosopher and frustrated poet is. Although...generalizations like that one, tend to make asses of us all.
2. It struck me today that I'm not really triggered by tv shows or fictional stories so much as people's reactions to those stories. It's a weird dilemma. I want to discuss these stories with others...but I also, want to enjoy the story and sometimes the two are counter-productive.
Examples? Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I desperately wanted to discuss this series in Seasons 6 and 7, and in some respects loved those seasons, but I had to deal with a volatile online fandom. And often they'd make me hate something, I'd have loved if I wasn't interacting with them. Farscape - was easier to watch, because I watched it long after it aired, and so the fandom wasn't really that active. No problems. BSG however...had similar issues. It was hard for example to enjoy the Quadrangle of Doom - when everyone hated it so much online. I actually found it sort of interesting and I happen to like Quadrangles (or I wouldn't put up with soap operas). And god help you if you wanted to discuss the fact that Spike felt remorse, painful remorse at that, after attacking Buffy in Seeing Red. I was more interested and intrigued by why he felt deep remorse after the AR scene, than I was about the AR scene - which I more or less saw coming from a mile away. I found the AR scene not all that interesting, except in how it was shot and edited - that interested me. We had a rather lengthy discussion about that on the ATPOBTVS board at the time - that board was mainly made up of frustrated English Lit, Philosophy, History, and Psychology Majors with a pedantic streak. Our arguments tended to devolve into:
Poster 1: While I understand your point, Nikki was a mother, and vulnerable at the time.
Poster 2: She's a slayer, how could she be fragile?
Poster 1: Where did I say fragile?
Poster 2: (reprints Poster 1's comments and highlights the word vulnerable)
Poster 1: That's not fragile, that's vulnerable.
Poster 2: It's a synomyme for Fragile.
Poster 1: Pardon?
Poster 2: Posts Oxford Dictionary Definition of Fragile include all synonymes.
That's a bit exaggerated. But you get the point. While hilarious in retrospect, it was at times extremely annoying. I'd find myself involved in lengthy fights over semantics. Although, this was admittedly better than:
Poster1: What's interesting to me is that Spike showed remorse after the AR scene.
Poster 2: How exactly? There was no remorse. He called her a bitch and blamed the chip for stopping him.
Poster 1: What episode did you see?
Poster 2: Same one you did. Reprints dialogue and script.
Poster 1: It says he breaks a glass, it says he's upset about what he did. It says he's torturing himself with images of it. How is this not remorse?
Poster 2: He calls her a bitch.
Poster 1: So?
Poster 2: Clearly he hates her because he didn't rape her.
Poster 1: Why he didn't he rape her?
Poster 2: She pushed him off.
Poster 1: Yes, but, she was injured, he could easily have attacked again. No one was stopping him. They were in a small room. She had no weapon. The chip didn't work on her. (goes on at length)
Poster 2: Xander showed up.
Poster 1: Later. After he was long gone. And he was so upset he left his jacked behind.
Poster 2: Yeah, the skin of that other slayer he killed.
Poster 1: Okay, let's stay on topic, shall we. We're talking about what happened after the AR scene. (Does lengthy post on the remorse)
Poster 2: While we're at it we should call it what it is - an attempted rape. The abbreviation is offensive.
Poster 1: But was it really an attempted rape? He attacked her, but he didn't intend to rape her - he wanted to recreate their relationship, can we call it attempted rape? With no clear intent?
Poster 2: It was clearly an attempted rape. He forced himself on her. (Posts shooting script again an highlights relevant sections). You should stop making excuses for him.
Poster 1: I'm not making excuses. I'm just interested in why he didn't do it and why he showed remorse - he's a vampire, no soul -
Poster 2: That's irrelevant. He said he loved her. This is proof he didn't. Do you have something against Buffy?
Poster 1: No, although it was an abusive relationship and she did abuse him as much as he abused her and gave him mixed signals.
Poster 2: So you are saying it was her fault? That she was responsible for his actions.
Poster 1: I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying it was complicated. And what's interesting is he backed off. He realized her hurt her and it destroyed him, drove him insane.
Poster 2: You did say that. (reposts Poster 1's last comment). I'm beginning to think you are a rape sympathsizer.
Poster1: I am not. Why can't we discuss this rationally?
Poster 2: He raped her.
Poster 1: Attempted. There was no rape. You have to have actual penetration to have "rape". (Posts legal definition of rape).
Poster 2: Yes there was - he forced himself on her. If she hadn't kicked him off it would have been a rape. Xander was right to want to stake him.
Poster 1: Yeah, right. Xander who is so perfect and has never forced himself on anyone. *cough*The Pack*cough*.
Poster 2: Xander was possessed by a hyena, that's different.
Poster 1: Spike was soulless, with a demon soul, yet he feels remorse! Xander remembers what he did and didn't feel any remorse.
Poster 2: It's not the same thing and you know it. Spike committed a human crime. He didn't try to bite her. And he did it after he told her he'd never hurt her. She shouldn't forgive him.
Poster 1: But he showed remorse for it.
Poster 2: Doesn't matter, he attempted to rape her. And he calls her bitch. Probably gone to get his chip out. Evil.
Poster 1: You have an incredibly black and white view of the world, don't you? Fundie!
Poster 2: While you're a rape sympathizer...have a thing for serial killers too, don't you? Can't see past the pretty cheekbones.
(And it derails from there)
I really never minded what the tv show did, it was the fan reactions that drove me nuts. you couldn't discuss these things without getting into a pissing match - to the point that you wanted to kill the other poster, literally. Although, I am being a bit disingenuous here - since I did care - a great deal about what the comics did. And I'm sure people got annoyed with my reactions on that score. Because once your buttons are pushed, it's a bit hard to be rational or mature. That's the problem with discussing cultural media...emotions and critical thinking can hijack the proceedings. In the first example - it's the pedant that hijacks the discussion - trust me, I've read and engaged in very long arguments over the definition of a word. I remember in LJ once going over 100 comments on what a frigging soul was defined as. One poster notably was upset that we all didn't share the same moral world view or values. And I responded somewhat crankily - "share the same world view? We can't even agree on the definition of a soul in a tv show." And in another thread? We went 30 posts arguing about whether Bangle or Spuffy shippers wore rose-colored glasses and could not rationally discuss the characters. (Answer? Both can't. Depends on the situation though.)
The two episodes on Buffy that drove me the most nuts in regards to fandom? Actually there were three:
* Dead Things (extremely long arguments about domestic violence and the damn balcony scene (half of fandom thought it was rape).)
* Seeing Red (Lesbian Cliche and the AR scene, take your pick)
* Lies My Parents Told Me (Martyred Mom - Nikki Wood, Robin Wood, Spike, and the stupid jacket. People - I kept wanting to scream, read Frank Miller's Sin City and get back to me. This is Comic Book Pulp Noir Horror Fantasy, it's not supposed to be politically correct people, haven't you ever read or watched this stuff?)
I sometimes wonder if Shakespeare's fans had these fights?
I got to make dinner. Enuf of this. Make of it what you will.
In last week's episode of Once Upon a Time, a man shows up in town with a big wooden box that he is carting around. Emma, the new sheriff, confronts him. He tells her that she probably wants to know what is in his box. And he could just cart the box around, never tell her, make her guess, torture her with it. Or she could agree to let him buy her a drink at some point in the future and he'd show her right now, what's in the box. Emma, a fairly upfront, no-nonsense, rational, plain-speaking character (basically common sense personified) tells him that he can buy her drink and to just show her what's in the box. And he reveals a type-writer. Not an electric typewriter. Not a computer. Not a lap-top. But an old fashioned type-writer. The type may Dad used to own way back in the 1960s and 70s. I actually learned how to type on a typewriter like that back in the late 70s, early 80s, before my parents bought me an electric type-writer. Emma peers at it then at the man. He tells her - I'm a writer, I'm in Storybrook because I've found stories here. Let's just say it inspires me and always has.
Anyhow...
Momster (rational scientist): can you explain to me why he's carrying around an old typewriter. Why not a computer or a lap-top?
Me: It's a metaphor.
Momster: For what?
Me: He's the writer of the story. He wrote the fairy tale book "Once Upon a Time" that Henry has.
Momster: Whoa...I did not pick that up at all. How did you pick that up?
Me: Well he tells her that he is inspired by the stories in that town. And it's an old type-writer, indicating magic, not technology...it's the poetry of the piece.
Momster: Oh...
Me: You were looking at it rationally or logically. You can't apply logic to a fantasy series like Once Upon a Time. Or rational...it's metaphor and emotion based. Everything in that show is a metaphor for something else.
Momster: You were always better at reading metaphors than I was...
Me: Well that's why you don't like poetry that much, it's pretty much all metaphors. And I sort of think that way.
This conversation haunts me. Because it serves as a good metaphor for a lot of conversations I've had. We are asking different questions. My mother was bugged by the fact that a guy is lugging around a heavy ancient typewriter in the 21st Century, while my question is oh that's an interesting metaphor, who is this guy? I'm guessing he's the writer of the story. OR god. God as a writer...and of course he's carrying around an old typewriter. The magic won't work otherwise.
I think a scientist is less likely to love Once Upon a Time than a philosopher and frustrated poet is. Although...generalizations like that one, tend to make asses of us all.
2. It struck me today that I'm not really triggered by tv shows or fictional stories so much as people's reactions to those stories. It's a weird dilemma. I want to discuss these stories with others...but I also, want to enjoy the story and sometimes the two are counter-productive.
Examples? Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I desperately wanted to discuss this series in Seasons 6 and 7, and in some respects loved those seasons, but I had to deal with a volatile online fandom. And often they'd make me hate something, I'd have loved if I wasn't interacting with them. Farscape - was easier to watch, because I watched it long after it aired, and so the fandom wasn't really that active. No problems. BSG however...had similar issues. It was hard for example to enjoy the Quadrangle of Doom - when everyone hated it so much online. I actually found it sort of interesting and I happen to like Quadrangles (or I wouldn't put up with soap operas). And god help you if you wanted to discuss the fact that Spike felt remorse, painful remorse at that, after attacking Buffy in Seeing Red. I was more interested and intrigued by why he felt deep remorse after the AR scene, than I was about the AR scene - which I more or less saw coming from a mile away. I found the AR scene not all that interesting, except in how it was shot and edited - that interested me. We had a rather lengthy discussion about that on the ATPOBTVS board at the time - that board was mainly made up of frustrated English Lit, Philosophy, History, and Psychology Majors with a pedantic streak. Our arguments tended to devolve into:
Poster 1: While I understand your point, Nikki was a mother, and vulnerable at the time.
Poster 2: She's a slayer, how could she be fragile?
Poster 1: Where did I say fragile?
Poster 2: (reprints Poster 1's comments and highlights the word vulnerable)
Poster 1: That's not fragile, that's vulnerable.
Poster 2: It's a synomyme for Fragile.
Poster 1: Pardon?
Poster 2: Posts Oxford Dictionary Definition of Fragile include all synonymes.
That's a bit exaggerated. But you get the point. While hilarious in retrospect, it was at times extremely annoying. I'd find myself involved in lengthy fights over semantics. Although, this was admittedly better than:
Poster1: What's interesting to me is that Spike showed remorse after the AR scene.
Poster 2: How exactly? There was no remorse. He called her a bitch and blamed the chip for stopping him.
Poster 1: What episode did you see?
Poster 2: Same one you did. Reprints dialogue and script.
Poster 1: It says he breaks a glass, it says he's upset about what he did. It says he's torturing himself with images of it. How is this not remorse?
Poster 2: He calls her a bitch.
Poster 1: So?
Poster 2: Clearly he hates her because he didn't rape her.
Poster 1: Why he didn't he rape her?
Poster 2: She pushed him off.
Poster 1: Yes, but, she was injured, he could easily have attacked again. No one was stopping him. They were in a small room. She had no weapon. The chip didn't work on her. (goes on at length)
Poster 2: Xander showed up.
Poster 1: Later. After he was long gone. And he was so upset he left his jacked behind.
Poster 2: Yeah, the skin of that other slayer he killed.
Poster 1: Okay, let's stay on topic, shall we. We're talking about what happened after the AR scene. (Does lengthy post on the remorse)
Poster 2: While we're at it we should call it what it is - an attempted rape. The abbreviation is offensive.
Poster 1: But was it really an attempted rape? He attacked her, but he didn't intend to rape her - he wanted to recreate their relationship, can we call it attempted rape? With no clear intent?
Poster 2: It was clearly an attempted rape. He forced himself on her. (Posts shooting script again an highlights relevant sections). You should stop making excuses for him.
Poster 1: I'm not making excuses. I'm just interested in why he didn't do it and why he showed remorse - he's a vampire, no soul -
Poster 2: That's irrelevant. He said he loved her. This is proof he didn't. Do you have something against Buffy?
Poster 1: No, although it was an abusive relationship and she did abuse him as much as he abused her and gave him mixed signals.
Poster 2: So you are saying it was her fault? That she was responsible for his actions.
Poster 1: I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying it was complicated. And what's interesting is he backed off. He realized her hurt her and it destroyed him, drove him insane.
Poster 2: You did say that. (reposts Poster 1's last comment). I'm beginning to think you are a rape sympathsizer.
Poster1: I am not. Why can't we discuss this rationally?
Poster 2: He raped her.
Poster 1: Attempted. There was no rape. You have to have actual penetration to have "rape". (Posts legal definition of rape).
Poster 2: Yes there was - he forced himself on her. If she hadn't kicked him off it would have been a rape. Xander was right to want to stake him.
Poster 1: Yeah, right. Xander who is so perfect and has never forced himself on anyone. *cough*The Pack*cough*.
Poster 2: Xander was possessed by a hyena, that's different.
Poster 1: Spike was soulless, with a demon soul, yet he feels remorse! Xander remembers what he did and didn't feel any remorse.
Poster 2: It's not the same thing and you know it. Spike committed a human crime. He didn't try to bite her. And he did it after he told her he'd never hurt her. She shouldn't forgive him.
Poster 1: But he showed remorse for it.
Poster 2: Doesn't matter, he attempted to rape her. And he calls her bitch. Probably gone to get his chip out. Evil.
Poster 1: You have an incredibly black and white view of the world, don't you? Fundie!
Poster 2: While you're a rape sympathizer...have a thing for serial killers too, don't you? Can't see past the pretty cheekbones.
(And it derails from there)
I really never minded what the tv show did, it was the fan reactions that drove me nuts. you couldn't discuss these things without getting into a pissing match - to the point that you wanted to kill the other poster, literally. Although, I am being a bit disingenuous here - since I did care - a great deal about what the comics did. And I'm sure people got annoyed with my reactions on that score. Because once your buttons are pushed, it's a bit hard to be rational or mature. That's the problem with discussing cultural media...emotions and critical thinking can hijack the proceedings. In the first example - it's the pedant that hijacks the discussion - trust me, I've read and engaged in very long arguments over the definition of a word. I remember in LJ once going over 100 comments on what a frigging soul was defined as. One poster notably was upset that we all didn't share the same moral world view or values. And I responded somewhat crankily - "share the same world view? We can't even agree on the definition of a soul in a tv show." And in another thread? We went 30 posts arguing about whether Bangle or Spuffy shippers wore rose-colored glasses and could not rationally discuss the characters. (Answer? Both can't. Depends on the situation though.)
The two episodes on Buffy that drove me the most nuts in regards to fandom? Actually there were three:
* Dead Things (extremely long arguments about domestic violence and the damn balcony scene (half of fandom thought it was rape).)
* Seeing Red (Lesbian Cliche and the AR scene, take your pick)
* Lies My Parents Told Me (Martyred Mom - Nikki Wood, Robin Wood, Spike, and the stupid jacket. People - I kept wanting to scream, read Frank Miller's Sin City and get back to me. This is Comic Book Pulp Noir Horror Fantasy, it's not supposed to be politically correct people, haven't you ever read or watched this stuff?)
I sometimes wonder if Shakespeare's fans had these fights?
I got to make dinner. Enuf of this. Make of it what you will.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 02:09 am (UTC)One of the most disturbing parts is how the interchanges are so personalized. They quickly go from a discussion of different views to a demand that you defend your evil self - that you are somehow morally and intellectually a repulsive being for not agreeing.
And yes - I imagine there were duels fought over Shakespeare!~
no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 11:19 pm (UTC)One of the most disturbing parts is how the interchanges are so personalized. They quickly go from a discussion of different views to a demand that you defend your evil self - that you are somehow morally and intellectually a repulsive being for not agreeing.
I love this statement: "you defend your evil self" - perfect. And exactly that. The discussion stops being about the show and becomes about who is morally superior. And that's always a bad idea on the internet. That starts making things "personal".
Because once you make it personal? It's impossible to discuss anything rationally afterwards. You don't know the person you are discussing this with - what their back-story is or what happened to them that day.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 02:52 am (UTC)So far, a subtle breaking of the fourth wall. I'll wait to see what they do with Writer Dude.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 11:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 11:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 11:40 pm (UTC)Now, I'm considering Emma+Writer Dude.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 11:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 01:36 am (UTC)Do wish they'd get to the end-game a bit faster. The pacing is slowing down. Which was a problem with LOST too, actually.
I think he's purpose may be more meta related...although at the end of the most recent episode, I wondered if he was the writer of Once Upon a Time, or merely seeking it like some long-lost treasure that he could publish and make a mint off of?
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 01:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 02:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 02:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 02:53 am (UTC)Also, makes me want to reread the Eyre Affair. Dueling interpretations of Shakespeare, huzzah!
no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 05:22 pm (UTC)It makse me oddly nostalgic as well. While head-ache inducing at times, those fights were a lot of fun when you weren't directly engaged. Actually quite hilarious when you weren't one of the two posters.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 08:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 07:26 am (UTC)And oh, those conversations. I wasn't around at the time, and am IMPOSSIBLY grateful for that. It'd have driven me insane, I think...
People - I kept wanting to scream, read Frank Miller's Sin City and get back to me. This is Comic Book Pulp Noir Horror Fantasy, it's not supposed to be politically correct people, haven't you ever read or watched this stuff?
Heh. I have the same reaction to Doctor Who - it's a FAIRY TALE. There are rules to follow, and a lot of the time they clash with modern sensibilities and PCness.
Anyway, I shouldn't be here - thanks for an interesting post. (Oh, and Mark Reads LotR is very interesting in the light of all this, because he is so unfamiliar with all the fantasy 'rules'/world... Having him view it all through contemporary eyes is weird.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 09:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 01:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 05:19 pm (UTC)I made up those exchanges...from experiences online. Although...they could have been reposts.;-)
no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 07:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 11:07 pm (UTC)I've not only seen so many conversations like it, I've actually participated in them. Making an idiot of myself in the process, I'm sure. I also think part of me enjoys it...it's oddly cathartic to fight about Buffy online. Far easier than fighting with people off line.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 07:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 11:01 pm (UTC)regarding it not as an attempted rape in real life terms, but a tormented attempt by Spike to reconnect with Buffy after a perversely violent affair driven by different emotional dynamics in both characters.
That's exactly how I saw it as well. But good luck discussing that online. The closest I came was the ATPOBTVS board at the time...there were a few like-minded souls on that board who were willing to discuss it. And on the Voy boards, you could ignore people you didn't want to deal with. Just jump over their posts. Harder to do here and on places like whedonesque or the Buffyforums.
Even now...it's difficult to discuss. For the same reasons.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 07:23 pm (UTC)Gabrielle
no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 11:05 pm (UTC)Of course the plays were shown live in the theater - and the writer was usually right there. Easy access. He did have to avoid certain political issues or risk getting beheaded...so chose to go back in time or discuss Roman politics instead.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 04:27 am (UTC)Good question. If there's anything that could rile up the masses, it'd be Shakespeare. :-P
Art (and TV is art, however loosely) is supposed to elicit emotional reactions from people; but when analyzing art, one would hope that logic would take over. However, as you've pointed out, that's not always the case. I, too, have seen many an irrational debate over all things Buffyverse, but I tend to stay out of it myself if it gets too heated. Not because I shy away from an argument--quite the contrary--but because I recognize futility when I see it. :-P
The first piece of literature to ever evoke a strong emotional response in me was The Scarlet Letter, and to this day, just the thought of the spineless, lily-livered Reverend Dimmesdale makes me angry. However, in the end, I'm able to distance myself emotionally by realizing that it's just a book. And BtVS is just a TV show (yeah, I know, blasphemy). I'll save my real outrage for things that happen to real people. :-P
This made me laugh and almost want to cry
Date: 2012-01-31 05:59 pm (UTC)The current "Mark Watches" Buffy series is like watching a case study on the internet with various stages of fandom going thru the fandom lifecycle in short order as newbies come on to a well-entrenched forum. We're past the squee/novelty phase, moving beyond random thermonuclear war thunderdome matches, and settling into a detente phase. I predict the return to thunderdome for S6.
But I feel like framing your faux-dialogs. They happen in EVERY fandom. I kindof wish there was a guide to peaceful posting that everyone could point to. It seems like we have to re-learn this all the time.
And it's not just the entertainment fandom. Visit a CNN page lately on politics? Yikes. Now Google is coming up with new privacy policy that really should be re-labled "not-private anymore" policy. Will that change behavior or make it easier for things to spread like wildfire?